Boston University’s Angelo Codevilla writes in the American Spectator about the real fault line in American government: that between the ‘ruling class’ and the ‘country class.’ He argues that the distinction between these two classes is far more significant than those between the two major political parties – neither of which is ‘principle-based’ any longer. Instead, the two parties exist primarily to perpetuate their hold on power. The Republican Party – nominally the party of limited government – makes the better vehicle for the ‘country class’ to use to rein in the ruling class. But Codevilla says it must be subverted to be truly effective:
In this clash, the ruling class holds most of the cards: because it has established itself as the fount of authority, its primacy is based on habits of deference. Breaking them, establishing other founts of authority, other ways of doing things, would involve far more than electoral politics. Though the country class had long argued along with Edmund Burke against making revolutionary changes, it faces the uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done? Sweeping away a half century’s accretions of bad habits — taking care to preserve the good among them — is hard enough. Establishing, even reestablishing, a set of better institutions and habits is much harder, especially as the country class wholly lacks organization. By contrast, the ruling class holds strong defensive positions and is well represented by the Democratic Party. But a two to one numerical disadvantage augurs defeat, while victory would leave it in control of a people whose confidence it cannot regain.
Certainly the country class lacks its own political vehicle — and perhaps the coherence to establish one. In the short term at least, the country class has no alternative but to channel its political efforts through the Republican Party, which is eager for its support. But the Republican Party does not live to represent the country class. For it to do so, it would have to become principles-based, as it has not been since the mid-1860s. The few who tried to make it so the party treated as rebels: Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The party helped defeat Goldwater. When it failed to stop Reagan, it saddled his and subsequent Republican administrations with establishmentarians who, under the Bush family, repudiated Reagan’s principles as much as they could. Barack Obama exaggerated in charging that Republicans had driven the country “into the ditch” all alone. But they had a hand in it. Few Republican voters, never mind the larger country class, have confidence that the party is on their side. Because, in the long run, the country class will not support a party as conflicted as today’s Republicans, those Republican politicians who really want to represent it will either reform the party in an unmistakable manner, or start a new one as Whigs like Abraham Lincoln started the Republican Party in the 1850s.
It’s worth your time to read (or listen to) Rush Limbaugh’s comments on this essay. As Rush points out, Codevilla’s analysis goes a long way to explaining why some Republicans are principled leaders, but the party as a whole cannot be depended on for consistent leadership on principle. While many true believers in liberty and small government identify themselves as Republicans, the party as whole typically behaves more as a part of the ‘ruling class.’ What does this mean for Tea Partiers and other new citizen activists? Rush spells it out:
“Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government’s agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to.” Well, this resonated with me because I plaintively say, “Why do you Republicans continue to accept their premise on everything and then deal with it on the margins? Why do we accept the premise that there must be a health care overhaul? Why do we accept the premise that there must be a stimulus package? Why do they set the agenda?” This piece is partially the answer: They’re all part of the ruling class. The Republicans want to be even more accepted in the ruling class. They want to be even more powerful. They want to be considered part of it. They want to be in the clique…
It gets really interesting. This I will share with you, it’s the end of the piece. The only vehicle available to the Tea Party right now is the Republican Party. And what do they do? You and I, have we not, we have been saying — well, some have said third-party route, clearly this piece demonstrates that’s a failure, but others have been saying that the future of the country depends on the conservative movement retaking the Republican Party. Now, here we have people like Trent Lott, everybody’s assumed is a conservative all along, now being threatened by the arrival of a Tea Party caucus, ah, ah, ah, ah, “‘We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.’ But Lott said he’s not expecting a tea-party sweep. ‘I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people.’”
So all of you looking at the Tea Party thinking it’s the Republican Party’s salvation, the Republican members of the ruling class are just as threatened by the Tea Party as the Democrats are. Because the Tea Party is outsiders; the Tea Party is not in the big clique; the Tea Party does not want to be in the big clique. The Tea Party wants to wrest power away from the big clique. The problem, and as Mr. Codevilla’s piece points out is, what vehicle does the Tea Party use?
According to Limbaugh, the Republican party can only truly succeed by absorbing the energy and principles of the Tea Party movement. And the Tea Party itself can only succeed by overturning the established order in the Republican party and using it as vehicle to shrink government.
