Citizens of the World!

MARXISM’s half-life has been amazing. Outside of our finest universities, pretty much no one believes in the junk, and yet it hangs over the intellectual and political landscape like background radiation. Its categories and materialistic assumptions seep even into conservative analysis. We talk about the lower class and the upper class and, above all, we pay homage to that million-headed god of electoral politics: the middle class-as if this were an entirely natural way to divide our heterogeneous population.

Of course, Republicans increasingly speak the language of values rather than solely in economic terms. And it is a sign of Marxism’s enduring appeal that liberals view this as fundamentally illegitimate. The proper role of government is to reflect the policy ambitions of the Left, they insist: How dare you make this about flags, gays, patriotism, crime, and all that jazz, when what we should really be talking about is expanding social welfare, shrinking inequality, and punishing the wealthy for the amusement of the poor? Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? is a perfect example of the enduring stubbornness of the Marxist stain. This school of thought says, in effect, that middle-class Republicans are idiots for voting on cultural issues at a huge cost to their own bottom line. That analysis has been debunked in these pages more than once. But it is worth noting again that, no matter the bombast, it always boils down to the old Marxist doctrine of “false consciousness”: Those who disagree with the Left about the political implications of their economic interests suffer from a kind of dementia or brainwashing.

About the Author

Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is a National Review contributing editor.

Featured Tags

MARXISM’s half-life has been amazing. Outside of our finest universities, pretty much no one believes in the junk, and yet it hangs over the intellectual and political landscape like background radiation. Its categories and materialistic assumptions seep even into conservative analysis. We talk about the lower class and the upper class and, above all, we pay homage to that million-headed god of electoral politics: the middle class-as if this were an entirely natural way to divide our heterogeneous population.

Of course, Republicans increasingly speak the language of values rather than solely in economic terms. And it is a sign of Marxism’s enduring appeal that liberals view this as fundamentally illegitimate. The proper role of government is to reflect the policy ambitions of the Left, they insist: How dare you make this about flags, gays, patriotism, crime, and all that jazz, when what we should really be talking about is expanding social welfare, shrinking inequality, and punishing the wealthy for the amusement of the poor? Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? is a perfect example of the enduring stubbornness of the Marxist stain. This school of thought says, in effect, that middle-class Republicans are idiots for voting on cultural issues at a huge cost to their own bottom line. That analysis has been debunked in these pages more than once. But it is worth noting again that, no matter the bombast, it always boils down to the old Marxist doctrine of “false consciousness”: Those who disagree with the Left about the political implications of their economic interests suffer from a kind of dementia or brainwashing.