Print This Post Print This Post

Class Warfare in America

by Francis Cianfrocca

This Angelo Codevilla piece in the American Spectator is receiving a lot of reaction online and on the radio this week. I have a few thoughts I’d like to share on it.

Codevilla was careful to note that the class divide he’s talking about isn’t distinguished in the Robin Hood sense we’re used to, but rather is attitudinal. The ruling class isn’t particularly oligarchic, except for the subclass consisting of the chieftains of large corporations. Even a guy like David Brooks, who makes maybe half a million a year, is still working for a living and is out of luck if he loses his jobs.

Among independent business people, some of whom have real wealth and most of whom don’t, there’s a split. Some are distinctly ruling class in mentality, and some are country class. It doesn’t depend on how much money you have.

The ruling class revere Harvard and Stanford grads, whether or not they went to Harvard or Stanford. They recognize each other by the uniformity of their social liberalism (which is received rather than considered wisdom), and, critically, by their reflexive contempt for the country class (or at least for the caricature of the country class that is also part of their received wisdom).

The country class value hard work and self-reliance. They look down on Harvard grads, because street smarts matter more to them than book smarts. They believe that hard work, intelligence and good intentions should be rewarded, linearly and reliably. Critically, they REFUSE to play political games, even if they can, because they think that amounts to rigging the game and just isn’t fair. In their own minds, career and financial success that depends on being tight with powerful people isn’t as worth having as success that you’ve earned.

ADVERTISEMENT

That’s the most important reason why the country class is so out of sorts. There’s an overwhelming sense that the rules of the game have changed, and it’s no longer possible to achieve a robust personal success (your own house in a nice neighborhood, a nice start in life for your kids, good health) without having good connections and sucking up to powerful people. It does come back to the old self-reliant streak in the American character. When you feel like the only path to success that you consider worthy is being closed off, it can make you mad as hell.

Meanwhile, the ruling class simply don’t believe in achieving success by hard work. Part of this comes from a sense of innate nobility and entitlement that they feel in themselves, often as a result of having gotten accepted to a top university. They think of themselves as the cool kids, and their angst comes from a nagging suspicion that this might not be enough in itself to give their lives meaning and value. (That explains Ross Douthat.) Their attitude toward the country class is contempt tempered with pity, because they see those people as blinded by superstition and unwilling to accept the world as it is. And certainly the belief that hard work and good intentions should be rewarded looks a lot like superstition to someone who believes that belonging to the in-crowd is what determines the value of one’s life.

So bottom line, this isn’t about class warfare. It’s about two different approaches to living life. The ruling class see the country class as ignorant, petulant slobs whose lives need to be fixed for them. The country class see the ruling class as the a**holes who won’t let them live their lives freely. Neither class has much interest in meeting with and understanding the other. For over a century, progressives have been motivated by what they believe is a humanitarian desire to improve life for the ignorant classes. Naturally, this enrages the objects of the progressives’ affection, because at root they see it as a desire to enslave them.

Funny thing, I had a conversation yesterday with an old friend who runs a high-ten-figure hedge fund. (They’re flat for the year, like the rest of the hedge-fund world.) What he wants is to join a political party that believes in not taking people’s money and in not telling them what to do: small govt without the bibles. This is something I hear from business guys all the time: the whole “social liberal/fiscal conservative” thing. So far, there’s no political movement they can believe in.

So while some might say that that class war ought to be feared because we don’t know where it’s going to go, I say: let it rip.

Follow Francis Cianfrocca on Twitter.

TNL
  • I call BS on this:

    "That’s the most important reason why the country class is so out of sorts. There’s an overwhelming sense that the rules of the game have changed, and it’s no longer possible to achieve a robust personal success (your own house in a nice neighborhood, a nice start in life for your kids, good health) without having good connections and sucking up to powerful people. It does come back to the old self-reliant streak in the American character. When you feel like the only path to success that you consider worthy is being closed off, it can make you mad as hell."

    The "rules of the game" have changed chiefly because the "hard work" people used to do at that factory got phased out as the factory's owner realized that Asian workers would labor for pennies on the American dollar and offshored production.

    Now this "self-reliant" worker finds it necessary to get additional education and training, perhaps at a relatively advanced age, to be relevant at all in this new "knowledge" economy.

    THAT is why the paths have been closed off. This IS class conflict - but not of this new-thing-under-the-sun variety. It's the same old thing under the sun, which conservatives just can't bring themselves to admit. But you will.
  • dandapani
    Me too. Keep the bible at home. I'm a Hindu.
  • The article was interesting, but somewhat simplistic and nostalgic for eras that may or may not have ever existed. It is important to remember that the prime mover in this country is now and always has been, MONEY.or in the words of the late Ozzie Meyers Money talks and bullshit walks. class lines are much more fluid than the article suggests. I know plenty of really conservative people who loath Obama, but who would not at all mix with what they consider people of lesser education, job status or lifestyle condition as them. I never did hear too much class talk when the two Bushes (Andover, Yale, Harvard Business school and Old Yankee and Wall street Money) were in office.

    Its kind of a given in our society and really always has been that much of success involves who you know and having the right connections.Every society seems to have some sort of elite group that runs the show. the question is that of how you access such groups and who composes them. there is little evidence of an aristocracy of birth in this country except for maybe in the political sphere i.e. the Adams, Kennedy and Bush families.

    The parts of the article that were excellent were the discussions of wars that we couldn't win and the questions of our meddling in other nations affairs by war. However, he could have discussed in a more critical fashion the 70 years rise of the national security/warfare state, which probably poses as big a threat as what others perceive to be "big government".

    The tea party movement seems to have no interest in the costs of two undeclared wars in which our stated goal is to change societies which are unlike ours at cost of almost $1 trillion . while we hear a lot about the second amendment to the constitution, the fourth amendment, which guarantees our most basic individual rights seems to generate little or no concerns about oppressive national government.

  • MichaelKennedy
    Every thing I have seen in the tea party movement, and I have been to rallies, is libertarian. They actually don't care that much about abortion or prayer in schools or the other big issues of social conservatives. They just want the spending to stop and government to shrink. There has been some agitation, mostly from the far left, about certain signs carried but some of those are deliberate attempts to delegitimize the tea parties by leftist agitators. Ironically, the recent video by one of the leftist blogs was mostly video of these phonies as they have been previously outed. If that is all they can find, they are in trouble.
  • LouGots
    The libertines are going to have to wake up to an understanding that there is no Marxist-style party line for them to gain control of.. The best they can to is to be part of a winning coalition of economic and social conservatives, exercising mutual deference respectiong opne another's realm of interest.

    There is a bargain to be struck. We shall give you your money, if that is what matters most to you, for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, and your will have to accept the live babies, the guns, the automobile culture and the rest of the things which matter enough to the traditionally-minded to draw us to make common cause with the econocons.

    If that price is too high for you, we understand. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. If the buyer won't meet the seller's price, the deal is off.
  • I continue to be baffled at the silence regarding the chances of violent rebellion. Does no one even contemplate that as a possibility? Or is that the 800-lb, gorilla in the room that everyone is afraid of? The rhetoric from the left seems to be taking on more and more of a race-baiting tone. The mostracial POTUS is doing nothing to abate it, and his minions seem to be encouraging it via the policies set forth.

    I do not think a violent rebellion would be racially-based at its onset, but it would certainly degenerate into that immediately. Two causes, if it occurs, would be the loss of freedoms to determine one's own future, and loss of financial means to support one's family. These are not necessarily considered to be philosophical talking points by the vast majority of Americans, but they are very much reasons to fight against.
  • Weary_G
    "What he wants is to join a political party that believes in not taking people’s money and in not telling them what to do: small govt without the bibles."

    Maybe I am misreading this, but it appears that you are saying that only social conservatives tell people what to do.

    One, many social conservatives do have strong opinions on the right and wrong way to live, but not all seek to legislate those things for others.

    Two, more importantly, by far the strongest effort to use legislation, regulation and intimidation to get people to live a certain way (Go Green! No Salt! Don't Eat Meat!) comes from the left.

    As long as we are keeping that in mind, I agree with the sentiment.
  • Seerak
    Um, the Dark and Middle Ages?

    I mean really, why do religionists always assume that their audience is as clueless about pre-1776 history as they are?

    Recent examples include: Proposition 8 (California), anything connected to non-procreative sex (abortion, contraception), and what's that little book carried around by Jeremiah Wright and that Westboro church guy?

    And that's just off the top of my head, without benefit of a quick google search.

    What those businessmen need is not a political party, but a philosophy that sanctions and defends individual rights and freedom -- of thought, communication, association and trade. You won't find that in any bible. (If you could, don't you think that someone would have found it a lot sooner than the 18th century?)
  • These confused businessmen need a philosophy that sanctions and defends individual rights and freedom? And you can't find that in the Bible?

    Seems the nation's Christian founding fathers had little trouble coming up with such a set of beliefs when they created the Constitution of the United States -- largely based upon stuff they found and learned thru their personal interaction with the Bible.

    There clearly is a large segment of the Republican party who are strong constitutionalists -- they typically identify themselves as conservatives (not to be confused with social conservatives). This large group of Constitutional conservatives have the general goal of conserving and protecting the Constitution. Seems more likely, these businessfolks have been bitten by the political bigotry of the left against all things conservative to the point that these businessfolks can't recognize historical and contemporary reality from self serving left wing propaganda.
  • When was the last time anyone with a bible used government to "tell people what to do"? Fifty years ago? 75? What was that new biblical law they passed?

    Meanwhile, your friend and everyone else's friend is turning his life and his country over to totalitarians to protect them from the bible boogie man. And the future darkens.
  • Coldstream
    "What he wants is to join a political party that believes in not taking people’s money and in not telling them what to do: small govt without the bibles. This is something I hear from business guys all the time: the whole “social liberal/fiscal conservative” thing. So far, there’s no political movement they can believe in."

    I hear that a lot too, but what I think most people are really looking for is a "socially libertarian/fiscal conservative" thing. Don't forget that "social liberals" are more than happy to tell people what to do: what to eat, what to drive, what size home to have, where your kids should go to school, how big your "carbon footprint" should be, whether you can smoke or not, etc...

    I think what these people are looking for is a less-ridiculous form of the Libertarian party. That or they need to pick one of the two major parties and steer it in a libertarian direction. The quesiton would be which party?
  • A lot of the TEA Party aligned individuals who are taking chairs in the GOP share the social libertarian/fiscal conservative views. It may take time, but we can drive out or otherwise marginalize the socially conservative from the GOP. Doing that to the Democratic party would be much more of an uphill struggle.
  • There is Class warfare going on. It's all about setting up three general Classes -- the Privileged (politicians, unions (esp public), attorneys, greens and a few assorted others), the Collectors (those in the private sector with incomes over 250k), and the Serfs (the rest of the private sector).

    The Privileged live the life of Riley with a separate set of rules to power, money and benefits from the other Classes.

    The Privileged derive their money by taxing the success of the Collectors in the private sector. By design, the Collectors are a significant minority and easily propped up as a target of envy to the Serfs . The Collectors job is to collect the life energy of the Serfs in the private sector and pass that life energy on to the Privileged.

    The Serfs are the average working class Bubbas struggling along in the private sector. Their life energy is collected by the Collectors when the Serfs need to buy something in the private sector. The collected energy of the Serfs is then passed on to the Privileged to support the Privileged lifestyle, power and robust benefits. A smidgen of the Serfs life energy is then passed on back to the Serfs in the form of handouts of one sort or another to buy votes to maintain the Privileged lofty status and lifestyle.

    It's a very neat and tidy system that has the makings of a very stable system if one just counts votes. Only problem is it doesn't work so well when counting money....

    Currently, the Privileged's solution to unbalanced budgeting is simple -- when money runs out to support the smidgen of life energy the Privileged return to the Serfs to buy votes, the Privileged just print out some money, backed by IOUs to be paid from the life energy of future Serfs generations, to be collected by the Collectors and passed on to the Privileged ... What could go wrong?
blog comments powered by Disqus
- September 3, 2010 -

MORE LEDGER

ELSEWHERE ON TNL

DAILY READS

MARKETS & POLICY

The WHIP

HEGEMON

CHEQUER BOARD