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
Tags:

This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Al Sparks (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    It’s divided between unintelligent, uninformed angry, bullies and cowards on the one side and everybody else on the other.

    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.

    There have always been in groups and out groups.  Humans form them instantly and over everything.  It’s part of evolutionary biology and anthropology.  What’s new is the formerly invisible now have instant access to join a mob and they are being used by folks with an agenda to weaken, divide and conquer.  Mobs are used that way by dictators and would be dictators.  

     There is another thing and it’s useful to look at explicitly tribal societies.  When they are relatively market based the tribes work things out, but they’re still tribes.  When those tribal societies adopted socialism relations quickly turned to violence ending in genocide because the tribe that controls the government gets all the jobs and allocates all the public and private goods.   What’s going on isn’t a new tribalism, but the exacerbation of the benefits and costs of bing part of the coalition of in groups that controls the expanding power of the state, and the  allocation of private and public goods from the center.  

    • #61
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.