The death of Alex Pretti, who was shot in a confrontation with two Customs and Border Patrol agents at a pro-immigration protest in Minneapolis last January, dominated headlines for weeks. Initially, much of the commentary focused on the forensic details: who shot first, whether the dead man was licensed to carry a weapon, and the intricacies of Minnesota firearms law. The more interesting question, however, was barely touched. Why was Pretti there at all?

Even before DOGE or the latest revelations concerning the Southern Poverty Law Center’s abuse of federal funds to drive demand from clients, conservatives have been pointing out for decades how the left uses taxpayer money and shadowy NGOs to purchase loyalty. And prior to that, critics noted how welfare and affirmative action are used to reward Democratic voters. Still, it is curious to observe straight white male professionals such as Pretti throwing themselves into danger, when there seems to be no obvious benefit offered to them from the political left.​

Progressive politics has long operated on the principle of patronage. While lower-class clients of leftist patronage networks, such as the urban poor and illegal immigrants, receive direct material and legal rewards, it has not always been clear what motivates middle-class progressives. That’s because they are bound by something more intangible: social and emotional patronage. The exchange works like this: They receive status, assurance of their moral superiority, and a sense of belonging when they align with the woke left. This social bribe explains why middle-class liberals support high taxes, high crime, and mass migration, despite the personal costs to them.​

Conversations with left-leaning, middle-class friends and family reveal common complaints about the cost of living and limited economic and professional advancement opportunities. Many of these frustrations are legitimate and shared by many on the right. It would seem logical that people like this would be the most fervent opponents of “the system,” but for people like Pretti, nothing could be further from the truth. Despite casting themselves as social revolutionaries, when you scratch a progressive activist, you find “he/she/ze” shares the same politics as nearly every representative of a large bank, manufacturer, or pharmaceutical company. ​

Although middle-class progressives receive little direct patronage from the left, they remain staunch supporters of the political establishment. The reason is simple: they are not primarily rational economic actors. They are clients trading loyalty for status.​

Status and wealth overlap, but they are not synonymous. Men like President Trump—men who have built their own wealth—have vast resources at their disposal, but in modern America, they are of lower social status than an Ivy League adjunct professor earning $65,000 a year.​

Despite his wealth, Trump lacks the accreditation and approval of prestigious institutions. Poor artists, activists, and intellectuals, on the other hand, are granted access to “high society,” despite their humble material conditions.​

More so than any other group, the middle, or striver, class is sensitive to social signaling. Trends that begin in wealthy enclaves quickly move down the social ladder. In the mid-1980s, sushi was a delicacy exclusive to the elite coastal cities (a joke in the movie The Breakfast Club), but in the current year, even small cities have a half-dozen of these restaurants. This social game creates a constant arms race: the upper class needs to differentiate itself, while the middle class wants to ape high-status trends.​

We observe the same dynamic at play when we examine politics. The luxury beliefs of the cultural elite have spread through our culture from the top down. Look at modern sexual practices, which once would have been confined to decadent aristocrats, but are now common even among the lowest rungs of society.​

Given that our elites are deeply progressive, it is no shock that their institutions are as well. Consequently, our accrediting institutions that dole out social status are also deeply leftist. To climb or maintain their social positions, middle-class liberals will adhere to the party line because doing so is perceived as high status by their peers.​

The average progressive may never receive any monetary benefit from the left. He may even have had his car stolen or his city scorched in a riot. Instead of a physical reward, he has been granted higher social status as a friend of the progressive left. Even if he is poor and in danger, he can imagine himself as among the esteemed. Perhaps most importantly, he feels he is of a higher status than his backward parents and peers.​

However, if a client exits the patronage relationship, this moral standing is withdrawn. Not only would he lose future rewards, but he would also forfeit his social standing and moral status. Even worse, the only thing left-wing culture hates more than an enemy is a traitor. This social control forms a powerful carrot-and-stick approach that commands deep loyalty.​

This dynamic may clarify the liberal disdain for the small business owners and blue-collar tradesmen: the modern-day kulaks. Middle-class progressives seem to envy the relative wealth and security of their perceived social inferiors, who often don’t feel inferior because they lack a degree from an expensive liberal arts college. Those entrapped in the left’s social patronage network resent the fact that, while high status, they are still poorer than their class enemies.​

In any case, this social and emotional patronage explains the unusual cast of characters at progressive political demonstrations. While the front line is made up of a cartoonish lineup of freaks, degenerates, and felons, the rest of the mob is full of seemingly normal people.​

For example, consider the infamous Portland “Wall of Moms.” Before being targeted as “anti-black,” this group of yellow-clad women threw themselves into the midst of violent anti-government riots during the fiery summer of 2020. Few of these mothers seemed likely to have a “lived experience” of police violence. Nevertheless, they placed themselves in front of armed officers in an attempt to achieve a higher social status (which was eventually denied to them anyway).​

To understand how the left remains popular even among the demographics that it harms, it is necessary to understand how this social and emotional patronage works on those who crave it. Grasping this will also serve to discredit the vain hope among too many on the right that middle-class progressives will one day “wake up” and realize that they are supporting their own replacement and dispossession.​

Progressives are not rational economic actors weighing the costs and benefits of their political positions. Instead, progressives are clients who have traded their loyalty, if not for economic benefits, then for perceived social status and emotional rewards. This relationship will not weaken until the beliefs of the progressive left lose their social prestige.