As we get further and further into election season, the economy as always, continues to be a campaign issue. Sure, there are claims that the economy is growing with unemployment under 5%, and there are counterclaims that the economy is stagnant and isn’t working for most people. Underneath everything, however, is the sense that while economic arguments are important (they always are), that this election involves issues that are more fundamental.

In recent elections, to the extent that there was anger and frustration (with whatever issue was there), that anger was directed at politicians (sometimes of both parties, or sometimes largely just at one party). And in this election, some of that is still there on both the left and the right as is evidenced by both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. However, what is relatively new is the anger directed at voters of one party, as a basket of deplorables.

Although some might argue that  the practice of writing off a large segment of the electorate was started by Mitt Romney and his infamous 47% comment, the difference is that his comment was a statement regarding the economic incentive of half of the electorate. In other words, he was saying that 47% of the population had no economic incentive to vote Republican. What Clinton was saying is that half of Trump’s support (roughly 25% of the population) are just God-awful human beings and that is why the will vote Trump. At least Romney left open the possibility that if and when the 47%’s economic situation changed, their economic incentive and vote might change. Clinton argued that “the 25%” were ultimately irredeemable, and this is ultimately problematic for economic stability.

The reason is that in addition to Clinton, much of what is colloquially known as the mainstream media rushed to defend (albeit with a few caveats) the assertion that a large fraction of center-right voting population is awful (not misguided, not misinformed, not possessing a legitimate point of view, but awful). Viewing a quarter of your population this way basically means that you don’t see these folks as legitimate human beings deserving of the same rights as everyone else. In short, it means that a significate fraction of the American elite, sees a significant political minority as deserving second class citizen status. To the extent that these folks don’t get their needs met or are abused by governmental infrastructure (think the IRS scandal), the center-left elite will simply judge that these folks are getting what they deserve.

I can think of nothing else that would inflame opinions against the elites more than this attitude. Not only does it guarantee that there will be more Trump-like candidates (assuming he loses) in our future (with all of the instability that will bring), but it also means that resistance to the elite agenda (whatever that is seen to be) will take on a much more dark and sinister tone. When a government is mobilized against a significant fraction of the population (25% in this case) to abuse them, it will very often provoke a “resistance by any means necessary is legitimate” attitude. In a country with roughly 300 million firearms, this is a recipe for IRA/Northern Ireland style actions, with all of the economic damage that would go along with it.

The reason that countries engaged in civil wars are not usually found at the top of many “the best of” economic lists is that a country with instability isn’t usually an attractive destination for investment. When countries become unstable, wealth flees. Thinking that you can shove ¼ of your population’s face in the mud forever, treat them as second class citizens, in a country that is armed, and continue to enjoy the fruits of economic stability is not an idea that is likely to be proven correct over the long run. And once an idea takes hold (resistance by any means necessary is legitimate), it is very hard to dislodge. Simply passing a law, or firing a couple of bureaucrats won’t do it. Instead of simply dismissing people who disagree with you as awful people, perhaps opening the mind and trying to understand them might be more productive. Otherwise, the people of the United States will find themselves learning that the country is rich, because it is politically stable, not the other way around. Countries around the world have been forced to re-learn this lesson the hard way. It would be a shame if the U.S. ended up joining their ranks.