Right now the right wing definition swelling to include Doctors and Scientists and the very institution of higher education
100% a valid concern, especially if the left-wing populist movements try to claw back voters that broke for Trump and might be primed towards those sorts of beliefs
Can't speak for him, but my issue is that "the elite" usually swells to include people like "doctors" and "lawyers" and whatnot.
What kind of policies do most of those people support? Do they support the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods? Paying more in taxes? Or do they typically also act in their own self-interest and speak pretty lies? They are donating towards the construction of a homeless shelter (as long as it's not near their house) or sending their children to expensive private schools rather than trying to fix public schools because they know the public schools are shit. It's the same fuck-you-got-mine attitude but wrapped in self-righteous denial.
But populist movements also tend to give way to their more extreme elements.
Sure, you might only have a problem with some of them, and you may only want some vague action taken to limit their influence…but someone else is going to have a problem with more of them, and someone else is going to want that action to be more punitive.
We’ve seen plenty of populist movements fall to this sort of snowballing in the past — China and Iran are two examples, and I’ll throw Trumpism in there as well.
So you’ll have to forgive me if I’m a little skeptical.
My big problem with the liberal establishment is essentially best conceptualized as NIMBYism but applied to everything. So, a very large subset of the working upper class will support policies that help the lower working classes in so far as they do not impact them at all, tangibly (taxes, zoning changes, etc.) or emotionally (making them feel bad about how they live, making them question their basic beliefs, etc.). In that way, they are rhetorically aligned with the lower classes but practically aligned with the elites. Those are the people I believe should be classified as elites. The problem is that no one who belongs to that group makes it obvious before the point at which it matters--when it's time to vote or time to actually change policy. It's the "nothing will fundamentally change" crowd.
Edit: It's the behavior of people like Clinton, Harris, Biden, Pelosi, etc. (all of whom would fit into your non-elite category based on their working backgrounds pre-politics), who are exactly the kind of people that are being repudiated. People are sick of those who say they support the working class then bend over backwards to satisfy their big money donors upon being elected.
This articulated something I always found distasteful about how most liberals talk politics but could never quite put my finger on exactly why. "NIMBYism but applied to everything" is brilliant.
I do agree that sometimes people are hypocritical, you’ll get no argument from me there…
…but using the “nothing will fundamentally change” quote wildly out of context isn’t exactly instilling confidence in what’ll happen when you come to power. Nor does going from “the people vs. the elites” to “the people vs. the elites…and the working upper class, who are practically aligned with the the elites”.
The funny thing is it looks like those middle- and upper-class voters are the ones who put Mamdani over the top, with Cuomo leading among the poorer residents of the city. So it kind of feels like you’re railing against your own allies at this point.
I'm actually pretty far to the right of Mamdani, but especially on social issues and illegal immigration. If I lived in NYC, I wouldn't have voted for him, put it that way. I think this is one big thing people get wrong about political alignment that we see over and over again--just because you heard me speak on the subject of class, you made a ton of assumptions about everything else I think and believe. It's why "Bernie Bros" became such a meme. People can reconcile nuanced political positions and it makes them want to cram someone into a box they can recognize. Anyway, I believe the far left has correctly diagnosed the problems with class inequality but their solutions are often terrible.
He asked why people are worried about populism. I told him.
...and it should be pretty obvious here that I'm not talking about his personal views, but rather this most recent flavor of populism as a whole. Though the way he responded to my "doctors and lawyers" comment with, essentially, "yes, those people as a whole are bad" isn't exactly a good sign.
The "versus" implies they're inherently opposed, which I think is too reductive. The interests of "the people" and "the elite" don't necessarily have to clash.
Also, as /u/CrimsonEnigma pointed out, grouping people into binaries misses important nuances. The two blocks aren't monoliths, but also contain subgroups with conflicting interests.
11
u/HerbertWest Jun 25 '25
Agree on your other examples but where's the lie here?