Hasan Piker, a prominent socialist streamer, often makes statements that should prompt mainstream Democrats to distance themselves. Yet, they continue to engage with him. His recent controversy arose when he cautioned that if American Jews persist in identifying primarily with Israel, action might be taken against them. Piker clarified that his comment aimed at highlighting the risks of conflating American Jews with Israel, rather than being a threat or condoning violence.

His remarks elicited denunciations from Democrats, including those willing to appear on his platform. This has ignited debate on whether Democrats should disengage from Piker. However, a pertinent inquiry is why they sought association with him initially. The answer lies in his audience. Piker connects with a vast number of young individuals who usually eschew traditional news sources and political discourse.

Politicians appear on his stream not solely to address his viewers, but to access the rapport he holds with them. As a psychotherapist, I find this interaction more intriguing than Piker’s political views. Consider the world from his young viewers’ perspective: housing seems unattainable, dating is disheartening, democracy feels perpetually threatened, and the climate nears disaster. The overwhelming barrage of crises found on their devices adds to the pressure.

Piker gives all of this a narrative: Capitalism is the enemy; billionaires are the adversaries; Israel is perpetrating wrongdoings; conservatives are stalling progress.

While his message offers clarity by pointing out scapegoats, Piker’s appeal isn’t merely political. He offers companionship through his presence, joking and chatting day after day, unlike conventional politicians. Prolonged exposure fosters an illusion of familiarity, a parasocial relationship that often goes underestimated. This familiarity is significant, particularly for those feeling isolated, discontented, or politically alienated.

His latest controversy might not diminish his influence as critics anticipate. Imagine devoting hundreds of hours to someone and perceiving the political realm as largely insincere. When politicians whom you distrust criticize someone you support, it might strengthen your allegiance to that individual.

This dynamic isn’t exclusive to the left. Right-wing figures similarly attract followers. Democrats, however, covet Piker’s audience to engage a demographic they struggle to reach. They find themselves in the uncomfortable role of critiquing him yet desiring the connection he has nurtured.

A politician can converse with Piker for an hour, accessing his followers, but establishing the personal bond Piker has built over years isn’t guaranteed. Piker understands their language, humor, and concerns. His viewers reciprocate this understanding.

Historically, politicians held the spotlight by consenting to interviews. With Piker, the dynamic shifts; he doesn’t require politicians for relevance. Politicians might need him to reach a disengaged audience.

Democrats might cease collaborating with Piker post-controversy. They could deem his latest words unacceptable. Nonetheless, these actions won’t elucidate his original influential rise. Piker offers his viewers something politics often lacks: clarity amidst confusion and communal solace. He targets their anxiety and channels their frustration. After enough interactions, he transcends his role as a political figure, becoming a familiar presence. That’s the connection Democrats aim to tap into when appearing on his show. They pursue more than his numbers; they seek the intimate bond beneath.

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

© 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.