Abdul El-Sayed Wears Luxury Watches Worth Thousands While Campaigning Against the Wealthy

Abdul El-Sayed wrote an entire passage about the "perverse psychological consequences" of Rolex billboards on Michigan freeways, wondering aloud how many drivers could actually afford one. Fair question. Someone should ask him the same thing about his wrist.

This isn't a gotcha about a guy owning a nice watch. People are allowed nice things. The problem is the act. El-Sayed has built his entire campaign identity around being the guy who notices what luxury does to the psyche of ordinary people, the guy who clocks the billboard and feels something is wrong with a system that dangles a fifteen-thousand-dollar timepiece in front of someone working two jobs. Then he goes and campaigns in one. Multiple, actually, per the Free Beacon's review. That's not hypocrisy in the abstract sense we usually roll our eyes at. It's the specific hypocrisy of building a brand on resenting a thing you personally enjoy.

Populism only works as a pose if nobody checks the receipts. El-Sayed's whole pitch is that he sees through the game the wealthy play, that he's the one immune to the psychological trick of luxury goods. But he wasn't immune. He was wearing the trick on his arm while writing a book about how bad the trick is. Michigan voters can decide for themselves whether that's a minor inconsistency or a preview of how the "fighting the rich" routine tends to go once the cameras and donors show up.

We're not saying wear a Timex to prove your virtue. We're saying if you're going to build a career on lecturing people about what luxury does to their heads, maybe don't do it in a Rolex.