Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: A Pro-Government Party . . . Versus What?
Source:
Library of Law & Liberty
URL Source: http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/ ... -government-party-versus-what/
Published: Dec 1, 2014
Author: Angelo Codevilla
Post Date: 2014-12-10 14:55:49 by nativist nationalist
Keywords: None
Views: 3262
Comments: 13
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), known for his perceptiveness, ascribed his party’s 2014 defeat to the fact that, since the Democrats are the “pro- government party,” their electoral fortunes are tied to what Americans think about the role of government in their and in the country’s life. The accuracy of that self-description is beyond question. The Party’s character is set by persons whom Joel Kotkin dubs “gentry liberals”—they hold the commanding heights of government, as well as of cultural and corporate life. They figure prominently, says Kotkin, in the “affluent classes as well as the powerful public sector.” Every election day, Democratic votes come, very disproportionately, from ethnic minorities, single women, gays, first-time voters, and other members of groups deemed in need of protection by government (such as environmentalists, and supporters of the abortion industry). The party’s leaders and the party’s base view government as a means of imposing their social preferences on other Americans, and as a source of material benefit for themselves. In short, government is the Democratic Party’s intense but narrow cosa nostra. Since only about one-fifth of the American people express confidence that the government will do the right thing; since they see, as does Senator Schumer, that government in America has become a partisan thing; and since some two-thirds of Americans—including married people and churchgoers of all races, persons employed in the private sector including craft unions—see government as a negative influence on their lives, the Democratic Party’s emerging problem is big and basic. Its size may be measured by noting that the Democratic Party no longer even tries wooing the “white working class,” that it concedes to its opponents majority support among men as well as among the 75 percent of the U.S. population who are white, and that it counts on squeezing ever-bigger majorities out of its narrow base. Democrats on the other hand derive long-term solace from the proposition that America must change demographically, and therefore politically: fewer whites, fewer marriages, fewer churchgoers, a smaller private sector will redound to the benefit of Democratic candidates. No one contends, even so, that such demographic trends would turn the Democrats’ constituencies into a majority. Nor is there any reason to believe that the base-exciting, polarized rhetoric by which the Democratic Party has lived for the past generation, can continue without producing an equal and opposite polarization against Democrats. In sum, the business model of the “pro-government party” is tenuous in the short run and foredoomed in the long run. What has saved this party thus far, of course, is that our political system provides no electoral vehicle for the majority of Americans whose interests or predilections differ from those of government. Today no party is out there working for the votes of those Americans who do not want to rule others because they prefer to rule themselves. So long as such a vehicle does not exist, the “pro-government party” can lumber on despite its serious infirmities. Even as an overwhelming majority of voters—and those too discouraged to go and cast a vote on election day—clamor for protection against government that issues overbearing and unaccountable rules, that serves narrow constituencies at the cost of scrambling and impoverishing the lives of the rest, the Republican Party’s establishment tries to answer that clamor by presenting yet another set of rulers, rather than protectors of the people’s freedom against the ruling class. The sad fact is that the Republican establishment’s social identity is, if not identical, then close to that of the Democrats’ “gentry liberals.” The GOP’s political financing comes from the same place Democratic financing comes from: Wall Street, big banks and insurance companies, and businesses such as are represented by the Business Roundtable. That is why there is little difference in the character of the appointees of Democratic and Republican administrations. The differences come in the constituencies served by the government’s exquisitely detailed rule-making, a process accessible and knowable only by insiders. The differences between, say, George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, and his Democratic successor, Timothy Gaithner, were imperceptible to those of us outside the circles of the blessed. Similarly, although all Republicans in the fall of 2014 campaigned for repealing Obamacare, the Republican establishment is preparing to vote to support the Democrats’ bailout of insurance companies’ losses due to Obamacare. From the moderate Left, Stanford political science professor Morris Fiorina comments that voters can choose between a party that openly admits to being a lap dog of Wall Street and a party that by its actions clearly is a lap dog but denies it. At least vote for the honest one. But the rest of the country, it seems, is looking beyond the two parties to the single essential issue: whether the government will continue to increase its mastery over us or whether it will be cut back to its proper role. The “pro-government party,” solid in character, identity and interest, is an immutable pole of American public life. Our future rests on whether the rest of America can dismiss the Republican establishment’s double game and coalesce around a distinctly different political force.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nativist nationalist (#0)
And the answer to the question is right here on this very site and this very thread! Who's ready to leave the GOP for good and form a new party? Show of hands, right now.
I'll up the ante by leaving both wings of the D&R party, but I'm not about to become a gangbanger by joining another party. Just vote for someone whom you'd genuinely like to see in office regardless of gang affiliation, or preferably no gang at all. Previous criminal experience as an elected official, or party honcho, will be counted against them. But you follow this Kabuki Theater like it means something. You are such a dolt, honddope.
you follow this Kabuki Theater like it means something. What difference does it make if Obongo drone bombs you? Can't see it from my house.
Who's ready to leave the GOP for good and form a new party? Show of hands, right now. I'll get back with you on the weekend, during the week I have little time and your post deserves a serious answer. Thank you.
Following and observing LIFE means more than just playing the ponies, doesn't it? Exactly what does sticking your head in the sand and pretending everything else doesn't matter accomplish, Freddy? At least Hondo isn't surrendering to the whims and collusion of a two-party charade like (ahem) SOME people.
Can't see it from my house. LOL...good one. Drone bomb the track just before the gates open? Fred himself would be leading a protest on the capitol steps.
Show of hands, right now. I'll get back with you on the weekend, during the week I have little time and your post deserves a serious answer. Thank you. Nu?
Hey good to see you up. Was a bit worried when I did not get a reply from a few posts and an email. Hope your Christmas was joyous with family!
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Nu? Sorry about that, I've been so busy with the end of the year at work, plus the holiday. I enjoy reading your posts, you obviously put a great deal of thought into each one rather than rapid fire spamming, and that is refreshing. I should have let you know it would take me longer than I expected. I think right now we have two questions, what is it that we hope to achieve, and what strategy would get us there. For the first part, we know what we are against, but we really need to know what we are for. I myself catch myself in a situation where I can easily see what it is that I am against, almost running on instinct. But defining what I am for takes more effort, it is not a knee jerk response that I have available. As for the GOP, I voted for them this time, but to be honest I fully expected to be betrayed by them, and they seem to be meeting my worst expectations under Boehner and McConnell. I have been told many times by those who hurl epithets like "fundy" around that we need to compromise. That may well be true, but if we do it must be to compromise in such a way that it helps to achieve the main goals. The compromises urged upon us in fact do just the opposite, and certain compromises are off limits, such a raising tax rates on the rich, billionaires in particular. I think we can boil some of these down to philosophical principles, upon which we might be able to forge agreement among people who consider themselves at many different points across the political spectrum. One principle I can think of would to oppose "fouling of the commons for private advantage." Sadly this is the first one off the top of my head, and I had to frame it in negative terms. This can be applied in many situations, some pleasing to those who consider themselves liberal, and others to those who consider themselves conservative. A business that hires illegal aliens can be seen as "fouling the commons," and the same goes for businesses that locate along a road paid for with gas taxes, and degrade the functionality of the highway to move cars, which all of society has paid for, including those who own businesses located along traditional streets that are paid for with property taxes. We do have an extractive elite that rules over us, through both of their parties, the bought and paid for RNC and DNC. This extractive elite is at the root of our troubles IMO, they ruined the Roman Republic through their greed. To weaken this elite brings us into the realm of strategy, this will smack of class warfare, which will appeal to those on the left, and raise eyebrows on the right. But being on the right, I have seen this extractive elite waging war against the American wage earner for decades, and I think it is about time to be returning some of what they've been dishing out to us. I have been studying strategy as of late, in particular the examples of Scipio and Sherman, as related by Lidell Hart and Colonel Boyd. The example of Sherman's campaign in the Carolina's seems to fit the most. The ability to divide your forces in such a way as to threaten two separate objectives, forcing the enemy to divide his effort defending two separate points, while he was free to concentrate the bulk of his force against the object that presented the better opportunity, largely based upon how the enemy reacted to his dispositions in the first place. He even expressed his strategy as "putting the enemy on the horns of a dilemma.” An example might be something like the Tea Party, which failed by being co- opted, but which did spring to life from bipartisan outrage over the bailouts for the financial institutions controlled by the extractive elite. An organization which might be able to threaten a hostile takeover of an existing party, or run for office to depose either the GOP (far more likely) or the Democrats. Some issues to exploit would be the idea of raising the minimum wage as proposed by Ron Unz. So the Walton family, for example, has to pay for their workers, rather than foisting part of burden on the taxpayer. Another would be to restructure the tax rates so that the vast majority of the American wage earners no longer pay the income tax. Mark Zuckerberg and his pro amnesty billionaire buddies can make up the difference, along with taxing the now tax exempt foundations, plus tariffs on imports. I recall hearing on conservative radio on numerous occasions that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 4% of the income tax. Turn that around, as a political strategy and we can remove half the labor force from paying income taxes. losing a small fraction of revenue that can be made up for from other sources, in such a way to also serve our objectives. The tariff for example will not only raise revenue by itself, but in the long run will return manufacturing to America, raising GDP (and revenue) and reduces expenditures by reducing unemployment. Best social program is a private sector job. Some of shills will shout class warfare and socialism, I don't care. Eisenhower inherited a 91% top tax rate from FDR and Truman, he never attempted to reduce the rate. By the logic of the shills that would make Eisenhower a socialist. These are a few random thoughts on the question you posed, in no particular order. I am rather tired right now, so I apologize for my sloppiness. I do see an opportunity presenting itself by the GOP betrayal of wage earning voters, and we should be able to exploit their betrayal as a weapon to use against them.
I'm pretty tired too right now, having just come back last night from a long family trip, so I'll get to the marrow of what you wrote: there has to be a defining philosophy, and every policy thread has to be consistent with the philosophy. There can't be any compromises at all on any part of that. So, it's important that the philosophy itself be right, so that its derivatives are each right, and all hang together as a unified whole. I personally think that there is only one such philosophy that holds together across the board. The problem with it is that it is very demanding and people rebel against the parts they don't like and insist on compromise - and compromise is the forbidden fruit: eat of it, and it's fatal.
For the first part, we know what we are against, but we really need to know what we are for. I myself catch myself in a situation where I can easily see what it is that I am against, almost running on instinct. But defining what I am for takes more effort, it is not a knee jerk response that I have available. Let me take the first piece of what you wrote and dissect it a little. I think that your two questions are good, but they're the second and third question of a three-question suite, the first question of which is: "What do we believe is true?" Everything has to be built on truth, or else it will fail. If an architect designs and starts to build a glorious edifice but ignores the basic truths of gravity and the elements, whatever he builds will fall to the ground a ruin. Things that are not rooted in reality do not survive extended contact with reality. They fail and they fall. This is the problem with both Republican and Democrat political philosophy today. The first is built on a set of economic fantasies. The second is built upon fantasies about power. Outside of those two, there are various libertarian and other strains of thought, each built on their own fantasies (that men can live without laws that impinge on their private behavior, for example). None of it works, because none of it is based upon reality. So I think that the place to start is with the concrete realities of human existence: what is so, what people need and why they need it. The Republicans have their view of this, but it isn't based on reality. The Democrats have theirs. The Marxists have theirs, as do the Muslims. So do various sects of Christian. There is some truth in all of their beliefs, but very rapidly they come to points of compromise of things fundamental - they sacrifice some policy that would be fundamental to their belief system (if reality were as they say) in order to maintain control, and that urge to power ends up trumping everything else. It is not hard to see in each case where they go astray from reality. But that's true of virtually every man and woman on earth. If we devoted our time to finding the flaws in everybody else's thinking we would accomplish nothing: our own has flaws enough, and moral compromises that defeat us. Instead, we should clear the table of everything - of all politics and traditions, whether national or religious - and start from square one, to describe what reality itself is. If we can agree on that, then what ought to be done regarding it, in terms of forming human alliances to deal with it, emerges naturally. I'll start: the only reality that men and women - people - know well is that which they experience directly in their own flesh. They can read about and abstractly reason about other aspects of "reality" as told by others, but the only reality of which people are certain is their own direct experiences. Because there is a natural reality of things, the direct experiences of the bulk of mankind is the same. This is why human empathy is a good (and necessary) guide to policy: we're all born naked and helpless. We're all utterly dependent on other human beings for our continued existence for at least the first decade of our lives. After that, virtually everybody remains 90% plus dependent on other human beings for the remainder of his or her healthy life. Then comes the final years of life, usually lived with debilitating illness, in which the margin of dependency goes back to 100%. During healthy adult years there is the 10% margin of free maneuver. It is POSSIBLE for a man to walk away into the forest and live completely without contact with other human beings, to live utterly off the land, without money, without any human contact, eating wild things and making his own shelter and his own replacement clothes. If he lives in temperate climates, he may be able to eke out an existence completely free of dependency on other human beings for 5 or 6 or 10 years before he succumbs to accident, cold, disease or animal attack. The bulk of humanity would be dead within 6 months, but a few very hardy and well-prepared souls could manage it for awhile longer. However, during their period of preparation, and during their infancy and childhood, they would be precisely as dependent on other human beings for their continued existence as everybody else. Romulus and Remus, in the legends, were raised by the She Wolf of Rome. Real human babies would be eaten by the wolf. Short of divine intervention and ministration by angels, it is absolutely impossible for babies to survive alone. Every human being starts life and lives for a long time completely dependent on other human beings for his continued existence. There are no exceptions, and there never has been one exception going all the way back to the first men. The natural reality is that we are NOT solitary, independent creatures. Our existence, our physical life, is completely dependent for its sustained existence, on the continuous interaction with other human beings. When there were few people on earth and everybody lived in the tropics, where it is possible to live without clothes and where the plants produce edible fruits in great abundance, it was possible for men to live spread out in small groups. But it was never possible for men to survive completely alone. Children cannot survive alone. Old and sick people cannot survive alone. And men and women cannot reproduce alone. A few hardy adult men or women, naked in the tropics, can live alone for a few years without human contact. And every one of them who does goes stark raving mad too. So, the whole notion of "rugged individualism", that it is desirable for men to seek to live life completely alone and of their own resources, is a complete crock of shit and always has been. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. It is contrary to the laws of nature. Man CANNOT live alone, of his own resources. It is NOT DESIRABLE that he even attempt it. And any political or moral philosophy based on the absurd lie than men ever can, or ever DID live alone as solitary creatures, is based on a lie that is worse than Communism or Fascism. Those things are pretty bad, because they elevate economic governance and the state, respectively, to godlike status (and therefore crush out individuals who get in the way), but "Rugged Individualism" as a story of history or a desireable reality is suicidal stupidity. Reality is that human beings are designed to live communally and socially. And any political philosophy has to be built on that natural reality or it's useless, worthless cartoon fantasy. Natural reality: man is (and always has been) a social creature, dependent on other people for his continued existence, health and prosperity. Man is also a spiritual creature, aware of his creator, and dependent on him for his continued existence as well. That is reality. It's pointless to try to build anything with anybody who lives in a fantasy world and who will not completely admit to that reality. So, that is really the first test: a man must say, out loud: (1) Man in his natural state is not a solitary individual, but is a social creature who is dependent throughout his entire life on interactions with other people in order to continue living for any extended period of time. And (2) Man is ultimately a spirit, breathed out by God into a body. He comes from God and he will return to God. And God has revealed a moral code that is best for man, and we know what it is. Those two things are the bedrock of reality. Nothing built that disregards either of those two hard facts is worth anything. It all fails. Nothing CAN be built to last that disregards either the natural or the spiritual reality of man. Once those two basic realities are acknowledged, unflinchingly and without qualification, then everything else becomes pretty easy. We know we're spirits breathed into flesh by God. We know God's moral laws. So, those must be THE laws of men, period. Nothing else will work, because the God who made us won't LET anything else work. He will keep on knocking down whatever else we try. So, if we want to succeed, we have to base our laws on the revealed moral laws of God, and we have to shape our politics to bring those laws into being. And then we have to stop and not go any further...because that too is one of the revealed moral laws of God: that men are not to lord it over other men. So, you establish the basic moral laws, which pertain to not shedding blood, sexual behavior, mutual economic support, and the need to teach these same laws and their divine source over and over again to each new baby. And then you don't go further and build anything greater than that. You don't aspire to build powerful states that can conquer other states and take their land and resources. That is murder, and God damns it and everybody who does it. You don't aspire to build vast towering edificies that take everybody's homes and clothes and metes it all out. And you don't allow your laws to protect people building castles and moats while leaving their neighbor to starve and freeze. You protect necessary property, but then you protect people and make sure that everybody has what is necessary before you allow the laws of your state to protect people piling up massive excesses while their fellow men starve and freeze. That is the only way that men can be properly organized and governed. It's what the God who breathed each of us out (and who will take each of our breaths back in the end) told us. It's the only thing that will work. And there can be no compromise whatever on any single piece of it: not on the violence part, and not on the sexual part, and not on the "this much but no more while others starve" part. We are our brother's keeper, just as we ourselves were (and are) kept alive by the help and cooperation of others, and by God. And the first step is to humbly ADMIT IT, and to cast aside every obnoxious weed of a thought that opposes that and that craves the violence, the sexual immorality and the piling up of towers to protect vast piles of wealth while others starve and freeze. That's the way it is. It cannot be changed, because it's the reality of nature. That's the only foundation on which anything that works can ever be built. It's the only one that will get you rewarded after you're dead too. Everything else is an error and a dead end.
Now the next piece of what you wrote. The GOP is the party of Marie Antoinette, and over time, that dog don't hunt.
Our future rests on whether the rest of America can dismiss the Republican establishment’s double game and coalesce around a distinctly different political force.
#2. To: Vicomte13, *Tom McClintock for President* (#1)
(Edited)
Who's ready to leave the GOP for good and form a new party?
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
I'll up the ante by leaving both wings of the D&R party
#4. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
And the answer to the question is right here on this very site and this very thread!
#6. To: Fred Mertz, hondo68 (#3)
But you follow this Kabuki Theater like it means something.
#7. To: hondo68, Fred Mertz (#4)
What difference does it make if Obongo drone bombs you?
#8. To: nativist nationalist (#5)
And the answer to the question is right here on this very site and this very thread! Who's ready to leave the GOP for good and form a new party?
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
I'll get back with you on the weekend, during the week I have little time and your post deserves a serious answer. Thank you.
#11. To: nativist nationalist (#10)
#12. To: nativist nationalist (#10)
(Edited)
I think right now we have two questions, what is it that we hope to achieve, and what strategy would get us there.
#13. To: nativist nationalist (#10)
(Edited)
As for the GOP, I voted for them this time, but to be honest I fully expected to be betrayed by them, and they seem to be meeting my worst expectations under Boehner and McConnell.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]