The New Elite - Matt Goodwin | Maiden Mother Matriarch 14
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- Matt Goodwin is a professor of politics at the University of Kent and the author most recently of Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics. We spoke about what Matt describes as the ‘new elite’ and their enormous power over British institutions, why no one wants to be described as a member of this new elite, and why the Conservatives could yet be overtaken by a new populist Right party.
In the extended version of the podcast, we spoke about the downsides of meritocracy, elite contempt for the police, and why the ‘culture war’ is really a class war. You can find extended episodes, bonus episodes, and the MMM chat community at louiseperry.substack.com
00:00 Intro
03:40 Why do people resist the ‘elite’ label?
10:06 Intra-elite status games
14:44 Why the Conservative Party is not ‘conservative’
22:55 Conservative messaging on immigration
28:38 Could there be a Right populist surge?
33:51 Why MPs think that social conservatism is low status
39:50 Why British media has mostly not been captured by progressives
45:06 The vulnerability of the Conservative Party
48:46 The growing political gap between men and women
54:16 Why the Right is more intellectually interesting than the Left right now
1:00:30 How will this period of history be remembered?
1:06:20 Outro
The MMM podcast can also be found on Apple, Spotify, and all other streaming platforms: linktr.ee/maidenmothermatriarch
Follow Maiden Mother Matriarch on social media:
Twitter: / maiden_podcast
Instagram: / maiden_mother_matriarch
TikTok: tiktok.com/@maiden_podcast
Keeper - Meet the person who meets your standards with the world’s most advanced matchmaking solution. Driven by AI and relationship science. Guided by human care. Learn more at keeper.ai
#LouisePerry #MatthewGoodwin #MaidenMotherMatriarch
I think the most annoying thing about our Cosmopolitan class (whom David Goodhart calls the "Anywheres") is they aren't content to just share countries with the "Somewheres" - to have their major cities, urban centers, schools and so on - they want total victory and to remake every square inch of every Western country in the image of London, Paris, Berlin, etc.... I've seen articles on the BBC website bemoaning how "white" the population of Dorset is (as though there is something wrong with that). A person could subjectively prefer living around diversity, or subjectively prefer homogeneity. There isn't necessarily anything wrong with either preference, but to the elite class we're discussing, only one desire is considered legitimate. The other seemingly must be extinguished.
To me it seems more healthy for a nation to aim for a balance: to be a place where both cosmopolites and non-cosmopolites can feel at home so they don't become locked in this hugely divisive (and potentially violent) zero-sum struggle with one another. But such moderation seems unthinkable.
Sort of like the drive to make sure everyone was jabbed - as if they wanted to eradicate the control group.
Excellent comment.
They have a religious zeal for promoting ethnic heterogeneity and open borders, despite all the obvious problems with those things. In order for the compromise you mention to work, the UK, for example, would have to stop all immigration as soon as, say, London becomes diverse, which it did many years ago, but they will never agree to that. So, because immigration doesn't stop, British natives who want to live in more or less homogeneous places, will be increasingly forced to restrict themselves to a smaller and smaller part of the country, or just give up and live in non-homogeneous places.
Ideally, if someone wants to live in another culture, they should just move and go. If liberals in the UK, France or elsewhere want to live among Africans and Arabs, they should move to African and Arab countries. The native population should not have to have their country undergo radical demographic change, something with potentially catastrophic consequences for future generations, just because a small portion of the population wants to live among other cultures.
In any event, some degree of cultural homogeneity is needed, regardless of the ethnic diversity. Countries without it don't survive for very long - they have no reason to.
A lot of people claim to prefer a diverse social environment but actually tend to be friends with people just like themselves, congratulating themselves on their progressiveness, open-mindedness etc while eating exotic meals in restaurants owned by people who prefer the company of their fellow expatriates, having moved to countries like Britain for economic reasons only, and setting up urban enclaves to preserve their own culture.
I enjoyed how both of you said "for the birds" instead of "bullshit"
I like how real people, including former guests on the show, are still in the UA-cam comments in the early days of the channel. Also thanks for your interesting research.
Wow you have a UA-cam channel with content on it, cool.
This was such a fascinating discussion. The same thing is happening in here Israel, which has been following other western countries towards untrammelled liberalism over everything else, and there's been quite a forceful counter by the Conservative-leaning masses... which has been met with rising aggression and gaslightling from the left (calling anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% a fascist, nazi and making wild claims about the destruction of democracy). It gets pretty messy when the more moderate masses argue back and don't just take it
What kind of stuff has been happening in Israel? Are the libs pushing for the transgender stuff and mass immigration in your country to?
Brilliant discussion. I'm an ex-BBC supporting, ex globalism supporting, (but now totally disillusioned) 'Somewhere'. I am appalled at the anti-democratic & intolerant tone adopted by our ruling classes over the last 7 years. It's my belief that our ruling classes were radicalized by the votes for Brexit & Trump. They appeared to collectively imbibe the attitude that, if ordinary citizens weren't going to vote for The Elite's agendas, then The Elites would no longer support citizen-voter democracy, & would set out to 're-educate' (propagandise), discipline, & disempower ordinary citizens.
12:00 I wonder if also the fact that those degrees are really expensive but pay little gives them an extra motivation to make them valuable in some other way as in "I'm in college debt with little prospects, so this at least has to make a difference in the world" sort of a thinking.
They also hate for you to remind them of their 'independent' education and their actual privilege.
I'm libertarian and I would agree that the right has become far more fascinating as of late (I still love this channel though). They are far more intellectually robust than I thought they were.
The comment about the drift between men and women politically is very interesting. I have a left-leaning female friend who says she cannot date anyone outside of her political group. She is single and unlikely to have children. Will the evolutionary result be a more conservative society?
Agreed this will be a massive issue forward however women who are non university educated will have more pick
Both me and my sister in law are born to the right of our husband
"The left doesn't have children....they have yours"
No, their ideology will not die out because they are authoritarian. This always goes the same way, convert or die. And when you choose the former they get your kids in the cult. And when you choose the latter they get your kids in the cult.
There is no future where they fade off into insignificance by failing to reproduce.
Put much more simply, how many people currently insisting that men can give birth were raised believing that?
The answer is near zero. They are converts.
Life is a self correcting problem.
As a conservative woman I hate to tell you but just as men look for women who are younger, they also look for women who are more Left than they are. Being Left = being politically feminine.
@@Ermengrabby Interesting
Just the thought that various governments (not only in the UK) has reached this point causes one to shudder: a politics that seems no longer concerned with things (infrastructure), or for the average citizen is a sign of a deep moral nihilism. Technocrats, biotech and big money will rule, and things are moving so rapidly in that direction that noone can do anything about it.
Extremely good discussion 👍
Thanks so much for an absolutely wonderful episode. Incredibly interesting discussion.
Great conversation! Really enjoyed it
Cthulu may swim slowly, but she always swims Left. Conquest's 2nd Law: any orginisation not explicitly conservative will sooner or later become Left wing. The Conservatives probably haven't been truly conservative for a century or more. They have always been willing to concede ground to progressives.
Economically populist + socially conservative + nationalist/protectionist on foreign policy would win 70% in America.
Why had it taken until 2023 for someone to say this when it has been evident since 1994?
I don’t understand how you could argue that deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda & closing off paths to refugees is not hard right. The reason we have had high immigration is not afghan asylum seekers but policy - Tory and labour welcoming immigration was nothing to do with a wokey globalism but hard economics. Eg tories welcomed the prospect of the EU expanding to Eastern Europe because it meant cheap labour and they could keep WC wages low. They still want to import carers, nurses & drs rather than pay more to make the job more appealing to brits. The whole way they operate is to reduce tax burden for the rich.
Very good interview and you have a new subscriber 🙂. What I find of more interest are the voices of those beleaguered souls pushing back from the anti-woke Left. Please consider an interview with somebody like Paul Embery.
Louise Perry is my ideal woman. Smart, classy, and insightful, wants men and women to work together in synthesis where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. ❤
Couldn’t agree more. Where have all the Louises of the world been hiding?
I've wondered for a long time why women vote left and men vote right?
So many of the ideas from the left seems to hurt women more than men.
We Need Independent Strong and Sovereign Leaders out of the Dogmatism of the Party Apparatus
He is correct that the line is education (or some could say indoctrination and initiation into the progressive cult), not income or political party.
The plumber who makes $90k is not in the ruling class and has little to no cultural power, while the NYT journalist making $50k is the ruling class and has massive cultural power.
This is also why their utopia is a world where social capital determines your wellbeing and not money. Money is entirely redistributed (away from the wrong-thinking plumber) and then ultimately eliminated (see the WEFs 2030 urban utopia where you rent everything including your dishes, toothbrush and clothing) but green credits and CBDCs are brought in that benefit righthinkers and give them a boost to their wellbeing that isn't using economic currency, but rather social credits. In such a scenario, the plumber can work his rear end off everyday and his family will continue to freeze in the winter from lack of energy credits, while the NYT journalist will enjoy luxury dinners as a reward for the excellent piece they wrote on the moral superiority of eating bugs.
Same elite here in Chile…we hang from the West’s tail, but the same phenomena are going on.
Michael Lind was mentioned, I think he's the best on this issue, and most domestic issues (US). Would be a great guest. Personally I disagree with Lind, however, on most geopolitical issues. I'm a big fan of Peter Zeihan on geopolitics, another great possible guest. Thanks as always for the discourse.
I am economically left and socially conservative and I feel utterly politically homeless.
We need alternative politics System so we can have parties that represent all views. Don’t vote labour or Tory because neither will deliver this.
I have several problems with Matt's analysis but one thing that was immediate was the comparison of US politics with the UK that Biden went further down the "progressive" route in response to Trump and that was likely to happen here. The pushback against woke in the US comes from the right wing whereas in this country most who push back here are clear to emphasise that they are of the left. I think Starmer is aware that he is not completely preaching to the choir and is gradually changing the Labour position.
Yes, and in the U.S., our right wing is RIGHT!!! WING!!!, religious, and authoritarian. And, the U.S. right wing is significantly to the right of the average voter, just as far-left progressives are significantly to the left of them. There is a reason that outside of the 2016 presidential election, MAGA hasn't done THAT well electorally.
@@KLKosi123 MAGA hasn't done that well because of "fortification", not much else.
@@torrasque0151 It hasn't done well because, aside from Trump, they keep nominating unelectable far-right loons who are way to the right of the average voter. Mastriano in PA? Tudor Dixon in MI? These are swing states! I agree with the author's premise that much of the elite culture is far to the left of the average voter, but I disagree strongly that, at least in the U.S. far-right populism is MORE aligned with the average voter. All things being equal, voters in MOST places in the U.S. seem to prefer centrist candidates who lean one way or another (or at least candidates who can present themselves as centrists). I'd also argue part of Trump's 2016 success was due to him positioning himself as NOT like the typical conservative -- he never came off as especially ideologically conservative, but instead looked to characterize himself as a maverick businessman outsider. This is why I don't see much of a future for DeSantis outside of Florida, whatever his hype is -- he is too far right, and too ideological, for most of the electorate. Anyway, just my two cents.
Very depressing.
I get that you like to give friendly (and thoughtful) interviews to your guests, but it woud have been good to have elicited some acknowledgment from him that the 'old' (moneyed) elite/asset class isn't exactly waning either and that in all of the policies Goodwin ever suggests he never mentions those that would harm that elite i.e. there is great popular demand for nationalisation of the railways, for housing to be cheaper (a challenege Scruton admits will involve taking on landed Tory interests), for reindustrialisation and proper skilled jobs in a high wage economy. Instead, he seems to think that more flag-waving and policing of universities (this time by the government instead of by the institutions themselves) will resolve the discontent. Why are his proposals always in harmony with the interests of those who normally platform him? Murdoch, the Legatum Institute etc
Right, this is also how I feel about Matt Goodwin. What he says isn't entirely wrong, but his analysis is very incomplete.
At the same time I feel one can obsess too hard over the "Murdoch shill" angle, as if this removes the need to actually build a case against his arguments. The truth or falsehood of a claim is not dependent on the identity or motivations of the speaker.
@@alexpotts6520 Yes indeed - I'm ready to admit that there's a new liberal elite and that media barons do sometimes allow voices to be heard that go against their class interests (after all, once you're a billionaire what can a few articles do to erode that wealth?) But so far whenever Goodwin mentions the need for more government intervention I've been disappointed by what looks like a blindness to the economic dimension of people's disenfranchisement (an area where you could argue that this young graduate class is actually more aware of the disconnect between Westminster and the rest of the country). He does sometimes mention levelling up, although when he was on Triggernometry he was all but told off for doing so by Konstantin Kisin who won't hear a word of anything that argues for more than a stripped-down minarchist state (which is a problem, to put it mildly, if you're claiming to be in touch with the wider country).
At least, he frames the political situation in a way, in which this problem becomes visible.
He mentions them at 13:25 (and again at 25:05)
I don't see a whole lot of difference between the elite class you describe and the one Matt is writing about. They seem to agree on more than they disagree, especially when it comes to immigration, diversity, culture - even foreign policy these days. One votes for a Liberal party with Conservative pretensions while the other votes for a Liberal party with Socialist pretensions.
@@cabbage9398 Yes he always gives the old elite a mention, but then dismisses them by saying the 'axis of power is tipping towards the new elite' and I think it's exactly there that I disagree. Fine if you want to say that the cultural power of the new elite is growing, at least on twitter and in educational institutions, but you have to balance that with the fact that the economic power of the old elite is ALSO growing and has been for decades (look at how wages have been stagnant for 40 years while shareholder profits have soared, eroding job security for many, how hardly any affordable houses are ever built, the resistance of most of the media to any kind of nationalisation). The new elite is *not* like the old one in that it is generally reliant on work rather than assets for income, disproportionately voted for Corbyn who (whatever else you want to say about him) did represent a genuine alternative to the status quo and hence was demolished by most of the media, including the BBC. So my question for you is how can these two elites be considered interchangeable when their economic visions for the country are so radically opposed? Unless you think Corbynism is as prevelent in the old elite as in the new?
I generally agree with Goodwin's points but I also agree the that his assesment is insufficiently & unhelpfully balanced, at least in emphasis.
He is however still tiresomely pc innhis insodious framing of immigration being a pace of change issue, rather than an existential one, when the impacts & numbers are very clear.
Sounds like its wrap😢
I think this discussion doesn't go back far enough in history to understand what is happening - at least with respect to the US.
I think the Clintonian third way pivot to abandon the working class started everything. They gradually captured a bigger and bigger share of the elite. And the GOP is also still almost entirely controlled by corporate power so it can't effectively pivot to get the support of the working class - even though they know that doing so would be immensely popular and occasionally make small gestures in that direction.
That means all there is left for the corporate duopoly to fight over is cultural issues. Both sides do it obsessively because they can't very well talk about how they both oppose antitrust enforcement, both oppose universal healthcare, both oppose a universal basic income, both oppose a permanent child tax credit, both support every war the military industrial complex lobbies for etc.
So Democrats constantly try to paint the GOP as bigots. At first it worked and they gradually won on gay marriage. But they couldn't stop and run on the world being good (because people are mad at an increasingly inequal world with lower standards of living which their donors won't let them touch). So, we see them pushing the frontier to new issues.
And the GOP does the same in the opposite direction.
The most interesting thing happening in US politics is RFK Jr's political run.
Good discussion. But spoilt by soooo many ad breaks. Must have been at least 20.
The Italian conservative borders on fascist, she used to support a fascist party. You could never have that type of party in the UK which can’t rely on a much more culturally cohesive and conservative Catholic Church gluing the country to older fashioned values and legitimising them against modern liberal thinking
What’s being called the liberal elite could also be called the highly educated. Whilst being from the working class, they should have vote and representation, there’s something inherently right about the educated shying away from red blood issues like capital punishment which has whole complicated moral and ethical issues around it.
Great show, but the conclusion was a bit bleak. However, Woke is utterly unsustainable, it can't last another five years, let alone decades. The questions are, how much damage it will do before it fails, and what comes after...
The Virtuous Noble Lie of the West Demon Cracy and the Capitalist Trap of the Ocult Agreement of Consent.
From the Unconscious Hell ❤️
To the Conscious Hell 💚
Until the Paradise of Consciousness 💜
Stay Awake Not Woke ❤️ 💚 💜
I didn’t bother voting on the 4th I am a black conservative and their is not a conservative to vote for their all versions of the left
He gives some ideas that are clashing with one another and as a result of that the conclusions he comes to aren't logical. Like he says that atm the Right is more intelectually challenging as The Left, but then a bit later that the Left is bringing sustainable change that is here to stay. Really? How are they going to sustain things that is in direct opposition with reality? Even his points about Trump - yes they doubled down on everything but the more information comes out, the more we can see that their hate towards Trump and Maga wes never built on anything real in the first place. If our entire hope is lydership, we are screwed, because our leaders betrayed us and we don't have functioning mechanism to hold them accountable. If leadership supports side of peoole who wants to kill economic growth, eliminate difference between men and women and support censorship and childlesness, that is nothing more but simple tyranny.
Kemi B = far too inexperienced to be pm, plus is so right wing she’d never have gotten a majority in general election, but people who like her deserve a representation our political system doesn’t allow
So right wing? Are u on drugs? What a stupid comment
The nerve of these britts to talk about meritocracy when they have a monarch that the citizens pay simply for being born, not to mention the House of lords. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 The unmitigated audacity! 😂
I'm sorry, but Goodwin is very misleading and confused. It stems from his rather flexible and imprecise definitions. There is so much one could say, but here is a simple point. Google a list of the UK's highest-circulation newspapers; lets say, the top 10. If anything counts as "cultural influence" then selling hundreds of thousands of copies per day of a newspaper, must surely be it. Ask yourself if those top 10 are, in the main, "left wing" or "woke".
I must say that I have grown rather disappointed with the quality of the guests on this channel, after a great start. It is a shame because I really agreed with Perry's central thesis. My recommendation to her would be to have more (thoughtful and productive) discussions with (intelligent and reasonable) people she disagrees with.
Do the people who buy those newspapers have much institutional power though? I don't know if truck-drivers who read the Daily Mail have as much influence as, say, the universities, or big business groups who lobby the government for more immigration. Sales don't automatically translate into policy direction.
@@jenniferlawrence2701 On the issue of immigration, surely the overwhelmingly dominant influence is, as you say, the demand by business for labour. And the fact that rich elites get nannies and cleaners, is surely also significant. This is vastly more influential than are arguments by a small numbers of academics, for open borders. This is just one example among many where Goodwin simply doesn't bring a proper sense of proportion to the debate.
The tabloid newspapers will then misrepresent the matter to their readers. Instead of directing their attention to the fact that their working conditions are being undermined by this cheap labour, and identifying the cause of this, they will encourage anger in their readers towards the immigrants themselves. That is because the ultimate function of these newspapers is to maintain elites in power (the owners of these newspapers are almost all billionaires).
At no point in this story does "the left" play any significant role.
The left play a role by not challenging the narrative you describe.
@@browncow7113 But in this video he mentions several times that Tory Party donors (and the Tory party itself) are pro mass-immigration. I've read several criticisms of Goodwin's argument, and none of them seem to actually listen to what he's said, they just feel attacked as Left-Liberals, so knee-jerk respond as though his argument is just about them, or that responsibility for everything is being laid at their door.
The Labour Party and the British Left are overwhelmingly also in favor of mass-immigration, which is why they loudly denounce any call to to reduce immigration as racist, "nazi" (e.g. Gary Lineker), or as "an attack on immigrants in Britain themselves" (which is nonsense: reducing or halting immigration does nothing to people already in the country legally). It was Blair's Labour party that massively increased immigration after 1997, and as Goodwin mentions: the Tory Party carried on where he left off.
What we have therefore is a symbiotic relationship between big Capital and the Left-Progressives on immigration and diversity: When either is in government they push up immigration, and even when the latter is out of government they act as the "attack-dog" on behalf of capital (knowingly or otherwise), vigorously policing calls to reduce immigration, promoting unlimited diversity at every turn, condemning places and things for being "too-white," and generally spreading the idea that any ethnic English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish who prefer homogeneity over unlimited diversity are immoral for doing so. Both camps are Liberal on the matters of immigration, demographics, national identity, diversity, cultural matters. This is what is meant by a Liberal Elite. It doesn't mean everyone within this Liberal elite agrees with each other on every issue (e.g. taxation).
More broadly, the Progressive-Left (the only kind that still exists in Western countries) are hugely culturally influential, particularly in the cities; and he who dominates the cities tends to have an outsized influence on culture. When football teams in Britain are kneeling to declare their progressive credentials because of an incident in Minnesota half a world away, or when schools are teaching children that men can be women if they identify as such, clearly a Left-Progressive culture is ascendant, even dominant. None of this can be explained simply by pointing to Rupert Murdoch.
Newspapers are nowhere near as influential as you make out. TV has much more influence on the general public, and social media does too. TV is heavily biased in favour of lefty/woke ideology. The BBC is arguably the worst for this. History Reclaimed was created by a group of historians to combat the BBC's (and other mainstream media's) political agenda.
Education is more influential than newspapers. Children go to school for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week till they're 16. If they go on to university they'll be in education till 21 at least. Universities are notoriously leftist/woke institutions. Even old school lefty feminists are being deplatformed at uni if they question Trans ideology.
Ultimately, law is the most important cultural influence. You can now be arrested if you tweet something 'offensive'. You can be arrested if you silently pray in the wrong place, although I'm sure this only applies to Christians, since I highly doubt the police would ever arrest a muslim for praying loudly wherever they want. If you're a schoolboy who accidentally drops a copy of the quran, you'll be suspended and have a 'hate incident' recorded by the police, receive death threats and your mother will have to go to the local mosque and beg them for forgiveness. That's the culture we're in right now.
The notion that a graduate earning 30k working for a charity is part of a any elite is laughable.
They work for the charity for the status and are lot of these charities arnt actually they are activists
I wouldn’t put green peace in the same category at
The charity workers who work at the hart foundation charity shop
@@junehope5152 so how does that make you an elite lol. Literally nobody apart from Matt Goodwin and you apparently thinks scheduling meetings at a charity while earning a pittance gives you status. Not serious.
They’re elite aspirants
Not all charities, but quite a lot of them. e.g. Stonewall, which has gained a huge amount of power and influence.
Also, even large machinery uses small cogs.
@@FF-po2xi "Temporarily embarrassed elites"