Analysis Finds Key Difference: Whose Turn It Is To Be Mad

It appears that after years of rigorous academic scrutiny, the scientific community has at last pinpointed the fundamental distinction between successive political epochs: a meticulous audit of who, precisely, is currently gripped by a righteous, all-consuming fury. The data, compiled through painstaking observation of public figures ranging from the ever-earnest Bill Kristol to the perpetually bewildered Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, indicates a surprising, yet undeniable, cyclical pattern. One simply replaces the object of ire with the current occupant of the Oval Office, and *voilà*, a new era is born.

This revolutionary finding suggests that the core engine of our democratic discourse isn't policy or even principle, but rather a deeply ingrained need for someone, somewhere, to be profoundly annoyed. During the reign of Donald Trump, for example, the lament was for the loss of civility. Now, with Barack Obama a distant echo, the lament has shifted, perhaps to the *return* of a civility so polite it makes one yearn for more flamboyant grievances. The iconic "Orange Man Bad" placard, it seems, was merely a placeholder, awaiting its next suitable, and entirely predictable, rephrasing.