The Political Fight Over the Discontented

Recently, an article by Carrie Budoff Brown appearing at American Renaissance News included the following about the recently passed federal banking bill:

Deep inside the massive overhaul bill, Congress gives the federal government authority to terminate contracts with any financial firm that fails to ensure the “fair inclusion” of women and minorities, forcing every kind of company from a Wall Street giant to a mom-and-pop law office to account for the composition of its work force.

This is an example of what I described in a previous article for America’s Right on the second reconstruction of America. That’s right — the federal government will make America a better place by having women and minorities on Wall Street instead of a lot of evil white men.

I hate to deliver bad news, but I have worked with government agencies for over twenty years, and if you think race or gender quota modifications will automatically reduce corruption, you need to think again. As a conservative, I would remind you that the most corrupt politician today is President Barack Obama, and standing right behind him is Nancy “Drain the Swamp” Pelosi. The point is, this is top-down reconstruction, where millionaire politicians and bankers put a new face on what they are doing, all at the long-term expense of the rest of us.

Modern American politics has become multi-millionaires and billionaires handing out the spoils, currently led by a federal budget approaching four trillion dollars.

The twentieth century, however, shows that revolutions occur in societies from the top and from the bottom. In theory, Barack Obama could actually change society from the top, but the danger of revolution from the top has always been that the revolution does not make society more equal or free, but rather simply gives more and more power the those at the top. Revolutions that occur from the bottom, however, are based upon a growing number of people at the bottom of the social and economic scale that have become increasingly discontented with the status quo. The danger with bottom up revolutions is they can get out of control, and when they do, a dictator takes over in order to restore order.

In the opinion of the hard, far left, the Democratic party has become the representative of the status quo. There is no better example of this than the current banking “reform” bill that was recently passed. Endless commentators on the Internet and radio have said for three years that the banking bailout was the greatest act of criminal theft in modern world history, and yet none of the criminals who matter have ever been indicted. Recall, for example, that Wachovia Bank–now owned by Wells Fargo–once was caught laundering more than $420 billion in drug money from Mexico.  Not a single Wachovia employee was arrested.  The bank was fined, and settled with the Department of Justice.  What a yawn.

This moment in history should be a great opportunity for conservatives to woo the discontented, many of which may have been on Obama‘s side just two years ago.  For good reason, there is much talk in the conservative camp about victory in November, but they need to follow through.

That considered, a few points regarding America’s political future. Noam Chomsky, a famous and/or infamous academic leftist has an interview on Youtube in which he scolds the left for ridiculing the Tea Party movement. He says the people in the Tea Party have very real grievances, and the left should be figuring out why these people went to the conservative side of the political spectrum. One of the fundamental beliefs of the intellectual left is that it will always triumph when people understand its message.

From my point of view, what is important in this statement is Chomsky’s understanding that a lot of political change occurs when people know something is wrong with their government. The more discontented the populace becomes, the greater the possibility of radical change. If the economy does not do better soon, the politically discontented in America will continue to grow.

The question many conservatives have asked me is whether the Republican Party can deliver the change that is needed. What we have working here is the classic example of the substitution principle I have mentioned before here at America‘s Right. In the Roman Empire, for example, following the assassination of one emperor, everyone would find the replacement emperor was just as bad.

Whether the Republicans want to admit it or not, they have a lot of explaining to do. They have been vocal about President Obama’s immigration policy, but the borders with Mexico were wide open under Bush and Cheney. Judged solely by statistics, Obama has deported more illegal aliens per year than Bush. (This is actually a small part of the whole story, but it shows the problem of political rhetoric.) Many conservatives, included the famous Bill Kristol, have admitted for years that they wanted wide-open immigration in order to import cheap labor

Similarly, Republicans scream about Obama’s spending, but Bush pushed the budget to three trillion dollars. America spends over a trillion dollars a year on defense, and the Republicans vote for it. The Republicans voted for a $400 billion pharmacy bill under Bush.

Does anyone believe the Republicans would prosecute Wall Street criminals? The Republicans have been “friends” of business for decades. The Tea Party represents radical change, not a petty change here and there. Chomsky understood this because he believes in radical change , too. Chomsky also understands that moments like this in 2010 make radical change possible.

Will the discontented vote Republican? Probably. But if they do, and the Republicans fail them, 2012 could be another win for the Democratic Party, and another tragic loss of opportunity for conservatism. If the discontented do not vote Republican, it is because the Democrats have convinced them that the Republicans are running strictly on a platform of dislike of Obama, but will do nothing for them, and therefore will return to the Republican version of the status quo. This became apparent this summer during the debate over the extension of unemployment benefits, which was eventually passed by Congress and signed by Obama. The Republicans were against it on fiscal grounds, but the Democrats really sold the humanitarian side of the issue and told America they would feed the unemployed. The Republicans have to convince the nation that the future of the country is at stake, not just the future of the unemployed ten percent.

But if your economic life was slipping away, who would you vote for? Possible answer: The check is in the mail.



  1. Anonymous says:

    Clean House 2010
    435 Independents!

  2. Randy Wills says:

    Another good, thoughtful, article, Ronald. Thanks.

    The problem is, of course, as illustrated by the “substitution principle”, that it’s always the symptom (self-serving avarice in all of its manifestations) rather than the disease (the universal condition of fallen human nature) that the public rails against.

    2010 and 2012 won’t make much difference in the long run unless people recognize that condition and then act on it in their personal life. Glenn Beck has it right.


  3. graypanther says:

    One of the fundamental beliefs of the intellectual left is that it will always triumph when people understand its message.

    Whereas one of the fundamental beliefs of the intellectual right is that it will triumph when “its message is properly articulated.” Big difference.

    There are many of the discontented who will not vote either Republican or Democratic, because they perceive a conspiracy, of the state parties and the MSM, to shore up Washington as it is. In a vacuum, the rational third option would be revolution, but I honestly believe that among America’s contemporary discontented, only a few would proactively choose it. I think that Sarah Palin’s new book, and the fact that Texas Governor Rick Perry was recently barnstorming California to raise nationally qualified funds, point to the possibility that in 2012 the discontented will rally behind a third party — the Non-Incumbent Party, which will try to convince its base that in office, it will successfully accomplish those objectives which both the major parties have abandoned.

  4. 100% Opinionated 0% Verbose says:

    Not holding my breath for THIS, or any government, to balance a checkbook.

  5. Thomas Jefferson says:

    If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send four hundred and thirty five lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?

  6. Party of 'NO!', hell yeah says:

    It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.

    Thomas Jefferson

  7. Dee says:

    The Dems did the same thing during the so called “healthcare debate”. Everyone of them had a sob story to tell. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, demonstrated why the plan would not work and articulated a brief summary on an alternative. BO followers were not interested in numbers. Taking from the “evil” rich and giving to the deserving poor was all they could hear. I have yet to meet a “poor” politician and I have yet to see any of the elites give their money away and settle for a lesser lifestyle. I am surprised that when BO talks about the “evil” rich that his followers cannot see that he is rich as are most in his administration. November will be interesting and 2012 more so.

  8. YOU ARE SERVED! says:
  9. Discontented Sheriff says:
  10. Contented traveler says:

    As the Chicago Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet reports, by the end of the summer, the first lady will have taken eight vacations. That includes a June trip to Los Angeles, where she and her daughters attended the NBA Finals, as well as an upcoming trip to the Florida Gulf Coast next weekend and a 10-day visit to Martha’s Vineyard later this month with the president.

  11. Made in China says:

    This could discontent an entire carrier battle group.

  12. whats_up says:

    Of course people will vote for the own self interest, why is this a surprise?

  13. Anonymous says:

    Throw out the baby with the bath water.

  14. Chuck Harrison says:

    We need fresh faces in Washington….people like Sarah Palin. People who will work for a year and then QUIT!!

  15. Sam says:



  16. Anonymous says:

    Like Obama quit the Senate.

Speak Your Mind