People, especially “thinkers,” like to believe they serve all sorts of noble purposes in the intellectual infrastructure. But in reality their main effects are either to raise or lower the status of the elites in their society.
I agree with most of what he writes in the post. But I think that the dichotomy between the elites and others is too crude. Instead, I think that the group-status lens should have you look at different subsets of elites competing with one another.
Cowen’s point is that one can be making elitist claims and yet undermine elites. Or one can make anti-elitist claims and be reinforcing elites. On the latter point, he writes,
If you teach at a top or Ivy League school, your net effect is to raise the status of elites. …the simple fact of “a smart, accomplished person affiliating with elite institutions” is the main message you are sending.
If you are trying to follow the group-status game, think of the teams as consisting of different groups of elites. In particular, think of “populists” as elites in competition with other elites.
On the right, the populists are competing with establishment conservatives, especially within the Republican Party. The populists work so hard at lowering the status of the traditional Republicans that the populists end up raising the status of ideas on the left, especially by attacking “neoliberalism.”
On the left, one observes a conflict between old-fashioned liberals (Haidt, Rauch, Mounk) and the younger progressives. In this inter-generational conflict, the young are willing to risk lowering the status of the old relative to the right.
I think that one should keep score in the group-status game by using sentences of the form “group X tries to raise its status relative to group Y in the eyes of group Z.” For example, the NatCons try to raise their status relative to establishment Republicans in the eyes of Trump supporters. (Trump himself tries to raise the status of anyone who praises Trump and lower the status of anyone who does not.)
Economists have higher status in the eyes of the Republican establishment than in the eyes of the NatCons and other populist elites. Economists also have higher status in the eyes of the Democratic establishment than in the eyes of young progressives. The era prior to the Revolt of the Public (see Martin Gurri) was in hindsight a golden age for economists hoping to influence policy.
Libertarians are in the same position as economists. We have higher status within the establishment wings of the two parties than with the upstarts. This feels strange, because libertarians tend to be contrarian and in opposition to the establishment. As Tyler puts it,
Libertarianism, as it has evolved at the institutional level, largely raises the status of elites. … Libertarians, of course, may not intend this as their major effect… Some of the “obsessed with Covid lockdowns” libertarians, however, probably lower the status of elites.
That is, our nature leads us to seek to lower the status of establishment politicians, even though from a libertarian perspective nowadays the alternatives are worse.
It seems to me that the word elites is usually used in the pejorative, so it’s worth discussing when and how it’s used as complimentary.
The first question we should ask about elites is: what’s wrong with elites?
I would point to lack of humility as an important trait of elites. It seems to me that elites see themselves as more than they are.
Do elites suffer from self-deception with regard to who they are? I would say so. Elites suffer from lack of self-awareness. They cannot see their own weaknesses and mistaken beliefs. They tend to deny and ignore their dogmatism.
The word elites is almost never used as complimentary. Rather, the word “elite” is a common compliment used to refer to elite athletes, elite special forces, elite competitors, elite artists. These are references to specialized skill sets, winners of specific games and specific competitions. Michael Jordan is elite. Michael Phelps is elite. Jony Ive is elite. John Lennon is elite.
Elites like Tyler Cowen are not necessarily elite. Why? His views on COVID and the lockdowns lacked humility. Once you fall into the quagmire of “the elites” it’s difficult to remove yourself.
Elites see themselves as more than they are. They lack self-awareness.
"Economists have higher status in the eyes of"
Which economists?
As you have noted, Paul Krugmen and people like him have quite a lot of status on the left, but his opinions would differ wildly from other economists.
"because libertarians tend to be contrarian and in opposition to the establishment"
Which libertarians?
Tyler hints at it with the COVID comment. There were a lot of "libertarians" that went all in on COVID lockdowns (like himself), and in other ways side with the elites vs libertarians on many issues.
And then there is the big kahuna of immigration. Open Borders is a "traditional" libertarian cause, but after seeing what happened in California and elsewhere many libertarians are now on the opposite side of the issue. The key divider on this seems to be mood affiliation with elites rather then good arguments.