by elected demagogues in its very heartlands, Europe and the US.Where do we go from here? We can of course continue to define the crisis of democracy through reassuring dualisms: liberalism v authoritarianism, Islam v modernity, and that sort of thing. It may be more fruitful to think of democracy as a profoundly fraught emotional and social condition one which, aggravated by turbo-capitalism, has now become unstable. This might allow us to examine the workings of ressentiment across varied countries and classes, and to understand why ethno-nationalist supremacy has grown alongside economic stagnation in America and Britain, even as it flourishes alongside economic expansion in India and Turkey. Or, why Donald Trump, the flashy plutocrat tormented by his lowly status among Manhattans cultivated liberals, obsessively baits the New York Times and calls for a boycott of the Broadway show Hamilton.That a rancorous Twitter troll will soon become the worlds most powerful man is the latest of many reminders that the idealised claims of western elites about democracy and liberalism never actually conformed to the political and economic reality at home. A rowdy public culture of disparagement and admonition does not hide the fact that the chasm of sensibility between a technocratic elite and the masses has grown. Everywhere, a majority that was promised growing equality sees social power monopolised by people with money, property, connections and talent; they feel shut out from both higher culture and decision-making.Many people find it easy to aim their rage against an allegedly cosmopolitan and rootless cultural elite. Objects of hatred are needed more than ever during times of crisis, and rich citizens of nowhere as Theresa May dubbed them conveniently embody the vices of a desperately sought-after but infuriatingly unattainable modernity. And so globalisation, which promotes integration among shrewd elites, helps incite ressentiment everywhere else, especially among people forced against their will into universal competition.In search of a balm for these wounds, many intellectuals have embraced nostalgic fantasies of vanished unity. Earlier this year, the New York Times columnist David Brooks returned from communist Cuba gushing about Cubans fierce love of country, a sense of national solidarity and a confident patriotic spirit that is today lacking in the United States. More recently, Simon Jenkins, in this newspaper, and the intellectual historian Mark Lilla in a widely circulated New York Times opinion piece have urged the rejection of identity liberalism and the necessity of embracing national unity and common identity. As Trumps victory was declared, Simon Schama tweeted that we need a new Churchill to save democracy in Europe and America.Such breast-beating amounts to a truly irrational demand: that the present abolish itself, making way for a return to the past. Ideally, to the time when paternalistic white liberals occupied the vital centre, little disturbed by the needs and desires of historys forgotten, humiliated and silenced people.These lamentations for simpler times that all we lack is the right sort of spine-stiffening democratic leader, or rational culture, or cultural unity, or patriotic spirit ignore the fragmented nature of our politics. Social and technological developments are not liberal or