Roosevelt (a Democrat) beat Hoover (a Republican) in a landslide. He was very well liked.

Most of the gold hoarders were wealthy. They were looked at suspiciously as the group escaping with all the wealth out of the 1929 crisis. They talked up hard money, spread crisis narratives about US decline, used Weimar hyperinflation the decade prior as a benchmark, and extolled the necessity of hoarding gold. Some of the biggest offenders ran the paper gold markets. They were the same people who opposed federal taxes (federal taxes didn't exist before 1913), when the vast majority (like 90%) of people demanded them, because the status quo since the Civil War only benefited the wealthy and industrialists, and it became the biggest issue of the 1912 election, where Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) crushed the incumbent Republican. It's important to mention there was Socialist Party at the time, Eugene Debs was its candidate I believe, and he won a large portion of the popular vote. I could tie this into Standard Oil's anti-trust of 1911 but for the sake of brevity let's push on.

My point perhaps, is that we picked up a severe political element with the 2020 run going into covid, amplified by Twitter (itself bought by a loudmouth); whence the main touchpoint of bitcoin evangelism came once upon the White Paper, it faded as a citation you'd hear often, replaced by readings like The Bitcoin Standard, written by Saifedean Ammous, who will engage in trans moral panic and political demagoguery within the same tweet; and you had fossil fuel pumping public miners who gravitated towards Texas because it's the only state with an independent grid which excludes it from [most] federal oversight, and they hired half-witted lobbyists to explain to partisans how they'll benefit personally, and why centralized forms of energy provided by integrated majors is a viable thing for bitcoin when the mining economy of scale says otherwise directionally, especially when energy storage encroaches on their unique grid positioning; Jack Dorsey, a product master, made a rare decision to endorse a polarizing figure with a trajectory into the fever swamps of conspiracy (Mr. Kennedy) who has no solutions, but loves talking about people and events, especially past events, ideas aren't so important; we had a foreign president in Bukele, whose bitcoin utterances attracted the admiration of the bitcoin's res publica, who think that even questioning his record on civil liberties equates to IMF and World Bank elitism, and they act as if bitcoin fandom justifies anything via utilitarian end points; we have the alt-right's own Jordan Peterson and data collecting Peter Thiel getting trotted out in prime time spots for the premier annual bitcoin conference in Miami; then of course the leverage saboteurs of Celsius, LUNA, and Block-Fi fame didn't help, using bitcoin as an affinity scam, and I wouldn't find it fair to mention them had an entire group of bitcoin podcasters not pumped them; otherwise we have crisis narratives galore, hyperinflation hopes, and culture war as answering tenets of "why bitcoin". How do you orange pill (using the word colloquially) without any of the that? Most don't have good answers.

People that don't think any of this stuff is a problem have an enormous blind spot, and don't understand friction. They are, in some telling, hellbent on keeping bitcoin Twitter the total addressable market of bitcoin. I remain quite bullish on bitcoin longterm, as I ever was for various reasons, mostly because of its fixed liberties and L2 work, and feel most of the friction elements discussed, the virtue signalers, and specious NgUers will get bled. Bitcoin has a quote price, and its volatility deals with beastly casts in wonderful ways. Such is my experience for so long.