A podcast discussing stealing from Whole Foods sparked backlash. (AP / Tony Dejak)
Is stealing from Whole Foods wrong? New Yorker critic Jia Tolentino and leftist streamer and political commentator Hassan Piker answered “no” to this question on a New York Times podcast, inspiring two indignant response articles in The Atlantic. By shifting the focus from Americans’ frustrations with wealth inequality to a debate on the ethics of “micro-looting,” these responses highlight another issue: Americans on both sides of the aisle are taking an increasingly moralistic approach to politics. This divides otherwise aligned voters, distracting from organizing around a shared dissatisfaction with the status quo.
This dissatisfaction is at the heart of the Times podcast episode. “The rich don’t play by the rules,” Tolentino says, noting that the top one percent holds 32 percent of net worth in the U.S., while the bottom 50 percent holds just 2.5 percent. Such frustration could logically motivate someone to skip scanning an item or two at self-checkout. At Whole Foods, a place that symbolizes wealth and is owned by one of the richest men in the world, this could even be seen as a small act of resistance.
Critics rightfully point out that considering stealing from Whole Foods an act of resistance is a privileged take. As Graeme Wood writes, true resistance means “you have to break the law proudly,” not just quietly slip an orange into your pocket. Yet Tolentino and Piker acknowledge that micro-looting lacks the collective organization and purpose needed to be meaningful. Tolentino hit the nail on the head when she said: “It’s neither very significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest or direct action.”
Yet the episode still drew an impassioned backlash from some in the liberal elite. The claim that the episode raises alarm bells about America’s moral code exemplifies this new moralistic approach. Increasingly, our political identities are being equated with our moral identities. Research shows that American political groups are now more united around shared moral identities than policy preferences, one reason for our deep polarization.
It’s no surprise that Americans have gotten used to viewing politics in this way. Many of today’s most significant political issues (and the ones driving polarization) are closely tied to morality, from abortion rights to protections for undocumented immigrants. Watching MAGA Republicans repeatedly target marginalized groups has understandably primed the left to see political decisions as moral ones.
Democrats lean into this, appealing to voters’ moral values to bring them to the polls. This contributes to Gen Z’s lack of confidence in the Democratic party, which can seem to be more focused on moral posturing than results. Twice, Democrats in Congress have framed government shutdowns as signals of their moral opposition to the Trump administration. However, the shutdowns ultimately failed to secure affordable healthcare or reform federal immigration enforcement tactics.
This moralistic approach can also make marginally significant debates seem like essential battles between right and wrong. In the discussion about micro-looting, the backlash overshadowed something important: Americans feel like the billionaire class, and corporations are taking advantage of them, and they want to fight back. But when relatable discussions are turned into theoretical ones about morality, people tune out. If liberals want to ensure young and working-class voters don’t defect from the Democratic party, they should unite people around shared economic frustrations, instead of nitpicking how they articulate their discontent.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
