A short summary of this article would coalesce the core point(s).
I think you are arguing that some kind of "cultural revolution" has been orchestrated by the "elites" and that the counter revolution "subversives" are fighting it back now, but they won't "win." These two elite groups form the "schism."
But if I were sitting down with you over coffee, I would say, "1. Tell me more about the nature of this schism. 2. What is really going on here? 3. And what exactly is an elite? Given his background, is JD Vance (for the sake of discussion) an elite?"
I feel like you are on to something but you haven't quite said it yet, and I'd like to hear it!
Sorry if I wasn't clear. There's split within the elite class: orthodox (anti-Western) and subversive (pro-Western). That's a confusing formulation but it arises from the fact that our dominant institutions have been skeptical of Western ideals for years: they have tended toward equity, gender inclusivity, sexual tolerance, multiculturalism, and increasingly wild brands of feminism. THESE ideas are the orthodoxy, even though they're based on undermining/updating tradition. Progressive status quos don't tend to do very well (French revolutionaries, Khmer Rouge, the Bolsheviks, the 1940's Labor government in Britain, etc.) and it's because they're predicated against ideas and methods that have worked for generations, simply because they're old.
As for what are 'elites': broadly, they're people who don't have to work with their hands and don't generate economic value by changing the physical environment. This is a huge generalization but it mostly holds: if you work in the knowledge economy then you probably have a degree, with the protections and privileges and status bonuses that it confers. More narrowly, elites are people WITHIN this group that have achieved marked success (professional advancement, fellowships, graduate degrees). They are the people who, day to day, run our society and (more importantly) control the intellectual and policy dialogue: professors, journalists, doctors, executives, agency managers, psychologists, nonprofit CEO's, therapists, architects, technologists, VC's, stockbrokers. They aren't elites because of what they do-they're elites because of their proximity to power. Carpenters, border patrol officers, soldiers, police, truckdrivers... they all live according to the rules and arrangements that the elites make, with almost no input. That is how we've arranged our society, and it might be an inevitable aspect of living in a hyper-bureaucratized civilization: the people who control knowledge and write the rules and set the policies end up directing the entire structure.
"What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organisers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralised government." -George Orwell
And he used to be a Democrat (of some kind)! I don’t see Trump as a cultural or ideological figure though. He makes his change through action. Just as Putin isn’t a cultural figure (he’s political/military) and George Soros isn’t a cultural figure (financial). I DO see Trump as change agent (probably the most influential of the past 50 years), but not in the world of ideas.
Nevertheless, he’s transformed the entire Republican Party and neutered the Democrats, simply through the pull of his personality and amassing a base of support. I’m ambivalent about Trump but his rise is an example of precisely the thing that the Democrats say it threatens: the power of American democracy. If he wasn’t popular among the grass roots, he’d have no power. And no ‘fascist’ leader that I’m aware of has tried to radically pare back the size and power of government.
Nice post and thanks for the mention. This reminds me that I need to read Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010," instead of just leaving it to collect dust on my bookshelf. The Obama/Biden era insanity was a long time in the making. Historians will be puzzling over our civilization's suicidal policies for a long time.
I read that within a year of publication. I’m glad you reminded me of it. The interesting claim of that book (and the magisterial The Bell Curve) was the idea of two very separate groups of people who rarely intermingle, and are mutually incomprehensible. I’m going to grab that during my next library visit.
Yes, instead of tackling actual problems much better to focus on these culture wars. Then the really worthy global elites can have all the power, not these mid-level institutionalist Americans. Culture wars serve to further silo Americans so they can collapse the economy, end dollar hegemony, create geopolitical instability and renuclearization, then partition the United States into warring tribal regions that can eventually be sold off for parts. Then the whales can meter out resources as they see fit.
You sound as if you have a pretty good grasp of the situation... but unless you're some AI, I know that's not true. Consider your guesses and beliefs and opinions over the past 5 years. How many things were you correct about? How many proved wrong? The lesson is that anyone who thinks that he has an excellent grasp of something like international geopolitics is almost certainly wrong. He doesn't. No one does.
Secondly, "tackling actual problems"... like what? Your definition of what a problem is will vary wildly according to your political assumptions. That's the problem: neither you nor anyone else can set the terms of political dialogue. People (as I'm sure you've noticed) don't regard policies as discrete cost/benefits propositions. They fit issues into a broader framework of values and ideological assumptions. Basically, everyone I've ever known does this. I'm sure you do too but your reply lacked enough specificity for me to glean what yours might be. Nevertheless, I don't think that American's partition into warring tribal regions is regarded as an urgent problem by... well, by anyone. Even your reference to "global elites" already puts you at odds with people in both parties. How can you reconcile this? You could just dismiss their positions (they're not focusing on 'real' problems). That's an excellent way to be ignored by almost everyone.
Thirdly, and most directly: the centralization of our economy, the increasing dominance of hedge funds, the social stratification of credentials and institutional barriers, the fact that the government suck trillions out of our economy and redistributes it to patrons and clients and supporters... these are not culture war issues. These are as concrete and fiscally germane as they come, and they affect literally every person in the job market and every voter and every business. Any debate that focuses on values and fundamental political visions will include BOTH 'culture wars' and 'actual problems'. This essay doesn't propose any specific fixes or paths forward. It's simply identifying a major sociopolitical trend. Dismissing the trend as uninteresting because it doesn't focus on the things that YOU find important (whatever those might be-I'm still not sure) is your prerogative but the trend will affect you whether you think it should or not. That's how these things usually work.
A short summary of this article would coalesce the core point(s).
I think you are arguing that some kind of "cultural revolution" has been orchestrated by the "elites" and that the counter revolution "subversives" are fighting it back now, but they won't "win." These two elite groups form the "schism."
But if I were sitting down with you over coffee, I would say, "1. Tell me more about the nature of this schism. 2. What is really going on here? 3. And what exactly is an elite? Given his background, is JD Vance (for the sake of discussion) an elite?"
I feel like you are on to something but you haven't quite said it yet, and I'd like to hear it!
Sorry if I wasn't clear. There's split within the elite class: orthodox (anti-Western) and subversive (pro-Western). That's a confusing formulation but it arises from the fact that our dominant institutions have been skeptical of Western ideals for years: they have tended toward equity, gender inclusivity, sexual tolerance, multiculturalism, and increasingly wild brands of feminism. THESE ideas are the orthodoxy, even though they're based on undermining/updating tradition. Progressive status quos don't tend to do very well (French revolutionaries, Khmer Rouge, the Bolsheviks, the 1940's Labor government in Britain, etc.) and it's because they're predicated against ideas and methods that have worked for generations, simply because they're old.
As for what are 'elites': broadly, they're people who don't have to work with their hands and don't generate economic value by changing the physical environment. This is a huge generalization but it mostly holds: if you work in the knowledge economy then you probably have a degree, with the protections and privileges and status bonuses that it confers. More narrowly, elites are people WITHIN this group that have achieved marked success (professional advancement, fellowships, graduate degrees). They are the people who, day to day, run our society and (more importantly) control the intellectual and policy dialogue: professors, journalists, doctors, executives, agency managers, psychologists, nonprofit CEO's, therapists, architects, technologists, VC's, stockbrokers. They aren't elites because of what they do-they're elites because of their proximity to power. Carpenters, border patrol officers, soldiers, police, truckdrivers... they all live according to the rules and arrangements that the elites make, with almost no input. That is how we've arranged our society, and it might be an inevitable aspect of living in a hyper-bureaucratized civilization: the people who control knowledge and write the rules and set the policies end up directing the entire structure.
"What kind of people would control this world had been equally obvious. The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organisers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralised government." -George Orwell
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/job-search-part-5
I think that clears things up for me. Of course, it raises more questions, but that's the point! No?
Surprised you omitted Trump from your list of elite subversives, he is the ur-subversive of this cycle.
And he used to be a Democrat (of some kind)! I don’t see Trump as a cultural or ideological figure though. He makes his change through action. Just as Putin isn’t a cultural figure (he’s political/military) and George Soros isn’t a cultural figure (financial). I DO see Trump as change agent (probably the most influential of the past 50 years), but not in the world of ideas.
Nevertheless, he’s transformed the entire Republican Party and neutered the Democrats, simply through the pull of his personality and amassing a base of support. I’m ambivalent about Trump but his rise is an example of precisely the thing that the Democrats say it threatens: the power of American democracy. If he wasn’t popular among the grass roots, he’d have no power. And no ‘fascist’ leader that I’m aware of has tried to radically pare back the size and power of government.
Thanks for the comment.
Nice post and thanks for the mention. This reminds me that I need to read Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010," instead of just leaving it to collect dust on my bookshelf. The Obama/Biden era insanity was a long time in the making. Historians will be puzzling over our civilization's suicidal policies for a long time.
I read that within a year of publication. I’m glad you reminded me of it. The interesting claim of that book (and the magisterial The Bell Curve) was the idea of two very separate groups of people who rarely intermingle, and are mutually incomprehensible. I’m going to grab that during my next library visit.
Yes, instead of tackling actual problems much better to focus on these culture wars. Then the really worthy global elites can have all the power, not these mid-level institutionalist Americans. Culture wars serve to further silo Americans so they can collapse the economy, end dollar hegemony, create geopolitical instability and renuclearization, then partition the United States into warring tribal regions that can eventually be sold off for parts. Then the whales can meter out resources as they see fit.
You sound as if you have a pretty good grasp of the situation... but unless you're some AI, I know that's not true. Consider your guesses and beliefs and opinions over the past 5 years. How many things were you correct about? How many proved wrong? The lesson is that anyone who thinks that he has an excellent grasp of something like international geopolitics is almost certainly wrong. He doesn't. No one does.
Secondly, "tackling actual problems"... like what? Your definition of what a problem is will vary wildly according to your political assumptions. That's the problem: neither you nor anyone else can set the terms of political dialogue. People (as I'm sure you've noticed) don't regard policies as discrete cost/benefits propositions. They fit issues into a broader framework of values and ideological assumptions. Basically, everyone I've ever known does this. I'm sure you do too but your reply lacked enough specificity for me to glean what yours might be. Nevertheless, I don't think that American's partition into warring tribal regions is regarded as an urgent problem by... well, by anyone. Even your reference to "global elites" already puts you at odds with people in both parties. How can you reconcile this? You could just dismiss their positions (they're not focusing on 'real' problems). That's an excellent way to be ignored by almost everyone.
Thirdly, and most directly: the centralization of our economy, the increasing dominance of hedge funds, the social stratification of credentials and institutional barriers, the fact that the government suck trillions out of our economy and redistributes it to patrons and clients and supporters... these are not culture war issues. These are as concrete and fiscally germane as they come, and they affect literally every person in the job market and every voter and every business. Any debate that focuses on values and fundamental political visions will include BOTH 'culture wars' and 'actual problems'. This essay doesn't propose any specific fixes or paths forward. It's simply identifying a major sociopolitical trend. Dismissing the trend as uninteresting because it doesn't focus on the things that YOU find important (whatever those might be-I'm still not sure) is your prerogative but the trend will affect you whether you think it should or not. That's how these things usually work.