Why Democrats keep coming back to Hasan Piker

Hasan Piker keeps saying things that should make mainstream Democrats want to keep their distance. Yet they keep coming back. Maybe that’s because he has something they need.

The socialist streamer’s latest controversy came after he warned that if American Jews continue presenting themselves as “singularly invested in Israel,” someone could eventually “take action” against them . Piker says he was warning about the danger of conflating American Jews with Israel, not making a threat or advocating violence. His remarks drew condemnation from Democrats, including politicians who have been willing to appear with him up to now.

That has led to the usual debate over whether Democrats should distance themselves from Piker. I am more interested in why they wanted to be around him in the first place.

The obvious answer is his audience. Piker reaches huge numbers of young people who aren’t necessarily watching cable news, reading newspapers or paying much attention to what politicians say on Sunday morning shows. But I don’t think his appeal can be explained by audience size alone. When politicians go on his stream, they aren’t just trying to reach his viewers. They are trying to tap into the relationship he has with them.

As a psychotherapist, I find that relationship more interesting than Piker’s politics. Think about the world as many of his younger viewers experience it. Housing feels out of reach. Dating is miserable. Democracy always seems to be in danger. The climate is approaching catastrophe. Open your phone and there’s another crisis waiting for you.

Piker gives all of this a story: Capitalism is screwing you. Billionaires are screwing you. Israel is committing atrocities. Conservatives are standing in the way of progress. Whatever the problem, there’s usually an explanation and somebody to blame.

There’s something reassuring about that. Most people don’t particularly enjoy uncertainty. It’s hard to admit that you don’t know why your life isn’t going the way you hoped, that nobody may be responsible for it, or that some problems don’t have clean solutions. It’s much easier when somebody connects the dots for you.

Anger can also feel better than anxiety. Anxiety leaves you wondering what’s going to happen and whether you can do anything about it. Anger gives all that unease somewhere to go. Instead of asking, “What am I going to do?” you get to say, “I know who did this to me.”

Still, politics doesn’t explain why someone would watch Piker for hours. He hangs out. He jokes, gets irritated, talks about politics and then wanders on to something else. He’s there day after day in a way politicians aren’t. Spend enough time watching somebody like that and you start to feel as though you know him.

That is easy to dismiss as a parasocial relationship, but dismissing it misses the point. If you’re lonely, bored, politically frustrated or just spending a lot of time online, that familiarity can matter. Piker is giving viewers a place to go.

This is also why his latest controversy may not hurt him as much as his critics expect. Imagine you’ve spent hundreds of hours watching someone and already believe much of the political establishment is dishonest or cowardly. Then the politicians and commentators you distrust tell you that the person you like has gone too far. You might reconsider him, but then you might instead conclude that he has hit a nerve.

For some viewers, the outrage becomes another reason to trust him.

This isn’t peculiar to the left. There are figures on the right whose followers respond much the same way. The difference for Democrats is that they want Piker’s audience. They know he can reach young voters they have trouble reaching themselves, which leaves them in the awkward position of criticizing him while still needing what he has built.

And what he has built isn’t easily transferred. A politician can sit across from Piker for an hour and reach his viewers, but that doesn’t mean those viewers suddenly feel about the politician the way they feel about Piker. He has spent years talking to them. He knows their language, their jokes and their grievances. They know his.

That reverses the old relationship between politicians and media personalities. It used to be the politician who conferred importance by agreeing to an interview. With someone who already commands a large and loyal audience, the calculation can run the other way. Piker doesn’t necessarily need a politician to make him relevant. The politician may need Piker to reach people who otherwise aren’t listening.

So Democrats can stop appearing with him. They can decide his latest remarks crossed a line. There may be good reasons to do both. But neither will explain why he became so influential in the first place.

Piker gives his viewers something politics often doesn’t: a way of making sense of a confusing world and a group of people with whom to make sense of it. He gives anxiety a target and frustration a culprit. And after enough hours together, he can feel less like a political commentator than somebody you know.

That’s what Democrats are trying to get close to when they go on his show. They aren’t just chasing his numbers. They’re chasing the connection behind them.

Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist and author of “ Therapy Nation . “