Republicans are increasingly using the language of class conflict to promote right-wing populism— a choice that may shape the two major parties for decades to come.
Jan 4, 2023·edited Jan 4, 2023Liked by Sheluyang Peng
I've come to enjoy your comments on The Free Press so I thought I'd take a look at your substack. This essay is spot on.
One quibble is are you referring to "non-college-educated working class" or "non-college, educated working class?" Because many of my friends in the trades are well read and highly educated. They just haven't been subject to the re-education camps that masquerade as universities. And, notwithstanding my education levels and apprenticeships at some elite New York City legal venues, my roots remain solidly working class, albeit with the ability to "pass." Until I express a political opinion, lol.
I am referring to... I suppose I can mean both. College education these days is a huge source of political polarization. People with Bachelor's and above increasingly vote D, non-college increasingly vote R. When polls are split by race, the pollster will often separate white-non-college and white-college because of how big the gap is now.
Of course, as you've pointed out, many people are highly-educated without having to go to college. I quote Barbara Ehrenreich in this essay that she (a PhD holder) married a tradesman who's more well-read than she is. And in my essay "From Latin to Latinx", I've discussed that apart from STEM fields, the function of college isn't really to teach, but serves as a status marker where one learns the beliefs needed to show that they are part of an elite class.
And yeah, I can relate to you on the political view thing. I wouldn't call myself a conservative, but my fellow liberal-arts-college educated young people are so to the left that I look conservative in comparison. I can pass well, I know all the terms and all the right things to say. I understand that in order to survive in pretty much any professional workplace these days I have to go full DEI-speak. It's a sad state of affairs these days. Even the hard sciences these days now won't publish science that is "problematic". I hope that people like us can still resist the tyranny of the mob.
They're easy to resist because they're just so comical. Albeit vicious and highly covetous and protective of their transitory "status." As far as DEI....it's fine if you really do enjoy and revel in the differences. If you're just in it for the game....well, poseur and fraud come to mind. Which describes most liberals, who are among the more racist and sanctimonious people I've ever met. Like you expressed elsewhere - living lawn signs.
Yeah, the signs are crazy virtue signaling. It’s funny because the only time I see Black Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate, or In This House We Believe is in the richest whitest neighborhoods. You’ll almost never see POC out those up.
Then there’s the funny and sad irony of white “progressives” moving into and gentrifying a traditionally black neighborhood (Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy, Bushwick) etc. then putting up a Black Lives Matter sign on the door. It’s all a status game to them. They don’t really care about minorities but act like they do.
It doesn’t make you a Marxist to advocate for policies that help the working class. The most effective policies are smaller government, fewer regulations, less immigration, commitment to safety, and lower taxes. In other words, government should focus on making it easier for people to create businesses, be safe, and keep what they build. In absolutely no way is this the same as what Leftists advocate, and yet it is a populist message. The Right want people to succeed. The Left want people to feel envy and rage. One is about empowerment, the other about helplessness.
What I am discussing in this piece is that populism is a broad strategy, one that can be used by both the right and the left. Populism is also very popular with working class people, while neoliberalism and libertarianism aren't. And that is what Hawley and Co. are advocating for: for the Republican Party to tone down its libertarian economic advocacy in favor of one that advocates for more regulations, like on free trade and on corporations (Hawley is well known for his opposition to Big Tech), while maintaining its social conservatism.
And yes, Hawley is not a Marxist. But what both Republicans and Marxists both have in common is a hatred of the liberal elite. By channeling this hatred, Hawley is attempting to assemble a coalition against the liberal elite, one that will outnumber the liberal elite and create a dominant Republican Party. It's a smart strategy by him, one that accurately predicts the turning tide against woke liberal dominance in media, academia, and NGOs.
It's a shame that he's unlikely to favor policies like an end to regressive taxation/the end of the social security tax cap, etc. He and Desantis can whip folks up easily because of how socially dismal and ridiculous and anti-normal and anti-family the Dems increasingly are but vent for that anger is about all they're offering.
"There is nothing new about a politician that was born into an affluent family, educated at America’s most elite colleges, and now fashions themselves as a champion of the working class"
Now that's just crazy talk. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me FDR came from a long line of socio-political elites!
FDR wasn’t a fake rube that encouraged anti-USG rioters (which were even more real and threatening in Bonus Army days. Comparing the two is stupid and deeply offensive.
Carhartt does look good. I live in Brooklyn and if I ever go to the hipster part, it's all trust fund kids who have never performed manual labor rock Carhartt beanies and hoodies. It's almost like cultural appropriation.
There’s nothing like upward mobility like a man who wears Carhartt out of necessity passing it on to a son who wears Carhartt because it’s cool and trendy.
I've come to enjoy your comments on The Free Press so I thought I'd take a look at your substack. This essay is spot on.
One quibble is are you referring to "non-college-educated working class" or "non-college, educated working class?" Because many of my friends in the trades are well read and highly educated. They just haven't been subject to the re-education camps that masquerade as universities. And, notwithstanding my education levels and apprenticeships at some elite New York City legal venues, my roots remain solidly working class, albeit with the ability to "pass." Until I express a political opinion, lol.
I am referring to... I suppose I can mean both. College education these days is a huge source of political polarization. People with Bachelor's and above increasingly vote D, non-college increasingly vote R. When polls are split by race, the pollster will often separate white-non-college and white-college because of how big the gap is now.
Of course, as you've pointed out, many people are highly-educated without having to go to college. I quote Barbara Ehrenreich in this essay that she (a PhD holder) married a tradesman who's more well-read than she is. And in my essay "From Latin to Latinx", I've discussed that apart from STEM fields, the function of college isn't really to teach, but serves as a status marker where one learns the beliefs needed to show that they are part of an elite class.
And yeah, I can relate to you on the political view thing. I wouldn't call myself a conservative, but my fellow liberal-arts-college educated young people are so to the left that I look conservative in comparison. I can pass well, I know all the terms and all the right things to say. I understand that in order to survive in pretty much any professional workplace these days I have to go full DEI-speak. It's a sad state of affairs these days. Even the hard sciences these days now won't publish science that is "problematic". I hope that people like us can still resist the tyranny of the mob.
They're easy to resist because they're just so comical. Albeit vicious and highly covetous and protective of their transitory "status." As far as DEI....it's fine if you really do enjoy and revel in the differences. If you're just in it for the game....well, poseur and fraud come to mind. Which describes most liberals, who are among the more racist and sanctimonious people I've ever met. Like you expressed elsewhere - living lawn signs.
Yeah, the signs are crazy virtue signaling. It’s funny because the only time I see Black Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate, or In This House We Believe is in the richest whitest neighborhoods. You’ll almost never see POC out those up.
Then there’s the funny and sad irony of white “progressives” moving into and gentrifying a traditionally black neighborhood (Crown Heights, Bed-Stuy, Bushwick) etc. then putting up a Black Lives Matter sign on the door. It’s all a status game to them. They don’t really care about minorities but act like they do.
Eric Adams called them out: https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-adams-defund-the-police-young-white-affluent-people-2021-4?amp
It doesn’t make you a Marxist to advocate for policies that help the working class. The most effective policies are smaller government, fewer regulations, less immigration, commitment to safety, and lower taxes. In other words, government should focus on making it easier for people to create businesses, be safe, and keep what they build. In absolutely no way is this the same as what Leftists advocate, and yet it is a populist message. The Right want people to succeed. The Left want people to feel envy and rage. One is about empowerment, the other about helplessness.
What I am discussing in this piece is that populism is a broad strategy, one that can be used by both the right and the left. Populism is also very popular with working class people, while neoliberalism and libertarianism aren't. And that is what Hawley and Co. are advocating for: for the Republican Party to tone down its libertarian economic advocacy in favor of one that advocates for more regulations, like on free trade and on corporations (Hawley is well known for his opposition to Big Tech), while maintaining its social conservatism.
And yes, Hawley is not a Marxist. But what both Republicans and Marxists both have in common is a hatred of the liberal elite. By channeling this hatred, Hawley is attempting to assemble a coalition against the liberal elite, one that will outnumber the liberal elite and create a dominant Republican Party. It's a smart strategy by him, one that accurately predicts the turning tide against woke liberal dominance in media, academia, and NGOs.
It's a shame that he's unlikely to favor policies like an end to regressive taxation/the end of the social security tax cap, etc. He and Desantis can whip folks up easily because of how socially dismal and ridiculous and anti-normal and anti-family the Dems increasingly are but vent for that anger is about all they're offering.
Hawley is a POS traitor that perfectly represents one of our most backwards states. The US would gain on the whole if MO left the union.
"There is nothing new about a politician that was born into an affluent family, educated at America’s most elite colleges, and now fashions themselves as a champion of the working class"
Now that's just crazy talk. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me FDR came from a long line of socio-political elites!
FDR wasn’t a fake rube that encouraged anti-USG rioters (which were even more real and threatening in Bonus Army days. Comparing the two is stupid and deeply offensive.
Carhartt does look good. I live in Brooklyn and if I ever go to the hipster part, it's all trust fund kids who have never performed manual labor rock Carhartt beanies and hoodies. It's almost like cultural appropriation.
There’s nothing like upward mobility like a man who wears Carhartt out of necessity passing it on to a son who wears Carhartt because it’s cool and trendy.