Politics & Policy

The Aspirational Asceticism of the Progressive Elite

Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks in Des Moines, Iowa, August 10, 2019. (Gage Skidmore)
Exhorting those less fortunate than you to forgo the most basic modern conveniences for the good of the planet won’t lead to a morally superior future.

This week, Democratic candidates held forth on the environment and humanity’s role in despoiling it. What struck me was the focus on our consumer choices. “From using a straw to eating a burger, am I part of the problem?” Pete Buttigieg asked. “In some ways, yes.”

Lifestyle choices still loom large in the environmental debates of our time. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle set off controversy this year by announcing the they would only have two children because of environmental concerns. (What a comment on Prince William, father of three!) The ginger princeling has gone on to promote the idea of reducing air travel. Not for him personally of course — he has his duties. But the rest of us can “do better,” he said, just after having taken four short-hop private-jet flights in eleven days. Sir Elton John, having satisfied himself with the children he paid a surrogate to deliver, did his knightly duty by purchasing carbon offsets for the prince’s flights. Possibly for as little as $135.

While it is fun to send up the rich and powerful for their hypocrisy on these matters, I think the enduring appeal of their ascetic message in this case is hard-wired in our culture. The West is built on the idea that human sin brought death into the world, and that it still does. We know greed is a sin. Modern abundance can be a source of dysfunction — think hoarders — and shame. America’s high-income earners are drowning in cardboard boxes from online shopping. And there is a certain plausibility to the notion that this abundance is unprecedented and its true costs will be borne by the environment or posterity itself. Most of us vaguely suspect that a little self-denial heals not just the individual soul, but the world around us.

Marketers understand this desire and how poorly thought out it is. Across social media, high-income users are targeted with tons of self-help advice advocating “minimalism” as a lifestyle. This psuedo-philosophy is sold across YouTube and by Instagram influencers. The sales pitch begins with talk of renunciation and simplicity, but it closes with indulgence. It encourages potential practitioners to devote more thought to their choices as consumers. You do with less so that you can do more! Trade mere stuff for meaningful experiences! The target consumer is supposed to vaguely imagine a life where giving up cheap clutter somehow opens enough room in her budget to book a transformational spa day overlooking the snow-dappled mountains in Hokkaido. She is exhorted to “buy fewer, better things” that she “really loves” or that “spark joy” — in other words, to exercise superior self-control and virtue by buying luxury goods.

So one impulse in lifestyle environmentalism is to make more basic modern commodities and goods more expensive — more like luxury goods. That way fewer of them will be produced. The externalization of costs onto the future will be disrupted by being priced in, somehow. The Prince Williams and Pete Buttigiegs of the world will likely not have to reduce their consumption. New, sin-style taxes on unclean energy and more stringent regulation of beef will be navigated rather easily by the rich. They can afford to be ‘minimalist’ and buy experiences, can’t they? Meanwhile these same measures drive the less fortunate to look for yellow vests, pitchforks, or at least the nearest populist running for office.

It’s quite true that thoughtlessness has costs. But it’s a myth that plastic straws are a serious environmental problem, or that paper ones are a very good solution. There are far better ways of reducing the amount of waste, pollution, and plastic that goes into the ocean. Telling those less fortunate than you that the great advancements of food production, air-conditioning, and air travel will have to be withdrawn from them for their own good may provide a momentary thrill for our modern-day preachers of simplicity, but it is, itself, thoughtless. Fewer children, less protein for them, more deaths from heat exhaustion, and less travel isn’t a morally superior future; it’s just a parsimonious and more impoverished one.

Most Popular

White House

The Impeachment Clock

Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry is incoherent. Given the impossibility of a senatorial conviction, the only strategy is to taint the president with the brand of impeachment and weaken him in the 2020 election. Yet Schiff seems to have no sense that the worm has already turned. Far from tormenting Trump and ... Read More
Economy & Business

Who Owns FedEx?

You may have seen (or heard on a podcast) that Fred Smith so vehemently objects to the New York Times report contending that FedEx paid nothing in federal taxes that he's challenged New York Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger to a public debate and pointed out that "the New York Times paid zero federal income tax ... Read More

The ‘Welfare Magnet’ for Immigrants

That term refers to a controversial concept -- and a salient one, given the Trump administration's efforts to make it harder for immigrants to use welfare in the U.S. A new study finds that there's something to it: Immigrants were more likely to come to Denmark when they could get more welfare there. From the ... Read More