Home › Blogs › JackinMichigan's blog ›

Looking for renewal in the wrong places

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 10:29
in

Let me suggest that there's a more fundamental question that people on this site should be asking: What is the point of puttng Rebublicans back in power - of repeating 1994? Did that restore limited government? Did that restore free market principles?

This site is called "Next Right," not "Next Republican." The true enemy of limited government is an inbred, self-serving, self-perpetuating, bipartisan political class that to retain its hold on power is ever so happy to play handmaiden to the interests of the permanent government class (the welfare/regulatory state bureaucracy) and to legions of rent seekers. The ideas of Adam Smith and James Madison are considered weird to them. They don't represent the people; instead, the government has escaped the control of the people.

How does just electing more Repubs solve that fundamental problem?

The two parties aren't going away, but all these netroots tools suggests that they may become less important to elections and governance. Everyone's swooning over how Obama used internet tools, but they're not noticing so much that his use of them had little or nothing do with the Dem party. Yet many of the discussions here are about how the Republican Party can put these tools to work for it.

Well maybe it can't. The netroots tools worked for Obama because people on that side were inspired by the man. He - not the Dem Party - created the energy that powered all that dispersed online activity.

Now tell me, what part of the GOP brand can ever excite that kind of energy? You know the answer: Nada. Even if Republican officeholders hadn't spent the last decade throwing mud on the brand a political party will never inspire that kind of energy. Only individual candidates or ideas/movements can do that.

Ideas and movements - keep those words in mind as you read the following:

Whatever you think of Sarah Palin - brilliant or a buffoon, the future or a dead end, a mistake or an inspired stroke - the really, really important thing about her is what she represents in the core dimension of American politics today, which is the people vs. the political class: She is on the correct side of that divide. That's why she insprired so many at the grass roots. That's why she has such high approval ratings as governor.

And by the way, being on the right side is not something that can be faked. No standard-issue, status quo pol can pay a consultant to convince the people that he's really not a member of a class they hate. He either is or isn't. There are not more than a tiny handful of officeholders in any state who are on the right side of that divide. Palin (and maybe Jindahl) is the one who's gone highest.

I am totally agnostic about whether Sarah Palin is the future or a dead end, and I'm not suggesting that we make Sarah the figurehead or the candidate. But in defining this dimension - the people vs. the political class - what she represents is absolutely the future. Or should I say, it's the only future worth working for, and the only one that might inspire the masses in a way that brings about a restoration of limited, representative government. Because isn't that what most of the people reading this website really care about?

BTW, the energy that Ron Paul generated came from the same source. Yeah, he cranked up a lot of nuts and is pretty quirky himself, but he excited so many at the grass roots because they knew he was on the right side of that all-important divide, the people vs. the political class.

~~~

"So what's your solution, 'JackinMichigan'?" some might be asking. Hey, one thing at a time. To get the right answer you have to ask the right question, correct? That's what I'm trying to do. It may take some time to discover how to crack this much larger nut, but there's a lot smart people on this site and most of them care about the right things (I think), so let the brainstorming begin.

 

4.5
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (2 votes)

Comments

What you are really complaining about

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 11:44.

I don't buy this "people vs the political class" argument. And the thing about ALL politicians - even the great Ronald Reagan, even Sarah Palin - is they have to win elections.

And once you get in, you don't get to stay in - afterall, every 2, 4 and 6 years the people get to have their say. Have you noticed that there are going to be more than 50 new members of the House in January?

I think what you are really annoyed about is 8 years of a very bad administration.

 

The futilty of repeating the same mistakes is what annoys me

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 16:11.

No, eight years of a bad administration is not what I'm really annoyed about. What annoys me is the futility of just electing more Republicans so we can repeat a cycle that began in 1994.

Who are "the political class?" In my state it’s not just the 148 members of the Michigan legislature, but also the 600 partisan staffers on its payroll. Add to that 148 + 600 all the professional D and R Party apparachiks and their associated partisan consultants, polsters, etc. Then add the state’s congresscritters and their hangers-on, and all the little local government dictators and their cronies. It’s much bigger than just the prez or even just the pols.

The political class is the one whose members' primary goal is getting and holding positions where they can keep their mouths firmly affixed to the teat of government "service" with all the material, social and psychological (vanity) rewards that flow from it. The thing they fear most is ever having to get a job in the private sector where accountability is direct and concrete, and one must provide actual value to survive. In short, where one must earn a living.

 They are the class for whom the tools of political manipulation are so evolved and ingrained that they don't need to care what constits want and believe. It's all a game that they take completely for granted - they think this is the way the world is and the way it is supposed to be.

None of them are friends to limited government, and they dominate the GOP side of the aisle just as much as the Dem side. On both sides they are all equally willing to use the instumentalities of big government to retain their positions. Maybe a few here don’t care about this larger problem, but many do.

There are a handful of officeholders who represent something different. Palin is the best known, and notwithstanding his quirks, (severe) limitations and “nut appeal” so is Ron Paul. In my state we know who they are and have been: Margaret O’Connor, Stephen Dresch, Greg Kaza, Dave Jaye (for all his Greek tragedy flaws), Leon Drolet. Ruth Johnson may be one of them – she bucked her caucus to take on a corrupt school establishment (another component of the political class).

I don’t think any other current Michigan officeholders are on the right side of this divide, and the fact that a few aren’t as bad as the rest doesn’t mean they are not members in good standing of the political class that has supplanted representative government in this state and nation. 

I think your political assements are right on the money.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:33.

The people vs. the political class is exactly the political perception that propelled Obama into office, defeated McCain and raised Sarah Palin to political sainthood. People know they are no longer in control of our political process. People know the present political system doesn't truly represent their values. People know their political parties no longer represent the common good.

Now, what can be done about it?

ex animo

davidfarrar

Obama ran as "not George Bush"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:41.

and "smarter than John McCain", not as people vs. the political class.

Look deeper...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 12:57.

...to see the truth within. Obama was able to win over Hillary because she was perceived as part of the "political establishment."

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

You can't have it both ways

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 16:02.

Obama can't be both "a man of the people" and a latte-sipping urban-dwelling Harvard-educated empty suit elitist.

He beat Hillary because he came out early agains the Iraq war and had a better gameplan for the primaries after Super Tuesday.

Why not?

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 17:13.

It's perfectly consistent to maintain that Obama is a latte-sipping urban-dwelling Harvard-educated empty-suit elitist who nevertheless campaigned as a "we are the change we've been waiting for" populist-idealist.

 

Interesting discussion on Obama, but don't take eye off ball

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 18:27.

The People vs. the Polical Class problem is a lot more fundamental than one presidential race or candidate. My own view is that Obama played his cards so close to the vest and got such a pass on getting any meaningful media scrutiny that he was in effect a Rorschak candidate - voters could project onto him whatever desires/preferences they wanted and there would be nothing and no one to contradict them. So yeah, he was the "anti-political class" candidate to those who wanted him to be, a latte-sipping elitist to cosmopolitans who wanted that, a "man from hope" to others, etc.

Now, about this deeper malignity in our system of politics and government . . .

To address the malignity in our political system...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 12/31/2008 - 19:00.

...we simply have to empower the People more to restore the balance.

Now there are many, many ways to empower the electorate, but since God, in his infinite mercy,  has bestowed upon us the miracle of the Internet, why not use it to empower the People within our political system?

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Paradox or denial ?

Submitted by artigiano on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 12:04.

In this one short post are revealed two problems with the people vs. political class paradigm. It was not God who gave us the Internet, it was in fact the government. Just like it gave us the interstates, public schools and universities, and all manner of things we use and enjoy everyday.

If you are on the right, you probably  are inclined to label the government as affiliated with the political class and therefore part of the problem. If you are on the left, you are more inclined to see the government as an extension of the will of the people. So for a rightie, taking power from the political class weakens "the government." For a leftie giving more power to the people strengthens "the government", which to a leftie is simply the people acting in concert to enhance their collective quality of life.

To come back strong as a viable party the GOP must shed the old joke, "Government does not work, elect me and I'll prove it." Eight years of Bush incompetence showed the people the truth behind the humor. People know that Democrats often fail and make huge mistakes and wast escads of public funds. But at least Democrats are trying their level best in most cases to make government work for people.

Republicans have to be seen as the party of competent public servants who will work hard to get things done for the people. It's fine for Republicans to have different goals and place different emphasis than their collegues on the left. But things like FEMA's Brownie and the Katrina non-response have to stop. Or at the very least the GOP has to start saying "you screwed up and will be held accountable for failing the American people." Instead of "You're doing a heckuva job!"

The GOP needs someone with Reagan's communication skills and Eisenhower's competence in turning the power of the government into hugely impressive concrete results. That could be Jindal. Too soon to tell. But it seems Palin only has the first part down and is still working on the second. She has many more years as a governor to show that she is a "get 'er done" gal.

People vs. Political Class not about electing Republicans

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 17:48.

The point of my blog post was that there's no point in returning Republicans to power if all that's accomplished is to restart the cycle that began in 1994 - another round of false hopes and disappointment. Looking for renewal in all the wrong places.

What I'm suggesting is a whole new way of thinking about the challenge that confronts proponents of limited government. It requires stepping away from usual ways of thinking. The usual way is what we see on this website - big discussions and debates about how to return Republicans to power. For those whose real goal is restoring limited government, that's the wrong discussion to be having right now.

One analogy for a different way of thinking might be the Progressive movement of the late 19th Century. That was a reaction against a corrupt government patronage system in both parties. The goal was to clean up politics, and put in place a permanent, professional, capable bureaucracy. (The fact that when later combined with a big government welfare state that bureacracy turned into perhaps the most powerful enemy of limited government is a separate issue.)

The Progressives won because they captured the imagination of the people, not because they captured one of the parties. Eventually both parties had to dance to the Progressive tune if they wanted to succeed. Or perhaps more accurately, they had to back candidates who danced to that tune, because it's likely that neither party was ever enamoured with an agenda that would take away so much of their power.

So it is with the People vs. the Political Class agenda - I expect resistance from the parties, not support. Parties are about getting and keeping political power, period. This model is about returning political power to the people. I'm discussing it here because I believe that the real goal of many of the readers of this site is to restore limited government, not restore Republicans.

If the candidates who represent the right side of the people vs. the political class divide happen to more often have "R" after their names, so be it - but I don't ever expect the party to get all warm and fuzzy about those candidates. Just the opposite - the first victories of most of these real change reformers are likely to be in primaries, defeating candidates sponsored by insiders and party apparachiks. Including incumbents - people like Frank Murkowski, for example.

That was a funny screed by Jack

Submitted by Chance_Haywood on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 09:37.

Especially when he mentioned Madison as some ideal to contrast what is wrong with the political class.

I hate to break it to you Jack but Madison was part of the poltical class. Madison was in elected office essentially from 1776 until 1817. If being part of something for forty years doesn't make you part of it then .. well you get the picture.

Also using Palin as an example isn't really a good one either. She has been in elected office basically for the last 15 years. People are either precieved to be against the expansion of government and an outsider, regardless of thier time in office, or they are not. Claiming any politician who has held multiple elected offices is not part of the political class is just ignorant.

Frankly it is my opinion that if you participate in process, beyond voting and writing about it, you are part of the political class. I'll never hold public office. I do not intend to ever make money by my involvement with being politically active. However because I am poltiically active I see myself as part of the political class. I'm invest it in poltics. I suspect you are as well.

Welcome to dark side my freind. 

 

 

Cute, but off base.

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 16:10.

I was involved in state electoral politics directly for eight years, including several years working in the legislature. Since then I've been closely engaged from the nonprofit side. I've been in the belly of the beast, and seen the dark side.

During that time I associated with most of that handful of elected officials in this state who I listed above as representing someting different - our state's versions of Palin. I've tried to put my finger on specifically what made them different, and I think it was this: They were all skillful politicians and campaigners, and they played the game as well as energetically as the rest, but they all refused to use the instruments of big government to advance their own political careers. Also, they weren't afraid to make themselves persona-non-grata with the government employee unions, the big rentseekers like Blue Cross Blue Shield and the utility companies, etc.

Specifically, they never introduced or supported bills that expanded government programs, or fed more money to various government interests including local governments, the government school blob, etc., in order that they could send out press releases and phony "district newsletters" bragging about how "compassionate" they were, or about how much they care about the environment because they voted for some stupid new recycling nonsense, or worse, because they voted for some new regulatory regime, etc.

Yeah, those good guys and gals sent those tax-funded newsletters and mailings, but the things they bragged about were efforts to limit government or perhaps make it more efficient or transparent, not how they helped expand it.

I guaran-damn-tee you that not a single serving GOP legislator in Michigan today can say the same - every last one of them plays those destructive, corrupt, enemy of limited goverment games - some more than others, but they all do it. Why? Because it's easier, and they don't really give a damn. Because there are emotional rewards for being a good member of the insiders team. Because they are members of the political class, and they're serving their class interests.

One more thing: The voters never had any trouble determining that the handful of true-blue friends of limited governement were different, and they rewarded them. These people were as popular in their districts as they were unpopular in Lansing - and that's not a coincidence.

Jack.....You Need A Lifeline!

Submitted by americanmale on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 22:59.

Jack, I read your post three or so times....to get the tone of your commentary...and I just can't get past the message of frustration.  And you do have good right to be.  You're in blue michigan and i am in blue RI (new england).  I feel your pain....well, sort of anyways.

Sarah Palin is a great governor, she is a great person, and she makes me smile whenever I  see her on the tube.  However, I'm afraid she isn't top of the ticket material.  She is a great mouthpiece and motivator for the party...and I mean great along the magnitude of Oprah_esque.  But she is not going to have the horsepower to deal with the issues in 2012.

We can pretty much bet that the Obama policies are going to lead to a weak dollar, higher state/local taxes, and inflation.  5 dollar milk and 7 dollar gallons of gas....and the damned roads still won't be fixed.  Even worse, our military is going to be economically paralyzed.  It's inevitable.

Someone along the lines of Sheila Bair...or Romney...or someone else who is well schooled on economic issues will bubble right to the top.  It won't be a "popularity" contest then.  The hope thing will be done.  The change thing will be done. The race thing will be done.   It will be strictly business....and that is where we will succeed.

Have faith, enjoy the "time off".  For the first time in 28 years we won't have a voice on the federal side of things.  Stay local.  Guard your property taxes.  If they don't hit you at the state level, the town level certainly will.......and of course, keep writing position posts.

 

I'm agnostic on Palin's role in the future

Submitted by JackinMichigan on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:19.

As I said in my opening post, I am totally agnostic about whether Sarah Palin is the future or a dead end, and I'm not suggesting that we make Sarah a figurehead or the candidate. I don't want to get distracted by that discussion, but instead focus on the the really, really important thing that she represents: In the core divide of American politics today - the people vs. the political class - she is highest elected official on the correct side. That's why she insprired so many at the grass roots. That's why she has such high approval ratings as governor.

BTW, as sure as I am that Sarah is on the correct side of that divide, I'm equally certain that Romney and all the other 2008 also-rans are not. They are all members-in-good-standing of the political class that is the real enemy of limited, representative government (Ron Paul excepted, but I have no illusions about him having a future or being an effective leader for what I'm talking about here.)

That doesn't mean some aren't lesser evils than others, and probably any of them is a lesser evil than what we got (with one exception, which to avoid a fight I won't name.) I'm not "dissing" anyone for having been enthusiastic about one or another of 2008's lesser evils. What I am saying is that "restore limited, representative government"  is not synomymous with "elect more Republicans," and those whose ultimate goal is the former need to think about the problem in different terms than the latter.