Bret Devereaux

Except that a good chunk of congress was trying to get broader financial support for the public at large. They just couldn't get it done because 1/2 of 1 branch of government isn't enough. It isn't that they didn't try

And there's no part of 'fighting harder' that's going to enable a party without the presidency or a senate majority to pass things. It isn't an issue of zeal, but of numbers and seats.

And I think here counting the demos out of the whole thing is also a mistake. The guy largely responsible for poisoning the well was selected by the red-team demos against the advice of the red-team elites. Those elites were, in 2016, really clear they didn't want him.

Look at say, Newsmax, which is up to something like 1m viewers (a 20-fold increase) after the election and I am not so sure that red-team elites are in the driver's seat here. The red-team demos is willing to migrate to new leaders/news sources that flatter their assumptions.

In the end, I think a class-based analysis of the situation has substantially less explanatory power than a red-vs-blue tribalism model with the added caveat that leadership failures always hurt those with the least the most.

The reason class analysis is essential here is because the group I'm calling elites has shared interests that have been served by this crisis despite partisan disagreement on how to approach it.

I am a bit confused as to what specific elite interests you mean, beyond the White House's absurd liquidity-over-popular-solvency focus in terms of dispensing emergency funds?

That's a load-bearing "beyond." The wealthiest individuals and corporations have either straight-up benefited from the crisis or, at the least, absorbed almost all of the government aid, while seeing public institutions (which they revile) fatally hemorrhage. Win-win.