Count me as someone who always reads your thoughts with interest and respect, if not always agreement. While your point rings true - that middle-class professionals have tended to shift to the left in recent years - there are a few particulars, as a longtime New Yorker, I must take issue with.
"Bourgeoise" is one of those ill-defined words with multiple meanings. Your reference to Marx only adds to the confusion. When Karl Marx spoke of the "bourgeoise," he didn't mean middle-class professionals. He was talking about the capitalist class, the owners of the means of production, the superrich, the captains of industry and finance - which he certainly pegged as conservative. In Marx's day, owing to the continued power of a European landed aristocracy, the capitalists were the middle class, not yet politically triumphant over aristocrats that held sway with monarchies all over Europe. That bourgeoisie, in Marx's sense, is still deeply conservative and living in Manhattan, mostly on the Upper East Side. Bill Ackman, Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, and billionaires like them are definitely not liberals, and many have Manhattan residences. "Bourgeoisie" in common parlance means middle class, but what that word describes in class terms has shifted immensely over time.
When you speak of "Brooklynization," I've gotta wonder what the heck you're talking about. I live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, a neighborhood politically split down the middle. Other neighborhoods in Brooklyn - Borough Park, Midwood, Gravesend, Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Marine Park, Mill Basin - voted for Trump in lopsided majorities. This idea that Brooklyn is some liberal stronghold is deeply misleading. Brooklyn is, like most places in our country, divided politically and culturally. If you're taking the attitudes of a few professionals in Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope as speaking for all of Brooklyn, that's also misleading.
Hanging onto the phrase "Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie" just because it's cute and alliterative isn't enough to keep it. You're using two central terms with enough inaccuracy and ambiguity that - from where I sit - it serves your valid thesis better if you find some other snappy phrase that doesn't mislead.
I feel ya, man, I'm another New Yawka whose world was rearranged by the invasion of suburban postcollegiates coming to perform their self-actualization and turning NYC into a giant glass condo of the soul (I still blame Carrie and Miranda), but "Brooklyn" is now a synecdoche for the richer, snootier, hipper realms of BK Heights, WBurg, Bushwick, Cobble Hill etc, where our progressive aristocracy crafts the daily dogma for NYT, NPR and NYU while teaching their NB children about the sanctity of Diversity and the Bad Orange Man who's rampaging through the countryside.
This is what "Brooklyn" calls to mind to the rest of the country, like it might have done with the Dodgers in the 50s or Vinnie Barbarino/Tony Manero in the 70s.
I love Bay Ridge and have had some great dinners there, but it's cultural relevance is minimal, at best.
The Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie will make much sense to just about everyone I know, NYers or otherwise, because we all know the modern Brooklyn type, usually someone from a nice suburb who went to a good college, who works in media, culture or some other wing of the progressive hivemind, and who is constantly panicking about their newsfeeds and getting upset if you don't do the same.
We're not talking about the literal, tangible Brooklyn, but its symbolic life, which is now the home of our haute bourgeoisie, who preach like Eldridge Cleaver but live like Beaver Cleaver.
Thank you. I am a New Yorker, and we all know too well who Park Slopers are. I thought Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie was a smart and sharp term, which truth reflects the current state of affairs. Love it.
Wonderful takedown -- but with one caveat: Beaver Cleaver didn't grow up in a brownstone. These folks (unlike the Cleavers of yore) have all dutifully read their Jane Jacobs and proudly do the poodle-walk on their way to the food co-op. ;-)
The Eldridge Cleaver/Beaver Cleaver pairing was too delicious to resist. Despite their differences in place, time and housing, the Brownstoners still all live like dutiful squares and always make sure their NB children are on the path to a good college and career, that their food scraps are composted, and that they tithe to all the good causes (NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc.).
Times change, but bourgeois conformity is forever.
Thanks! You've inspired me to hop in the car(!) and head 20 minutes down the freeway to the Texas Roadhouse for some prime rib. (It's worth noting that most of the people who dine there are working-class "People of Color.") ;-)
Should I change my handle to "Banned in Berkeley"?
Perhaps it's not just-- but it's not just alliteration.
In common parlance -- like it or not -- "Brooklyn" has become a synecdoche for Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Williamsburg, Bushwick, Wicker Park, Ann Arbor, Noe Valley, Santa Monica, much of Boston and parts of Oakland (among other places).
Sorry, but that train left the station long ago -- and Yascha didn't lay the track.
I understand the frustration.
FWIW, I've fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing "Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. So now I'm accused of "assimilationism," when in reality, I simply refuse to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called "Queer."
Not only that... I spent the first five years of my life (1949-54) in Bay Ridge.
As per your typo (too late to fix it now!), I guess you could say that our feelings have been "Bensonhurt." Capeesh? ;-)
PS: I see that you've now gone back and fixed the typo -- but for the record, your comment (as originally posted) said "Bensonhurt."
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
It is the global urban monoculture - stylish progressivism. Most professional class - lawyers, journalists, creatives, media - more or less converges on liberalism with a bit of style and indulgence thrown in.
Aside from the fact it is an incoherent, idioitic ideology to begin with, its proponents come across as intolerably vain to the majority of the population.
When people from outside NYC say Brooklyn they mean north Brooklyn. North Brooklyn is where the rich progressive folks flock to from other parts of the country. South Brooklyn is where normal people live.
The pluralistic west is rending down the seam of shared values. Simply put, we are irreconcilably broken because we no longer share values that serve as the motor for democracy.
We can’t agree on our biggest problems to confront: is it climate? AI? The border? Wealth inequality? The erasure of western civilization by Islam? Is woke good and necessary - or is it reverse racist and misandrist and tyrannical?
Who do we point our resources toward? Policies, taxes, institutions. Do we continue raising up women, or is the young man crisis more critical? Immigrants? Minorities? Do we let markets lead, or is wealth inequality so dire that wealth seizure is required?
When we outgrew Christianity as a shared moral framework (at least the super educated Left did), we lost our ability to make decisions from a common code. That was catastrophic for a melting pot, multi-cultural society that depends on a creed and ethos for unity vs racial unity.
We can’t and won’t agree on these fundamental questions. I don’t see us having rational conversations about them - as the social identity issues have become existential threats (nice job social justice warriors).
History suggests war. Which is just “politics by other means”. The victor sets the rules. And the civilizational clock resets from there. Unpopular view - but honest and historically true.
It wasn't Christianity. It was classical liberalism as our "civic religion" -- whereby the State exists to secure each individual's right to live and let live -- in a pluralistic society where we find meaning and community, not in the political realm, but through free association in civil society.
As for the breakdown? As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," our oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank. Or as I lament to my cat: "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore."
It's been a great ride, but now we're running on fumes.
As for the evolving future? The notion of "man taking control of his own destiny" has always been hubris (and the watchword of tyrants). God (IMHO, the God of Spinoza and Einstein) will sort it out.
Mitchell - very good response. Thank you. “This time, it feels different”. IMHO, our modern moment is a perfect storm of three conflating forces:
1) Geopolitical: China’s rise is reorienting the world
2) Warming: thawing poles stimulate new exploration and seizure
3) AI : replacing humans as the apex species
These all intertwine together too. No moment in history bears resemblance to this. No templates. No how-to manual. Thank God we have such good leadership looking out for the good of mankind through it all.
So it seems like Yascha is basically saying that the well-educated are not being inclusive enough of the opinions of the poorly educated. But he is short on specifics. Which views of the poorly educated should the well-educated adopt? Should our medical groups include people with the view that COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous than COVID-19? Should social scientists adopt the "populist" idea that that imnmigrants are rapists and murderers and we should deport every single last person who isn't here legally? Should we adopt the idea from many populists that trans people should not be allowed to be trans? Should we adopt the view that black people are not succeeding in America because of their own actions, not the actions of white people? Should we prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term concerns about global warming?
I think the well-educated have largely come together on a lot of these issues because they eventually reasoned their way to the best ideas. This is why they believe, for example, that we need comprehensive immigration reform. They understand that it is a very complex issue with multiple areas of concern. Populists hear "comprehensive immigration reform," and they roll their eyes. They think the only solution is to deport ALL of them NOW. And they are in no mood to debate the subject.
The elite believe that racism is fundamental right. The American people disagree. The elite don't believe in borders. The American people disagree. The elite believe that men are women if they say so. The American people disagree.
The bottom line is easy. The elite are 'woke' and the American people are not 'woke'.
"The elite believe that racism is fundamental right."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. But the elite believe that racism arises out of ignorance of the human condition, and if peple were better educated about these issues they wouldn't be so racist.
Tell me, who among the elite is calling for the abolition of borders? Give me names.
The elite acknowledge the reality that there are people who do not conform neatly to the gender binary or traditional ideas about sexual orientation. And they think that's okay because they believe in the principle of individual liberty.
By "woke", I think you mean well-educated. And you're right. The American people are, by and large, poorly educated.
Matt, the identitarian basis of the social justice cause that seems to massively motivate the educated classes is explicitly racist and tribal.
The Democratic party up until the late days of the Biden administration was enacting an immigration policy that essentially meant that borders were not an impediment to the movement of people. That was until recently the explicit policy of the EU and one of the prime reasons for Brexit.
The elites, see Biden administration for examples, do not ONLY believe in the rights of transgender individuals to respect, they insist that a person has the right to demand of their fellows that their own idiosyncratic perception of their gender should be universally indulged: biological men competeing against women in strength and speed based sports.
Your "nothing to see here" stance simply is not based in recent reality.
"the identitarian basis of the social justice cause that seems to massively motivate the educated classes is explicitly racist and tribal."
I see the social justice movement as arising out of a sense of empathy for how unfair life has been for certain groups of people simply because of their racial or ethnic IDENTITY, and a desire to right those wrongs. We on the left care for groups that have been systematically denied rights and opportunities. And people like you dismiss that as "identity politics". I think you are turning a blind eye to profound and ignorant injustices.
Obama deported 3 million people.
And we believe that trans people have the same rights as every other human being to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
You see the admirable intent and the self-affirming presentation without looking through the claims to the effects of its application or the extreme demands placed on those of us not deemed to be victims. Those demands are way, way beyond those necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The founders were well aware that those rights engendered conflict at the boundaries of persons and organisations. That's why they designed a tripartite government to (almost) ensure that no particular group's rights pre-empted others'. The left has forgotten that basic principle in favour of almost untrammelled privilege for those deemed victims in the social justice perceptual universe.
"You see the admirable intent and the self-affirming presentation without looking through the claims to the effects of its application or the extreme demands placed on those of us not deemed to be victims."
You mean the demand that we privileged folks recognize the injustice?
How has the left abandoned the principle of separate but equal branches of government?
What we favor is recognition of the fact that being white has been a material privilege in the United States of America. And being black, or brown, or Native American has been a disadvantage. We favor that because it is the truth. And it is good to know and acknowledge the truth.
It's one thing to say that trans people have the same rights as every other human being to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It's quite another to claim that "trans women are women," and to demand that others redefine "woman" (for themselves and all others) to align with that contention.
Trans women are trans women. Period (though they'll never have one). "Gender identity" does not obviate biological sex.
FWIW, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there’s nothing “Queer” about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. But I never signed up to “smash cisheteropatriarchy” in the name of some Brave New World. This isn’t about “assimilation”; it's about being myself -- refusing to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called “Queer.”
But you still refuse to acknowledge what I (and many of those affected) recognize (and experience!) as condescension by the apparatchiks of the cockroach left, posing as referees in the Oppression Olympics as they run their protection racket.
The elites understand that gender identity is different from biological sex. As a straight man, I've been happy to see that LGBTQ people are, or were, becoming more accepted in society. It warmed my heart that people were opening up to the fact that some people are just different. I was thrilled when gay marriage became the law of the land.
And this idea that anyone wants to "smash cisheteropatriarchy"? The left-wing establishment does not hold that view. You will not hear any Democrats preaching that on the stump in front of their left-wing audience because that left-wing audience would look at them like they were on crazy pills.
The left is not as crazy as your social media people are telling you.
Empathy is best understood as an individual attribute shared among other individuals.
"A sense of empathy for how unfair life has been for certain groups of people" is best understood as condescension by the apparatchiks of the cockroach left, posing as referees in the Oppression Olympics as they run their protection racket.
You are confused about how we on the left feel. The median black family has 1/10 the wealth of the median white family. And laws that white people wrote and passed are the main reason for that. If those facts leave you cold, there is something wrong with you. That something is a lack of empathy for people who have been mistreated.
Cockroach left? You sound balanced and objective. Wow.
The issue isn't that the well educated are wrong more often than the populists. I agree they are more often right. But they won't even tolerate a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed.
On COVID, yes, vaccines were good. But why was Sweden pilloried for taking an alternative approach? Why were schools closed for so long, even as evidence emerged that this was not making a difference and even after vaccines were available to the most vulnerable? Because there was only one “valid” answer -- save lives from this disease at any cost.
Calling policy preferences “racist” is similar. It's a move designed to say there can be no discussion. I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong, because “racism” is totally intolerable. So what evidence or concerns could ever be articulated by conservatives to defend any restrictions on immigration?
I am pretty liberal on immigration. I like it, think it's good for lots of reasons. But I don't want to tell people who disagree with me that there's something morally deficient about them for doing so. What makes me so sure? What gives me the right to make such an insulting claim?
Elites (like me) are often right. But we can be wrong. We are not gods. So we should be more willing to hear out others and not condemn them for refusing to agree with our imperfect views.
Why? Why do we need to _condemn_ them rather than just point out that their ideas are wrong? What is the additional value in adding a moral admonition, and the additional value of targeting the person rather than the idea?
A lot of people think they are being personally condemned when their bad ideas are pointed out. What are we supposed to do about that? Be politically correct and tell them that their bad ideas are just "different ideas," and that it's okay to hold on to them if it makes them feel better?
"But they won't even tolerate a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed."
That is what happens in college classrooms all across the country every single day. Guess what? A lot of the people on the populist right get angry when their bad ideas are exposed. When they find out that systemic racism is a real phenomenon, they think the professors are trying to teach them "woke garbage".
There were a lot of arguments happening about when schools should open. That's how it's supposed to work. There was no one right answer.
It’s fine if they get angry. I’m not worried about their emotional response. That’s on them. But, to take your point about college classrooms, when a student says something right-leaning in class, and the other students audibly groan or whistle, which has happened in my class, that is not “a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed.” There is no thinking there at all, just condemning.
As a liberal, I think that in a fair argument, my side would win on 80% of issues. Rough guess. But I don’t think most liberals want to have a fair argument. In grad school I had a conservative friend. We’d debate various topics. He was very good at refuting specific sub-points of liberal doctrine, but he often didn’t have any substantive alternative. For example, yes, government programs for the poor have all of these problems. So I would concede each one, and then say “ok, so nothing? We don’t give people who are starving any money? Just let them starve?” And he’d say “well, charity will pick up the slack.” And I’d say “Ok, great. But if it doesn’t? Hold out, let them starve, you know, to prove to the charities that they need to get it into gear??” And of course then he’d say “no, of course, we need _some_ safety net.” So like, what are we disagreeing about??
But pretty much every other student didn’t even want to talk to him about political issues. They avoid the topic, or roll their eyes, or get frustrated.
The elite believe that racism is fundamental right. Note the widespread opposition to the SFFA decision. 'Colorblind' is routinely denounced by the elite. Cackles was picked because she checked that right boxes (black and female). Of course, Cackles was/is completely incompetent. How many delegates did she get back in 2019 from Democrats? Zero. Did I mention that she flunked the bar exam? She was good working on her back (some claim her knees got the workout).
You want names of people who don't believe in borders. How about senile Joe Biden and Cackles? Only 10-20 million illegals invaded the US while they were in charge. The US was de-facto borderless under senile Joe Biden and Cackles.
Cheating (at sports) was a basic human right under Senile Joe. No less that Seth Moulton (D-MA) stated 'I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that'. For that heresy he was called a 'Nazi cooperator' by Liz Bradt (a leading Salem Democrat).
The 'woke' believe that race has no biological basis. Scientists (you may have heard of them) can determine race from genes with 99.86% accuracy. So much for the virtues of 'education'.
The elites have seeded the deepest level of racism in history after 3 years of anti-Israel hatred. They’ve indoctrinated an entire generation to hate the Jewish state. If a fraction of the things I hear about Jews was said to a black community there’d be mass outrage, but for this they not only look away but have normalized it to the point they feel comfortable protesting publicly and writing daily slurs on every social media platform. Its difficult to take these moral authorities seriously when they selectively apply it. Like Iran now. They have zero concern for Iranians slaughtered, while Gaza was talked about morning, noon and night. These folks are not what they perceive themselves to be, and that disconnect is why more and more people are leaving.
As some genuine pushback, I think some populist claims were largely correct:
1. Admitting China to the WTO and selling out the industrial base was the biggest own-goal in recent American history. This was pushed by elite economic opinion in the 1990s.
2. trans policy was captured by an ideologically-driven elite that was not based on any kind of credible science. This was proven correct by the Alabama fact finding case
3. DEI hiring is detrimental to the very idea of meritocratic systems because, while motivated by idealistic values, it always leaves a seed of doubt over the candidate’s quality. See the FAA 2013 debacle under Obama.
4. Covid was a gigantic exercise in hypocrisy. See Newsome having a dinner party while the state was on lockdown. See scientists justifying BLM protests outside but condemning a similar biker outside gathering. See the praise for Europe while ignoring that European schools reopened in fall 2020. See the now widely published stories over how elite scientists coordinated with journalists to shut down any discussion over Covid origins in the early days of 2020. See plenty of Dem leadership labeling Trump as racist for shutting down the border from China.
5 the border — Biden did absolutely nothing on this until it was too late. Trump solved this issue in a year. You’re correct to highlight there’s nuance but the actual matter of shutting the border down was easy. Dems didn’t care until Abbott and DeSantis flew immigrants to Dem enclaves. That was what spurred action.
The elite certainly were in large agreement about the scale of immigration they wanted, and how to speak about immigration (mostly without mentioning cultural tradeoffs or job competition), converging somewhere around it being an unquestionable economic good.
The majority view is more conservative than that, though still plenty welcoming (if placed in a historical context). As a rebuke to this more conservative impulse, the public is routinely chided with the typical finger-wagging and implication of "racism" in mass media, with very little thoughtful discussion until quite recently.
Another smaller example that is NOT emblematic of elite attitudes through, but which definitely has parallels that scale, for which you can find examples repeated throughout the country in every state: California administrators circumventing parents (and for most people, common sense) in allowing schools to hide a students trans gender identity from parents. Advocated by the interest groups and politicians and protected by the AG.
It's those policies, where common sense and majority opinion are on one side and elite opinion on the other, that elite "luxury belief" often beats common sense in setting actual policy or position, which stick in people's mind as exemplary. "But this was overturned eventually". Some policies should never have gotten beyond a mere suggestion.
I think you’ve made the point the article attempts to expose. Liberals look down with disdain on most Americans, conform themselves morally and intellectually superior. There’s only “your science”, “your culture”, your values and opinions. Anything less - is well - lesser. The college educated elites are now the least tolerant of diversity in thought while forcing racial diversity even if illegal (hiring, entrance criteria, etc).
I would like to hear the chain of reasoning that educated people used to arrived at the best ideas, since whenever I question the notion of "black people are not succeeding in America because of white people", or bring statistics to the issue of immigration and crime, I never get a good answer and am often blocked or somehow silenced.
There are people who try to answer those questions empirically and lose their positions for it
I think the analysis fails to recognize the fact that the United States is the facto a plutocracy. The ones who dictate the real legislative agenda are the Corporations, through their obscene level of funding politicians from the whole ideological spectrum.
Thus, the alleged progressive bias of Congress does not reflect in actual progressive legislation. Take, for example, gun controls, or anti-monopolies measures.
Neither the left nor the MAGA movement will ever see their aspirations realized as long politics live under the Citizens United rule.
Dear Yascha, we understand that you have not been brought-up in the US, but do check basic facts, "The origins of [] Democratic Party in the United States lie with factory workers and trade unionists." There may have been an 80 year long affair with labor during their 200 year history, and it's been winding down for over 30 years, all gone now.
When reading Marx, you have to put the terminology in the historical context, in those specific environments. Bourgeoisie originally referenced the burgher, a legit city dweller, unlike an aristocrat with significant land titles or a peasant working those lands. Cities also have the destitute and the criminal underclass, eventually forming lumpenproletariat.
Larger countries, particularly in their imperial phase, have employed an ever growing staff of bureaucrats of every rank, going back at least three thousand years. Those typically overlap with intelligentsia of educated and licensed professionals. The two are not identical, though both serve the ruling class. They have always been viewed with disdain by Marxist Leninist ideologists, and not even allotted a class of their own. At times dubbed "petty-bourgeois", under Stalin and Mao they have been exterminated or 'reeducated' in labor camps, typically 10-20 years after the revolution.
However, intelligentsia and bureaucrats are not the moneyed upper class AKA independently wealthy. Certainly not gentry, not even rentier, they are overpriced hired help. A brain surgeon in Manhattan, pulling down half-a-million a year, get paid nothing without showing-up for work. This ticks you off terribly, as you view yourself to be truly deserving, and clutch to the ideologies that get you killed in the end, but tactically seem like a strong weapon. There are always frictions or even struggles at the borders of socio-economic strata, and many perceived paradoxes fall away when one looks in detail at actual persistent economic structures.
One thing is certain, you cannot have a revolution comprised of students and city underclass, and in direct opposition to just about all the workers and farmers, who also happen to hold just about all the firearms in private possession in the US. Most unfortunately, this will not become self-evident till a social and an economic collapse leaves cities without food and water.
The educated appear not educated enough about actual historical events and economic realities, yet you point out those are just a click away. The ideas have been toyed with before, programs instituted. Tens of millions perished and their descendants rejected them. They flock to this country for what it is, and the best outcome for the deluded or the insincere here, those who demand to bring it down, is to fail utterly.
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
This is such a strange article as it is based on the assumption that there was a time when elected officials in the USA better represented the majority of people! When in the world was that time? Name a decade in which elected officials were listening to women? to minorities? to the poor? that is, to "the majority of people"?
Here's one of many strange examples: Mounk writes about earlier days when elite universities had more diversity! Re "all the schools at the top range of prestige have over the past decades come to resemble each other to a remarkable degree." When did they not all resemble each other? In what decade was Yale different from Princeton in what it taught its elite students they should o do with their lives?
Maybe I'm wrong--so some examples of those historical better times of elected representatives and of diverse elite universities would be welcomed, from Mr. Mounk, of course, but from anyone else as well. Thanks.
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
On the individual and societal level, what we have lost - or what is not being developed - is the capacity to tolerate discomfort. The unease when someone has a different opinion, the challenge of expressing a different point of view in a regulated coherent manner without resorting to personal attacks. We each turn into our little corners of the internet to stay with those who agree with us.
Harvard has no credibility. See below. I wrote the following some time ago.
“Pinker mentions this. I will elaborate. For better or worse (certainly worse), Harvard is a bastion of intolerant, religious, anti-truth thinking these days. Consider two propositions, “sex is a spectrum” and “race has no biological basis”. Neither statement is evenly remotely true. However, 99% of Harvard students and faculty would affirm the “truth” of these statements, at least publicly. Like it or not, universities have become deeply irrational. It is somewhat unclear if the race nonsense or the sex nonsense is more deeply held. This academic insanity is somewhat new (perhaps not, see below). From “Sex is a Spectrum” (https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/08/07/sex-is-a-spectrum/) a comment by Spencer “Lol. I introduce students every semester to various non-overlapping or barley overlapping graphs by sex. Every year their jaws drop further. Twenty years ago barely an eyebrow was raised.” The converse point is that Harvard and other universities were deeply religious and intolerant even years ago. The famous book “The Blank Slate” was written in 2003. The Summers affair (at Harvard) is from 2006. The Pinker/Spleke debate is from 2005. It was clear then (and still is) that Spelke was/is a liar. Was she ever punished for lying? Of course, not. Of course, these problems are by no means limited to Harvard. Over at Yale, a talk was given on 'The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind'. The speaker (Dr. Aruna Khilanani) explicitly fantasized about killing innocent white people and then was offended because Yale would not give her the recording. The following is from her speech. “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)” These issues are by no means limited to elite universities. At University of Southern Maine, an instructor (Christy Hammer) dared to say that there are two sexes All but one student (21 of 22) walked out in protest. The one student later caved to the fanatics. Of course, Hammer was entirely correct.”
Reading recommendation: "God and Man at Yale", by William F. Buckley, Jr.
Written in 1951, and the Ivies were already hurtling towards intolerant quasi-religion, and away from anything resembling the spirit of academic inquiry, even then.
I think you're operating under a flawed assumption: that the well-educated are immune to error and bias. For example in physics, one of the hardest (as in solid) sciences, there was immense push back against new ideas like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. It required a priori the existence of 2 differing views and immense friction between adherents of the 2. In addition, the opposing view needs the opportunity to grow in favor through intellectual freedom.
You missed the part in the article where views differing from the current hegemony are heavily quenched by sources differing from intellectual honesty and freedom. There are political (small p politics) pressures that hinder any counter opinion. One example is that it is very risky for journals and individual scientist's careers to publish papers counter to the prevailing narrative. Scientists/researchers can be surprisingly clique-ish and immature after all.
I'm afraid I replied to the author by accident lol. Anyway...
I wouldn't characterize the peer review process as wholly or even mostly corrupted; most of the scientific discourse is pretty clean, although of course there are some individual bad apples sprinkled about. And by bad apples, I mean those who aren't as rigorous as they should be when pursuing truth (you can chalk it up to failed pedagogy, which seems to be a growing problem). Perhaps this fraction of sloppy research is growing over time, but who can say.
I can't say the same about the humanities or the soft sciences though. You're description fits them pretty well. Hard sciences like Physics, Chemistry, etc are exposed to corrective signals that make it difficult to maintain incorrect theories. The exception is pure theory research which is closer to mathematical conjecture, since it's currently impossible to test them with current tech. Meanwhile humanities and psychology are insulated from corrective signals both internally and externally.
With regards to big P Politics, I define it as government discourse. Think Democrats vs Republicans in the US and their partisan disagreements / bipartisan agreements. I define little p politics on the scales of individuals, and their machiavellian actions for either power, wealth, prestige, ego, etc.
"New York’s wealthy used to live on the Upper East Side, to pride themselves on their old family ties, to value markers of high culture like the opera, and to vote conservative; today, they live in Brooklyn"
They still very much live on the Upper East Side. Much of Brooklyn is now *also* affluent. In a way it is a throwback to 1890.
The problem I have with these discussions is there is no mention of quality. Smart people should be able to teach a range of viewpoints, if you are teaching introductory courses at universities pluralism and being able to explain different viewpoints is essential. To do this well you need to have read widely and continue to read widely; the answer to narrowminded colleagues is not to employ other narrowminded colleagues that hold the opposite views. Traditional disciplines should employ the best qualified scholars who have demonstrated a deep commitment to understanding the knowledge of their discipline; university centers might have other criteria for employment, but this should be made very transparent and not forced upon universities with threats of taking away their funding. I have written in more detail on this topic here: https://www.ussc.edu.au/do-we-need-an-affirmative-action-program-for-conservative-academics
Convergent evolution and “copy and emulate each other” are two different things. Convergent evolution happens when two species facing the same problem independently evolve the same solution. Human institutions often do this too, responding in similar ways while being unaware of each other. But they can also consciously copy and emulate each other. These have different implications, so you should clarify what you’re arguing.
Borrowing from evolutionary biology, a better term than convergent evolution may be mimicry evolution. The assumption in using the term mimicry evolution is that there are societal benefits for an organization to appear similar to a successful organization while remaining in some ways different than the successful organization - similar phenotypes from different genotypes. If in fact two organizations look similar because of a process like mimicry evolution, then those two organizations will react differently to changes in social selective pressures because internally they are not as similar as they look.
Regarding diversity in universities, it seems that excessive wokeness leads to a reduction of this. Wokeness leads to observing oneself and observing others. This is the same mechanism as in totalitarian states where people are forced to observe themself because they are being observed by the secret police. Probably not the environment to develop some fresh thinking.
I disagree. I think the realm of thought is broader, but not better!, than in the past. I lived thru the 70s-90s and the ideas now are much wilder, but certainly more detached from reality. Folks have lost the moorings of the past that kept us from the "bizarre".
Tl:dr; the left made this bed and they dont like sleeping in it, and they cant talk talk talk their way out of it anymore.
But hey we get to see who actually gives a shit about pronouns and who doesnt, and the results are somewhat suprising.
Idk, ive been thinking a lot about now vs 3 or 4 years ago and whats different. And how tf we actually got here lol. And then i read something like this and its right there! The way you think about yourself and other people, and the assumptions you make! No wonder the reaction to that is fucking trump.
Ah well, this is certainly a damned if you go left, damned if you go right kinda place for us undereducated underachieving simple folk that arent morons or greedy pretentious assholes.
Count me as someone who always reads your thoughts with interest and respect, if not always agreement. While your point rings true - that middle-class professionals have tended to shift to the left in recent years - there are a few particulars, as a longtime New Yorker, I must take issue with.
"Bourgeoise" is one of those ill-defined words with multiple meanings. Your reference to Marx only adds to the confusion. When Karl Marx spoke of the "bourgeoise," he didn't mean middle-class professionals. He was talking about the capitalist class, the owners of the means of production, the superrich, the captains of industry and finance - which he certainly pegged as conservative. In Marx's day, owing to the continued power of a European landed aristocracy, the capitalists were the middle class, not yet politically triumphant over aristocrats that held sway with monarchies all over Europe. That bourgeoisie, in Marx's sense, is still deeply conservative and living in Manhattan, mostly on the Upper East Side. Bill Ackman, Peter Thiel, Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, and billionaires like them are definitely not liberals, and many have Manhattan residences. "Bourgeoisie" in common parlance means middle class, but what that word describes in class terms has shifted immensely over time.
When you speak of "Brooklynization," I've gotta wonder what the heck you're talking about. I live in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, a neighborhood politically split down the middle. Other neighborhoods in Brooklyn - Borough Park, Midwood, Gravesend, Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Marine Park, Mill Basin - voted for Trump in lopsided majorities. This idea that Brooklyn is some liberal stronghold is deeply misleading. Brooklyn is, like most places in our country, divided politically and culturally. If you're taking the attitudes of a few professionals in Brooklyn Heights and Park Slope as speaking for all of Brooklyn, that's also misleading.
Hanging onto the phrase "Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie" just because it's cute and alliterative isn't enough to keep it. You're using two central terms with enough inaccuracy and ambiguity that - from where I sit - it serves your valid thesis better if you find some other snappy phrase that doesn't mislead.
I feel ya, man, I'm another New Yawka whose world was rearranged by the invasion of suburban postcollegiates coming to perform their self-actualization and turning NYC into a giant glass condo of the soul (I still blame Carrie and Miranda), but "Brooklyn" is now a synecdoche for the richer, snootier, hipper realms of BK Heights, WBurg, Bushwick, Cobble Hill etc, where our progressive aristocracy crafts the daily dogma for NYT, NPR and NYU while teaching their NB children about the sanctity of Diversity and the Bad Orange Man who's rampaging through the countryside.
This is what "Brooklyn" calls to mind to the rest of the country, like it might have done with the Dodgers in the 50s or Vinnie Barbarino/Tony Manero in the 70s.
I love Bay Ridge and have had some great dinners there, but it's cultural relevance is minimal, at best.
The Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie will make much sense to just about everyone I know, NYers or otherwise, because we all know the modern Brooklyn type, usually someone from a nice suburb who went to a good college, who works in media, culture or some other wing of the progressive hivemind, and who is constantly panicking about their newsfeeds and getting upset if you don't do the same.
We're not talking about the literal, tangible Brooklyn, but its symbolic life, which is now the home of our haute bourgeoisie, who preach like Eldridge Cleaver but live like Beaver Cleaver.
Cheers
Thank you. I am a New Yorker, and we all know too well who Park Slopers are. I thought Brooklynization of the Bourgeoisie was a smart and sharp term, which truth reflects the current state of affairs. Love it.
Wonderful takedown -- but with one caveat: Beaver Cleaver didn't grow up in a brownstone. These folks (unlike the Cleavers of yore) have all dutifully read their Jane Jacobs and proudly do the poodle-walk on their way to the food co-op. ;-)
Thanks!
The Eldridge Cleaver/Beaver Cleaver pairing was too delicious to resist. Despite their differences in place, time and housing, the Brownstoners still all live like dutiful squares and always make sure their NB children are on the path to a good college and career, that their food scraps are composted, and that they tithe to all the good causes (NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc.).
Times change, but bourgeois conformity is forever.
Cheers
Thanks! You've inspired me to hop in the car(!) and head 20 minutes down the freeway to the Texas Roadhouse for some prime rib. (It's worth noting that most of the people who dine there are working-class "People of Color.") ;-)
Should I change my handle to "Banned in Berkeley"?
Berkeley still allows meat eating! ;)
Good to know!
Don't forget to say grace, i mean a land acknowledgment, of course...
Enjoy
I live in Oakland, and the Texas Roadhouse is in Union City -- so to get there, I head AWAY from Berkeley (LOL)!
My only problem is that they make all the waiters and waitresses wear T-shirts that say, "I love my job"! UGH!
Perhaps it's not just-- but it's not just alliteration.
In common parlance -- like it or not -- "Brooklyn" has become a synecdoche for Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Williamsburg, Bushwick, Wicker Park, Ann Arbor, Noe Valley, Santa Monica, much of Boston and parts of Oakland (among other places).
Sorry, but that train left the station long ago -- and Yascha didn't lay the track.
I understand the frustration.
FWIW, I've fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing "Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. So now I'm accused of "assimilationism," when in reality, I simply refuse to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called "Queer."
Not only that... I spent the first five years of my life (1949-54) in Bay Ridge.
As per your typo (too late to fix it now!), I guess you could say that our feelings have been "Bensonhurt." Capeesh? ;-)
PS: I see that you've now gone back and fixed the typo -- but for the record, your comment (as originally posted) said "Bensonhurt."
This piece is just reactionary centrist nonsense. I can't believe anybody takes this guy seriously.
I think you're making his point without realising it.
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
Censorship of Free Speech and Muslim Immigration
The 2 gravest threats to humanity
Bruce Cain Mar 11, 2026
https://brucecain.substack.com/p/censorship-of-free-speech-and-muslim
They support many of the same and some different globalist policies.
The Democrats are not functionally “worse” but different.
It is the global urban monoculture - stylish progressivism. Most professional class - lawyers, journalists, creatives, media - more or less converges on liberalism with a bit of style and indulgence thrown in.
Aside from the fact it is an incoherent, idioitic ideology to begin with, its proponents come across as intolerably vain to the majority of the population.
When people from outside NYC say Brooklyn they mean north Brooklyn. North Brooklyn is where the rich progressive folks flock to from other parts of the country. South Brooklyn is where normal people live.
Superb analysis.
The pluralistic west is rending down the seam of shared values. Simply put, we are irreconcilably broken because we no longer share values that serve as the motor for democracy.
We can’t agree on our biggest problems to confront: is it climate? AI? The border? Wealth inequality? The erasure of western civilization by Islam? Is woke good and necessary - or is it reverse racist and misandrist and tyrannical?
Who do we point our resources toward? Policies, taxes, institutions. Do we continue raising up women, or is the young man crisis more critical? Immigrants? Minorities? Do we let markets lead, or is wealth inequality so dire that wealth seizure is required?
When we outgrew Christianity as a shared moral framework (at least the super educated Left did), we lost our ability to make decisions from a common code. That was catastrophic for a melting pot, multi-cultural society that depends on a creed and ethos for unity vs racial unity.
We can’t and won’t agree on these fundamental questions. I don’t see us having rational conversations about them - as the social identity issues have become existential threats (nice job social justice warriors).
History suggests war. Which is just “politics by other means”. The victor sets the rules. And the civilizational clock resets from there. Unpopular view - but honest and historically true.
It wasn't Christianity. It was classical liberalism as our "civic religion" -- whereby the State exists to secure each individual's right to live and let live -- in a pluralistic society where we find meaning and community, not in the political realm, but through free association in civil society.
As for the breakdown? As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," our oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank. Or as I lament to my cat: "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore."
It's been a great ride, but now we're running on fumes.
As for the evolving future? The notion of "man taking control of his own destiny" has always been hubris (and the watchword of tyrants). God (IMHO, the God of Spinoza and Einstein) will sort it out.
Mitchell - very good response. Thank you. “This time, it feels different”. IMHO, our modern moment is a perfect storm of three conflating forces:
1) Geopolitical: China’s rise is reorienting the world
2) Warming: thawing poles stimulate new exploration and seizure
3) AI : replacing humans as the apex species
These all intertwine together too. No moment in history bears resemblance to this. No templates. No how-to manual. Thank God we have such good leadership looking out for the good of mankind through it all.
😳
The apex creature (or evolutiionary agent) could also turn out to be a virus.
Recommended reading: Norbert Wiener, Giambattista Vico, Ibn Khaldun. :-)
So it seems like Yascha is basically saying that the well-educated are not being inclusive enough of the opinions of the poorly educated. But he is short on specifics. Which views of the poorly educated should the well-educated adopt? Should our medical groups include people with the view that COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous than COVID-19? Should social scientists adopt the "populist" idea that that imnmigrants are rapists and murderers and we should deport every single last person who isn't here legally? Should we adopt the idea from many populists that trans people should not be allowed to be trans? Should we adopt the view that black people are not succeeding in America because of their own actions, not the actions of white people? Should we prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term concerns about global warming?
I think the well-educated have largely come together on a lot of these issues because they eventually reasoned their way to the best ideas. This is why they believe, for example, that we need comprehensive immigration reform. They understand that it is a very complex issue with multiple areas of concern. Populists hear "comprehensive immigration reform," and they roll their eyes. They think the only solution is to deport ALL of them NOW. And they are in no mood to debate the subject.
The elite believe that racism is fundamental right. The American people disagree. The elite don't believe in borders. The American people disagree. The elite believe that men are women if they say so. The American people disagree.
The bottom line is easy. The elite are 'woke' and the American people are not 'woke'.
"The elite believe that racism is fundamental right."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. But the elite believe that racism arises out of ignorance of the human condition, and if peple were better educated about these issues they wouldn't be so racist.
Tell me, who among the elite is calling for the abolition of borders? Give me names.
The elite acknowledge the reality that there are people who do not conform neatly to the gender binary or traditional ideas about sexual orientation. And they think that's okay because they believe in the principle of individual liberty.
By "woke", I think you mean well-educated. And you're right. The American people are, by and large, poorly educated.
Matt, the identitarian basis of the social justice cause that seems to massively motivate the educated classes is explicitly racist and tribal.
The Democratic party up until the late days of the Biden administration was enacting an immigration policy that essentially meant that borders were not an impediment to the movement of people. That was until recently the explicit policy of the EU and one of the prime reasons for Brexit.
The elites, see Biden administration for examples, do not ONLY believe in the rights of transgender individuals to respect, they insist that a person has the right to demand of their fellows that their own idiosyncratic perception of their gender should be universally indulged: biological men competeing against women in strength and speed based sports.
Your "nothing to see here" stance simply is not based in recent reality.
"the identitarian basis of the social justice cause that seems to massively motivate the educated classes is explicitly racist and tribal."
I see the social justice movement as arising out of a sense of empathy for how unfair life has been for certain groups of people simply because of their racial or ethnic IDENTITY, and a desire to right those wrongs. We on the left care for groups that have been systematically denied rights and opportunities. And people like you dismiss that as "identity politics". I think you are turning a blind eye to profound and ignorant injustices.
Obama deported 3 million people.
And we believe that trans people have the same rights as every other human being to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
You see the admirable intent and the self-affirming presentation without looking through the claims to the effects of its application or the extreme demands placed on those of us not deemed to be victims. Those demands are way, way beyond those necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The founders were well aware that those rights engendered conflict at the boundaries of persons and organisations. That's why they designed a tripartite government to (almost) ensure that no particular group's rights pre-empted others'. The left has forgotten that basic principle in favour of almost untrammelled privilege for those deemed victims in the social justice perceptual universe.
"You see the admirable intent and the self-affirming presentation without looking through the claims to the effects of its application or the extreme demands placed on those of us not deemed to be victims."
You mean the demand that we privileged folks recognize the injustice?
How has the left abandoned the principle of separate but equal branches of government?
What we favor is recognition of the fact that being white has been a material privilege in the United States of America. And being black, or brown, or Native American has been a disadvantage. We favor that because it is the truth. And it is good to know and acknowledge the truth.
It's one thing to say that trans people have the same rights as every other human being to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It's quite another to claim that "trans women are women," and to demand that others redefine "woman" (for themselves and all others) to align with that contention.
Trans women are trans women. Period (though they'll never have one). "Gender identity" does not obviate biological sex.
FWIW, I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there’s nothing “Queer” about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to other guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud to be — as an individual, simply and uniquely — myself. But I never signed up to “smash cisheteropatriarchy” in the name of some Brave New World. This isn’t about “assimilation”; it's about being myself -- refusing to assimilate to an implicitly adversarial identity called “Queer.”
But you still refuse to acknowledge what I (and many of those affected) recognize (and experience!) as condescension by the apparatchiks of the cockroach left, posing as referees in the Oppression Olympics as they run their protection racket.
Get off my cloud!
The elites understand that gender identity is different from biological sex. As a straight man, I've been happy to see that LGBTQ people are, or were, becoming more accepted in society. It warmed my heart that people were opening up to the fact that some people are just different. I was thrilled when gay marriage became the law of the land.
And this idea that anyone wants to "smash cisheteropatriarchy"? The left-wing establishment does not hold that view. You will not hear any Democrats preaching that on the stump in front of their left-wing audience because that left-wing audience would look at them like they were on crazy pills.
The left is not as crazy as your social media people are telling you.
Empathy is best understood as an individual attribute shared among other individuals.
"A sense of empathy for how unfair life has been for certain groups of people" is best understood as condescension by the apparatchiks of the cockroach left, posing as referees in the Oppression Olympics as they run their protection racket.
You are confused about how we on the left feel. The median black family has 1/10 the wealth of the median white family. And laws that white people wrote and passed are the main reason for that. If those facts leave you cold, there is something wrong with you. That something is a lack of empathy for people who have been mistreated.
Cockroach left? You sound balanced and objective. Wow.
The issue isn't that the well educated are wrong more often than the populists. I agree they are more often right. But they won't even tolerate a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed.
On COVID, yes, vaccines were good. But why was Sweden pilloried for taking an alternative approach? Why were schools closed for so long, even as evidence emerged that this was not making a difference and even after vaccines were available to the most vulnerable? Because there was only one “valid” answer -- save lives from this disease at any cost.
Calling policy preferences “racist” is similar. It's a move designed to say there can be no discussion. I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong, because “racism” is totally intolerable. So what evidence or concerns could ever be articulated by conservatives to defend any restrictions on immigration?
I am pretty liberal on immigration. I like it, think it's good for lots of reasons. But I don't want to tell people who disagree with me that there's something morally deficient about them for doing so. What makes me so sure? What gives me the right to make such an insulting claim?
Elites (like me) are often right. But we can be wrong. We are not gods. So we should be more willing to hear out others and not condemn them for refusing to agree with our imperfect views.
“We must beware of a tyranny of opinion which tries to make only one side of a question the one which may be heard.”
— Winston Churchill
We need to condemn bad ideas, ignorant ideas. We shouldn't be shy about doing so.
Why? Why do we need to _condemn_ them rather than just point out that their ideas are wrong? What is the additional value in adding a moral admonition, and the additional value of targeting the person rather than the idea?
A lot of people think they are being personally condemned when their bad ideas are pointed out. What are we supposed to do about that? Be politically correct and tell them that their bad ideas are just "different ideas," and that it's okay to hold on to them if it makes them feel better?
Or partisan.
"But they won't even tolerate a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed."
That is what happens in college classrooms all across the country every single day. Guess what? A lot of the people on the populist right get angry when their bad ideas are exposed. When they find out that systemic racism is a real phenomenon, they think the professors are trying to teach them "woke garbage".
There were a lot of arguments happening about when schools should open. That's how it's supposed to work. There was no one right answer.
It’s fine if they get angry. I’m not worried about their emotional response. That’s on them. But, to take your point about college classrooms, when a student says something right-leaning in class, and the other students audibly groan or whistle, which has happened in my class, that is not “a discussion where both sides can have flaws in their thinking exposed.” There is no thinking there at all, just condemning.
As a liberal, I think that in a fair argument, my side would win on 80% of issues. Rough guess. But I don’t think most liberals want to have a fair argument. In grad school I had a conservative friend. We’d debate various topics. He was very good at refuting specific sub-points of liberal doctrine, but he often didn’t have any substantive alternative. For example, yes, government programs for the poor have all of these problems. So I would concede each one, and then say “ok, so nothing? We don’t give people who are starving any money? Just let them starve?” And he’d say “well, charity will pick up the slack.” And I’d say “Ok, great. But if it doesn’t? Hold out, let them starve, you know, to prove to the charities that they need to get it into gear??” And of course then he’d say “no, of course, we need _some_ safety net.” So like, what are we disagreeing about??
But pretty much every other student didn’t even want to talk to him about political issues. They avoid the topic, or roll their eyes, or get frustrated.
The elite believe that racism is fundamental right. Note the widespread opposition to the SFFA decision. 'Colorblind' is routinely denounced by the elite. Cackles was picked because she checked that right boxes (black and female). Of course, Cackles was/is completely incompetent. How many delegates did she get back in 2019 from Democrats? Zero. Did I mention that she flunked the bar exam? She was good working on her back (some claim her knees got the workout).
You want names of people who don't believe in borders. How about senile Joe Biden and Cackles? Only 10-20 million illegals invaded the US while they were in charge. The US was de-facto borderless under senile Joe Biden and Cackles.
Cheating (at sports) was a basic human right under Senile Joe. No less that Seth Moulton (D-MA) stated 'I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that'. For that heresy he was called a 'Nazi cooperator' by Liz Bradt (a leading Salem Democrat).
The 'woke' believe that race has no biological basis. Scientists (you may have heard of them) can determine race from genes with 99.86% accuracy. So much for the virtues of 'education'.
The elites have seeded the deepest level of racism in history after 3 years of anti-Israel hatred. They’ve indoctrinated an entire generation to hate the Jewish state. If a fraction of the things I hear about Jews was said to a black community there’d be mass outrage, but for this they not only look away but have normalized it to the point they feel comfortable protesting publicly and writing daily slurs on every social media platform. Its difficult to take these moral authorities seriously when they selectively apply it. Like Iran now. They have zero concern for Iranians slaughtered, while Gaza was talked about morning, noon and night. These folks are not what they perceive themselves to be, and that disconnect is why more and more people are leaving.
As some genuine pushback, I think some populist claims were largely correct:
1. Admitting China to the WTO and selling out the industrial base was the biggest own-goal in recent American history. This was pushed by elite economic opinion in the 1990s.
2. trans policy was captured by an ideologically-driven elite that was not based on any kind of credible science. This was proven correct by the Alabama fact finding case
3. DEI hiring is detrimental to the very idea of meritocratic systems because, while motivated by idealistic values, it always leaves a seed of doubt over the candidate’s quality. See the FAA 2013 debacle under Obama.
4. Covid was a gigantic exercise in hypocrisy. See Newsome having a dinner party while the state was on lockdown. See scientists justifying BLM protests outside but condemning a similar biker outside gathering. See the praise for Europe while ignoring that European schools reopened in fall 2020. See the now widely published stories over how elite scientists coordinated with journalists to shut down any discussion over Covid origins in the early days of 2020. See plenty of Dem leadership labeling Trump as racist for shutting down the border from China.
5 the border — Biden did absolutely nothing on this until it was too late. Trump solved this issue in a year. You’re correct to highlight there’s nuance but the actual matter of shutting the border down was easy. Dems didn’t care until Abbott and DeSantis flew immigrants to Dem enclaves. That was what spurred action.
Those are the strongest positions I can think of.
The elite certainly were in large agreement about the scale of immigration they wanted, and how to speak about immigration (mostly without mentioning cultural tradeoffs or job competition), converging somewhere around it being an unquestionable economic good.
The majority view is more conservative than that, though still plenty welcoming (if placed in a historical context). As a rebuke to this more conservative impulse, the public is routinely chided with the typical finger-wagging and implication of "racism" in mass media, with very little thoughtful discussion until quite recently.
Another smaller example that is NOT emblematic of elite attitudes through, but which definitely has parallels that scale, for which you can find examples repeated throughout the country in every state: California administrators circumventing parents (and for most people, common sense) in allowing schools to hide a students trans gender identity from parents. Advocated by the interest groups and politicians and protected by the AG.
It's those policies, where common sense and majority opinion are on one side and elite opinion on the other, that elite "luxury belief" often beats common sense in setting actual policy or position, which stick in people's mind as exemplary. "But this was overturned eventually". Some policies should never have gotten beyond a mere suggestion.
I think you’ve made the point the article attempts to expose. Liberals look down with disdain on most Americans, conform themselves morally and intellectually superior. There’s only “your science”, “your culture”, your values and opinions. Anything less - is well - lesser. The college educated elites are now the least tolerant of diversity in thought while forcing racial diversity even if illegal (hiring, entrance criteria, etc).
I would like to hear the chain of reasoning that educated people used to arrived at the best ideas, since whenever I question the notion of "black people are not succeeding in America because of white people", or bring statistics to the issue of immigration and crime, I never get a good answer and am often blocked or somehow silenced.
There are people who try to answer those questions empirically and lose their positions for it
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/how-to-lose-tenure-with-one-sentence
Surely if these ideas are "the best" they should be able to survive academic scrutiny?
I think the analysis fails to recognize the fact that the United States is the facto a plutocracy. The ones who dictate the real legislative agenda are the Corporations, through their obscene level of funding politicians from the whole ideological spectrum.
Thus, the alleged progressive bias of Congress does not reflect in actual progressive legislation. Take, for example, gun controls, or anti-monopolies measures.
Neither the left nor the MAGA movement will ever see their aspirations realized as long politics live under the Citizens United rule.
Policy is set where the corporate and the NGO "groups" worlds converge.
Financially elite, socially progressive.
Dear Yascha, we understand that you have not been brought-up in the US, but do check basic facts, "The origins of [] Democratic Party in the United States lie with factory workers and trade unionists." There may have been an 80 year long affair with labor during their 200 year history, and it's been winding down for over 30 years, all gone now.
When reading Marx, you have to put the terminology in the historical context, in those specific environments. Bourgeoisie originally referenced the burgher, a legit city dweller, unlike an aristocrat with significant land titles or a peasant working those lands. Cities also have the destitute and the criminal underclass, eventually forming lumpenproletariat.
Larger countries, particularly in their imperial phase, have employed an ever growing staff of bureaucrats of every rank, going back at least three thousand years. Those typically overlap with intelligentsia of educated and licensed professionals. The two are not identical, though both serve the ruling class. They have always been viewed with disdain by Marxist Leninist ideologists, and not even allotted a class of their own. At times dubbed "petty-bourgeois", under Stalin and Mao they have been exterminated or 'reeducated' in labor camps, typically 10-20 years after the revolution.
However, intelligentsia and bureaucrats are not the moneyed upper class AKA independently wealthy. Certainly not gentry, not even rentier, they are overpriced hired help. A brain surgeon in Manhattan, pulling down half-a-million a year, get paid nothing without showing-up for work. This ticks you off terribly, as you view yourself to be truly deserving, and clutch to the ideologies that get you killed in the end, but tactically seem like a strong weapon. There are always frictions or even struggles at the borders of socio-economic strata, and many perceived paradoxes fall away when one looks in detail at actual persistent economic structures.
One thing is certain, you cannot have a revolution comprised of students and city underclass, and in direct opposition to just about all the workers and farmers, who also happen to hold just about all the firearms in private possession in the US. Most unfortunately, this will not become self-evident till a social and an economic collapse leaves cities without food and water.
The educated appear not educated enough about actual historical events and economic realities, yet you point out those are just a click away. The ideas have been toyed with before, programs instituted. Tens of millions perished and their descendants rejected them. They flock to this country for what it is, and the best outcome for the deluded or the insincere here, those who demand to bring it down, is to fail utterly.
Hope this helps.
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
Censorship of Free Speech and Muslim Immigration
The 2 gravest threats to humanity
Bruce Cain Mar 11, 2026
https://brucecain.substack.com/p/censorship-of-free-speech-and-muslim
This is such a strange article as it is based on the assumption that there was a time when elected officials in the USA better represented the majority of people! When in the world was that time? Name a decade in which elected officials were listening to women? to minorities? to the poor? that is, to "the majority of people"?
Here's one of many strange examples: Mounk writes about earlier days when elite universities had more diversity! Re "all the schools at the top range of prestige have over the past decades come to resemble each other to a remarkable degree." When did they not all resemble each other? In what decade was Yale different from Princeton in what it taught its elite students they should o do with their lives?
Maybe I'm wrong--so some examples of those historical better times of elected representatives and of diverse elite universities would be welcomed, from Mr. Mounk, of course, but from anyone else as well. Thanks.
The core of the problem is this false dichotomy that asserts that Republicans hold Conservative views while the Democrats hold Liberal views. The more useful dichotomy is to view contemporary issues as disagreements between Globalists and Anti-Globalists. They don’t want you to understand that most of our Democrat and Republican representatives support globalist policies. The Democrats are the worst but the Republicans are not much better. They don’t want people to see the world through that prism because it puts everything into perfect perspective. Globalist policies undermine the interests of the working class for the benefit of the elite.
Censorship of Free Speech and Muslim Immigration
The 2 gravest threats to humanity
Bruce Cain Mar 11, 2026
https://brucecain.substack.com/p/censorship-of-free-speech-and-muslim
On the individual and societal level, what we have lost - or what is not being developed - is the capacity to tolerate discomfort. The unease when someone has a different opinion, the challenge of expressing a different point of view in a regulated coherent manner without resorting to personal attacks. We each turn into our little corners of the internet to stay with those who agree with us.
Harvard has no credibility. See below. I wrote the following some time ago.
“Pinker mentions this. I will elaborate. For better or worse (certainly worse), Harvard is a bastion of intolerant, religious, anti-truth thinking these days. Consider two propositions, “sex is a spectrum” and “race has no biological basis”. Neither statement is evenly remotely true. However, 99% of Harvard students and faculty would affirm the “truth” of these statements, at least publicly. Like it or not, universities have become deeply irrational. It is somewhat unclear if the race nonsense or the sex nonsense is more deeply held. This academic insanity is somewhat new (perhaps not, see below). From “Sex is a Spectrum” (https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2021/08/07/sex-is-a-spectrum/) a comment by Spencer “Lol. I introduce students every semester to various non-overlapping or barley overlapping graphs by sex. Every year their jaws drop further. Twenty years ago barely an eyebrow was raised.” The converse point is that Harvard and other universities were deeply religious and intolerant even years ago. The famous book “The Blank Slate” was written in 2003. The Summers affair (at Harvard) is from 2006. The Pinker/Spleke debate is from 2005. It was clear then (and still is) that Spelke was/is a liar. Was she ever punished for lying? Of course, not. Of course, these problems are by no means limited to Harvard. Over at Yale, a talk was given on 'The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind'. The speaker (Dr. Aruna Khilanani) explicitly fantasized about killing innocent white people and then was offended because Yale would not give her the recording. The following is from her speech. “I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body, and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a fucking favor. (Time stamp: 7:17)” These issues are by no means limited to elite universities. At University of Southern Maine, an instructor (Christy Hammer) dared to say that there are two sexes All but one student (21 of 22) walked out in protest. The one student later caved to the fanatics. Of course, Hammer was entirely correct.”
Reading recommendation: "God and Man at Yale", by William F. Buckley, Jr.
Written in 1951, and the Ivies were already hurtling towards intolerant quasi-religion, and away from anything resembling the spirit of academic inquiry, even then.
I think you're operating under a flawed assumption: that the well-educated are immune to error and bias. For example in physics, one of the hardest (as in solid) sciences, there was immense push back against new ideas like Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. It required a priori the existence of 2 differing views and immense friction between adherents of the 2. In addition, the opposing view needs the opportunity to grow in favor through intellectual freedom.
You missed the part in the article where views differing from the current hegemony are heavily quenched by sources differing from intellectual honesty and freedom. There are political (small p politics) pressures that hinder any counter opinion. One example is that it is very risky for journals and individual scientist's careers to publish papers counter to the prevailing narrative. Scientists/researchers can be surprisingly clique-ish and immature after all.
The "peer review" process has been harnessed into a sort of Maoist struggle session enforcing the same homogeneity, too.
Is there a "big P politics"?
I'm afraid I replied to the author by accident lol. Anyway...
I wouldn't characterize the peer review process as wholly or even mostly corrupted; most of the scientific discourse is pretty clean, although of course there are some individual bad apples sprinkled about. And by bad apples, I mean those who aren't as rigorous as they should be when pursuing truth (you can chalk it up to failed pedagogy, which seems to be a growing problem). Perhaps this fraction of sloppy research is growing over time, but who can say.
I can't say the same about the humanities or the soft sciences though. You're description fits them pretty well. Hard sciences like Physics, Chemistry, etc are exposed to corrective signals that make it difficult to maintain incorrect theories. The exception is pure theory research which is closer to mathematical conjecture, since it's currently impossible to test them with current tech. Meanwhile humanities and psychology are insulated from corrective signals both internally and externally.
With regards to big P Politics, I define it as government discourse. Think Democrats vs Republicans in the US and their partisan disagreements / bipartisan agreements. I define little p politics on the scales of individuals, and their machiavellian actions for either power, wealth, prestige, ego, etc.
"New York’s wealthy used to live on the Upper East Side, to pride themselves on their old family ties, to value markers of high culture like the opera, and to vote conservative; today, they live in Brooklyn"
They still very much live on the Upper East Side. Much of Brooklyn is now *also* affluent. In a way it is a throwback to 1890.
Overall, good essay.
The problem I have with these discussions is there is no mention of quality. Smart people should be able to teach a range of viewpoints, if you are teaching introductory courses at universities pluralism and being able to explain different viewpoints is essential. To do this well you need to have read widely and continue to read widely; the answer to narrowminded colleagues is not to employ other narrowminded colleagues that hold the opposite views. Traditional disciplines should employ the best qualified scholars who have demonstrated a deep commitment to understanding the knowledge of their discipline; university centers might have other criteria for employment, but this should be made very transparent and not forced upon universities with threats of taking away their funding. I have written in more detail on this topic here: https://www.ussc.edu.au/do-we-need-an-affirmative-action-program-for-conservative-academics
Convergent evolution and “copy and emulate each other” are two different things. Convergent evolution happens when two species facing the same problem independently evolve the same solution. Human institutions often do this too, responding in similar ways while being unaware of each other. But they can also consciously copy and emulate each other. These have different implications, so you should clarify what you’re arguing.
Borrowing from evolutionary biology, a better term than convergent evolution may be mimicry evolution. The assumption in using the term mimicry evolution is that there are societal benefits for an organization to appear similar to a successful organization while remaining in some ways different than the successful organization - similar phenotypes from different genotypes. If in fact two organizations look similar because of a process like mimicry evolution, then those two organizations will react differently to changes in social selective pressures because internally they are not as similar as they look.
Regarding diversity in universities, it seems that excessive wokeness leads to a reduction of this. Wokeness leads to observing oneself and observing others. This is the same mechanism as in totalitarian states where people are forced to observe themself because they are being observed by the secret police. Probably not the environment to develop some fresh thinking.
I disagree. I think the realm of thought is broader, but not better!, than in the past. I lived thru the 70s-90s and the ideas now are much wilder, but certainly more detached from reality. Folks have lost the moorings of the past that kept us from the "bizarre".
Tl:dr; the left made this bed and they dont like sleeping in it, and they cant talk talk talk their way out of it anymore.
But hey we get to see who actually gives a shit about pronouns and who doesnt, and the results are somewhat suprising.
Idk, ive been thinking a lot about now vs 3 or 4 years ago and whats different. And how tf we actually got here lol. And then i read something like this and its right there! The way you think about yourself and other people, and the assumptions you make! No wonder the reaction to that is fucking trump.
Ah well, this is certainly a damned if you go left, damned if you go right kinda place for us undereducated underachieving simple folk that arent morons or greedy pretentious assholes.
Im jk, it was a nice article.
I love « Brooklynization. »