I chose to comment on an article that a friend sent me about the potential rise of “prarie populism,” et cetera. I link to Pat Buchanan and his take on what Obama’s decisions might be with regard to our economy.
Non-linked stuff: I am still shellshocked from the goings-on in Chestnut Hill. Coach Jags is out a week ago, and at the time I write this, his replacement is yet to be named. The Dentist’s boys took it to the Tar Heels in Chapel Hill, then lost to the mighty Crimson and were subsequently ruined by the Hurricanes. On the heels (pun?) of this, Coach York’s squad is scuffling. Gene “Old Navy” DeFilippo needs to pull the right strings… and quick.
Rod Dreher — A Populist Prarie Fire from the Right?
Isn’t the “Palinism” Dreher writes about really just electoral politics by another name? Co-opting and deflecting “legitimate populist anger by allowing its adherents to hate elites without really challenging the system” sounds not only like Palinism, but Bidenism just as well.
He says a “true conservative populism would not tolerate an arrangement in which the few profit at the expense of the many.” A true conservative–populist or not–does not tolerate this arrangement in the first place.
I do like the idea of “conservative populism” because it separates itself somewhat from the Wall Street set who call themselves conservatives (but shy away from or completely disregard the principles of conservatism). However he mentions a column by Lewis and Einhorn where they castigate the “system.” The system is a vague notion, and lacking from any description is the reality that it must be made up of people. Why, then, is the culture–specifically that of avarice–not called into question? Where is the criticism for and against values and principles in our society and our culture?
Sure CNN’s data shows that three of four Americans believe that Madoff is the ethical standard of Wall Street, but that means nothing without context. As our society radically deletes any semblance of a defined code for which to compare Madoff’s actions, we give license to men like him to do the things he is alleged to have done. Our “multiculturalism” is getting away from us as it is unbounded and, as such, ever more dangerous.
Consider, for instance, those who say that individuals should be allowed to live under what ever creed or code they wish and then bitch about the jackals on Wall Street who do exactly that. It seems that many in our society don’t want to be called hypocritical, so they emphasize fringe issues and partial-truths to make their points so there is no looking in the mirror. This, in turn, muddies the water even more.
Frankly, the problem, as I see it, is that we put entirely too much emphasis in the political arena in the first place. Don’t most folks see it like Caleb Stegall? Whether they agree with him on hot-button issues–which tend to grind the substantive discussion to a halt–or not is unimportant. He is an agrarian who believes in “decentralizing power and boosting local authority.” Isn’t this America? This is also a move away from collectivist socialism on behalf of the state and away from monopolistic capitalism, the chief ideas or theories (along with our bipolar political arena) that threaten our nation’s greatness today and in the future.
I like the rise of agrarianism, but I also think it needs to be more widespread. Gardening in your backyard. Buy or trade with your neighbor. So on and so forth.
I am troubled by the rise of a “populist demagogue” however. We do not need or should we want demagoguery. It is counter-productive in so many ways. Demagogues move the uneducated and undereducated largely in ways that increase the power of the demagogue and silences the people and the Truth.
People should be allowed to think for themselves. However, why do I–or anyone else–have to give credence to the words of those who do not think independently of the mob and rather just parrot talking points “without really challenging the system”?
Lastly, I believe that ideas should be challenged, but the permanent and ancient things of our culture–ideas included–should not be roundly disregarded because someone comes to a different conclusion “independently.” There is a reason that customs and principles become old … because they are either true or they work or both. So, the “man from Kansas” who sounds “radical today” is not really radical today. His approach is not just common sense tommorrow, but common sense today, as common sense is always common sense.
Pat Buchanan — Obama’s Choice: FDR or Reagan
Congratulations to Hall of Fame-elect guys and former Red Sox players Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice! I loved watching both of these guys when I was growing up.
