Of Course They Don't Want to Talk Politics

Our flight to Paris was canceled due to a mechanical issue, which I suspect was the result of the under-reported mechanics' strike. Workers of the world unite, but do you think you could let us make our connecting flight?

When we finally arrived in France a day late, the internet in our AirBNB only worked in this one spot in the middle of the apartment, and only if I held my phone a little above my head. So I was unconnected for a few days and missed out on the online debate about whether personal finance should aim to have less (maybe ideally, "no") politics involved. It was genuinely eye-opening to read what people actually mean when they say 'political', too. (I think at least half the people involved mean they don't want personal finance talk to get 'partisan'.)

Unfortunately, I noticed an unsurprising trend when observing who was arguing to have a space where they could talk about personal finance free from political discussion. Basically, the group seemed to be nearly all white, male, and straight. Given that they also seem to be right-leaning, the thing they are arguing for, a personal finance community kept free from political talk (a safe space for well-off right leaning white dudes, if you will) is pretty ironic.

Whatever happened to their marketplace of ideas?

It's not all that surprising that this is the group that wants to keep personal finance free from politics. A discussion of politics is a discussion about power: who has power, who doesn't, and what ought to be done to change that. Of course the group already in power and already doing well is not particularly interested in an open discussion of that power, and whether it's justified.

For one, it's just awkward for this group, or at least it should be.

On a personal level, it challenges their conservative, individualistic world view: that the world is a fair place, some version of a meritocracy, where your circumstances are a reflection of how hard you worked. And since they're doing well, doesn't that say something nice about them, too?

Of course they don't want more discussions on the parts of personal finance that involve the intersections of gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, and the like. These nuances complicate the neat meritocracy they believe in and, worse yet, challenge the narrative that they've earned, and deserve, their choice lot in life.

If it were possible that their riches were partially the result of hitting a genetic and geographic lottery, of just being somewhat lucky, well, that might feel bad. And we can't have that. 

The group in power that is already doing well financially rarely, if ever, wants to hear about any of this stuff. To the degree that they're forced into such a discussion, the talking points are clear: gender, race, and sexual orientation are overblown, if they matter at all. They have anecdotal examples of people from each group that succeeded, so why couldn't anyone? If people would tune out the noise and instead focus on their locus of control, then they'd see they could get ahead, too.

Basically, this is the individualist's playbook. Focus on you, take care of your side of the street, and everything will work out, financially and otherwise.

Of course, this worldview is hopelessly naive and self-centered, and also just happens to not be true. The successful often need to believe the world is a meritocracy, survivorship bias be damned. But even a cursory look at life outside their gentrified neighborhoods would show that this view is, at best, half true. Any success is always somewhat based on hard work and skill, but it also always involves a good deal of luck. It is the same story with failure: luck and skill each play a part.

The refrain from those shying away from mixing politics and personal finance often claim it's to keep things civil: to keep a unity in this special group of writers and podcasters. Forgive my cynicism, but I think that's a bit too convenient. Rather, I think those happy with the status quo are just so spoiled that they can't even be bothered with conversations that might make them feel momentarily uncomfortable. It's not enough to have hit all three genetic lotteries of being straight, white, and male, Chris would also like it if the people around him could simply avoid conversations he finds difficult.

The in-group, the group in power, is always the one who wants to discourage these talks.

Men are always the one trying to avoid discussion of gender or the wage gap, who bristle at the mention of 'feminism'.

White people are always the ones claiming someone is 'playing the race card' or 'making everything about race'.

Straight people are always the ones complaining about someone's sexuality 'being shoved in their face'.

These patterns aren't accidents. They're not honest attempts at civility or unity. They're expressions of the in-group's desire to maintain the status quo: to discourage even a discussion about change. Because change might involve them losing their privileged positions.

And what might happen then? After living a life of privilege for so long, how might these straight white men fare in a slightly different world? If the rules changed just a little, and they were put on an even playing field with those around them, something closer to a true meritocracy, might they not keep on winning, year after year, as they have?

Perish the thought. Let's change the subject to something more pleasant. Something less divisive.

Did you catch that post the other day about the five year Roth pipeline? Turns out with some planning, you can retire early and never pay income taxes on any of the money. Sounds neat, right?

*Photo is from dmoberhaus at Flickr Creative Commons.

**Having trouble leaving comments? Blogger's comments require cookies from third parties, which your browser may block (especially if you use Safari). You can change your settings here:

• Change cookie settings on Safari
• Change cookie settings on Chrome
• Change cookie settings on Internet Explorer