Sounding The Depths

Cheryl Rofer was kind enough to post an essay where she discusses her attempts to understand the mindset behind the supporters of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party movement.

That essay has invited a fair number of comments, some of them less than kind. When I noted that Ms. Rofer was trying to reach Tea Party satori by mulling over the life of Tchaikovsky, and the writings of authors who hail from Spain and Great Britain, I am afraid that I became guilty of writing something negative myself….

You conflate a Russian composer and a British novelist with an American grass roots movement that is devoted to shrinking the size of government? I think it is pretty obvious why you are confused!”

That was both unkind and uncalled for, and I apologize to Ms. Rofer unreservedly.

As a gesture to show that I take her seriously, I would like to try and smooth the way for her a little bit. But to do that, I will have to bore you all to tears by explaining my own background. My only defense for this terrible waste of your time is that I believe it will lead to a better meeting of minds.

Read more

Increasingly Unhinged

1)Obama has stated that the US and Iran have a “mutual interest” in fighting the Taliban, and that Iran “could be a constructive partner” with the US in creating a stable Afghanistan.

Reality: A State Department report, issued the day after Obama’s expression of his fantasy:

Iran’s Qods Force provided training to the Taliban in Afghanistan on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire weapons. Since at least 2006, Iran has arranged arms shipments to select Taliban members, including small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives.

Read more

Brooding

This is a conundrum I have been brooding about.

Why does the Ruling Class, using Codevilla’s term, have such strong cultural confidence?

And what can we do to undermine it?

If I had to pick an ultimate target for activism and action by Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and common-sense Conservatives, it would be strengthening to diamond-hardness the cultural confidence of those who believe in the American way of life –free enterprise, limited government, personal freedom — and nuking out the foundations of the cultural confidence of our opponents. That is, long term, the most important thing. Many things in the short and medium term have to come first, but that is the long term goal.

John Boyd said that war is waged on the material, intellectual and moral plane, and the moral plane is the the most important.

Winning elections would be the material plane, winning arguments among people who read about and care about policy would be the intellectual plane, but getting people to be proud of the American way of life, and making its enemies embarrassed and ashamed to hold their views and to come to despise and mock their own signs and symbols of class solidarity, that would be bringing the conflict to a victorious conclusion on the moral plane.

We want to do all three. And they are interactive and feed back on each other.

But I go back to my initial question. Why does an elite that is actually not admirable in what it does, and not effective or productive, that has added little or nothing of value to the civilizational stock, that cannot possibly do the things it claims it can do, that services rent-seekers and the well-connected, that believes in an incoherent mishmash of politically correct platitudes, that is parasitic, have such an elevated view of itself?

The old British aristocracy could at least truthfully say that they had physical courage and patriotism and cared for their shires and neighborhoods and served for free as justices of the peace. The old French aristocracy could at least truthfully say that had refinement and manners and a love for art and literature and sophistication and beautiful things. The old Yankee elite could truthfully say that it was enterprising and public spirited and willing to rough it and do hard work when necessary. This lot have little or nothing to be proud of, but they are arrogant as Hell.

Why aren’t these people laughed out of the room? (This is a start.)

Why are people who should know better so desperate to be accepted by this self-appointed ruling class?

It seems to me this group is vulnerable to strategic, permanent defeat if the conversation and the spot-light can be relentlessly focused on their deficiencies and the ludicrous nature of much of their behavior and their beliefs.

What concrete steps can be taken to do this? Your comments are solicited.

UPDATE

Instapundit linked, which is nice, and put up a link to his own earlier post on this same topic, which you should read.

UPDATE II

This has generated an exceptionally good set of comments. Fist bumps and back-slaps to all participants. Bravo.

I will note that the Codevilla article made a point that struck me but that few people seem to be picking up on. This ruling class is not just made of people on the Left. it is also made up of people in business and finance who benefit from the regulatory apparatus and the rent-seeking that enriches them.

On this note, see the excellent article by Luigi Zinagales, Capitalism After the Crisis:

The finance sector’s increasing concentration and growing political muscle have undermined the traditional American understanding of the difference between free markets and big business. This means not only that the interests of finance now dominate the economic understanding of policymakers, but also — and perhaps more important — that the public’s perception of the economic system’s legitimacy is at risk.

RTWT.

These people have a veneer of SWPLish respectability and are sure to claim to be socially liberal in any social setting, and to have disdain for the vast unwashed herd of stoopid Americans clinging to God and guns. Nonetheless, this new oligarchy is not ultimately ideological in nature. The foundation of this oligarchy is access to government power and money, either directly and indirectly, and crushing out any parts of the society or the economy that exist on any other basis. It’s ideology is more of a class-marker or fraternity handshake, as well as a superficial justification for money- and power-grabs.

The hardcore Lefty idealogues are not the major players, but are simply useful idiots, to use Lenin’s phrase. Some of them are even starting to realize that Obama’s program is about rent-seeking and incumbent protection, and handing out favors and power, and not really about putting in any kind of a coherent Lefty program at all. Last Fall you knew that Obamacare was going to pass because Pharma and Insurance stocks rallied. The lobbyists won, as usual, and we end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

I confess it surprised me that even someone I always considered to be a complete dolt like Naomi Klein seems to be kinda sorta getting it. I thought Obama’s Kool-Aid caused permanent brain damage, but I guess to some Lefties it is only a temporary drug. If even Leftists of (reasonably) good will are coming to realize that Obama’s program is pure Cook County hackery on a galactic scale, and is not good for normal people, that is surely a positive sign.

UPDATE IV: Very cool. This post got a favorable response from Mark Levin, on his show on August 5, 2010. He starts the discussion about this post at about 39:40. Thanks to Mark Levin.

A “Jobs Program,” not an education system

Hey everyone,

I’d like to express my thanks to the “ChicagoBoyz” for allowing me to become a contributor.

Check out my profile for my Bio if you want. When I’m not not reading or posting to blogs, I’m probably working for education reform at the Heartland Institute or sailing my modest boat out of Monroe Harbor (weather permitting). Like many happily married men, if I’m not working or doing something I really enjoy, I’m doing what my wife tells me to do.
____

I just saw this yesterday over at Big Government. Why we allow these education bureaucrats and teacher’s unions to bankrupt an entire civilization is beyond me.

The U.S. Economy Needs Fewer Public School Jobs, Not More

I don’t have time this morning to copy and paste the two graphs in this post right now, but I urge all of you to go the linked article, print the two graphs, and carry them around in your wallets and purses. Show them to any dingbat who thinks education spending is “for the children.”

Totten Interviews Hanson

Superb. This interview has probably already been linked by fifty blogs but I’ll make it 51. Hanson is insightful as always. Totten is characteristically observant and thoughtful.

VDH: I’m worried about Iran, and I think we’re asking some of the wrong questions. It’s not just about whether or not Iran can be deterred. Even if Iran can be deterred, leaders like Ahmadinejad are going to periodically issue these proclamations about killing the Jews. I’ve read polls where Israelis are asked if they’ll leave the country if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Some of them say yes. There’s a real worry that Iran will place this Sword of Damocles right over their heads, and a lot of them will just leave.
 
MJT: It would have to be awfully demoralizing.
 
VDH: It’s like living next to a crazy neighbor with a house full of guns who once in a while yells over the fence that he’s going to shoot your whole family, but never quite gives you a good enough reason to call the police. Who wants to live next to somebody like that?
 
MJT: Nobody.
 
VDH: This is what Obama does not understand.
 
MJT: I don’t believe Iran will actually nuke Israel, but I don’t believe that in quite the same way I believe France won’t nuke Israel. I’m 100 percent certain France won’t, but I’m not 100 percent sure Iran won’t.
 
VDH: But you can be 100 percent sure they’ll talk about it.
 
MJT: Absolutely. Ahmadinejad talks about it right now.
 
VDH: And he’ll keep doing it.
 
MJT: They’ll ramp up the belligerence in general. I mean, why wouldn’t they? Why would they suddenly dial it down once they’ve built a nuclear arsenal?
 
VDH: The administration is immature. There are millions of reform-minded Arabs in Jordan, Egypt, and the West Bank. There are millions in Lebanon. To the degree that they can function and try to create a liberal community of nations in that area is dependent on the United States opposing radicalism and allowing Middle Eastern governments to be hypocritical. What I mean is, let the Arab states complain about the meddling United States with the private understanding that they want us to oppose Al Qaeda and Iran. I’m worried that Obama believes this anti-Western rhetoric, or at least thinks it’s legitimate, and by voting “present” he sold out all these people. They’ll just go back into their shell or make the necessary accommodations.
 
We saw this in the 1930s in places like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. People there accepted that hardly anyone would speak out against Hitler, that if they aligned themselves with Britain, Britain wouldn’t do anything for them.
 
MJT: Look at the Lebanese. They now have the United States “engaging” with the people who have been trashing their country and murdering their elected officials with car bombs. France is now “engaging” Damascus. Sarkozy was supposed to be an improvement over Chirac, but I’m beginning to doubt he really is.
 
VDH: This a confusing period. There’s a lot of irony. Look back at the period when Europe had it both ways, when we defended them while they mouthed off, when they undermined us and Bush pushed back.
 
Now compare that to what Obama is doing. He’s almost smiling while selling out Europe. He’s trying to become even more left than they are on foreign policy. On one hand, the Europeans are getting what they deserve, but they are Westerners, they are a positive force in the world, and what we’re doing is dangerous.
 
MJT: It seems to unnerve the Europeans now that Obama is to their left.
 
VDH: It does.
 
MJT: They seem uncomfortable being to the right of the United States in some ways.
 
VDH: I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama’s election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, “We are Obama. You can’t be Obama.”
 
Everybody looked at him. And I said, “What do you mean?”
 
He said, “There’s only room for one Obama.”
 
I said, “So we’re supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?”
 
And he said, “Right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our public, which is lunatic. You don’t really believe there’s going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?”
 
That’s what he said. I was surprised at his candor. And it’s worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they’re getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it’s tragic. And it’s dangerous. We shouldn’t be doing this.

The complete interview.