$400M Larry David's Hitler Attack Backfires, Ex-Democrat Defends Working Class

Paul Riverbank, 4/26/2025The escalating political rhetoric comparing Trump to Hitler, particularly following Bill Maher's dinner with the former president, reveals a deepening divide in American discourse. This inflammatory language, criticized by Batya Ungar-Sargon, overshadows substantial policy proposals like Trump's federal workforce reforms, potentially alienating working-class voters from Democratic messaging.

Let me paint the scene: Larry David, the comedic genius behind "Curb Your Enthusiasm," publishes a piece called "My Dinner With Adolf" – a not-so-subtle jab at Maher's recent meeting with Trump. The reaction was swift and, frankly, predictable. But it's what happened next that caught my attention.

I watched with particular interest as Batya Ungar-Sargon, who's made waves recently for breaking ranks with traditional Democratic thinking, delivered what might be the most clear-eyed critique I've heard in months. "To call Trump Hitler," she argued, "is to call over 80 million Americans... Nazis." The numbers she cited stuck with me: 35% of Jewish Americans, 56% of Hispanic men, and most Americans earning under $100,000 annually.

Now, I've covered politics long enough to know when hyperbole crosses into dangerous territory. The Hitler comparisons aren't just historically inappropriate – they're politically toxic. They alienate voters who might otherwise be open to reasonable debate about Trump's policies and leadership style.

Speaking of policies – and this is where things get interesting – Trump just dropped a bombshell proposal about federal employment procedures. Having spent years reporting on bureaucratic reform efforts, I can tell you this isn't your typical administrative tinkering. The order would require agencies to actively justify keeping new hires, marking one of the most significant shifts in federal employment practices I've seen in decades.

But here's what fascinates me: While cultural elites are busy drawing historical parallels that make many Americans cringe, Trump's team is quietly crafting policies that could fundamentally reshape how our government operates. It's almost as if two entirely different conversations are happening in parallel universes.

Ungar-Sargon's criticism of Larry David – "worth $400 million sitting there and sneering" at working Americans – hits at something I've observed throughout my career covering politics: The growing disconnect between coastal cultural figures and the broader American electorate isn't just about policy disagreements anymore. It's about fundamental respect.

I remember covering the 2016 election, watching as similar dynamics played out. Now, as then, Democrats risk alienating crucial voting blocs not through their policies, but through what many perceive as cultural condescension.

Let's be clear: Criticism of Trump's policies and leadership style is fair game – essential, even, in a healthy democracy. But when that criticism veers into territory that implicitly condemns millions of Americans as morally reprehensible, we've lost the plot entirely.

The timing of all this couldn't be more telling. As Trump pushes forward with concrete (if controversial) policy proposals, his critics seem increasingly focused on historical analogies that, as Ungar-Sargon suggests, might be doing more harm than good to their own cause.

In my three decades covering American politics, I've learned that voters care more about their daily lives than historical comparisons, no matter how dramatically presented. The question isn't whether Trump is comparable to historical figures – it's whether his policies will help or hurt average Americans. That's the conversation we should be having.

The American political landscape has taken another contentious turn, and I've spent the last few days trying to make sense of it all. What started as a simple dinner between Bill Maher and Donald Trump has morphed into something far more revealing about our national discourse.Let me paint the scene: Larry David, the comedic genius behind "Curb Your Enthusiasm," publishes a piece called "My Dinner With Adolf" – a not-so-subtle jab at Maher's recent meeting with Trump. The reaction was swift and, frankly, predictable. But it's what happened next that caught my attention.I watched with particular interest as Batya Ungar-Sargon, who's made waves recently for breaking ranks with traditional Democratic thinking, delivered what might be the most clear-eyed critique I've heard in months. "To call Trump Hitler," she argued, "is to call over 80 million Americans... Nazis." The numbers she cited stuck with me: 35% of Jewish Americans, 56% of Hispanic men, and most Americans earning under $100,000 annually.Now, I've covered politics long enough to know when hyperbole crosses into dangerous territory. The Hitler comparisons aren't just historically inappropriate – they're politically toxic. They alienate voters who might otherwise be open to reasonable debate about Trump's policies and leadership style.Speaking of policies – and this is where things get interesting – Trump just dropped a bombshell proposal about federal employment procedures. Having spent years reporting on bureaucratic reform efforts, I can tell you this isn't your typical administrative tinkering. The order would require agencies to actively justify keeping new hires, marking one of the most significant shifts in federal employment practices I've seen in decades.But here's what fascinates me: While cultural elites are busy drawing historical parallels that make many Americans cringe, Trump's team is quietly crafting policies that could fundamentally reshape how our government operates. It's almost as if two entirely different conversations are happening in parallel universes.Ungar-Sargon's criticism of Larry David – "worth $400 million sitting there and sneering" at working Americans – hits at something I've observed throughout my career covering politics: The growing disconnect between coastal cultural figures and the broader American electorate isn't just about policy disagreements anymore. It's about fundamental respect.I remember covering the 2016 election, watching as similar dynamics played out. Now, as then, Democrats risk alienating crucial voting blocs not through their policies, but through what many perceive as cultural condescension.Let's be clear: Criticism of Trump's policies and leadership style is fair game – essential, even, in a healthy democracy. But when that criticism veers into territory that implicitly condemns millions of Americans as morally reprehensible, we've lost the plot entirely.The timing of all this couldn't be more telling. As Trump pushes forward with concrete (if controversial) policy proposals, his critics seem increasingly focused on historical analogies that, as Ungar-Sargon suggests, might be doing more harm than good to their own cause.In my three decades covering American politics, I've learned that voters care more about their daily lives than historical comparisons, no matter how dramatically presented. The question isn't whether Trump is comparable to historical figures – it's whether his policies will help or hurt average Americans. That's the conversation we should be having.