Review: A Former Foster Child Lambasts the 'Luxury Beliefs' of Wealthy Elites
Rob Henderson's new book documents his journey from a troubled adoption to Yale and Cambridge.

Troubled is a memoir of a harrowing childhood. Separated from his drug-addicted birth mother, Rob Henderson was passed around to seven different foster homes before finally being adopted by a couple that divorced soon after. Despite a nagging sense that he had academic potential, Henderson became listless in adolescence, earning abysmal grades and spending much of his free time drinking, smoking, and committing petty crimes. A stint in the Air Force helped Henderson escape self-destruction. Not without struggle, he managed to get accepted into Yale and then Cambridge.
Henderson devotes much of the final stretch of his memoir to articulating his theory of "luxury beliefs"—the idea that members of the upper class use certain views about lifestyle to signal their elite status, even if they live in ways contrary to those stated values. Judgments such as "single parenthood is fine," "drugs should be legalized," and "you can be healthy at any weight," he argues, come from a largely married, sober, and thin elite. He comes to see such stances as not just hypocrisy but actively destructive to working- and lower-class Americans, for whom fatherlessness, drug addiction, and obesity are persistent ills.
Henderson's theory of luxury beliefs has some value as an examination of how people signal their membership in the educated elite. He's less convincing when he argues that many working-class people take this elite rhetoric seriously—or that the chaos and dysfunction in many working-class communities could be ameliorated if only society's most educated members talked a different talk.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why mince words? libertarians greatest value is profit. We’ve seen this before. Fortunately mostly in fiction. Although some satanist cults practice it.
In the fiction Star Trek, “Ferengi culture, especially as portrayed on Deep Space Nine, is depicted as hyper-capitalistic, focused on the acquisition of profit as the highest goal. Deep Space Nine writers have described how they saw the Ferengi as a satirical presentation of 20th century humans.”
Unfortunately for libertarians, real life isn’t fiction and acquisition isn’t an ethic.
Greed is an uncivilized, unintelligent reaction to fear. Ironically, the fear that someone else will be greedier.
The greedy cult can only exist as a minority or unrecognized in secret. In a closed system as earth is, like a mars colony, greed results in total breakdown of civilization. The mad max storyline.
This is the irony of libertarianism, that wants to become mainstream.
You are all kinds of messed up in the head.
Ok, so you’re a neo Nazi and not an Islamist?
FOAD, Nazi shit.
Perhaps you could actually link this to libertarian views. Any actual connection to libertarianism would strengthen your argument and make it seem less like a misguided missive against something you don't seem to understand.
Nobody recognizes exactly what libertarians “stand for” because even libertarians disagree. Taken together, when something is defined by everything, it means nothing.
Left libertarianism apparently wants “collective anarchy” which is a ridiculous contradiction. It is irrelevant.
Right libertarianism, mainstream libertarianism, is ostensibly about personal liberty, reduced government and free markets. Which enables unregulated greed and acquisition.
So are you a Nazi/KKK, or an Islamist?
You really are a complete Nazi shit, from wanting to kill all Jews to national socialism. As Sevo said, fuck off and die.
The reason that you’ll never be able to prove that claim is that you’re a lying waste of skin.
Would you say his story from Foster to graduating at an "elite" University is weird?
Definitely weird that she gives neutral to positive coverage of this and attacks Vance when it is the same story and message.
For Reason it would be weird if they didn't.
Definitely weird that she gives neutral to positive coverage of this and attacks Vance when it is the same story and message.
Same message? Just going by the summary in this short article, I take the message as being one of cynicism toward those in the upper classes and their belief that they've earned some kind of elite status to proclaim what is good and true. JD Vance is one of those people that seems to think he has earned a right to judge what is good and true.
Cite? I mean he made a movie about it. Lol.
I'm not talking about the book and movie that got him famous before he went into politics. I am talking about his political views. Being a social conservative, he does have a solid belief that he knows what is morally right and true and wants government to act on those beliefs.
So no citations or facts. Just your bald assertions and retarded opinions. Got it.
Please provide us with a citation documenting that JasonT20's opinions are retarded. Else ye are a hypocrite!
(Butt we already knew that ye are verily a hypocrite!)
Which of his policy ideas support your claim?
Does the progressive left not exhibit at least equal if not more moral judgements than the 'socially conservative' grouping?
In fact, doesn't Progressivism writ large mandate morality at least as much?
If you can at least concede that readily obvious point, would it not be instructive to compare their moral imperatives and the results of those imperatives?
So, lets hear it. What makes the Progressive moral imperatives superior to their socially conservative counterparts? An honest moral philosopher would have led with that, I might add.
This is a pretty stupid comparison. Vance thinks he understands the rural poor because he came from that world, nut because he's successful. His observations have the same basis as the author of this book. But because you hate Republicans you misinterpret reality exactly backward.
It's so boring reading the same idiots make the same mistakes time after time.
^this asshole advocates murder as a preventative:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Yeah. The inclusion of "married" in the statement:
Is between anachronistic and wrong. Marriage rates are down consistently and divorce rates, an indicator of wealth, is up.
The issue isn't a "married, sober, and thin elite". Married tea-teetotalers are among the ones beating the "Two parent home, ban drugs, and consume modestly" drum the loudest. The issue is troon basement dwellers, feckless social gadflies, and cat ladies who think various aspects of those policies are completely fine because they don't deal with or even encounter the costs (if only because they don't generally leave home).
Judgments such as "single parenthood is fine," "drugs should be legalized," and "you can be healthy at any weight," ...
Smears and confuses the issues something Government-Almighty awfully!!! The 3 items are NOT stated in a consistent way!
'1) Should single parenthood be legal or illegal, and HOW is Government Almighty "fixing" associated issues? What kind of TRACK RECORD does Government Almighty have in "fixing" this?
'2) Should mood-altering foods, drinks, smokes, and drugs be legal or illegal, and HOW is Government Almighty "fixing" associated issues? What kind of TRACK RECORD does Government Almighty have in "fixing" this?
'3) Should over-eating and under-exercising be legal or illegal, and HOW is Government Almighty "fixing" associated issues? What kind of TRACK RECORD does Government Almighty have in "fixing" this?
THAT is twat "cuntsistency" looks like, manipulative word-salad-slingers!
I think the better delineator is “child bearing while single” vs “child bearing while married”. The former is promoted as worthy while, for the most part, the elite avoid out of wedlock births. In the political set, out of wedlock babies are still a bit scandalous. But even in the Hollywood set, at least social monogamy precedes having babies (social meaning the public knows they are a couple).
I lived in south LA growing up. As a child only about one in ten of my friends did not have a father at home. Fatherless children in south LA account for seven in ten now.
There has always been crime in the area, but now the neighborhoods are in the control of drug sellers. The 'fathers' of families is the government now, and the 'father' says he cares but is absent as much as the birth fathers.
The quintessential luxury belief is support for open borders coupled with a $0.00 / hour minimum wage.
It's not a coincidence that a silver spoon billionaire is behind Reason's promotion of these insane ideas.
Is the real minimum wage something other than zero? When did we start doing that?
Or...wait...are we talking about welfare programs?
Is it just me, or is the concept of luxury beliefs a sort of giant humble brag for the elite? It's basically saying, "Sure, you elites have enough intelligence and executive function to use drugs responsibly, juggle multiple romantic partners, and singlehandedly raise children, but you're forgetting about the non-elites! Don't you realize that they're so stupid and impulsive that if they try to imitate you they will screw up their lives? They'll OD on drugs, make their partners jealous, and neglect their kids! Not everyone is elite enough to handle your lifestyle!"
Does Elon Musk have an Elongated Tusk, with which to father many children through many different women, or snot? Is a bear Catholic, and does the Pope shit in the woods? If we suck Orange Dick exquisitely enough, will the TrumptatorShit reward us with "equal access" to Spermy Daniels? How much political and money power does shit take, till we can do TWATEVER we want, and then tell common-scum hoi polloi to do shit differently than we do?
Anyway, my harem is larger than your harem, so be quiet and go away!
Good observations. There are definitely some things the elites are more likely to give a pass to than others.
Pot is A-ok because most smoked it in college, or had hippie parents who did, or were hippies themselves
Tobacco/ vaping are not ok because smokers are mostly poor white people (Trumpers) and the evil corporations are trying to hook the elites’ kids on vapes now according to the respected media.
Caffiene is just fine, because the elite can’t function without it
Alcohol is great especially wine, craft beers, and single malt whiskeys
They don’t have an opinion on other drugs, but if some woke writer at the NYT says they should be legal, they’re ok with it
I wouldn’t say the elite are tolerant of obesity, unless it’s a few obese gender studies professors. The rest are defined by their love of fitness, near perfect bodies, and don’t count many fat people among their peers.
With notable elite exceptions, such as Pritzker.
Beat me to it.
Which, if we're totally honest, money makes all of those pursuits less risky in at least some ways.
How many famous musicians are heroin addicts? Sure, some die, but many more live on to quit heroin that they could only really afford due to their wealth. Rehab is astronomically expensive, and even then not very effective.
Musk has shown how easy it can be to have multiple baby momma's as long as you can afford those payments.
And, again using Musk as the example, he is certainly not around for all those kids. Some of them, maybe, but certainly not all of them. Those kids will probably want for nothing other than affection, which is one thing they can't really buy.
Those things are all destructive, but destructive behaviors are easier to ameliorate with piles of cash since it lets you avoid at least some of those negative consequences. That mostly ignores the consequences to others, but then that's a hallmark of the truly rich is it not?
It's not about "intelligence and executive function". It's about having the resources to rebound from mistakes. The consequences of drug abuse are much lighter for someone who can afford a good lawyer when he gets busted and a stay in a residential treatment center. The consequences of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy are much less damaging if Mom and Dad can house you and pay the bills and baby sit. Fucking up in school has lesser consequences if you can afford tutors and private schools for "troubled" youth, and can pay college tuition without scholarships. No, the poor cannot safely imitate the dissolute lives of many of the well-off, regardless of their "intelligence and executive function".
Subtitle: "Writing as an Emotional Purgative."
A stint in the Air Force helped Henderson escape self-destruction.
Pisses us all off how we didn't defund that. F the military, amirite?
Sincerely,
-Libertarianism.
He comes to see such stances as not just hypocrisy but actively destructive to working- and lower-class Americans, for whom fatherlessness, drug addiction, and obesity are persistent ills.
They're not "ills." They're voluntary human failings.
It's a CHOICE to walk away from your children/family.
It's a CHOICE to suck on the pipe, whether it's marijuana, crack, meth, or anything else.
It's a CHOICE to allow your body to fall to waste and disrepair because you can't be bothered to take care of it.
These are CHOICES. And I know you don't want to hear it - but these are the choices of a Godless society. There's a very old and now often ridiculed Book that warns us about all of this. It's been doing it for literally thousands of years.
We CHOOSE not to listen. Thinking we know better than Him. Jealous and angry and resentful that we're not Him. Defying Him for the sake of defying Him just to assert our misplaced agency.
Where's it get us? Abandoning family, destroying the very concept of it, aborting, addicted, obese, gender confused, homosexual, deceitful at every turn (especially to ourselves), covetous, prideful, and utterly and completely lost.
You don't want to hear it though. You think you know better, as you gaze upon the failure and ruin and sheer destruction that is the direct result of your judgment replaced with His.
Sin is real. It's a thing. And it has devastating consequences. We know what they are, and why they are destructive at every level from the social to the personal. They're even ranked. I can evangelize until I'm blue in the face, but if you CHOOSE not to see the destruction that is the sinful ways pushed on "working- and lower-class Americans" by a power-structure that rejects His way and tries to replace it with their own - well, that's you not being a thinking person. That's you rejecting reason. That's you utilizing half your brain instead of the whole of it.
And even if you want to reject God, if you want to skip the first couple Commandments, and move on down the list - how can you possibly justify any of them? Dishonor. Murder. Theft. Adultery. Deceit. Would anyone like to take the stage and argue in favor of ANY of them; exhort their positive benefits perhaps?
We all KNOW this inherently. It's a CHOICE to reject it.
And we see the consequences of that choice on a daily basis now.