Radical chic is a term coined by journalist Tom Wolfe[citation needed] to describe the pretentious and fashionable adoption of radical political causes by celebrities, socialites, and high society. The concept has been described as “an exercise in double-tracking one’s public image: on the one hand, defining oneself through committed allegiance to a radical cause, but on the other, vitally, demonstrating this allegiance because it is the fashionable, au courant way to be seen in moneyed, name-conscious Society.”[1] Unlike dedicated activists, revolutionaries, or dissenters, those who engage in radical chic remain frivolous political agitators. They are ideologically invested in their cause of choice only so far as it advances their social standing. – From Wikipedia
On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated with much pomp and circumstance, and today, some year and a half later, remains (IMO) a polarizing figure in American politics. So, when I, as a member of the real estate community, read about the overt actions of the Federal Government under the leadership of Mr. Obama, and contemplate both the merits and missteps of his administration, I cannot but yearn for some few hours with the elite of American society who swept him into office with their own brand of ideological one-upsmanship.
Yesterday Brian Brady commented that he had not been invited to attend the reported meeting on August 17th of the Obama’s administration’s attempt to overhaul or repair Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That got me thinking about an old essay by Tom Wolfe.
The essay, Radical Chic: That Party at Lenny’s “. . . It’s a tricky business, integrating new politics with tried and true social motifs . . .” from New York Magazine on June 8, 1970, got me wishing for a few hours of time with just about any of the elite of American society that ushered in and oversaw the coronation of their very own so chic, so hip, so nimble and enlightened leader. But the radical chic, those who helped elect this President, and with it the seemingly endless policy shifts away from accountability toward mediocrity and the continued erosion of personal values; these radical chics are no longer throwing parties, and no, Brian, they’re not inviting you even if they did.
If you love great writing, great history and social context, and a glimpse of how our own Greg Swann writes to bring alive great discourse and discussion, then please take the time to read the essay above.
The radical chic never go away, but expediency now dictates they lie low while their “cause” drives us into more of the bad bargain we seem to have entered into. I’m partying with Lenny tomorrow. Golf, here in San Diego, not New York, and Lenny Kuhlman, not Lenny Bernstein. Radical Chic….I’ve missed ya.
Brian Brady says:
Who wants to be “Radical Chic” when you can be “Master of the Universe”?
August 6, 2010 — 4:58 pm
Mike says:
Is Obama really the polarizing one? Or is it the people who have been attacking him since day 1 in office?
Case in point, yesterday Greg jumped all over Obama because some guy in some magazine reported on a rumor, which most reasonable people could see was nonsense.
August 6, 2010 — 7:36 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Case in point
Good grief. Of all the stupid things Obama and his minions have done, this is nothing special. You need to restrain yourself at least until August 18th.
> Is Obama really the polarizing one?
Yes. Obvious to all. This is not a viable meme.
August 6, 2010 — 8:19 pm
Mike says:
>Yes. Obvious to all. This is not a viable meme.
Good job of not answering the question. Any chance you could elaborate? And just because hardcore republicans disagree with him doesn’t make him polarizing, it just makes him a democrat.
August 6, 2010 — 9:22 pm
Alex Cortez says:
Mike, I am an independent and voted for Obama (McCain was a hero of mine for a long time, but he wasn’t fit for the office by the time he was up for it… but I digress). He promised changed, I believed he would. Now I can wholeheartedly say that I oppose Obama’s direction and implementation of socialists-like policies and will gladly do my part to vote him out. My wife is one of the biggest hippies/liberals (actively campaigned for O) I have ever known and she is ‘disgusted’ by his administration. So no, it’s not about hardcore right-wing republicans, but rather by the populace NEEDING a change from the one who promised changes yet failed miserably to deliver. Not looking to argue, political opinions are what they are. Best of luck.
August 6, 2010 — 9:45 pm
Mike says:
Alex, the question wasn’t whether you think Obama is doing and great job and should be re-elected. The question was:
“Is Obama really the polarizing one? Or is it the people who have been attacking him since day 1 in office?”
I would argue that Obama is doing exactly what he said he would. Health care reform was a surprise to no one. IMO, it’s mainly all the blow hards in the media that exaggerate and rile people up to further their own political agenda that are the polarizing ones.
August 6, 2010 — 10:14 pm
Alex Cortez says:
OK. To answer your question: “Is Obama really the polarizing one? Or is it the people who have been attacking him since day 1 in office?” YES. Obama and his policies are the polarizing factors that are driving middle-of-the-road independents to oppose him. You want to blame the ‘blow hards in the media’ for his failures and label anyone who has an opposing view as a ‘hardcore republican’? Well, it’s your opinion and you’re certainlly entitled to it. Not looking to get into a back-and-forth debate, so I won’t be replying further. Enjoy your weekend.
August 6, 2010 — 10:35 pm
Mike says:
You want to blame the ‘blow hards in the media’ for his failures
No. I blame them for being polarizing. I blame Obama for the idiotic “cash for clunkers” and first time homebuyer tax credit. I’m not sure what other ‘failures’ you’re refering to.
and label anyone who has an opposing view as a ‘hardcore republican’?
I didn’t do that.
Obama and his policies are the polarizing factors that are driving middle-of-the-road independents to oppose him.
I suspect if the economy were doing better, those independents would be supporting him.
August 7, 2010 — 7:34 am
Don Reedy says:
Mike,
Thanks for commenting. But my intent here was to discuss the “Radical Chic”, people like Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Ben Affleck, George Clooney, Samuel Jackson and Robert De Niro. De Niro, for example, defended Obama against allegations of inexperience, saying that a candidate who hadn’t gotten his country into war had “the kind of inexperience I can get used to.” In this piece I am wondering out loud if De Niro has “gotten used to” the experience Obama has in fact delivered to us. And, in the context of other bygone days of celebrities and issues, I just wanted to reflect on the fact that (as in the Lenny essay – did you read this, by the way?) these same celebrities have now melded and disappeared into the background.
I am a Realtor, and although I have taken some liberty here to be political, I do want you to know that Obama and his administration have in fact polarized most of the sane and fiscally prudent professionals in my industry. Just about every misstep in the mortgage meltdown was taken by this administration. Please see any of the posts on Fannie, Freddie, deleveraging, HVCC, the $8000 tax credit, the extension of that credit, financial reform (but not reform of the two largest players), a failed mortgage revision policy (which led to part of Greg’s last post on potential mortgage forgiveness…and my comment on that), and a complete misreading of the underlying reasons for risky loans (punishing the mortgage professionals and rewarding the banks and investment community).
Tricky business, this new dawn of politics and a politician (Obama) that were established with the new media and the radical chic. Tricky business….but painful to watch. Ask Lenny.
August 7, 2010 — 1:35 pm
John says:
Yes he is polarizing… it’s George Bush’s fault.
August 7, 2010 — 1:44 pm
Mike says:
Don,
My original question was pretty simple and you answered it. With specifics, no less! Thanks.
As far as the celebrity thing is concerned, creative people tend to be liberal. They also love attention. Put the two together and you get radical chic!
August 7, 2010 — 4:51 pm
Alex Cortez says:
LOL, man, some people just love to stir the pot. ‘Mike’, feel free to post a link to your site/profile, there’s no need to be anonymous. Just curious, did you read the essay posted as the topic of this thread?
August 7, 2010 — 5:22 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Nice post Don. Here’s the problem (well, one of the problems) with the radical chic: they are merely playing. They are dipping their toes into something they view as dangerous (Black Panthers of old) or radical (from the Weather Underground to various cause celebres today) without all the pesky responsibility of repercussions. It’s one of the perks of money. But the people they dalliance with are not playing.
Mike was right in at least one his statements: Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do – if you were listening. And he is not playing. For people like Obama (and there are others on the right, the left, the middle) this is not politics, it’s religion. It’s not open to debate and logic is not an accepted form of dispute. They work on faith. It’s this passion and commitment that makes them such fun at parties and a kick to be around for the radical chic. Unfortunately, if they come into power, it also makes them a danger beyond comparison.
If the most dangerous threat to us (to ourselves as free beings) is government… how in the hell are we to quantify a government led by zealots?
August 7, 2010 — 9:57 pm
Mike says:
Not hard to stir the pot here, Alex. All you have to do is say something that isn’t anti-Obama.
And I have no site or profile. Just stumbled upon this site and am trying to get a better understanding of how republicans think.
August 7, 2010 — 11:49 pm
Don Reedy says:
Mike,
This is a great place to plop and stop for edification and clarification. Sean’s last comment will help you clarify for future reading here what most of us here write about.
Sean, thanks again for reminding me, and others, that zealots at any point on the political scale are dangerous.
This place, Mike, is hardly a place to find out how republicans think. But it really is a place to find out how we think, work with, work against, expose or shed light on how to better ourselves. In this place you’ll find hard working real estate professionals, and full-time lovers of liberty. You’ll find experts in the fields of finance and philosophy, and individuals with a passion for skinning cats.
I hope you’ll come back, and bring other readers and thinkers to the party.
Greg writes above the following:
August 8, 2010 — 6:49 am
Mike says:
Don,
If this blog is not run by republicans, then can you explain the following?
If you look at the archive and search the titles of blog posts (going back to 2005) you will find 20 with “Obama” in the title. Almost all of them are negative. If you search for “Bush” you will find 4 and none of them are negative.
Earlier, you wrote:
Fair enough. But the source of our housing problems was the housing bubble which inflated in the 2000-2006 time frame. Bush was president (with a republican congress) for almost the entire bubble. He was also president for the first 2 1/2 years of it’s bursting. Yet I can’t find a single critical post. Obama has been president for the 1 1/2 years and I find 20.
And then there’s this post from the day Obama was elected:
McCain concedes, as do I…
August 8, 2010 — 8:57 am
Sean Purcell says:
Shades of the Algonquin Round Table…
Mike, you’re math is unassailable and your logic, sublime. On behalf of BHB, I cede your point. This blog is run by Republicans. I believe it’s a prerequisite that one be a Republican to write here. As far as I know everyone who comments here is a Republican. It’s quite possible that everyone who reads this blog is a Republican. We do, in fact, provide most of the planks for the Republican convention and the complete oeuvre of BHB is a radiating glow of Republican thought. You have won the point. Well played, I hope it brings you the satisfaction you’ve earned and so richly deserve.
Now, back to the actual post. Don: where do you believe these “radically chic” end up during the election this fall? Do they turn out? Stay home? Swith allegience? Just curious.
August 8, 2010 — 9:32 am
Don Reedy says:
Sean,
As with Lenny’s dilemma, they will find that the glow of the moment no longer outshines the specious glory that they truly believed would unfold. With that in mind, IMO they will stay at home. A switching of allegiance at this point is not viable, though, since the incessant posturing and lack of clarity on the other side of the aisle provides no impetus for that switch.
The egregio maestro will be booooooed off the stage for this election.
But then, there’s always another player or game that awaits our radical chic’s affections; a post for January 2011 perhaps?
August 8, 2010 — 4:44 pm
Mike says:
Nice reply Sean. A straw man mixed with sarcasm but devoid of any thought, logic or facts.
Now back to the topic. What was the topic again? Oh yeah, making fun of democrat celebrities.
August 9, 2010 — 12:35 pm
Taylor White, PHD says:
Well, we can start to change things later this year in the November 2010 elections.
Lets get our voices heard…starting November.
August 9, 2010 — 3:22 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Mike-
>can you explain the following?
If you look at the archive and search the titles of blog posts (going back to 2005) you will find 20 with “Obama” in the title. Almost all of them are negative. If you search for “Bush” you will find 4 and none of them are negative.
Perhaps it’s because Obama is such a polarizing figure.
In general, the people who post about politics here, tend to believe less is more when it comes to government, but we certainly don’t speak for everyone, and we are not necessarily republicans. Besides all that, you have been searching for the wrong thing in the archives. Look for “Splendor”.
Don-
The marketing involved in the Obama campaign is truly awe-inspiring. They created an image, a logo, a brand, for the POTUS. Can you imagine? Just like Bush and Rove perfected target marketing, Obama’s campaign took that idea and ran with it. Radical. And chic!
Thanks for reminding me how much I love Tom Wolfe.
August 12, 2010 — 5:40 am
Don Reedy says:
Teri,
Agree about TW. Ice tea. Slide into your favorite chair. And then, a great story teller takes you away. Reading great writing is always chic….
August 12, 2010 — 7:37 am