The pitchforks are here: Populist rage and the rise of moral absolutism

In 2014, billionaire Nick Hanauer warned in Politico that "The Pitchforks Are Coming ... For Us Plutocrats." He argued that extreme inequality inevitably leads to revolution, comparing it to bankruptcy — it happens slowly, then all at once. A single act of violence, he cautioned, could ignite years of simmering frustration into an inferno of uncontrolled fury.

When combined with a generation taught that disagreement itself constitutes harm, that warning seems perilously prophetic in the wake of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder.

Immediately following his assassination, something disturbing emerged. With breathtaking speed, celebration became the predominant response. Within hours, social media erupted not with horror or condemnation, but with declarations of justice served — some thinly veiled and others brazen in their glee.

His title alone was enough to warrant death in mind of some, with no pause to examine his actual record or consider the human cost — including the conversation his wife would have with their teenage sons.

These weren't just scattered trolls or fringe activists. The approval came from suburban parents, office workers, writers, influencers, teachers and professors — the very people shaping future generations' understanding of discourse and disagreement. Some of these same voices who argue that challenging their ideas constitutes violence were now celebrating actual violence without hesitation.

This isn't occurring in isolation. The Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, the 2020 racial justice protests that at times escalated into riots, and the approval some expressed for attempted political assassinations each reveal a society where disagreement has become synonymous with evil.

The Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel were even met with applause in more than a few quarters, including most absurdly on the campuses of our most elite universities, driven by a simplistic narrative that casts complex geopolitical conflicts in absolute terms of oppressor versus oppressed.

As Hanauer pointed out, the stratification of wealth and inequality set the stage, and the numbers behind our current populist rage are staggering. The wealthiest 1 percent now hold more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined, while wages for the average worker have stagnated for decades.

For millions, the cost of basic necessities — healthcare, housing and education — has become crippling. But equally staggering are developments in our schools and universities, where students whine that challenging their views is a form of harm, that intellectual discomfort is trauma, that disagreement invalidates their personhood.

This dehumanizing impulse revealed itself during the pandemic as well. Just as Thompson was reduced to his corporate title, neighbors were reduced to either “responsible citizens” or “selfish murderers” based on single observed moments. Scientific debate was recast as violence against the vulnerable.

In hindsight, we know some restrictions weren't necessary and indeed harmful, but that debate was suppressed not just under the guise of protecting public health, but because we'd forgotten how to debate at all.

We've seen this pattern evolve through cancel culture, where complex individuals were reduced to their worst moment or most controversial statement. Digitally vilified and drawn-and-quartered. Critics warned that teaching people to respond to disagreement with demands for punishment and banishment rather than engagement would lead to darker places.

They were dismissed as alarmist. But the speed and consensus with which Thompson was deemed deserving of death — without any examination of his actual views or actions — shows how completely this mindset has taken hold.

Many Americans still insist revolutionary unrest "could never happen here" — perhaps the most dangerous delusion of all. Skeptics often point to 1968 as a modern analog — the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, the riots at the Democratic Convention, the war protests and the violent police response — as evidence that America has weathered worse without collapsing.

But that ignores two crucial distinctions. First, 1968 fell during one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in U.S. history. Second, it was an era where political opponents could engage in substantive debate without being branded as existential threats.

Back then, young idealistic revolutionaries might have taken to the streets and even turned to violence, but many ultimately receded into conventional society, thanks to a strong middle class and genuine upward mobility. That economic engine, coupled with a belief in the power of dialogue to effect change, provided an escape valve that simply doesn't exist today.

The rise of this moral absolutism — wherein debate is violence and disagreement is erasure — combined with unprecedented economic stratification, creates perfect conditions for actual violence to flourish.

When you teach people that words constitute violence while simultaneously stripping away paths to economic dignity, physical violence becomes not just self-defense but inevitable. When you insist that challenging ideas invalidates personhood while concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands, eliminating ideological opponents becomes a moral imperative.

The pitchforks aren't just here — they're being forged in our classrooms, sharpened on social media, and wielded by those we have taught that words are violence and debate is oppression.

Is it already too late? Perhaps. But averting the worst requires reclaiming abandoned principles.

We must restore not just economic opportunity, but the very possibility of good-faith disagreement. We must teach the next generation that challenging ideas isn't violence — it's how societies progress. We must embrace complexity and reject the false comfort of moral absolutes. Economic inequality must be addressed — not as a favor to the poor, but as a necessity for societal stability.

The warning signs are flashing red. Whether we heed them will determine not just America's fate, but whether we can ever return to a society capable of solving problems through discourse rather than destruction.

Justin Williamson, a former Wall Street litigator and international dispute resolution professional with extensive experience in global advisory services, now works as a writer and strategic consultant based in Louisville, Ky.

Topics

Day staying at Ohio State? 'Absolutely,' AD says

Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork says he is "absolutely" confident that Ryan Day will be back as the Buckeyes' football coach in 2025.
ESPN - 1h
The Penny and Mangione sagas highlight the left's moral bankruptcy

Progressive Democrats have reacted with joy to the murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, while condemning the acquittal of Daniel Penny, who defended New York City subway riders from a ...
The Hill - 1d
Maga on the River Plate as global populist right descends on Argentina

CPAC jamboree draws big names from Trump world as Milei positions Buenos Aires as international conservative hub. At the entrance to the office of Argentina’s minister of deregulation a biography ...
The Guardian - 2d
What is rage-baiting and why is it profitable?

Called rage-baiting, making people angry with social media posts can be a business.
BBC News - 2d
Democrats must not abandon their morals

Joe Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter invites comparison to Donald Trump’s most censured actions
Financial Times - 4d
The Memo: Populist rage comes to forefront in reaction to UnitedHealthcare CEO’s killing

The reaction to the killing of health insurance executive Brian Thompson is the latest example of the strength of visceral anti-elite sentiment coursing through the country. Even though the motive ...
The Hill - 5d
The case for supporting Ukraine is both moral and geostrategic

While Ukraine and the West are willing to make concessions in order to reach a compromise with Russia, Putin is not. He will accept a compromise only if he is forced to accept one.
The Hill - Dec. 5
Trump’s populist 'mandate' could disrupt business tax reform wish list

Congress, and the GOP, has changed since then-President Trump and Republicans crafted the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And while Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and GOP leadership are gunning to get a ...
The Hill - Dec. 5
Here's what the rise of homeowners associations means for buyers

Homeowners associations, or HOAs, are becoming more common. The biggest complaint among current owners is the cost, report finds.
CNBC - Dec. 2