In the summer of 2022 my mother and I took a trip to the Virgin Islands. While on the ferry between St. Thomas (where we stayed) and St. John (where we spent a day), we passed close by the island where Jeffrey Epstein had long engaged in what are viewed to be monstrous and perverse activities with young children and other political and cultural elites from the United States and European countries (at least so far as we know). When we were visiting St. John, the people of the island were unwilling to speak ill of the dead, even if he was viewed as a monster for his activities by most who knew anything about the situation. Yet these same people were effusive in their praise of Kenny Chesney, a famous and well-off country singer who was in the process of building an upgraded home on the island and who was regularly known for his involvement in the local community, his philanthropy, as well as his fondness for doing well by his neighbors on the island of St. John. On the one hand, we have a notorious pedophile who was suicided before those who frequented his island could be properly exposed and brought to justice for their evil deeds done under heaven, and on the other hand we have a well-regarded populist who did well by his neighbors.

Recently, noted rapper Kendrick Lamar dropped the single “Not Like Us,” which promptly shot to #1, bringing salacious accusations that Drake and his OVO label cohorts are a bunch of pedophiles to a DJ Mustard dance beat that could be among the top songs of the summer. Given the harrowing content that had been discussed in songs like “Meet The Grahams” in particular, the accusations made on the song are not at all surprising, but what was a bit surprising to me was the populist appeal that Kendrick Lamar made. The basic thesis of the song is that Drake and those like him are decadent and corrupt evildoers who delight in taking advantage of others, especially children, and are monsters of evil who are not like the rest of humanity. It is telling that K. Dot seeks to align himself with the implied audience of the song, the great mass of people who have no particular power and a righteous horror at the sort of abuses of the vulnerable that are committed by the wealthy and powerful on a regular basis. There is a deep divide in the United States between corrupt elites and ordinary people who feel that those in charge are not like them and are not acting in their best interests but instead only for the corrupt gain of those in power and their relatives and cronies. “Not Like Us” plays into this growing divide between the elites and the ordinary population of people who not only find elites threatening because of their financial and cultural and political power but also evil in their corrupt doings.

This is a problem that does not receive sufficient attention among the commentariat, namely those people who feel it their job or avocation to comment on the culture at large. It is more than mere envy that divides the haves from the have nots. There is a real sense among many people, and a sense that is not sufficiently recognized or understood, that the wealthy and powerful do not view themselves as being on the same level of humanity, and this feeling is returned with interest. It is striking that Kendrick Lamar, himself someone who grew up in Compton, a noted center of rap culture going back into the 1980s at least, identifies himself as a counter-elite, who, despite considerable popular and critical success in the rap game, sees himself against Drake and others like him who sought to use their popularity and wealth to engage in corrupt activities that shielded themselves from suffering as a result of the justice system of Canada and the United States that one would expect would operate to protect vulnerable people from the actions of a corrupt and abusive elite.

Yet even though Drake, by all the evidence that can be found about his house parties, his unsavory associates, and his own behavior, certainly looks guilty, there is enough evidence to suggest that he is sinned again as well as sinning. One of the more unsavory aspects of contemporary culture is that those who wish to rise to popularity through artistic fields often find themselves victimized by the gatekeepers of art. Whether this is in the trading of sex for movie parts on casting couches or the sort of corrupt house parties and boat parties that demonstrate that lower-tier or up-and-coming artists are available for sexual favors to those with enough money or enough cultural prestige to take advantage of it, or the fact that writers notoriously often have to serve as ghostwriters for those who are more successful than they are who become the face of art rather than the writers themselves, there is a lot of exploitation to go around, and only some of those who are so exploited manage to find fame for themselves. Even when they do, they are often compromised, corrupted, and traumatized by the abuse that they had to suffer to gain popularity themselves, and frequently find themselves doing unto others that others did unto them. This does not make it right, but it does make it easier to understand, at least.

Most people are entirely outside of this world. Most people do not aspire to be powerful or famous and so they are not aware that, for thousands of years at least, those who have sought power have often had to rise through corrupt systems where those in power groomed (in more ways than one) their successors among the younger members of the elite classes. At its least exploitative, it involved paying dues and working one’s way up from the bottom while being mentored by those on top until one had acquired the habits of mind and behavior to follow in the example of those who came before. At its most exploitative, the young were traumatized and abused by those with power and then raised to view power as the means by which all of ones desires, no matter how corrupt, could be attained and gratified, and to spread the suffering that they had experienced to others in turn, to pass along trauma and exploitation as a generational curse among elite aspirants.

It is the painful reality that those who have power do what they wish and those without power must suffer and endure what they must that makes politics such a contentious matter. To what extent can we trust people with power over us? Will the people we support, whether with our votes or with our dollars or with our encouragement, defend our best interests and serve as worthy agents in the larger culture, or will they simply take advantage of us and exploit us for their own selfish gratification? Populism is a sign that elites have failed in their social contract to act in the best interests of ordinary people as a consequence of being given elite status, and an open invitation to counterelites to perform that duty and obligation instead. Yet the problem of trust remains. Who can be trusted with power? Who can restrain themselves from evil when they could gratify themselves or take advantage of others if they really wanted to? It is by no means obvious who is fit to lead us, fit to serve us, and would not simply turn on us the moment they are given the power that they seek.