Subway Takes, an online series in which celebrities sit on the New York Subway and offer their hottest “takes”, is an interesting cultural phenomenon. This is not because of the quality of the opinions expressed, but because it reveals how empty-headed famous people are — and, more than that, how much their takes, at a deep, logical level, contradict their progressive belief structure.

A good example of this can be found in the recent episode featuring the singer Jennifer Lopez. Speaking to host Kareem Rahma, J.Lo argues that you have to be born in New York to be a New Yorker. Though she might not realise it, this view evinces a tribalism that would impress the most ardent nationalist. Its logic is basically conservative and, applied at scale, is equivalent to nationalism. Fans, recognising this, were not happy.

Lopez’s take, interestingly, bears rhetorical similarity to Spencer Pratt’s mayoral campaign in Los Angeles, which appeals to pride in being an Angelino and having a sense of duty to clean up one’s hometown. If one can “be” a New Yorker or an Angelino, if there exists an inherited culture and tradition, then there is something worth defending. It follows, therefore, that there must be rules and limits. In this political mode, true locals righteously reject the grad-school socialism of transplants.

Subway Takes appeals to urban progressives and wannabe media elites because it gives famous people — and up-and-coming famous people — a chance to show that they don’t entirely think in orthodoxies. It is not really designed to be a vehicle for public displays of deep thinking, but instead to show that celebs are people too — they have a (safe) edge.

The basic format involves getting a progressive celeb or micro-celeb to say they don’t like XYZ and that XYZ should stop or go away. The optics and the tone of the show — funny and optimistic — evoke Mamdani-era Leftism, but the underlying message has a hint of the dark and reactionary, speaking to a need for the social order that progressivism has otherwise disallowed. It introduces the idea of an us and a them, things which should be done and things which shouldn’t. By their very nature, these takes are rooted in basic instincts about the fabric of society.

Urban progressives do not really practice equal-opportunity tolerance and see no reason why certain groups of bad guys or outsiders should be excluded from the fruits of professional-managerial-class utopia. They are often willing to advocate for tribalism and exclusion — based on race, caste, geography, and class — as long as they feel they’re talking to a fellow progressive in service of larger progressive goals. Vox-pop interviews simply draw out this revealed preference.

---

Matthew Gasda is a playwright, author, and columnist for UnHerd, based in New York City.

FOMO_sacer

---