#AIS: Glenn Greenwald & Matt Taibbi discuss the new political divide, moderated by David Sacks

Greenwald and Taibbi argued that Donald Trump, more than ideology itself, reordered American media and political alliances. Both said they kept many long-held civil-liberties and anti-establishment positions while mainstream liberals increasingly treated dissent from anti-Trump orthodoxy as evidence of being “far right.”

Taibbi said the decisive break in his journalism came when explaining Trump’s appeal became professionally suspect. Reporting from Trump and Sanders rallies, he saw overlapping economic anger and former union voters, but said newsrooms increasingly preferred a simpler explanation centered on racism and white supremacy.

Both described Trump as financially transformative for institutions that opposed him. Greenwald said struggling outlets and groups such as MSNBC and the ACLU gained audiences, money and organizational incentives from becoming explicitly anti-Trump, while Taibbi recalled reporters knowing Trump coverage was lucrative even when they worried it distorted journalism.

Greenwald argued that audience economics now discipline political coverage as strongly as editorial judgment. He recounted an MSNBC host saying segment-level ratings dropped when guests criticized Democrats, creating an immediate financial incentive for hosts and networks to avoid material their partisan audiences disliked.

Taibbi’s broader explanation for political realignment was class: Democrats became more affluent and college-educated while losing an organic connection to working-class voters. He cited Democrats holding 41 of the 50 richest congressional districts and connected that shift to the party’s long move away from unions toward business-friendly fundraising.

The speakers viewed Trump’s 2016 success as partly a rebellion against bipartisan consensus on wars, trade and economic policy, not merely conventional left-versus-right politics. They argued that Democrats largely avoided a comparable internal reckoning after losing, instead emphasizing Russia, racism and other external explanations.

Taibbi said Fox News pioneered the profitable model of choosing a political audience and feeding it coverage optimized for that audience, which competitors later copied. Both saw independent media’s growth as partly a reaction to predictable partisan outlets, pointing to Joe Rogan as powerful precisely because his views do not fit neatly into one party.

Greenwald’s final argument was that the two parties disagree less than political media implies, especially on major foreign-policy and economic assumptions. In his view, Trump’s disruption mattered most when he questioned elements of that bipartisan consensus, while the establishment wings of both parties remained broadly comfortable trading power within it.