Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What a Difference a Year Can Make, Part Two
Peter’s question is a good one. What is obviously different this time?
Four things, I think. First, the Tea-Party Movement. Outside of the two political parties, spontaneously, in response to a single comment made on television by Rick Santelli, ordinary Americans all over the country rallied, and the rally has been sustained now for more than a year. Nothing like this has happened in my lifetime — not, in any case, on the right.
Second, the rapidity of Obama’s fall from stratospheric popularity to strong disapproval. According to Rasmussen, the gap between strong approval and strong disapproval is 23%. Something like 47% of the country, nearly half of the people, strongly disapprove of the man’s conduct in office.
Third, primary defeats within the Republican Party. The nomination of Sharron Angle in Nevada, of Joe Miller in Alaska, of Marco Rubio in Florida, of Rand Paul in Kentucky, of Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. The Republican Party is undergoing a transformation as RINOs and putative RINOs are purged. When, in recent times, has anything like this happened?
Finally, the polling data — on Obamacare, on the generic ballot, on Nancy Pelosi, on the stimulus bill, on the economy more generally. The scale and scope of the shift since January, 2009 is breathtaking.
Of course, it takes two to tango. The Republicans have an opportunity. Do they have the wit to seize it? I wait and worry. But there is one reason why they might have the wit. The fate of those defeated in the Republican primaries is a warning to them all. A public hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully.
And if the Republicans do seize the opportunity, I believe that there will be a realignment. The welfare state is bankrupt; Keynesianism has obviously failed; and we do not have the wherewithal to pay for Obamacare. Rome is in the process of burning, and all that the political scientists can do is to fiddle.
Published in General
If there is one positive aspect to Obama’s presidency, it is that it’s jolted Americans into seeing how diminished many of the bonds which once held our society together have become, how the principles of constitutional government have been subverted, and how despised ordinary Americans are by the “ruling class.” The Left has been at this for years but it is the triumph of the likes of Bill Ayers, Van Jones, Obama, Berwick, et al, that has concentrated the mind to the damage and the danger. We are, in a sense, where England was at the end of Mrs Thatcher’s tenure of office: we can either slow down the rot or fix it. The Tea Partiers are voting for a fix, let’s hope the GOP gets the message.
I’ve attended two tea parties in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Both were thoroughly middle class affairs. In general, I would say that’s true across the country. The question is why? I would like to think that the movement is more than a bourgeois effort to protect property. There is something more fundamental going on that I haven’t fully identified yet. I’m interested to know what sort of insights other subscribers might have on the class nature of the movement.
I will tell you from my personal perspective that I’m utterly disgusted with the ineptitude of American government at all levels. I recently left my job in the public school system for the simple reason that three different layers of government bureaucracy finally made it impossible for me to do my job. When I contemplate an America where everyone in some fashion is working for the government, I am moved to action. I demand the liberty to act on my personal initiative. I will not, I cannot, live under the dictates of a random, faceless, overpaid, and oppressive bureaucracy. Not ever.
~Paules, generally I can’t abide the term “class” in political debate given its association with that creep Marx, but even if the Tea Party movement were only, as you put it “. . . a bourgeois effort to protect property” it would still be an important uprising. What I think we tend to forget is how truly important property is as a component of our freedom. Property at the very least equates to independence, in that a person of property can, at least for a period, be an independent agent not beholden to anyone or anything except the property from which stems his support. Further, when GDP in backwater tyrannies rises above a certain per capita average democracy soon follows. This is attributable to the fact that the population acquires enough property to give it a vested interest in maintaining a political system that protects their property. In addition, the infrastructure necessary to hold property becomes far more robust and protective of the property owner. Lastly, financial systems are heavily dependent on property in trade and as collateral, which makes basic exchange, which develops into more complex markets, possible.
There’s something else that makes this time different: math. It’s likely that soon, even if we don’t want to, we’ll still have to roll back the “New Deal” in many of its forms, as in Europe. Now throw in the fact that so much of the country is apparently on board with such a roll back, and we might have ourselves a sea change.
I’m pleased that Dr. Rahe properly credits Rick Santelli for sparking the Tea Parties.
So many factions have arisen since then, with so many names and so many personalities contending to be the face of the Tea Party or the Mama Grizzly of the Tea Party.
Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey – they’ve done yeoman’s work here (and pushed before many a camera).
But it was good old Rick Santelli – New York as he can be, Italian as he can be, Wall Street as he can be – who lit the match.
Cas, you make a good point. The right to be secure in one’s property, enforced by the rule of law, guarantees one aspect of liberty. I find it ironic that the term bourgeoisie was first coined as a slur. You might be loathe to talk about class interests, but I find it important. The wealthiest and most free nations on earth all feature a large and politically engaged middle class. It’s precisely the power of middle class voters that keeps the system honest. But I’m searching for an aspect of the American character that better defines our desire for liberty.
Let me offer a prosaic example. How many nations can claim the ordinary pick-up truck as a national icon? What is it about Americans that makes a truck so desirable, almost a necessity if you live outside our urban centers? I think it’s the vehicle of choice for a self-reliant lifestyle. If something needs doing, we jump in the truck and just “get ‘er done.” We don’t stand around helplessly waiting for permission or authorization. The desire for autonomy based in personal liberty is fundamental to who we are as a people.
I love the anecdote Mark Steyn told somewhere about how soon after he’d moved to the wilds New Hampshire, he thought he heard a prowler lurking about his property and nervously called the local police. The policeman on the line told him (in so many words) “You’ll have to deal with him yourself”. Police couldn’t get there in time to help. This was rather a shock to Mark’s Euro sensibilities.
Welcome to America, where citizens take on threats themselves–even if it means getting physical.
It’s a key difference between us and Europe, as James Lileks pointed out in the most recent podcast: We have a lively tradition of self-reliance and some reserves of moral resistance. I hope to God we have enough.
~Paules, you complete me.
(Did it just get weird? Did I make it weird?)
Welcome to America, where citizens take on threats themselves–even if it means getting physical.
I learned that from my grandma.
I remember it as though it was only yesterday. Granny was in the kitchen, making peach pie, her arms dusted to the elbows with flour.
She turned to me, just a toddler at the time, her eyes crinkling behind her rimless glasses. She smiled gently and said,
“Kenneth, remember….violence….is…always…the answer.”
~Paules, I’m glad you brought up the pickup. It can be argued that the proliferation of pickup trucks in America is the unintended consequent of environmentally sensitive vehicle overregulation. As the desire for greater fuel efficiency metastasized into lighter cars, consumers interested in the dubious benefits of heavy vehicles as protection in accidents mover to SUVs (a truck sub-classification) and also into pickup trucks. This is not to suggest that Americans are not self-reliant folks interested in gettin’ ‘er done, but only a self-indulgent wallow in the delicious irony of stupid environmental initiatives. That said, you raise the “middle class” as the sine qua non of political health, and I won’t disagree with this assessment. What I would add is an outline of where we might differ. For me the word class is protean in that we force individuals into a middle class based on arbitrary and subjective definitions without allowing for the motivations of persons that are only class conscious when asked to be. Also in my view anyone with property to defend is, regardless of class, a big-D democrat, and it is the democrats that make for healthy and robust politics.
~Paules, you complete me.
(Did it just get weird? Did I make it weird?) ·Sep 6 at 7:50am
Matthew, it’s the love of liberty that makes us conservatives. So, I reckon, it’s not at all weird to find us thinking alike. Can someone explain why so many Americans would rather have “rights” provided by government than the autonomy that comes with liberty? Herein lies the true division between liberal and conservative.
Cas: “Also in my view anyone with property to defend is, regardless of class, a big-D democrat, and it is the democrats that make for healthy and robust politics.”
I don’t follow. Please elucidate.
It is never any single issue that starts a revolution but always an accumulation of events that leads to the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back. We are now at a cross roads. The path we choose now will either allow us to resolve things peacefully or portend an uglier future.
Among the many contradictions of modern liberalism is this: When faced with military action abroad our liberal friends will repeat the mantra “Hearts and Minds, Hearts and Minds, Hearts and Minds! You can not force your will on others but must change their hearts and minds!” But on domestic issues their first reaction is not to reason with their fellow countrymen but to seek a sympathetic judge that imposes their will.
*Continued below
~Paules, property gives us both something to defend and the economic power with which to defend it. The poor cannot launch a vigorous defence of their rights in a democracy precisely because they do not have the means by which to do it. Additionally, property diffuses wealth which in turn diffuses, albeit unequally, political power. So if I am to protect my wealth, however defined, I must move from a passive holder of property to an active exertion of influence, the greater my wealth the further I must exert influence in order to protect my property and interests. Eventually, as a defender of my property I must conclude, or I am forced to conclude, that my interests are best defended in an environment that assures all participants, irrespective of wealth, the same rights.
*From above
School busing in the 1970’s led to white flight from urban areas and began the long slide of the nation’s cities. Roe v Wade is still being fought over despite the left’s arguments about “settled law.” Similar efforts are now being made on behalf of homosexual marriage. And although it was passed legislatively, health care “reform” was unpopular and rammed through in a most unseemly way. The cumulative weight of these and dozens of other issues that have simmered below the surface are threatening the domestic tranquility. Problems that have been postponed instead of being solved are coming to a head.
God help us all if we do not make the proper choices.
Good point.
If I’m following you correctly, this is also a good point.
Why would an electrician making a living prosperous enough to support a large family in comfort be considered lower-class, while a guy with a PhD in English Lit who’s working an unskilled, minimum-wage job in order to pay off his student loan debt still be considered middle-class? Yet many people would classify them this way.
On the other hand, the English Lit PhD is almost certainly anti-bourgeois.
And if the Republicans do seize the opportunity, I believe that there will be a realignment…. ·
And if they don’t seize the opportunity? If Republicans are too slow or too stubborn to respond, what then? Would conservative power be divided and chaotic, thereby enabling Democrats to maintain their grip on power?
And what of Democrats? Might we witness a shift in that party as well, back to a working class image?
What frustrates me most is that we, the citizens, can only demand freedom during elections. Most of the time, all we can do is ask, however loudly we might do it. Politicians rule over us far more often than they represent us. We work for them.
That’s the $64 question, isn’t it? I asked it on another thread, albeit in another form. Does a failed GOP effort, or worse a Democratic hold in both the House and Senate, portend a deeper, possibly more violent, chasm? Or do we all just roll over and accept the United States of Europe and a down-sized future?
Apparently, the Tea Parties have been even more powerful than we knew:
AP is reporting that the New Zealand earthquake has caused the Earth’s surface to “…lurch 11 feet to the right.”
AP is reporting that the New Zealand earthquake has caused the Earth’s surface to “…lurch 11 feet to the right.” ·Sep 6 at 11:22am
But how does that make sense without a reference? Right of what? Possibly they mean north, south, east, west, clockwise, or even counterclockwise. But right?
I’m having trouble visualizing this…
Kenneth: Apparently, the Tea Parties have been even more powerful than we knew:
AP is reporting that the New Zealand earthquake has caused the Earth’s surface to “…lurch 11 feet to the right.” ·Sep 6 at 11:22am
I’m having trouble visualizing this… ·Sep 6 at 2:38pm
There are a lot of things I have trouble visualizing:
Bill and Hillary in an intimate moment.
Barney Frank in a Speedo.
Barack Obama kicking ass.
Geez, the list is endless.
There are a lot of things I have trouble visualizing:
Bill and Hillary in an intimate moment.
Barney Frank in a Speedo.
Barack Obama kicking ass.
Unfortunately for me, I have little trouble visualizing any of those things, in one form or another.
My experience exactly. It is a totally middle-class affair. Been to two tea parties in Boston so far, the first in April ’09, prior to which I hadn’t protested anything in 25 years. I did not get it at all the first time around. I expected it to be like an angry leftie protest from my youth. I was dismayed at how utterly tame it was. People were basically just standing there, maybe showing each other their signs and exchanging nice compliments. Lots of retirees and guys on their lunch hour. My attitude was: “let me show these rookies how to get on the evening news!” I tried my best to start an angry chant of “Barney Frank, Walk The Plank,” but to no avail. Also, to lefties who believe it’s all astroturf, only a true grassroots organizer could have picked such an inadequate sound system. I have no idea who spoke that day.
To Paules’ larger point, clearly it’s a middle class revolt, about which I’m also puzzled. In historical terms, why now, all of a sudden, is there such a widespread protest movement? Yes, Obama overreached. So did the Clintons prior to ’94, and (no offense) all that led to was a landslide midterm turnover. Obama implemented a wide variety of dubious, spurious & shockingly inept policies. He certainly misrepresented his intentions as part of his campaign. But so did FDR, and there was nothing close to this visceral response. I can almost begin to appreciate why lefties say racism is the only possible answer, because it is that unprecedented. Opposition to government expansion during the 60s & 70s led to the Reagan administration, but as far as I know never got people out on the streets as an issue in itself. What makes us so different now? I can’t believe it’s that we’re any smarter. Perhaps Cas is right — a large investor class with a greater stake in economic growth — but it doesn’t seem complete. Is it just that we’re networked via the web?
In historical terms, why now, all of a sudden, is there such a widespread protest movement? Yes, Obama overreached… He certainly misrepresented his intentions as part of his campaign. But so did FDR, and there was nothing close to this visceral response. I can almost begin to appreciate why lefties say racism is the only possible answer, because it is that unprecedented… What makes us so different now? I can’t believe it’s that we’re any smarter… Is it just that we’re networked via the web?
Well, communication can’t hurt. But keep in mind something that also happens over time: we may not get any smarter, but we sure get more experience.
Experience keeps piling up… The failure of the welfare state to meet its stated goal of lifting up the downtrodden. The correlation of regulatory burden with economic stagnation… Patterns emerge more clearly…
As time passes, we’re also able to see presidents such as Wilson and FDR in the cooler light of history, removed from the dazzling aura of patriotism that surrounded them. The Depression is no longer the object of nostalgia, but of disinterested study.
Etc.
We eventually learn from our mistakes.