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.
Different Rules, Different Americas
New York City cosmetics mogul and multimillionaire Linda Rodin was quoted in the July 28th edition of the Wall Street Journal about her ever-present luxury, vintage, tinted spectacles: “My vision now is always through tinted glasses; I don’t know what the real world looks like anymore.” This comment about her permanent eye-wear accessory perfectly illustrates the disconnect between the way one segment of society lives in and views America, and how the vast remainder of Americans live their day-to-day lives.
It was no more than a blurb in the paper, but it struck me as the epitome of the cultural and political pomposity of metropolitan one-percenters and how clearly different that life is from working-class Americans. This isn’t about a war between economic classes, but rather an observation on the stark contrast between people who write the rules and the rest who are forced to live by them, and the widening chasm between Americans. The late prolific author and journalist Tom Wolfe wrote about the New York City well-heeled society in a famously sardonic June 8, 1970 New York magazine piece “Radical Chic.” He exposed the celebrities, socialites, and “One-Percenters” as no more than frivolous political agitators, only taking on the cause of the moment to advance their social standing and feed the insatiable appetite that is their own shallow vanity. But today that inner social pecking-order amongst our elite has morphed into a farther reaching, more invasive, and more divisive power grab. In a social-media infused world, it’s not enough for the latest “It” celebrity or social-climber to grace the cover of People or have a feature in the New Yorker, now we have the Instagram picture of their breakfast, a Snapchat from their exclusive gym, and tweet about their thoughts on the latest Gucci fashion line. But why stop at imparting this knowledge on the millions of fans and followers when solely by the fact of having a certain ZIP code, obtaining certain wealth, or attending the proper parties, makes one qualified to step into a social cause and be the moral arbiter of political and social views? During the previous administration, and featured prominently in Hillary Clinton’s latest run for president, it got you into the White House, or close to it.
The election of President Obama was arguably the first public fusing of the political and celebrity world. He was the pop-culture president. From the iconic “Hope” poster, to the endless parade of celebrities to White House parties, to appearances on the late-night television shows; even YouTube stars including GloZell (who famously ate cereal out of her bathtub-while sitting in it) went to the White House for interviews at the President’s invitation. During this time, the Obama administration and cultural leaders pushed a liberal agenda on the country despite a reluctance for such drastic change. Americans elected a right-leaning Congress; state houses and governorships flipped from blue to red. But our elites wielded their collective power and the far-reach of their voices to double-down. Fame and fortune were weaponized. Any criticism or backlash was quickly branded racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or bigoted. Any defense of traditional values or even a resistance to the radical infringement of personal rights and liberties was attacked. No one wants to be labeled a close-minded bigot because they support limits on immigration, but we were; even as millionaires sit in their gated enclaves. No one wants to be labeled anti-education, but we do want the choice for our kids to get the best education regardless of address, color, sex, or income; at the same time as the President was sending his kids to the most exclusive private schools. No one wants to be labeled as not caring for kids or advocating violence because we support the Second Amendment, but we are; even as celebrities are protected by armed security. But our political and cultural elites are the ones who get to write the rules, the rest of us have to live by them.
In 2012 Americans re-elected the first African-American president. Even those who didn’t vote for him recognized the historical significance and we celebrated together. But by 2016, many Americans had had enough. Economic recovery was painfully slow, race relations seemed worse, not better. North Korea, China, Iran and Syria all seemed at boiling points with no easy solutions in sight. So Americans moved on and many of the very people that voted for Obama then turned to support a man who was near his complete opposite. Instead of electing the woman who was anointed by the elite class as successor, people decided to vote for their own interests instead of for whom they were told they should vote (by the people who know better, you see).
But revolting from the proper social order, as seen by people such as Linda Rodin, doesn’t go over lightly. They will hold on to their ivory towers with every fiber of their being. Their rarified air mustn’t be exposed to the toxic mouth-breathers of working-class Americans. So they #Resist. Celebrities quickly jumped on the demonize ICE bandwagon. In California, most didn’t need to leave their gated compounds to condemn enforcing the laws that give America a functioning border. The actress Amber Heard (who was married to Johnny Depp and dated Elon Musk) tweeted on July 3, 2018, “Just heard there’s an ICE checkpoint in Hollywood, a few blocks from where I live. Everyone better give their housekeepers, nannies and landscapers a ride home tonight…” She later deleted the tweet. So who’s being racist here? The actress, who sees immigrants as nothing more than cheap nannies, housekeepers and landscapers, and who wants to see the end to enforcement of our border, or citizens who see their fellow Americans being victims of violence by illegal aliens and drugs that flow through our unprotected borders? Ms. Heard has the privilege of branding border control advocates as evil and has the luxury of private planes, secluded neighborhoods, and luxury hotels, while the rest of us deal with violent gangs, street crime, and drugs.
Another glaring disparity is playing out in Portland. A group protesting ICE started an occupation camp in the city near the ICE facility located there. The protestors harassed Scott and Julie Hakes, the owners of The Happy Camper, a food cart across the street from the ICE facility, which raises money for the Hakes’ nonprofit, “Operation Off the Grid.” The Hakes were threatened because they were serving customers who also happened to be ICE agents. They were forced to close. The protesters also yelled threats to their daughter who volunteered at the truck. Portland mayor Ted Wheeler allowed the occupation camp, the harassment of the Hakes, and the threats and harassment of the ICE agents themselves. Law and order, public safety, citizens’ goodwill be damned if there is an opportunity to raise your #Resistance status.
I think most people are willing to have civil conversations about problems in our lives, communities, and nation. Fair-minded people are the best judge of what solutions work for them and their families. But when we are bullied into defending ourselves against false accusations of perceived bigotry and ignorance by those who are furthest from what an average American’s life is like, but instead based on what they think our life should look like, there will be pushback. Take it from a life-long hard-head and descendant of an epic line of stubborn Midwesterners, being told what to do and how to think from people who have claimed the right to know better, results in more disagreements, not less. The sooner we all see ourselves and each other with clear vision, not what we want or assume to see, the sooner we can have honest discussions about solutions instead of blame.
Published in Politics
You’re examples are of “larger than life” presidents. But there were plenty of presidents that got elected by the political machine of the time. James Buchanan, John Adams (a disagreeable man), William Howard Taft (who was elected under TR’s shadow). Even Woodrow Wilson, who had a large historical affect on this nation wasn’t much to speak of when it came to the common touch.
As for the presidents you mentioned, there was a humility about them too. TR grew up a sickly child and overcame that, as well as a deep depression suffered when his first wife died. He also had a high pitched voice that would have sunk him in today’s media environment. FDR was in a wheelchair, and was able to hide that fact from popular view. Lincoln? A great orator and intellectual which is what he presented to the public. Yet he was an unattractive man with little physical grace, and that would have sunk him today. McKinley was an unassuming man who rarely, if ever, bragged about himself and depended on another with political genius to build him up.
The first president the “greatest” generation produced was a philanderer which was suspected at the time, but as it turns out was a cruel philanderer and addicted to pain killers. It was his shallow attractiveness that caused people around him to hide that. He defeated another member of the “greatest” generation who had little physical grace, but would have had a much better chance if it hadn’t been for television.
Nixon went on to win the presidency in a 3 way race, 8 years later. Except for him, no president has been elected who didn’t have some of these physical attributes since Kennedy’s election (Johnson doesn’t count; he was never elected as a non-incumbent).
We no longer will elect graceless men. I’ll bet you’re about to call Trump graceless. In one sense he’s not. He’s in his seventies, but he was a handsome man when he was younger, and he still carries himself as if he still is. And the attributes that got him elected are just as shallow as the attributes that got Kennedy and Obama elected.
I don’t understand this. I’m happy for a woman that is able to buy the kind of spectacles she likes. I hope people will be happy for the nice things I buy or hope to buy someday. Jealousy and “one-percenter” labels are anti-thetical to the American Dream.
No. We aren’t all racists who judge people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their communist character.
I think we are about to the point where civil conversations are no longer viable. That’s why Trump is so popular. I’d rather meet incivility with incivility, otherwise we will stop having any conversations at all. Let’s hope we never get to that point.
And don’t forget the worst was the loss of the data for security clearances to the Chinese. That is more sensitive than any other data you can imagine. When applying for a security clearance you are required to reveal all your most private secrets and anything that might make you subject to blackmail. That was given to the Chinese on a silver platter by the Obama administration and the democrats, and I don’t believe for a second that it was unintentional. Practically everyone who has access to classified information is now vulnerable to foreign intrigue. That doesn’t get anywhere near enough attention.
Most Americans don’t like showboats, especially those who flaunt their wealth. The present crop of American blillionaire moguls from Silicon Valley are known for not flaunting their wealth, and it extends down to the mere second tier multi-millionaires. They are quiet about their private jets, and they don’t drive flashy cars. They’re usually seen dressed in business casual.
There is only one notable exception I can think of, and that’s Larry Ellison of Oracle, who does drive the flashy cars and displays his flashy yacht.
The celebrities that wear cool glasses are also seen as shallow, and are often revealed to be small people indeed in the way they treat the hoi polloi. For example, Barbra Streisand, it was revealed, instructed her servants not to make eye contact with her.
Which is like the Athenians (in the Hellenic age) who dressed in drab, plain clothes no matter how rich because a nearly pure democracy was punishing to anyone who appeared wealthier than others.
I suppose we are living in such a time. We have lost our pride in prosperity and are devolving into a decayed level of democracy where the best and most able are punished by the masses.
Are you sure you’re not getting her confused with Hillary Clinton? They couldn’t both have been that way, could they?
Never in my life thought I’d run into someone who would say out loud that such an ethic was bad.
Guess who Streisand voted for?
I’m not sure that the workers in the industrial age, the age of Andrew Carnegie, J.P Morgan, Rockefeller, et al felt pride towards them or the country that rewarded them because of their opulance.
They were called fat cats for a reason.
Today, the celebrities, entertainers really, are the ones who flaunt their wealth, and they aren’t punished for it. Kim Kardashian is a good example. I think your Athenian analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
So what you’re saying is that only the right people are allowed to flaunt wealth? I confess to knowing nothing about the cardashians (through studied effort, it’s not easy to remain ignorant of them). All I know is they are said to have big butts and are daughters of Bruce Jenner.
They were besties. Didn’t Babs visit often in the Clinton White House?
Good article, dead on mostly.
The country isn’t divided into tribes. It’s divided between unintelligent, uninformed angry, bullies and cowards on the one side and everybody else on the other. The internet and social media have given barbarian bullies access to public attention and influence and they’re doing what unintelligent bullies do, they bully and nobody is doing anything to protect their victims.
It used to cost more to organize and mobilize a mob, now it’s simple and instantaneous, really stupid people didn’t play a role unless they were celebrities or rich kids, or mobilized by a dictator or would be dictator, now they have access and only have to say things a sentence at time. However, the solutions are the same; punch a bully in the nose to protect the innocent; stop a lynch mob by threatening to shoot the leader. (metaphorically speaking one must say these days) These folks aren’t MLK or Gandhi who welcomed and could effectively use jail time. Nobody, especially not the celebrities, cares about them as people, they aren’t even individuals to themselves or each other and wont be martyrs. Go to demonstrate wearing a mask, break a window, trash a business, off to jail. Local government won’t do it will they? Not if it costs them less to be quiet or join.
No, we didn’t.
Definitely. Only it’s not the mob who decides as you’ve been implying. It’s the elite.
Well this thread went off in many different directions, but I wanted to commend Jenna for writing a really well-written and easy to read post. Not many posts are worth the effort anymore, but this one was.
I was surprised at the Jenner reference. I looked it up. He’s Kim Kardashian’s step father and the father of two of that social set.
A very cynical, but selective observation. You don’t want to see that there is tribalism, and you do want to call everyone who disagrees with you angry bullies. And unintelligent. And cowards. You left out stupid. I guess you thought it would be impolite.
I do see a lot of angry bullies, but I also see tribes.
That’s why down here, we call it “The War Between the States”.
That was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-1865, but it’s not necessarily true of civil wars in general. For example, it wasn’t the case of the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939.
I thought he was Kim Kardashian’s step-mother now.
Thanks a lot. I was very happy in my ignorance. Knowing that much more is a burden.
I call it the ‘parochial, cosmopolitan bubble….’
A suggestion:
At least from my perspective, this is a wildly off-base reading of that particular scene in recent history. [I] think the response was much more of a quiet retreat into hibernation for the progressive winter…or a sort of secular benedict option. There was certainly no celebrating in my little part of the world.
The first one was bad enough but I when the Big O was re-elected it was like everyone in my office’s dog had died on election day. Other than out of work related necessity, we barely spoke to each for almost two weeks. There was no small talk, banter or BS in other words. We were all in shock to tell you the truth and felt as if we’d been “let down” by our civilian brothers and sisters.
Like when the second plane hit the building. From election night 2012 forward there was no more denying We the People no longer deserved the Republic gifted to us…it was too much fun to piss it down the drain with a light working, intellectual midget at the helm.
I recall a special Thursday night “triage” AMU – and, when at church that weekend, being so distraught that my pastor took me aside, hugged me, and said: N, God is still in charge…We’ll get through this, but we have work to do.”
That’s a disturbing but apt comparison.
I absolutely agree- it was the start of a long 4(then 8) years of a jolt towards socialist policy and a cultural liberalism in America not seen since perhaps the 1960s. We knew who Obama was politically & perhaps socially, but maybe it was a sort of ignorance in thinking we could celebrate a black president, at least for the sake of healing a scarred past. But as is the case with the left, nothing will ever be good enough. Obama’s presidency was truly a lost opportunity in that sense. It’s interesting to me that Trump has more minority support. Not because he feeds racial divisions like Obama did & much of the left does, & doesn’t apologize at every turn like many Republicans continuously do, but because he talks about making things better for everyone- regardless of color or class.
Thanks for your feedback!!
Not quite sure how you’d give up the Bill of Rights. They’re essentially advocating for taking away certain types of speech they have deemed untenable.
So I’m in the wrong if I won’t give up rights endowed to me by something other than a government?
I think you’re off-course here. If someone walks up to me swinging a stick, saying they’re going to hit me, am I now required to give something up as a “trade-off”?
Here’s what I’ll give up: A back-kick to the stomach to anyone who tries to take something from me that is not theirs. And they’ll be lucky if I stop there.