A new memoir may startle American elites out of the "vast carelessness" of their status games. It also delivers moral messages for the wayward among us. We need whole, functional families.
There are innumerable examples of elites, in sociologist Brad Wilcox’s phrasing, “talking left, walking right.” A quintessential example is of course the tech execs who promulgate addictive devices and apps but bar or restrict their children from using them.
[Me] How is tech execs advocating for things that make them money (i.e. capitalism) “talking left”.
In other words, the leaders and influencers of society often advocate…for freedom without accountability,
[Me] This is what libertarians push for, who, in America, are on the right.
This maximizes benefits in their social ecosystem while polluting the social ecosystems of others.
[Me] Replace the first social with economic and deleting the second social and you have the driver for the environmental movement. People have always tried to get more for themselves, to become greater in the eyes of others, or as I put it, acquire prestige. It is not a left or right thing.
My example here right after the Wilcox's phraseology isn't apt. It is a luxury beliefs broadly but not necessarily an example of elite hypocrisy of the left.
My example here should have been more along the lines of sexual liberation rhetoric vs the usual bourgeois arrangements of families. However, the terms "left" and "right" are dimensional reductions and can be applied appropriately in the tech example too. For instance, liberation and freedom can be associated with the left and often are in the private sphere, while you would expect a social conservative to favor restricting access to tech and Internet media.
It seems Henderson thinks that the leniency elites give to those not measuring up in their behavior is somehow a source of their problems. Doesn’t he know that lower-class folks are more socially conservative than richer people? They know what they should do, Lord knows I’ve told them 5o times.
I’ve never met a loser who didn’t know what they *should* do. They just don’t do it (which is what makes them a loser). My wife and I are former foster parents who stayed involved in their lives and those of their offspring (who see us as grandparents). We’ve seen a lot of this.
Although not explicitly part of Henderson's argument, I think he is implicitly making a case for some type of noblesse oblige - for our modern multicultural and meritocratic elite to function more along the lines of the WASP elite of old.
Exactly what this would look like obviously isn't spelled out. As I suggest in my review Henderson's memoir is about working up the necessary critical mass of sentiment to make elite reform a priority.
I also don't think that elite signaling and rhetoric alone with remedy most the social ills he identifies. There are factors beyond that remit. For instance, Raj Chetty's research suggests that we actually have to increase social contact and proximity of elites with those who are struggling. The regions of the country Chetty identifies as places where this already happens are called "opportunity corridors."
That is the standard solution to secular cycle crises. William the conquer replaced the Saxon elite with Normans, reducing elite numbers. A large chunk of elites slaughtered each other during the Wars of the Roses. The English and their American loyalist allies were exiled after the Revolution. Emancipation caused the loss of 60% of plantation elite wealth, eliminating them as elites. New Deal policy cut the elite share of income cut in half, reducing elite power.
For this cycle either we will have a civil war or some sort of economic collapse to perform this function. It's how these things go. I would prefer a peaceful outcome, but people like me don't get a say.
I really see that as pretty unlikely. The prospect that Americans in their current state would actually engage in sustained political violence is risible for a number of reasons. Comparing the median member of one of these factions vs the the other gives a good sense of how ridiculous this is. Another corollary to this is that in aggregate unattached young men care little about these issues.
I also see the chances of civil unrest seen in the 2010-2020, which was already pretty inchoate and ineffectual, as rapidly decreasing. Material abundance is too high. Entertainment is too good. Coordination is too costly. Real political work is boring. Institutional power relative to the individuals comprising those institutions is too low.
I agree. I was just pointing out what had happened historically. I wrote a piece where I suggested maybe something like the Northern Ireland troubles might happen as a form of civil war. For example, suppose the number of mass shootings went up 5-fold for a few decades. You would then have a level of carnage similar to the Troubles.
Last time we went through this it was the 1929-32 financial crisis that resolved the issue. The elite response to the crisis last time created the pro-worker economy that I describe as SC. We had a repeat of 1929 in 2008, but this time elites responded in a way to preserve their wealth and status. Assuming the old cycle is still intact, the next financial crisis would be due during the second half of this decade. I see no reason to believe elites will act any differently for that one either.
Last cycle Germany went fascist. That may be an option for us this time. Not sure how that would work, but it's an option.
Finally, suppose we just keep on as we have been going. I see debt levels in other countries far beyond ours, so there room to grow there. Some have talked of a new feudalism. I suppose that's an option, which would be welcomed by several substackers I follow.
The literary contribution of “Hillbilly Elegy” by JD Vance was not a partisan piece of literature. To dismiss or throw shade on it as such is short sighted; rather JD’s life story and his lived American experience of a tumultuous childhood shaped his life view and his desire to right the sinking cultural ship. Politics is down stream of culture. Because the author of “Troubled” hasn’t entered the national socio-cultural political advocacy realm doesn’t make Rob K. Henderson’s literary contribution more or less insightful. It just reflects he isn’t a current national political firebrand figure trying to materially affect society via the process of federal legislative leadership given his vantage point experience of having lived in the 2 different worlds of childhood poverty and high level academic and socio-economic elitism.
I enjoyed Vance's memoir a lot too. I wasn't slighting it in the footnote. I was just pointing out that Vance's memoir had more political valence at the time of its publication (was viewed as a window into the psyche of people who voted heavily for Trump in '16) and retroactively given Vance's entrance in national politics, including some of the shifts in his rhetoric.
Vance was acknowledged at the end of Rob's book as someone who had helped shape it.
Vance’s book was published in summer of 2016. Vance was an anti-Trumper and voted 3rd party in 2016. It wasn’t until 2018 when he helped shepherd Kavanaugh through the Senate confirmation that he realized by overhearing Senators on both sides of the aisle reveal how the Uniparty does not care for the average American only their own wealth,elitism and power that he realized one needed an absolute SOB to fight on behalf of the American family (as per his direct communications to me 6/2021)
There are innumerable examples of elites, in sociologist Brad Wilcox’s phrasing, “talking left, walking right.” A quintessential example is of course the tech execs who promulgate addictive devices and apps but bar or restrict their children from using them.
[Me] How is tech execs advocating for things that make them money (i.e. capitalism) “talking left”.
In other words, the leaders and influencers of society often advocate…for freedom without accountability,
[Me] This is what libertarians push for, who, in America, are on the right.
This maximizes benefits in their social ecosystem while polluting the social ecosystems of others.
[Me] Replace the first social with economic and deleting the second social and you have the driver for the environmental movement. People have always tried to get more for themselves, to become greater in the eyes of others, or as I put it, acquire prestige. It is not a left or right thing.
My example here right after the Wilcox's phraseology isn't apt. It is a luxury beliefs broadly but not necessarily an example of elite hypocrisy of the left.
My example here should have been more along the lines of sexual liberation rhetoric vs the usual bourgeois arrangements of families. However, the terms "left" and "right" are dimensional reductions and can be applied appropriately in the tech example too. For instance, liberation and freedom can be associated with the left and often are in the private sphere, while you would expect a social conservative to favor restricting access to tech and Internet media.
It seems Henderson thinks that the leniency elites give to those not measuring up in their behavior is somehow a source of their problems. Doesn’t he know that lower-class folks are more socially conservative than richer people? They know what they should do, Lord knows I’ve told them 5o times.
I’ve never met a loser who didn’t know what they *should* do. They just don’t do it (which is what makes them a loser). My wife and I are former foster parents who stayed involved in their lives and those of their offspring (who see us as grandparents). We’ve seen a lot of this.
Although not explicitly part of Henderson's argument, I think he is implicitly making a case for some type of noblesse oblige - for our modern multicultural and meritocratic elite to function more along the lines of the WASP elite of old.
Exactly what this would look like obviously isn't spelled out. As I suggest in my review Henderson's memoir is about working up the necessary critical mass of sentiment to make elite reform a priority.
I also don't think that elite signaling and rhetoric alone with remedy most the social ills he identifies. There are factors beyond that remit. For instance, Raj Chetty's research suggests that we actually have to increase social contact and proximity of elites with those who are struggling. The regions of the country Chetty identifies as places where this already happens are called "opportunity corridors."
I suspect the sort of elite reform conservatives have in mind is one that doesn't affect elite wealth.
I think the solution would de facto dilute wealth/status concentration because it would have to mitigate the strong sorting we observe today.
That is the standard solution to secular cycle crises. William the conquer replaced the Saxon elite with Normans, reducing elite numbers. A large chunk of elites slaughtered each other during the Wars of the Roses. The English and their American loyalist allies were exiled after the Revolution. Emancipation caused the loss of 60% of plantation elite wealth, eliminating them as elites. New Deal policy cut the elite share of income cut in half, reducing elite power.
For this cycle either we will have a civil war or some sort of economic collapse to perform this function. It's how these things go. I would prefer a peaceful outcome, but people like me don't get a say.
I really see that as pretty unlikely. The prospect that Americans in their current state would actually engage in sustained political violence is risible for a number of reasons. Comparing the median member of one of these factions vs the the other gives a good sense of how ridiculous this is. Another corollary to this is that in aggregate unattached young men care little about these issues.
I also see the chances of civil unrest seen in the 2010-2020, which was already pretty inchoate and ineffectual, as rapidly decreasing. Material abundance is too high. Entertainment is too good. Coordination is too costly. Real political work is boring. Institutional power relative to the individuals comprising those institutions is too low.
I agree. I was just pointing out what had happened historically. I wrote a piece where I suggested maybe something like the Northern Ireland troubles might happen as a form of civil war. For example, suppose the number of mass shootings went up 5-fold for a few decades. You would then have a level of carnage similar to the Troubles.
Last time we went through this it was the 1929-32 financial crisis that resolved the issue. The elite response to the crisis last time created the pro-worker economy that I describe as SC. We had a repeat of 1929 in 2008, but this time elites responded in a way to preserve their wealth and status. Assuming the old cycle is still intact, the next financial crisis would be due during the second half of this decade. I see no reason to believe elites will act any differently for that one either.
Last cycle Germany went fascist. That may be an option for us this time. Not sure how that would work, but it's an option.
Finally, suppose we just keep on as we have been going. I see debt levels in other countries far beyond ours, so there room to grow there. Some have talked of a new feudalism. I suppose that's an option, which would be welcomed by several substackers I follow.
And there are things I haven't thought of.
The literary contribution of “Hillbilly Elegy” by JD Vance was not a partisan piece of literature. To dismiss or throw shade on it as such is short sighted; rather JD’s life story and his lived American experience of a tumultuous childhood shaped his life view and his desire to right the sinking cultural ship. Politics is down stream of culture. Because the author of “Troubled” hasn’t entered the national socio-cultural political advocacy realm doesn’t make Rob K. Henderson’s literary contribution more or less insightful. It just reflects he isn’t a current national political firebrand figure trying to materially affect society via the process of federal legislative leadership given his vantage point experience of having lived in the 2 different worlds of childhood poverty and high level academic and socio-economic elitism.
I enjoyed Vance's memoir a lot too. I wasn't slighting it in the footnote. I was just pointing out that Vance's memoir had more political valence at the time of its publication (was viewed as a window into the psyche of people who voted heavily for Trump in '16) and retroactively given Vance's entrance in national politics, including some of the shifts in his rhetoric.
Vance was acknowledged at the end of Rob's book as someone who had helped shape it.
Vance’s book was published in summer of 2016. Vance was an anti-Trumper and voted 3rd party in 2016. It wasn’t until 2018 when he helped shepherd Kavanaugh through the Senate confirmation that he realized by overhearing Senators on both sides of the aisle reveal how the Uniparty does not care for the average American only their own wealth,elitism and power that he realized one needed an absolute SOB to fight on behalf of the American family (as per his direct communications to me 6/2021)