The New Urban Elites

The New Urban Elites

A cultural movement in mainly Western countries post WW2, broadly characterised by the embrace of a set of left wing/collectivist/progressive/identitarian views by academics, media, and public servants which then spread through urban populations.

Urban elites gestated in universities then colonised media, the public service, local and national political leadership and most recently, larger employers (hence DEI and ESG).  

Selectively rejects 19th and 20th century enlightenment values: objective truth, rewards for competence and work (rather than race, class or gender) and open informed debate. 

Is primarily a city phenomenon, favours public transport (war on cars), large government, high taxes, and regulation as the solution for perceived problems- driven by self-interest? 

Has more support amongst females, especially younger females.  Males are less fervent- 'going along' in return for female companionship?  Denigration of white males is routine. 

Causes include gender equalness, environmentalism, racial preference (Maori in NZ), gay and transgender rights, CO2 emissions reduction, and equity (as in equal outcomes).    

Assigns diminished responsibility to groups deemed to be oppressed. (hence sentencing discounts and tolerance of bad behaviour by the indigent, gangs and beneficiaries). 

Is suspicious of businesses except those supporting preferred lifestyles (like art, organics, music, restaurants, cycling) and opposes livestock farming (proportionally higher veganism). 

Prioritises 'work-life balance' (that is, less work) and lifestyle over children- hence fertility is well below replacement.  Continually replenishes from young people newly arriving in cities.  

Followers have an overwhelming belief in their own virtue, rightness, and entitlement which extinguishes civility and politeness when heretical views are encountered. 

Is intolerant of dissent, uses cancelation, intimidation, bullying, compelled speech, and personal vilification, to enforce acquiescence with its beliefs, and to suppress opposition. 

Has entrenched itself with a client base established by promoting welfare payments without requiring work or responsible behaviour in return.  

Urban elite opinion leaders are the intelligentsia: 'social justice' activists and educated, high income, university, state and media employees.

Culture: behaviours, beliefs, values, and symbols.

Culture and population size alone determine a country's viability, nothing else.  Success is independent of geography and natural resources- Singapore versus Zaire for example.      

All cultures change with time. Those that don't keep up with 'best practice' get dominated and subjugated (economically and sometimes militarily).  Africa for example.  

China was a highly advanced culture until it atrophied in the 15th century, which it is only just recovering from.  

Japanese culture was similarly found wanting but recovered with the 1860's Meiji restoration (painful deliberate reform that few if any other cultures have ever achieved).

Not all cultural changes are positive.  In the 1930's, Argentine was one of the world's most advanced countries when it tried to vote itself rich, destroying its economy in the process (with no sign of recovery as yet). 

China's post WW2 "great leap forward" caused massive environmental and economic damage- and more than 20million unnecessary deaths.

Venezuela is sitting on the world's largest oil reserves and had a bright future until it moved sharply Left under Hugo Chavez, going from the highest per capita income in South America to Venezuelans not being able to afford food or even soap in just 10 years.

Unfortunately, the on-going urban elite's cultural revolution is having similar effects in Western countries-although the decline is happening much more slowly because of the great wealth and strong institutions built up over previous centuries.

Distasteful though it is, it's not the uncivilised behaviour of the urban elites which is most dangerous.  Intolerance of dissent, 'cancel culture', compelled speech, abuse and intimidation of heretics are all common characteristics of cultural shifts- particularly religious ones- but they don't in themselves necessarily have economic consequences.  Spain engaged in Jewish pogroms and the Inquisition while it was rising to international supremacy in the 15th and 16th centuries.  It could be that an overwhelming belief in one's virtue, rightness and entitlement, even when misplaced, is a necessary or at least useful cultural characteristic.

The Urban elite's manifest failure is its negative effects on productivity.  Productivity, (higher per capita output of goods and services for example) is a necessary characteristic of successful cultures, enabling the provision of more benefits- including longer life expectancy-and providing the military strength to deter aggressive neighbours.   Eventual Allied success in WW2 was a direct result of outproducing the Axis powers.  The USSR lost the cold war because its system (Communism) was less productive than that of the US's.  The current China- West stand-off (with roughly equal populations on each side) will likely be determined by which culture is the most productive.

Urban elites impose many productivity costs on the societies it colonises:

   The direct cost of a larger and relatively less productive public service sector.

   An increase in the number of working age people on state benefits rather than in   employment as sanctions for not working are progressively removed.

   Diversity and Inclusion (quotas for gender and ethnicity) adds costs for businesses, institutions and state entities by mandating less than optimal appointments. 

   Increasing regulation and compliance add costs to every activity from infrastructure development to businesses to the provision of public services- for little apparent benefit.

   Reducing prison populations without reducing offending has led to a surge in gang activity and retail crime, requiring more to be spent on security, adding costs for everyone.

   'Equity' driven changes in education have led to a precipitous drop in basic arithmetic and English with a commensurate drop in workplace productivity.  In the tertiary sector, many degrees now having little real-world value, are money wasted and cost students some of their most productive years.

   Deteriorating roads (as the elite's ideological focus turned to cycleways and public transport) have increased congestion, significantly increasing the cost of moving people and goods.

   Shorter working days, more leave, more sick leave, and more public holidays all reduce output per person- although the Urban elites delude themselves that the reverse is true.   

Unfortunately, the Urban elite's destructiveness is far from historically unique.  China's cultural revolution for example: a mass movement that did the most unspeakable things, destroying families, lives, buildings, arts, treasures, and literature in a concerted attempt to change direction and re-write China's impressive multi-thousand-year history.  They are one of a species of  self-destructive mass madness that grips human societies from time to time

And destructive they are:

San Francisco is the world's tech capital, home to large social media companies and an urban elite stronghold.  From there they are able to project their influence world-wide by not-so-subtle manipulation of internet searches and commentary protocols.  Locally, their policies are causing many leading businesses and middle-class voters to depart the state.  Other States are erecting hoardings on highways out of San Fransisco saying, 'don't bring your woke politics with you'.  But they do.

They are even more a capital city phenomenon than just a city phenomenon:

In Australia, the capital, Canberra, was the only city to vote for indigenous (aboriginal) preference (an urban elite identitarian cause) in a recent referendum.  Canberra voted 62/48 for this, the rest of Australia 61/49 against (preserving the one person one vote principle).

In the 2023 NZ General election, Auckland (our largest city) voters favoured the centre right by 19%. In provincial centres it was by 17%, 36% in rural areas.  Wellington, our capital, where those engaged in policy development, implementation and administration reside, favoured the Left by 19%- and 2 out of 5 electorates there went extreme Left.

That Wellington is a basket case with unaffordable vanity projects, gridlocked roading, an unsafe downtown, legendarily unreliable water supply and sky-high rates (property taxes), has not dampened their self-belief or enthusiasm for visiting destruction on the rest of us.

What is singular is that this cultural revolution has taken root almost exclusively in representative democracies, raising the question is to why the majority do not shut it down while they still can?  It's true that those driving it have disproportionate power and influence, but they are a minority, at their core, a tiny minority.  Their use of intimidation (peoples fear of being labelled racist and sexist) is powerful, but surely in the privacy of the ballot box this should not hold sway.  Maybe opposition is just taking a time to develop.

The urban elites will eventually lose this culture war because they're running out of other people's money.  They're right about one thing though, us peasants are revolting. 

                         Peter Lynn, Ashburton New Zealand November 2023