- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Rise-ing Towards Peak Hypocrisy

Wow. Just, wow:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [2]

Read the whole thread on Twitter. It’s about how one of the indicted people is a super-rich do-gooder named Bill McGlashan, who started an investment fund with Bono, dedicated to throwing investment capital behind good causes. More about McGlashan and his role in the bribery scandal here. [3] Giridharadas writes:

McGlashan even agreed to a ruse in which the scammers would photoshop an image of his son onto the head of an athlete, to make colleges think that the boy was good at sports. If you read this story [3], you’ll read that McGlashan was recorded by the FBI telling the scam-runner how much all this needed to be kept away from his son. The boy was not to know how his Daddy was rigging the system for him. He had to believe that he made it to college on his own. Excerpt:

McGLASHAN: Now does he, here’s the only question, does he know? Is there a way to do it in a way that he doesn’t know that happened?

change_me

CW-1: Oh yeah. Oh he–

McGLASHAN: Great.

Several times he does this.

Here’s a link to The Rise Fund, the “social-impact” investment fund he started with Bono and others.  [4]

 

 

Advertisement
63 Comments (Open | Close)

63 Comments To "Rise-ing Towards Peak Hypocrisy"

#1 Comment By Old West On March 14, 2019 @ 1:37 pm

Rabiner says:

“I don’t see much in the way of people calling for the outlawing of legacy emissions to colleges like I do for affirmative action policies.”

The main reason you won’t hear much from the right about this is that the sliver of GOP establishment types still cling to the idea that they can be allowed to slip in under the liberal radar by virtue of shared class loyalty, so they like legacy admissions. Brett Kavanaugh opened a lot of eyes, but the phenomenon is still there. And those of us on the right who are not establishment types (the vast majority) are just DONE with elite universities (especially at the undergrad levels where the craziness is), and our preferred solution would be to render an Ivy League undergrad degree no more valuable than one from Fresno State. Stop treating them like they are something magical and hallowed, and suddenly it doesn’t matter how Harvard does their admissions.

#2 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 14, 2019 @ 2:31 pm

As always, liberalism and exploitation go hand in hand with the former always excusing the latter.

Ben H. writes good socialist propaganda.

#3 Comment By Elijah On March 14, 2019 @ 2:44 pm

“This kerfuffle certainly sounds like deliberate deception to secure unfair gain, right?”

Definitely, and I see your point. I guess I’m struggling with how this is the FBI’s business: is it because there are Federal dollars involved? Wouldn’t you, for example, have standing to make a complaint if your child had been denied admission over some chucklehead ‘influencer’?

#4 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 14, 2019 @ 3:00 pm

The true sign of the times is the number of commenters who have trouble seeing anything wrong.

#5 Comment By Fran Macadam On March 14, 2019 @ 3:11 pm

Mr. William Henry Gates III is not of humble origins, with high powered corporate lawyers as parents. His mother sat on the board of a large bank, his grandfather a national bank president. DOS may bootstrap into the loaded operating system, but this child of privilege and prep schools did not pull himself up by his bootstaps, Horatio Alger-like. Note that he dropped out of Harvard after getting admission – who he got to know was far more important than getting an actual degree.

Although raised a Congregationalist, that staid church of prosperity, he famously opined that checking his stock market worth was a more valuable activity for Sunday mornings.

#6 Comment By Hound of Ulster On March 14, 2019 @ 3:25 pm

If you want to avoid Marxist radicals taking power, (which we may be headed towards, especially if the far Right gets it’s wish and prevents the incoming New Deal 2.0 coalition from coming to power by hook or by crook) you need to drop a tax hike/regulatory change hammer on all involved, up to and including asset forfeiture and heavy jail time.

I am not holding my breath, especially with this Boomer-controlled political system we have right now.

#7 Comment By Thomas Hobbes On March 14, 2019 @ 6:14 pm

Josh K writes:

The central reality of the current U.S. elite is terror that their children will not also be a part of that elite. No one talks about it but it’s basically an all devouring cultural fact of life for the top 20%.

Old West replies:

The ludicrous ignorance of this statement shows the extent to which envy propaganda has succeeded in dividing the country along nonexistent lines, while getting us to ignore the real ones.

Josh K is correct, though it would be better to call the 20% (or 9.9% as a recent Atlantic article defines them) the professional class or managerial class rather than the elite, which is what I would call the 1% or 0.1% if you’d like to be left out of the elite yourself (this saves me from being an elite too!). 😉 The lawyers, managers, coders, doctors, and even the more blue collar contractors and tradesmen making upwards of $100k today are dedicating a tremendous amount of time and money into making their kids college applications look good though tutoring, expensive club sports, the “right” extracurricular activities, test prep, etc. The reason they are doing this is because they feel their position in the “upper class” is precarious. They have no confidence that their children won’t be worse off than they are. And of course, they’ve made material success a measure of virtue for themselves. It is incredibly unhealthy for their kids though (and largely ineffective I suspect).

This does seem to effect those living in the most dynamic metropolitan areas more than those in less expensive competitive places though. I’m sure part of this is the cost of living and where people sit in their local income distribution. People making $120k in SF feel like they are struggling to make ends meet and need to do something to push their kids ahead of their peers more than people making $120k in the rural Midwest. People making $120k in the rural Midwest are, of course, much more likely to have friends making half their salaries than someone making $120k in SF too. Keeping up with the Jones is still a thing.

To make it into the top 20%, one needs a whopping $118K in annual income, which is about enough to pay the rent on a one bedroom apartment in places like NY, San Francisco, Boston, LA or DC where the ruling classes congregate.

Nonetheless, more than 50% of the people living in those places make less. I lived in SF this decade with 2 kids on less. Those San Franciscans making $120k-$300k do tend to be the most aggressive about insuring their kids get in to a good college (by legal means).

Someone who makes $50K and someone who makes $500K have far, far more in common with each other than they do with the top 0.1% Both have to get up and go to work every morning if the don’t want to be evicted from their homes and to have health insurance. The 0.1%? Not so much.

This is definitely true, but the 0.1% can’t take that many elite college spots (due to their small size) while the 20% can take them all. Also, the 0.1% tends to worry about it less because they have more means provide their kids with success.

Part of the genius of the new party of the super wealthy–the Democrats–has been to obscure this reality and pit various levels of middle class people against each other. Were they ever to see each other as the natural allies that they are, the real ruling class would be in serious trouble.

This is interesting. As a member of the professional/managerial class (I am either in the 1% or 2% fwiw) I feel like the Republicans have done much more to malign my cohort (even as a white male Christian) than Democrats. The Democrats seem to vilify the 0.1% or maybe 1% (and rural folks) while the Republicans seem to adore the 0.1% (job creators!) while vilifying demographics that vote Democratic, which include the highly educated that make up a solid constituency of the top 20%. Most people don’t know any of the 0.1%. When my conservative friends and relatives talk about the liberal elites they are usually talking about the top 10% not the top 0.1%. They don’t like their boss, their doctor, lawyers, “silicon valley types”, or academics. Billionaires are aspirational figures though.

#8 Comment By Ken Zaretzke On March 14, 2019 @ 6:21 pm

If the SPLC can fire Morris Dees (!), the colleges can expel the Huffman kid and the others.

#9 Comment By anon On March 14, 2019 @ 7:31 pm

“TR says:
“I think Chesterton is immensely over-rated.”

Agreed! But there’s a reason he’s overrated, it’s just necessary to wade over to it. 😉

#10 Comment By K Squared On March 14, 2019 @ 9:51 pm

Bob Taylor at 8:12PM 3/13

you’d howl at the pronunciations on the classical broadcasts at WHRB (harvard)

and you should hear how all their jazz dj’s pronounce John Coltrane’s “Naima”

#11 Comment By Old West On March 16, 2019 @ 2:35 am

Thomas Hobbes has very good observations about the top 20%, 9.9%, 1% and 0.1%.

I would take issue with this, however:

“This [my observation about the Dems pitting various parts of the middle class against each other] is interesting. As a member of the professional/managerial class (I am either in the 1% or 2% fwiw) I feel like the Republicans have done much more to malign my cohort (even as a white male Christian) than Democrats. The Democrats seem to vilify the 0.1% or maybe 1% (and rural folks) while the Republicans seem to adore the 0.1% (job creators!) while vilifying demographics that vote Democratic, which include the highly educated that make up a solid constituency of the top 20%. Most people don’t know any of the 0.1%. When my conservative friends and relatives talk about the liberal elites they are usually talking about the top 10% not the top 0.1%. They don’t like their boss, their doctor, lawyers, “silicon valley types”, or academics. Billionaires are aspirational figures though.”

Shortly before the last midterms I was in a medium-sized red-state city (probably 50-100K population) out in Old West country. I hadn’t been there for many years, but knew where the “high-end” part of town was, in the old historic district. This would be where doctors, lawyers, school administrators, and other higher income and education people would be living. Virtually every other yard had signs for Democratic candidates and various sorts of socially-progressive virtue-signaling signs and bumper-stickers were thick on the ground. Signs for Republican candidates were rare, and other than one or two American flags, there was no equivalent of a “conservative virtue-signaling” sign or bumper sticker to be seen anywhere. Anywhere.

As someone who has been very involved in GOP politics in a very red state, working closely with grass roots activists of all levels of income, I never remotely encountered any resentment. Those of us who were well-off (mostly successful business owners and entrepreneurs) were respected and appreciated, as were the few professionals who were involved in GOP politics.

These folks certainly do resent their wealthy *liberal* neighbors. What is resented about them is not their wealth, though–it is all about their snooty, holier-than-thou progressive attitudes, and the way they look down on the population that provides them with their wealth. So yes, I can see conservative working class folks resenting their liberal doctor or lawyer for taking their money and then using that wealth to fund the political opposition.

There is an instinctive sense that the leftist politics (especially is cultural politics) of the wealthy–whether the 1% wealth of a local professional or the 0.1% wealth of more rarified circles in Silicon Valley or Hollywood or Wall Street–is a politically correct way of pulling up the ladder behind them and closing off upward mobility for their real competition–ambitious and smart kids from heavily conservative lower middle classes. It is also seen as these people disdaining them and their values. And I have to say that they are largely not wrong about any of that.

#12 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On March 16, 2019 @ 10:11 pm

If the SPLC can fire Morris Dees (!), the colleges can expel the Huffman kid and the others.

Its not clear if there were any good guys or bad guys in the firing of Morris Dees. I mean, they were all on board with most of what SPLC has been doing the past twenty years.

#13 Comment By Thomas Hobbes On March 17, 2019 @ 1:24 am

Old West says:

As someone who has been very involved in GOP politics in a very red state, working closely with grass roots activists of all levels of income, I never remotely encountered any resentment.

Of course not, you are there expressly to fight for their tribe.

These folks certainly do resent their wealthy *liberal* neighbors. What is resented about them is not their wealth, though–it is all about their snooty, holier-than-thou progressive attitudes, and the way they look down on the population that provides them with their wealth.

Yes, it’s the fact that they are generally liberal and thus of the other tribe (many are assumed liberal and snooty before the evidence is in). This didn’t used to be the case. The educated managerial class used to be mostly Republican despite colleges pretty much always being liberal bastions. I’m not sure when exactly rural working class and white collar workers started vilifying each other, they’ve never been the best allies. Maybe it’s just my age (I was 19 when W was elected) and perhaps I wasn’t politically aware enough to notice it before, but this seems to have really ramped up in the run up to and during the Gulf War part II. The Republicans started pushing a campaign of “Real Americans” vs people that hate America and the Democrats responded by portraying themselves as smart educated folk who actually know what’s good for you vs backwards racist yokels. This led to straightforward patriotism becoming a signal of conservatism and education being a signal of liberalism (obviously things were trending this way already). The fact that both sides have accepted this means that for many conservatives being well educated is associated with whole bunch of bad (liberal) things and for many liberals being patriotic is associated with a whole bunch of bad (conservative) things. Sadly, a similar thing is starting to happen with religion and science. Conservatives claim religion as their own and liberals start to associate the two together. Liberals claim science as their own and conservatives start to associate the two together.

There is an instinctive sense that the leftist politics (especially is cultural politics) of the wealthy–whether the 1% wealth of a local professional or the 0.1% wealth of more rarified circles in Silicon Valley or Hollywood or Wall Street–is a politically correct way of pulling up the ladder behind them and closing off upward mobility for their real competition–ambitious and smart kids from heavily conservative lower middle classes

It is exactly that (as something always is), but that doesn’t mean the rich liberals don’t truly believe it too. The point of virtue signaling is to either signal that you are virtuous or to tell other people what they should think is virtuous.

It is also seen as these people disdaining them and their values. And I have to say that they are largely not wrong about any of that.

Nope, not wrong but that is a two way street of course where each side interprets the others’ values for them.