An interesting and slightly odd confluence of columns by Yglesias on DoorDash economics and Krugman on the coddled lives that Trumpists have carved out for themselves at the public's expense. What's the link? The idea of what constitutes comfort and privilege is always changing - both for the general public and individuals.
I've felt this was true, when I look at how unbelievably comfortable life has gotten and yet how unhappy everyone seems to be. The DoorDash thing is a good example. As Yglesias notes, food delivery was formerly restricted to pizza and Chinese food. The idea that you could get a Big Mac or a Starbuck calorie bomb or Lamb Vindaloo delivered to your home in a frictionless transaction is something we couldn't have dreamed of fifteen years ago. As that becomes commonplace (along with Amazon delivering anything you want in a few days) your experience with the world becomes incredibly easy in a way that only the VERY affluent of a couple of decade back would have been able to access.
As things get easier, our natural hard-wiring about threats and hardships get recalibrated towards whatever the most frustrating or upsetting thing in our lives actually are.
At this point, you can add in comparison being the thief of joy. As unbelievably coddled as many of us are (historically and globally speaking), we have access to a tiny fraction of the privileges of true wealth. This is where Krugman talks about JD Vance bringing food to Milan. Food. To Milan.
What he does is link this (and Kash Patel and Kristi Noem's abuse of federal resources) to the "Epstein Class." We rapidly become accustomed to the perks that life offers us, and we become blind to how we got them in the first place. We also become blind to the work that goes into providing them to our every whim. (I don't use DoorDash, because I find it extravagant, but I also know that people rely on working for DoorDash to make ends meet. I'm conflicted.)
With Epstein, we have hundreds of names of prominent people (almost all men) who, at best, looked the other way. Epstein was an extraordinary suck up to rich and powerful men, I would guess especially those rich and powerful men who had a yawning void of insecurity in their core. How many of them actually abused girls? I do hope we find out and hold them accountable. How many of them turned a blind eye to his depravity? I would guess that number is the considerably larger one.
Pedophilia is a psychological pathology; expecting beautiful girls to fawn all over you is too. Seeing this go on from the corner of your eye and excusing it or denying what your eyes tell you is part of the pathology of privilege. "Epstein is such a great guy, I can't be seeing what I'm seeing" is precisely the mindset of men who have risen to a point where they just don't fucking care about the Little People. (There was an interview with Melinda Gates who attended one of those parties, was creeped out, told her husband and he ignored her concerns.)
As has been said, there are two Epstein scandals. There are the crimes specific to Epstein himself and his cohort like Maxwell. We don't know yet, for sure, who is in that circle. Then there is the second scandal of everyone who saw, who understood, who said nothing.