"...what we're seeing is the becoming complacent of a new affluent class that has nothing to do with their beliefs."
Isn't that precisely Turner's point?
I agree that Turner is just indulging in some stupid liberal-bashing in the claims you contest. But that isn't really the point of his piece. Turner is arguing that there's an insidious appeal to class and status in much liberal rhetoric, especially on college campuses. And there is. It's not a great article, in part because Turner loses his focus and veers into liberal-bashing, but I thought it raised a good point about fear of ostracism. (I blogged about this myself this morning.)
But how is this an issue of class rather than group dynamics? Are there really appeals to class or just the understanding that when dealing with a group of people with a homogenous political view, one risks alienation by dissent?
Turner throws in the word "class" (and even "caste!") and insinuates that somehow "classism" flows from liberalism, but he'll have a much harder time proving that social dynamics flow from liberal ideology.
And I didn't find the liberal-bashing to be extraneous to his piece. Given that I found his argument tendentious, the whole piece seemed like an exercise in liberal-bashing. I don't doubt that there's a good argument to be made about complacent liberals, but Turner didn't make it.
I can imagine a more effective argument, to be sure. But what I think shows that this isn't just group dynamics -- in a way that wouldn't bring in class (a class is a group too!) -- is that it precedes any actual political awareness. It isn't that you become a liberal and then find your liberalism confirmed by a group dynamic. It's that you are in the group first and then find anything but liberalism unthinkable without undergoing a painful process of dissociation from the group.
I'm ambivalent about emphasizing this, because it just tends to lead to idiotic liberal-bashing. But the phenomenon is very striking, in my experience at least, and we liberals will benefit by confronting it. Bashing conservatives as 'scary,' etc., is just as idiotic as liberal-bashing. And people who do the former, unlike people who do the latter, are actually my friends, colleagues, and students -- rather than mere abstractions writing for the National Review, etc. (Okay, some of the latter are my colleagues too, but they expect me to disagree with them.)
Now we're at the nub: a class is a group but 1) "class" implies rank in a way that "group" doesn't and 2) "class" implies impermeability in a way that "group" doesn't (in this case, economic impermeability).
Liberals aren't a "class" because anyone can become a liberal at any time. The implication of the "classist" charge in America is that the person so charged thinks people outside (beneath) the class should be "kept down/out/quiet." But is that what liberals want, or would they like everyone to join their group?
If Turner were being honest, he'd have to address dogmatism and stupidity on the Right and the Left. By the omission of the Right, he's just making a slightly sneakier version of the "liberals bad, conservatives good" argument Kieran Healy debunks here. By making the charge of classism, he's trying to pass partisanship as sociological analysis.
I'm sympathetic to your desire to see liberals stop being dogmatic and reflexively outraged, but don't defend this guy.
Can't there be moral impermeability? True, liberals accept converts. But the unconverted are held in a distinctive sort of contempt. Conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are crass and unfeeling. 'Stupid' is about ideas. 'Crass and unfeeling' is about corruption in one's very soul. Liberal rhetoric tends to suggest that conservatives are morally damaged -- not merely in the wrong.
But I'm not defending the guy or the article. I agree it was not well argued. And for all I know what I thought was right in it was something I read into his examples.
You must know some very nice conservatives. Seriously though, I think that's not a very helpful generalization, given that "moral corruption" is an explicit part of the attack on liberals.
I think you're exactly right about reading into the article: as liberals, we're harder on other liberals, to whom we feel closer and who speak for us in some sense. But I think this is a "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good" situation and I'm trying to remember that there may be a lot of stupidity among liberals, but there are other things that are a lot more scary troubling disturbing alarming.
If I were Turner I would have written that many liberals pretend to be open-minded and accepting, but then they prove to be so only for their own ideas and their own group. It's a little maddening to see a liberal pretend to be able to who can make room for anyone's cultural beliefs, except the belief that abortion is actually murder; and who can accept anyone's culture, except that of a religious American conservative. Neither of these unacceptable descriptions matches my profile, but as an open-minded moderate I find it frustrating to watch this dynamic.