The first, Huffpost article is a rare article that details just how gov't actually works. Be aware that most of the Federal apparatus functions in something like this manner and has for some time, it is not limited to just hedge funds. I think many people, particularly the ones derisively referred to so often by the coastal elites as obstructionists, have always held at least a vague understanding of this dynamic. Even though at times they find it difficult to articulate.

On a related note, this also plays into renewed racial and cultural animus when said divides are willingly played up and played into by the political "other".

After all, an establishment that run the types of machinations described above with no limit becomes very dangerous when, for any particular reason or set of circumstances, you find yourself in its crosshairs. It scares a lot of people, and perhaps rightly so. In a world where sole power lies in coalitions of vested interests, perhaps people should not be surprised when certain groups that feel besieged (rightly or wrongly), begin thinking in terms of the group dynamic.

Of course like many of the problems we face, Hayek already discussed this some years ago.

"The agreement on which such a programme for governmental action is based is something very different from that common opinion of a majority which it was hoped would be the determining force in a democracy. Nor can this kind of bargaining be regarded as the kind of compromise that is inevitable whenever people differ and must be brought to agree on some middle line which does not wholly satisfy anybody. A series of deals by which the wishes of one group are satisfied in return for the satisfaction of the wishes of another (and frequently at the expense of a third who is not consulted) may determine aims for common action of a coalition, but does not signify popular approval of the overall results. The outcome may indeed be wholly contrary to any principles which the several members of the majority would approve if they ever had an opportunity to vote on them.

This domination of government by coalitions of organized interests (when they were first observed they were generally described as ‘sinister interests’) is usually regarded by the outsider as an abuse, or even a kind of corruption. It is, however, the inescapable result of a system in which government has unlimited powers to take whatever measures are required to satisfy the wishes of those on whose support it relies. A government with such powers cannot refuse to exercise them and still retain the support of a majority. We have no right to blame the politicians for doing what they must do in the position in which we have placed them. We have created conditions in which it is known that the majority has power to give any particular section of the population whatever it demands. But a government that possesses such unlimited powers can stay in office only by satisfying a sufficiently large number of pressure groups to assure itself of the support of a majority.

Government, in the narrow sense of the administration of the special resources set aside for the satisfaction of common needs, will to some extent always have that character. Its task is to hand out particular benefits to different groups, which is altogether distinct from that of legislation proper. But while this weakness is comparatively innocuous as long as government is confined to determining the use of an amount of resources placed at its disposal according to rules it cannot alter (and particularly when, as in local government, people can escape exploitation by voting with their feet), it assumes alarming proportions when government and rule-making come to be confused and the persons who administer the resources of government also determine how much of the total resources it ought to control. To place those who ought to define what is right in a position in which they can maintain themselves only by giving their supporters what they want, is to place at their disposal all the resources of society for whatever purpose they think necessary to keep them in power."

Hayek, F. A.. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy (Routledge Classics) (pp. 358-359). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)