Very interesting bit of legerdemain and deception going on at the American Spectator.
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
What is deceiving about the article? Its a very well researched, thorough treatment of the subject of why our government is ruling against what the people actually want.
I thought it was a quit impressive piece of work and its already up to a quarter million hits on google.
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning, NOT a newspaper!
Say you are a right wing magazine and a conservative writer with ties to right wing think tanks and organizations. You are obviously aware that more and more people are grumbling about the massive inequality in the US and that it has been getting worse largely due to conservative policies both from Dims and Repugs. What do you do?
You could remain silent and hope that the very effective propaganda keeps the base in line.
You could deny it but the facts are pretty tough to deny, impossible really.
Or you could go on the offense and come up with your own rationalization as to why such inequality exists and how it became so. That's what Codevilla did with his article, turned the issue into a Republican vs Democratic issue with the Democrats bearing the brunt of it. Obfuscate and deflect. This is beyond party.
That doesn't make a bit of sense. The point of the article is that the liberal ruling class consists of BOTH Democrats and some Republicans and that conservatives, some two-thirds of voters, do not have any representation. This situation cannot last, so we're going to see some big changes.
Inequality was barely mentioned and is certainly NOT the major theme of the article. As was pointed out, Texas oilmen are actually wealthier than most of the Ruling class, but they have no one representing them, because they're conservative. I.E. the conflict isn't between rich and poor at all, but between the Ruling class and conservatives.
Writing for the right-wing American Spectator, Angelo M. Codevilla reveals that, somehow, America has come to be ruled by an elite. This elite strongly resembles the old and mostly nonexistent liberal elite that has long been the Right’s favorite boogyman (Codevilla makes not-very-veiled allusions to the public school system, identity politics and political correctness). However, this elite includes Republicans as well as Democrats.
The article is fascinating sort of in the way three-day-old road kill is fascinating. But yes, Angelo, there is an elite that is making the decisions for us, and making decisions I don’t like either. They don’t give a bleep about your best interest, or mine. But government is just a tool. Both parties are just tools. The “tea party” movement is just a tool. You are a tool, Codevilla. Wake up.
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.
No, that is not what “distinguishes” them. Their power does not depend on government, although they’ve managed to turn government into a nice prop. And government works for them more than for us, which is why government is increasingly unresponsive to the real needs of Americans.
And I assure you, Codevilla, the real heads of the elite never worked a day in their lives for either the government or any non-profit do-gooder organization.
And, Codevilla, if you want to know how you became a tool, read Kevin Drum’s “GOP Fairy Tales.” The real elite get their way by selling lies to ordinary folks, who then will turn out and support whatever the elite wants. So just as the elite managed to convince many farmers they had been wiped out by the “estate tax” even though they couldn’t possibly have owed an estate tax — my suspicion is that they’d done badly in probate court and didn’t understand the difference — now they’re going to dig up small businessmen who will cry they will be ruined if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, even though those small businessmen will not be impacted at all if the Bush tax cuts are not renewed.
Same old, same old.
Since I've attended many Tea Parties, I can assure you that we're not tools. The Tea Party really is an independent movement, we're not getting funding from anybody! Here's a quote from a recent article:
Q: What about the accusations that you are driving these activities – that they’re corporate-sponsored ‘astro-turf’ rather than real grassroots movements?
A: That’s nonsense. It’s clear from the very personal and passionate expressions of concern at these events that they haven’t been scripted or orchestrated.
Tea parties reflect a spontaneous recognition by people that if they do not act, the government will bankrupt their families and their country. They’re absolutely right about that.
Now, if our work over the past 30 or 40 years has helped stimulate some of those citizens who are becoming more active, that’s great, but it’s a far cry from pulling strings.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/MarkTapscott/Mark-Tapscott-What-if-all-businessmen-were-as-dedicated-to-free-markets-as-the-Kochs-98699799.html#ixzz0uFgvzkC2
and that conservatives, some two-thirds of voters, do not have any representation.
Two-thirds of American voters are conservatives? Whose butt did you pull this statistic out of? Names, dates, and sources, please -- unless you just made it all up.
Its a well known gallup poll result: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx that shows that twice as many people identify themselves as conservative (40%) as liberal (20%), Or two-thirds vs one-third - not of the whole voting public though - my mistake.
Although I agree with a basic premise of the essay - that the U.S. political class is not representative of its constituents, much of the essay is anti-government propaganda masquerading as an intellectual argument. You, of course, remember the famous quote of Reagan's regarding the 9 most frightening words - I'm from the government, and I'm here to help. Frustration with an apparent ineffectual leader (Jimmy Carter) and the desire to start feeling good about the country after the traumas of Viet Nam and Watergate were strong emotional claims - and voters loved Reagan. The problem with this "hate the government" tidal wave, is that the U.S. government does both good and bad things - it is both highly effective (lunar landings), and pathetically ineffective (Katrina and oil spill responses). When we make government, not ineffectiveness, the enemy, we tend to destroy the ability of government to do anything, including those things we want it to do (e.g. disaster relief). While in America, everyone obtains the right to vote at 18, I believe media has severely damaged the value of our votes. Indeed, it is my view that the ruling class is the wealthy, corporations and their officers, including the media, not the politicos of either party which are the ruling elite's puppets. This effect is so strong because they have been able to use their wealth to control the flow of information and to buy influence - in effect, the media acts like an internet hub that makes information it wants disseminated very easy to get and contrary information, much harder to get.
Had the piece focused on why the ruling elite wanted the bailouts (simply put - they wanted our money!), the reason for the disconnect between the elected and the electorate would be clear (they don't work for us). (Actually, in the case of the bank bailout, the ex-CEO of the world's largest investment bank was the U.S. Sec. of Treasury and the chairman of the Federal Reserve a modern monetary theory ideologue is a "true believer", useless in a deliberative process. And economics is the 'dismal science' - politicos are forced by fear and ignorance to rely on the well-versed bureaucrats, trusted to know best what to do. In this event, the bureaucrats failed the politicos, in my view they defrauded the country, but that's another can of worms.) This in turn would lead to an examination of how we citizens might lessen the power of the elite to control our elected representatives - a subject I doubt The American Spectator would entertain.