A friend sent me Professor Angelo M. Codevilla's excellent American Spectator article "America's Ruling Class." I recommend reading it with careful attention. Unfortunately, I’m not
sure that Professor Codevilla’s hope that a country party that represents
pro-freedom Americans is possible. The reason, as Professor Codevilla points out,
is that the potential members of a country party are diverse, spread out, and
difficult to organize. Moreover, he romanticizes the electorate, which is
more corrupt today than earlier in my lifetime.
I literally live in the country and have gone door to door in my rural
Catskills community, which has gone from Republican to Democratic over the past
40 years. A large segment of the voters is preoccupied with government
programs that secure them jobs in areas like nursing or education. An almost-as-large segment is comprised of welfare recipients who have been
attracted to Kingston, NY by subsidized, public-and-private-partnership housing
that has enriched developers at the expense of taxpayers, who are increasingly
saddled with the cost. Yet, the voters themselves are clients of the politicians, for 51% of the county works for government. In
other words, I don’t think a country party politician is electable in my part of
the country at this point.
Professor Codevilla unearths historical processes that have led to current
problems. His implicit model is of a unitary elite. There are elites,
but they are more pluralistic than he assumes. Also, he is
vague about how the unitary elite is constituted. Are they conscious that they
are a unitary elite? I don’t believe so—there is not a conscious conspiracy,
although there are a number of old boys’ clubs. He is right that education has
homogenized the elite. At the same time, I don’t believe that the most powerful
are fixated on social or religious issues.
Investment and commercial banks play a bigger role in formulating economic
policy than he says. They constitute an interest group that likely trumps the
others--especially in the economic realm. At the same time, interest groups
ranging from the professions to the pharmaceutical industry to agribusiness have
identifiable interests that collide with the socialist and anti-religious
objectives of Northeastern academics. The array of interests collaborates in
many ways, but they are also at loggerheads some of the time. The Republicans
attract diverse special interest groups, which enables them to ignore their own
rank-and-file. Thus, as Professor Codevilla suggests, the Republican Party is a me-too party that is at
war with its supporters. I agree that there has been an attack on Christianity and on freedom, but I’m not sure that every section of the elite array is
represented in those attacks. At the same time, his analysis of the role of
universities is on the money.
His analysis of why the Democratic Party is dominant is brilliant, but it
begs the question as to why no Republican who represents the majority has
stepped forward. First, I regret to say that given my small amount of experience
with politics I am not optimistic about the intelligence or morality of voters,
whom Professor Codevilla idealizes. Second, my guess is that rank-and-file
Americans have been bought with a $25,000 Social Security benefit and
Medicare. That seems to me to be selling freedom cheap, but as Professor Codevilla--along with de Tocqueville--implies, democracy leads to the impulse to enhance
one’s specialness or individuality by claiming privileges at others’ expense,
and I believe that rank-and-file Americans have been convinced that government
programs do that for them, so they identify with the elite power structure to a
greater degree than Professor Codevilla admits.
In other words, the people of the country party are as much to blame for
their loss of freedom and opportunity as their leaders are. How else did all
the political goofballs get elected? I briefly campaigned to be on the town’s
Republican committee. I got elected, but some of the people I met still give me
nightmares. When I listen to political conversations among the Democrats at the
Kingston YMCA, I get a similarly queasy feeling.
A related story is this: Two of the most conservative people in Ulster
County, a guy who runs a fruit stand and a guy who runs a newspaper, for which I wrote for several years, both went on a warpath
to defeat the Democratic county executive because he would not renew a subsidized
lease to a tourist railroad. When I suggested to them that a government subsidy
to a tourist railroad is not a particularly freedom-oriented cause, the fruit-stand
owner said that a private firm could not buy the property and run a private
tourist railroad because it costs $25 million; therefore, government needs to do
it.
Country party, maybe. Freedom oriented—I don’t think Americans know what
the word means anymore.
Professor Codevilla Responds
Dear
Mr. Langbert
Thank you for your thoughtful reading of my article.
Of course, I never suggested anything like a ruling class conspiracy. but
near uniformity based on common mentality, experience and interest is even more
solid.
Is the ruling class motivated by social issues? I suggest that it
identifies itself in those terms. Animus and disdain seldom come from
mere interest. Its common interest comes from its other defining feature -
connection with government?
Why no serious Republican opposition? Why does not the moon slip its orbit
from the earth? Just look at what the mass of Republican satellites are trying
to do to Cruz, and why they do it. They are comfortable as satellites.
You are quite correct about the country class’s corruption. Yes, the
country class is likely to take power carrying all that corruption with it.
(vide Trump)
Best wishes
Angelo Codevilla
