Everybody Hates Elite Aspirants

We need a better understanding of America’s class dynamics and how they shape our politics

Kamala Harris may receive the highest share of the college-educated vote in history if polls prove accurate. The latest CNN poll shows Kamala with an 18-point lead among white college grads while boasting a 21-point advantage among all college grads. It would be a seismic shift in American politics if Harris ends up winning the white college grad demographic by double digits. Mitt Romney won this demographic in 2012, as did Donald Trump in 2016. This group’s realignment to a reliable Democratic voting bloc would significantly change American politics.

Much of the Right doesn’t seem too bothered by this. Some have concluded that this just proves the Democrats are the party of resentful “midwits.” The lack of concern is driven by the Right’s confusing vision of America’s class dynamics. The Right, especially in its online form, envisions itself as the happily content and successful members of society against the discontented “elite aspirants.” However, this image conflicts with the Dissident Right’s desire for radical change. Why would the content want to radically alter the status quo? A clearer understanding of class alignment and “revolutionary” potential is needed in this discussion.

The CNN poll generated interesting responses from the Online Right.

Popular X user FischerKing pointed out that holding a college degree is no longer a marker of intelligence due to the large number of Americans with one. In his opinion, it’s a sign that a person has experienced “heavy indoctrination.” Another popular user, Lafayette Lee, agreed with this assessment and added his own take about “elite aspirants.”

I think that group is the core dem constituency post-Obama. DEI, anti-racism, anti-capitalism, anti-chud seems designed to create scapegoats & distract [elite aspirants] from the central problem, which is elite overproduction

Both individuals made accurate points. Having a college degree no longer signifies a person is smart. “Elite overproduction” is an issue. Some of the most ardent leftists are college grads who failed to succeed, and so they champion “anti-racism” and “anti-capitalism” as the solutions to their problems. 

However, these arguments align with the convoluted picture the Right has of America’s class dynamics and what that means for the nation’s politics. Elite aspirants are a detested group on the Right. Denounced as either strivers or losers, elite aspirants are seen as the enemy. Contrasting this group to their own station allows right-wingers to present themselves as successful, content, and potentially even elite. 

This picture is certainly nice to have of oneself, but it overlooks some important facts. The majority of college graduates are neither elites nor elite aspirants. They’re just middle class.

The actual elites are very liberal and support many of the things the Right opposes. They obviously aren’t anti-capitalist, but they do back DEI. There are a few renegade elites, such as Elon Musk and Donald Trump, who adopt right-wing politics. But they are the outliers. Much of the class is solidly liberal and evinces little dissent. The overwhelming majority of Ivy league grads are Democratic, which indicates how entrenched the liberal bias is. Leftist elite aspirants share many of the same values as those with all the power.

It would make more sense for elite aspirants to have a right-wing ideology, which some of them do. It’s a fact that much of the Dissident Right would count as elite aspirants. They don’t have institutional power. Maybe they didn’t get to go to the best school because they’re white, or they didn’t advance as much in their career because of their rejection of wokism. Someone who feels stiffed by the liberal status quo would be open to right-wing ideas. But it goes against the self-image of many right-wingers to admit this. So they either pretend to be chuds or elites. 

There are plenty of leftists who are among this class, of course. They may even constitute a majority of this constituency. Both Occupy Wall Street and the Bernie Sanders movement drew heavily from overproduced “elites.” Some of these types would better fit Lafayette Lee’s categorization of the core left-wing constituency as failures. They work at Starbucks in spite of their college degree. This “lumpenbourgeoisie” is a core component of Antifa and other radical left-wing phenomena. But it would be hard to see them as elite aspirants when they aren’t aspiring to anything. 

The core left-wing constituency is more secure in its status and income than the lumpenbourgeoisie. This is the functionary caste. These are the people who make a living enforcing rules and norms. This includes government workers, DEIcrats, school administrators, HR staff, journalists, and many others. These people don’t quite count as “elite,” but they make a good salary, have good job security, and benefit greatly from the liberal status quo. They just think the system needs to more zealously enforce left-wing values. Some may entertain anti-capitalism, but not enough to jeopardize their security.

They’re credentialed, they’re powerful, and they’re completely libtarded. This is more the enemy than anyone else. And they have a huge stake in the system as it currently exists.

So who constitutes the Right’s core constituency? For its offline (read: real-world) constituency, it’s Middle Americans who made good without credentials. Small business owners, salesmen, tradesmen, and various others of this sort. Many of these types do have college degrees, but it’s from a state school and they aren’t entwined with the system. You can see this constituency in the MAGA boat parades. The boaters evince a blue collar style, yet have enough income to afford a boat. These are the diehard Trumpers. They make good money in our system, but they don’t feel in control of it. The anti-white racism, the LGBT indoctrination, and other strange cultural ways annoy them. That’s why they back Trump and want to make America great again. But many of them struggle to articulate what they see as wrong with American society and what they would like to change. This often leads the GOP to misdirect this cultural discontent into pointless fiscal matters. This group also doesn’t quite want a revolution. They just want their interests respected and a few changes made here and there.

The Online Right is different. It’s hard to know who comprises it (it is anonymous after all). But from who I know and have interacted with, it includes many that could be called “elite aspirants.” There are a few genuine “elites” (top tier university education, top dollar salaries) and a lot of members from the well-off “chud” class. But the largest demographic are youngish, middle-class, college graduates. They can have decent jobs, but they’re not elites and they definitely think there’s something wrong with the world around them. One could see them as elite aspirants, even if they recoil at that assessment. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does differentiate them from the MAGA masses. It also makes them a minority among their own demographic cohort, which, as the polls show, are increasingly liberal.

The Right should want elite aspirants to join its ranks. If we want dramatic change in our society, then you need people who actually want that and can have the means to achieve that. Pretty much all revolutions throughout history were led by elites aspirants. Peter Turchin, who coined “elite overproduction,” noted this in his otherwise-bad book End Times. But the Right sees revolutionary change happening from the content chud class, which one could call the “peasantry.” This is a bad bet if history is your guide. The elites often utilized the peasants to stomp out revolts initiated by elite aspirants, such as in the revolutions of 1848. In that fateful year, university-educated “counter-elites” tried to whip up the peasants to join their cause. The peasants mostly ignored them and in some cases violently turned on them. In parts of Eastern Europe, the peasants slaughtered revolutionary nobles who attempted to sway them to their cause. 

One could argue that the peasants were in the right in that situation, but it still speaks to the expected dynamic in these events. Peasants had very narrow, parochial concerns dealing with matters about taxes and property rights. They weren’t interested in some grand scheme to “liberate their nation” or to make their homeland more democratic. Their sole focus was on their farms and villages. There’s something admirable in that, but it’s not an attitude you can expect to support radical changes.

Middle American “chuds” evince a similar mindset. They have narrower concerns than the online right-winger. Their primary goal is to be left alone by liberal bureaucrats and DEIcrats. They want to pay as little in taxes as possible and have enough money to buy a boat to join a MAGA flotilla. They see a lot of the civilizational threats around them, such as mass immigration. But they aren’t into grand visions or romanticism. They’re practical, down-to-earth people who just want concrete things solved. They’re not going to start a revolution or join the Appalachian Khmer Rouge. 

They will rally for Trump, and that’s good enough for the moment.

Radical change in society will likely only come from the elite aspirants. If they’re overwhelmingly left-wing, then our country could get even worse if they rally behind a Hugo Chavez figure who can seize power. This intra-elite battle pitting liberals against leftists would leave the Right outside waiting for the results. The victors would be able to impose their vision on the country, and Middle Americans would have little recourse to change this.

If you want the status quo, but with just a few tweaks, then the elite aspirants would be no help. But if you want fundamental and dramatic change to this society, you need a counter-elite to accomplish that. One has to look to the discontented to find the grounds to accomplish that. It won’t be found among the perfectly content.