2) Working class context also correlates w/ high rates of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) due to poverty & socioeconomic instability. You learn young that the world is harsh & you have to fight to survive.
3) Where I think this analysis goes wrong, however, is that the folks I know work hard to raise kids who respect others. They don't like braggarts & they certainly don't like people who don't work hard.
4) So yeah, I think there's a kind of fighting ethic in working class. There's a toughness. But it's not directed toward the weak. It's employed in service of others. You know the world is awful so you fight to protect others, not yourself.
5) Here, bullies get beat up. They don't get send to counseling.
6) At the same time, this instinct to protect the weak by physical means or aggressiveness can be manipulated. If you convince us that we're under attack or "our people" will be harmed, you better believe we'll come out swinging.
7) Note for ecclesiology nerds: Have you ever noticed the correlations btwn church polity & socioeconomics? Have you notices how certain kinds of pastoral leadership "work" in certain spaces & not others?
8) All that to say, working class voters probably recognize Trump's pathos & it undoubtedly appeals b/c it's familiar. But I'd suggest that it's an entirely different logos than what's been operative in working class context to this point.
9) Whether Trump's influence changes that is something for social historians. I think it's possible that it does, that it enables selfish instincts that had been previously held in check.
10) This is simply anectdotal observation & not moral judgment. Insofar as families & churches continue to struggle in working class contexts, leaders like Trump will have disproportionate cultural influence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I’m particularly interested in understanding this conclusion about the cross & whether I’m reading it correctly
Does this equate to “the cross was the unfair scapegoating of Christ on which we cast our own sins to avoid responsibility so the lesson is take responsibility for yourself”? If so… it explains a lot
I rarely QT for purposes of correction but this is a good example of what I was trying to identify in threads earlier this week: B/c Vance inaccurately defines the problems families face, he offers solutions that make no sense
1. Most people would naturally pick family to care for their kids if they can. Needing to use non-familial childcare means that they've most likely already tried that option. Grandma & grandpa may not live nearby or have the ability or desire to care for grandkids.
2. Struggling kinship networks go hand in hand w/ larger social fragmentation. Not everybody can trust their extended family or is on good terms with them. We have this vision of sprawling support networks but that might be more of a dream than reality.
Look, you can turn a blind eye to the predation of women, rally behind a man know for sexual debauchery, & then act shocked at women who don’t marry men & have kids.
If you promote a sexual economy where men are free to do whatever they want w/ little to no accountability, the only way women can have even a measure of safety is by not partnering w/ them in things that require deep trust & commitment
Women’s ability to partner w/ men is directly related to how the community around them holds men accountable. Want more marriages & families? Punish sexual predation & call out misogyny
The weekend’s events reminded me of this graf from @WestLondonMan. When we disagree w/ or dislike someone, we have 4 options:
1) kill them 2) create structures to control them 3) make life difficult so they leave 4) engage in politics
More to the point, if you’re not doing the work of politics as a means of actively seeking reconciliation w/ your neighbor, you’re doing one of the other three. Our options are good faith engagement thru shared process or coercion & violence.
That’s why the loss of shared norms & rise of authoritarian rhetoric over the last few years has been so dangerous. It’s not about tone or politeness. Respectful political engagement & just dealing are the only means we have to avoid violence.
Bedford (pop. 3200) was home to a National Guard unit serving in Company A in 1st Battalion in 116th Infantry Regiment of 29th Infantry Division. Of the 35 soldiers from Bedford, 19 were killed on Omaha Beach. Another 4 “Bedford Boys” would die before the end of the campaign
Bedford suffered the greatest proportion of losses of any town in the US that day. Everyone knew someone. Everyone lost someone. A little, quiet town in rural VA decimated by the events on a faraway continent & the actions of evil men.
This is beautiful & reminds me that I've had an essay brewing for a couple years about link btwn male loneliness/depression & cultures that prioritize male comfort & privilege.
TL;DR: Excusing men of their responsibilities to women & children robs them of purpose & the very ties that bind them to community.
The shape of modern Western life is already deeply individualistic so loneliness is a constant threat. But there's a sense in which men are *more* at risk of falling thru gaps b/c male embodiment does not naturally force a man to be bound to others in way female embodiment does.