What's the Matter with Greenwich?
In 2004, liberals were dismayed by the Middle American working class voting Republican. Thomas Frank wrote what became the official polite explanation for this paradoxical development in What’s the Matter with Kansas? I pose the opposite, equally historically weird question: What’s the matter with Greenwich? Why have America’s wealthy gone blue?
Here are some possibilities (please add your own):
1. Standards of taste within communities are self-sustaining. In other words, elites are liberal because elites are liberal. Once a standard of taste is established in a group, it becomes a marker of its members, hence a condition of acceptance into the group; so everyone seeking membership conforms to the standard, and so on in a virtuous circle. An illustration: future elites on Ivy League campuses abandon religious belief, more often because they are made to feel religion is icky and low-class—a potential social albatross when mingling with high-status, bright, young secular things from New York and London—than because they are rationally convinced of its untruth or badness. Post-graduation, they, by their existence as elite seculars, become the guardians of the standard that once cowered them. The same basic mechanism operates on other markers of cultural conservatism.
But that just postpones the question: how did liberals corner the elites in the first place?
2. Elite status is correlated with extensive academic education, which also correlates with political liberalism. This is not a slur against conservatism. That a belief is held by the intellectual classes does not prove that the belief itself is intelligent – there was a time when the smart set distinguished itself by its devotion to Freud and Marx. Universities are the keepers of the gate in our meritocracy, so their biases will be manifest among the meritocrats who must spend more time absorbing their narratives the higher they desire to climb in the hierarchy. The ultimate origin of academic left bias is another question for another day…
3. Displays of generosity may be a way of signaling high status. A benefactor is ipso facto assuming higher status than those she benefits. Ostentatiously displaying charity and generosity—by, e.g., aligning oneself with the grand visions and good intentions of progressivism—may then be either an inclination developed by the achievement of high status, or a tactic used to enhance one’s perceived status.
4. Flaunting of traditional moral norms signals high status. This is established by social psychology. But I’m skeptical of its relevance to politics: like David Brooks, I find that today’s liberal elite really aren’t all that transgressive—they make bohemian gestures but are essentially bourgeois. But this explanation might be more relevant to the past, to the formative years of today’s elites—the 1960s, when self-styled campus revolutionaries were predominantly upper-middle-class cool kids.
5. Liberal governance is actually in the self-interest of the elite. This is a possibility that gets little consideration: people assume that because progressive idealists intend the redistribution of wealth and power, their politics will effect that end. But the world is more complicated. Onerous regulations work to the benefit of the legal class, who will get paid higher fees the more anxious firms are about compliance. The more complex the regulations, the higher the economic value of a Harvard Law degree. The finance industry as a whole may benefit from governments, federal and municipal, issuing a lot of debt (I might be totally wrong about this). More generally, high-status groups necessarily benefit from greater centralization of power: if I’m a successful business guy, there’s a good chance my brother has the capability to be a successful government guy. Even if it increases my individual tax burden, I might like a world with more centralized power in Washington, because it is one in which my family members and college buddies have more opportunities for distinguishing themselves with high status, income, and power. (An aside: perhaps we should stop using “Greenwich” as a synechdoche for the wealthy—after all, most of the wealthiest counties in the U.S. are now outside of Washington.)
6. Kansas, inverted: Thomas Frank can be turned right on his head. Progressive activists exploit the culture war, promoting paranoia about “Bible thumpers” in the hinterlands, to scare the rich into voting against economic sense, and their economic interest. My experience suggests to me that social and culture war issues are actually more salient in big cities, college campuses, and the upper-middle class, than they are in the environments Thomas Frank described. New York journalists’ belief that Middle American voters are bitter with resentments over “Guns, God, and Gays,” may, ironically enough, actually be an elaborate projection, reflecting the preoccupations of the journalists themselves rather than the objects of their reports.
7. Finally, conservatives have been hostile to elites. Conservative culture-war rhetoric against the “liberal elite” may well be justified. But conservatives can’t then pretend to be shocked when elites hit back.
A note: it’s easy to go too far in giving a psychoanalytic account of the politics of any group, rather than listening to their own explanations. My defense is: I don’t do this habitually. No doubt, many elite liberals have derived their politics from rational deliberation. But they have group biases, too, which, due to their outsized power, are particularly important to examine.
So, any other ideas? Identifying the sociological drivers could be a key to assessing—even undermining—the cultural and political self-confidence of the elite.
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
I think when you consider elites as wealthy as those of Greenwich, you need to realize that inclusion on the boards of philanthropic organizations is the ultimate marker of status; particularly in the minds of their wives.
Wealth and generous contributions are not enough to assure that one is suitably installed atop the hierarchy of the most prestigious organizations; one must be fitting in all ways. And since those philanthropic organizations have long ago been infiltrated and dominated by leftists, this means adhering to their political worldview.
If one wants to assure that one's wife is fawned upon in those kinds of social circles, rather than spurned as a woman whose husband simply bought his way onto the board, one goes with the flow.
Jun '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
For the wealthy and connected spoiled child, young or old, the traditional moral values that cramp their style come from traditional religious institutions. Or, come from secular organizations that cramp their style by pushing traditional civic virtues and manners. They don't like it. It's inconvenient for someone with the world at their feet. But, rather than just be a spoiled child, or be labeled selfish, or narcissist, they can put an ideological gloss on their selfishness. "It's not that traditional values are inconvenient for me, and don't offer me instant gratification. That's not the issue. I reject tradition, religious and otherwise, because it's intellectually inferior." Yeah, that's the ticket.
Oct '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Dennis Prager has noted that many go to college with a ten-year-old's understanding of religion, which is then undermined by aggressively secularist professors. This has consequences. I.e., Author/journalist Vance Packard wrote a book years ago titled, if I recall, 'The Inner-Directed Man.' The point was that people who lack strong internal religious or philosophical beliefs tend to conform to what is fashionable or trendy. Therefore the undermining of religious conviction may make it easier and safer to just conform to what is popular in whatever social group whose approval and acceptance you crave. (Matthew, I assume you were a sociology major?)
Edited on Feb 15, 2011 at 11:50pmAug '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Kansas was chosen as a result of the flap over Darwinism, one of the left's icons . As a neighbor of Kansas, let me declare pride in the stigmata of a religious, philosophical debate rather than the defense of abortion which one of the pillars of the left's faith. Greenwich or not, they're fascists. I'd rather have blood oozing from my hands signifying my provincial ignorance, than be stained with the mark of the innocent victim. Harvard occupies some of the shaky real estate that the NY Times does, credibility shot and holed up in that ivy-covered tower. We are happy to be flown over, if they could only leave us alone !
Sep '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Jacques Barzun wrote some withering passages on the problems you're wrestling with Matthew in The House of Intellect. Particularly insightful are his extended reflections on philanthropy and philanthropic boards. Its well worth a read.
Sep '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Two words: old money. The old order wants to preserve their status and wealth and actively resists what they see as Schumpeter's creative destruction that will be brought by the great unwashed. The problem with that elite is they no longer receive a rigorous classical formation that a 19th century elite would have been exposed to. Their historical knowledge compared to the Founding Fathers for example is empty and vacuous and they have no interest in statesmanship or the military. Honor is a hollow word in their world.
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
This is a very thoughtful piece. I would rephrase some of what you say in terms of honor. We tend reflexively to understand political allegiance in terms of interest: Are you better off than you were four years ago? And there is something to it. But honor matters as well. The folks who live in Greenwich are by and large credentialed by the Ivy League or the equivalent. Our universities have been dominated by Progressivism since the 1880s. They are the nurseries that produce the experts who think that they know what is good for us. When the Progressives had great leverage in the Republican Party, this elite was Republican. When FDR came along, they drifted generationally towards the Democratic Party -- which flatters their pretensions to wisdom and expertise. You are right, Matthew, to emphasize status concerns. I have lived almost my entire adult life in the company of academics. They do not vote their pocketbooks. No one gets hit harder by inflation than they do, and yet they consistently vote for the party that promotes inflation. Why? Because it flatters their pretension to superiority. It is this that explains Obama's appeal to our cultural elite.
Jun '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Yes, community standards are self-sustaining, but not just for elites.
Philanthropy: It's interesting to me that ostentatiously displaying charity is such a lefty habit. In my blue-collar Catholic upbringing it was unheard of to brag about charity. Even those wildy successful businessmen who rose above their station would name the hospital or foundation they created after a saint, never after themselves!
Loved this: "Even if it increases my individual tax burden, I might like a world with more centralized power in Washington, because it is one in which my family members and college buddies have more opportunities for distinguishing themselves with high status, income, and power." And that applies to all levels of society. While small town connections don't impact Washington power structures, they mimic them. Tony is police chief & his sons become firemen, town municipal workers, cops. His daughters are hired as teachers and town nurses and one runs for mayor. His wife sits on the Board of Ed & rubber stamps all the raises. His brother sits on the Planning Board and approves all the variances for their relatives. Unconnected townsfolk get hit with crushing tax burdens, but the family cabal cleans up.
Sep '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
The other point to make is that we assume that people execute their voting preferences by rational means exclusively and are shocked when we find voters who don't. Any business book by someone with a cognitive psychological background in the past 20 years has stated emphatically that people who make perfectly rational decisions are rare.
Jan '11
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Remember that excellence and elitism are two different things. The myth is that the elite is the group of people who have achieved excellence. But it isn't. The elite is also composed of the children of success, who may be mediocre themselves but who benefit from the excellence of their parents. As generations have passed, the elite is no longer a reflection of excellence, and is now simply a social group whose defining trait is that they are beneficiaries of privilege. I also argue that the social group is now refined narrowly as the beneficiaries of "elite" education. "Prestigious" education is the privilege that defines them.
It's no coincidence that modern conservatism began when a member of the elite questioned its excellence. Modern conservatism began when Buckley challenged Yale.
Liberals don't challenge education.
Jun '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
"They do not vote their pocketbooks. No one gets hit harder by inflation than they do, and yet they consistently vote for the party that promotes inflation. Why? Because it flatters their pretension to superiority."
I would argue that the elites know their pocketbooks are going to be kept full with paid sabbaticals, NEA or science foundation grants, book publishing contracts and other accoutrements for towing the liberal line. Not to mention their very employment (and percs) is dependent on swallowing the ideology & being willing to march in lockstep. With dean salaries approaching a million and departments heads earning several hundred thousand yearly while often getting subsidized housing, staff, & travel, the tax bite isn't quite so painful.
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
StickerShock: "They do not vote their pocketbooks. No one gets hit harder by inflation than they do, and yet they consistently vote for the party that promotes inflation. Why? Because it flatters their pretension to superiority."
I would argue that the elites know their pocketbooks are going to be kept full with paid sabbaticals, NEA or science foundation grants, book publishing contracts and other accoutrements for towing the liberal line. Not to mention their very employment (and percs) is dependent on swallowing the ideology & being willing to march in lockstep. With dean salaries approaching a million and departments heads earning several hundred thousand yearly while often getting subsidized housing, staff, & travel, the tax bite isn't quite so painful. · Feb 16 at 9:08am
You have an exaggerated notion of the salary levels. College presidents make a lot of money (and are expected to earn it by raising mammoth sums). Some dean somewhere no doubt makes the kind of money you refer to, but no dean I have ever met. And department heads do not get paid several hundred thousand (none whom I know). Almost no one gets much of anything for publishing books (trust me, I know).
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Let me add that subsidized housing is rare (except, say, at the likes of Stanford where housing is simply unaffordable on an academic salary). The sabbaticals generally cost one money if one goes away to do research. The NEA & NEH grants do not amount to much (salary replacement, if that). The science foundation grants are another matter -- but they for the most part get spent on laboratories and overhead, and they do not much affect salaries.
Also, faculty members (leave aside law faculties and medical school faculties) do not earn much. The starting salary these days for an assistant professor in the humanities or social sciences is ca. $60,000 -- which is better than it used to be but does not go very far. And, most places, it increases most of the time very modestly -- barely enough, if that, to keep up with inflation. The only way to get a real bounce in salary is to move from one place to another, and to do that one must have distinguished oneself as a scholar. (And, of course, conservatives tend to get vetoed by the feminists or the lefties in departments bent on hiring someone at the senior level).
Nov '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
I can’t think of anything to add but would like to say this is one of the best discussions I’ve seen on Ricochet.
Dec '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Wow - twelve hours of discussion and no one has mentioned the G-word?
It's driven largely by GUILT. The folks in Greenwich can't escape the reality that they live at a standard that billions of people can only dream of. And they're constantly being told that their wealth is not a measure of their human worth, and that there's something morally wrong with the inequality between the rich and poor.
So they support the politics that promise to eliminate inequality and relieve them of their burden of guilt. Not that they intend to liquidate their assets and divert to charity all income above that needed to support a modest lifestyle -- why should they bear the burden disproportionately? No, they expect that Leftist economics will create a world in which they can live lavishly while the poor live comfortably.
But it doesn't work that way. Leftist policies create a permanently-dependent underclass in which a few "lottery winners" can achieve great wealth and the rest are trapped by perverse incentives and social inertia. And at some point, compassion fatigue sets in among the wealthy: "we've given so much, yet things have gotten worse."
Nov '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Great discussion, and excellent comments as usual from Paul Rahe. Should anyone want to geek out and get a further explanation of the juxtaposition of "interest" and "honor" (or politics) that Rahe mentions, Harvey Mansfield's Jefferson Lecture "How To Understand Politics: What the Humanities Can Say to the Sciences" is a locus classicus.
Jun '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
When I worked in college textbook publishing the authors were all college professors & they did quite well, especially as the new editions were mostly cut and paste jobs with a few tidbits of new info cobbled together by research assistants.
I know my husband brings in college professors to coordinate research studies & clinical trials and the pay is excellent, especially as it is on top of their faculty salaries. Industrial/educational partnerships are a win-win.
Perhaps subsidized housing is rare, but it's certainly a nice perc in places like Cambridge & Manhattan. Notre Dame buys up homes surrounding the campus, renovates them, & gives faculty great deals on purchase.
Accountants who do the tax returns of high level college administrators & faculty are used to seeing eye-popping incomes. With over 2000 colleges in the US, I'm sure there is plenty of variance in salaries, as you no doubt have tons of colleagues without those lucky positions. Certainly new hires are not getting rich. It almost seems like the PhD path is a giant ponzi scheme sometimes, with existing faculty drawing in new meat to a field where the financial gains and jobs are scarce.
Sep '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Adjunct faculty are the rowers that drive the trireme of higher education.
Jun '10
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
Yes, the adjunct issue is an interesting one. For some, it can feel like indentured servitude. For others, it is a desirable tradeoff of expertise/time commitment for resume enhancement and employee recruitment.
Re: What's the Matter with Greenwich?
In order of importance, 5, 2, 3, 1.
And you may quote that when you get around to writing your doctoral dissertation.