Angelo M. Codevilla in The American Spectator writes a long, well-detailed, long, and interesting long piece on the rise through history of a 'progressive' class running the US, and just how that class came into existence.
He details the massive difficulty which those who wish to be self-governing (whom he calls the Country Class) will have to reform a government that has become ever more bloated and omnipresent in the life of the average person.
This is an excellent, though time-consuming (did I mention that it is long?) read, although it left me a bit depressed.
I read this yesterday. It was depressing. :(
ReplyDeleteI read through it - could have used some editing, nay?
ReplyDeleteAnd while I concur with the overall sentiment, I felt it was a bit slippery in places.
For instance, for reasons I've expounded on ad nauseum in the past, the TARP circa 2008 was a very different beast from the 2009 bailouts and "stimulus". The politicians (principally Republican) who went along with TARP but objected to the bailouts were not partisan hypocrites at all. It hinges on whether you believe the aftermath of the Lehman collapse in 2008 represented a genuine, systemic, existential national emergency, or not. I do.
At another point early on, the author insinuates Wilson's invasion of Mexico was some misguided imperial "nation building" exercise. In fact, Wilson was pushing back the armed encroachment of a failed state - sound familiar? Would that we would do the same today.
The author also sets up a dichotomy between Christians and "progressives", which he identifies with rationalist philosophies from Europe - and goes on to tie Prohibition to this crew. Not mentioning the fact that the Temperance movement (like the Abolitionist movement) had some very Christian roots.
So like I said, while I agree with the idea of a ruling class that holds the majority in utter contempt, I'm disinterested in buying the whole narrative.
The article is polemic, designed to elicit contempt for the "ruling class". Well alright - they have it coming - but all political narrative is suspect for me, even if it supports political objectives I agree with.
I can generate contempt for the "ruling class" more succinctly - it's very simple. They hate you. I know first hand, as I still get invited to the "right" parties from time to time. The contempt is visceral, palpable and consequential.
Once this is accepted, everything else is secondary. "Explaining" it just creates narrative, noise, confusion. Many strands wove the current ruling class fabric, and not all of them bad. Many strands came together in the rest of the people, not all of them meritorious.
It doesn't matter now. The ruling class is real and they don't care what you think the Constitution says, they do as they see fit.
I agree the article needed editing, in more ways than one. I was surprised that conservative talk radio talked about this piece so extensively yesterday.
ReplyDeleteCodevilla took a lot of ink to make one point: the ruling class despises everyone "under" them. I fear that ANYONE we elect in November will consider themselves crowned, and quickly scramble to become a part of the self-appointed elites.
As an electorate, how can we fight back? How do we impose term limits on these royals?
Four years and OUT for the Senate. Six years and OUT for the House.
Provide them modest housing while they are in Washington, a vehicle, and oh...say...50 grand a year. Put the "service" back in public service.
No lifetime benefits for serving. No pension. No nada.
Just my two cents.
"Four years and OUT for the Senate. Six years and OUT for the House."
ReplyDeleteLady Red - I think you meant to reverse that.
An extremely lucrative lifetime pension for a few years is ridiculous for a few years of 'service'.
But so long as having the ear (and touch of a magic wand) of some gov't organization is the easy path to success, then ending the grasping for power by the political classes will probably not be easily accomplished.
Hmm, maybe. How about four and OUT for all of them? ;)
ReplyDeleteWe've gone so far down this road that the infection is systemic. We'd have to throw all the bums out, elected and appointed, and start from scratch.
I think I would like to see an 'up or out' policy, actually.
ReplyDelete8 years max, in the House. Then the candidate can run for the Senate (against anyone else who qualifies, whether they had served in a legislature or not). If your constituents don't think you should move up, then you're out.
12 years max, in the Senate, then a run for the presidency, again after which you are out.
8 years as President, then gone.
Allow campaign contributions only within your district, for the house, or your state, for the senate. The presidential candidates could accept national contributions with strict limits. No foreign contributions at any level, period.
As a pension, contribute to Social Security at the highest level, plus any IRA's or 401K's you can afford, just to be sure you are in the same financial boat as those you work for.
And of course, all of the above is silliness, but . . .
ReplyDeleteI am home from work, today, because my car is in the shop.
ReplyDeleteSo I finished a political cartoon I've had in my mind for a week or more. Now the problem is that I can't get my sisters scanner to work, and she does not know where the manual is.