There is a hole in this article, which the book it is reviewing may fill in. It's the hole that ignores how this new bourgeoisie regards class, race, and gender all as part of their moral code. Twenty-five years ago, a woman in her early 40s with a small child could say, without any fear of condemnation whatsoever, that she hopes her son would not grew up gay. "And if he is gay, I hope he isn't too effeminate." Today, that woman would have to qualify her statement very quickly -- "No, I'm just afraid of how society will treat him" -- before her peers rush to condemn her. You think Mexicans are taking your jobs? Go to hell. You're not part of our club. Do you hate Trump? You can join our crowd.
Now, I am on the side of all these moral codes. I think we should be at a point where non-dominant forms of sexual orientation should be celebrated, and that any mother should consider gayness a gift to her son. I believe immigrants should be welcomed. And I hate Trump. And I am disturbed when I meet people who feel differently.
"I hope my baby doesn't have Down's Syndrome. I don't want a dumb kid. My kid is autistic. Not extremely. But he's on the spectrum. I just wish he wasn't. Yes, he has all this intelligence too, but I wish he wasn't autistic. Anyone who doesn't believe all our soldiers are heroes is a horrible person."
Whether I agree or don't agree with any of the previous -- or rather, whether I feel or don't feel these things to be true -- I think all these statements are wrong on some level. They should all be questioned, and probably condemned. The first two privilege a certain type of mental ability that we have been taught to honor, the one that gets your kid into Tufts. The third accepts a destructive worldview that kills a lot of people, although probably not your own kid who won't be going to war anytime soon, because he is going to Tufts.
The New Victorians' bigotries are not limited to class.