The New WASPs

I have spent some time discussing why liberals believe what they believe and how they attempt to push their beliefs on the rest of society.  Another distinction is the description of those who are liberal.  They are not completely homogeneous, however, but share enough characteristics to separate them from others.   Besides driving Subarus or hybrids, listening to NPR, drinking soy lattes, and eating vegan hamburgers, there are a number of similar attributes that make up a large segment of the Left. 

Sociologists developed the term WASP for a particular subgroup of America that held substantial amounts of power and influence.  White (sometimes Wealthy), Anglo-Saxon, Protestant are the words that are used to make that acronym,  but their shared life experience and culture provided them distinction.  It was applied to those who typically lived in the Northeast, went to Ivy League schools or other elite colleges,  and attended mostly Episcopalian churches.  They shared a particular social mores, social circles, and behaviors that distinguished them from other groups.  The Roosevelt's, Bush's, and Rockefeller's are all considered to be WASP families.  Somewhere along the way, the term WASP became a pejorative, as terms often do.  Some say, the influence of the old WASPs has waned, and I think they are right.  However, there is a new WASP that has emerged and is slowly becoming the demographic with the most influence politically and socially.  White, Affluent, Secular, Professionals are now the dominant force in America.  Whereas the old WASP were "old school" Republicans, this new set of WASPs is decidedly liberal, progressive, and Democratic.  They control, or are close to controlling, most of the major American corporations, educational institutions, bureaucratic positions, and the largest American cities.  

White

 While the Democratic Party boasts of a racially diverse base including African-Americans, Hispanics (Latinx, if you are so inclined), and Asian-Americans, the party is clearly dominated by Caucasians.  Outside of President Obama and AOC, there are very few nationally recognized Democrats within the power hierarchy who are minorities.  The recent Democratic Presidential Primary had a number of racial minorities including Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, and Elizabeth Warren (I kid!!!).  Democrats winnowed down their choices to two, white, near octogenarians, eventually choosing the older of the two with a sordid past of not being the most minority friendly.  The two most powerful Democratic positions in the legislature belong to two old white people.  

I say all this to point out that the white democrats maintain firm control of the party.  The color of skin matters little to me because I don't buy into identity-politics or group think.  However, it does matters to me when a group of people, who not only use terms like "white privilege" or "white supremacy" to their benefit, but do not hold themselves to the appropriate amounts of accountability.  In other words, I have never seen a white democrat voluntarily give up their position of power (or any other position, for that matter) to non-whites to help effectively defeat white privilege, white supremacy, and systemic racism.  And this is the paradox of white liberals.  They have actively created, supported, and maintained a system of racial identity politics that threatens their own influence and power.  The only way to prevent their self-demise, is to publicly promote identity politics as a means to assuage their white guilt, and ultimately save them from themselves.  The reality is that identity politics, is just that....politics.  It is a way to secure votes, win elections, and gain power.  In other words, it is a mean to an end.  

White guilt must be a bizarre phenomena for liberals.  For most of their entire education, especially Gen X and Millennial's, they have been fed a curriculum rich in neo-Marxism and Critical Race Theory, which states that whites have been responsible for every evil imaginable.  How does one proceed, if they believe that "they" are the problem of such evil?  Well, you save yourself by admitting your white privilege, and hoping that the admission absolves you.  Sometimes this guilt manifests itself in much more radical and extreme ways.  It is not sufficient to admit your whiteness is a problem, you need to engage of acts of contrition, which are usually manic demonstrations of rage and anger.  It is why the people usually behind causes such as the renaming of sports teams, pancake syrup, parks, museums, etc are not of the minorities those names are supposed to offend, they are white people with a lot of guilt to atone for.  Much of the racial protests and BLM portests have been infiltrated by an angry, rage-filled, white "Karens" and, in my opinion, all that anger is a result strange mixture of white guilt and cognitive dissonance.  But what you never see, is a white liberal step aside for person of color to take their place.

Affluent

One of the enduring stereotypes of conservatives and Republicans is that they are the party of the rich and wealthy.  Conversely, liberals have stereotypically been seen as the party for the working and lower classes.  However, like many stereotypes, there was some truth to it, but over time, things can change.  And indeed, they have.  Wealth and political ideology or party preference is one of those areas.  The "upper class" is no longer a uniform group.  According to Pew Research, those making 150K or more a year lean democratic.  Every other group below that number leans Republican, save the less than 30K group.  If you think about the richest Americans, almost all are left leaning.  Bezos, Buffet, Cook, Gates, Bloomberg, Page, and Bryn all promote democratic policies and candidates.  Sure the conservatives have the Koch's and Walton's but the idea that rich people and corporate titans are uniformly conservatives is definitely changing.

Certainly, how one becomes affluent is an important concept and we will discuss that later.  But for now, we are going to see how one's affluence influences their perspective or contributes to their lack of.  Similar to their belief about their role in championing people of color, the affluent Left also believes they are the protectors of the poor and lowly.  Also similar to their views on race, their position requires a paradoxical maneuver to "help" without sacrificing their status.  In other words, they have to advocate policies that limit the impact on themselves.  Regardless, they tend to promote policies that on the surface seem to advocate for the poorer among us, but in reality they often produce the opposite.  

Affluence often acts as an insulation from the harsh economic and social realities that many in the middle, and certainly the lower classes, face.  Obviously, increases in the cost of goods have greater impact on those with less disposable income.  But to the many affluent Left, they often lose perspective of this fact as they promote causes that lead to higher prices for food, energy, and housing.  Organic maybe healthier, alternative fuels may save the planet, and rent controls seem logical, but on the other side of the equation is an increased cost of living that affects the segment of society they claim to champion.  The accumulation of those costs become a heavy burden.   They often live in places and spaces that inhibit adverse consequences of their social policies.  They support policies and politicians that prevent adequate and significant improvements in education within poorer communities while they send their own children to the best public and private schools.  They live in gated communities and expensive suburbs with extremely low crime rates, which makes them clueless to what it is like to live in communities where no such tranquility exists.  It allows you to believe in bat$#it crazy ideas like "defund the police."  

Secular

I have spent some time in previous posts discussing the fact that much of why the Left does what it does is because of their secular nature and I think it bears repeating.  Inherent in all humans is a need to have meaning and purpose (I think this is by design, by the way).  It is a space in our heart, souls and mind that must be filled.   The fact that every society through the history of man has developed a system that attempts to explain who we are, where we came from , and why we are here, along with a system of worship and rituals proves that humans are hardwired for religion.  However, for most of our history this space was filled with traditional religions which included formal teachings, structures, and usually a transcendent component.  But when one rejects these "traditional" religions, it does not mean that they are without religion.  Rather, they are just merely worshiping something else.  I am reminded of the Apostle Paul's observation while in Athens when he said, "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god."  Athens in Paul's time is no different than present day America.  Americans, whether Christian, atheist, agnostic, or whatever else are worshiping something or someone.  If our space for meaning is not filled with traditional religions, it is filled by worshiping science, intelligence, fame, money, self, country, ideology, technology, entertainment, sports, sex, drugs, and rock n roll.  And to be honest, I know Christians who worship much on that list more than they do Christ.

I belabor the point to prove that, although secular, the Left is very religious.  They are not worshiping God, but they do worship a number of idols.  One of the more popular religions of the secular Left is science.  But not all the time, and not in the way they want you, or themselves to think.  The science most worshiped by these WASPs are evolution and climate change.  Evolution is held sacred because it is what provides them with an alternative to a deity and subsequent need to obey its dictates.  At the same time, evolution lessens the dignity and value of human life, making it a mere biological process that came about through accident.  There is a significant consequence to viewing humanity as a soulless species.   Evolution provides an answer to where we came from, however, it minimally answers who we are, and has no details for why we are here. With those major questions left unanswered, one must find it elsewhere.  It is interesting that climate change provides many trappings of religious experience.  climate change may not provide meaning, it certainly provides purpose.  And much like evangelical Christian's who feel their purpose is to seek and save the lost, these WASPs feel compelled to save the earth.  When one is saving something as singularly important as the earth, it requires strict adherence and faith.  Many on the Left believe that this is the most important issue of the 21st century.  Because of this, they are constantly promoting environmental policies that will save the world.  But just like their policies with race and economics, their environmental policies do very little in solving the alleged issue.   

Professional

Occupation plays an important role in social, economic, and political perspectives and attitudes.  The reasons are many and obvious.  A person spends half of their waking hours working.  Besides being a person's livelihood, it also serves as a social connection to colleagues and peers who often share the same socioeconomic status and typically connects them geographically as well.  Thus, many blue collar workers live in similar neighborhoods and sections of towns, while white collar workers share different neighborhoods.  Occupations are also dictated by different sets of skills, competencies, and experiences.  Almost all professional jobs usually require college degrees whereas the blue collar jobs do not.  That means nearly all professionals essentially get the same under grad education and share a cultural context that blue collar workers do not.  This education system is completely ran by Leftist of all stripes.  It also means that occupations can become gender heavy as is the case with many blue collar jobs being dominated by males.  I say all this not to say one is better, but that they are different.  Pew Research shows that occupation, education and geography all play a role in ideology.  If you are a professional, the more liberal you are.  The more education you have, the more liberal you are.  The more urban you are, the more liberal you are.

Those who earn a living by non-manual methods (noticed I didn't say with their brains) have a different concept of the economy as opposed to those whose job requires physical labor.  Much of this may be a result of globalization and the availability of cheap labor or the rapidly increasing technologies, that have made blue collar jobs a less stable form of livelihood.  When one is in a career that is always in danger of being exported, or replaced by technology, or passed over for cheaper immigrant workers, it makes one view the economy and society in a different light.  The fact that many blue collar occupations are also male heavy which tends to create a different work environment an culture.  Whether one thinks it right or not, the atmosphere of male dominated, blue collar jobs are not very politically correct.  I can almost guarantee you will hear jokes or comments that would make university, woke snowflakes, weep, wail, and wither at such offensiveness. Conversely, professionals work in an economy that is dependent upon their skills and knowledge.  The dangers of not being able to find a job to support a family are not as threatening.  The skills and knowledge in one sector can be adapted and utilized in another.  I have seen people jump from different industries, sometimes totally unrelated, because their skills could be used across a wide range of ways.  Professionals work in a very regulated work space with rules about dress, speech, and decorum.  Simply put, professionals and blue collar people spend half of their lives in two vastly different spaces.

The way the different occupational types are evaluated also plays an important role in differing perspectives.  Blue collar workers, especially those that require large amounts of physical labor, are judged by their ability to perform and complete tasks in difficult circumstances.  There is little pity for those who cannot keep up and no one cares about feelings.  The goal is to get the job done and move on to the next.  Little attention is paid to anything else.  Moreover, the blue collar worker's product is usually tangible and distinctly seen, thus easier to evaluate.  Many professionals live in a different environment, where the tasks they complete are not as tangible or easy to see.  I had a boss tell me once that he thought I was doing an excellent job because he did not hear any complaints from customers or employees.  With an evaluation metric like that, it can incentivize different types of behaviors.  Professional jobs also have a much different "office politics' component where interrelational skills and emotional intelligence play larger roles in ones ability to be successful.   

The white collar suburb and urban dwelling is also much different from the blue collar suburb and rural setting.  I have not really lived in an urban area, but I have lived in blue collar suburbs, white collar suburbs and the sticks, so I know what I am talking about.  In my current white collar neighborhood, I might be the only guy on the block that mows my own lawn, changes my own brakes, and does my own home repairs (or at least attempts).  This was not the case in the blue collar neighborhoods, nor in the rural.  I remember explaining to a colleague about a difficult time I had working on my car and his response was, "Have you heard of a mechanic?" The different approaches, to me, reveal a significant conceptual view of self reliance.  For many blue collar workers, self reliance is a result of self preservation and survival.  In other words, they can't afford to have a mechanic do something routine like change their brakes.  They figure out how to fix it themselves.  This self reliance bleeds over into other areas and becomes an ingrained characteristic that lends itself more to an independent minded individual.   

The new WASPs seem firmly in control of American politics with no real way to check their growing power.  With firm control over key institutions, it feels that there is little hope in challenging their rule in the near future.  I do hold out hope that the WASPs will self implode from their wokeness.