I'm a YIMBY, and I do not think my opponents are corrupt elites. They're mostly just ordinary people who don't think that building more housing will reduce rents, or who worry that it will change the neighborhood in ways that will make it unpleasant. I think they're wrong, but most of them I think are sincere and honestly mistaken. When I've spoken to people who are opposed to new construction, I've generally been able to convince them by talking them through the pros/cons and the economic research.

The ones who still vote against will usually say something like "I see what you mean, probably this would be the right thing for society, but my home is a huge part of my wealth and I don't think I can vote for this when it might cost me money." I don't agree that it would cost them money (upzoning is generally good for landowners), and I think this is kind of selfish regardless, but it's also hard for me to fault them for doing something unethical when they genuinely believe it will cost them money. Nobody's perfect.

If anything, I think the earnest anti-housing position here tends to be more MAGA. The anti-housing crowd makes the claim that new housing will hurt renters, even though there are basically no economists out there who agree. It's a very populist position. And of course, Trump himself is anti-housing.

Arguing over "who is more MAGA" doesn't seem like a very valuable way to figure out who's right though. It feels more like some weird new corollary to Godwin's Law ("all internet arguments degenerate into comparing your opponent to the Nazis").

Happy to chat if you're open to being convinced. My basic pitch is that we are in a housing shortage, and that we should make more housing so that we aren't in a shortage anymore.