I’m reluctant to type the words “Charles Murray is wrong,” so instead let me say that Charles Murray is too generous in his Sunday piece on the elite’s disconnect from the rest of America. He’s spot-on in identifying how socially, culturally, politically, and geographically isolated today’s elite is, but he ends the piece this way:
The bubble that encases the New Elite crosses ideological lines and includes far too many of the people who have influence, great or small, on the course of the nation. They are not defective in their patriotism or lacking a generous spirit toward their fellow citizens. They are merely isolated and ignorant. The members of the New Elite may love America, but, increasingly, they are not of it.
While I’m sure this describes some people, much of the New Elite does not, in fact, love America and is, in Murray’s phrasing, defective in its patriotism. Today’s elites — not just here, but in Europe as well — are increasingly post-national. Murray writes that “the New Elite clusters in a comparatively small number of cities and in selected neighborhoods in those cities,” which is correct, but he doesn’t seem to get (or at least didn’t write) that these “comparatively small number of cities and in selected neighborhoods in those cities” are increasingly part of a distinct transnational community. Marx and Engels were wrong when they wrote that “the working men have no country” — but that description is increasingly apt for large parts of the post-American New Elite.
Bang on, Mr. Krikorian. You couldn't be more correct.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAre you sure the two of you are talking about the same set of people? Murray included the folks at the Weekly Standard as well as those at the New Republic. He included Republican senators as well as Democratic. The characteristics of never having read a Left Behind novel, never having watched an entire Oprah, and not knowing that Drew Carey replaced Bob Barker on The Price is Right — these things describe *all* of my friends, conservative or liberal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are right about this point. Many see themselves as not only the rightful ruling class of American, but as the first in line as Global Citizens - those with the vision to back global responsibility.
It is the same self-aggrandizing idealism that produces a Julian A. of Wikileaks.
Your "objectionable language" settings would not let me include Julian's last name.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMurray's piece was quite accurate until the end. These elites are not patriots. I know from first hand experience. I was a working class kid who went to a just below Ivy League school. The vast majority of my class mates had parents from the professional classes.
Being the sort of college it was, the professors were obsessed with Barbara Ehrenrich's "Nickel and Dimed." I probably was assigned that book in at least seven classes. The interesting part was the uncomprehending horror my upper class friends exhibited over the idea that most people in America have to work very hard to get by on a day-to-day basis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusepost-national
I disagree. "Post national" suggests a farther and higher step in consciousness and awareness, viz. an enlightenment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI propose that it is the opposite: pre national, as exhibited by the elites prior to 1914, where everyone in power in Europe was related by blood and/or marriage (and many grand-nephews and nieces of Victoria).
National boundaries, and patriotism limited to a political entity, is a fairly recent re-creation (which was largely non-existent between roughly 600 AD and 1648).
Ha, ha!
"...she's a friend of Lady Astor's, well, okay, she's quite all right..."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn addition to being predominantly white and Republican, tea-partiers are wealthier and better-educated than the typical American. The proletariat they are not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse