Progressive Democrats Reframe the 1% as the “Epstein Class”
As the midterm elections draw near, progressive Democrats have introduced a fresh term to label the perceived oligarchy, moving from “The 1%” to “The Epstein Class,” a change that carries some troubling connotations.
It’s interesting to see Democratic figures nationwide, like Sen. Jon Ossoff and Rep. Jamie Raskin, embracing this loaded term. It made me curious about who exactly belongs to this shadowy “Epstein class.” I mean, if the goal is to stop them, knowing who they are is crucial.
To dig deeper, I reached out to California Rep. Ro Khanna, one of the term’s most vocal advocates, hoping for some clarity. Our conversation offered, well, a somewhat vague definition of this so-called Epstein class. But it certainly sparked some thoughts.
I prompted Khanna with names like Elon Musk, George Soros, or even failed gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer as possible members of this class. However, his response was somewhat evasive, steering away from naming individuals.
He remarked, “What the Epstein files reveal is that a group of powerful men prioritized their status and networks over basic decency and humanity. They considered the young girls abused by Epstein as mere tools to maintain their connections.” This perspective highlights the troubling values of this elite group, suggesting a deeply unequal economy.
At this point, I couldn’t help but point out that he hadn’t really addressed my question. It felt a bit like those conspiracy theories that assert a secret society is pulling all the strings—just a touch absurd, perhaps?
Khanna shifted his tone slightly, moving away from the darker implications of the “Epstein class.” He indicated, “This reflects Epstein’s network, a group that prioritizes their own desires over civic responsibility. I’m not supporting some secret society idea; I disavow those conspiracies.”
I reminded him of my earlier description of this group as the “governing elite,” which he brushed aside. He suggested it was more about how an elite group had disproportionate political influence due to their wealth, especially post-Citizens United, resembling modern economic royalty.
In wrapping up our conversation, it became evident that “Epstein class” seemed more like a rebranding of the Occupy Wall Street narrative but with a much darker twist involving child sexual abuse.
Khanna’s explanation seemed to veer from specific powerful figures connected to Epstein to a broad commentary on societal power imbalances—alluding to the Citizens United ruling that many, including myself, have critiqued for enabling wealth-driven influence in politics.
Interestingly, this narrative isn’t confined to Democrats; even some Republicans, like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey, have adopted this “Epstein class” concept, applying it liberally to various political contexts without solid backing.
What’s crucial for voters to recognize is that the Epstein class label is essentially an attack on specific wealthy individuals—those involved in politics that the accusers oppose.
The rhetoric surrounding this new class could carry risks. While movements like Occupy Wall Street struggled to gain substantial traction years ago, they seem poised to reshape the Democratic Party now.
To counter this wave, it’s essential to challenge these exaggerated claims of the Epstein class until more concrete examples can be provided by those like Khanna about who constitutes this group.
