Donald Trump

Are The Lower Classes Finally Free to Express Themselves? Trump & Brexit Editions

In Britain and America, it's "revenge of the plebs."

|

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit looks at how the Trump phenomenon in America and the push for British exit from the EU ("Brexit") are challenging longstanding conventions about who is allowed to express themselves in what ways. In each case, pro-Trump and pro-Brexit attitudes were once identified largely (and erroneously) with lower-income and lower-education parts of the public. That's changing, says Reynolds, and it's part of a larger cultural shift on both sides of the pond:

It used to be, of course, that the lower and middle classes were stuffy and constrained by social convention while the freethinkers at universities and in the ruling class got to experiment with unconventional ideas. If their experimenting got enough success, then it might eventually filter down to ordinary people. (The sexual revolution worked this way, more or less).

But now it's our ruling class that is hidebound by political correctness, and it takes movement by the masses to give it permission to express a controversial view. That's a major change, and it's one that the ruling class isn't likely to appreciate much. But having subjected itself to the chains of "acceptable" opinion, what can it do?

The short version, says Instapundit? Expect an elite wave of Trump supporters.

More here.

Bonus: The prompt for Reynolds' column is by Reason contributor and Spiked Editor Brendan O'Neill in which he cheers on the "revenge of the plebs":

From Obama's writing-off of the inhabitants of industrial downs as people who 'cling to guns and religion' to blogging queen Arianna Huffington's claim that 'millions of voters' vote with their 'lizard, more emotional right brain' rather than with their 'logical left brain', the contempt heaped on ordinary American voters in recent years has been relentless.

America's new elites, fancying themselves superior to the rural, the old, the religiously inclined and the rest, have increasingly turned politics into something that is done to people, for their own good, rather than by people according to their moral outlook. And then they wonder why people go looking for something else, something less sneering.

In Britain, meanwhile, the Third Wayists are losing sleep over the EU referendum, when ordinary people — including people who watch the football and wave the St George's flag! — will get to have their say on Britain's future relationship with the EU. What madness is this, they wonder of democracy.

RTFA.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

159 responses to “Are The Lower Classes Finally Free to Express Themselves? Trump & Brexit Editions

  1. The notion that there is any way at all in which ‘the Donald’ is less sneering than any other politician is laughable. And, in fact, demonstrably insane.
    He may differ from much of the rest of the pack in the target of his sneers, but sneer he does. It’s damn near his only schtick.

    1. That’s the point, though: he is sneering at the Right People.

      The overlap with people that a good chunk of the commentariat sneers at, is pretty large. Naturally, there’s another pretty good chunk of the commentariat that sneers back. This is pretty much the yokel v cosmo pissing match on the national stage, I think.

      1. To clarify, to his supporters, he is sneering at the Right People.

      2. Been saying for a long time that Trump sneers at the right people. Unfortunately, that’s the only thing he has going for him. He’s dead wrong on almost every issue. Which makes his supporters ignorant morons.

        1. To be fair, he says both too little and too much, so he is also ded right on almost every issue, sooner or later, and then again sometime after, in between which he is dead wrong.

          He’s like a kid with a dollar talking about what he’s going to buy in the candy store. Even if he gets elected, he still won’t have any policy lasting longer than a minute.

          1. he seems the living embodiment of the phrase “give someone enough rope…..” You would think the stories of his almost minimal hiring of American applicants at the Palm Beach property would strike even his supporters as a contradiction with his talk about a wall.

            The Trumpkins are very much like the Obamabots. It’s beyond cult of personality. They have personalized the candidate. Criticism of him is criticism of themselves.

            1. They have personalized the candidate. Criticism of him is criticism of themselves.

              Exactly. He is now the embodiment of them, and what they want. Which is pretty much the definition of “cult of personality”.

              1. “Stand here, he thought, and count the lighted windows of a city. You cannot do it. But behind each yellow rectangle that climbs, one over another, to the sky – under each bulb – down to there, see that spark over the river which is not a star? – there are people whom you will never see and who are your masters. At the supper tables, in the drawing rooms, in their beds and in their cellars, in their studies and in their bathrooms. Speeding in the subways under your feet. Crawling up in elevators through vertical cracks around you. Jolting past you in every bus. Your masters, Gail Wynand. There is a net – longer than the cables that coil through the walls of this city, larger than the mesh of pipes that carry water, gas and refuse – there is another hidden net around you; it is strapped to you, and the wires lead to every hand in the city. They jerked the wires and you moved. You were a ruler of men. You held a leash. A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends.”
                ? Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead

      3. “he is sneering at the Right People”

        He is not sneering at the Right People, he is sneering at the powerless those who are not in a position to defend themselves. Muslims, Mexicans etc. Trump is as PC as the rest of us. During a recent debate show, he even praised a group for it’s contributions to ‘women’s health,’ a more PC cause is hard to imagine.

        1. mtru,

          A sneer is a facial display, not a disparaging comment, nor a defensible comment about problems with largely Mexican (and certainly controllable much more by Mexico if they wished to keep their commitments to do so) southern foot traffic illegal border entry.

          His decades long devotion to PC Lib positions will both be addressed by his Primary opponents-so far, just barely-and work or not. If not with the most conservo of Repubs, it wont work with the Gen voter. Happily, he has adopted anti-PC as a position. I hope for his personal education, as well as the public’s, Rubio or Cruz addresses the contrast between the “women’s health” position you properly note, or one of his other still maintained PC Lib positions.

          1. “largely Mexican (and certainly controllable much more by Mexico if they wished to keep their commitments to do so) southern foot traffic illegal border entry.”

            Humans, call them Mexicans if you must, have been living in that part of the world for thousands of years. Indeed, the entirety of Central and North America was known as Mexico to the circumnavigating seadog Drake. It’s only recently that some people have taken it upon themselves to control the human traffic by force. That’s fine if you’re willing to pledge allegiance to a faltering nation state. Not fine if Freedom is your bag.

        2. Anyone can say those things. Trump is popular because the very act of openly saying those things is a middle finger to the sort of Goodthinking Elite who will stand on TV after a Muslim murders someone in the name of Islam, and tell everyone that the person’s religion had absolutely nothing at all to do with their actions. It’s a sneer at the person whose first thought after a crime is committed against his people is not sympathy for their loss and their anxiety, but fear that they will react in a way that reflects poorly on him.

  2. So…class war. As always. Yay.

    1. In the sense that the lower classes are finally fighting back, sure.

      Just like with the culture war, which happens whether you fight back or not. Hard to complain about a war already occurring.

      1. “In the sense that the lower classes are finally fighting back, sure.”

        When the poor and dispossessed finally fight back, they’ll be hanging folks like Trump from lamp posts, rather than voting for them.

        1. Based on most of history and most of the current state of the world, that’s hardly inevitable.

          Cherry-picked “people’s revolutions” don’t define what is inevitable.

          1. I agree. I expect to see more bowing and scraping before the likes of Trump.

            1. Funny, isn’t it? Democracy is proposed as a at of smoothing out capitalism, and making sure the powerless have some power against the otherwise rich and powerful.

              And, apparently, to some people, that aligns with handing Donald Trump the presidency.

              It’s almost as if that concept of democracy is really a big lie. Or, at least, entirely optional.

        2. mtru,

          I speak with direct experience in riot control, during part of my time in the Navy. Using even ’50’s tech, simple walkie – talkies and big trucks to carry us around, and prisoners around, and riotous crowds have zero chance if leadership wants a riot contained. The stuff we saw many months ago in Greece, or recently in Baltimore was only because the Bosses let it happen by choice to the degree it did, with public show of police control to appease the masses of (mostly) law abiding voters.

          Lefty academics – famously Alinsky among them – have long concluded that both state ability to resist, plus public support for state control and only minority of support for rebellion made standard rebellion pointless in the US. Thus “the long march of the institutions” and dis-assembly from within, by attacking traditional culture, the bulwark of any society.

          1. I agree but what you’re missing is that in successful revolts and rebelions, the state is divided and some or all security organizations side with the rioters. Think Russia, Iran, Egypt, Romania, East Germany. Sometimes rioters just happen to catch authorities heavy handed and flat footed, like Ferguson or London recently.

            ” Thus “the long march of the institutions”

            It’s not Marxism’s march, or the Left. It’s Feminism and a host of other identities, struggling to be heard. And they will never stop attacking traditional culture.

      2. Fight back? Against what? “Oppression” at the hands of those damn faggots and Mexicans? Fuck the plebs.

        1. Tell us about what it’s like to live in an immigrant neighborhood, white boy.

  3. “If there is hope,’ wrote Winston, ‘it lies in the proles.’

    If there was hope, it MUST lie in the proles, because only there in those swarming disregarded masses, 85 per cent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.

    1. those swarming disregarded masses

      Tell 85 percent of a population to fuck off long enough, they’re going to eventually find a way to leverage their numbers and destroy you. Probably why our current elites are so focused on maintaining two parties to play them off against each other.

  4. Krist I’m tired of the complaint that people don’t vote logically. Hey IDIOTS: when there’s a coercive majority rule government, that one single vote has to stand for everything. If I could vote separately on roads, schools, tariffs, affirmative action, technical standards, contract language, and every other aspect of government, it might as well be anarchy. Until then, no one’s vote matters in the least except as a signalling mechanism — I AM BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I VOTED.

    And that is hokum. Stuff it.

    1. Krist I’m tired of the complaint that people don’t vote logically. Hey IDIOTS: when there’s a coercive majority rule government, that one single vote has to stand for everything. If I could vote separately on roads, schools, tariffs, affirmative action, technical standards, contract language, and every other aspect of government, it might as well be anarchy. Until then, no one’s vote matters in the least except as a signalling mechanism — I AM BETTER THAN YOU BECAUSE I VOTED.

      *Standing ovation*

    2. Indeed, friend. It’s really ridiculous when people try to interpret votes as saying one thing or another, or arguing that you must vote because of issue X. But voting for one candidate, especially at the federal level, means voting on issues Y-AAA.

    3. I vote logically, so your point is invalid.

  5. America’s new elites, fancying themselves superior to the rural, the old, the religiously inclined and the rest, have increasingly turned politics into something that is done to people, for their own good, rather than by people according to their moral outlook.

    is it happening increasingly or are people simply more aware of it because there are more communication channels than there used to be, and one strain of ideology no longer has a hammerlock on the flow of information?

  6. RTFA?

    Harumpf!

  7. “From Obama’s writing-off of the inhabitants of industrial downs as people who ‘cling to guns and religion’ to blogging queen Arianna Huffington’s claim that ‘millions of voters’ vote with their ‘lizard, more emotional right brain’ rather than with their ‘logical left brain’, the contempt heaped on ordinary American voters in recent years has been relentless.”

    Reminds me of this: ” “People who are very aware that they have more knowledge than the average person are often very unaware that they do not have one-tenth of the knowledge of all of the average persons put together. In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge.” – Thomas Sowell

    What is worse is that that holds true even for very smart, knowledgable people, but in the case sited above the quote it refers to the clucking of morons.

    1. “In this situation, for the intelligentsia to impose their notions on ordinary people is essentially to impose ignorance on knowledge.”

      Knowledge is over-rated, as Sowell knows. Who cares is the unwashed know the lyrics to the latest pop tunes and the elite don’t? It’s wisdom that counts in leadership.

      1. mtru,

        Wisdom counts, check. And the wisdom test? Thats a decades long debate, at best. Meantime, back in reality-ville, the knowledge that has taken over seven years to pop into force as embodied in Trump is a revulsive response to both illegal aliens apparently pouring across the border at will, reporting to border patrol for a ride to a nice (for someone recently living rough) accommodation, sustenance and a medical check-up before being shuttled to some Red State to mess with the opposition.

        That, along with the richest corporate donors, and their spokesman in the leader of the National Chamber of Commerce helpfully suggesting to their Caddy’s and Waiter’s – oh, I’m sorry, their congresscritters – that “we need more employee visa’s for mid and high level employes, please, and dont bother checking for those pesky clauses about first searching for a qualified Yank worker.

        And gosh, continue not enforcing that pesky E-verify thingie. Thanks, cuz.” That wall and immigration issues are huge for Trump, and neither Rubio or Cruz can challenge that because they both have some issue with accepting the status quo. Rubio greatly, and Cruz only kinda. So Trump isn’t just some “fad,” he’s actually hitting a nerve of real emotion (cue the ’70’s hit).

        1. “So Trump isn’t just some “fad,” he’s actually hitting a nerve of real emotion (cue the ’70’s hit).”

          Wasn’t McCain (Juan McShamnesty if I recall) also vulnerable on that issue? I think the base was only mobilized by Palin, and McCain didn’t inspire anyone.

  8. I like the rebellion but I don’t like where it’s leading in the short run. In 2008, the Democrat establishment had Hillary in mind, but the base had some new and shiny thing else in its collective sights. Eventually the party realized it could work with this history-free mound of nothingness, and harness the power of his mooning followers.

    The GOP has no such option. Trump has no ideologue pulling his strings, no puppeteers with whom the party can work. In fact, Trump has nothing tethering him to the right at all. Which is all well and good; who likes the Republican establishment anyway? But Trump? Couldn’t Johnny Sixpack have gone with the establishment thorn from Kentucky? COME ON.

    1. You mean McConnell? 😀

    2. Rand Paul looks like a wimp to the average Trump supporter.

      Trump is a Winner, even when he loses. He is a Truth-teller, even when he tells obvious lies. Trump is an Alpha, even when he acts and speaks like a Gamma. Anyone who attacks Trump is obviously an envious loser, whose opinion should not even be listened to, much less considered, even for merely rebuttal purposes.

    3. The guy from Kentucky didn’t bother trying to sell to Johnny Sixpack. Johnny had no idea who he was, what he stood for or if what he stood for had anything to do with the world Johnny inhabited.

      1. Rand’s entire candidacy is the embodiment of someone who had a good message but no idea how to manipulate the media to provide the exposure necessary to overcome GOP establishment pushback. He would have gotten his ass kicked whether Trump had run in the race or not.

        GOP candidates better learn really damn quick that populism is going to be the keystone of political campaigns from here on out. No one gives a shit about Liberal/Conservative paradigms anymore–those are concepts that died in the 1990s and both parties have been dragging their corpses around the last 20 years like Weekend at Bernie’s, pretending everything’s okay.

        1. ” populism is going to be the keystone of political campaigns from here on out. ”

          Then there’s really no future for libertarians in America, and no point in trying. Populism burns all it touches before burning itself and retreating as it has in Latin America.

          If populism is so big and coming where is it at the state level?

          1. Then there’s really no future for libertarians in America, and no point in trying. Populism burns all it touches before burning itself and retreating as it has in Latin America.

            Oh fuck off. You are truly ignorant if you think populism is going to be the death of the US. America’s gone through several populist insurgencies and made it out just fine after a period of social anxiety.

            Thanks for providing a great argument to not bring in more Latin American immigrants, though.

            If populism is so big and coming where is it at the state level?

            You really think those Republican governors didn’t benefit from appealing to Tea Party populism?

            1. “America’s gone through several populist insurgencies and made it out just fine after a period of social anxiety.”

              America did not ‘make it out just fine’ after the anti-immigrant tantrum of the 20’s or the New Deal of the ’30s.

              “Thanks for providing a great argument to not bring in more Latin American immigrants, though.”

              Thanks for demonstrating that you’re asshole who thinks the government exists to socially engineer society.

              “You really think those Republican governors didn’t benefit from appealing to Tea Party populism?”

              They implemented reform that was either tough or not noticed. Not rallying against brown people.

              1. America did not ‘make it out just fine’ after the anti-immigrant tantrum of the 20’s or the New Deal of the ’30s.

                Crack open a book sometime, moron. We may not like the policies that were enacted, but the 20s were one of the most prosperous economic periods in history, the country marshaled all of its resources to win a two-theater war in the 40s, which was followed by a period of massive prosperity in the 50s, contra to what the commies claimed would happen.

                Thanks for demonstrating that you’re asshole who thinks the government exists to socially engineer society.

                A government exists to place the rights of its citizens as the top priority of a stable society. It’s not obligated to open its doors to anyone it doesn’t wish. If you don’t think importing millions of foreigners for the purpose of cheap labor isn’t it’s own form or social engineering.

                They implemented reform that was either tough or not noticed. Not rallying against brown people.

                They ran on populist anger against Obama’s policies. The same anger you’re decrying because it targets your precious Turd World labor whose neighborhoods you avoid like the plague.

                1. *If you don’t think importing millions of foreigners for the purpose of cheap labor isn’t it’s own form or social engineering, you’re dumber than I imagined.*

      2. Johnny Sixpack is an ignorant tool and we need to find a way to marginalize him.

        1. “We” do not need to do anything.

    4. Except the establishment thorn from Kentucky is known for at times telling people that *sometimes* the government can’t give you what you want for free. And that *sometimes* it shouldn’t even try.

      That’s the kiss of death to a political party.

      The reason the Libertarian party and libertarian philosophy fail is not because there’s a ton of weirdos in the party. Its because we recognize that there are costs and trade-offs associated with any policy proposal while the other parties scream that they’ll fix everything for free (or by ‘taxing the rich’ which is effectively the same thing).

      So the people see one guy offering decent stuff at a fair price and two other guys offering better shit for free. And they flock around the other two guys. Even when they then have to pay a membership fee to get into the store and then get handed a pile of turds they rationalize it as ‘well, at least it was free’.

      1. it wasn’t long ago that one side was known as “the party of no” and various individuals as “Senator/Congressman No.” When ‘no’ is always seen as a bad thing instead of a logical conclusion, no will not win.

  9. Sorta related:
    “Some 184,000 people, 23 percent of the city, qualify as poor, according to the Public
    Policy Institute of California and the Stanford Center on Poverty.
    Moreover, the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider. San Francisco has fastest
    growing inequality spread in America, according to the Brookings Institution.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..041027.php

    SF pays bums to move here and then gripes there are poor people in town!
    And I’d bet that the definition of “poor” by those whine-agencies is well above what I lived on several times in my life.

    1. “And I’d bet that the definition of “poor” by those whine-agencies is well above what I lived on several times in my life.”

      So you’re a victim, too. Congratulations.

      1. Strange I never made that claim, shitstain.
        What did we leave out to attract the vermin today?

        1. “What did we leave out to attract the vermin today?”

          Just your typical whine laced with self-pity.

          1. “Just your typical whine laced with self-pity.”
            So you lie about that along with everything else. Good to know.

            1. You’ve been lied to! Double dutch victimhood! Must have made your day. Why not celebrate with more inane comments.

              1. mtrueman|2.27.16 @ 2:39PM|#
                “Why not celebrate with more inane comments.”

                Because I don’t have any, shitstain.

                1. Like wrestling with a pig, Sevo. Both get covered with shit, but the pig likes it.

    2. Wow, San Francisco really has a serious inequality problem! They should probably stop electing so many hardcore conservatives and libertarians. I mean, that’s the only explanation, because if Democrats ran a city, there would be total wealth equality.

      /sarc

      1. I once had a long Facebook conversation about this. I pointed out that Baltimore had been under exclusive Democratic control for generations, and got (IIRC) $1 billion in stimulus money recently. So why is there still poverty, police abuse, and bad schools? Nobody had a good response, but eventually the consensus was that the problems in Baltimore were due to people like me. *SIGH*

      2. Ha! Made my day.

  10. From what I can see, President Trump would be the same as President Hillary, the same as President Obama, the same as President Bush, with minor differences in ancillary matters while continuing to press forward with expanding FedGov power.

    1. It’s… It’s almost as though there’s only one political party! But I know that can’t be true, because Team Red and Team Blue tell me they’re waaaay different from each other.

    1. I’m not sure Trump, or general changes in the political wind, qualifies as the sort of thing Mackay was talking about.

      i.e. I think the modern “Social Justice” Social-media thing has more in common with south-sea-bubble, tulip-craze, witch-burning, etc. than a gradual shift towards more-populist politics across the political spectrum.

      1. With all due respect, I think that’s just your biases talking. The SJW-sphere and the HANDS OFF MY MERRY CHRISTMAS MEDI-WAR! crowd are just two different sides of Harvey Dent’s coin.

        1. maybe neither of the things are.

          I’m just saying i read that book twice and i always thought his point was that sometimes the general-public suffers from a sudden mass-delusion that is more like a “fever state” – a widespread distortion of perceptions – that provokes some bizarre short-lived social phenomena.

          the witch-hunts being a classic one.

          I’m not sure something as common and recurring as “a reversion to populist politics” has quite the same ‘out of nowhere’, ‘mass-delusion’ qualities.

          1. I agree with you that Mackay argued certain mass-delusions were feverish, but I don’t agree that Mackay would discount recurring fads. How many times have we seen bubbles? Or conspicuous consumption drive the value of a good to the sky only to see it crash when the fad is over? Or medical quackery? Indeed, for someone like Mackay, presumably educated in the classical literature and history of Greece and Rome, the concept that civic republicanism from time to time must weather reversions to populism would be so well-known as to not even warrant mention.

            1. “I don’t agree that Mackay would discount recurring fads. How many times have we seen bubbles?

              yeah, i guess. He was a lawyer and not an economist and i don’t think he was all that hip to the idea of long-cycle economic/political trends anyway.

              I always thought of that book as the Great-Grand-Daddy of pop-sociology a la Freakonomics/Tipping Point/Black Swan… and that somewhere in the middle of the book he stopped trying to maintain any real consistent thread between all of the so-called “mass delusions” and was just like, “fuck it, i’m going to write a chapter about the Tulip Craze” rather than worry about whether it has any real connection to things like The Crusades.

              I always thought each separate section was interesting as their own case-study on various kinds of irrational human behaviors, rather than all of them being examples of “the same thing”

              1. I always thought of that book as the Great-Grand-Daddy of pop-sociology a la Freakonomics/Tipping Point/Black Swan…

                You could go even farther and point to Ibn Khaldun. I think a lot of people underestimate the sailence of Khaldun’s cyclical view of history (Asabiyyah) upon the modern Arab political mindset, for it really describes the strategy taken by a lot of these insurgent groups, AQ and ISIS especially.

                that somewhere in the middle of the book he stopped trying to maintain any real consistent thread between all of the so-called “mass delusions” and was just like, “fuck it, i’m going to write a chapter about the Tulip Craze” rather than worry about whether it has any real connection to things like The Crusades.

                Yes, I know what you’re talking about. I remember it seeming that way to me too.

  11. Trump struck a chord with a lot of folks; I wonder if even he is surprised at how popular he has become.

    I speculate that he only intended to run for President as a promotional stunt for a new reality tv show, but discovered that he actually has a chance, and so is feverishly trying to put an actual campaign into place.

    1. part of me still thinks he kept saying increasingly outlandish things in an effort to self-disqualify. But, instead, the cult found those things to be even more reason to support him. But that’s just me.

    2. I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I lean to the notion that Bill whispered whispered the seed of madness that would consume him.

  12. I always think broad generalizations about “class” in America – particularly trying to compare US vs. UK perceptions of class – are often wrongheaded and misleading.

    I just don’t think the imagined American class-divides work the way people imagine they do. I’m sure there’s already a dozen books written on the topic, and this isn’t a new observation. And its certainly nothing like the way it works in the UK, which is far more longstanding and complex.

    I think part of the issue is that everyone imagines themselves being the “middle class” (regardless of the economic/demographic reality) and always imagines ‘everyone else’ as being either above them or below them, either economically or culturally.

    We don’t really have ‘upper classes’ – we have rich people who are just middle-class people with more money. And lower-classes are just middle class people with much less money.

    And that the real ‘class divides’ in America are actually cultural gradations within a big-amorphous-middle, which have more to do with self-perceptions and cultural identifiers than ‘money’ or education or any easily segmentable demographic criteria.

    as an example = I’d say something like, “listens to country music” is a more significant class-distinction than household income or education level.

    Or another – people who *prefer* either Dunkin Donuts / Starbucks, and don’t understand why anyone would waste their money in the other one.

    1. We don’t really have ‘upper classes’ – we have rich people who are just middle-class people with more money. And lower-classes are just middle class people with much less money.

      I agree with you 95%. Yes, especially compared to the British class system, most of whom we consider “upper class” are glorified upper middle. Yet, a very small cadre of American “nobles” exist. I’m talking about the Du Ponts, the Vanderbilts, the Roosevelts, etc. At this point, I’d say the Bushes almost qualify.

      1. “At this point, I’d say the Bushes almost qualify.”

        The Bushes work for a living. Can’t get much more middle class than that.

        1. And the King of Thailand is a meteorologist and naval engineer. They all have their “hobbies”.

      2. “I agree with you 95%”

        THATS BECAUSE UR A NEW ENGLAND ELITIST EFFETE

        “”a very small cadre of American “nobles” exist. I’m talking about the Du Ponts, the Vanderbilts, the Roosevelts, etc.”

        Yes, and they’re so small and un-influential outside Park Avenue or Deerfield Academy that i think its generally ok to ignore them.

        My point was really more about this desire to describe Trumpism or whatever it is in “Class” terms.

        It has more to do with certain middle-class people thinking themselves ‘culturally superior’ because they’re starbucks drinkers*. “They don’t know anyone who’s voting for trump!? It must be those “low classes””

        But the people they think of as “low classes” often make more money than they do, and own a fertilizer company in the midwest and doesn’t think owning an espresso machine is cool.

        IOW, its a qualitative distinction which has less to do with the ‘economic & demographic’ indicators than cultural ones.

        1. NEW ENGLAND ELITIST EFFETE

          Effete? My blazer does not having piping around the pockets, thank you very much.

        2. I get you. As a corollary, I’ve noticed in my town that the higher the property value, the more likely a Bernie sign would be on the lawn. I blame Freudian Todestrieb.

        3. “IOW, its a qualitative distinction which has less to do with the ‘economic & demographic’ indicators than cultural ones.”

          To say ‘he has class’ means he has taste. As in refined taste, expensive coffee, fine art, manners etc. American tastes are shaped by the poor and dispossessed and are egalitarian. The wealthy let their money do their talking.

          1. American tastes are shaped by the poor and dispossessed and are egalitarian.

            I don’t agree. There is a large aspirational factor in American tastes that is driven by the fact that our society has a high degree of social mobility.

            1. “There is a large aspirational factor in American tastes that is driven by the fact that our society has a high degree of social mobility.”

              Rap music, America’s top cultural export today, is more about celebrating the values of America’s perpetual underclass. Jazz was much the same a century ago.

              1. “Rap music, America’s top cultural export today,:”

                Rap is a tiny fraction of the American record industry and has been in a sales decline for a decade.

                Rap music makes less money than Doritos & Cheetos worldwide. There are fewer rap albums sold internationally than either Country music or Heavy Metal.

                And most rap videos express “values” of getting filthy rich with the least amount of work possible

                which is why the main consumers of rap music are suburban American white kids.

                and no, Jazz wasn’t any more “underclass” in 1915 either.

                1. “Rap is a tiny fraction of the American record industry”

                  The American record industry is irrelevant and growing more so daily. Rap music is heard in just about every country I’ve visited.

                  “There are fewer rap albums sold internationally than either Country music or Heavy Metal.”

                  Irrelevant unless you are mixed up in this shrinking business.

                  “And most rap videos express “values” of getting filthy rich with the least amount of work possible”

                  American as apple pie and Tom Sawyer.

                  “which is why the main consumers of rap music are suburban American white kids.”

                  I don’t care who ‘consumes’ rap music. It is America’s main cultural export today.

                2. “and no, Jazz wasn’t any more “underclass” in 1915 either”

                  Using ‘colored only’ lunch counters was the norm in 1915 if you looked remotely like a jazz musician. That was only the beginning of the indignities forced on America’s underclass.

              2. Prohibition always generates a love for “low class” music.

                1. That’s great, and you’re still retarded.

                  1. “That’s great, and you’re still retarded.”

                    And you have not persuaded me. Rap remains America’s premier cultural export.

              3. Rap music, America’s top cultural export today, is more about celebrating the values of America’s perpetual underclass.

                Money and hoes?

                1. “Money and hoes?”

                  These are universal values. GILMORE, never someone whom I’d take for an expert of Rap, put it rather well:

                  “And most rap videos express “values” of getting filthy rich with the least amount of work possible”

                  That’s what makes it uniquely American.

                  1. These are universal values.

                    Citation needed.

                    “And most rap videos express “values” of getting filthy rich with the least amount of work possible”

                    That’s what makes it uniquely American.

                    Actually, the Protestant Work Ethic is what made it uniquely American. What you’re citing is as far from that as Pluto is from the Sun.

                    1. “Actually, the Protestant Work Ethic is what made it uniquely American”

                      Not every American is a Puritan. Certainly not our friend Tom Sawyer and his gang of good for nothings. What is uniquely American is working hard to invent and create labor saving devices that only end up creating more work.

                    2. Not every American is a Puritan.

                      There were more denominations of Protestantism than the Puritans, you know.

                      What is uniquely American is working hard to invent and create labor saving devices that only end up creating more work.

                      You really have no clue what you’re talking about here.

                    3. “You really have no clue what you’re talking about here.”

                      That never stopped me before.

    2. Dunkin Donuts’ doughnuts are my favorite. I much prefer them to Krispy Kreme.

      1. Yeah DD has the old fashioned cake doughnuts and pretty good coffee. Krispy kreme doughnuts are too sugary.

        1. YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

      2. I was thinking of people like my dad, who think Starbucks’ are some kind of weird social-pretension/pantomime act that forces people to say things like “Grande Latte” instead of “Large Coffee” so they can feel smart.

        its not that he likes or doesn’t like the coffee; he finds the entire concept of the place sort of alien and uncomfortable.

        I also know people in Manhattan who think Dunkin Donuts coffee probably gives people cancer, and are horrified that anyone still uses Styrofoam in good-conscience.

        most people obviously don’t give a shit and it doesn’t matter. but that was just an example of things that provoke mental ‘class distinctions’ in some people.

        1. I can see that, I have fond memories of going to a Dunkin Donuts just off I-35 in Minneapolis (goes from MN to TX so there were always truckers) as a kid. It had a real working class diner feel back then (late 80s?).and I didn’t like to drink coffee but I thought it smelled amazing. I go to Starbucks more often for convenience, but it could never match the nostalgia of that crappy trucker donut shop

          1. I’ve found that the DD that have stuck with the “trucker donut shop” thing have better donuts.

          2. Coffee drinkers don’t go to Starbucks unless they are on a first date and are trying to get laid.

            Let them lay the wood to a woman just one time and then it’s back to DD for coffee.

            McDonalds has good coffee also if that’s all you want.

            Starbucks coffee beans are burnt. They have to burn them so that after they add all the gobbledygook their mixed drinks still have something of a coffee flavor.

            1. “Starbucks coffee beans are burnt.”

              Surely an outfit like Starbucks would use a variety of coffee beans, some roasted less than others.

        2. That seems less like a distinction between classes than between cultures, or (to the extent morality and religion are involved) religions.

          1. morality and ritual, rather.

    3. I have to disagree with this.

      You can see this in shopping patterns. Some people shop at really swanky stores, luxury malls. Whole Foods. Gourmet grocery stores. I was recently reading a thing on my local city’s reddit about how some people like to go into those and buy 1-2 items with food stamps, just to annoy the regular shoppers.

      Middle class shop at Target

      Lower-working class shop at Wal-mart. Inner city people stop at places like Family Dollar

      I think to the extent that you don’t see it, is because you are probably shopping at places with people in your same class.

  13. I’ve been told before I don’t vote my own self-interest by the people who insist black people should vote for the candidate promising the most to black people, women for the one promising the most to women, gays for the one promising the most for gays and so on and they don’t understand why the working class would support anybody specifically saying it’s not the government’s job to support the working class. Well who are you to tell me what’s in my own self-interest? Why would I support Bernie Sanders just because he promises Free Shit for the working class if I know A) he’s not going to be able to deliver, B) it ain’t free, and C) a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you got and that’s not in my self-interest at all. Donald Trump’s the same way – Trump may be saying some things I think need to be said, but Trump’s not the one to be criticizing politics-as-usual when he’s the poster child for dirty insider politics and crony capitalism. (And WTF? I’m watching Trump on CNN talk about somebody making fillum strips and he keeps sniffing into the microphone. Why have I never heard that Trump calls “films” “fillums” and does he normally breathe through his nose like a fucking horse?)

  14. Since it’s “Quote Saturday”…

    “When we consider the founders of our nation: Jefferson, Washington, Samuel and John Adams, Madison and Monroe, Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine and many others; we have before us a list of at least ten and maybe even dozens of great political leaders. They were well educated. Products of the European Enlightenment, they were students of history. They knew human fallibility and weakness and corruptibility. They were fluent in the English language. They wrote their own speeches. They were realistic and practical, and at the same time motivated by high principles. They were not checking the pollsters on what to think this week. They knew what to think. They were comfortable with long-term thinking, planning even further ahead than the next election. They were self-sufficient, not requiring careers as politicians or lobbyists to make a living. They were able to bring out the best in us. They were interested in and, at least two of them, fluent in science. They attempted to set a course for the United States into the far future ? not so much by establishing laws as by setting limits on what kinds of laws could be passed.”

    Carl Sagan

    1. Thanks!!

      But from what I’ve read by Sagan he was mostly a statist.

      1. Not too bad, even so. Not only a pro-MJ guy, in The Demon Haunted World (in the very same chapter, in fact) he offers a compelling defense of fee speech that would sound right at home here at Reason.

  15. There’s also the way “Immigration!” has become the number-one, litmus-test, no-compromise issue of the GOP base. The way the Tea Party has morphed into the 21st Century Know Nothings. As long as Trump is 100% more against immigration than any other candidate, he’ll have support, no matter how much of a RINO he is otherwise. (Although it does help some that he’s a RINO who happens to be goring the right (that is left) oxen and sacred cows.)

    It’s the GOP base / Tea Party equivalent of “Black Lives Matter!” There are real, deadly-serious problems with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, but “raaaaacism!” is the least of the cops’ sins and “Black Lives Matter!” is a counterproductive distraction. Likewise there are real, deadly-serious problems with the GOP establishment and the Washington DC elite in general, but screaming about “immigration!” and “amnesty!” is a counterproductive distraction that ignores a whole herd of brontosauri in the living room. Starting with Obamacare.

    1. but screaming about “immigration!” and “amnesty!” is a counterproductive distraction that ignores a whole herd of brontosauri in the living room. Starting with Obamacare.

      It has been previously observed and validated by empirical data that most of Trump’s supporters actually have no problem with entitlements, and support him as they fear their loss. The schwerpunkt of their concern with immigration mostly revolves around the fact that they believe too much money is being spent to provide entitlements and services to people they view as ‘undeserving’ of them.

    2. BLM:racism::AGW:environmentalism

    3. Excellent post. The Tea Party started with well-intentioned people and went sour when the ‘angry and ignorant’ crowd poured in under the direction of Limbaugh and other Know Nothings. I don’t even think it was SoCons as much as these assholes.

      We have to bury them. They have to be broken if the GOP is to move forward and remain relevant.

      1. We have to bury them. They have to be broken if the GOP is to move forward and remain relevant.

        For a libertarian, you’re awfully invested in keeping the GOP’s shambling conservative corpse moving along.

        1. I want it to be replaced by libertarianism, not retardism.

          1. I want it to be replaced by libertarianism, not retardism.

            It’s not and never will be replaced by libertarianism. Libertarianism has no appeal to the elites you think should keep the lower classes from exerting their influence. That’s why your brand of neocon free-market SJW-ism is a dead end.

  16. It’s going to be a long 8 months

  17. HA! Trump just went from talking about how he would have gotten what he wants out of Iran because he’s a tough negotiator and knows how to get what he wants to talking about how the New York Times tells lies about him and refuses to pull the stories when he goes to them and asks them to pull the stories – and now he’s going to change the libel laws to allow him to sue the newspapers when he’s President, I guess because that’s how a tough negotiator negotiates. Isn’t that how Hillary negotiates with lying liars telling lies about her?

    1. Sheesh, Trump is really starting to sound like Chamberlain and FDR who arrogantly assumed they could control Hitler and Stalin b/c they (Chamberlain & FDR) could “handle” their demands.

  18. So what have the elites of both major political parties, their central committee, and centralized socialist state given the USA?

    Endless unjustified wars and attacks on liberty.

  19. As an aside, when did Reason, and a significant number of her readers, decide that this “root-for-the-underdog” populism was not only A Good Thing (TM), but a central pillar of the libertarian worldview? It seems to me that until quite recently the primary view in libertarian circles was a vociferous support for meritocracy combined with a lukewarm anti-egalitarianism.

    1. I still hate mankind

    2. When your mom woke up this morning and told me about it.

      1. u wot m8? u are 1 fuking cheeky kunt mate say it to my face and not online and we’ll see what happens. i swear i am goin 2 wreck u i swear on my mums life and i no u are scared lil bitch gettin your m8s to send me messages saying dont meet up coz u r sum big green bastard with muscles lol fukin sad m8 really sad jus shows what a scared lil gay boy u are and whats all this crap ur mates sendin me about sum bodybuildin website that 1 of your faverite places to look at men u lil fuckin gay boy fone me if u got da balls cheeky prick see if u can step up lil queer i swer 2 christ I’ll hook you in the gabba. you better shut your mouth or im calling me m8s rite now preparin for a proper rumble. tha rumble that’ll make your nan sore jus hearin bout it. yer in proper mess ya nob head. im the sickest bloke ull ever meet & ive posted ova 3000 comments on hit n run. im trained in street fitin’ & im the 3rd strongest fuker in tha entire hit n run gym. yer nothin to me but a cheeky lil bellend w/ a fit mum & fakebling. ill waste u and smash a fukin bottle oer yer head bruv, i swer 2 christ. im the sickest bloke ull ever meet & ive nicked ova 300 chocolate globbernaughts frum tha corner shop. im trained in street fitin’ & im the strongest foker in tha entire newcastle gym. yer nothin to me but a cheeky lil bellend w/ a fit mum & fakebling. ill waste u and smash a fokin bottle oer yer head bruv,

        1. HM, luv ya, but you ain’t no AC.

          1. He ain’t no AC but he’s the baddest bloke ’round the corner.

    3. “”a significant number of her readers,””

      I don’t even think its a significant number of commenters, much less the mass of silent readers.

      *this isn’t (as Sugarfree recently suggested) me saying they don’t exist. I just don’t think they are either a majority or even a particularly significant minority. I could name the people who’ve said they even “tolerate” Trump on one hand.

      I think there’s another class-distinction thing happening there where one’s POV on Trump is used as proxy for putting people on one side or another of the Yokel/Cosmo fence.

      I think Robby’s “Bernie is the most libertarian” thing is also sort of the same thing as well. Its obviously a pointless argument because the guy is never going to win the nomination. Its more “what does this say about *me*

      I think the largest number of people just think the whole thing is ridiculous (raises hand) and just hopes for the least-awful possible policy outcomes….

      1. I’m not saying most people here support Trump, but there seems to have been an increase in expressing disdain toward “elites” and adoption of that whole language. It could be a class-distinction thing, but if so, it seems class affiliations here are changing from what I perceived them to be 10 years ago. Rand must be rolling in her grave. Rothbard threw his lot with them many moons ago, I believe he, like many others, expressed a bit of contempt towards them as he thought he could ride the David Dukeian tiger and not get bit. If I weren’t coming down with a slight headache, I’d expand upon my theory that the yokel/cosmo thing has its origins in Rothbard’s split from Rand.

        1. class affiliations have largely morphed into social circles and a level of commonality with others. Get a group of hardhats that satisfies all the diversity tick boxes, do likewise with a group of suits, and chances are the suits wind up talking to suits and ditto with hardhats. Do the same with people in college sweatshirts and they will group or pair by conference. I could be wrong but that seems the prevailing dynamic.

        2. “there seems to have been an increase in expressing disdain toward “elites” and adoption of that whole language”

          its just about the media-coverage of trump, and little to do with anyone being trump-fans.

          its not that Reason & its readership has descended into mouthbreathing troglodytes = its because the pundit-class that covers politics is endlessly moaning about how the barbarian, unwashed hoi-polloi are going to ‘destroy america’.

          i said this the other day (i think it was a robby piece) where someone said that “trump would destroy the GOP”

          I was like, “isn’t that what everyone *wants*?” since when do we care about the status-quo of the republican party? we should be happy someone’s ‘destroying’ it.

          And you dont have to be a trump fan to see National Review’s “Pick up their toys and go home”-posturing as ridiculous elitism. Oh no, no one’s listening to Rich Lowrey, the country is dooooomed.

          i think you’re reading too much into it.

          1. Let us not forget that there are plenty of articles on Reason bemoaning the Republicans for not being “electable” and should follow opinion polls and respect court decisions. As if an “electable” Republican Party would be libertarian and that libertarians always follow opinion polls and accept all SCOTUS decisions.

          2. “its not that Reason & its readership has descended into mouthbreathing troglodytes = its because the pundit-class that covers politics is endlessly moaning about how the barbarian, unwashed hoi-polloi are going to ‘destroy america’.”

            It’s not whining if it’s truth.

            “I was like, “isn’t that what everyone *wants*?” since when do we care about the status-quo of the republican party? we should be happy someone’s ‘destroying’ it.”

            No, not if that creates a worse political climate where the ‘choice’ is between Dem Hegemony and a bunch of alt-right weirdos peddling their white identity politics in the smoking ruins of the GOP.

            “And you dont have to be a trump fan to see National Review’s “Pick up their toys and go home”-posturing as ridiculous elitism”

            No, I don’t. They are quite right to do just that. Again this ‘elitism’ smear is abusing the word ‘elitism’ beyond meaninglessness.

        3. I’d expand upon my theory that the yokel/cosmo thing has its origins in Rothbard’s split from Rand.

          I’ve expounded on something similar. In particular my “yokels are Leninists” statement was explicitly referring to Rothbard.

          https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..nt_5933810

      2. “least-awful possible”

        Asteroid Strike followed by total anarchy and riding around with Charlize Theron in a Mack truck?

        1. Ummmm…no. I would count that as the best possible outcome.

          1. Thats what I meant

      3. *this isn’t (as Sugarfree recently suggested) me saying they don’t exist. I just don’t think they are either a majority or even a particularly significant minority. I could name the people who’ve said they even “tolerate” Trump on one hand.

        I never said they they were a majority, just that they are loud, moronic, persistent and annoying as fuck. And that they are all the same people who side with the GOP all the damn time. There is a vocal minority of LINOs that can’t wait to proselytize for the GOP and will hound the board under the guise of THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVAR and WE SWEAR WE WON’T CUM IN YOUR MOUTH THIS TIME.

        You like to minimize their existence, either as a childish thumb in my eye or because you side with them. And either way, I honestly thought you were better than that.

        1. “You like to minimize their existence, either as a childish thumb in my eye or because you side with them.”

          I should have said that i could count on my other hand the people who moan about them all the time. the majority ignores both. (at least when they’re groaning)

          What i think is stupid is the “either you’re with us (and our childish attitude), or you’re with THEM!!”

          1. I’m with her. And her girl friend.

    4. The problem with anti-anti-intellectualism and anti-anti-elitism is that it is pretty hard to attack the status quo without using the same arguments as the anti-intellectuals and anti-elitists.

      And getting too elitist can skim too close to “We Need the Right TOP MEN!” See H.L. Mencken’s fondness for the Kaiser, Bismarck and Ludendorff.

    5. My anti-egalitarianism is not luke-warm thank you!

    6. When yokeltarians showed up and decided that blind animus against Teh Establishmunt was more important than a cogent defense of liberty or any kind of thought. Now Nick is just pandering because that’s all he has. He seems to be the only Reason editor doing this.

      1. When yokeltarians showed up and decided that blind animus against Teh Establishmunt was more important than a cogent defense of liberty or any kind of thought.

        Lol. This from a guy who voted for Trudeau and thinks Bloomberg is the Great Libertarian Hope of 2016.

        You’re kind of like a useful idiot, except for the “useful” part.

  20. I’d be shocked if this hasn’t been mentioned already but just in case:

    http://www.wptz.com/news/legal…..e/38192194

    MONTPELIER, Vt. ?The Vermont Senate gave final approval Thursday to a bill to legalize recreational marijuana, starting in 2018.

    The measure picked up support when Sen. Becca Balint, D-Windham County, who has opposed the bill during Wednesday’s preliminary vote changed her mind.

    The final vote was 17-12.

    1. Libertarian Moment.

  21. Report from the font lines:
    We have the pleasure of a visit from crazy old Uncle Joe today who has arrived to tell us his sad story of loss and how he is going to cure cancer!
    And as a result, we have helicopters all over the place as if anyone would bother to even laugh at him.
    Hey, Obo! I hope you paid his airfare out of your own pocket. Tourist class.

  22. RTFA.

    YOU DON’T GET TO TALK LIKE THAT UNLESS YOU SAY IT IN THE COMMENTS!

  23. Finally, the people are allowed to speak. It’s about time. Well, enjoy it while it lasts.

  24. I’ve got your lower class

  25. ” the contempt heaped on ordinary American voters in recent years has been relentless.”

    And apparently they deserve all of it.

    1. At least we aren’t Canadians, though.

      1. You’ll wish you were in due time at this rate.

        1. They will, until they realize that that would mean they lived subject to the leadership of the vacuous horror of The Hair That Walks Like A Man.

    2. “And apparently they deserve all of it.”

      That’s what the man wants you to believe. I think ordinary American voters are more sinned against than sinning. They don’t even get to elect their own president, and when they do vote, some scumbag like Scalia can step in and make sure it doesn’t get counted.

      1. “They don’t even get to elect their own president, and when they do vote, some scumbag like Scalia can step in and make sure it doesn’t get counted.”

        Yes they do and WTF are you talking about?

        1. He’s talking about Bush v. Gore. mtrueman is nearly as stupid as you are, and also a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist (he’s a no-shit 9/11 Truther).

          1. Bush v Gore was no conspiracy. It’s the Electoral College that elects the president, again it’s no conspiracy. It seems you don’t know the meaning of the word.

  26. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.