[JJ]

You hear a lot about how fashionable the young Japanese are, how they are "miles ahead" of anything we do here. And when you arrive in Japan, this seems pretty true. The young people are all wearing outlandishly stylish outfits, the sort you'd never imagine anyone wearing back home, with fancy scarves and vests and earrings and eyeshadow and all the rest. But spend enough time in Japan, as I did, and you eventually get numb to the initial shock value of the fashion, and start to realize just how conformist it actually is. You begin to notice how most young people are actually just wearing a handful of carefully pre-set outfits, and how all the major Japanese clothing stores make it very easy to buy these pre-set outfits with minimal individual initiative. And how these outfits are usually directly derivative of whatever the top pop idols or TV actors or other presently in-vogue celebrities are wearing. So fashion becomes less of an indicator of personal style, and more an indicator of class status, the ability and desire to buy oneself into a particular brand of lifestyle as embodied by a certain manner of dress.

That's a pretty accurate summary of fashion everywhere, I realize, but in Japan it's more obvious. Since Japan is a homogenous society with virtually no minorities, it's much easier to visually observe signifiers between their social classes. There's no distracting ethnic / multicultural diversity to cloud everything up. It was in Japan that I started thinking about class differences more seriously than I ever had previously. That's why it's been a theme of some of my prior posts.

It's easy to think of class as strictly a money thing, and a lot of people find the concept of class distasteful for that very reason — it seems very crudely materialistic. But if you consider the concept in a broader sense, as a system of classification based on one's tastes, lifestyle, education, and manners — and only incidentally financial status — class can be very useful and fun way to analyze your fellow humans.

In these hyper-politicized times of ours, I think understanding the importance class can also be a good way to find, or just appreciate, the common ground you share with people you might otherwise disagree with ideologically.

Here is a good example. When I got home from Japan I switched on Fox News, a channel I had not watched in over a year. I used to tune in now and then before I left, because I knew it was the channel conservative-minded people were supposed to watch.

But tuning in again after a prolonged absence... my god, it's awful. All the women are done up in such a whorish manner, and all the commercials are for things like gold coins and winnebagos. Sean Hannity is a complete reactionary moron, to say nothing of Glen Beck. O'Reilly is okay, but he talks about a lot of uselessly titillating junk that barely qualifies as news, and his show seems keen to trot out as many ruby-lipped strumpets as possible, pretending they represent legitimate "media critics" or "political strategists" or whatever.

Fox's target audience is very obviously white-trash working class type people ("proles"), and this fact colors their programming just as much as their conservative bias. I'd say more, actually.

CNN is in bed with the Democrats, and establishment politics in general, but it's also a network geared towards educated middle class and upper-middle class types like myself. Their "experts" are ugly but legitimate, and they advertise things like investment banks and international airlines. The culture of the network is more compatible with my class culture. Ideology aside, when I watch Fox it always feels somewhat foreign to me.

I think one of the big problems with modern politics is that we've fused class and ideology to such a degree that people are incapable of judging either concept independently. It's a bigger problem for conservatives (especially social conservatives) than liberals, because they're straddled to a voter base that is on par poorer and less-educated than the left-wingers are. It makes a lot of clever conservatives think they have to apologize for trashy "red state" culture of which they know and care nothing about, and demean places and activities they actually enjoy out of fear of losing right-wing cred. Which is a very self-loathing and destructive thing for intelligent people to do.

There are smart conservative media outlets, but I wish there were more of them. I also wish there were more low-class media outlets for liberals. Working-class liberalism is a respectable and important political tradition, but seems to lack any sort of cultural base these days, largely because liberalism increasingly carries itself as the ideology of the higher classes.

I guess this is a pretty American-centric analysis. But as usual America offers a clearer example. In Canada it seems the political and media establishment likes to simply pretend that the populace consists of one giant mythical class of people who have all the same opinions and tastes as the people who run the political and media establishment. Which, of course, is due to the fact that (for a number of structural and cultural reasons) Canadian politicians and media outlets are simply much less accountable to public opinion than their US counterparts. But the broader theme of right-wing fusion with the prole class and left-wing fusion with the educated middle class remains just as relevant here as there.

And it's a problem.

[commanderkai]

I agree, for the most part. I would say the issue with American conservative is the two major subsects within it. Specifically we have fiscal conservatives, which probably intersects you, other professional classes, small business owners, and probably corporate leaders as well. On the opposite side, we have social (or compassionate) conservatives which usually panders to the more religious portions of the United States. I'd also say less educated as well, but I'm not going to lump both together into one group (highly religious does not mean blue-collar, and vice versa).

I wouldn't say American conservatives have used just blue collar "white trash" as their base, when the Democrats/left wing commonly use both unions, and poorer, inner cities as a part of their base as well, as much as the cultural and intellectual elites. Conservatives straddle the rural, religious, and non-union blue collar as their proles, as much as the white collar professionals and business leaders are commonly within the conservative elite

The Democrats have succeeded in blending their social and fiscal policies together to appeal to both sides (for the most part), while the Republicans have issues with it (like I said, Compassionate Conservativism), where more fiscally conservative policies usually don't blend well with socially conservative policies. Roman Catholics and Jews within the United States, usually more supportive of Democrats, commonly resent Democratic social policies.

I would say that the conservative movement within the United States is more limited in their access to the media. Talk radio and Fox News would be the conservative populist form, while, let's say, MSNBC is populist leftist. The Wall Street Journal would probably fit the professional (and more fiscal) conservative side as well. (The New York Times for its leftist counterpart).

Lastly, the "clever" conservatives who apologize for the populist conservatives aren't really clever at all. If they can't realize not all conservatives are the same, then they might as well apologize for everything. I don't hear, nor expect "clever" leftists in the New York Times to apologize for the drivel on MSNBC. Why should they? The conservative movement is not like the Borg. Fox News is not the entire conservative movement (unlike how some people see it as such) nor should all conservatives are required to watch Fox News. That's an attitude more dangerous than anything else.

[Ombrageux]

My, my what a little time outside of North America does! The problem with U.S. media isn't that it is too left or too right, the problem is that as far as its concerned nothing exists west of Seattle, East of New England or south of the Rio Grande. Anything beyond those shores only has an existence if American boots happen to treading there. It is parochial in the extreme, its coverage is shallow, its thought is one-dimensional.

But careful, good sir, you are on a slippery slope. It is bad enough you are using Marxoid language, be any more open-minded (say, read some Chomsky), and I am quite certain you will become an Anarchist.

[JJ]

commanderkai wrote:

I agree, for the most part. I would say the issue with American conservative is the two major subsects within it. Specifically we have fiscal conservatives, which probably intersects you, other professional classes, small business owners, and probably corporate leaders as well. On the opposite side, we have social (or compassionate) conservatives which usually panders to the more religious portions of the United States. I'd also say less educated as well, but I'm not going to lump both together into one group (highly religious does not mean blue-collar, and vice versa).

You make a valid point, but I think people greatly exaggerate the importance of "fiscal conservatives" in this day and age. Lawerence Summers and Timothy Geithner and all the rest of Obama's most senior economic advisors are not economic "liberals" by any stretch. On the big questions, they do not differ that substantially from the Bush administration. Leftists complain about the "Washington Consensus" for a reason; the last two decades have been marked by a dramatic converge of opinion on economic matters all over the world, on the parties of both the right and left.

And I think that too is largely a class thing. People of a certain degree of wealth and education (ie; cabinet ministers and political advisors) just generally have similar attitudes towards fiscal matters, attitudes which, in turn, tend to be conservative because conservatism has been proven to work quite well in the economic sphere, or at least that's what you're taught to believe that when you formally study economics at big expensive universities. There is thus less and less reason for a big business guy to have an aversion to supporting the Democratic Party. Indeed, he'd probably have more reason to support them, because people with high degrees of wealth and education tend to be socially liberal too. The idea that socially liberal conservatives have to stick it out with the Republican Party since the socialism of the Democrats is the only alternative is a completely false dichotomy, yet that kind of view seems to be the conventional wisdom among a lot of smart conservatives these days.

Economic liberalism was a product of left-wing populism that arose from working-class left-wing voters, which now are a dying breed (and the politicians that represent them even moreso). There's a good book called What's the Matter with Kansas which heavily blames Democrats for taking economic populism off the table, since that has only led to elections being fought on class/cultural terms. Economically, the proles get screwed either way.

[Shostakovich]

I spent a decent part of my formative years working in conservative politics in the so-called "American heartland", and I find this analysis to be right on point. I think that the comment about how 'America-centered' everything is is espeically true on the right, and plays into the whole class matter quite a bit. These moronic country Jakes literally fear anything from outside of the US (Or, in some extreme cases, things from "liberal" parts of the US); and a lot of what is considered high culture (art, music, literature) comes from Europe.
I remember showing up to a parade, ready to march for my conservative, GOP congressman, and I was attacked verbally because I had a copy of "The Economist" on me. The Economist! That's a right-wing magazine! But, because it is a global publication, the poor white-trash consider it 'foreign' and 'scary'. I think that if we moved more toward an 'Economist' based type of conservatism, the movement would have a better image. Look at the adverts in the Economist - Emerates, HSBC, Patek Philippe. Epitomes of class. And the magazine is still considered a conservative one, at least economically. When you're a high class Social Conservative, the publications, you're right, become much harder to find.
The problem is that the perception of most marketing firms and such are that most social conservatives are protestants of Baptist and Methodist stripes (Catholics have been getting more and more divided in that regard), and those religions mostly settled in the rural south and Midwest, which became the centers of such 'trashy' culture. Thus, their views become linked with that culture.

[Zipperfish]

We so often use America as our basis of comparison here in Canada, but in doiong so it's easy to forget that America is one of the the farthest politically right countries in the world. It's often remarked that our most right-wing Prime Minister in recent history--Stephen Harper--would probably come in to the left of Obama when comparing policy platforms.

So when I--generally your classic liberal secular humanist--watch FOX News, which represents the right wing of one of the most right-wing countries I have a hard time even imagining how people think that way. It's completely alien to me.

As for class, in my opinion the reall class struggle isn't being played out in the US (where breathless leftists declare a class war is imminent) but in the world in general. We have--what?--close to seven billion people on the planet. 80% of these people live on less than ten dollars a day. That's where the so-called "class war" is playing out in my opinion. In that context, there's not much difference between the left and right in Canada or in the US.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish wrote:

As for class, in my opinion the reall class struggle isn't being played out in the US (where breathless leftists declare a class war is imminent) but in the world in general. We have--what?--close to seven billion people on the planet. 80% of these people live on less than ten dollars a day. That's where the so-called "class war" is playing out in my opinion. In that context, there's not much difference between the left and right in Canada or in the US.

Its a rare day indeed that I completely agree with you. It'll be interesting how the rise of the middle class in developing countries that aren't totalitarian (as in countries that can't actively destroy dissent) will impact the function of those governments, as well as how the extreme poor will react to said rise.

JJ wrote:

You make a valid point, but I think people greatly exaggerate the importance of "fiscal conservatives" in this day and age. Lawerence Summers and Timothy Geithner and all the rest of Obama's most senior economic advisors are not economic "liberals" by any stretch. On the big questions, they do not differ that substantially from the Bush administration. Leftists complain about the "Washington Consensus" for a reason; the last two decades have been marked by a dramatic converge of opinion on economic matters all over the world, on the parties of both the right and left.

And I think that too is largely a class thing. People of a certain degree of wealth and education (ie; cabinet ministers and political advisors) just generally have similar attitudes towards fiscal matters, attitudes which, in turn, tend to be conservative because conservatism has been proven to work quite well in the economic sphere, or at least that's what you're taught to believe that when you formally study economics at big expensive universities. There is thus less and less reason for a big business guy to have an aversion to supporting the Democratic Party. Indeed, he'd probably have more reason to support them, because people with high degrees of wealth and education tend to be socially liberal too. The idea that socially liberal conservatives have to stick it out with the Republican Party since the socialism of the Democrats is the only alternative is a completely false dichotomy, yet that kind of view seems to be the conventional wisdom among a lot of smart conservatives these days.

I agree, to start, that the fiscal conservative dogma is mainstream (with some select differences, of course) in both the Democratic and Republican parties within the United States. It's understandable, as well, because, as Zip pointed out, the United States is probably the most right wing nation within the developed world. As such, they don't see the distinction as seen in other countries (Canada, for example, has its two mainstream parties more or less based around conservative economic principles, with the Green and NDP parties leaning towards socialism).

As such, fiscal conservatives within the United States are more or less split between the Republican and Democratic parties (some jumping on third party platforms, I bet). The differences are usually minor, usually revolving around regulation and taxes, and nothing like nationalizing or privatization of businesses.

I'd figure that people with high education degrees lean towards socially liberal ideas, but I'm not sure if the wealthy (meaning those with an income more than $250,000, let's say) are socially liberal. I'm sure there are some who are, but I'd guess there are just as many who aren't. Then again, I'm basing this on my life within Rochester Hills, Michigan, (one of the wealthiest cities in a county that USED to be one of the wealthiest in the country), so it's personal experience, nothing more. I'd believe that many intellectuals and cultural icons are socially liberal, but I'm not sure if that's the same with economic leaders, as much as private businessmen/owners/professionals. This might also depend on the profession as well.

I agree with you, Republicans who say that electing a Democrat means supporting socialism is wrong. One reason is...A Texas Democrat is much more right wing than a New York or California Republican. Another issue, as seen with the public option, is that socialistic policies (I'm going to use the major health reform as an example) aren't exactly popular among what are known as "Reagan Democrats" or more moderate Democratic forces (as in those from traditionally Republican or conservative areas). But, to me, the word socialism is more of a rallying cry more than anything else, much like I'm sure there were a few during the Bush years that were just as ludicrous

[Psudo]

commanderkai wrote:

I would say the issue with American conservative is the two major subsects within it. Specifically we have fiscal conservatives, which probably intersects you, other professional classes, small business owners, and probably corporate leaders as well. On the opposite side, we have social (or compassionate) conservatives which usually panders to the more religious portions of the United States.

Ack! No no no! No.

The two kinds of conservatives (if there must be only two; I count 7 conservative/Republican ideologies) are not "compassionate" and "fiscal". Think of the two Republican candidates for President in the past 10 years: Bush and McCain. Bush was a self-identified compassionate conservative (a title that has always made me cringe). But which was a fiscal conservative? Clearly neither. So who is your example of a fiscal conservative? Ron Paul?

Fiscal conservatism is an ideology within conservatism, but one represented by the tea parties and their leaderless abandonment issues. It has not seen significant political leadership since the 1994 House of Reps. It is vying for prominence precisely because it has lost it.

If there must be two prominent factions, consider populist vs. pragmatic. The pragmatists seek to hedge the tide of Obama-esque retro liberalism by delay tactics and monolithic "Nay" voting in the legislature. They lack the numbers to succeed, but until November it's all they have. The populists stage publicity stunts, like the tea parties, the all-night legislative session opposed to the bailout about a year ago, and Sarah Palin's book tour. They've given up hope this time around, and are trying to energize the base to retake the legislature in the next election.

Those are classifications of means rather than goals, but I don't see a lot of diversity of goals lately. It's all screams of "Nay!" with little else to offer. Perhaps they think their party is too imperiled to risk internal division. Too bad; friendly disagreement leads to debate, which leads to better ideas. They could use some better ideas.

[commanderkai]

Just curious, I don't disagree with your assessment, but what are the seven types of Republicans/Conservatives are there?

[Thanos]

Psudo wrote:

Those are classifications of means rather than goals, but I don't see a lot of diversity of goals lately. It's all screams of "Nay!" with little else to offer. Perhaps they think their party is too imperiled to risk internal division. Too bad; friendly disagreement leads to debate, which leads to better ideas. They could use some better ideas.

That's because they aren't "conservatives" as we used to know them. They're populist radicals that have embraced a whacko ideological puritanism. No dissent is to be tolerated and that's usually a viewpoint held by self-righteous revolutionaries who tend towards totalitarian thought processes. I hate to harp about this point over and over again but I don't think that the "conservative" label should be surrendered to them without a fight.

Personally I think these goofs are all going to shoot themselves in the head and basically give the White House and most of Congress to the Democrats on a silver platter. It'll probably take twelve years for them to figure out how badly their brand of pure-strain "conservatism" has alienated them from the mass of the body politic.

[Psudo]

commanderkai wrote:

Just curious, I don't disagree with your assessment, but what are the seven types of Republicans/Conservatives are there?

Big business republicans, neoconservatives, new conservatives (ie, new in Reagan's time), paleoconservatives, right-leaning libertarians, and Republican moderates (sometimes derisively called RINOs). [edit: forgot to mention Christian Traditionalists.]

Hrm... maybe I should start calling new conservatives "Reagan conservatives", since they're really not new anymore. I've also been considering adding a category for the reactionary populists Thanos is talking about; I swear I don't remember seeing them around a decade ago.

Thanos wrote:

That's because they aren't "conservatives" as we used to know them. They're populist radicals that have embraced a whacko ideological puritanism.

That is common for pundits and individual voters, but is not very true of actual politicians. They cannot be ideologically xenophobic because they have to appeal to as many people as possible to be elected. The ones left in office are the ones who did not sacrifice their jobs to remain ideologically pure.

On the contrary, I think conservative politicians have struggled so hard to be big-tent accepting of every stupid ideology that they've lost any internal logic to their philosophy. That sets them up for criticism and discrediting, which loses them elections.

Thanos wrote:

It'll probably take twelve years for them to figure out how badly their brand of pure-strain "conservatism" has alienated them from the mass of the body politic.

I believe they'll regain some ground in the legislature as soon as November's elections. Unless a new Reagan appears, though, we won't see the ideological triumph of his decade for quite a while.

[JJ]

Psudo wrote:

Fiscal conservatism is an ideology within conservatism, but one represented by the tea parties and their leaderless abandonment issues. It has not seen significant political leadership since the 1994 House of Reps. It is vying for prominence precisely because it has lost it.

The tea parties were a very 2009 phenomena so I obviously missed out on much of the coverage, but my impression (to return to the original theme of this thread) was that these too were largely a class thing. In the sense that the tea party people did not really represent a coherent voice of economic conservatism per se, but rather a lower-middle class/prole frustration with a growing tax burden they cannot afford, coupled with a sense of cultural alienation from the ruling Democratic Party.

When the Reform Party in Canada arose in opposition to the Progressive Conservative Party in the late 80's, it was motivated by a similar sort of amorphous blend of passions. And Prime Minister Mulroney, and later Campbell were both quite incredulous about all of this, they would try to diffuse the appeal of the movement by making reforms that were, on paper, the sort of the things the Reform Party people wanted. But it wasn't enough, because the alienation lower-class conservatives felt towards the PC party at that time went beyond mere policy.

But I don't think a third party would ever arise in America as a result of this admittedly similar situation, simply because the Republican Party is very good at presenting itself as the political expression of the tea party class, and Fox as their sympathetic media outlet. It's the same reason why I think Sarah Palin has a future.

[Psudo]

I don't usually pay a great amount of attention to class, but I was under the impression that the full range of middle class was represented, with people taking time off of $50/hr jobs to drive to the tea party walk on Washington right next to the unemployed folks from the trailer parks.

I don't know about the tea partiers, but the Republican Party is doing a horrible job of presenting itself as the political expression of my attitudes and opinions. Whether from within or without, the Republican Party needs a change.

[Zipperfish]

Yes definitions are difficult. I'm usually idenitfied as a liberal. I generally support free trade. However, at some point within the last few decades, free trade moved from the liberal camp to the conservative camp. And it may well move back again.

And actually, the main reason I'm a liberal is opposition to the primarily socialist policies of the neoconservatives. Go figger.

*Edited for execrable spelling.*

[Ombrageux]

Quote:

In the sense that the tea party people did not really represent a coherent voice of economic conservatism per se, but rather a lower-middle class/prole frustration with a growing tax burden they cannot afford, coupled with a sense of cultural alienation from the ruling Democratic Party.

Read: "frustration with a growing tax burden that people richer than them are paying."

America is an aspirational society, the proles are already hurting from the bonuses they won't be making when they grow up.