Very Serious People
|One of the|
|And a dirty dozen more|
“”Good to know my nation’s foreign policy was in the hands of a Palpatine fanboy. THOSE REBELS WERE JUST LOOKING FOR A HANDOUT!...I honestly can’t believe I live in a world where fartsniffers like Kristol and Tom Friedman still manage to flourish. Why haven’t these men been dropped down a manhole? Who keeps giving them money? I have no faith in anything.
- being dishonest and self-serving,
- presenting facile common sense analyses as Great Wisdom, and
- consistently getting political predictions or policy recommendations wrong.
 Characteristics of Very Serious People
- Identification with upper middle class, respectable person values and culture to a man, regardless of original background. Tends to wear white-collar clothing at all times. Public policy discussions are filtered via a parochial, gated community lens.
- Valuing common sense over scientific consensus when there is a conflict. When pushed far enough VSP will eventually err on the side of science, but will hold a candle for pseudoscience as long as it has a veneer of respectability. (Not having expertise of any kind is a feature, not a defect, of VSP.)
- Loves the hell out of the balance fallacy. They feel uncomfortable pointing out flaws concentrated in the right-wing or left-wing without pointing to an opposite example. "Both sides do it!" May abuse the Horseshoe theory as well.
- Are reluctant to identify their exact politics but if they do they usually identify themselves as something uncontroversial such as "moderately conservative," "traditionalist," or "radically centrist."
- Consistently taking moderate positions; very rarely will an individual Very Serious Person have an opinion that is too far out of the mainstream. This also leads to VSP being reflexively dismissive of alternate political perspectives such as libertarianism and socialism, regardless of the truth value of individual claims.
- Overemphasizes civility and niceness in public discourse. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street were looked down upon not because of their aims but because their tactics were too "disruptive" and "mean."
- As long as the previous caveat is satisfied, a fondness for the style over substance fallacy when evaluating political positions. Bullshit wrapped in a folksy anecdote and a G-rated zinger is more worthy of praise than the sober counter-point.
- Many (but not all) are overtly optimistic about the nature of politics, to the point of idealism. Oh, one party is willingly prepared to hijack the world economy because a law they don't like got passed? Oh, stop complaining and compromise like a Clinton. It's all good.
- Bored by examining proxy causes or causal chains with more than two links. Loves the abuse of Occam's Razor.
- Hegemonic. The government, regardless of ideology, is given the benefit of the doubt. This is especially true of the U.S. military.
- Have an odd fascination/admiration of "Real America," usually meaning small towns in the Midwest. They are very protective of these areas from what they considered negative forms of elitism, such as Hollywood values and "liberal elites," though corporations that disturb traditional small city life (e.g. Wal-Mart) may also be met with hostility. Ironically, they themselves are usually city-dwellers and members of the elite; see the very first bullet point on this list.
- Hysterical of generalized criticisms of Christianity, heteronormativity, privilege, and Western history or foreign policy. Criticizing excesses is on the table as long as it's made out to be a unique event. Don't you dare suggest that Abu Ghraib was caused by a toxic culture of Islamophobia and authoritarianism in the military; it was just lone American-hating perverts! And everything's fine now! (This courtesy is not extended to subcultures at large; Muslims, gays, pacifism, female public figures, or French politics can be and are slammed without reciprocity being extended.)
But most importantly:
- Faces no punishment, ridicule, or loss of status for incorrect or mistaken opinions as long as the opinions were mainstream when made.
 Typical policies
- American exceptionalism or, in the case of British VSPs, "whig history".
- Consumerism except when it is perceived to challenge traditional values.
- Deficit hawkery, placing an emphasis on budget deficits over and beyond what both left and right-wing economists do.
- Enthusiastic support for wars as long as they're not too messy. The Gulf War is a darling of the VSP because it had all of the excitement of war with none of the messy (read: American) casualties or length. The Falklands War has a similar status for equivalent types in Britain, for those reasons but also because it gave them the strength to take on and defeat the trade unions.
- Live and let-live viewpoint on subcultures with some mild disdain at worst. Laudable, but this often dovetails into being tolerant of intolerance, as long as it's quiet.
- Non-interventionist on civil rights. While VSP are strongly against rolling back civil rights that are already in place or fighting against long-term viewpoints on civil rights (such as an acceptance of women in the workforce), they prefer quieter "middle-ground" solutions like civil unions or Don't ask, don't tell.
- Sunday school environmentalism.
- Skepticism towards social safety nets, not because of economic concerns, but moral ones. (VSPs love them some welfare queen memes.)
- Support for the War on Drugs and any policies that purport to be "tough on crime."
 In summary
While Very Serious People are mostly harmless insofar that they allow the country they reside in to bumble along inefficiently, the insistence on respectability and consensus over the more important concern of being correct can have disastrous consequences. The 2012 US Presidential Election was a great example of observing VSP mentality — in the single vice-presidential debate, you had a flippant, buffoonish, smirking incumbent up against a calm, charming, and attractive challenger. It's quite obvious who got the benefit of the doubt, despite the latter being the one consistently talking out of his ass.
That said, the existence and historical failures of Very Serious People should not be evidence of useful idiots propping up some sinister government agenda. Rather, it's a result of insular groupthink and the need to appeal to as broad of an audience as possible. Very Serious People have existed throughout history. The truth hurts and confrontation is offensive, but pablum is a warm puppy. Paul Krugman also refers to this as "Serious Person Syndrome," which states "it’s better to have been conventionally wrong than unconventionally right."
 Very Serious Pundits
- John Avlon
- Wolf Blitzer
- David Broder
- David Brooks
- Ross Douthat
- Ron Fournier
- Thomas Friedman - Possibly the VSP, if it's not Brooks.
- David Frum
- Richard Haass
- Charles Krauthammer
- William Kristol
- Art "That's So Funny I Forgot To" Laffer
- Megan McArdle
- Matt Miller
- Peggy Noonan
- Joe Scarborough
- Chuck Todd
- George Will
- Fareed Zakaria
 Very Serious Politicians
 See also
- Americans Elect
- Epistemic closure
- Igon Value Problem
- Pluralistic ignorance
- Proll - The opposite since they usually cater to extremists and are purposely controversial.
- Tone troll
- Wingnut welfare
- An example of a VSP site.
- How to Write Love Letters to America's Nonexistent Political Middle, Gawker
- ↑ Drew Magary, Deadspin
- ↑ This is a phrase that refers to Washington D.C., the capital of the United States, to whose politics and policy this article confines itself.
- ↑ Ironically, Krugman is considered a Very Serious Person by MMTers, but tu quoque aside, the underlying concept has some merit insofar as skepticism is concerned.
- ↑ Be wary when judging politicians outside the American sphere of influence; David Cameron and Nick Clegg would fit in the exact mold, but they're not this stupid.
- ↑ See The Economist
- ↑ Unless we're talking about hippies, but everyone makes fun of hippies.
- ↑ Such as Iraq. And if they don't show some spine really quickly, climate change.
- ↑ If you're visualizing the Nixon-Kennedy and Carter-Reagan debates as similarly going along this route, you're probably right.
- ↑ Serious Person Syndrome, The New York Times