President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
This is a very interesting piece by Angelo Codevilla on the relationship between President Obama's personal history and what Codevilla describes elsewhere as America's ruling class. Professor Codevilla maintains that the key to understanding the President's beliefs and political success is the network into which Obama was born. Obama's radicalism is apparent rather than real in Codevilla's analysis. One could also say that the radicalism (e.g. community organizing) is in service to the core Progressive beliefs that form the intellectual horizon of our elites.
Once it is clear that it is possible to embrace ACORN and still be a member in good standing of America's bi-partisan ruling class, we can confront the larger issue. Obama's apparent radicalism is in substance the same as the more bland managerial progressivism embodied by politicians like Mitt Romney. If the administrative welfare state is to be rolled back and constitutionalism restored, it is essential that we elect a President and a majority in Congress that are not Progressives.
If this is to happen, the Republican Party must cease to be dominated by members of the Progressive ruling class. If one looks at the difference between the Tea Party dominated House GOP and the overall character of Republicans in the Senate, the differences between what Codevilla aptly describes as the ruling class or the Court party on the one hand and the Country party on the other become obvious.
If the Court element continues to dominate the GOP, then there is little hope for constitutionalism.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
You don't use the term RINO but isn't that what you really mean by managerial progressivism. Do we really need all this labeling it is so distressing to some members. You sound fanatical if not puerile.
<<By the way all the above was meant in a tongue in cheek way for the benefit of the more sensitive among us.>>
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
John, I have been arguing precisely this case for months now. So, Amen, I say.
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
The term RINO is interesting. It seems to me that for the last 100 years or so most Republican politicians have been conservative in name only! Reagan, and to some extent Coolidge, seem to me to be the major exceptions. Reagan was definitely part of the "Country" element of the GOP.
Give Me Liberty: You don't use the term RINO but isn't that what you really mean by managerial progressivism. Do we really need all this labeling it is so distressing to some members. You sound fanatical if not puerile.
<<By the way all the above was meant in a tongue in cheek way for the benefit of the more sensitive among us.>> · Jul 22 at 4:05pm
Jul '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
But isn't that exactly the point? The GOP hasn't abandoned its conservative roots. It's growing them.
Consistent partisan ideological differences are a recent phenomenon. The leftists have roughly a 15 year head start, as they drove the neo-liberals into either hard-leftism or neo-conservatism.
"Conservative" is a winner's label today. It beats "liberal" or "progressive" easily.
Why not be more cautious than they were? Let's use the courtiers effectively before driving the rump to the opposing camp.
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
Yes, if we can do so without harm. The critical thing is to win the voters over.
The battle for control of the Republican Party in the late 1850's offers many interesting parallels. The key there was not winning over the party elites, but the voting public.
Palaeologus
But isn't that exactly the point? The GOP hasn't abandoned its conservative roots. It's growing them.
Consistent partisan ideological differences are a recent phenomenon. The leftists have roughly a 15 year head start, as they drove the neo-liberals into either hard-leftism or neo-conservatism.
"Conservative" is a winner's label today. It beats "liberal" or "progressive" easily.
Why not be more cautious than they were? Let's use the courtiers effectively before driving the rump to the opposing camp. · Jul 22 at 5:22pm
Jul '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
It's not that difficult to discern. When a politician acknowledges a "problem," does that politician have a government "solution," or does the politician say the government is the problem?
Vote accordingly.
Jan '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
This is very revealing. In the original post and in all of the comments which followed it the word "Democrat" is never used as a description.
What exactly is the name of the political party that promotes "progressivism" in the USA, whose platform expresses "progressive" tenets and whose adherents believe in it most strongly? Perhaps we should concentrate on defeating that party, rather than being overly concerned with those on our side who have "progressive" tendencies.
RINOs are rent-seekers of the prevailing ideology, nothing more. That's why you have RINOs in the Northeast and West Coast, but DINOs in the South. If you want to eliminate RINOs you must defeat Democrats - it's as simple as that.
It may be wiser to not criticize the buttons on the uniform of the man standing next to you in the breastworks and instead take aim at the enemy advancing against you.
They beat us in 2006 and 2008, and they intend to do so again.
Meade wasn't Grant and he wasn't Sherman, but Lee had to be beaten at Gettysburg anyway.
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
Your analogy is revealing. The problem is that while Meade was not Sherman or Grant, he was on their side! My point is that Republican Progressives are basically on the same side as Progressive Democrats.
I also think as a tactical measure that running to the "center" (left in other words) is a losing strategy for Republicans in 2012.
Freesmith: This is very revealing. In the original post and in all of the comments which followed it the word "Democrat" is never used as a description.
What exactly is the name of the political party that promotes "progressivism" in the USA, whose platform expresses "progressive" tenets and whose adherents believe in it most strongly? Perhaps we should concentrate on defeating that party, rather than being overly concerned with those on our side who have "progressive" tendencies.
They beat us in 2006 and 2008, and they intend to do so again.
Meade wasn't Grant and he wasn't Sherman, but Lee had to be beaten at Gettysburg anyway. · Jul 22 at 8:13pm
Jan '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
"Republican Progressives are basically on the same side as Progressive Democrats."
Well, at least I got you to say the word "Democrat."
"Basically" must cover a lot of ground with you.
Where did you stand on the O'Donnell - Castle primary fight in 2010? "Basically," Castle was a progressive. Do you think Castle, if elected, would be standing with Obama today on the debt ceiling, or have been with him on Obamacare? Chris Coons, a progressive, is and did.
Snowe and Collins from Maine are RINO poster-girls; but they have not broken with the GOP on the debt ceiling and they did not support Obamacare. They, like Meade was to Grant, are on the same side as DeMint. They are just not as strong or as reliable as the South Carolinian.
Codevilla's article was excellent as a description of one of the tributaries of the ideology that finds its home comfortably in the Democrat Party. Don't turn it into another occasion to engage in useless purging. We don't need that.
Concentrate on defeating Democrats. There's nothing wrong with America that 70 Republican Senators, 300 GOP Congresspeople and Marco Rubio can't fix.
May '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
And then there is George Thomas, the most successful and winning general in the entire war, who was not fully trusted because he was a southerner and for the sake of the nation allowed others to steal his glory. The Rock of Chickamauga destroyed two southern armies completely and never lost a single battle during his very active years in the war and he did it with substantially lower casualty rates. He took the time to shape the battlefield and then attacked powerfully and decisively. It was his victories in the midwest and Tennessee that made Sherman's silly and vain march to the sea possible. Few have heard of him, but he did more to win the war than Grant or Sherman who were co-enablers of drunkeness and mental illness and who won by the strategy of attrition and using numerical advantage with little regard for the lives of their men.
Who will be the Gen Thomas in the political scenario? Paul Ryan, the man who is quietly and intelligently shaping the debate on the budget?
Jan '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
One more thing:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Progressive, changed the political culture of this country more than any other single figure in the 20th Century. He established a liberal consensus that lasted decades and whose programs, policies and politics we are still dealing with today.
How did he do it? He won elections, not only his own, but also those of hundreds of Democrats around the country. Those victories, those Congresspeople and Senators, gave him the power to re-shape the nation.
But many of those Democrats were not Progressives. Many were racist bigots in the South, who cared not a lick for many of Roosevelt's Progressive positions and who certainly didn't favor greater federal control over their lives, a Progressive principle.
Roosevelt didn't criticize those Southern Democrats. He didn't call them DINOs or try to read them out of the party. He used them to get his majorities and then used those majorities to transform America.
Learn from the experts.
Mar '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
The problem with RINO's is, like McCain for most of the last decade, they are just waiting to stick a knife in your back. They must be weeded out not given a share of power. It is only since the disaster of the last couple years that most have figured this out, some are slow to this realization. Democrats must be defeated so must RINO's, managerial progressivism, pseudo-conservative weenies, or whatever you wish to call them because if not at every crucial juncture they will try to flank you. Need evidence, just look at every gang of...choose a number.
Oct '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
I had read Radical In Chief, but I found Angelo Codevilla’s essay extremely interesting. As an aside, Ricochet members who don’t subscribe to The Claremont Review of Books should take a look at it. It is consistently outstanding. Codevilla shone a light on President Obama’s background I was unaware of.
To me, Codevilla simply enforces my belief that our overall objective has to be the defeat of Obama in 2012. In order to do that we need to have independents and “moderates” vote for our candidate instead of Obama. Jay Cost and Harry Olsen have excellent articles in the current National Affairs that talk to exactly that point. I cannot support Mitt Romney in the primary, but if he is our candidate, I will support him enthusiastically. A Republican Senate and a Republican House will check Romney’s big government leanings and we will have a wider range of excellent conservative candidates in 2016 to challenge him in the primaries if we need to.
Mar '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
FDR was able to weave together a coalition of differing Democrat groups because he bought them off with money and political support not through fealty to the Constitution, the nation, or even their party. It was and is pure political greed and calculation that keeps the Democrats tethered together. It is also the source of the problem we face today; everything is for sale for votes, for political support; you don't really suggest that is the path for Republicans to restore constitutional government and save the republic do you?
Jul '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
I don't use the term RINO because political party membership in this country is defined by self-identification. Republican and Democrat, in and of themselves, mean very little as labels. The real political schisms, in and between parties, are more interesting and more real. I am no expert, but if you woke up tomorrow in a real federal multiparty system, there would be a dozen political parties of some consequence, with coalitions emerging and disappearing the way they do in European parliamentary politics.
The party organizations today provide a mechanism to hammer out a party-level consensus on issues before the inter-party brouhaha, but it is not unusual to have fractures where disenfranchised members on both sides of the aisle have their own counter-consensus.
In the federal legislature alone, how precise can these mechanisms get with 535 players, constantly changing conditions throughout the country influencing many idiosyncratic constituencies in different, sometimes unpredictable ways?
Every so often, the attempt is made, purposely or accidentally, to find a Tea Party consensus on foreign policy, or on the gold standard, or some other controversial topic and start to splinter the movement. But there is no "leader" who can do so.
Oct '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
No I don’t. I think we can win elections with attractive candidates who have integrity and believe in conservative principles. In fact, I believe we are winning the debate. To me, the most significant aspect of the Tea Party is that it is a return to citizen involvement in government. de Tocqueville identified citizen involvement in government as one of the defining characteristics of Americans. I think we got away from that in the last few years, and outsourced politics to the professional politicians. We now realize that was a mistake, but cannot change it overnight. Conservatives have always made their case based on facts, logic, the Constitution and tradition. Liberals tend to labels like “fascist”, “racist”, or “extremist” without making a coherent argument. That’s why like Sisyphus I don’t use the term “RINO”, but try to take on the position of someone I disagree with by spelling out a convincing opposing argument.
Mar '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
Yeah, well I believe it is conservative to call a spade a spade. I agree with you about the TEA party but the managerial progressives, better, call them populists at best and at worst fanatics, and they're supposed to be on our side. I don't care for the term RINO but that is what has been accepted for left of center Republicans. Look liberal and progressive is inaccurate to use for leftist Marxists but no one is getting their shorts in a bunch over that. If you don't like labels there is an organization just for you. No Labels, let me know how it works out for you.
Jan '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
Give Me Liberty
I wrote nothing about how FDR put his coalition together; only that he had a coalition and that he used it to effect change. I maintain that neither of those two things is a bad idea.
What I did write was that FDR kept his coalition together and that he did not engage in counter-productive intra-Democrat squabbling. He supported the Democrats that the voters gave him. And I said that that, too, is not a bad idea - look at what he accomplished.
I can tell that you think his methods were unworthy and a cause of our current state of affairs. You, it seems to me, would like to play politics on a higher plane. But I suggest that kind of thinking is the cause for conservative weakness today. We cede to the Democrats not only institutions, but even the blunt weapons needed to re-take those institutions. We want to be powerful, but we disdain exercising power. We want our values to prevail, but we don't want to deal out punishment to those who oppose those values. We want an ideal sort of politics, the kind you can read about.
In a classroom.
Sep '10
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
? Ryan is clearly a member of this class and almost everyone else that you have been behind is either one or a "want to be." Meanwhile Paul who clearly does not belong, you term " a crank." Most everyone who argued for Bush's bailout was either a member or a "want to be". Don't you fit into this category? There is no basic difference between an establishment Republican who argues for the use of government coercion when it accomplishes something good, which is what you did in defending Perry's vaccine decision and a liberal who makes precisely the same argument. You have been arguing the case, but draw your dividing line somewhere between McCain,, Romney and Ryan. When in reality the line is separating Ryan from people like Paul, Jordan, West. I realize that you being an establishment type may find this difficult to see.
Jan '11
Re: President Obama's Genealogy and America's Political Future
Sisyphus
"Every so often, the attempt is made, purposely or accidentally, to find a Tea Party consensus on foreign policy, or on the gold standard, or some other controversial topic and start to splinter the movement. But there is no "leader" who can do so."
This is very insightful, but only as a description of a party that is out of power.
Leaders act and by acting they build support. Coalitions form around people who do things, not around those who talk about things. Nobody voted for the New Deal programs in 1932; but in 1936 millions were ready to surge to the polls to support the men who gave them those programs, which the people now loved.
If a Tea Party president gets the economy moving again and stimulates job creation, he or she will have tremendous leverage to act against the "Progressives" about whom John Grant began this discussion. Even the Snowes and the Collinses will be firmly on that president's side.
The question then will be - Will he or she use that power? Will that president understand that by acting you forge support?
PS Thanks for the Klavan-Horowitz video. It was great.