NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8244

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 5.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8244 alt.amateur-comp:445 soc.culture.usa:9424 alt.activism:19980
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!world!bzs
From: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:14:22 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Barry Shein)
Organization: The World
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]> <bhayden.726020062@teal>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:22:08 GMT
Lines: 98


>>    If Usenet is any reasonable sample, though, there *does* seem to be
>>a relation between being a programmer and a libertarian.  I don't think
>>anyone can prove a definite correlation; but my guess is that the two
>>are related by the fact that programmers are overwhelmingly white,
>
>I do not think that it is really because programmers are white, educated,
>upper-middle-class. These characteristics would usually correspond to
>either a conservative, or liberal inteligensia, and not libertarian.
>The white upper-middle-class has the most to gain by stability (hence
>conservatism, if not politically, at least in life style). They tend
>to be the strongest supporters of societal values, including the police,
>because they have the most to lose if society fails.

Programmers who are libertarian tend to be white, male, suburban,
upper middle class BY UPBRINGING (I said tend to be, I know we'll get
a response from some individual who doesn't fit that mold, offered as
some sort of disproof.)

That last distinction is important. They are economically
disenfranchised upper-middle class. Their parents are not only alive,
but likely to be alive for another 30-40 years. These kids (some of
them no doubt in their 30's, many in their 20's) will be near
retirement before there's any inheritance. And as is typical of that
class they are expected, after a point (typically graduation from
college) to make their own way in the world with, at most, emergency
aid from parents.

The pressure to "prove oneself" (i.e. achieve the standard of living
you left when you left your parents) is very strong, and with as
little help from those parents as possible.

Unfortunately, the world has changed (but kids haven't, they frustrate
easily), and the likelihood that they'll achieve anything resembling
their parents' standard of living in less than a decade or two is
nearly zilch unless they're very lucky or talented or something, and I
mean top 1-2% while their parents who made their way in the 60's and
70's probably were just top 25% or thereabouts, "we did it, why can't
you?", "the world has changed!", "oh bosh, try harder!".

Anyhow...

The point being that these are people who have the appurtenances of
the upper-middle class (cultural grounding, education, and tastes,
etc) but don't have the wherewithal to obtain their "expected" rewards
in the world of today (and some of this may be a temporary thing, but
no doubt 5+ years of that to a young person can be very frustrating.)

Not really a failure on their part, more of a mismatch between reality
and expectations and the discovery (rite of passage thing) of how damn
hard life really is, and the suspicion as the layers of the onion peel
away that it might be a lot harder than that even.

So, libertarianism tends to speak to such people: Something must be
holding them back, right? Something must be unfairly standing in the
way of their getting their birthright, a comfortable life etc (even if
the specifics of that aren't exactly the same as their parents it
still costs a lot of money, that's how their tastes run and were
trained, regardless of the fashion turns it takes, both Sinatra and
thrash sound better on a $5,000 stereo system...)

Now, what is holding them back? What could it be? What is making life
so much harder than their relatively comfortable upbringing ever led
them to believe? Why...it must be...THE GOVT! Rules and regulations
which make the playing field more competitive to people who DON'T HAVE
A BIRTHRIGHT! (not to mention complicate life immensely, a melancholy
longing for simplicity in all human affairs is a hallmark of this
particular mindset.)

Something must be standing in their way, the discomforts of life can't
possibly be their fault, there has to be a satan who is responsible
and can be railed against and vilified for denying them what they know
is justly theirs.

In the same vein, their life-skills were acquired from a basically
mercantile upper-middle class society, so their instincts tell them
that only the most viciously competitive society works to their
advantage. A world where cripples and orphans and other unfortunates
are left to make their own case. You can't beat up the govt, but you
can certainly choose between a $5K stereo system and feeding some
unfortunate if the govt would just get out of the way. And we know
which they'd choose (and if something is left over and their
birthright delivered to them as is only *fair* no doubt a few crumbs
would be thrown to the lepers, but only noblesse oblige of course.)

I think that about sums it up as a psycho-socio-political profile.

There are certainly points the libertarian movement has that are
commendable in my view. But the motivation of many of their strongest
proponents show an unhealthy frustration to something else entirely
(as the responses to this note will quickly convince the more
disinterested among you is true.)

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | [e-mail]          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD