But in your profile here on HN, you describe yourself as:
> I'm an appellate lawyer. In a past life, I was an engineer at a cognitive radio startup.
I'm puzzled at why you see the distinction as having anything to do with "the professional class".
I think the word you could have used to good effect here is "cosmopolitan". Its meaning is a subtle and probably used a little differently by different people, but I take it to describe a person somewhat like myself who (unlike you) doesn't have much of an attachment to "soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs", but instead sees all of the culture of humanity as their birthright, and who feels free to pick and choose (subject to certain political and economic constraints). I find it personally important to me to be able to combine things I love from different cultures from all over the world, and I confess that I regard those with a strong attachment to whatever they perceive as "their culture" as somehow a little (or a lot!) backwards. I also confess to a genuine irritation with anyone who expresses ideas that suggest that certain culture is "owned" by specific groups of people.
Clearly, we have quite different views of the world and our place in it. But I'm still confused why you put Yglesias and his cosmopolitan views in "the professional class" when it seems (from your being here on HN as well as your profile) that you are also a member of this class. Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
If so, it's really about "the professional class" vs "ordinary people", it's about people (like me) who view cosmopolitanism as central to the great hope for a peaceful and prosperous future for humanity, and people (perhaps such as yourself) who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
Let me make clear that I’m not making value judgments here. Obviously I have my views, but I’m just trying to describe what I’m experiencing.
Putting that aside, I agree “cosmopolitan” describes aspects of this as well. But economic trends have caused the professional class to become much more cosmopolitan than it used to be. In the law, for example, it used to be most companies used local or regional firms. Today, stuff is increasingly consolidated in NY/DC/SF. The same is true of the news media, etc. As a result, these industries are increasingly filled with people who were okay moving halfway across the country to pursue opportunities. And the process of moving itself reduces some of those traditional attachments to place.
This is happening internationally. Surveys show that the vast majority of people in Asia wouldn’t immigrate to another country even if they had the chance. So places like Silicon Valley are increasingly filled with people who are a little different than the normal person in the country they left behind.
As for me, I came to DC at age 5 with my parents so it’s not like I had much of a choice. And it’s hard to be “from” DC since everyone here is so transient. Even then, I moved back when my wife and I had kids and we live 10 minutes from my parents.
> Surely Yglesias is just a cosmopolitan sort of person, and you are not?
Yes, I think that’s true. But as explained above, there are a lot more cosmopolitans in my profession than the average place. The median American lives less than 18 miles from their mom. The median American lawyer or journalist certainly doesn’t. I remember scrambling to get a passport when my boss decided we were going to Germany with two days notice. My passport had been expired for years.
> Who feel that belonging to a particular culture (and place?) is central their identity and presumably their conceptions of the future.
And just happiness. I don’t mind if my kids go out somewhere else for college, but I want them to come back to Maryland and raise kids. I travel for work, and my wife and I like to go to random Midwestern cities once a year for vacation, and I really love Japan, but traveling for the sake of it doesn’t do much for me.
Cosmopolitanism is one aspect of how the professional class is different. Religion is another. There are more religious people than you’d think in the professional class, but everyone keeps it pretty DL and churchgoing isn’t a typical weekly activity. Education is obviously another, and that’s got a lot of knock-on effects. I’ve been trying to explain the new meaning of the term “racism” to my dad and he’s pretty perplexed. He never went to college in the US, and prides himself on “not being a hyphenated American.”
For the most part, people can just sort into the kind of life they want. But when the media becomes highly nationalized, it becomes a challenge. I’m politically a pretty liberal person (I was a Democrat most of my adult life) and it’s just hard for me to read mainstream news these days. I stick to Bloomberg which tends to be pretty neutral. I have to admit, I read foxnews.com or WSJ when 10 years ago I would’ve read the NYT. Not because I think “these people are bad” or anything like that, I just don’t want to fight with the impedance mismatch to see what happened in the GA election.
Notably, the local news doesn’t create this tension. The Capital Gazette here in Annapolis doesn’t make me want to flip to Fox.
Maybe I’m understating the actual xenophobia towards Pakistanis in Bangladesh. I’m (inadvertently) rather ignorant some of these things because my knowledge is second hand through family. My parents were strongly pro-independence, and my uncle was in the army.
I think you're confusing cause and effect. The problem is that people don't trust the same "professionals" to "filter" their news. People trusted Cronkite. There wasn't a huge market for "here's the news Cronkite won't tell you." Even when the country got super divided during Vietnam.
Now, I don't know why people have lost faith in professionals. I have my theory, which is that there has been a really significant ideological divergence between the professional class and ordinary people.
Let me give you an example. I don't want to litigate the specific example, but I'm just using it to illustrate. I read a lot of Matt Yglesias. He's very smart. But as far as I can tell, he doesn't believe in culture. Like, he doesn't believe it exists. He doesn't understand why people are attached to theirs. So when he talks about immigration, he draws these dichotomies "well there is the economic aspect of the immigration debate, then the xenophobia aspect."
I come from a country where a bunch of brown Muslims declared independence from other brown Muslims over the particular Indo-Aryan language they spoke. Bangladeshis would flip out if, for example, a quarter of the country was suddenly Pakistani. Not because they dislike Pakistanis. (I.e. Xenophobia.) But they are very attached to their own culture and don't want anyone to come and change it. One of the most powerful forces in the world is peoples' attachment to soil, language, religion, and shared food, history, art, customs, etc. Yglesias boils all of that down to "xenophobia."
Now, I'm quite the opposite. I get sad I'm going to die 10,000 miles away from where my ancestors are buried. I'm a bit jealous that my wife's family all lives within 2 hours of where they came over to Oregon on the wagon trains 170 years ago, while mine is scattered around the world in a diaspora. So when I listen to Yglesias, I cringe at some of his takes. I trust him because I've read a lot of his work, but I don't think he understands me or people like me. I can just imagine someone who don't want to put in the effort tuning him out.
The professional class is increasingly full of people like Matt Yglesias. Not just "liberal" in terms of supporting this healthcare policy or that one. Or in thinking the Vietnam was was a bad idea. But "liberal" in terms of not sharing a lot of basic premises with ordinary people, like “is it legitimate to be concerned about culture changing in your community.” It’s very hard for people who don’t share those views on basic things like that to talk to each other productively. I think that's a huge part of eroding trust in professionals.