class warfare will get you nowhere choose sides carefully
On Aug 4, 9:20 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Codevilla, North, and the Ruling ClassPosted byCharles Burrison August 4, > 2010 06:01 AM > Dr. Gary North’sinsightful examinationof Professor Angelo M. Codevilla’s > brilliant essay,“America’s Ruling Class And the Perils of Revolution,”adds a > further dimension to our understanding of its powerful impact. As I have > said ina previous LRC blog,I believe this essay is the most important that I > have ever read. > One of the most exciting elements of Codevilla’s article is how he stands > Marxist economic class theory on its head. Marxists believe that the basis > of all history is the class struggle. This conflict is based on the > antagonism resulting from control of the material means of production at the > economic base of society. One’s class membership or “class consciousness” is > defined by this economic relationship. “Ideologies” or belief-systems are > shaped by these material productive forces, not by conscious thought > processes. Codevilla moves beyond the narrow “economic class” terminology > most analysts and pundits misuse, in describing two antagonistic classes > based on opposing sociocultural world-views which define how they perceive > economic relationships. In Marxoid lingo, it is the “superstructure” > defining “the economic base.” > At the root of his analysis is how each class sees political power the use of > coercion or state-applied violence to control others and obtain wealth, > status, hegemony, or domination. Basically this is Libertarianism 101. But > Codevilla is no Libertarian. He is, as Gary North keenly observes, > “America’s smartest conservative political analyst,” a view I have also held > since I briefly studied with him at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s > Western Summer School at Thomas Aquinas College in 1975. > Codevilla’s two classes, “the ruling class,” and “the country class,” (or the > political elite versus virtually everyone else in society) are attitudinal > mind-sets more cultural than economic. But this is much more than “the > culture war” Pat Buchanan or Kevin Phillips discussed in the past. It is the > arrogant presumption on the part of the governing elite that they are better > than their inferiors, that “the elite is neat and the masses are _____.” And > what are asses but dumb beasts of burden which labor for their masters. This > is comparable to thearistocratic disdain of the peasantry in > pre-Revolutionary Francefound in Charles Dickens’sA Tale of Two Cities.Angelo > Codevilla traces this arrogant posture of the elite back to its origins in > progressivism. Dr. North is entirely correct in his discussion of > Codevilla’s analysis of progressivism and its secular roots in the Darwinian > presumption of the natural selection basis of creation. But I would put the > source of this elitist scientism back even further to the Enlightenment. > There is a dark side of the Enlightenment and its social engineering progeny > that many libertarians (particularly those enamored by Ayn Rand’s militant > atheism) do not acknowledge. They continue to blindly hold to the secular > mythology that the Enlightenment was entirely about bringing truth, reason, > tolerance, and light to the miserable masses held in bondage and > superstitious oppression by Throne and Altar. A wide range of dedicated > scholars such as James Billington, Michael Burleigh, Henri de Lubac, John > Gray, Terry Melanson, andF. A. Hayekhave documented the emergence of > ersatzgnostic political religionsas outgrowths of the Enlightenment. First a > stridency emerged from clandestine Free Masonic enclaves such asthe Parisian > La Loge des Neuf Soeurs, the Grand Orient (and in Weishaupt’sIlluminism) > which influenced the savage course of anti-clerical genocide in the French > Revolution and later in Comtian Positivism and Marxist dialectical > materialism all of which saw Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism, as > its sworn deadly enemy. > While Codevilla slammed both modern political parties in America as corrupt > tools of the ruling class, he took specific aim at the Democrats in this > essay. (He has, as in a recent address to the Philadelphia Society, also > concentrated on the Bush regime and the GOP in language reminiscent of > the“Red State Fascism”detailed by Lew Rockwell.) From Woodrow Wilson to > Barack Obama, Democratic Party leaders who have occupied the White House have > been characterized by a haughty elitism endemic to progressivism. I believe > the key volume to unlocking and understanding the establishment mind, and > particularly this elitist temperament, remains Ur-progressive Walter > Lippmann’sA Preface To Morals. > With this in mind, take another look at this very prescient April 15, 2008 > article,“Candidate On A High Horse,”focusing upon then candidate Barack Obama > by syndicated columnist George Will. It contains one of the most concise yet > perceptive analyses of this phenomena, showing the destructive elitist roots > of the progressive agenda, and how the so-called “party of the common man” > actually holds everyday working and middle-class Americans and their basic > values in contempt. > Celebrated academic elitists who had a life-long hatred of capitalism and > bourgeois culture such as Institutionalist/Keynesian economist John Kenneth > Galbraith and former Communist historian Richard Hofstadter, are singled out > for their influential contributions in furthering this deadly contagion by > Will:“The emblematic book of the new liberalism was The Affluent Society, by > Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of > advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of > supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the > American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the > manipulable masses are easily given a ‘false consciousness’ (another > category, like religion as the ‘opiate’ of the suffering masses, that > liberalism appropriated from Marxism, four things follow:“First, the consent > of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false > consciousness, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision > of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, > can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a > reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by > progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false > consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, > those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.“The > iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University > historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still > permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter > pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama revived with his diagnosis of > working-class Democrats as victims the indispensable category in liberal > theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you > disagree.“Obama’s dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class > conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to > deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that > program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of > America.“Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and > psychological disorders a ‘paranoid style’ of politics rooted in ’status > anxiety,’ etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated > by the liberalism of condescension.”This is exactly the same diagnosis > Codevilla made in his article discussing “the Authoritarian Personality” and > the “country class,” an earlier Marxofreudian version of Hofstadter’s > ‘paranoid style’ smear. > Angelo M. Codevilla is our generation’s Tom Paine. He has authored a “Common > Sense” analysis and call to action against a hubristic ruling class that > debases our currency and our culture. They are putting our lives, our > fortunes, and our sacred honor at risk of insolvency and destruction. Will > Americans, as in 1776, answer this challenge? -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
