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."

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.
To me, the ruling class depends on, and is defined by, the political tendency of newswire journalism. IMHO without the pretensions of newswire journalism to objectivity the ruling party could not have attained critical mass. Those pretentions are supported by nothing other than the propaganda power of the membership of the newswire. No facts, no logic - just brute repetition.

Worse, the pretention of objectivity is inherently self-negating, since assuming your own objectivity is the very definition of subjectivity, the opposite of objectivity. The entirety of the problem we face is to get people to look past the propaganda to the underlying reality. The facts and logic are all on our side.

The entirety of the problem we face is to get people to look past the propaganda to the underlying reality. The facts and logic are all on our side.

You are right. Also think about how it's setting up to get worse if you and I don't fill in the void where we can.

Is there any question that the ~~journalists~~ jerkolists to which you refer have been performing in such manner as to ensure their future positions in the Ministry of Truth? Think of the allegedly Right columnists who became Obama supporters. Then know that Statism attempts to create its own resistance, like a strawman, and a more sinister picture forms that affirms our concerns about a ruling class dropping all pretexts.

But back to the recent past. The other half of the equation has been the GOP "Progressives" and wannabes on our side. When confronted by the Left, they either don't return fire in kind or, worse, in pandering to the MFM confirm if not add to whatever the outrageous charges. (E.g., it was Paul Gigot, hardly the hard conservative, who began writing in the 90s "McCain(R, Media)."

Have you ever insisted with a GOP member of Congress or Senator that they do exactly such a thing when confronted by much of the outrageousness from the other side?

The most eye-opening thing to witness: a conservative constituent requesting that a GOP senator fight in kind at the opposition, only to have that senator bark back with the kind of ferocity he would never direct against the Left and Statists. Guaranteed, the few who have ever fiercely fought the Establishment (Dornan and Trafficant are two examples in either party) were driven from office one way or another. If we noticed, surely any remaining conservatives noticed, and have accepted a short leash.

Again, you are right.
For the playing field to be opened again will take more effort by people like you and me. Our side needs to learn how to speak so that it will be heard over the din and propaganda. Only then may we get through to our neighbors (at least so we don't have to fight them all) who now listen only to MFM's lies and half truths. And always watch your back.

Great article...

Pure gold!

Explains the geneses and modus operandi of the arrogant cockroaches (not to insult cockroaches)that presume to rule over us, but whom deserve no more respect than a common thief.

They are even worse than thieves as they rob “the people” under color of authority.

As the article makes clear, these worms are day by day LESS and LESS accountable to the people, and we the people are, day by day, MORE and MORE accountable to THEM!

They have turned our representative Republic on it’s head.

Our “public servants” have become our public masters.

The longer this goes on the more of our freedoms are being lost — mostly through attrition.

“life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not congruent to being a slave of the state.

These rights are either inalienable and God given or they are not.

If these rights are God given, under what authority — save a self appointed false authority — do these tyrants presume to deprive us of same?

Therefore, these so called “leaders” are no more than political outlaws.

They need to be either removed from office or put behind bars!

STE=Q

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.
The Ruling Class really traces, IMHO, to the Progressive Era. And the Progressive Era happens to correspond to the full flowering of Newswire Journalism - of "the press" as a superior class rather than, as the First Amendment intends, as a right of the people. That is why the first objective in the battle to overturn the Ruling Class must, IMHO, be to delegitimate the absurd pretensions of journalists to objectivity, which is actually code for wisdom. It is sophistry, and must be combated by philosophers - in the original meaning of the term, which means that claims of wisdom are not logical arguments and must be rejected by anyone who attempts actual understanding.
The Progressive Era produced not only legislation but Constitutional Amendments, and a counterrevolution would not succeed unless it is able to do the same. It's often claimed that amending the Constitution is hard. And it is, if done through the normal route in Congress. It would be easier, IMHO, to do it via convention - because in convention, each state has a single vote and therefore the advantage the Ruling Class has had dominating the sheeple in the big coastal states would be diluted.
And it must be remembered that although a supermajority of states is required, in any given state only a simple majority is required to pass an amendment. Which means that, in principle (given perfect gerrymandering), you would need only 51% of the vote in the least populous 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment. And, given perfect gerrymandering within each state, it only takes 51% of the vote in 51% of the legislative districts within each state to OK an amendment. At least in principle.
And although the Constitution derives its authority from its relatively constant nature, correcting imbalances in our system via constitutional amendment is actually the conservative approach. Because changes are otherwise made by extraconstitutional means, principally judicial activism. And that gets to the nub of the matter - how to adjust the Constitution so as to make judicial activism more difficult and less accepted? I would fix the number of SCOTUS justices by constitutional provision at 11 to preclude court packing. I would propose that justices of SCOTUS be elected as running mates of the POTUS, requiring presidential candidates to stand before the people and defend their choices. I would have two SCOTUS nominees per presidential candidate, and I would have the states rank the sitting members of SCOTUS every four years. And the lowest ranked justices would be "voted off the island" to maintain the number of justices at the fixed value of eleven. In that way the justices of SCOTUS would be determined by the people in the first instance, and by the states in the second (although in reality the states, rather than the people, determine the PotUS).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.