In a most important, politically astute essay, Angelo Codevilla observes that, despite all the lip service paid to “diversity” by our ruling elites and in particular our educators, in fact “never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust”:
. . . until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California [et al] . . . had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity.
In calling for the creation of a rival political party that would challenge the ruling class’s own Democratic party, Codevilla concludes that the greatest obstacle such a party would face would be “to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it,” i.e., forcing it on the public wholesale as the ruling class has done and thus becoming the “mirror image” of the ruling class.
“America has been imposed on enough,” says Codevilla. Yes, and with the academy leading the way.