Saagar Enjeti: Faux Populist

At Issue: Saagar Enjeti, co-host of the popular YouTube show Breaking Points, presents himself as a serious commentator and right-wing populist in what he keeps calling the “New Media” space (we’ll see how “new” it becomes rather than just a commercial replacement of the old), but his approach reveals significant contradictions. Paired with Krystal Ball, a left-wing counterpart, the show aims to critique elites and the corporate media, drawing inspiration from Chomsky and Herman’s Manufacturing Consent. Yet, Enjeti’s brand of populism often feels hollow—a performance rooted in mythologizing America rather than grappling with its complexities.

Enjeti’s worldview romanticizes an idealized version of America, shaped by notions of rugged independence and exceptionalism. He idolizes the founding fathers, framing them as champions of liberty, but overlooks their oligarchic intentions. Their freedom was selective, designed to benefit the few with power and resources, rather than a universal ideal. Enjeti’s commentary clings to this notion of freedom without acknowledging its implicit asterisk: it’s freedom for some, not all. This blind spot reveals his deference to power structures, a hallmark of his so-called “populism.”

Despite his Texas-born zeal and appeals to traditional values, Enjeti’s arguments frequently lack depth. He leans on rhetorical strategies like the “Motte-and-Bailey” approach, beginning with seemingly reasonable positions before retreating to entrenched beliefs rooted in American exceptionalism. His fetishization of America often results in shallow conclusions, where feelings replace facts. While he claims to challenge elites, his perspective often aligns with libertarian ideals masquerading as populism—a contradiction he rarely addresses openly.

Enjeti’s dynamic with Krystal Ball highlights his limitations. Ball, an economic progressive, frequently dismantles his arguments with cogent reasoning, exposing the weak foundations of his counterpoints. Yet, Enjeti resists labeling himself a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, likely to maintain his position as a “populist” voice. This reluctance undermines genuine discussion about the role of government and the realities of American society.

At its core, Enjeti’s commentary is mired in a jingoistic fantasy of what America was and should be. His reluctance to confront systemic issues, coupled with his glorification of a selective and distorted history, prevents Breaking Points from achieving its potential. For the show to foster meaningful debate, Enjeti would need to shed his performative populism and engage honestly with the role of power, privilege, and government in shaping modern America.

In truth, America’s future is not determined by divine providence or historical myth but by its people. The real challenge lies in addressing the everyday concerns of Americans—health care, economic inequality, education, and more—issues that Congress often fails to resolve. Until figures like Enjeti can move beyond ideological posturing and address these challenges with intellectual honesty, their commentary will remain more spectacle than substance.

Top Concerns of Americans vs. Congressional Action

Recent surveys consistently identify key concerns of Americans, such as:

Health care
Economic inequality
Education costs
Gun violence
Climate change
Infrastructure
Immigration reform
Crime and safety
Affordable housing
Child care and family support

While Congress occasionally addresses some of these issues, many are met with gridlock, partisan bickering, or half-measures. The reasons for this are multifaceted:

1. Partisan Gridlock

Polarization: The U.S. has become increasingly polarized, making bipartisan cooperation rare. Major initiatives often stall because one party sees blocking the other as a political win.
Short-Termism: Politicians often prioritize winning the next election over long-term problem-solving, leading to a cycle of repealing or undermining policies when power shifts between parties.

2. Influence of Special Interests

Lobbying Power: Industries like Big Pharma, fossil fuels, and tech invest heavily in lobbying to protect their interests. This can lead to policies favoring corporations over average citizens (e.g., high prescription drug prices, tax loopholes for corporations).
Campaign Financing: The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision exacerbated this issue by allowing unlimited spending by corporations and wealthy donors, tilting policymaking toward elite interests.

3. Weak Policy Continuity

Policy Reversals: As you noted, initiatives like child care or health care reform are often passed by one administration and gutted by the next (e.g., Affordable Care Act, Paris Climate Agreement).
Lack of Consensus: Because of polarized politics, large-scale reforms lack the bipartisan buy-in needed for long-term durability.

4. Disconnection from Voter Preferences

Elite Representation: Research (e.g., Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page’s 2014 study) suggests that policy outcomes in the U.S. align more closely with the preferences of wealthy elites than with average voters.
Low Voter Turnout: Infrequent voter participation—especially in midterms and local elections—means politicians may not feel pressure to respond to broader public concerns.

5. Structural Barriers in the System

Senate Disproportion: Smaller, less-populated states have the same Senate representation as larger ones, giving rural, often more conservative, areas outsized influence.
Electoral College: The presidential election system can produce outcomes where the candidate with fewer votes wins (e.g., 2000, 2016), undermining democratic ideals.
Gerrymandering: District manipulation ensures “safe seats,” reducing incentives for politicians to moderate or compromise.

Does the U.S. Democracy Deliver?

It depends on what metrics you use:

Representation: In theory, the U.S. is a representative democracy, but in practice, many feel their voices aren’t heard due to the structural and financial barriers described above.
Policy Outcomes: While the U.S. government has moments of success (e.g., Social Security, Civil Rights Act, COVID-19 stimulus packages), these are often exceptions, not the rule.
Public Trust: Gallup polls show that public trust in Congress is consistently low (around 20%), reflecting widespread dissatisfaction.

What Could Improve the System?

Campaign Finance Reform: Reducing the influence of money in politics could help align policies with voter priorities.
Addressing Gerrymandering: Independent redistricting commissions could create fairer representation.
Expanding Voting Access: Encouraging participation through reforms like automatic voter registration or making Election Day a holiday.
Reforming the Senate/Filibuster: Addressing disproportionate representation and procedural hurdles that block legislation.

Conclusion

The U.S. democratic system has strengths, such as institutional checks and balances and avenues for free expression, but its effectiveness in addressing the public’s concerns is often hindered by systemic flaws, partisanship, and the outsized influence of money and elites. As a result, while the U.S. remains a democracy, it struggles to fully deliver on its promise of government “by the people, for the people.”

This is what Saagar Enjeti pretends to advocate but shields this full concept with fantacy he blithly and willfully has chosen to ignore in his role as a so-called “populist.”