The Revolt of the Elites
Elites seceding from the nation
Description
In 1994, the year before he died of cancer, the American historian Christopher Lasch finished a book that read like a reversal of a famous diagnosis made sixty years earlier. In 1930, the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset had warned that democracy was threatened from below — by what he called the revolt of the masses, ordinary people who had seized cultural authority without the discipline or seriousness the old elites had supposedly carried. Lasch looked at the United States at the end of the century and saw the threat running the other way. The danger, he argued, was no longer the masses. It was the elites.
Lasch was not an easy writer to place. He had come up on the left, written searching books about the family and about the culture of consumption, and earned a wide readership with a 1979 bestseller on American narcissism. But by the 1990s he had become a critic of almost everyone — suspicious of corporate capitalism and of the professional class that administered the welfare state alike. The managers, the knowledge workers, the symbolic analysts who moved money and information across borders had, in his telling, quietly checked out of the country they lived in. They had their own schools, their own neighborhoods, their own networks, and increasingly their own sense of belonging to a global class rather than a national community.
What makes the book sting, decades on, is how little translation it needs. Lasch was describing gated enclaves and private security before those became shorthand; he was describing a professional class that talked endlessly about diversity while sealing itself off from the people it claimed to speak for. The charge was not that elites had too much power. It was that they had stopped feeling bound to anyone outside their own ranks — and that a self-governing republic cannot run on that arrangement for long.
The question we’re asking : What did Lasch mean when he said the elites had revolted, and against what exactly were they rebelling?What we’ll see : How a historian turned a famous warning upside down to describe a professional class pulling quietly out of the common life of the nation.
Table of contents
01 Chapter 1 — The inversion of a famous warning
Ortega y Gasset's The Revolt of the Masses had argued that the trouble with modern democracy was the arrival of the common man at the center of public life — a man who enjoyed the comforts civilization produced without any sense of the effort and obligation that had produced them. Lasch borrowed the title and flipped the accusation. In his reading, the common man had turned out to be more responsible, more rooted, more committed to the places he lived than the people who now looked down on him. The restlessness, the contempt for limits, the sense of entitlement Ortega had pinned on the masses — Lasch found all of it concentrated at the top.
The elites he had in mind were not the old money families of inherited wealth. They were the new professional and managerial class: lawyers, consultants, academics, financiers, people in media and technology whose work dealt in information and symbols rather than things. What distinguished them was mobility. Their careers were national or international rather than local, their loyalties attached to a profession or a global market rather than a town or a country. They could live anywhere, and increasingly they lived apart.
02 Chapter 2 — Meritocracy as the new aristocracy
At the heart of the book sits an argument about meritocracy that many readers found counterintuitive. Meritocracy is usually defended as the opposite of aristocracy — a system that rewards ability rather than birth, that opens the top to talent from anywhere. Lasch argued that in practice it had become a more insidious version of the thing it claimed to replace. An aristocracy of birth at least knew it was an accident; it could feel a certain obligation toward those less fortunate precisely because it had not earned its position. A meritocracy tells itself the opposite story.
If the people at the top are there because they deserve to be, then the people at the bottom must be there because they deserve that too. Merit becomes a justification, a way of converting inequality into something that feels fair and therefore demands no remedy. Lasch saw this conviction hardening across the professional class: a belief that their advantages were simply the honest fruit of intelligence and effort, and that the social order was, give or take, a fair race whose winners had been correctly identified.
03 Chapter 3 — The spaces where the common world used to be
Lasch was interested in the physical and institutional shape of this withdrawal, not just its attitudes. A democracy, in his account, depends on what he called third places — the public institutions and shared spaces where people of different backgrounds actually encounter one another. Parks, libraries, public schools, town squares, the streets of a real downtown. These were the settings in which citizens learned to argue, to compromise, to recognize one another as members of the same community. They were, he thought, in decay.
The new elite had withdrawn from them. Their children attended private schools or well-funded suburban ones; they exercised in private clubs rather than public parks, shopped in enclosed and secured spaces, and increasingly lived in communities designed to filter out contact with anyone unlike themselves. Public institutions, no longer used by the people with the most money and influence, lost their constituency and their funding. The common world shrank as its most powerful members simply opted out of it, one private arrangement at a time.
04 Chapter 4 — Democracy as an argument, not a market
Step back from the particular grievances and a larger question comes into view, the one Lasch was really circling. What does it take for a democracy to function — not merely to hold elections, but to govern itself? His answer was that democracy is less a set of procedures than a shared practice of public argument, and that practice requires a public: people who inhabit enough common ground to disagree productively rather than simply pass one another by. Remove the common ground and the procedures keep running on empty.
This is why he worried so much about the decline of public conversation. He defended the idea that democracy needs vigorous, even heated debate — the kind that forces people to defend their views against neighbors who see things differently. Information was not the scarce resource; argument was. A society could be drowning in facts and still lose the capacity for self-government if its citizens no longer met on any terrain where their disagreements had to be worked out together. The professional class, insulated in its enclaves, was losing the habit of that encounter and taking the institutions that hosted it down too.
05 Conclusion
Lasch died in February 1994, before the book appeared, and did not live to see how neatly his portrait would map onto the decades that followed — the widening gap between credentialed professionals and everyone else, the hardening of educated opinion into a world of its own, the resentments that would eventually erupt in politics neither party had predicted. He had described the secession of the fortunate while it was still largely invisible to the people living inside it, which is part of why the diagnosis reads as prophecy rather than complaint.
Related books
