This is how Charles Murray put it

You may think that this is a good thing. I dont, I think there is a deep misguided hypocrisy underpinning it https://twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/1172615725539823616?s=20

They can have borders - NIMBYism & high house prices to keep out the poors - but poor ppl cant have borders. The children of poor kids can use drugs but they wont let their kids use drugs like Cannabis. They wont have kids out of wedlock but its ok for poor families ppl to do so.

What I think Murray misses in his analysis is that this is - in my opinion - a by-product of living in a more meritocratic age. Elites from previous generations had a sense of *noblesse oblige* which emanated from the reality of a more rigid class structure. Thats lost now.

When the class system was more rigid & less dynamic/fluid - or at least more patently so - elites were more likely to appreciate that that they weren't were they were necessarily bc they individually deserved to be.

From this comes the sense of noblesse oblige that used to exist & from this one-nation conservatism and Tory socialism.

The modern era which is, in part, characterised by the belief that our class system is much more fluid/dynamic - i.e ‘meritocratic’ - breeds the attitude that if someone is in the upper or lower social strata’s its bc they deserve to be & therefore you don't owe anyone anything.

Murray misses this but I think this is, to some extent, what underpins the phenomenon he talks about in ‘Coming Apart.’ Not the only thing that underpins it, granted. But its certainly part of the equation imo.

When there was a sense of noblesse oblige, elites preached what they practiced. Absent that sense of noblesse oblige - which has been replaced by a meritocratic ethos - & you get what we find today: elites who don't preach what they actually practice in their own lives.

Past elites were more likely to be ofc. Elites these days are more likely to be atheists pushing such policies as assisted-suicide, immigration-maximalism & the liberalisation of laws pertaining to drugs, divorce & prostitution which will impact more on the poor & less on them

All these policies are pushed by well-educated middle-class professionals via the liberal mantra of ‘choice.’ Which betrays their class background utterly & completely. They automatically presume that everyone has the same menu of choices in life that they have.

The type of feminism that exists today was pushed via the language of choice. Rich women do have a choice ofc. They can go to work or they can be the ‘home-maker’ if they want to be. Women in the lower social strata’s dont have a choice. Realistically, they *have* to go to work.

Legalise prostitution on the basis of choice & it will be poor women *forced* into prostitution while rich women will *choose* to have an only fans & do a bit of escorting.

This is the consequence of our meritocratic ethos - i.e class cluelessness. Not everyone has the same choices in life that are available to middle-class well-educated professionals raised by two parents in a stable & living home like you Im afraid.

Legalise drugs & the consequences of it will fall disproportionately on the poor. Liberalise divorce laws & the impact will fall disproportionately on the poor. Legalise assisted suicide & the consequences will fall disproportionately on the poor.

But we dont really have a concept of the poor anymore do we & thats the problem as there are many different forms of impoverishment & deprivation.

Noblesse oblige has gone to be replaced by the mantra of choice.