Adam Smith was there first with liberal and austere morality

From The Wealth of Nations Book V, Chapter I by Adam Smith.  

In every civilized society, in every society where the distinction of ranks has once been completely established, there have been always two different schemes or systems of morality current at the same time; of which the one may be called the strict or austere; the other the liberal, or, if you will, the loose system. The former is generally admired and revered by the common people: the latter is commonly more esteemed and adopted by what are called people of fashion. The degree of disapprobation with which we ought to mark the vices of levity, the vices which are apt to arise from great prosperity, and from the excess of gaiety and good humor, seems to constitute the principal distinction between those two opposite schemes or systems. In the liberal or loose system, luxury, wanton and even disorderly mirth, the pursuit of pleasure to some degree of intemperance, the breach of chastity, at least in one of the two sexes, etc., provided they are not accompanied with gross indecency, and do not lead to falsehood or injustice, are generally treated with a good deal of indulgence, and are easily either excused or pardoned altogether. In the austere system, on the contrary, those excesses are regarded with the utmost abhorrence and detestation. The vices of levity are always ruinous to the common people, and a single week’s thoughtlessness and dissipation is often sufficient to undo a poor workman for ever, and to drive him through despair upon committing the most enormous crimes. The wiser and better sort of the common people, therefore, have always the utmost abhorrence and detestation of such excesses, which their experience tells them are so immediately fatal to people of their condition. The disorder and extravagance of several years, on the contrary, will not always ruin a man of fashion, and people of that rank are very apt to consider the power of indulging in some degree of excess as one of the advantages of their fortune, and the liberty of doing so without censure or reproach as one of the privileges which belong to their station. In people of their own station, therefore, they regard such excesses with but a small degree of disapprobation, and censure them either very slightly or not at all.

I noted this passage some years ago.  It occurs to me now that there are two modern thinkers who have been bringing attention to the modern day version of this phenomenon but I don't think either of them have alluded to this passage by Smith, making me think that they are unaware of his earlier insight.

Charles Murray in his Coming Apart, makes the point again and again, that the wealthy, highly productive, successful classes live their lives according to what Adam Smith describes as austere morality.  They practice self-control and self-discipline.  They marry and don't divorce.  They don't have children out of wedlock.  They spend less than they earn.  They don't gamble for entertainment.  They don't drink in excess.  All these behaviors are core to their success and their productivity.

Murray's frustration is that they live the austere morality but they preach the liberal morality - anything goes, be yourself, don't let others define you, screw the system, etc.  Murray wants them to be advocates of the systems of behavior which make them successful.  The systems of behavior which would make most people successful were they inculcated with those behaviors.  Instead, outside the upper echelons, everyone else is told to indulge themselves, to practice the liberal morality.

It is almost as if the upper echelons are deliberately but subtly subverting everyone else.

Rob Henderson is the other contemporary thinker who is echoing Smith.  Henderson has formulated the concept of luxury beliefs:  

In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods. Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.

People care a lot about social status. In fact, research indicates that respect and admiration from our peers are even more important than money for our sense of well-being.

We feel pressure to display our status in new ways. This is why fashionable clothing always changes. But as trendy clothes and other products become more accessible and affordable, there is increasingly less status attached to luxury goods.

The upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem: luxury beliefs. These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.

One example of luxury belief is that all family structures are equal. This is not true. Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children. And yet, affluent, educated people raised by two married parents are more likely than others to believe monogamy is outdated, marriage is a sham or that all families are the same.

Relaxed attitudes about marriage trickle down to the working class and the poor. In the 1960s, marriage rates between upper-class and lower-class Americans were nearly identical. But during this time, affluent Americans loosened social norms, expressing skepticism about marriage and monogamy.

This luxury belief contributed to the erosion of the family. Today, the marriage rates of affluent Americans are nearly the same as they were in the 1960s. But working-class people are far less likely to get married. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock birthrates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class. Affluent people seldom have kids out of wedlock but are more likely than others to express the luxury belief that doing so is of no consequence. 

[snip]

Upper-class people don a luxury belief to separate themselves from the lower class. 

Fascinating to see the same phenomenon working in slightly different ways across two and a half centuries and different national circumstances.