Yuval Levin’s article in Commentary, The Meaning of Sarah Palin contains this nugget:
The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism.
This immediately reminded me of the Nolan Chart, shown above, a part of Libertarian folklore. Has Levin rediscovered the Nolan Chart in different terms? Or has he invented something new?
First of all, “cultural” and “personal” are really the same thing. Both refer to lifestyle issues. Libertarians, with their focus on the individual, are naturally going to prefer “personal”.
Next, is the populism-to-elitism spectrum the same as the freedom spectrum? Elites, by definition, are minorities, outliers on the normal curve, so there is a natural tendency for elites to prefer more freedom, to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Libertarians do tend to be elitists, or at least wannabe elitists. So far, so good.
Let’s look at a couple of deficiencies of the the Nolan Chart. The Left is often willing to censor politically incorrect speech, which is inconsistent with personal freedom of speech. Elites, however, don’t have to be philosophically consistent, so censoring politically incorrect speech is fully consistent with cultural elitism. On the other side, the Right is often willing to engage in tax-supported corporate welfare, which is inconsistent with individual economic freedom, but fully consistent with economic elitism.
So, all in all, I think Levin’s formulation is an improvement over the Nolan Chart. In a representative democracy, almost by definition, we have opposing elites using populist arguments to contest power. There is a certain symmetry to all of this.
Thanks to reader TTB for nudging me onto this path. By all means, read Levin’s article if you’re interested in the Sarah Palin phenomenon, but it’s really about much more than Sarah Palin. I’ll repeat Levin’s words in a larger context:
In American politics, the distinction between populism and elitism is further subdivided into cultural and economic populism and elitism. And for at least the last forty years, the two parties have broken down distinctly along this double axis. The Republican party has been the party of cultural populism and economic elitism, and the Democrats have been the party of cultural elitism and economic populism. Republicans tend to identify with the traditional values, unabashedly patriotic, anti-cosmopolitan, non-nuanced Joe Sixpack, even as they pursue an economic policy that aims at elite investor-driven growth. Democrats identify with the mistreated, underpaid, overworked, crushed-by-the-corporation “people against the powerful,” but tend to look down on those people’s religion, education, and way of life. Republicans tend to believe the dynamism of the market is for the best but that cultural change can be dangerously disruptive; Democrats tend to believe dynamic social change stretches the boundaries of inclusion for the better but that economic dynamism is often ruinous and unjust.