Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Sympathizing: Must Loving Fishtown Equal Hating Belmont?
We have plenty of folks on Ricochet who inhabit Belmont, more or less, but identify with Fishtown. It seems the easiest way to signal this sympathy is to be a self-hating Belmontonian. But what if you don’t hate everything about Belmont? Is it possible to sympathize with Fishtown even then? I would say yes. Though I would not, at this point, expect to be believed.
I recently reviewed Dreamland, a reporter’s magnum opus on the opiate addiction epidemic. My interest in its devastation isn’t academic. After all, I, too, have known chronic pain, death-wish despair, and repeated exposure to opioids through injury and surgery. Nor am I the only one in my family to have had these problems. Yet we’ve been spared from narcotics addiction, and the buffer of Belmont customs is at least partly to thank for this. Growing up, I hadn’t thought of myself as “Belmont.” My parents’ one sacrifice to dwarf all others was buying us a precarious perch in a Belmont neighborhood so we could attend its famed Belmont schools. It meant money was always tight. We dressed in the kind of secondhand clothes that made other kids point and laugh. In Belmont, we were at the bottom of the food chain, and that, plus my family’s right-leaning distaste for Belmont smugness, left us thinking of ourselves as outsiders, crypto-Fishtowners. It took leaving Belmont to find out how Belmont we’d become.
Being Belmont isn’t such a bad thing. There’s much more to Belmont than smugly looking down on the rubes. We rely on Belmont to support much of the finest flower of Western civilization – the arts, the sciences. As Charles Murray noted, Belmont neglects to preach the morals it still practices, while Fishtown struggles to practice what it preaches. But practice is not nothing, especially for youngsters who get to grow up surrounded by the practice. In my teens, I began attending about the Belmontiest church you could imagine – folks way richer than us, socialites on the “in” when I was “out,” with everybody reluctant to preach what they practiced. But among the things they practiced was traditional worship music (it’s why I went) and, as Lutherans like to say, music is its own sermon. You can get a pretty good Christian formation in one of those churches by ignoring what’s spoken and taking to heart what’s sung. And oh, the music!
Whenever I’m around other classical-music lovers, I can pretty much guarantee that I’ll be in the political minority. Loving classical music seems very Belmont, and my family never did adopt Belmont’s progressive politics. It can grate to hear other musicians and music-lovers toss off progressive opinions like they’re sure everyone agrees. It can grate that the arts aren’t “owned” by the faction whose stated political project, after all, is preserving the best of Western tradition from whatever threatens it. It can grate, but what does not grate is listening to and making music – participating in the perpetuation of that tradition – with these progressives. We decry progressive attacks on aesthetics when Belmontonians support modern works that don’t deserve to be included among works of historic greatness – but that only happens because works of historic greatness are still being performed, largely thanks to Belmont’s support. Music, at least, is something traditional conservatives do with Belmont. Not without it.
From music, and the tacit-but-powerful pressure to stay on the straight and narrow, to all the other social resources and little customs which can fortify a family in the face of pain and despair, my family owes Belmont too much gratitude to really hate it. If proof of loving Fishtown is denouncing Belmont, I’m in trouble. Should it be?
According to some, perhaps:
If the poor have vicious habits, whose fault is it — theirs or the people who made fortunes encouraging and refining these habits with the help of international consulting firms?
Supposing the indictment against international consulting firms were true, not every Belmontonian makes money with the direct help of such a firm. But just being part of the Belmont class – or even getting along ok with the Belmont class – might seem like tacit approval of those who do. As @jon just observed,
Elitism is Belmont hating Fishtown. Populism is Fishtown hating Belmont. Either is just Americans wanting to hurt their fellow Americans, which is where our politics has been for at least a decade.
Is it still possible to be neither an elitist nor a populist? To have sympathy for those who are hurting without hating the better-off?
Published in Culture
This could be a great illustration of the difference between European and American poor. In America, the poor want your stuff. In Europe, they want to destroy it.
That is brilliant and I’m stealing it.
Yup, that looks a heck of a lot like the street on which I grew up (although the river behind my house was substantially more navigable).
I therefore decree that from this point forward we shall refer to this third paradigm (neither Belmont nor Fishtown) as “Greble Road”.
So say we all.
(Seriously, it is eerie how familiar that road looks to me,right down to the yellow newspaper box.)
Exactly.
I think we’re looking at this wrong. For me it comes from, coming from Fishtown, now in Belmont, but all the Belmontian’s tell me I got here through white privilege.
You don’t have many sympathies for your fellow rich white liberal, who assumes you had the same journey.
It’s not that conservatives don’t. It’s that conservatives who don’t (and there are a lot of them, too) are suspicious of conservatives who do because patronage of the arts is stereotyped (by right-wingers, too, not just Progressives) as a “Belmont trait”, and therefore liable to suspicious accusations of creeping Progressivism. Have you never met conservatives who treated perfectly innocent (even beneficial) “Belmont” traits as a mark of “elitism” and “inauthenticity”?
When there is perfectly respectable art in smaller, less flashy cities, it isn’t there because it’s indicted as “Belmont” and therefore rejected as inauthentic. Instead, it’s judged as something that’s for everyone, even though “Belmont snobs” are disproportionately represented among the visible patrons of that kind of art.
But, if the patronage of Belmont is treated as, by itself, a reason to disparage something as inauthentic and crypto-Progressive, then we shouldn’t be surprised if those who feel alienated and socially marginalized from their own culture decide that perfectly respectable art is too “Belmont” to be associated with, which will leave less art for everyone, especially the less well-connected – while leaving those who feel marginalized from their own culture even more marginalized from it than they were before. I’ve seen some of that happening, and it worries me.
We know it’s a problem when blacks get disparaged by those who accuse them of “acting white” when they pursue elevated ambitions. We should expect a similar problem when “acting Belmont” comes under similar suspicion from those on the right.
It seems to me you’re missing something:
A great many are in Fishtown neither because of their own life choices and failings, nor because “the Man” in Belmont held them back. Sometimes, life just sucks, in a way that can’t be blamed on either individuals or their class of “enemies”.
When life just sucks, Belmontonians are lucky to be embedded in a culture that helps buffer them from the worst of the suffering. (As I mentioned in the OP, I know I have been lucky in that way.) Unfortunately, Fishtowners don’t have the same buffer.
Some of that buffer is wealth, of course, which the poorer, by definition, will always have less of. But some of it is culture, and when it comes to culture, partisanship that pits Belmont culture and Fishtown culture against each other risks driving those cultures even further apart, which won’t hurt the Belmontonians as much as it will hurt the Fishtowners.
Nothing is wrong with being a barista. The difference is that one can animate a region while the other is dependent on some other animating force in order to exist. You can’t coffee-shop your way to economic health unless there is some other source of economic life for it to draw from.
There seems to be two broad concerns about these economic life-forces in our country: 1) when they are chased away because of policy, 2) when technological and efficiency advancements mean that the presence of these production centers simply does not translate into life-force circulating throughout the region as much as it may have in the past.
I think the left mostly owns the policy side of this, but in the exact sense of some of the pushback EJ Hill is articulating I don’ think the right is blameless either.
On the technological advancement side, I think the right needs to think and speak much more about the long term implications for the American way of life. For the left it’s not much of a problem that there’s an increased benefit accruing to fewer people – that’s leads rather rationally to some form of increased government planning/management/redistribution. If we want to avoid that path then we need better answers than move, be an engineer, or suck it up. For instance, conceptually I might trade a sales tax or import tax in exchange for eliminating payroll tax and income tax; I might trade a universal basic income in exchange for eliminating social security and welfare.
Maybe I have? But it is in no way common or pervasive enough to notice, let alone worry about.
Again, maybe it’s a regional thing, but I am generally unfamiliar with this.
Bridget I live in that exact neighborhood, only in Chicago. Our housing bubble burst in 2008, but the only reason it’s still chugging along is because all of those teachers, firemen, and policemen are still riding the public benefits bubble – which will likely burst sooner rather than later. This bubble has papered over the same factors we’re otherwise talking about: poor choices, poor policy, advancing our way out of a broadly shared economic health.
Wonderful. We can all look forward to more ISIS web presence in the future, I’m guessing. And all because we’ve provided more opportunities. Isn’t America wonderful!
I think that’s part of it. I think, also, that when Belmontonians stop accusing you of white privilege and start trying to listen, they find that they’re not believed, which makes trying to listen harder.
We might surmise that the popularity of a doofus like Bernie Sanders at least suggests that there are white liberals – even Belmontonian white liberals – who are trying to listen. People who are just beginning to listen aren’t necessarily good at it. And people who don’t believe that those who really are listening are listening aren’t necessarily good at being listened to.
I’ve heard some white liberals lately make the argument, “You’re right that life can be tough on poor whites; nonetheless, white privilege is still a thing.” That’s understandably galling to hear. On the other hand, “You’re right that life can be tough on poor whites” is a point of agreement. Which wins out, the gall or the agreement?
Nah, I get what you are saying, I just don’t think that is the prevalent explanation. People in a free society have complete control over their life via the choices they make. I don’t think we live in a free society. I think that some have managed to take advantage of this unfree society and have benefited greatly while others have been harmed by this exploitation–not in the Marxist sense. I think some are also in their situation because they are just making bad choices or are lazy while others work really hard and are industrious. I don’t think there are zero folks who fit your mold, but I doubt they are even a third of the whole.
Classism, like racism, derives from laziness. There are plenty of reasons to hate each other on our merits.
Nobody has complete control over their lives, even in a free society. Freedom gives people the most control they can have over their own lives, but all of us have, as Sowell puts it, windfall gains and windfall losses.
Freedom is no guarantee that most people will get the life they want. That doesn’t mean freedom isn’t amazing, or that it doesn’t provide all but the most hopelessly impaired an opportunity to make a decent life for themselves, on something resembling their own terms.
For good choices to lead to good outcomes is always playing the odds some, even if a free society can be expected to put those odds in everyman’s favor.
Numbers short of a third of the whole could still be huge, though. If before you were born, God told you there’s a 1/4 (which is less than 1/3) chance your life would just suck even if you made good choices and nobody oppressed you, that would probably be pretty upsetting. But in any case, dividing these things into discrete categories doesn’t make a ton of sense, since all these things – oppression, poor choices, genuinely bad luck – fall on a continuum. We generally think there are people who made worse choices overall than we did but got luckier, or made better choices and got unluckier, and we can expect to find examples of either no matter our own success.
The consolation of freedom is that, despite us not having complete control of our lives, even when we’re free, freedom gives us enough control over our own lives to matter, to be worth having. That’s all we can really hope for. And the hope doesn’t have to be more than that to be incredibly precious.
Recently, I heard a liberal woman (who had just had a spare bedroom turned into a designer closet) say that poor whites in Applachia still benefit from white privilege but basically aren’t able to see it.
I think there’s a tremendous cultural privilege at play now in America, and the “Belmont” people (of which I am likely one) are beneficiaries.
I think one thing that is overlooked in Murray’s demarcation is that inside most Belmonts are little Fishtowns. That’s a good thing about America because large pockets of entrenched concentrated poverty are difficult and expensive to address. Little poor neighborhoods of poverty are manageable for a community.
I had an interesting conversation with a bank president on Cape Cod twenty years ago. Cape Cod went through a rapid-growth phase, and of course, we are mostly an island so growth is noticed down here. He said the planners and leaders at that time were determined to keep Cape Cod a middle class haven. They did not want it to become “like Nantucket”–that is, a small group of very rich people supported by a small army of poor laborers. He said, “They fail to mention that even the waiters on Nantucket make good money.” It was a valid point: 20 percent of a $200 dinner is more than 20 percent of a $20 dinner.
However, I like the way Cape Cod turned out at the other side of that growth phase. I don’t want to take advantage of anyone. That’s not fun for me. If I can’t afford to pay someone decently, I’ll go without. As my mother used to, “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it.” :)
Cape Cod did not go the Nantucket route. We stayed a very middle class area that attracts middle class families looking for a nice vacation that they can afford.
But the bank president made a valid point too.
As @robertmcreynolds just pointed out, David French appears to be worried about it (thanks, Robert!):
Conservatives don’t just shy away from academia because they have better things to do. They also shy away because it’s hard to work past a dynamic of mutual despisal. In at least some regions of the country, and some elite circles of what can be very traditional arts, I’ve observed a similar dynamic in play.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were partly regional. And if you don’t mind my saying, it’s also likely partly you:
You’re not the sort to take the path of least resistance, to let your tastes be dictated by politics encroaching on what should be politically-neutral cultural pursuits – more like the sort who’d just forge on, tolerant (if mentally rolling your eyes a lot) despite the difference; or, if the difference became too unbearable, to splinter off, using online connections, if necessary, to find (or make) a new circle where the encroachment was less of a problem.
I had great fun in Texas when I bought my Nissanand got all the expected Rice Burner grief.
I pointed to my VIN on the dash, and said, “see that T? That means this car was built in Tennessee, by good old boys who aren’t in a union. Where was your Ford built? Oh in Yankeeland, by Union Workers that vote Democrat!”
Still happily driving my Tennessee-mobile 16 year later!
@midge
I don’t disagree that a lot of formerly non-political things have become political. Mostly, what I see in Massachusetts (and it could be a self-selected group) is that enjoying the arts cuts across class and political lines (well, at least near Boston and in the suburbs that are at least middle class) – it’s not remotely uncommon for registered Republicans to have memberships at the art museums or season tickets to the symphony. At least here, our conservatives don’t see that as “acting liberal” or anything.
What we get is a lot of liberals assuming that conservatives are dumb, uncultured, and uneducated. That’s often because we don’t “come out” to people as conservatives unless we do the secret handshake routine, so the progressives assume everyone around them at the Wang or the BSO is liberal.
But again, I am really willing to believe that this is regional; one of the many reasons I want states to govern themselves is because the United States is huge and culturally heterogenous.
Well, truth be told, some of the reason I have been thinking of moving is that it’s just tiring to constantly be around people who think I am an uneducated racist jerk because I vote Republican. At my old work, things that were considered appropriate for lunch conversation included “social conservatives aren’t educated.”
But again, I’m not overly familiar with conservatives shaming fellow conservatives for shopping at Whole Foods or going to Tanglewood. Teasing, maybe; shaming, no.
I don’t even know what Tanglewood is, so I couldn’t say anything there.
Or do they mean social conservatives need to be “re-educated?”
Would they see it as “acting Belmont”, though? “[N]ear Boston and in the suburbs that are at least middle class” sounds… rather Belmont, to be honest.
I think you and I agree: there are significant numbers of “Belmont” conservatives and being a Belmont conservative shouldn’t be something to be ashamed of. There’s rhetoric, though, suggest it is something to be ashamed of, or at least feel really guilty about, as if Belmont guilt were the Right’s version of white guilt.
With regard to Whole Foods? Oh, definitely shaming.
The only reason I don’t go to Whole Foods all the time is because the nearest one to me is 40 minutes away; their steaks are awesome :)
That’s funny. I didn’t know that. The CEO of Whole Foods is a vegetarian. :)
It is interesting to bring up John Mackey, in fact. He believes that capitalism is the fastest and most certain way to achieve the liberals’ social and political objectives. His nonprofit is Conscious Capitalism:
Conscious Capitalism espouses the Triple Bottom Line: people, profit, and planet.
I live in Western Mass, which is very different from Boston and surrounding areas. Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 or 6 towns around here that are definitely Belmont, but they seem pretty distinct to me. Northampton and Amherst are Belmont, and are filled with SJWs, but the others, not so much. I have never considered Longmeadow or Southwick particularly liberal, compared to anywhere else around here, though they are definitely Belmont. Maybe I am wrong; maybe I just don’t pay enough attention or know enough people, but I don’t immediately think “liberal” when I think “Belmont”.
I get no shaming for going to Whole Foods. Not from conservatives in Belmont anyway. I would personally have scorned people who went to Whole Foods when I was just starting out though. I would have found them smug for paying so much for eggs, as if everyone can give a hot dang about chickens. (Chickens are very stupid creatures who eat their own crap. However, I DO care about the chickens NOW, hence I shop at Whole Foods where I know the chickens go to spas and get massages whilst roaming the free range, but I understand it’s a luxury to care about the chickens, and I couldn’t always care.)
My reaction to this has to be inspired by Skip’s recent post Comey Chameleon.
I’m hearing Donny and Marie singing a duet in my head, something like:
I wouldn’t know about their steaks, but their founder is a libertarian/conservative.