The Toxicity of Luxury Beliefs and the Liberal Elite in 21st Century America

[Lord Thesaurian]

If you read American newspapers, you’d be forgiven for thinking the country is filled with enlightened leftists and liberals held captive by a conservative right wing elite. As the story goes, all Joe Six Pack wants is to pay reparations and re-write the constitution so zhe and all zheir polyamorous, gender fluid lovers can get free courses on the evils of Whiteness (TM) from the Disinformation Governance Board. It’s certainly true that lower income groups are more likely to support left wing politics related to public programs that focus on economic relief; that’s the intuitive norm. But is it enough to justify the narrative of elite bias against the left?

Let’s start with the low hanging fruit: The higher the education level, the more liberal one tends to be. This fits right in with the idea of leftist enlightenment held captive by conservative anti-intellectualism.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But what does a college degree actually represent? Economically, socially, the primary function of a college education is a status signal to distinguish the degree holder from the non-holder. While this translates to the self-perception of higher intelligence among the former and education does correlate with higher intelligence, college grads also tend to overestimate their own competence and skills:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One thing the highly educated do have for certain is more wealth and power, and that’s seldom a positive development amongst a group which is predisposed to overestimate itself on a fundamental level. Here too, the intersection with far left politics is glaring. Despite dominating the economic and political elite, these represent less than 10% of the electorate ideologically. Most Americans identify as conservative or moderate while the Democrat Party lurches further and further left. Similarly, while conservatives and the less educated show less disparity on major political issues, Democrats trend toward extremes in tandem with education levels.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One way to see this is to look at congressional districts. The places with the largest concentrations of wealth are now disproportionately represented by Democrats. In 2014, 17 of the 25 wealthiest congressional districts (measured by average income) were represented by Democrats. And overall, the median household income in Democratic-represented congressional districts was about $2,000 more than the median household income in Republican-represented districts ($53,358 to $51,834).

We can also observe some of these larger changes by looking at the partisan giving by the Forbes 400 wealthiest individuals, which political scientists Adam Bonica and Howard Rosenthal have tracked over three decades. Between 1982 and 2012, the share of GOP money from the Forbes 400 fell from 68 percent to 59 percent.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6...-wealthy-party

While Democrats lose support as income increases, there seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the riches families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-.../#UltraWealthy

Whether one wants to call this a conspiracy of higher education to indoctrinate the youth, or simple virtue signaling, we arrive at the crux of the matter: Why is it Democrats tend to fight uphill in the culture war if a small but growing portion of Americans identify as liberal? Why is it Democrats feel the need to establish a Disinformation Governance Board to politically correct wrongthink if the vast majority agrees with them? Why is it Republicans keep winning elections if most people think they’re evil? One potential answer: the same reason working class people buy accessories they can’t afford just to keep up with the people who can.

The chief purpose of luxury beliefs is to indicate evidence of the believer’s social class and education. Only academics educated at elite institutions could have conjured up a coherent and reasonable-sounding argument for why parents should not be allowed to raise their kids, and should hold baby lotteries instead. When an affluent person advocates for drug legalization, or anti-vaccination policies, or open borders, or loose sexual norms, or uses the term “white privilege,” they are engaging in a status display. They are trying to tell you, “I am a member of the upper class.”

Affluent people promote open borders or the decriminalization of drugs because it advances their social standing, not least because they know that the adoption of those policies will cost them less than others. The logic is akin to conspicuous consumption—if you’re a student who has a large subsidy from your parents and I do not, you can afford to waste $900 and I can’t, so wearing a Canada Goose jacket is a good way of advertising your superior wealth and status. Proposing policies that will cost you as a member of the upper class less than they would cost me serve the same function. Advocating for open borders and drug experimentation are good ways of advertising your membership of the elite because, thanks to your wealth and social connections, they will cost you less than me.

https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/tho...status-update/

Because the beliefs of the liberal elite function primarily as status symbols, we often see them manifest in a collection of thought terminating cliches and tautologies, which are then enforced with papal sanctimony. But as the lower classes seek to both comply with and emulate the elite, the latter must always double down on the purity spiral in order to distinguish itself. It’s no longer enough to be non-racist, one must be “antiracist.” It’s not enough to support freedom of speech. One must support correct speech to protect “marginalized communities” from wrongthink. It’s not enough to reform the police, the latter must be completely defunded. Etc.

Third Wave Antiracist tenets, stated clearly and placed in simple oppositions, translate into nothing whatsoever.

I suspect that deep down, most know that none of this catechism makes any sense. Less obvious is that it was not even composed with logic in mind. The self-contradiction of these tenets is crucial, in revealing that Third Wave Antiracism is not a philosophy but a religion.

https://www.persuasion.community/p/j...the-neoracists

What’s really the harm in all this? Does the average American need to care if the southern border is a complete cluster? If the public discourse is curated by the Democrats’ Disinformation Governance Board, does that really affect the average person who isn’t as politically engaged? What’s the big deal about dismantling monuments to the Founding Fathers and re-writing school curricula to tell kids they are morally defined by the color of their skin? 1619 or 1776 - yawn…. If these are luxury beliefs, aren’t there only luxury consequences? Well, not if the elites have anything to say about it:



Note the massive disparities between the general population and the liberal elite. Even if this isn’t problematic in and of itself, it bears considering what the country’s most powerful are using their status to pursue. We are constantly inundated with news about the threats posed by foreign elites who seek to undermine American interests and institutions. How much greater a threat must our own elites be if they consider their role in undermining and destroying American institutions a badge of honor? These are people who believe the country is inherently immoral, its existence only exploitative, who want to abolish the Senate, pack the Supreme Court and replace checks and balances with a politically correct oligarchy of “experts.” These are the people who raised the proverbial pitchforks and cheered as a merry band of fraudsters burned down the country.

If we can manage 50 billion to defend Ukraine and 100 billion to confront communist China, surely we the people can allocate some resources to eradicate the enemy which actively seeks to immolate the country from within, before they finish the job. Even the hedonist, papist French recognize the problem, and you know if I agree with the French about anything, we really have arrived in clown world. Not good folks. Not good.

[antaeus]

You've stated that liberals believe this set of things because privilege, which I would agree with. Wealth and education tend to align with progressive views in developed societies globally.

It's all well and good to illustrate correlations. But why is this situation bad? the rhetorical last 3 paragraphs don't really clearly define the answer. Can you sum it up in a sentence?

[Muizer]

I cannot really comment that much on the American situation. I am sure it has its own ideosyncracies. However, some trends are quite recognizable on the other side of the Atlantic.

To begin with, I think your analysis of liberal thinking as a status symbol is certainly interesting, but I do not think you can really understand political liberalism if you insist on making it the plaything of a "liberal elite". I think this is something that does well for conservatives as a rhetorical device, when preaching to their own choir, so to speak, but I don't think it actually has a great deal of explanatory value.

"Liberal elite" wrongly suggests there is some sort of unifying ideology/agenda. The reality is almost the opposite. Progressive politics has actually lost control of its own narrative. It does not actually have an ideology anymore. What it professes is merely the product of a struggle to hold together an increasingly fragmenting coalition based on single-issue activism. That is why it has a strong tendency to be more radical than the average liberal voter when you review it across the board. But progressive politics these days relies more than ever on its backing interest groups to tolerate each other and expects the same from its voters.

To some extent, this is of course inherent in the progressive movement. It's much easier to find consensus in what you want to keep than it is in what you want to change. But these days, politicians are clearly no longer in control ideologically, and therefore it would be mistaken to attribute their rhetoric wholesale to their backers, be they rich, famous, or regular people.

[Cope]

The expression of "luxury beliefs" is typically a form of moral posturing. It is means by which nobility, sensitivity, humanitarianism and intellectualism (which separate the elite from the common) can be demonstrated at no cost.

Their more important role is to stratify society according to immutable/identity characteristics. Those who have the real privileges of higher education, wealth, influence and institutional power protect their advantages by appropriating/derailing conversations about inequality and stymieing class organization by fermenting suspicion, resentment and sectarianism between disadvantaged groups.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I cannot really comment that much on the American situation. I am sure it has its own ideosyncracies. However, some trends are quite recognizable on the other side of the Atlantic.

To begin with, I think your analysis of liberal thinking as a status symbol is certainly interesting, but I do not think you can really understand political liberalism if you insist on making it the plaything of a "liberal elite". I think this is something that does well for conservatives as a rhetorical device, when preaching to their own choir, so to speak, but I don't think it actually has a great deal of explanatory value.

The term is meant to be more shorthand than exhaustive. I don’t doubt European liberalism has depth and nuance to it relative to the American kind, but even that observation alludes to my overall point.

"Liberal elite" wrongly suggests there is some sort of unifying ideology/agenda. The reality is almost the opposite. Progressive politics has actually lost control of its own narrative. It does not actually have an ideology anymore. What it professes is merely the product of a struggle to hold together an increasingly fragmenting coalition based on single-issue activism. That is why it has a strong tendency to be more radical than the average liberal voter when you review it across the board. But progressive politics these days relies more than ever on its backing interest groups to tolerate each other and expects the same from its voters.

To some extent, this is of course inherent in the progressive movement. It's much easier to find consensus in what you want to keep than it is in what you want to change. But these days, politicians are clearly no longer in control ideologically, and therefore it would be mistaken to attribute their rhetoric wholesale to their backers, be they rich, famous, or regular people.

It very well could be the tail wags the dog in more than one context. The Democrat Party literally knelt in submission to a creature of its own making as the latter rampaged through the streets just outside. But just because the liberal establishment in America are cynical doesn’t mean they’re powerless. Even from a leftist perspective, the angle is easy to spot:

Spoiler for :wub:: 

But for me the issue is less abstract. We’ve witnessed liberal dominance of American institutions is sufficient to generate monolithic behavior with or without specific direction from economic and political elites, and that was before the Democrats got the balls to create a Disinformation Governance Board under the remit of Homeland Security yet headed by a Party propagandist with no national security credentials to speak of. Indeed the powerful have embraced liberal extremism precisely because it has become an elite status symbol, and heaven help you if you don’t hop on the purity spiral.

Look what happens to even the richest man in the world if he fails to sufficiently bend the knee. Elon Musk can’t even make a bid for Twitter without being branded a white supremacist Lex Luthor because heaven forbid even the appearance of a challenge to liberal ideological enforcement online. I don’t think I need to be any more exhaustive than I have been up to this point, but recall the meltdown that was had (myself included) about the alleged existential threat to American institutions posed by Putin slipping into Roger Stone’s DMs to talk about Hillary and do some edgy Facebook memes. Yet I’m supposed to applaud and nod along when the liberal establishment is constantly trying to outdo itself bragging about how much contempt they have for those same institutions? I’m fine with the rich and powerful buying designer handbags to prove they’re better than me, but I’ll be damned if they’re going to butcher my country for the leather and expect me to eat cake.

To me, both are the enemy of my country, both must be stopped, and the threat posed by the domestic liberal elite is infinitely more powerful than Putin’s dumpster fire of a regime. Fool me once….

You've stated that liberals believe this set of things because privilege, which I would agree with. Wealth and education tend to align with progressive views in developed societies globally.

It's all well and good to illustrate correlations. But why is this situation bad? the rhetorical last 3 paragraphs don't really clearly define the answer. Can you sum it up in a sentence?

If my summary leaves anything to be desired, I think the BBC link touches on major themes from a third party (French) perspective, which, it pains me with envy to say, is spot on. One indication of that is the cliche, autistic screeching from agitators whining about how backwards the French and their wrongthink are. After all, theirs is the civilization that, alongside the American variety, defined the very concept of modern human rights in a world benighted by hereditary monarchy, even providing considerable inspiration for our own founding documents. In a bit of historical irony, they see us destroying ourselves and have wisely tried to steer clear. To borrow from one of their greatest, “L'ironie et la pitié sont deux bonnes conseillères ; l'une, en souriant, nous rend la vie aimable ; l'autre, qui pleure, nous la rend sacrée.”

[conon394]

Look what happens to even the richest man in the world if he fails to sufficiently bend the knee. Elon Musk can’t even make a bid for Twitter without being branded a white supremacist Lex Luthor because heaven forbid even the appearance of a challenge to liberal ideological enforcement online

I don't a give rat's anus about twitter or it rules. What I do think is in a better society a man with who has or can raise 44 billion dollars and wastes it on a vanity take over of some internet platform does deserve to be shamed. That money could have so many actually good impacts in the country that allowed/enabled him to become so wealthy... and it aint buying twitter.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I’m fairly certain the talking heads - those claiming Musk’s potential takeover was motivated by nostalgia for apartheid, posed a threat to “marginalized communities,” and even attempts by leftist staff to sabotage the platform in retaliation against him - were not upset by all the starving children he could have fed. Whether Musk actually has any intention to buy the company or is just trolling, he’s demolished any remaining pretense the major social media platforms had at political neutrality, and he’s not even a political person. It’s an example of how overtly corrosive and culturally dominant the liberal elite has become.

[antaeus]

Everyone with his kind of wealth is political.

And apparently, he knows it. Gosh... that liberal elite is really corrosive now. It has forced him to hush up his bad behaviour.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Huh? Anyway, yeah, Musk is very political if Elon Musk Inc is a political party. This is a guy who routinely shills Chicom talking points about how they’re going to dwarf the US economy soon because Americans are lazy (and because his factory is there) meanwhile Japan will “cease to exist” because it faces the same demographic issues China does. And now that he’s pissed off the liberal establishment suddenly the “friend” of someone who’d previously settled a complaint against him (as for me personally, 250k to see Elon’s pp? Yes Daddy it’s beautiful) comes forward 6 years later. It’s fun to watch the elites fight sometimes, but celebrating obvious kompromat tactics is a grim indication of where we’re at in today’s society.

[chilon]

If you read American newspapers, you’d be forgiven for thinking the country is filled with enlightened leftists and liberals held captive by a conservative right wing elite. As the story goes, all Joe Six Pack wants is to pay reparations and re-write the constitution so zhe and all zheir polyamorous, gender fluid lovers can get free courses on the evils of Whiteness (TM) from the Disinformation Governance Board. It’s certainly true that lower income groups are more likely to support left wing politics related to public programs that focus on economic relief; that’s the intuitive norm. But is it enough to justify the narrative of elite bias against the left?

This sounds like a lot of far-right hyperbole. Without any supporting evidence as well. Hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you post this pile of right-wing paranoia unironically.

[antaeus]

This sounds like a lot of far-right hyperbole. Without any supporting evidence as well. Hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you post this pile of right-wing paranoia unironically.

It's just a partisan viewing of correlations at best, that doesn't actually explain why the situation is bad. I can't actually figure out how to counter the points in the thread, because they're largely subjective.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This sounds like a lot of far-right hyperbole. Without any supporting evidence as well. Hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you post this pile of right-wing paranoia unironically.

You don’t take the post seriously yet you felt the need to respond with some low-effort gainsaying about the “far right?” That is ironic. Thanks for providing another example of what I’m talking about.

It's just a partisan viewing of correlations at best, that doesn't actually explain why the situation is bad. I can't actually figure out how to counter the points in the thread, because they're largely subjective.

Just because you don’t think it’s a bad situation (it’s probably not bad from the perspective of the liberal establishment) doesn’t mean it wasn’t explained. The truth is hard to counter, but the I’d be more concerned why you feel the need to.

And in view of swirling accusations, maybe I should repost these:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cope]

This sounds like a lot of far-right hyperbole. Without any supporting evidence as well. Hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you post this pile of right-wing paranoia unironically.

Lets start with the base data (using a British example). There are strong correlations between liberalism/leftism and academia; between liberalism/leftism and graduates; between graduates, private education and careers in journalism/media; and between journalists and liberalism/leftism. The broader picture, then, is that a disproportionate amount of control in journalism and media is wielded by privileged liberals/leftists.

[antaeus]

Just because you don’t think it’s a bad situation (it’s probably not bad from the perspective of the liberal establishment) doesn’t mean it wasn’t explained. The truth is hard to counter, but the I’d be more concerned why you feel the need to.

I want to counter because I like to argue. But when I go to structure an argument, I realise that you saying you don't like something, doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you don't like it. I can live with you not liking a situation.

*shrug*

[Muizer]

Lets start with the base data (using a British example). There are strong correlations between liberalism/leftism and academia; between liberalism/leftism and graduates; between graduates, private education and careers in journalism/media; and between journalists and liberalism/leftism. The broader picture, then, is that a disproportionate amount of control in journalism and media is wielded by privileged liberals/leftists.

I'm not surprised that those who are in the business of fact finding and analysis end up being seen as liberal/progressive.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I want to counter because I like to argue. But when I go to structure an argument, I realise that you saying you don't like something, doesn't mean it's bad. It just means you don't like it. I can live with you not liking a situation.

*shrug*

The concession that you’re unable to counter my position but feel compelled to object nonetheless conveys the opposite of your assertion.

I'm not surprised that those who are in the business of fact finding and analysis end up being seen as liberal/progressive.

I’m not surprised that the adoption of extremist views as status symbols among the political and social elite has fostered a smug indifference to the consequences. That’s kinda the point. The dogmatic authority granted by that status is not an empirical justification, however.

[Cope]

I'm not surprised that those who are in the business of fact finding and analysis end up being seen as liberal/progressive.

The same argument was once used to explain why universities and the professions were dominated by white men and conservatives. Of course in that case, as in this, the truth was that the lack of representation (shown in the data) was due to the primacy of affluent upbringings, private education, ideological gatekeeping and discrimination. Even so, the actual "fact-finding" departments (i.e. STEM) remain the least politically imbalanced.

[antaeus]

The concession that you’re unable to counter my position but feel compelled to object nonetheless conveys the opposite of your assertion.

Thanks for explaining my position to me. *Thesauriansplaining*

I conceded nothing except for the fact that you haven't presented anything other than opinion to debate against... and I don't need to debate that. your feelings don't make you right.

No... that's not true... Earlier I conceded that you showed us a correlation. That's something for you I guess.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Thanks for explaining my position to me. *Thesauriansplaining*

I conceded nothing except for the fact that you haven't presented anything other than opinion to debate against... and I don't need to debate that. your feelings don't make you right.

No... that's not true... Earlier I conceded that you showed us a correlation. That's something for you I guess.

If you have any basis for saying my position has no merit, one would think you wouldn’t need to spend an entire page insisting you don’t care about it and don’t need to address it. Since you have indeed conceded you’re unable to do much more than that, all I can say at this point is, I appreciate the assist.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Spoiler for Hurty words: 

Toxic. Literally toxic. And if these numbers and the trend are remotely accurate, a potential threat to the human race itself. It’s time for mankind to declare our independence. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”