UN Declares Water, Sanitation as Human Rights

UN Declares Water, Sanitation as Human Rights

by Bradley Bouzane

Access to clean water and sanitation was declared a human right Wednesday after a vote aimed at helping the world’s neediest, passed unanimously at the United Nations.

Although the motion passed with 124 countries voting in favour of the resolution drafted by Bolivia, Canada was among the 41 nations to abstain on the issue.

In June, Bolivia’s draft resolution indicated that global water rights would “entitle everyone to available, safe, acceptable, accessible and affordable water and sanitation.”

Maude Barlow, chairwoman of Food and Water Watch — a Washington-based group — who previously sat as a senior adviser to the United Nations General Assembly on the water issue, said Wednesday’s vote was groundbreaking.

“We’re absolutely thrilled,” said Barlow, who also serves as national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians. “This is a historic day and I think every now and then, the human species advances somewhat in our evolution and today was one of them.”

June’s draft resolution declared that countries unable to provide water to their residents should be assisted through “international co-operation and assistance,” essentially calling for rich countries to give foreign aid to any government that says it doesn’t have the means to meet its citizens’ water rights.

According to the UN, more than one billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.6 billion are without basic sanitation.

The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall

The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)

One of the hallmarks of the ongoing Liberal catastrophe that we’re all experiencing is its inability to respect the natural boundaries and barriers of human existence.  For example, we all know that by flooding our society with alien peoples and thereby ignoring the natural boundaries of identity that we are consigned to live in societies that have less trust and an ever dissolving social fabric.  Moreover, we also know that by violating these boundaries of identity that we can expect the Liberal system to experience convulsions of anger, however incoherent, from the body of our own people as they slowly become aware of the dissolution that’s been planned for them.

And just as the battle intensifies between the Liberal system and our people’s incoherent desire for life, ecological walls begin to loom over the horizon.  From America’s paper of record just a few weeks ago: Arid Australia Sips Seawater, but at a Cost

Take a moment to read the article.

If I may briefly summarize the situation, the Liberal system has planned for Australia to become an overpopulated stew of various peoples that will require more fresh water than what the arid continent can supply in the long-term.  The system’s solution to Australia’s next water crisis is not to plan for a sustainable society that aims to bring population levels in line with what the land can support but instead build more expensive desalination plants and pass off the costs (some of them unintended) to the natives.

As you might imagine, some are starting to suspect that mindlessly growing Australia through an endless wave of immigration (sound familiar) might not be such a good idea after all.  From the NYT article:


But desalination is also drawing fierce criticism and civic protests. Many homeowners, angry about rising water bills, and environmentalists, wary of the plants’ effect on the climate, call the projects energy-hungry white elephants. Stricter conservation measures, like mandating more efficient washing machines, would easily wring more water from existing supplies, critics say.

Desalination has also helped dampen the enthusiasm for a “big Australia,” the previous, immigration-friendly government’s projection that the country’s population will rise to 36 million in 2050, from 22 million now.

“Big waste of money,” said Helen Meyer, 65, a retired midwife in Tugun, the town where the northeastern state of Queensland opened a $1 billion desalination plant last year. “It cost a lot of money to build, and it uses a lot of power. Australia is a dry country. I think we just have enough water for 22 million people. What are we going to do when we’re up to 36 million?”

That’s what I call game, set, and match for the natural order of life on this planet.

The Liberal system and the ideology that fuels it is so far removed from the natural order of things that it will come crashing down this century.  Even if the natural life affirming instincts of our people fail (and I think they largely have) ecological walls will start to loom large this century for which there is no answer other than what the Liberal system refuses to do.  To wit, how can a Liberal economic system built around the concept of endless growth answer the limits of nature?  It can’t.

In my opinion, the politics of the revolutionary Right must capitalize on this fundamental failure and present a vision of a sustainable Western society that is in harmony with itself and the world around it.  As the ongoing crises of resource scarcity continue to rock the politics of the 21st century I think you can expect the wind to be at our backs with such a vision.

Addendum:

After reading Dan’s comment I was moved to write the following:

The environmentalist movement is deeply right-wing in at least two ways.  It is to the Right both philosophically and aesthetically, we can see the former in its goal to preserve the natural world, which comes out of a conservative instinct, and the latter in its anti-humanistic and pessimistic tendencies.  In my opinion it is an accident of history that the Left adopted environmentalist sensibilities as a quazi-cynical maneuver to attack polluting corporations (and by extension the capitalist system) while conveniently ignoring the fact that the worst environmental atrocities were committed by state governments (i.e. USSR and China).

Furthermore, the Left’s decision to accept the moral authority of environmentalist thinking makes it a fabulous Trojan Horse for the discrediting of the Liberal vision amongst elites without even having to mention cultural matters.  For example, anytime a Leftist tells you that we should restrict our carbon output and reduce the energy demands of our society to a sustainable level you should never fail to tell them that having a policy of zero net-migration would go along way towards achieving this goal.  To wit, you cannot bring Third World peoples to Western society without also increasing their rate of consumption.

There are powerful ideological tools here that we haven’t even begun to use and the best part is that the Left has no prefabricated response to any of it.  I’ve been called “Racist!” on a number of occasions but never when making this kind of argument.

Posted by Notus Wind

A letter to Europeans and those of the European Diaspora; in other words, a letter to all white people.

Dear White Man,

We regret to inform you that your kind has been slated for termination. We, the various Third World majorities of Africa, Asia, India, South America, and the Middle East assert that your long history of success at building civilizations, developing new technologies, creating stable governments, fostering good will, feeding much of the world, and increasing peace and prosperity even amongst the riotous hordes of our own homelands, has made us envious and resentful of you. We, who make up 92% of the global population, feel that we can no longer accept the great disparity between your success and our abject failure. The solution to this inequality should be obvious to all concerned.

We are planning to invade your ancestral homelands, little by little, and to facilitate this, we have the full cooperation of your controlled media and government, academia, and law enforcement organizations. While we, personally, do not control any of these entities ourselves, we are profiting endlessly from the crypto-Marxist system put in place many decades ago by an ethnic fifth column which operates with complete impunity at all levels of your political, academic, and media culture. Their interference in the natural development of your constitutional republics has been indispensable to our efforts to wrest from you the control of everything that you’ve struggled to build and maintain over the last century. Indeed, were it not for them, none of our present plans would have even been possible.

By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this out group has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a thinking individual. By promoting the stereotype of a racist redneck resistance, they have made the idea of a struggle for White Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every White person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of racism.

Vergil, Mozart, Shakespeare, and all other bourgeois manifestations of your high culture will be vanquished forever. All of your legends and heroes will be spat upon, purged, and finally forgotten. Your cultural folkways will be transgressions; your identity will become a crime.

We come for your JOBS, your MONEY, your WOMEN, and eventually your LIVES. It will not be much longer now.  What is yours will be ours.

Signed,

All Non-Whites

American New Right

American New Right

Anarchism Revised

http://newrightamerica.blogspot.com/

by Quagmire



As Preston and his comrades are busily outlining a functional anti-state strategy (and as a functional anti-state movement is busily coalescing around them) they have grown into a lightning rod for thunderstorms of left-wing hysterics. These have predictably emanated from those echo chambers of our institutions of lower learning known officially as the left-libertarian message boards.While I dedicated a past entry to defending his honor, I’ve neglected to pair my defense with a sturdy offense. My contempt for these over-protected mocha sippers is apparent from even the most cursory glance at this blog. My rationale for such a low evaluation, however, is not. So, while avoiding a backslide into rhetorical strawmen and ad hominem assaults, I have prepared this expanatory eviscreation.
A defining factor in the left-libertarian mindset is a decisive split from reality, one that renders them incapable of understanding, much less opposing, our current state of affairs. This is not unique to this faction, but likewise plagues the broader left of which they are an obvious subset. Specifically, they all but base their approach on the Marcusean identity politics inherited from the now graying New Left. This should not shock us in the least, given their origins as products of our academic idiot factories where those remnants have long held sway. Like their youthful disciples, these stale leftovers hail not from the underclass hordes whose interests they’ve appointed themselves to speak for, but from the very same strata they (correctly) attribute their misery to.
Somewhere between washing the mud off their legs and swapping cocaine for rogaine they found themselves at the helm of the very establishment they once told us we could never trust (a helm inherited, no doubt, from their bourgeoise folks.) With this dubious ascension the hollow nature of their rebellion became apparent so they started singing a different song. The establishment is your friend, the caring mama bear who will shelter you from white hoods, shaved heads, and tanned necks… and all the other nefarious nasties lurking under every bed and in every closet. Such scares are but a figment of the alzheimer’s encroached imagination of this mama bear. This time it’s the parents who are seeing and hearing things. And, another historic first, this time the kids actually listen to their parents. And…no break with tradition here…the kids repeat what they hear.
This effectively traps us in a cultural way back machine, with university engineered and approved TAPS teams chasing after ghosts that stopped hauntin’ these parts long ago, blind to their own status we should pull our covers over our heads for. When the well-off (and well-financed) anti-establishment agitators stormed the castle, they didn’t take a wrecking ball to it. They walzed on into the throne room of the new ousted monarch, assumed the throne, and unleashed a terror over the kingdom all their own. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The aging W.A.S.P. feudal lords were thrown out, but the feudal system itself was not…their positions were merely assumed by those cut from a more colorful cloth.
So, if you’ll allow me to transition from medeaval conquest back to modern hauntings, we arrive at an unsettling conclusion. Not only do the young false exorcists of the modern Left lack the theological know-how to properly expel spirits, they themselves are the spirits that need exorcising. So, if you’ll allow me me to time-warp yet again back to the middle-ages, we find that it is in fact the former lords and ladies of our cultural kingdom that need to take up arms. For those taking up arms with thems, the strategic implications are clear…and which I will share in common English.

In this world of “hate speech” legislation and “sensitivity training”, is it really that radical a move to wail about “institutionalized racism”…or to defend free speech and open inquiry for the insensitive? Is it that bold to crusade in favor of “women’s rights” in this era of family courts and university-mandated feminist studies…or to act on behalf of father’s rights? Is railing against “homosphobia” that radical a cause in a country where the lifestly is mostly viewed as an amusing novelty…or to agitate for freedom of speech and association for bible thumpers who find it a bit over the top? Is it that courageous to prattle on about “peace” and “non-violence”…or to snag a position on your local NRA chapter’s leadership board? I find these truths self evident. It’s indeed an odd paradox where conservatism has become radical and leftism reactionary.

The liberal-capitalist status quo takes as its basis the atomized individual, and its reason de’ etre that individual’s whims and wants. In this societal conception, these faceless particles construct their own mini-realities through an impersonal web of economic interaction and exchange. Preffered social relations are those concieved materially, with those that aren’t submerged under pavement. This process, starting at the dawn of modernity and within recent decades shifting into high gear, is effectively dissolving traditional ethnic groups, national boundaires, and cultures. How can effective ressistance, then, be found among those who dismiss such things as archaic abstractions (to be disposed of, naturally, so we can finally discover our universal “humanity”)?

For all the shrieking over alt.anarchism’s supposed “collectivism”, I fail to detect any flaw in a social system hardwired for organically constituted communities. If living and working with those you share commonalities with is such cardinal sin, why not just have the nanny state intervene for reprogramming purposes? Because a liberal universalist agenda doesn’t fit all, but a state enforcing it does, the answer to the debate over which side is more prone to authoritarian slipups is clear.

In his televised 1971 debate with Noam Chomsky, no less a leftist icon as Michel Foucault dismissed then contemporary radical movements on the grounds that their underlying philosophy was often wholly in line with that of the prevailing regime. His AIDS-related passing in 1984 was unfortunate, as he never got to see the realization of this observation among the inanities posted on the LL messageboards.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

The Petulant Fallacies Of Anti-Racist Action

Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman, or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not evenbelong to an “oppressed” group but come from priveleged strata of society.”-Theodore Kaczysnki, Industrial Society And Its Future

By Qaugmire

Those who regularly follow this blog will no doubt be familiar with my fellow writer Dustin Stanley’s incisive polemics against leftist race huckster Tim Wise. Dustin does an excellent job refuting the erroneous claims put forth by Wise, but the battle extends far beyond the man himself. You see, Wise reproduces at an rabbit-like rate, and his mutant offspring, upon sliding out of his fetid womb, begin carrying on his work prior to their eyes even opening. It is these vermin who shall bear the brunt of my wrath today. The faction referring haughtily to itself as “Anti-Racist Action” is the litter of puppies Wise had after getting pounded by Morris Dees. Like Wise, their membership is exclusively white. Like Wise, these scabs were raised in the comfort of middle-to upper-middle class backgrounds. And, like Wise, the self-hatred they bear over this leads them to embrace not only an utterly warped view of our society, but also an utterly warped way of combating it. Let us take a look at what they’re saying, shall we?

Points Of Unity

1. We go where they go: Whenever fascists are organizing or active in public, we’re there. We don’t believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let the nazis have the street!

It should be pointed out that there exist only a small handful of “fascist” organizations in America, and these are tiny membership-wise with virtually no influence on, or recognition within, the broader society. This is why most ignore and stay away from them-because that’s the only logical thing to do with such groups. May I point out that antagonizing them is precisely what they want, because it shifts attention to them and makes them appear a larger threat than they actually are? As far as “letting them have the street” is concerned, legally they have the same right to organize and demonstrate publicly as other interest groups, and this trumps your youthful self-righteousness.

2. We don’t rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us: This doesn’t mean we never go to court. But we must rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop the fascists.
The reason you don’t rely on the law to do your “work” for you is because there’s nothing illegal about most the activities of most of the groups you object to. The only danger you have to protect yourselves from is that which you actively invite from groups you seek to antagonize. If you left them alone in the first place, perhaps you wouldn’t have to be looking over your shoulder for club-weilding skinheads. For instance, you can cease in your attempts to “stop the fascists” from exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

3. Non-sectarian defense of other anti- fascists: In ARA, we have lots of different groups and individuals. We don’t agree about everything and we have a right to differ openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an attack on us all. We stand behind each other.

The only ideological diversity to be found in this sorry lot is different strains of the same PC Leftardation. I’m sure a gaggle of shrill poseurs standing in unity together is an intimidating sight.

4. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. ARA intends to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homohpobia, discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We want a classless free society! WE INTEND TO WIN!

I don’t see what maintaining a pro-choice stance has to do with “fighting racism.” It’s actually worth mentioning that legalized abortion has already wiped out what would be a third of this group’s beloved “people of color.” Ialso don’t see what dragging out the usual laundry list of isms and phobias has to do with a “classless free society”, as such a world will likely only have freedom for those who agree with this ideology, and class is an economic factor distinct from race, gender, sexual orientation and the other PC pressure points this group puts on a pedestal.

Have Fun…Stay Young…Smash The Fash

Sooner or later, you’ll get older, your life will cease being fun, and you’ll replace “smasging the fash” with working a real job and tending to a dwindling hairline.

The fun continues on their FAQ page.

Q: What is Anti-Racist Action?

A: Anti-Racist Action is an international network of people from all walks of life dedicated to eliminating racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination from their communities. Since then, we’ve expanded into dozens of communities in five countries and three continents, making us one of the world’s largest and extensive anti-racist youth movements.

Anti-racist action is a human morass of middle-and upper middle class white kids whose microscopic minds have been molded by the publik edukashun establishment, and hence live under the delusion that we’re still living in Jackson, Mississippi circa 1958. This delusion is the flipside to their other, more prominent delusion, that carrying on about “racism, sexism, and homophobia” somehow makes them rebels raging against the machine. And yes, they have spread like a minor virus, but nothing a trip to the doctor won’t fix.

You get the picture. The group’s website contains a veritable treasure trove of gems like this, and I scarcely have time to share all of it with you. That I must unfortunately save for our next installment.


Monday, March 22, 2010

In Defense Of Keith Preston: A Rebuttal To Charles Johnson

“But with only five percent of the world’s population, is there some reason besides drippy universal brotherhood that we’re still recieving more immigrants than the rest of the world combined? Is it possible that behind all these multicolored baloons and heartwarming interracial photo-op handshakes lies the desire for a suplus pool of tractable laborers?”-Jim Goad, The Redneck Manifesto

By Quagmire

Keith Preston, the self-described “pan-secessionist” who mans the attackthesystem blog, has come under a degree of unfounded criticism recently, which I feel I must respond to. Keith has been subject to attack before, but never from worthy sources, and never for worthy reasons. This criticism has predictably come from cultural marxists, who insult him with vulgar strawmen for not kowtowing to their social agenda. It is the most recent example of this that I will be dissecting here. This steaming load of tripe comes from one Charles Johnson, who posts under the pseudonym “Rad Geek”, a name that is only half-accurate as he is most certainly a geek, but most certainly not a radical. Charles is a figurehead of the so-called “left-libertarian” aggregation, a relatively small group who attempt to meld populist libertarianism with cultural leftism and, in doing so, end up with something that reads like an exaggerated satire of left-anarchism. This is the problem with Keith and his strategy, from his (and their) perspective-

my problem with Keith’s approach is not that he suggests allying with criminalized, marginalized, or lumpen people.

We all agree with this. There is no need to point it out.

My problem is, first, that he has what I consider to be a disastrously selective view of whose criminalization and marginalization counts as legitamate libertarian concern.

And…it begins.

And, secondly, that he has the wrong idea about what the process of building such an alliance, and the terms on which allies might ally themselves with each other, looks like.

Keith wishes not to associate with the politically correct, as he feels that they are useless in this struggle. Given the collective failure of that crowd to accomplish anything during their four decades of existence, it appears his hostility is vindicated.

Hence, for example, his bizarre efforts to coddle pseudo-populist right-wingers who support the immigration police state and the mass criminalization of people without papers.

Let us deconstruct this statement. There is nothing at all “bizarre” about attempting to forge an alliance with the populist right, as they share the same decentralist vision that we do. Notice how he uses the word “coddle”, as if conservatives are intellectual children, and the term “pseudo-populist” as if embracing a leftist cultural agenda was a necessary requirement to be a crusader for the little guy. Also, there is no “immigration police state”, only open borders, and no “mass criminalization”, only amnesty and full access to a welfare state subsidized by the american taxpayer. I also adore the term “people without papers.” Softening the language to take the sting out of reality, Charles?

Whereas, in my view, if you’re concerned about identifying with the most criminalized, marginalized, exploited, and oppressed, it would be harder to find a better place to start than standing up for the rights of “illegal alein” workers confronting the border Stasi without government papers.

Why not side for the American poor and working class whose already sagging fortunes are worsened even further by this influx of immigrants ? “Rights” are legal constructs that have no existence indepent of human invention. The closest thing you have to “rights” are concessions granted to you by the regime you toil under. As such, these immigrants have no “rights” per se to stand up for. Finally, the term “illegal aleins” should not be subject to scare quotes because that is precisely what they are: aleins to our culture who tresspass in our country against the will of the majority of the population.

It is this breed of drivel that poisons and debilitates liberatory struggles. Understand that I point not one finger of blame on the mehicans themselves, as I understand their reasons for coming here. Contrary to the delusions of liberal multiculturalists, immigration is not a natural and inevitable fact, as no one uproots and leaves their home without good reason. It is only caused when dire economic circumstances render that home an unbearable place to live, which is precisely what capitalist globalization has done to Mexico. Our efforts should, then, be focused squarely on combating globalization in all its institutional manifestations: NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank, as well as the state apparatus that allows its industrial beneficiaries to thrive. It is these same corporate bigwigs that are not coincidentally the foremost supporters of open borders, out of their endless lust for cheap labor and even cheaper production costs. You can’t fight an enemy whose interests you unkowingly agitate for.

Noam Chomsky: False Moses Of The Controlled Opposition

by Quagmire

Since 1955, American linguist and MIT professor Noam Chomsky has produced a prolific number of works exposing the unsavory proclivities of the U.S. regime and its moneyed masters. For this, he has enjoyed a kingly status within the American left, with generations of young activists and radicals hailing him as their brightest beacon. This has even spilled over into popular culture, with everyone from rockers U2 and Rage Against The Machine to funnyman Bill Hicks citing him as an inspiration. However, that appreciation is not universal, as the same antiestablishment screeds that earned him his iconic status on the left have embittered him to the american right, who have marked him a “traitor” and dismissed his criticism of our foreign policy as “anti-american.” Either way, he has dedciated his life to combating the American imperial regime, and it is in this capacity that I find him somewhat useless. Despite his claiming the title “anarcho-syndicalist” and his publicly stated commitment to anti-authoritarianism, his actual legislative postions belie this. Such as…

(on Ron Paul’s isolationism) “He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the U.N., rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example)etc. Aside from being next to meaningless, this idea is morally unaccpetable, in my view.”

I’ve grown weary of leftists cheerleading for the United Nations, as it demonstrates their profound ignorance when it comes to foreign policy. The U.N. is no check on American military aggression; rather it enables it through a sort of good cop-bad cop partnership with our regime. It’s main purpose will be to serve as a front for the American empire, when it finally attains global dominance.

(on gun control) “It’s pretty clear that, taken literally, the second amendment does not permit people to own guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or Constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interperets them as permitting.” (from Secrets, Lies, And Democracy)

Why does this self-proclaimed “anarchist” take the same postion here as a mainstream liberal would? Whether the constitution allows citizens to possess firearms is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is the encroaching police state our fearless leaders are imposing upon us, the only bulwark against which is an armed and well trained populace. Incidentally, it’s this sort of mental inconsistency that causes young birkenstockers to champion gun control while simultanously denouncing the PATRIOT act as an egregious violation of civil liberites.

The gems continue…

(on federal power)”I’d like to see the power of the federal government increased.”

If the power of the federal government was increased any more, it would explode. It’s been rapidly increasing in size since it was first instituted, and during this time so has the corporate system, the police state, and the foreign empire. Such developments prove it neccessary that anarchism be a decentralist affiar. Or is Chomsky still an anarchist?

on the draft) “So I was very much involved in the resistance (to the Vietnam War) but I was never against the draft.” (

What?

(on the welfare state) “It (classical anarhist thinking) leads directly to support for the people facing problems today: for enforcement of health and safety regulation, for provision of national health insurance, support systems for people who need them, etc.”

Actually, classical anarchist thought leads to the realization that such things are minor concessions intended to co-opt and pacify those to whom radicalism has the most appeal. Bakunin predicted this during anarchism’s infancy, and, over a century later, he has been proven correct. It has been well-documented by Gabriel Kolko and others that the welfare state he was referring to was initially conceived as a power consolidation mechanism for corporate interests. The health and regulatory agencies he refers favorably to are staffed by a revolving door of lobbyists and insiders, representing businesses for whom the added cost of regulation can be passed effortlessly on to the consumer. Meanwhile, the same costs cause increased difficulty for working people attempting to develop alternative economic systems outside the state-connected and stae-priveleged corproate framework.


It is obvious that Chomsky has been duped into swallowing the managerial-liberal line, somehow failing to realize that the liberal-progressive system he favors is merely the latest front for capitalist class rule. Unfortunately, the budding leftists who take their marching orders from him are drawn through the same trick door, entering the shapeless void of an increasingly wrongheaded and irrelevant left.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

“Tolerance”: The Ongoing Pussification Of American Culture

by Quagmire
The now unavoidable dogma of “tolerance” and “sensitivity” is, when stripped of the utopian and idealist visions it is intended to provoke, a form of cultural regression. In the same way consumerism reduces what would otherwise be functioning adults to the the intellectual status of children, political correctness reduces these same hapless victims to the same low status emotionally. What would in cultures untained by this contagion be accepted as inevitable and dismissed as non-events in the “tolerant” culture becomes elevated to the level of a natural disaster or similar catastrophe. The heavy-hand of the law is summoned as the only remedy where that law is uneeded and where its prescence is undesirable. Case in point:
Police: Boy, 16, made racial comment a N.J. Wal-Mart
A 16-yr old boy, someone fairly low on our societal food chain, made a “racial comment” at a New Jersey Wal Mart, someplace farily low on our societal food chain-and the police get involved? Is there not legitamate criminal behavior occuring in the area for them to be involved with?
WASHINTON TOWNSHIP, N.J.-A 16 yr old boy who police said made an announcement at Wal-Mart ordering all black people in the southern New Jersey store to leave was charged with intimidation and bias harrassment, authorities said Saturday.
Blacks have already successfully survived slavery and Jim Crow, I highly doubt they would feel “intimidated” and “harrassed” by a scrawny, crater-faced adolescent yowling through an intercom. Notice how he is being “charged” with hurting people’s feelings the same way one would be charged with hurting someone’s body. Any nation that considers emtional and physical wounds to be morally equivalent is a nation of infants.
The boy, whose name is not being released because he is a juvenile, grabbed one of the courtesy phones at Walmart’s Washington Township Square sunday evening and calmly announced: “Attention, Walmart customers: All black people, leave the store now” police said.
This sounds more like a juvenile prank than anything else. A prank in poor taste, but a prank nonetheless. May I point out that certain individuals possess an innate tendency to embrace cultural taboos, and that the hypermoralism of political correctness grants these things a humorous appeal they would not otherwise have?
The teen was arrested friday and released to the custody of his parents; police did not know whether he had a lawyer.
So the police actually spent a full workweek tracking this idiot down and arresting him…five days after the fact? And if he was immediately released into his parent’s custody, what was the point of arresting him in the first place? Ooooh now he needs a lawyer to defend him because he said bad wowds that huwt peopw’s pweshus feewings. Again, only in a nation of infants.
“This was an extremely disturbing event on many levels” Glouchester County Prosecutor Sean Dalton said at a news conference. “Any statements like these that can cause harm or great concern must be addressed as quickly as we possibly can.”
Some teenager pulling a dumb prank-and it was a dumb prank-is “an extremely disturbing event on many levels.” Any juvenile antics like these that can cause crying and bedwetting in a community of pussified liberals must be laughed at as loudly as we possibly can.
Dalton said the case would be handled in juvenile court in neighboring Atlantic County, where the boy lives. He would not say whether the boy has a criminal record, citing the teen’s age, and would not disclose the teen’s race, saying that did not factor into the equation.
Ooh now the New Jersey taxpayer is getting bilked to pay for it, and lawyers and judges are being sapped of their valuable time to handle it. Are there not legitimate cases these resources could be allocated to? Given the dystepic situation of young people in our decaying world, i’m sure the juvenile court system has plenty.
Authorities would not say if the announcement was planned or had been made impulsively. Police said they were also investigating a teenage boy who had accompanied the suspect to the store, but the other boy has not been charged.
Again, they’re talking about this as if it was a legitimate crime. Were the huwtfuw comments unplanned or premeditated? And how exactly are they “investigating” his buddy? Are they going to question him with things like “Did you help him come up with this idea?” or, better yet “Is he working for you?”. And if he does end up geeting charged, what will those charges be?” Accomplice to first degree insult”?
Officials for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores inc. said the announcement was “unacceptable”, and Dalton praised the company for its strong cooperation in the investigation.
Damn, I can’t think of a smartass comment to throw in here. So we move on…
“We’re pleased this matter is resolved” Wal-Mart spokesperson Dave Tovar said in a statement issued after the news conference. We have updated our intercom system at this store to prevent this from ever happening again. We again apologize to all of our customers and associates who had to listen to something so offensive.”
Well, I’m glad they’re taking that first step to recovery. Perhaps Hillary Clinton can now show up and “help the healing begin.” Dave, man, your customers and associates aren’t entitled to an apology. Everyone at some point has to listen to something offensive-it’s a law of nature and inevitable fact of life. Instead of apologizing, you should educate them on the emotional benefits of growing a pair of balls and getting the fuck over it.
Although a manager quickly went to the intercom and apologized for the remark, many customers expressed their anger to store management. Some community members said Saturday that they’ve heard reports of similar incidents happening that were not reported to the police.
I’m sure he did, and I’m sure they did. The reason those incidents were not reported to the police was because it’s not their job to take care of everything that is offensive to you. I have no idea precisely what type of community this is, but its members seem to have an entitlement mentality.
“We are concerned about that, and we’re looking into these incidents. We want to work with the community to make sure these types of incidents don’t happen,” said Loretta Winters, president of the Gloucester County chapter of the NAACP.
And how exactly is that to be accomplished? With surveillance cameras and voice recorders posted everywhere? With Tolerance Police patrolling the streets? I’m onto you fucks.
Winters said she hopes the boy will get counseling and be educated about sensitivity so he can understand the consequences of his actions.
Read: She will demand that the boy be coerced into attending a mandatory sensitivity training course where he will be stripped of his individuality and he reporgrammed as another mindless drone within the hive of the multicult. Personally, I hope someone introduces him to Tom Sunic so he’ll understand why he is right and they are wrong.
“I’m assuming this person didn’t realize how hurtful his comments were” she said.
Again with the infantile bellyaching about hurt feelings. Let me make this crystal clear: nothing in the united states constitution gives you a right not to have your feelings hurt, no matter how hard you want to believe otherwise.
The incident is the latest in a series of problems the retailer has had in its dealings with minorities and women.
Oh, I bet.
There have been several past instances of black customers claiming they were treated unfairly at Wal Mart stores, and the company faced lawsuits that women were passed over in favor of men for pay raises and promotions.
If you’re shopping at Wal-Mart, then life is treating you unfairly in the first place. Yes, and if man were passed over in favor of women for those advancements it would be positive discrimination, a neccessary step in the struggle for social justice.
In February 2009, the retailer paid $17.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in the hiring of truck drivers.
Ooh I wanted a job and you didn’t give me it so now you owe me money.
And the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company in May 2009, claiming some Hispanic employees at a Sam’s Club subsidiary in California were subjected to a hostile work envieronment. That suit alleges managers failed to stop repeated verbal harrassment, including the use of derogatory words, against employees of Mexican descent.
The purpose of this dreadful buraucracy is to ensure you have equal opportunity, not to protect your precious little ears once that opportunity arrives. Perhaps those Mexicans should have stood up for themselves and told their harrasser’s to fuck off, which I would respect far more than trying to enlist their bosses to fight their battles for them. This is the adult world equivalent of tugging on mommy’s dress and pointing to the kid who called you a bad name. Well, when you get to a certain age mommy is going to stop caring, and you’re well past that age.
However, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has said the company has worked hard in recent years to show it cares about diversity.
Diversity=a broad range of skin colors, genders, sexual orientations, and other superficialities, all processed through the same social engineering mechanisms and subordinated to the same secular theocracy.
Dear reader, this bullshit can only last a limited period of time before it self-destructs. Upon that glorious day, we can dance the tango on its charred remains.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Progressivism: Capitalism With A Human Face

by Quagmire

The foremost requirement for vanquishing a foe is a thorough understanding of the foe and how it came into and maintains its existence. If you understand how existence is maintained, then you know how it is destroyed. Without this understanding, your foe is impervious to your attacks and will continue to successfully reconstitute himself. The capitalist system was borne a child of modernity, and as such is to blame for the erosion of the institutions we as Radical Traditionalists seek to defend. Was it not capitalist individualism that first atomized the individual and destroyed communal and familial ties? Was it not capitalist industrialization which severed humankind’s relationship with nature? Was it not capitalist globalization that produced the internationalist structures that are currently destorying the sovergnity of all nations? Is it also not that same system which is opening occidental borders and allowing in the current tidal wave of third world colonists? Was it not capitalism that destroyed genuine arts and literature and produced the shallow consumerism we live with today? I believe that the identity of our enemy is self-evident. Our guns must be set for the capitalist system and its plutocratic overlords, but first we must gain an understanding of its functions, without which we are merely firing blanks.

Capitalism is a most monstrous system, one that suboridantes and extracts wealth from the vast majority for the sake of the tiny few. It is not “individualism”, as its supporters claim, but a strictly regimented, class-based collectivism. It is not a “free market”, for its foundation is a thick ground of state intervention. The only “freedom of choice” it affords its victims is the choice between labor and starvation, and the only “upward mobility” it allows for is an ever expanding toyshelf of consumer goodies. It is an economic sociopath. In order to prosper without their true nature exposed, sociopaths need an appealing face, a non-threatening mask behind which to hide. For sociopathic persons, that mask is a respected position in the local economy or community, or within a family. For capitalism, that mask is progressivism, the ideology of managerial liberalism and social control that first hold in this country with the Wilson Administration. While movement conservatives attack it with great frequency, those attacks are always entirely innaccurate. Progressivism is not marxism, nor is it even a form of socialism; it is not a kinder, gentler way of transforming us into the Soviet States of America. It is a kinder, gentler way of dominating and exploiting the majority of the population. It is capitalism with a human face.
Movement conservatives are correct to demonize progressivism, even though they are doing it for completely incorrect reasons. The American welfare state is not an attempt by crypto-marxists to subvert and destroy a non-existent “free market”. It is an attempt by technocratic elites to subvert and destroy genuinely liberatory movements for the sake of what is most definitely not a free market. The statist institutions it has spawned exist for the purpose of subverting radical movements by placing those who would be drawn to them under the auspices of specially trained technocrats (the so-called “New Class”) and pacifying them through state dependance. The publik edukashun system, as exposed by writer and researcher John Taylor Gotto, is a thinly veiled instrument of social control; deliberately neglecting to instill in its young victims the tool of critical thought, it does its job of preparing “our future” (i.e. the next forgettable wave of competent workers, satisfied consumers, and law-abiding citizens.) The New Deal welfare state, imposed on us by Franklin Roosevelt, serves the same purpose with the poor; by herding them into the urban plantation of public housing and handing them a small check every month, they are effectively pacified and genuine class warfare is prevented from erupting.
The left has continually failed in its long-running crusade against the American industrial establishment. This is because they have bought into the myth of progressivism, viewing these distortions as “gains” and “reforms” and believing mistakenly that they were “fought for from below” rather than imposed from above. So instead of working to undermine the facade that legitimizes their foe, they have embraced it and allowed it. In doing so, they have become useful idiots for the very enemy they ostensibly oppose. (They have also embraced wholeheartedly the liberal-capitalist system’s cultural component, cultural marxism, further eroding their relevance and dooming them to failure, which I am dedicating my next post to elaborating on.) However, we among the revolutionary right will not repeat that mistake and in doing so, will beat the left at their own game.

Group Victimhood: A Racial Identity, Solidarity, and Separatism That Pays

Group Victimhood: A Racial Identity, Solidarity, and Separatism That Pays

http://www.occidentaldissent.com

Whites thirst for even a little bit of racial identity to be allowed. We’d pay for it ourselves. We would take it even without tax exempt status. Just let us be us, without imposing official and unofficial condemnations on us.

Anti-white impositions are certainly a form of religious persecution, though we do not have a unifying religion any more. A unified religion imposes on us, and because we are not ourselves a unified religion, we don’t have a religious basis to fight back.

It is also racial persecution, specifically because we are made to live among “diverse” peoples with a strong racial identity, while we are purposely handicapped from having a strong racial identity. Every racial group except Whites are given leave to “take a gun to a gun fight” while we are socio-politically disarmed by the concept of “racism.” We are like the dodo birds after the rats were released.

However, we are a much hardier species than dodo birds, and there are still plenty of us. It says in the Muqaddimah that it takes 40 years for a people who are taxed and imposed to acquire group feeling and effectively resist. I think we are 10 years into our 40. However, history moves faster than it did in 1300, so the 40 years may be compressed to a significantly shorter time period.

The Charles and Shirley Sherrod videos show a people who have their group feeling, their racial identity, solidarity and separatism subsidized. It pays to be a Black Raci$t! Nice work if you can get it. Same with a Jewish raci$t.

Those for whom Raci$m is merely a money racket have weakening group feeling.

For us, group feeling is a matter of life or death. It is a matter of racial insult and taunts on a daily basis. HBO made a movie with Ralph Fiennes called “Rasputin” and there’s a scene where the Tsar and his family are surrounded by Bolsheviks and taunted and bullied. Every time a journalist writes about how Whites will be a minority by such and such year, I remember that scene.

We don’t get subsidized for group feeling. Rather, we are made to pay. Our livelihood is threatened for wanting to do what Shirley Sherrod or Abe Foxman does, for our own people.

This is all based on bad theory of college professors — namely, that attacking white people is historically justified. Their bad theory is getting tested in reality.

The irony is that they are doing EXACTLY the right thing to create very strong group feeling among Whites. I am continually amazed at how apparently intelligent people like Leonard Zeskind attack conservatives as racists, right when conservatives are trying to say they aren’t racists. Zeskind et al apparently don’t understand basic psychological dynamics – conservatives aren’t going to come out with their hands up, “OK, sorry, I don’t want to be called a racist any more, I’m a good progressive/liberal now. Go ahead and raise my taxes and redistribute to the black and brown hordes now.”

No. White conservatives will eventually realize that “racist” has been played out and lacks teeth, if you don’t give it teeth. The power of “racist” is only the power that Whites grant it. The power of “racism” is merely a “Wizard of Oz” type mesmerizing-trance power, cultivated from years of prosperous and lethargic television watching.

Economic contraction and the amazing incompetence of the US government is breaking this trance. The Pentagon, which is the muscle of the US Government, has recently suffered two hard blows to its legitimacy; the child porn scandal (!!!), and the Wikileaks scandal. Meanwhile, China asserts itself as the world’s largest creditor nation.

“The western rating agencies are politicised and highly ideological and they do not adhere to objective standards,” Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, told the Financial Times in an interview. “China is the biggest creditor nation in the world and with the rise and national rejuvenation of China we should have our say in how the credit risks of states are judged.”

He specifically criticised the practice of “rating shopping” by companies who offer their business to the agency that provides the most favourable rating.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis “rating shopping” has been one of the key complaints from western regulators , who have heavily criticised the big three agencies for handing top ratings to mortgage-linked securities that turned toxic when the US housing market collapsed in 2007.

So China is objecting to typical Jewish financial practices. It’s about time.

Jews turned the US into a huge debtor nation to get rich quick, not realizing they were undermining a country that had accepted them as its own. They truly shit their own nest! The best nest they EVER HAD.

Likewise, Lenny Zeskind types attack White conservatives as racists, not realizing that he’s shitting his own nest. This is as good as it’s ever going to get for professional anti-whites; their best bet is to maintain the status quo as long as possible. The more they push it, the more they are going to get the outcome they claim they don’t want to get! In a certain sense, people like Zeskind are the best (if unwitting) ally for the cultivation of White group feeling.

The reason White group feeling is the big taboo, is because Jews and Blacks want to protect their Raci$m franchise. White group feeling is not equivalent to a “Holocaust,” though that’s the reasoning behind suppressing White group feeling. (Racism leads straight to the gas chambers, as some Rabbi Wise said) However, White group feeling will certainly mean reduced redistributions to the Jewish and Black Raci$m industries.

White Liberals are Retarded Children

Maureen Dowd

This article deserves a longer and more thought out response but I’m afraid I’ll do permanent damage to my brain if I tried to get into minds this idiotic. The self-hating Maureen Dowd has written an article where she decries the Obama White House as “too white”.

The Obama White House is too white.

It has Barack Obama, raised in the Hawaiian hood and Indonesia, and Valerie Jarrett, who spent her early years in Iran.

But unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture, Obama lacks advisers who are descended from the central African-American experience, ones who understand “the slave thing,” as a top black Democrat dryly puts it.

I’m sorry this is just silly. This kind of self-righteous self-hatred just shows how incoherent Liberals are in their ideas. It was quite clear during the presidential campaign that Liberals like Dowd believed that the election of Obama as the first black president was paramount in ending America’s history of “racial injustice”. And many white Liberals (especially young ones) voted for Obama for that very reason. Many of them told me so during the Democratic nomination campaign during my last semester at college. Guess they were wrong…

We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.

The president appears completely comfortable in his own skin, but it seems he feels that he and Michelle are such a huge change for the nation to absorb that he can be overly cautious about pushing for other societal changes for blacks and gays. At some level, he acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.

What I find most intriguing about this whole article is the White Supremacism of Liberals that Matt Parrott hilariously described. Besides the idea that Bill Clinton is more in touch with the black community than Obama, Maureen says white Liberals like her know how much Diversity is enough and how to effectively make it work better than the non-whites that make Diversity what it is. What shows here is that despite how much blood they publicly pour out of their hearts for the TV cameras and donors at cocktail parties, Liberals like Dowd really see non-whites not as equals but pawns to move around and use in whatever way fits the newest political philosophy this week that will make them Radial Chic.

This is also a slap in the face to white Americans. Our country today has a black president, black Attorney General, Jewish Chief of Staff, Mestizo Supreme Court Justice, and possibly another Jewish Supreme Court Justice just in the span since Obama took office. When is there enough Diversity Maureen? When will our government not be “too white”? This is the danger of Diversity: it never says how few whites there needs to be before True Diversity has been achieved, leaving the door open to the total eradication of whites in America. When there are no more whites will we finally have True Diversity?

Now I know there are two types of Liberals: the hardcore vanguard who actually understand and the useful idiots. Maureen is a useful idiot. Like the pampered college kids who saw Obama’s coronation…excuse me election as the moment when “we would move beyond race”, she is a retarded child. And like retarded children they can’t admit they were wrong and fell for a lie because they can’t think beyond their little world. So instead they get mad and throw a hissy fit at the person they were totally dependent on to reaffirm they’re little world.

Useful Idiot Liberals

If self-hating white Liberals like Maureen Dowd actually believed their own bullshit they would kill themselves. I’m serious about this. When you break it down the whole idea of Diversity is that there are less white people in America. So if these white Liberals killed themselves they would make America more diverse by lessening the number of whites. Not only that but by killing themselves they can let non-whites have all that “White Privilege” has given them. Just imagine how many poor Mestizos from Mexico could live in Maureen’s (I’m assuming) expensive home. I’m sure there’s some struggling non-white journalist who would love Maureen’s richly paid job. Same thing with the useful idiots in college. A non-white could take their place at home, another their part-time job, and another their education at school. Wow! How awesome that would be for them! Not only would they make America more diverse but they would also give up all “White Privilege” has given them and give incredible opportunities to three poor non-whites.

How white Liberals can live up to their ideals

Oh wait such forward thinking is impossible for retarded children. Man my brain hurts already from trying to understand such idiocy.

Take The Ceausescu Challenge!

Take The Ceausescu Challenge!

http://downwithjugears.blogspot.com/

[I considered running this with all kinds of caveats and disclaimers, but what the hell? The author probably intended this as comedy, but there’s many a true word in jest. It’s not likely to incite anyone to violence, since American White males don’t fight any more, they write their Congressman or bitch to a radio talk show host or hire a lawyer to file a malicious lawsuit.

I figure that once–just once–I am going to publish what everybody in this country with any remaining sense of decency truly feels in their heart, no matter what their race or political persuasion. I’ll probably get all kinds of flak—so what else is new? Enjoy! – HAC]

Take the Ceausescu Challenge!
by Mustapha Gormsby

The vermin on Capitol Hill are stealing over half of your income, eroding away your rights and taking our country on a fast track to the Third World. These miserable thrice-damned whoresons will never stop unless we stop them! It’s time to:

KILL THEM ALL NOW!

How can we kill them all now? Any way you like. You could hang them, behead them, roast them over an open fire, strangle them with your bare hands (very satisfying), impale them, sell them to a vivisectionist (profitable), run them over with a large vehicle once or with a small vehicle several times, stab them, shoot them, burn them at the stake, string them up with piano wire, chop them up with an axe (don’t use your good chef’s knife or you could notch the blade), bury them up to their necks near an anthill and pour honey on them, use them for chum when you go shark fishing, or any other method that you can imagine.

The more horrible it is, the better you will feel about it.

Don’t we need politicians and bureaucrats for anything?

Nope. They don’t even make good firewood, so there’s really no good use for them at all. Remember, these people have stolen a substantial part of your income for the last 80 years. They have spent even more than they have stolen, leaving the country with a 5 trillion dollar debt! They have stolen property from innocent people and used the law as an instrument of plunder and tyranny.

Do we need them? No, but they need us. Without us to bleed, they wouldn’t be able to live because they are incapable of producing anything for themselves. The miserable bastards don’t deserve to live.

Scum! Vicious, conniving, baby-eating vermin! They must die, die, DIE!

KILL THEM ALL NOW!

What Would We Do Without Them?

Live like free men instead of slaves, that’s what. When this country was founded people knew about things like natural rights. Now thesefestering, swilling pigs at the public trough have decided that the people of this country have too much freedom and that it is up to them to curtail it!

BASTARDS!!!!! Who do they think they are? Eighty years ago the budget was small enough to be paid for on what the government collects today even if you got rid of all personal income taxes! But these horrific sons-of-bitches just keep taking and taking as if there was no limit to what we will tolerate.

Is There Any Precedent for Killing Them All Now?

Yes! All over the world and throughout history, people who have suffered at the hands of corrupt politicians have eventually said enough is enough. The French Revolution was a fine example of what to do with politicians out of control. The people of Romania, having suffered under the Communist dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu for too many years, finally dragged him out into the street and shot him and his Jew bitch-dogslut of a wife through the head, an event which was videotaped and shown on national television to the thunderous cheers of the multitudes and which causes real Americans to heave a sigh of envy.

TAKE THE CEAUSESCU CHALLENGE!

Are you tired of being told how to live? Of being told what you can and cannot eat, smoke, drink or do with your property? Are you tired of the government taking away your money and spending it on more government? Are you sick and tired of the fact that every time you turn around another thing you enjoy has been outlawed? There’s only one solution:

KILL THEM ALL NOW!

Hurry, before the United States starts looking like Mexico, Brazil or the old Soviet Union. March on your state capitol with pitchforks and torches. Lock the bastards in and burn the place down. Then march on WashingtonD.C. and do the same.

That is where the real evil is. You cannot vote these people out of office, because the new ones you vote in will begin to look like the old ones within just weeks. They are a slime and they spread like malaria. They are a disease! Voting won’t do any good. It’s time to KILL!

Just The Elected Officials?

No! The number of elected Federal officials is limited to congress, the president and the vice president. That’s only 537 people. The Federal bureaucracy numbers in the millions; between the military, the IRS, BATF,CIA, FBI, EPA, DEA, FDA and all of the other bureaus and departments,you’ve got millions of people who have power over your life and you never elected them! My god, the Post Office!!

Don’t let them escape: KILL THEM ALL NOW!

Filthy, horrible, miserable, statist, liberal, feminist, pervert, politically correct, lying, thieving, baby-killing vermin scum!!!!!

If you don’t kill them all now there’s no telling what they might do to you next. They could use your children to feed starving peasants in India. They could sell your wife or husband to the British to pay off part of their debt. They might turn your children into prostitutes for the government to help continue to fund PBS! Do you want your children to become Barney’s whores?!

NOTHING IS SACRED TO THESE VERMIN! THEY ARE EVIL!!!!!!

For most of the 20th century, these stinking, loathsome, festering, boil-ridden, poor excuses for life forms have been bleeding the American people dry.

And not just at home! The government of the United States has screwed over plenty of people around the world. Not only that, but these shifty-eyed, mindless, drooling, horrible, vicious, evil, demonic, flea-bearing, pestilent, snivelling, whining, toadying, child-molesting power mongers are the world’s number one cause of apoplexy!!!!!!! They’ll steal your children and sacrifice them in bizarre Satanic rituals!

They must be stopped. Voting won’t stop them, petitioning won’t stop them, ballot initiatives won’t stop them.

Bullets will stop them! Baseball bats will stop them! Pitchforks will stop them! Skinning them alive will stop them!

The only thing that will stop them dead is Death!

Isn’t Killing Them All Now Kind of Drastic?

No! They signed up for the job. They stole from you, they lied to you, they stole from you some more, they destroyed the town you live in, they caused the increase in crime across the country, Mister Rogers has been brainwashing your children to make blind obedient followers of them! They are evil and they must be killed!

Don’t let another day of their depredations go by unchallenged! Kill them all now!

Yours etc. GRE (Mrs.)
Somewhere USA
Have a nice day.

[God, that felt good! – HAC]

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

Feature

America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution

As over-leveraged investment houses began to fail in September 2008, the leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, of major corporations, and opinion leaders stretching from the National Review magazine (and the Wall Street Journal) on the right to the Nation magazine on the left, agreed that spending some $700 billion to buy the investors’ “toxic assets” was the only alternative to the U.S. economy’s “systemic collapse.” In this, President George W. Bush and his would-be Republican successor John McCain agreed with the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. Many, if not most, people around them also agreed upon the eventual commitment of some 10 trillion nonexistent dollars in ways unprecedented in America. They explained neither the difference between the assets’ nominal and real values, nor precisely why letting the market find the latter would collapse America. The public objected immediately, by margins of three or four to one.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several “stimulus” bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about “global warming” for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class’s continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.

Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”

The Political Divide

Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg’s tip. When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences “undecided,” “none of the above,” or “tea party,” these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority’s demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace’s taunt “there ain’t a dime’s worth of difference” between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans’ conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.

While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people’s realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers — easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.

Far from speculating how the political confrontation might develop between America’s regime class — relatively few people supported by no more than one-third of Americans — and a country class comprising two-thirds of the country, our task here is to understand the divisions that underlie that confrontation’s unpredictable future. More on politics below.

The Ruling Class

Who are these rulers, and by what right do they rule? How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them? What sets our ruling class apart from the rest of us?

The most widespread answers — by such as the Times‘s Thomas Friedman and David Brooks — are schlock sociology. Supposedly, modern society became so complex and productive, the technical skills to run it so rare, that it called forth a new class of highly educated officials and cooperators in an ever less private sector. Similarly fanciful is Edward Goldberg’s notion that America is now ruled by a “newocracy”: a “new aristocracy who are the true beneficiaries of globalization — including the multinational manager, the technologist and the aspirational members of the meritocracy.” In fact, our ruling class grew and set itself apart from the rest of us by its connection with ever bigger government, and above all by a certain attitude.

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities’ priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston’s Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate — just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative “nonprofit” and “philanthropic” sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America’s Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter’s grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts.

If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can “write” your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was “inadvertent,” and you can count on the Law School’s dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that “closes” the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about “global warming” to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France’s ruling class are bright people — certifiably. Not ours. But didn’t ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn’t most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d’Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France’s ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America’s “top schools” is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that “the best” colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.

The Faith

Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that “we” are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation’s paradigm that “all men are created equal”?

The notion of human equality was always a hard sell, because experience teaches us that we are so unequal in so many ways, and because making one’s self superior is so tempting that Lincoln called it “the old serpent, you work I’ll eat.” But human equality made sense to our Founding generation because they believed that all men are made in the image and likeness of God, because they were yearning for equal treatment under British law, or because they had read John Locke.

It did not take long for their paradigm to be challenged by interest and by “science.” By the 1820s, as J. C. Calhoun was reading in the best London journals that different breeds of animals and plants produce inferior or superior results, slave owners were citing the Negroes’ deficiencies to argue that they should remain slaves indefinitely. Lots of others were reading Ludwig Feuerbach’s rendition of Hegelian philosophy, according to which biblical injunctions reflect the fantasies of alienated human beings or, in the young Karl Marx’s formulation, that ethical thought is “superstructural” to material reality. By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class’s religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

Thus began the Progressive Era. When Woodrow Wilson in 1914 was asked “can’t you let anything alone?” he answered with, “I let everything alone that you can show me is not itself moving in the wrong direction, but I am not going to let those things alone that I see are going down-hill.” Wilson spoke for the thousands of well-off Americans who patronized the spas at places like Chautauqua and Lake Mohonk. By such upper-middle-class waters, progressives who imagined themselves the world’s examples and the world’s reformers dreamt big dreams of establishing order, justice, and peace at home and abroad. Neither were they shy about their desire for power. Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U.S. government of the power to reshape American society. Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to “teach [them] to elect good men.”

World War I and the chaos at home and abroad that followed it discredited the Progressives in the American people’s eyes. Their international schemes had brought blood and promised more. Their domestic management had not improved Americans’ lives, but given them a taste of arbitrary government, including Prohibition. The Progressives, for their part, found it fulfilling to attribute the failure of their schemes to the American people’s backwardness, to something deeply wrong with America. The American people had failed them because democracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity. Thus Progressives began to look down on the masses, to look on themselves as the vanguard, and to look abroad for examples to emulate.

The cultural divide between the “educated class” and the rest of the country opened in the interwar years. Some Progressives joined the “vanguard of the proletariat,” the Communist Party. Many more were deeply sympathetic to Soviet Russia, as they were to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Not just the Nation, but also the New York Times and National Geographic found much to be imitated in these regimes because they promised energetically to transcend their peoples’ ways and to build “the new man.” Above all, our educated class was bitter about America. In 1925 the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored a legal challenge to a Tennessee law that required teaching the biblical account of creation. The ensuing trial, radio broadcast nationally, as well as the subsequent hit movie Inherit the Wind, were the occasion for what one might have called the Chautauqua class to drive home the point that Americans who believed in the Bible were willful ignoramuses. As World War II approached, some American Progressives supported the Soviet Union (and its ally, Nazi Germany) and others Great Britain and France. But Progressives agreed on one thing: the approaching war should be blamed on the majority of Americans, because they had refused to lead the League of Nations. Darryl Zanuck produced the critically acclaimed movie [Woodrow] Wilson featuring Cedric Hardwicke as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who allegedly brought on the war by appealing to American narrow-mindedness against Wilson’s benevolent genius.

Franklin Roosevelt brought the Chautauqua class into his administration and began the process that turned them into rulers. FDR described America’s problems in technocratic terms. America’s problems would be fixed by a “brain trust” (picked by him). His New Deal’s solutions — the alphabet-soup “independent” agencies that have run America ever since — turned many Progressives into powerful bureaucrats and then into lobbyists. As the saying goes, they came to Washington to do good, and stayed to do well.

As their number and sense of importance grew, so did their distaste for common Americans. Believing itself “scientific,” this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in “scientific” terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno’s widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the “F scale” (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey’s Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers’s Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved “scientifically” that conservatives were maladjusted ne’er-do-well ignoramuses. (My class project, titled “Liberalism and Personality,” following the same methodology, proved just as scientifically that liberals suffered from the very same social diseases, and even more amusing ones.)

The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today’s bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are “epiphenomenal” products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people’s words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second — or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents’ clinging to “God and guns” as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said “what everybody knows is true.” Confident “knowledge” that “some of us, the ones who matter,” have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.

The Agenda: Power

Our ruling class’s agenda is power for itself. While it stakes its claim through intellectual-moral pretense, it holds power by one of the oldest and most prosaic of means: patronage and promises thereof. Like left-wing parties always and everywhere, it is a “machine,” that is, based on providing tangible rewards to its members. Such parties often provide rank-and-file activists with modest livelihoods and enhance mightily the upper levels’ wealth. Because this is so, whatever else such parties might accomplish, they must feed the machine by transferring money or jobs or privileges — civic as well as economic — to the party’s clients, directly or indirectly. This, incidentally, is close to Aristotle’s view of democracy. Hence our ruling class’s standard approach to any and all matters, its solution to any and all problems, is to increase the power of the government — meaning of those who run it, meaning themselves, to profit those who pay with political support for privileged jobs, contracts, etc. Hence more power for the ruling class has been our ruling class’s solution not just for economic downturns and social ills but also for hurricanes and tornadoes, global cooling and global warming. A priori, one might wonder whether enriching and empowering individuals of a certain kind can make Americans kinder and gentler, much less control the weather. But there can be no doubt that such power and money makes Americans ever more dependent on those who wield it. Let us now look at what this means in our time.

Dependence Economics

By taxing and parceling out more than a third of what Americans produce, through regulations that reach deep into American life, our ruling class is making itself the arbiter of wealth and poverty. While the economic value of anything depends on sellers and buyers agreeing on that value as civil equals in the absence of force, modern government is about nothing if not tampering with civil equality. By endowing some in society with power to force others to sell cheaper than they would, and forcing others yet to buy at higher prices — even to buy in the first place — modern government makes valuable some things that are not, and devalues others that are. Thus if you are not among the favored guests at the table where officials make detailed lists of who is to receive what at whose expense, you are on the menu. Eventually, pretending forcibly that valueless things have value dilutes the currency’s value for all.

Laws and regulations nowadays are longer than ever because length is needed to specify how people will be treated unequally. For example, the health care bill of 2010 takes more than 2,700 pages to make sure not just that some states will be treated differently from others because their senators offered key political support, but more importantly to codify bargains between the government and various parts of the health care industry, state governments, and large employers about who would receive what benefits (e.g., public employee unions and auto workers) and who would pass what indirect taxes onto the general public. The financial regulation bill of 2010, far from setting univocal rules for the entire financial industry in few words, spends some 3,000 pages (at this writing) tilting the field exquisitely toward some and away from others. Even more significantly, these and other products of Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses empower countless boards and commissions arbitrarily to protect some persons and companies, while ruining others. Thus in 2008 the Republican administration first bailed out Bear Stearns, then let Lehman Brothers sink in the ensuing panic, but then rescued Goldman Sachs by infusing cash into its principal debtor, AIG. Then, its Democratic successor used similarly naked discretionary power (and money appropriated for another purpose) to give major stakes in the auto industry to labor unions that support it. Nowadays, the members of our ruling class admit that they do not read the laws. They don’t have to. Because modern laws are primarily grants of discretion, all anybody has to know about them is whom they empower.

By making economic rules dependent on discretion, our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support. Thus in the 1990s and 2000s, as Democrats and Republicans forced banks to make loans for houses to people and at rates they would not otherwise have considered, builders and investors had every reason to make as much money as they could from the ensuing inflation of housing prices. When the bubble burst, only those connected with the ruling class at the bottom and at the top were bailed out. Similarly, by taxing the use of carbon fuels and subsidizing “alternative energy,” our ruling class created arguably the world’s biggest opportunity for making money out of things that few if any would buy absent its intervention. The ethanol industry and its ensuing diversions of wealth exist exclusively because of subsidies. The prospect of legislation that would put a price on carbon emissions and allot certain amounts to certain companies set off a feeding frenzy among large companies to show support for a “green agenda,” because such allotments would be worth tens of billions of dollars. That is why companies hired some 2,500 lobbyists in 2009 to deepen their involvement in “climate change.” At the very least, such involvement profits them by making them into privileged collectors of carbon taxes. Any “green jobs” thus created are by definition creatures of subsidies — that is, of privilege. What effect creating such privileges may have on “global warming” is debatable. But it surely increases the number of people dependent on the ruling class, and teaches Americans that satisfying that class is a surer way of making a living than producing goods and services that people want to buy.

Beyond patronage, picking economic winners and losers redirects the American people’s energies to tasks that the political class deems more worthy than what Americans choose for themselves. John Kenneth Galbraith’s characterization of America as “private wealth amidst public squalor” (The Affluent Society, 1958) has ever encapsulated our best and brightest’s complaint: left to themselves, Americans use land inefficiently in suburbs and exurbs, making it necessary to use energy to transport them to jobs and shopping. Americans drive big cars, eat lots of meat as well as other unhealthy things, and go to the doctor whenever they feel like it. Americans think it justice to spend the money they earn to satisfy their private desires even though the ruling class knows that justice lies in improving the community and the planet. The ruling class knows that Americans must learn to live more densely and close to work, that they must drive smaller cars and change their lives to use less energy, that their dietary habits must improve, that they must accept limits in how much medical care they get, that they must divert more of their money to support people, cultural enterprises, and plans for the planet that the ruling class deems worthier. So, ever-greater taxes and intrusive regulations are the main wrenches by which the American people can be improved (and, yes, by which the ruling class feeds and grows).

The 2010 medical law is a template for the ruling class’s economic modus operandi: the government taxes citizens to pay for medical care and requires citizens to purchase health insurance. The money thus taken and directed is money that the citizens themselves might have used to pay for medical care. In exchange for the money, the government promises to provide care through its “system.” But then all the boards, commissions, guidelines, procedures, and “best practices” that constitute “the system” become the arbiters of what any citizen ends up getting. The citizen might end up dissatisfied with what “the system” offers. But when he gave up his money, he gave up the power to choose, and became dependent on all the boards and commissions that his money also pays for and that raise the cost of care. Similarly, in 2008 the House Ways and Means Committee began considering a plan to force citizens who own Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to transfer those funds into government-run “guaranteed retirement accounts.” If the government may force citizens to buy health insurance, by what logic can it not force them to trade private ownership and control of retirement money for a guarantee as sound as the government itself? Is it not clear that the government knows more about managing retirement income than individuals?

Who Depends on Whom?

In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans, and to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights” — meaning charters of government power.

Consider representation. Following Wilson, American Progressives have always wanted to turn the U.S. Congress from the role defined by James Madison’s Federalist #10, “refine and enlarge the public’s view,” to something like the British Parliament, which ratifies government actions. Although Britain’s electoral system — like ours, single members elected in historic districts by plurality vote — had made members of Parliament responsive to their constituents in ancient times, by Wilson’s time the growing importance of parties made MPs beholden to party leaders. Hence whoever controls the majority party controls both Parliament and the government.

In America, the process by which party has become (almost) as important began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Baker v. Carr which, by setting the single standard “one man, one vote” for congressional districts, ended up legalizing the practice of “gerrymandering,” concentrating the opposition party’s voters into as few districts as possible while placing one’s own voters into as many as possible likely to yield victories. Republican and Democratic state legislatures have gerrymandered for a half century. That is why today’s Congress consists more and more of persons who represent their respective party establishments — not nearly as much as in Britain, but heading in that direction. Once districts are gerrymandered “safe” for one party or another, the voters therein count less because party leaders can count more on elected legislators to toe the party line.

To the extent party leaders do not have to worry about voters, they can choose privileged interlocutors, representing those in society whom they find most amenable. In America ever more since the 1930s — elsewhere in the world this practice is ubiquitous and long-standing — government has designated certain individuals, companies, and organizations within each of society’s sectors as (junior) partners in elaborating laws and administrative rules for those sectors. The government empowers the persons it has chosen over those not chosen, deems them the sector’s true representatives, and rewards them. They become part of the ruling class.

Thus in 2009-10 the American Medical Association (AMA) strongly supported the new medical care law, which the administration touted as having the support of “the doctors” even though the vast majority of America’s 975,000 physicians opposed it. Those who run the AMA, however, have a government contract as exclusive providers of the codes by which physicians and hospitals bill the government for their services. The millions of dollars that flow thereby to the AMA’s officers keep them in line, while the impracticality of doing without the billing codes tamps down rebellion in the doctor ranks. When the administration wanted to bolster its case that the state of Arizona’s enforcement of federal immigration laws was offensive to Hispanics, the National Association of Chiefs of Police — whose officials depend on the administration for their salaries — issued a statement that the laws would endanger all Americans by raising Hispanics’ animosity. This reflected conversations with the administration rather than a vote of the nation’s police chiefs.

Similarly, modern labor unions are ever less bunches of workers banding together and ever more bundled under the aegis of an organization chosen jointly by employers and government. Prototypical is the Service Employees International Union, which grew spectacularly by persuading managers of government agencies as well as of publicly funded private entities that placing their employees in the SEIU would relieve them of responsibility. Not by being elected by workers’ secret ballots did the SEIU conquer workplace after workplace, but rather by such deals, or by the union presenting what it claims are cards from workers approving of representation. The union gets 2 percent of the workers’ pay, which it recycles as contributions to the Democratic Party, which it recycles in greater power over public employees. The union’s leadership is part of the ruling class’s beating heart.

The point is that a doctor, a building contractor, a janitor, or a schoolteacher counts in today’s America insofar as he is part of the hierarchy of a sector organization affiliated with the ruling class. Less and less do such persons count as voters.

Ordinary people have also gone a long way toward losing equal treatment under law. The America described in civics books, in which no one could be convicted or fined except by a jury of his peers for having violated laws passed by elected representatives, started disappearing when the New Deal inaugurated today’s administrative state — in which bureaucrats make, enforce, and adjudicate nearly all the rules. Today’s legal-administrative texts are incomprehensibly detailed and freighted with provisions crafted exquisitely to affect equal individuals unequally. The bureaucrats do not enforce the rules themselves so much as whatever “agency policy” they choose to draw from them in any given case. If you protest any “agency policy” you will be informed that it was formulated with input from “the public.” But not from the likes of you.

Disregard for the text of laws — for the dictionary meaning of words and the intentions of those who wrote them — in favor of the decider’s discretion has permeated our ruling class from the Supreme Court to the lowest local agency. Ever since Oliver Wendell Holmes argued in 1920 (Missouri v. Holland) that presidents, Congresses, and judges could not be bound by the U.S. Constitution regarding matters that the people who wrote and ratified it could not have foreseen, it has become conventional wisdom among our ruling class that they may transcend the Constitution while pretending allegiance to it. They began by stretching such constitutional terms as “interstate commerce” and “due process,” then transmuting others, e.g., “search and seizure,” into “privacy.” Thus in 1973 the Supreme Court endowed its invention of “privacy” with a “penumbra” that it deemed “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The court gave no other constitutional reasoning, period. Perfunctory to the point of mockery, this constitutional talk was to reassure the American people that the ruling class was acting within the Constitution’s limitations. By the 1990s federal courts were invalidating amendments to state constitutions passed by referenda to secure the “positive rights” they invent, because these expressions of popular will were inconsistent with the constitution they themselves were construing.

By 2010 some in the ruling class felt confident enough to dispense with the charade. Asked what in the Constitution allows Congress and the president to force every American to purchase health insurance, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied: “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?” No surprise then that lower court judges and bureaucrats take liberties with laws, regulations, and contracts. That is why legal words that say you are in the right avail you less in today’s America than being on the right side of the persons who decide what they want those words to mean.

As the discretionary powers of officeholders and of their informal entourages have grown, the importance of policy and of law itself is declining, citizenship is becoming vestigial, and the American people become ever more dependent.

Disaggregating and Dispiriting

The ruling class is keener to reform the American people’s family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones. In no other areas is the ruling class’s self-definition so definite, its contempt for opposition so patent, its Kulturkampf so open. It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest — often defined as mere coherence against outsiders who most often know better. Thus the family prevents its members from playing their proper roles in social reform. Worst of all, it reproduces itself.

Since marriage is the family’s fertile seed, government at all levels, along with “mainstream” academics and media, have waged war on it. They legislate, regulate, and exhort in support not of “the family” — meaning married parents raising children — but rather of “families,” meaning mostly households based on something other than marriage. The institution of no-fault divorce diminished the distinction between cohabitation and marriage — except that husbands are held financially responsible for the children they father, while out-of-wedlock fathers are not. The tax code penalizes marriage and forces those married couples who raise their own children to subsidize “child care” for those who do not. Top Republicans and Democrats have also led society away from the very notion of marital fidelity by precept as well as by parading their affairs. For example, in 1997 the Democratic administration’s secretary of defense and the Republican Senate’s majority leader (joined by the New York Times et al.) condemned the military’s practice of punishing officers who had extramarital affairs. While the military had assumed that honoring marital vows is as fundamental to the integrity of its units as it is to that of society, consensus at the top declared that insistence on fidelity is “contrary to societal norms.” Not surprisingly, rates of marriage in America have decreased as out-of-wedlock births have increased. The biggest demographic consequence has been that about one in five of all households are women alone or with children, in which case they have about a four in 10 chance of living in poverty. Since unmarried mothers often are or expect to be clients of government services, it is not surprising that they are among the Democratic Party’s most faithful voters.

While our ruling class teaches that relationships among men, women, and children are contingent, it also insists that the relationship between each of them and the state is fundamental. That is why such as Hillary Clinton have written law review articles and books advocating a direct relationship between the government and children, effectively abolishing the presumption of parental authority. Hence whereas within living memory school nurses could not administer an aspirin to a child without the parents’ consent, the people who run America’s schools nowadays administer pregnancy tests and ship girls off to abortion clinics without the parents’ knowledge. Parents are not allowed to object to what their children are taught. But the government may and often does object to how parents raise children. The ruling class’s assumption is that what it mandates for children is correct ipso facto, while what parents do is potentially abusive. It only takes an anonymous accusation of abuse for parents to be taken away in handcuffs until they prove their innocence. Only sheer political weight (and in California, just barely) has preserved parents’ right to homeschool their children against the ruling class’s desire to accomplish what Woodrow Wilson so yearned: “to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.”

At stake are the most important questions: What is the right way for human beings to live? By what standard is anything true or good? Who gets to decide what? Implicit in Wilson’s words and explicit in our ruling class’s actions is the dismissal, as the ways of outdated “fathers,” of the answers that most Americans would give to these questions. This dismissal of the American people’s intellectual, spiritual, and moral substance is the very heart of what our ruling class is about. Its principal article of faith, its claim to the right to decide for others, is precisely that it knows things and operates by standards beyond others’ comprehension.

While the unenlightened ones believe that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that we are subject to His and to His nature’s laws, the enlightened ones know that we are products of evolution, driven by chance, the environment, and the will to primacy. While the un-enlightened are stuck with the antiquated notion that ordinary human minds can reach objective judgments about good and evil, better and worse through reason, the enlightened ones know that all such judgments are subjective and that ordinary people can no more be trusted with reason than they can with guns. Because ordinary people will pervert reason with ideology, religion, or interest, science is “science” only in the “right” hands. Consensus among the right people is the only standard of truth. Facts and logic matter only insofar as proper authority acknowledges them.

That is why the ruling class is united and adamant about nothing so much as its right to pronounce definitive, “scientific” judgment on whatever it chooses. When the government declares, and its associated press echoes that “scientists say” this or that, ordinary people — or for that matter scientists who “don’t say,” or are not part of the ruling class — lose any right to see the information that went into what “scientists say.” Thus when Virginia’s attorney general subpoenaed the data by which Professor Michael Mann had concluded, while paid by the state of Virginia, that the earth’s temperatures are rising “like a hockey stick” from millennial stability — a conclusion on which billions of dollars’ worth of decisions were made — to investigate the possibility of fraud, the University of Virginia’s faculty senate condemned any inquiry into “scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards” claiming that demands for data “send a chilling message to scientists…and indeed scholars in any discipline.” The Washington Post editorialized that the attorney general’s demands for data amounted to “an assault on reason.” The fact that the “hockey stick” conclusion stands discredited and Mann and associates are on record manipulating peer review, the fact that science-by-secret-data is an oxymoron, the very distinction between truth and error, all matter far less to the ruling class than the distinction between itself and those they rule.

By identifying science and reason with themselves, our rulers delegitimize opposition. Though they cannot prevent Americans from worshiping God, they can make it as socially disabling as smoking — to be done furtively and with a bad social conscience. Though they cannot make Americans wish they were Europeans, they continue to press upon this nation of refugees from the rest of the world the notion that Americans ought to live by “world standards.” Each day, the ruling class produces new “studies” that show that one or another of Americans’ habits is in need of reform, and that those Americans most resistant to reform are pitiably, perhaps criminally, wrong. Thus does it go about disaggregating and dispiriting the ruled.

Meddling and Apologies

America’s best and brightest believe themselves qualified and duty bound to direct the lives not only of Americans but of foreigners as well. George W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural statement that America cannot be free until the whole world is free and hence that America must push and prod mankind to freedom was but an extrapolation of the sentiments of America’s Progressive class, first articulated by such as Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson and Columbia’s Nicholas Murray Butler. But while the early Progressives expected the rest of the world to follow peacefully, today’s ruling class makes decisions about war and peace at least as much forcibly to tinker with the innards of foreign bodies politic as to protect America. Indeed, they conflate the two purposes in the face of the American people’s insistence to draw a bright line between war against our enemies and peace with non-enemies in whose affairs we do not interfere. That is why, from Wilson to Kissinger, the ruling class has complained that the American people oscillate between bellicosity and “isolationism.”

Because our ruling class deems unsophisticated the American people’s perennial preference for decisive military action or none, its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world’s Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them. The apparently endless series of wars in which our ruling class has embroiled America, wars that have achieved nothing worthwhile at great cost in lives and treasure, has contributed to defining it, and to discrediting it — but not in its own eyes.

Rather, even as our ruling class has lectured, cajoled, and sometimes intruded violently to reform foreign countries in its own image, it has apologized to them for America not having matched that image — their private image. Woodrow Wilson began this double game in 1919, when he assured Europe’s peoples that America had mandated him to demand their agreement to Article X of the peace treaty (the League of Nations) and then swore to the American people that Article X was the Europeans’ non-negotiable demand. The fact that the U.S. government had seized control of transatlantic cable communications helped hide (for a while) that the League scheme was merely the American Progressives’ private dream. In our time, this double game is quotidian on the evening news. Notably, President Obama apologized to Europe because “the United States has fallen short of meeting its responsibilities” to reduce carbon emissions by taxation. But the American people never assumed such responsibility, and oppose doing so. Hence President Obama was not apologizing for anything that he or anyone he respected had done, but rather blaming his fellow Americans for not doing what he thinks they should do while glossing over the fact that the Europeans had done the taxing but not the reducing. Wilson redux.

Similarly, Obama “apologized” to Europeans because some Americans — not him and his friends — had shown “arrogance and been dismissive” toward them, and to the world because President Truman had used the atom bomb to end World War II. So President Clinton apologized to Africans because some Americans held African slaves until 1865 and others were mean to Negroes thereafter — not himself and his friends, of course. So assistant secretary of state Michael Posner apologized to Chinese diplomats for Arizona’s law that directs police to check immigration status. Republicans engage in that sort of thing as well: former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev tells us that in 1987 then vice president George H. W. Bush distanced himself from his own administration by telling him, “Reagan is a conservative, an extreme conservative. All the dummies and blockheads are with him…” This is all about a class of Americans distinguishing itself from its inferiors. It recalls the Pharisee in the Temple: “Lord, I thank thee that I am not like other men…”

In sum, our ruling class does not like the rest of America. Most of all does it dislike that so many Americans think America is substantially different from the rest of the world and like it that way. For our ruling class, however, America is a work in progress, just like the rest the world, and they are the engineers.

The Country Class

Describing America’s country class is problematic because it is so heterogeneous. It has no privileged podiums, and speaks with many voices, often inharmonious. It shares above all the desire to be rid of rulers it regards inept and haughty. It defines itself practically in terms of reflexive reaction against the rulers’ defining ideas and proclivities — e.g., ever higher taxes and expanding government, subsidizing political favorites, social engineering, approval of abortion, etc. Many want to restore a way of life largely superseded. Demographically, the country class is the other side of the ruling class’s coin: its most distinguishing characteristics are marriage, children, and religious practice. While the country class, like the ruling class, includes the professionally accomplished and the mediocre, geniuses and dolts, it is different because of its non-orientation to government and its members’ yearning to rule themselves rather than be ruled by others.

Even when members of the country class happen to be government officials or officers of major corporations, their concerns are essentially private; in their view, government owes to its people equal treatment rather than action to correct what anyone perceives as imbalance or grievance. Hence they tend to oppose special treatment, whether for corporations or for social categories. Rather than gaming government regulations, they try to stay as far from them as possible. Thus the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo, which allows the private property of some to be taken by others with better connections to government, reminded the country class that government is not its friend.

Negative orientation to privilege distinguishes the corporate officer who tries to keep his company from joining the Business Council of large corporations who have close ties with government from the fellow in the next office. The first wants the company to grow by producing. The second wants it to grow by moving to the trough. It sets apart the schoolteacher who resents the union to which he is forced to belong for putting the union’s interests above those of parents who want to choose their children’s schools. In general, the country class includes all those in stations high and low who are aghast at how relatively little honest work yields, by comparison with what just a little connection with the right bureaucracy can get you. It includes those who take the side of outsiders against insiders, of small institutions against large ones, of local government against the state or federal. The country class is convinced that big business, big government, and big finance are linked as never before and that ordinary people are more unequal than ever.

Members of the country class who want to rise in their profession through sheer competence try at once to avoid the ruling class’s rituals while guarding against infringing its prejudices. Averse to wheedling, they tend to think that exams should play a major role in getting or advancing in jobs, that records of performance — including academic ones — should be matters of public record, and that professional disputes should be settled by open argument. For such people, the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ricci, upholding the right of firefighters to be promoted according to the results of a professional exam, revived the hope that competence may sometimes still trump political connections.

Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class’s insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class’s dismissal of opposition as mere “anger and frustration” — an imputation of stupidity — while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class’s bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?

The country class actually believes that America’s ways are superior to the rest of the world’s, and regards most of mankind as less free, less prosperous, and less virtuous. Thus while it delights in croissants and thinks Toyota’s factory methods are worth imitating, it dislikes the idea of adhering to “world standards.” This class also takes part in the U.S. armed forces body and soul: nearly all the enlisted, non-commissioned officers and officers under flag rank belong to this class in every measurable way. Few vote for the Democratic Party. You do not doubt that you are amidst the country class rather than with the ruling class when the American flag passes by or “God Bless America” is sung after seven innings of baseball, and most people show reverence. The same people wince at the National Football League’s plaintive renditions of the “Star Spangled Banner.”

Unlike the ruling class, the country class does not share a single intellectual orthodoxy, set of tastes, or ideal lifestyle. Its different sectors draw their notions of human equality from different sources: Christians and Jews believe it is God’s law. Libertarians assert it from Hobbesian and Darwinist bases. Many consider equality the foundation of Americanism. Others just hate snobs. Some parts of the country class now follow the stars and the music out of Nashville, Tennessee, and Branson, Missouri — entertainment complexes larger than Hollywood’s — because since the 1970s most of Hollywood’s products have appealed more to the mores of the ruling class and its underclass clients than to those of large percentages of Americans. The same goes for “popular music” and television. For some in the country class Christian radio and TV are the lodestone of sociopolitical taste, while the very secular Fox News serves the same purpose for others. While symphonies and opera houses around the country, as well as the stations that broadcast them, are firmly in the ruling class’s hands, a considerable part of the country class appreciates these things for their own sake. By that very token, the country class’s characteristic cultural venture — the homeschool movement — stresses the classics across the board in science, literature, music, and history even as the ruling class abandons them.

Congruent Agendas?

Each of the country class’s diverse parts has its own agenda, which flows from the peculiar ways in which the ruling class impacts its concerns. Independent businesspeople are naturally more sensitive to the growth of privileged relations between government and their competitors. Persons who would like to lead their community rue the advantages that Democratic and Republican party establishments are accruing. Parents of young children and young women anxious about marriage worry that cultural directives from on high are dispelling their dreams. The faithful to God sense persecution. All resent higher taxes and loss of freedom. More and more realize that their own agenda’s advancement requires concerting resistance to the ruling class across the board.

Not being at the table when government makes the rules about how you must run your business, knowing that you will be required to pay more, work harder, and show deference for the privilege of making less money, is the independent businessman’s nightmare. But what to do about it? In our time the interpenetration of government and business — the network of subsidies, preferences, and regulations — is so thick and deep, the people “at the table” receive and recycle into politics so much money, that independent businesspeople cannot hope to undo any given regulation or grant of privilege. Just as no manufacturer can hope to reduce the subsidies that raise his fuel costs, no set of doctors can shield themselves from the increased costs and bureaucracy resulting from government mandates. Hence independent business’s agenda has been to resist the expansion of government in general, and of course to reduce taxes. Pursuit of this agenda with arguments about economic efficiency and job creation — and through support of the Republican Party — usually results in enough relief to discourage more vigorous remonstrance. Sometimes, however, the economic argument is framed in moral terms: “The sum of good government,” said Thomas Jefferson, is not taking “from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” For government to advantage some at others’ expense, said he, “is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association.” In our time, more and more independent businesspeople have come to think of their economic problems in moral terms. But few realize how revolutionary that is.

As bureaucrats and teachers’ unions disempowered neighborhood school boards, while the governments of towns, counties, and states were becoming conduits for federal mandates, as the ruling class reduced the number and importance of things that American communities could decide for themselves, America’s thirst for self-governance reawakened. The fact that public employees are almost always paid more and have more generous benefits than the private sector people whose taxes support them only sharpened the sense among many in the country class that they now work for public employees rather than the other way around. But how to reverse the roles? How can voters regain control of government? Restoring localities’ traditional powers over schools, including standards, curriculum, and prayer, would take repudiating two generations of Supreme Court rulings. So would the restoration of traditional “police” powers over behavior in public places. Bringing public employee unions to heel is only incidentally a matter of cutting pay and benefits. As self-governance is crimped primarily by the powers of government personified in its employees, restoring it involves primarily deciding that any number of functions now performed and the professional specialties who perform them, e.g., social workers, are superfluous or worse. Explaining to one’s self and neighbors why such functions and personnel do more harm than good, while the ruling class brings its powers to bear to discredit you, is a very revolutionary thing to do.

America’s pro-family movement is a reaction to the ruling class’s challenges: emptying marriage of legal sanction, promoting abortion, and progressively excluding parents from their children’s education. Americans reacted to these challenges primarily by sorting themselves out. Close friendships and above all marriages became rarer between persons who think well of divorce, abortion, and government authority over children and those who do not. The homeschool movement, for which the Internet became the great facilitator, involves not only each family educating its own children, but also extensive and growing social, intellectual, and spiritual contact among like-minded persons. In short, the part of the country class that is most concerned with family matters has taken on something of a biological identity. Few in this part of the country class have any illusion, however, that simply retreating into private associations will long save their families from societal influences made to order to discredit their ways. But stopping the ruling class’s intrusions would require discrediting its entire conception of man, of right and wrong, as well as of the role of courts in popular government. That revolutionary task would involve far more than legislation.

The ruling class’s manifold efforts to discredit and drive worship of God out of public life — not even the Soviet Union arrested students for wearing crosses or praying, or reading the Bible on school property, as some U.S. localities have done in response to Supreme Court rulings — convinced many among the vast majority of Americans who believe and pray that today’s regime is hostile to the most important things of all. Every December, they are reminded that the ruling class deems the very word “Christmas” to be offensive. Every time they try to manifest their religious identity in public affairs, they are deluged by accusations of being “American Taliban” trying to set up a “theocracy.” Let members of the country class object to anything the ruling class says or does, and likely as not their objection will be characterized as “religious,” that is to say irrational, that is to say not to be considered on a par with the “science” of which the ruling class is the sole legitimate interpreter. Because aggressive, intolerant secularism is the moral and intellectual basis of the ruling class’s claim to rule, resistance to that rule, whether to the immorality of economic subsidies and privileges, or to the violation of the principle of equal treatment under equal law, or to its seizure of children’s education, must deal with secularism’s intellectual and moral core. This lies beyond the boundaries of politics as the term is commonly understood.

The Classes Clash

The ruling class’s appetite for deference, power, and perks grows. The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side’s vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side — especially the ruling class — embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side’s view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.

In this clash, the ruling class holds most of the cards: because it has established itself as the fount of authority, its primacy is based on habits of deference. Breaking them, establishing other founts of authority, other ways of doing things, would involve far more than electoral politics. Though the country class had long argued along with Edmund Burke against making revolutionary changes, it faces the uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done? Sweeping away a half century’s accretions of bad habits — taking care to preserve the good among them — is hard enough. Establishing, even reestablishing, a set of better institutions and habits is much harder, especially as the country class wholly lacks organization. By contrast, the ruling class holds strong defensive positions and is well represented by the Democratic Party. But a two to one numerical disadvantage augurs defeat, while victory would leave it in control of a people whose confidence it cannot regain.

Certainly the country class lacks its own political vehicle — and perhaps the coherence to establish one. In the short term at least, the country class has no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not live to represent the country class. For it to do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The party helped defeat Goldwater. When it failed to stop Reagan, it saddled his and subsequent Republican administrations with establishmentarians who, under the Bush family, repudiated Reagan’s principles as much as they could. Barack Obama exaggerated in charging that Republicans had driven the country “into the ditch” all alone. But they had a hand in it. Few Republican voters, never mind the larger country class, have confidence that the party is on their side. Because, in the long run, the country class will not support a party as conflicted as today’s Republicans, those Republican politicians who really want to represent it will either reform the party in an unmistakable manner, or start a new one as Whigs like Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party in the 1850s.

The name of the party that will represent America’s country class is far less important than what, precisely, it represents and how it goes about representing it because, for the foreseeable future, American politics will consist of confrontation between what we might call the Country Party and the ruling class. The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats’ mirror image.

Yet to defend the country class, to break down the ruling class’s presumptions, it has no choice but to imitate the Democrats, at least in some ways and for a while. Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents’ legitimacy. Seldom does a Democratic official or member of the ruling class speak on public affairs without reiterating the litany of his class’s claim to authority, contrasting it with opponents who are either uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above. They do this in the hope that opponents, hearing no other characterizations of themselves and no authoritative voice discrediting the ruling class, will be dispirited. For the country class seriously to contend for self-governance, the political party that represents it will have to discredit not just such patent frauds as ethanol mandates, the pretense that taxes can control “climate change,” and the outrage of banning God from public life. More important, such a serious party would have to attack the ruling class’s fundamental claims to its superior intellect and morality in ways that dispirit the target and hearten one’s own. The Democrats having set the rules of modern politics, opponents who want electoral success are obliged to follow them.

Suppose that the Country Party (whatever its name might be) were to capture Congress, the presidency, and most statehouses. What then would it do? Especially if its majority were slim, it would be tempted to follow the Democrats’ plan of 2009-2010, namely to write its wish list of reforms into law regardless of the Constitution and enact them by partisan majorities supported by interest groups that gain from them, while continuing to vilify the other side. Whatever effect this might have, it surely would not be to make America safe for self-governance because by carrying out its own “revolution from above” to reverse the ruling class’s previous “revolution from above,” it would have made that ruinous practice standard in America. Moreover, a revolution designed at party headquarters would be antithetical to the country class’s diversity as well as to the American Founders’ legacy.

Achieving the country class’s inherently revolutionary objectives in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with its own diversity would require the Country Party to use legislation primarily as a tool to remove obstacles, to instruct, to reintroduce into American life ways and habits that had been cast aside. Passing national legislation is easier than getting people to take up the responsibilities of citizens, fathers, and entrepreneurs.

Reducing the taxes that most Americans resent requires eliminating the network of subsidies to millions of other Americans that these taxes finance, and eliminating the jobs of government employees who administer them. Eliminating that network is practical, if at all, if done simultaneously, both because subsidies are morally wrong and economically counterproductive, and because the country cannot afford the practice in general. The electorate is likely to cut off millions of government clients, high and low, only if its choice is between no economic privilege for anyone and ratifying government’s role as the arbiter of all our fortunes. The same goes for government grants to and contracts with so-called nonprofit institutions or non-governmental organizations. The case against all arrangements by which the government favors some groups of citizens is easier to make than that against any such arrangement. Without too much fuss, a few obviously burdensome bureaucracies, like the Department of Education, can be eliminated, while money can be cut off to partisan enterprises such as the National Endowments and public broadcasting. That sort of thing is as necessary to the American body politic as a weight reduction program is essential to restoring the health of any human body degraded by obesity and lack of exercise. Yet shedding fat is the easy part. Restoring atrophied muscles is harder. Reenabling the body to do elementary tasks takes yet more concentration.

The grandparents of today’s Americans (132 million in 1940) had opportunities to serve on 117,000 school boards. To exercise responsibilities comparable to their grandparents’, today’s 310 million Americans would have radically to decentralize the mere 15,000 districts into which public school children are now concentrated. They would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years.

If self-governance means anything, it means that those who exercise government power must depend on elections. The shorter the electoral leash, the likelier an official to have his chain yanked by voters, the more truly republican the government is. Yet to subject the modern administrative state’s agencies to electoral control would require ordinary citizens to take an interest in any number of technical matters. Law can require environmental regulators or insurance commissioners, or judges or auditors to be elected. But only citizens’ discernment and vigilance could make these officials good. Only citizens’ understanding of and commitment to law can possibly reverse the patent disregard for the Constitution and statutes that has permeated American life. Unfortunately, it is easier for anyone who dislikes a court’s or an official’s unlawful act to counter it with another unlawful one than to draw all parties back to the foundation of truth.

How, for example, to remind America of, and to drive home to the ruling class, Lincoln’s lesson that trifling with the Constitution for the most heartfelt of motives destroys its protections for all? What if a country class majority in both houses of Congress were to co-sponsor a “Bill of Attainder to deprive Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and other persons of liberty and property without further process of law for having violated the following ex post facto law…” and larded this constitutional monstrosity with an Article III Section 2 exemption from federal court review? When the affected members of the ruling class asked where Congress gets the authority to pass a bill every word of which is contrary to the Constitution, they would be confronted, publicly, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s answer to a question on the Congress’s constitutional authority to mandate individuals to purchase certain kinds of insurance: “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?” The point having been made, the Country Party could lead public discussions around the country on why even the noblest purposes (maybe even Title II of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964?) cannot be allowed to trump the Constitution.

How the country class and ruling class might clash on each item of their contrasting agendas is beyond my scope. Suffice it to say that the ruling class’s greatest difficulty — aside from being outnumbered — will be to argue, against the grain of reality, that the revolution it continues to press upon America is sustainable. For its part, the country class’s greatest difficulty will be to enable a revolution to take place without imposing it. America has been imposed on enough.

Editor’s Note: This version corrects an error that appears the print edition of this article, which incorrectly lists Barack Obama as a research assistant to Laurence Tribe in 1984. He in fact was an assistant to Tribe in 1988-89.

Letter to the Editor

Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University.