In 1997, journalist David Brooks introduced the phrase “latte liberal.” It has come to be used as shorthand for a specific leftist ideology, which critics dismiss as an elitist luxury of the bourgeoisie. This term was born through a bigger discussion about consumerism. That, more than anything else, I think, illuminates the distance between liberal values and the day-to-day realities of millions of Americans. Yet over the years, the latte has become more than just a drink; it’s become a potent cultural symbol. It now stands for a more granular, localized lifestyle and ideological stance.
Brooks initially used the term in a 2000 article for the Weekly Standard. His ultimate point was that the crunchy consumerist leftism of that time was not available to people without money. He noted that this trend was most acute in cities where rich, liberal elites had clustered.
“You know you’re in a Latte Town when you can hop right off a bike path, browse in a used bookstore with shelves and shelves of tomes on Marxism the owner can no longer get rid of, and then drink coffee at a place with a punnish name that must have the word ‘Grounds’ in it…” – David Brooks
By 2000, the term was gaining traction well beyond its original context. The Times utilized “latte liberal” to describe the burgeoning hipster culture in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood, where artisanal coffee shops and vegan eateries flourished. That connection only grew stronger as political rhetoric started to use the term in meaningful ways.
In 2004, a Republican-aligned PAC flew one such ad into the midst of an ongoing presidential campaign. The four went on to call Democratic candidate Howard Dean a “latte liberal.” Lattes came crashing into the political discourse, representing progressive elitism. This movement exposed their alienation from mainstream America.
The political landscape continued to evolve with Newt Gingrich’s 2014 critique of New York Mayor Bill De Blasio’s policies, which he dismissed as “small soy latte liberalism.” Such statements reflect an enduring stereotype: that drinking lattes signifies a certain cultural and ideological identity.
Digging deeper shows that we are more likely to subscribe to a blend of coffee that matches our party affiliation. A survey conducted by Diana C Mutz and Jahnavi S Rao found that 16% of liberals prefer lattes, compared to just 9% of conservatives. Liberals showed a much greater tendency to choose espressos compared to conservatives.
Though there are taste differences between the two, Americans overwhelmingly still enjoy brewed coffee. This is the good news — as alluded to above, preferences are not particularly strong on the whole. The latte’s hold as a cultural touchstone remains mostly, but not exclusively, because of its velvety texture and ties to city mouse refinement.
As trend pieces have been predicting for years — or maybe just boasting — downing a few matcha lattes makes you inclinations to be sensitive, feminist-leaning, and cosmopolitan. For thirty years, these drinks have been the reliable bellwether for beverage industry trend hawkers. This massive success has made them a staple in pop culture.
Perhaps remarkably, cultural references have gone a long way in perpetuating the connection between lattes and progressive principles. In Drake’s 2010 song “Thank Me Now,” he mentions “double-pump lattes and low-fat muffins,” underscoring how deeply ingrained this imagery has become in contemporary society.
Surprisingly, the latte’s connection with privilege goes back much further than the last twelve years. On the Persians for whom milk was a staple, Aristotle famously critiqued their taste as “whitish pus.” This old love story is still alive and well today. What it makes clear is that seeing some foods or beverages as elitist is hardly a contemporary phenomenon.
The stereotype of the latte liberal remains potent today, partly due to the visual associations tied to creamy and white beverages. Lattes represent a whole way of life that many view as elitist and rich and progressive. Indeed, they are beloved in equal measure for the very same reasons by diametrically opposing political camps.