Free linky.
More:
As the trucker spoke, I was reminded of a book that came out a few years ago called \ufffdThe Dignity of Working Men,\ufffd by the sociologist, Mich\ufffdle Lamont, who is now at Harvard. Lamont interviewed working-class men, and described what she calls \ufffdthe moral centrality of work.\ufffd
Her subjects placed tremendous emphasis on working hard, struggling against adversity and mastering their craft. Her book is an antidote to simplistic notions of class structure, because it makes clear that these men define who is above and below them in the pecking order primarily in moral, not economic terms.
People in other classes may define the social structure by educational attainment, income levels and job prestige, but these men are more likely to understand the social hierarchy on the basis of who can look out for themselves, who has the courage to be a fireman, a soldier or a cop, who has the discipline to put bread on the table every night despite difficulties.
As you say, there's a certain fatuousness about it. One can make an argument that class in America has more to do with "moral" (whatever that means in this context) than economic terms, but it's redefining terms to do so. One would expect a book by a sociologist to explain things in social rather than economic terms, no?
People generally feel better about their place in the world when they feel that it gets better over time. Resentment builds when one sees anyone, be they "manipulators" or not, do better while one lags (while attempting to play by the rules).
Perhaps populist movements do better when they appeal to "moral and social conditions first". But how is that different from "conservative movements" or "progressive movements" or politics in general? People who get enthusiastic about politics usually do so because they want to be part of something they regard as important. If there's something in it for them, so much the better.
So I don't see it as an attack on paper-pushers, but as an attempt to explain why working people don't support "populists" any more. It's a poor attempt, though, IMO.
Cheers,
Scott.
