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.