It's about as insane as the earlier Argument poll saying that that most voters see politicians disagreeing about anything is evidence of corruption--because without corruption, everyone would agree on everything. Just a really weird mental model for the world.
The corruption one makes more sense to me because I see (bad faith) political actors locally (in SF, probably happens in other places too) accuse their political opponents of corruption any time the political opponent simply wins. If there’s a debate about a proposed law, and the city council votes on the policy and some local stakeholder doesn’t agree with the outcome, they cry “corruption,” even though it was a completely normal and healthy political process. So I can see why someone watching that kind of back and forth on repeat would think “corruption means politicians disagreeing with each other.”
Y’all may or may not be aware of the depressing political science on how deeply rooted the voter perception of most politicians as deeply corrupt, but the finds go like this:
1. there is a will of the people on most issues, including most controversial ones — it happens to coincide with my personal views in most cases
2. the job of a good politician is to implement that will
3. when they don't, which is most of the time, they reveal themselves as “corrupt”
I think seeing this result in terms of left/right ideology is probably not how the public looks at it. My best guess is that they see government ownership of businesses as a form of corruption whereby businesses and the elites who control them benefit from government tax dollars. It’s maybe more of a response to things like Trump having the government take an ownership stake in various businesses than it is about socialist-style nationalizing of entire industries.
And that simultaneously, they are also both less supportive than the general population of free trade agreements, while also less supportive of socialized medicine?
If you think “elite” means “Trump-coded billionaire” then it all adds up. And it’s not like a large majority of people think elites are against free trade agreements - that’s only a few tens of percent more than the number of voters who personally oppose them.
Trump has had the government buying businesses, and various AI elites have been pushing for government ownership of their companies.
I don't think that elites want government ownership of most businesses, but in the past few years there has been a surprising amount of elites expressing this kind of view.
And I was gonna say it is very funny I gotta say a lot of billionaires larp as “anti elites” and then realized me growing up fairly privileged myself in Japan (my dad is a retired CEO of bookstore chain), that’s how I was told growing up too.
Like “we are merely middle class. Look at all those ppl who are richer than us”
I think this type or mentality where we draw the line for elite slightly above us is very common
it's totally coherent for a billionaire to position themselves as anti-elite in _some_ sense if they position themselves as railing against traditional institutions... as an "outsider" not an "insider." Ofc, that doesn't mean their anti-elite in _all_ senses.
I'd be curious if the question changed from "who is an elite?" to "who holds power in the country?"
I think a lot of the Trumpian railing against professors/journalists/"Those bitches in HR" is that they hold power but aren't elites; that is, they are exerting power that is illegitimate because it doesn't come from money/status/popularity. Maybe that's just the online right, but I'd be curious to see if it bled into general Trump supporters.
One takeaway I have from that first poll is that the first four categories are not exclusive, but rather combined. The more of those categories you have, the more elite you are.
So if you're a billionaire, but not famous at all, not politically active, and not heavily involved in running a business are you elite? Kind of, but much less elite than a billionaire who runs a business, is politically, and very famous. And that guy (you all thought of the same guy didn't you) is what defines "elite" and it's his beliefs you're thinking of when trying to figure out what elite people believe.
Are politicians elite? Well a famous politician might be elite. AOC isn't a billionaire or a businesswoman, but she can snag two out of four. While a state assembly member whose name nobody knows, they don't seem very elite.
So if some of the beliefs people are attributing to elites seem strange, remember this combination effect. The more categories that get punched, the more elite a person is, and the more their individual beliefs shape perception of "what elites believe".
We were really constrained on question space, but heard! We'll add it next up — and probably swap it out for LGBT issues. Dems have had a 20+ point lead in both polls we've tracked that in.
The gender role one strikes me as oddly off base as a gender non-conforming male. If there's a single issue I'd feel more favorable to be around almost any plausible definition of elites its that one.
That like I'm a teacher and my wife is a business executive and earns several times more than me, or that we're happy about that I'd feel very comfortable admitting that to rich people, celebrities, my boss whatever. But just like 25 people off the street I'd want to shut up about it.
I guess the fact that you included your boss in your elites group shows that you're picturing something quite different than I imagine most people are thinking when asked this question. If you just pictured Elon Musk and his friends (like what these polls seem to indicate), I imagine you might have a more equivalent view between the two groups.
I think even if you were to pick a random selection of 25 of the wealthiest people in the world I'd feel more comfortable with that then a random selection of the US population. Even with Musk I don't think I'd actually be worried to admit I'm a married man who stays home and takes care of our kid, and make dinner and do the chores.
He might not approve of it but I really doubt he'd want to fight me over it. Something i'd be less sure about from just random selection of people. But under any condition of elite I'd rather risk some conservative elite than the average person.
What are the rates at which people said that elites were the opposite of whatever their stated view was?
In some of the questions that got nearly 50/50 responses for both American and Elites views, it's possible that 100% of people thought that the elites had the opposite view of what they thought was the majority American view.
There's risk of equivocation between what someone takes "elite" to mean in the context of this survey and what it means in different pockets of discourse. Far more important to look at it in the context of actual use and try to decipher it's meaning _there_ rather than extract it from those contexts in a survey and try to find a stable meaning.
I know it's kind of fashionable in some circles to to pretend like the use of this term is mysterious, incoherent, or nefariously politicized. But there really seems to be just a plain, rough-and-ready sense in which "elite" refers to the PMC. If you're upper quintile in earnings or wealth, you're probably elite unless you work a blue collar job (which is a status thing, not an income thing — the $150k/yr linesman is still blue collar). If you're lower quintiles in earnings, but work in journalism for a national outlet, you're also probably elite. Facts about who is elite roughly track facts about status and the ability to influence power transmission mechanisms. Eliteness is a function of powerholder's willingness to defer to your in judgment about matters of social importance — such that you could count as elite even as an impoverished public intellectual as long as you had the ear of political, economic, and media leaders. Eliteness here is tracking facts about social deference and status. Belonging to an elite institution, even if you yourself are struggling to make rent, can number you among the elite purely in virtue of the deference this institutional association affords you in the halls of power.
The survey also risks lumping many different _kinds_ of elites into a single bucket, erasing important distinctions between them and potentially muddying the water about differences in attitude. The celebrities and billionaires who are wholly disengaged from politics and public life but just enjoy quietly spending their money? Sure, they're elite in some sense. But are they elite in the same sense that Vance and Rufo have in mind when they speak of a liberal elite? Which sense do your respondents have in mind when answering these questions? We can't know.
So to avoid misleading equivocations, we should really take care to distinguish the different senses of "elite" at play here. Liberal elites need not be economic elites who need not be social elites need not be institutional elites.
Yes. And trust in media/academia is at a record low. Though maybe a better term instead of elite or PMC is something that denotes the influence the class haseven if they are not materially wealthy.
I think a view of "elites" that says Alice Walton is an elite, but Justice Ginsburg and Morris Dees are not, is idiosyncratic to say the least. And poorly connected to what people are unhappy about.
I think the idea that Dems lead on trust for all issues but one is an exaggeration. Dems lead by wide margins on health care (20 points) and LGBT (24 points). And Reps lead on crime (8 points). But on foreign policy and AI the "lead" falls within the margin of error. For the economy and corruption, Dems are beyond the margin of error by a slim 2 points. And what about issues not mentioned here, such as immigration or border security, where other polls show Reps leading by wide margins? Also we shouldn't put too much faith in any one poll. Current events routinely skew polls because people can be quite fickle about things like 'trust."
I think when you look at lots of polls, the more important message is that Americans dislike and distrust both parties a great deal. I became an independent recently because I don't trust either party. Their overarching goal is merely to get their own candidates elected, keep them in office, and protect their own interests.
One of my pet theories is that the sides in politics has become the same as they were in school: the Tough Kids versus the Smart Kids. And conservatism has become the Tough Kids claiming that they're being bullied by the Smart Kids ("liberal elites").
Great polling data. There are some very interesting insights, for example, that the view of academics/journalists as elites appears to be a niche belief. That said, I don't buy that this reveals elite bashing to be a great avenue of attack for Democrats. I worry there's a lot of equivocation going on here. Elite is a nebulous term and it seems likely that neither side is literally talking about the same people when they blame "the elites." It's factually true that both parties have their own elites.
The most parsimonious explanation of these results is that that voters are simply directing their political frustrations regarding the other party onto that party's elites. Democrats hear "elites" and think of Elon Musk, oil executives, the Koch brothers, and, of course, Donald Trump. Republicans hear "elites" and think of George Soros, George Clooney, Taylor Swift, JB Pritzker, and Nancy Pelosi. Certainly the views attributed to the elites in this poll don't reflect the coherent views of any unified group of Americans. Without accounting for partisan out-group bias, assuming anti-elite rhetoric is a silver bullet for Democrats risks misinterpreting shared vocabulary for shared ideology.
Years ago, back when the Time Person of the Year and 100 Most Influential People were a bigger deal culturally, there would be polls on whether different prominent people belonged on the list. IIRC business executives would get much lower online votes than any other group of people, especially compared to pop stars. Part of understanding what makes some elite and how they operate involves having to read a lot of stuff that is pretty boring.
I'd be really interested in how stable these views are. Is this perhaps one of those hyper-polarized constructs that reverses completely as soon as the other party gets in power?
This is insane. What is making people think the elites support the government owning most businesses?
It's about as insane as the earlier Argument poll saying that that most voters see politicians disagreeing about anything is evidence of corruption--because without corruption, everyone would agree on everything. Just a really weird mental model for the world.
The corruption one makes more sense to me because I see (bad faith) political actors locally (in SF, probably happens in other places too) accuse their political opponents of corruption any time the political opponent simply wins. If there’s a debate about a proposed law, and the city council votes on the policy and some local stakeholder doesn’t agree with the outcome, they cry “corruption,” even though it was a completely normal and healthy political process. So I can see why someone watching that kind of back and forth on repeat would think “corruption means politicians disagreeing with each other.”
Y’all may or may not be aware of the depressing political science on how deeply rooted the voter perception of most politicians as deeply corrupt, but the finds go like this:
1. there is a will of the people on most issues, including most controversial ones — it happens to coincide with my personal views in most cases
2. the job of a good politician is to implement that will
3. when they don't, which is most of the time, they reveal themselves as “corrupt”
C.f. Stealth Democracy: Americans' Beliefs About How Government Should Work, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/poll-voters-want-solutions-government-corruption: “Most voters say corruption covers a range of conduct, including ... officials who are unresponsive to their constituents (76 percent).”
I think seeing this result in terms of left/right ideology is probably not how the public looks at it. My best guess is that they see government ownership of businesses as a form of corruption whereby businesses and the elites who control them benefit from government tax dollars. It’s maybe more of a response to things like Trump having the government take an ownership stake in various businesses than it is about socialist-style nationalizing of entire industries.
And that simultaneously, they are also both less supportive than the general population of free trade agreements, while also less supportive of socialized medicine?
If you think “elite” means “Trump-coded billionaire” then it all adds up. And it’s not like a large majority of people think elites are against free trade agreements - that’s only a few tens of percent more than the number of voters who personally oppose them.
Trump has had the government buying businesses, and various AI elites have been pushing for government ownership of their companies.
I don't think that elites want government ownership of most businesses, but in the past few years there has been a surprising amount of elites expressing this kind of view.
The fact that Trump keeps taking stakes in companies and Bernie keeps talking about nationalizing AI labs? They're some of the most visible elites.
Most people are uninformed
Great poll and article!!!
And I was gonna say it is very funny I gotta say a lot of billionaires larp as “anti elites” and then realized me growing up fairly privileged myself in Japan (my dad is a retired CEO of bookstore chain), that’s how I was told growing up too.
Like “we are merely middle class. Look at all those ppl who are richer than us”
I think this type or mentality where we draw the line for elite slightly above us is very common
it's totally coherent for a billionaire to position themselves as anti-elite in _some_ sense if they position themselves as railing against traditional institutions... as an "outsider" not an "insider." Ofc, that doesn't mean their anti-elite in _all_ senses.
I'd be curious if the question changed from "who is an elite?" to "who holds power in the country?"
I think a lot of the Trumpian railing against professors/journalists/"Those bitches in HR" is that they hold power but aren't elites; that is, they are exerting power that is illegitimate because it doesn't come from money/status/popularity. Maybe that's just the online right, but I'd be curious to see if it bled into general Trump supporters.
Oh interesting! I would have guessed they thought these people held power but weren’t elite!
One takeaway I have from that first poll is that the first four categories are not exclusive, but rather combined. The more of those categories you have, the more elite you are.
So if you're a billionaire, but not famous at all, not politically active, and not heavily involved in running a business are you elite? Kind of, but much less elite than a billionaire who runs a business, is politically, and very famous. And that guy (you all thought of the same guy didn't you) is what defines "elite" and it's his beliefs you're thinking of when trying to figure out what elite people believe.
Are politicians elite? Well a famous politician might be elite. AOC isn't a billionaire or a businesswoman, but she can snag two out of four. While a state assembly member whose name nobody knows, they don't seem very elite.
So if some of the beliefs people are attributing to elites seem strange, remember this combination effect. The more categories that get punched, the more elite a person is, and the more their individual beliefs shape perception of "what elites believe".
Too bad the issue list didn't include immigration. My sense is that crime & immigration are the keys for GOP voters.
Basically they win on those two, lose on healthcare and education, and kind of tie on everything else.
We were really constrained on question space, but heard! We'll add it next up — and probably swap it out for LGBT issues. Dems have had a 20+ point lead in both polls we've tracked that in.
The gender role one strikes me as oddly off base as a gender non-conforming male. If there's a single issue I'd feel more favorable to be around almost any plausible definition of elites its that one.
That like I'm a teacher and my wife is a business executive and earns several times more than me, or that we're happy about that I'd feel very comfortable admitting that to rich people, celebrities, my boss whatever. But just like 25 people off the street I'd want to shut up about it.
I guess the fact that you included your boss in your elites group shows that you're picturing something quite different than I imagine most people are thinking when asked this question. If you just pictured Elon Musk and his friends (like what these polls seem to indicate), I imagine you might have a more equivalent view between the two groups.
I think even if you were to pick a random selection of 25 of the wealthiest people in the world I'd feel more comfortable with that then a random selection of the US population. Even with Musk I don't think I'd actually be worried to admit I'm a married man who stays home and takes care of our kid, and make dinner and do the chores.
He might not approve of it but I really doubt he'd want to fight me over it. Something i'd be less sure about from just random selection of people. But under any condition of elite I'd rather risk some conservative elite than the average person.
What are the rates at which people said that elites were the opposite of whatever their stated view was?
In some of the questions that got nearly 50/50 responses for both American and Elites views, it's possible that 100% of people thought that the elites had the opposite view of what they thought was the majority American view.
There's risk of equivocation between what someone takes "elite" to mean in the context of this survey and what it means in different pockets of discourse. Far more important to look at it in the context of actual use and try to decipher it's meaning _there_ rather than extract it from those contexts in a survey and try to find a stable meaning.
I know it's kind of fashionable in some circles to to pretend like the use of this term is mysterious, incoherent, or nefariously politicized. But there really seems to be just a plain, rough-and-ready sense in which "elite" refers to the PMC. If you're upper quintile in earnings or wealth, you're probably elite unless you work a blue collar job (which is a status thing, not an income thing — the $150k/yr linesman is still blue collar). If you're lower quintiles in earnings, but work in journalism for a national outlet, you're also probably elite. Facts about who is elite roughly track facts about status and the ability to influence power transmission mechanisms. Eliteness is a function of powerholder's willingness to defer to your in judgment about matters of social importance — such that you could count as elite even as an impoverished public intellectual as long as you had the ear of political, economic, and media leaders. Eliteness here is tracking facts about social deference and status. Belonging to an elite institution, even if you yourself are struggling to make rent, can number you among the elite purely in virtue of the deference this institutional association affords you in the halls of power.
The survey also risks lumping many different _kinds_ of elites into a single bucket, erasing important distinctions between them and potentially muddying the water about differences in attitude. The celebrities and billionaires who are wholly disengaged from politics and public life but just enjoy quietly spending their money? Sure, they're elite in some sense. But are they elite in the same sense that Vance and Rufo have in mind when they speak of a liberal elite? Which sense do your respondents have in mind when answering these questions? We can't know.
So to avoid misleading equivocations, we should really take care to distinguish the different senses of "elite" at play here. Liberal elites need not be economic elites who need not be social elites need not be institutional elites.
Yes. And trust in media/academia is at a record low. Though maybe a better term instead of elite or PMC is something that denotes the influence the class haseven if they are not materially wealthy.
I think a view of "elites" that says Alice Walton is an elite, but Justice Ginsburg and Morris Dees are not, is idiosyncratic to say the least. And poorly connected to what people are unhappy about.
I think the idea that Dems lead on trust for all issues but one is an exaggeration. Dems lead by wide margins on health care (20 points) and LGBT (24 points). And Reps lead on crime (8 points). But on foreign policy and AI the "lead" falls within the margin of error. For the economy and corruption, Dems are beyond the margin of error by a slim 2 points. And what about issues not mentioned here, such as immigration or border security, where other polls show Reps leading by wide margins? Also we shouldn't put too much faith in any one poll. Current events routinely skew polls because people can be quite fickle about things like 'trust."
I think when you look at lots of polls, the more important message is that Americans dislike and distrust both parties a great deal. I became an independent recently because I don't trust either party. Their overarching goal is merely to get their own candidates elected, keep them in office, and protect their own interests.
One of my pet theories is that the sides in politics has become the same as they were in school: the Tough Kids versus the Smart Kids. And conservatism has become the Tough Kids claiming that they're being bullied by the Smart Kids ("liberal elites").
Related https://www.unpopularfront.news/p/the-jockcreep-theory-of-fascism
I've read it. Good piece (as is Ganz's When the Clock Broke). But I'm surprised he didn't mention Steven Miller, who makes such a perfect Creep.
People thinking overpopulation is a bigger problem than declining birth rates is a blackpill...
Great polling data. There are some very interesting insights, for example, that the view of academics/journalists as elites appears to be a niche belief. That said, I don't buy that this reveals elite bashing to be a great avenue of attack for Democrats. I worry there's a lot of equivocation going on here. Elite is a nebulous term and it seems likely that neither side is literally talking about the same people when they blame "the elites." It's factually true that both parties have their own elites.
The most parsimonious explanation of these results is that that voters are simply directing their political frustrations regarding the other party onto that party's elites. Democrats hear "elites" and think of Elon Musk, oil executives, the Koch brothers, and, of course, Donald Trump. Republicans hear "elites" and think of George Soros, George Clooney, Taylor Swift, JB Pritzker, and Nancy Pelosi. Certainly the views attributed to the elites in this poll don't reflect the coherent views of any unified group of Americans. Without accounting for partisan out-group bias, assuming anti-elite rhetoric is a silver bullet for Democrats risks misinterpreting shared vocabulary for shared ideology.
Years ago, back when the Time Person of the Year and 100 Most Influential People were a bigger deal culturally, there would be polls on whether different prominent people belonged on the list. IIRC business executives would get much lower online votes than any other group of people, especially compared to pop stars. Part of understanding what makes some elite and how they operate involves having to read a lot of stuff that is pretty boring.
I'd be really interested in how stable these views are. Is this perhaps one of those hyper-polarized constructs that reverses completely as soon as the other party gets in power?
Very surprised by this. Big datapoint for me, I don't know how to update yet. This alone was worth my subscription.