Scott Locklin’s recent series on social class for AltRight was very intriguing to me, as Scott’s ideas overlap quite well with a theory of class and its relationship to PC that I have been working on for some time. He identifies the recently formed upper middle class of newly rich quasi-bohemians and affluent PC professionals as “the human embodiment of the Managerial State” and identifies this class as the primary enemy the Alternative Right needs to confront. I believe Scott is absolutely correct.
Last year, I did an analysis of voting patterns in U.S. elections according to socio-economic class. You can read the results here. Much of the data I discovered was unsurprising. The rich overwhelmingly vote Republican (outside of New York, L.A. and the Bay Area). The poor overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Blue collar workers (the “working class”) vote Democratic outside the South, where the results are more mixed depending on the locality. The more traditional sectors of the middle and upper-middle classes tend to vote Republican. By “traditional,” I mean Main Street commercial interests, small to medium sized business owners, middle managers, and white collar workers in traditional professions (like accountants). The major anomaly and by far the most interesting discovery in my research was the pattern of persons with solidly upper-middle class incomes and professional or social positions voting Democratic. This occurs primarily in the so-called “blue states,” or to break it down more accurately, in the counties, municipalities, and precincts in or around major urban centers where affluent professional people tend to reside. What we are seeing is the emergence of an upper-middle class that is economically prosperous, or even wealthy, but gives its political and cultural allegiance to the Left, often the fairly radical Left. What I have called “totalitarian humanism” (we can call it “cultural Marxism” or simply PC if others prefer) is the ideological manifestation of this particular class.
The red-state/blue-state divide between Democrats and Republicans is normally interpreted as a “culture war” pitting the pre-1960s culture against the post-1960s culture. This would seem to be at least partially correct when it comes to partisan voting patterns within the middle and upper middle classes, though as Paul Gottfried recently pointed out, it’s doubtful that even ordinary GOP voters can rightfully be called “conservative” nowadays. But to a large degree I think partisan voting patterns can be understood as symptomatic of a wider “class struggle” between the traditional upper class that Scott describes, meaning the dying class of old bourgeoisie WASP elite, and an insurgency by this newly-emerging leftist upper-middle class.
This phenomenon is further illustrated by an analysis of the various factions and interest groups within the two major parties. It’s interesting that the Wikipedia entry on “factions in the Republican Party” includes only two issues of note, so-called “national security” (meaning the neocons and the overlords of the military-industrial complex) and “business” (a faction dominated by Wall Street, the banking cartel around the Fed, and politically connected welfare corporations). It’s clear enough that the professed social conservatism of the GOP is little more than an occasional bone to be thrown to the useful idiots who make up the “base,” as I’ve written about before. Contrast this with the Wikipedia entry on the Democratic Party’s “voter base” which reads like a role call of the PC Left: affluent liberal professionals, career bureaucrats, public sector workers, union bosses and their underlings, the academic left, college students who hope to join the upper middle class, elites among the racial/ethnic minorities, official gaydom, feminists, environmentalists, animal rights activists, little green men from Neptune, and on down the line. As Scott pointed out, it is precisely these elements that staff the “managerial state” or provide its clients or constituents, and PC provides their legitimating ideology.
I believe Scott is correct that the “job of the alternative right…is to destroy the present upper middle class, and eventually replace it with something better.” If so, what will “something better” consist of, and from where will its allies and constituents come?