Trump and the rage of the Brahmandarins™

[These somewhat rambling observations were originally posted as a Facebook note.]
In recent weeks, we have witnessed ever-more cartoonish examples of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Even those of us who have been sharply critical of Trump (such as www.thelibertyzone.us)  are staring on with a kind of revulsed fascination as our chattering class descends ever deeper into the pits of insanity. So do those who merely voted against Hillary rather than for Trump, such as the razor-sharp “Dystopic” or the underrated historical novelist Roy M. Griffis.
I move professionally in circles where lib-left “virtue signaling” is taken for granted, especially inside the US. (Academia outside the US, while no less in the grip of a collective moral superiority complex, at least tolerates dissenters to some degree.)
As I was perusing Trump’s cabinet list in the Times of London the other day, I was struck not so much by the names — some ‘feck yeah!’, some ‘well, OK’, some ‘meh’ — as by what wasn’t there. The ‘Brahmandarins™’ had been left behind, as it were. Allow me to expand.
Traditional society in India has myriad little jatis (“births”, freely: castes), but they ultimately derive from four (plus one) major varnas (“colors”, freely: classes). While caste membership and profession are more fluid than generally assumed by Westerners, these five major groupings do exist to the present day, and are mostly endogamous. From top to bottom, the varnas are:
  1. Brahmins (scholars)
  2. Kshatryas (warriors, rulers, administrators)
  3. Vaishyas (merchants, artisans, and farmers)
  4. Shudras (laborers)
  5. Finally, the Dalit (downtrodden, outcasts — the term “pariah” is considered so offensive it has become “the p-word”) are traditionally considered beneath the varna system altogether, as are other “Scheduled Castes” (a legal term in present-day India, referring to eligibility for affirmative action).
The upper three varnas bear some resemblance to the three Estates of the French ancien régime: clergy, nobility, and the bourgeoisie (le tiers état, the Third Estate). American society used to be a byword for social mobility (“the American dream”) — but a stratification has set in, and it takes little imagination to identify strata of Dalit, Shudras, and Vaishyas in modern American society. The numerically small subculture of military families could be identified as America’s Kshatryas. So where are the Brahmins? (No, I’m not referring to the old money Boston elite.) And why am I using the portmanteau “Brahmandarins” for our New Class?
In India one was, of course, born into the Brahmin varna, and they actually delegated the messy business of governance to the varna below them. In China’s Middle Kingdom, on the other hand, not only was the scholarly Mandarin caste actually the backbone of governance, but in principle anyone who passed the civil service exams could become a Mandarin.
Originally, these exams were meant to foster a meritocracy. Predictably, over time, they evolved to select for conformity over ability, being more concerned with literary style and knowledge of the classics than with any relevant technical expertise.
Hmm, sounds familiar? Consider America’s “New Class”: academia, journalism, “helping” professions, nonprofits, community organizers, trustafarian artists,… Talent for something immediately verifiable (be it playing the piano, designing an airplane, or buying-and-selling,… ) or a track record of tangible achievements are much less important than credentials — degrees from the right places, praise from the right press organs,…
The New Class should be more like the Mandarins rather than the Brahmins, as in theory (and to some degree in practice) 1st-generation membership is open to people of all backgrounds. Heck, that includes even this electrician’s son here 😉
In practice, however, this class is highly endogamous, and its children have an inside track on similar career paths. (Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” made this case to a fare-thee-well.) Thus one finds 2nd and 3rd generation New Class members, whose outlooks on life tend to be much more insular and collectively self-centered than that of their 1st-generation peers. (It is important not to over-generalize about one’s fellow human beings: some of the fiercest fellow ‘renegades’ I know were to the manor born.) In that respect then, the New Class does resemble the Brahmins. Hence my portmanteau “Brahmandarins”.
Engineers (whose academic training at even second-tier colleges is much more rigorous than that of the journalism major at a big-name school) are arguably closer to artisan Vaishya than to Brahmandarins. They need to build things that actually work, you know.
Now how does this tie in with Trump and his cabinet? In the last several Presidential elections, Brahmandarin D candidates (Obama, Hillary) were pitted against Kshatriyas (McCain) or Vaishyas (Romney, Trump). While the D party used to be one with which particularly Shudras (laborers) could identify, over time it has increasingly become a patron-client coalition of Brahmandarins and Dalits. Kshatriyas overwhelmingly lean R, while Shudras and Vaishyas (other than high finance) became increasingly disaffected from D and either moved to the R column or tuned out of politics.
Sometime in 2008, I had an eye-opening encounter at a fundraiser for a scientific cause. A lawyer for a major donor, after various patronizing remarks after our scholarly pursuits, told some of us in intimate conversation that of course we should support Obama. (Interestingly, the usual appeal to ethnicity was not made.) One of us asked the lawyer what would be his ‘performance benchmark’ for a successful presidency. Tellingly, the otherwise so voluble lawyer was left at a loss for words. Eventually, his argument boiled down to ‘Obama is one of us’. Which “us”? Not scientists, obviously. Nor Jews, obviously (the lawyer, my colleague, and myself are all Jewish). No — Brahmandarins, members of the New Class.
Peggy Noonan recently coined the phrase “patronized by our inferiors”. At the time I couldn’t come up with anything as concise and withering, but the whole framing of the argument struck me as a hybrid between the Cosa Nostra and “mean girls” cliques at the middle school my daughter was then attending. Around the same time, I discovered Thomas Sowell’s priceless “Vision of the Anointed” whose subtitle “Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy” could be emblematic of the entire phenomenon. A critique that had built itself up in my head, in inchoate fashion, was laid out here in concise, crystal-clear prose.
Fast-forward to the present. In the last several Presidential elections, Brahmandarin D candidates (Obama, Hillary) were pitted against Kshatriyas (McCain) or Vaishyas (Romney, Trump). Unsurprisingly, Brahmandarin presidents tend to appoint cabinet and senior aides from among the Brahmandarin caste, while Trump’s appointments came almost exclusively from the Vaishyas (Exxon CEO Tillerson for State, various other execs), and Kshatriyas (Mattis, Flynn, Kelly). It doesn’t matter that most of these people have real-world achievements to their names than a Robbie Mook type can only dream of: they are “ignorant” (read: insufficiently subservient to New Class shibboleths), “hate-filled”, etc. — All short-hand for “not one of us”.
For those same people who keep on prating about how open they are to foreign cultures (the more foreign, the better to “virtue-signal”) are completely unable to fathom the mindset of their compatriots of a different caste: they might as well come from a different planet as from a different country.
There’s only water/In a stranger’s tear
Looks are deceptive/But distinctions are clear
A foreign body/And a foreign mind
Never welcome/In the land of the blindYou may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it isYou’re not one of us!

[In response to the FB note, “Dystopic” honored me with his own observations.]

UPDATE: “Tamara W.” comments on Facebook:

Charles Murray’s book “Coming Apart” talks about the combination of geographic isolation (segregation by income/politics), elite schools (public and private) where their children all socialize, ideological conforming by the “elite” institutions all creating an elite population that has prime access to top corporate jobs, NGOs, government positions under Democrats. They base morality as adherence to the ideology and thus see all who disagree as evil/stupid and look down on those beneath them as at best unenlightened/uneducated and at worst people the world is better off without.
Then they actively discriminate against conservatives and the middle and working class, seeing them as “not a culture fit” or actively deprecating them.
 UPDATE 2: I’d be remiss not linking Angelo Codevilla’s classic “The ruling class“. Yes, the Brahmandarins are a gentry, not an elite — and “credentialed” is not the same as “educated”.
UPDATE 3: welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE 4: Two more good reads in response:
(a) Fran Porretto at  Bastion of Liberty weighs in and links his early 2014 blog post about Class And Caste In Twenty-First Century America. Read the whole thing.
(b) “Remodern” artist Richard Bledsoe looks at the Brahmandarins and their effect on the art scene
“not only the ideological, virtue signalling style of art, but also the self-absorbed, alienating products of the Ivory Tower approach, status symbol art made to cater to the expectations of elitist curators, trophy hunting collectors, and other art snobs.”
He then recounts how the neo-figurative “remodernism” and “Stuckism” movements arose as a grassroots reaction.
Advertisements

17 thoughts on “Trump and the rage of the Brahmandarins™

  1. You might want to update the links in the blog post to exact posts on other sites, rather than simply the home page of those sites. It would be more helpful. Merry X!

  2. Great post.

    But one thing jumped out at me: You say, “Originally, [the Middle Kingdom civil service exams] were meant to foster a meritocracy. Predictably, over time, they evolved to select for conformity over ability, being more concerned with literary style and knowledge of the classics than with any relevant technical expertise.”

    Wow. The Middle Kingdom’s faux-elites still had literary style and knowledge of the classics? I only wish we had that problem in the United States!

    Until ours, has there ever been a civilization or nation-state whose “Mandarin class” was so utterly ignorant of their own intellectual traditions and “classics?”

    The Ruling Class Leftists not only don’t know anything about the classical tradition they despise — things as varied-yet-related as Dante’s Divine Comedy and the King James Bible, Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas and Locke, Magna Carta and The Federalist Papers — not only have they huffed their own newsprint and wound up believing their own dismissive propaganda about what they oppose, they also are wildly ignorant of the origins and premises of their own Leftism and its habitual inclinations towards Eugenics and Totalitarianism! (Notwithstanding Jonah Goldberg’s quixotic effort to “raise their awareness.”)

    We are at a point where (in a country that was 80%+ Christian for 80%+ of its history thus far) someone at the New York Times can describe Easter as “the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection into heaven,” have their error pointed out to them, and then go on a year later to describe the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as “the site where many Christians believe that Jesus is buried.” Being a Christian I recall such blunders, naturally; but I imagine that a Jew or a Muslim — or for that matter, any person with sustained interest in nearly any topic under the sun — can recall similar groaners from the Times. (The “paper of record,” har, har.) I wonder, is there anyone more innocent of the details of the world in which he lives, than a reporter in New York?

    Except, perhaps, on topics of popular entertainment. Is that the problem? Are our Mandarins experts on “Orange Is The New Black” and “The Sopranos” and the canonical details of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and that’s why they’ve run out of room for knowing other things?

    If it isn’t popular entertainment which has filled up their brains, then…what? Porn? The dogmas of political correctness? What?

    The average elitist is, to all outward appearances, bright enough to learn things. But that’s what keeps shocking me: They should be able to learn, but as far as I can see, they haven’t. They don’t know the classics; they don’t know how to change a flat tire; they don’t know how to detect a faulty syllogism; they don’t know how to behave at a wedding or funeral; they barely seem to know to come in out of the rain. They don’t seem to know anything important.

    That leaves unimportant things; I suppose, but what?

    What is it that the Brahmandarins have filled their skulls with, that they have reasonably large vocabularies yet can’t open their mouths without displaying helpless vacuity?

    This puzzles me. If anyone has an idea, please say so; I’d really like to know.

    • R.C.at 6:57 — really liked your post, which crystallized some of my own thoughts better than I would have. Yes, it’s notable that our New Class lacks knowledge of literary style and the classics. One might say that their testing standards have evolved to drive such things out. Alternatively, they are loath to do any actual thinking whatsoever, since any expression of non-conforming ideas could cause them to be cast out from the New Class.

      And once cast out, they’re in trouble because they have no practical skills …

  3. Engineers (whose academic training at even second-tier colleges is much more rigorous than that of the journalism major at a big-name school) are arguably closer to artisan Vaishya than to Brahmandarins. They need to build things that actually work, you know.

    This is classic Sowell. I’ve spent my life with the engineer/scientist/business group and find them to be the most pragmatic problem solvers. They see ideology as a guide, but if it’s not solving the problem they’re willing to toss it aside and move to something more effective.

    Here’s physicist Richard Feynman:
    It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

    This is why I view Marxism/communism/socialism/progressivism as a completely failed ideology. The actual results of their social experiments do not even remotely match the predictions of their social theory. The theory is wrong, and that has been demonstrated everywhere it has been tried for decades on end. I believe it is now used as a tool by the wealthy and connected as a balm or fairy tale or religious creed to be fed to those who they wish to attract as followers, while rigging the game at every step for their own benefit.

    As an interesting experimental result, consider that when the Chinese communists ditched communism/socialism as a socio-economic policy and adopted free market capitalism, their economy saw explosive growth, raising something like 300,000,000 from abject poverty to the middle class. Free market capitalism is a theory that actually works and economically, and is the only system intrinsically tied the creation and maintenance of a free society.

  4. Having lived for 16+ years in an academic hierarchy, the brahmandarins know how to hide their own agency cost in a hierarchy in ways acceptable to those above them in the hierarchy. That these agency costs are far less well tolerated outside a hierarchy, such as in the networks that are markets, is an on-going concern ever since the founding of the “Progressive” movement. That is why each wave of progressive reaction against industrial society’s necessary freedoms of action, whether it is justified by race bigotry, or class bigotry, or open anti-industrial bigotry, or anything else, will always see “the answer” being the expansion of the State hierarchies that will provide jobs for college grads to slip into. Ultimately, this will keep the openings for tenured professors expanding as well, which was the whole point of the exercise.

  5. There is a crucial difference between America’s “new class” elites and Brahmandarins. The Brahmans and Mandarins were the “right wingers” and “Nationalists” in Indian and China, who set the rules, traditions and orthodoxies. This ensured continuity stability over millennia (although it also cultivated deep rooted inequities and injustices). In America, these Brahmans are left wingers” and “progressives” who see themselves are the destroyers of rules and orthodoxies. This is inherently unstable, even an absurd arrangement.

  6. There is a crucial difference between America’s “new class” elites and Brahmandarins. The Brahmans and Mandarins were the “right wingers” and “Nationalists” in India and China – who set the rules, traditions and orthodoxies. This ensured continuity and stability over millennia (although it also cultivated deep rooted inequities and injustices). In America, these Brahmans are left wingers” and “progressives” who see themselves are the destroyers of rules and orthodoxies. This is inherently unstable, even an absurd arrangement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s