Blacks Stay Home in 2010

You could have seen this one coming. "Black Americans voted with their feet in the 2010 midterm elections".

Yep, that's one of the reasons that the GOP did so well. Minority voters weren't quite as enthusiastic as they were in 2008. Writes black conservative Lurita Doan:

But why is this surprising? Consider: unemployment is greatest among African Americans, with the Bureau of Labor (BLS) statistics reporting in Table A-2, unemployment of 29% for Black American adults... [I]f you consider that BLS reported that for Black Americans between the ages of 16-19, the unemployment rate is a stunning 48%, this kind of disenchantment with an administration that promised so much, but delivered so little, should be expected.

And if minority voters aren't convinced by the unemployment numbers there's the clear signal from the defeat of reformist Mayor Fenty in Washington DC by the teachers union. Democrats care about teachers; they don't care about kids.

There's really only one way forward for blacks, now that we've had our First Black President. That's the good old Anglo-Saxon Protestant way symbolized by freshman Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), who won the predominantly white 1st Congressional District in South Carolina. What does Tim Scott believe, asked Zev Chafetz?

What, I asked, would be his message if he is sent by the party to evangelize among African-American Democrats? “Faith in God,” he said. “School choice and vouchers. And private enterprise. I want people to know that the American Dream is still alive and well, and I’m living proof.”

African American Scott was an indifferent high-school student but a businessman mentor and Bible study in college "gave me confidence that I could think my way out of poverty."

Here's my prediction. The real importance of the Barack Obama presidency is that it will free African Americans from their faith in an earthly savior. They will turn to faith and self-reliance. They will return to the party of Lincoln and in another generation you will not find a more staunchly Republican group than middle-class blacks.

One thing you can learn from Bible study is this: "put not your trust in princes." Prince is an old-fashioned word for politician.

ObamaCare: The One Thing Needful

Many people are wondering: Why? Why did Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama push through ObamaCare in the teeth of opposition from the American people and why did they sacrifice their majority in the House to do so?

The answer is simple. If you are a Democrat you believe that you only get a chance to enact progressive legislation once in a generation. You know you'll pay for it but one thing keeps you going. You know that, whatever the cost at the next election, the new social benefit you enacted will never be repealed.

Obviously this Democratic faith will endure until it is refuted by the facts of experience. Obviously, one fine day, a glorious Democratic progressive legislative achievement will get repealed by a Congress and signed by a president elected to do just that. And that will be the end of liberalism as we know it, for liberalism is the idea that you make society more equal, more dignified, and more just with gigantic government programs like Social Security, free education, and government health care.

The great political question of the next five years is whether in fact the American people really want the Republicans to repeal ObamaCare. If the American people want that then they will know what to do. All they have to do is elect a Republican Senate in 2012 and a Republican president. That's all it takes.

If the American people do that then it will be the end of the liberal dream. Because the American people will have demonstrated that it is possible to repeal a glorious government entitlement.

Will Republicans get to do this? Well, there is one thing to keep in mind. When Democrats passed Social Security most people didn't have a pension. When Democrats passed Medicare most old people didn't have health insurance. But today, in 2010, most people already have health insurance and they report that they are pretty happy with it. ObamaCare is extending subsidies to the 30 million without health insurance. Obviously, the rest of the American people are going to have to pay for that. They are going to have to pay for it in higher taxes and/or in higher health insurance costs and/or reduced access to health care.

I ask you: what do you think that the American people think about that? And what do you think the American people are going to do about that?

Liberal Government as Secular Theocracy

If you give conservatives a chance, says the Angry Left, they will create "theocracy" and "legislate morality."

That was the way in the 2000s that our liberal friends experienced the Bush administration, led by a self-confessed Christian. And that is how our liberal friends experienced the Bush administration decision on embryonic stem-cell research.

Theocracy, as defined in Wikipedia, means the rule of the priests, or a society in which the church and the state are more or less unified into a single organization. Using Michael Novak's three-sector analysis of modern society, we could say that a theocracy occurs when the moral/cultural and political sectors are pretty well unified. Obviously, any such organization would quickly get itself into the business of legislating morality--the moral system of the church implemented in the legislative output of the legislature full of priests and ministers.

That's exactly the model of the administrative welfare state run by our liberal friends. There is only one difference. When liberals complain about "legislating morality" they are talking about laws that attempt to regulate personal sexual morality. But the whole point of liberalism is to translate their views on social morality into law.

Liberals experience unregulated capitalism as fundamentally immoral. They see poverty, they see economic exploitation, and they call it immoral. They demand that society do something about it. And what do they demand? They demand that everyone be forced to support their moral vision of government programs to ameliorate the social evils of capitalism.

What can you call this but legislating morality? Liberals emphatically reject the idea of laws to regulate individual morality. But they emphatically support the idea of laws to regulate social morality. They call it "social justice" or "economic justice." What is that other than legislating economic morality?

In liberalism, the functions of moral commentary and political action are combined, collapsed into a single operation. The liberal intellectual experiences himself as both moral arbiter and political strategist. The classic liberal intellectual product is the political manifesto, identifying a moral outrage in society, analyzing it, and proposing a political, legislative, big-government solution.

It's really pretty simple. Liberal government is a "secular theocracy."

The Hard Road Ahead

The results of the mid-terms were good, but not great. Even so, as usmidtermelections.com shows, it was about the second best showing for Republicans since 1900.

But clearly, union muscle helped Democrats in California and Nevada to get Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid over the finish line and back into the Senate.

What we can understand on the morning after is the hard road ahead. For sure, the voters rejected Obama and the Democrats. Now we have to get back to work.

But the long-term prospects are favorable. Let's look at three reasons for liberals to tremble.

There is no more money The big idea of liberalism was to construct a rational system to deliver vital social services that people on their own would not provide to their fellow citizens. But the trouble with this plan is that when you hand any problem to government it just ends up as a patronage program. And you end up promising more loot to your supporters than you can possibly deliver. That's what we have in America today: a huge bloated government that pays a ton of people a lot of money to do nothing. Eventually government will renege: on its promises, on taxes, and on its debt.

Meaningless lives The big idea of liberalism was to liberate people from the yoke of necessity so they could live intelligent creative lives. There's just one problem with this. If you take away the struggle of life, the grind of work, the obligations to loved ones, then you are left with nothing but dust. For the ordinary person to make a difference, they must work, and marry, have children and raise them. Off in the corner some talented genius will come up with an original creative work. Good for him. But society cannot be organized for the benefit of the occasional talented genius. Sure, it works pretty well for elite liberals: selective universities, interesting sinecures, opportunities to help the powerful. But when the ordinary people are reduced to beneficiaries of compulsory government programs, forced to government schools, government pensions, government health benefits, what's the point? You end up as an eternal teenager playing with grownup toys, but denied the dignity of living as a free citizen who can make a difference.

Established church of liberalism The big idea of liberalism is that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. To view this in a larger perspective we could say that we need to keep a distance between the moral/cultural sector of society, the realm of hope and faith, and the political sector, the realm of rules and force. Liberals fail to understand that a secular established church of liberalism is just as much a breach of the separation of church and state as the old established churches of Christianity. The problem is that when you combine church and state the state ends up dominating the church. The spiritual fervor of the religious community withers away and the only thing you have left is the power principle of politics. All the great government programs amount to the legislation of liberal morality. There's a moral case to look after the old folks. But should we legislate support and force everyone to support old people? There's a moral case to make sure that every child gets an education. But should we legislate morality and force everyone to support a government child custodial system? There's a moral case to relieve the poor. But has a government poor law that legislates morality and forces people to support government poverty bureaucrats ever resulted in anything but misery for the poor?

We will see liberals stumbling and bumbling all over the place in the coming years. They will use every trick in the book to preserve their power. But it won't work. Because liberals amount to a corrupt aristocracy that has forgotten that an aristocracy is supposed to be the rule of the best, not the rule of the best-connected.

If that isn't enough, there is the problem of the economy. Since the Obama administration doesn't believe in cutting spending, and will have a problem getting any tax increases, it has resorted to a policy of inflation. That is what "QE2" means. By the spring of 2012 this policy should be delivering significant inflation and some new asset bubble.

The American people will not deal kindly with the president that has screwed up the economy for four straight years.

To Lead the White Working Class

Yesterday we looked at the Seven Habits of the Working Class, as tabulated by Henry Olsen. Olsen got his info from Patrick Muttart, "former chief of staff to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper."

The seven habits included: Hope for the future, Fear of the present, Pride in their lives, Anger at being disrespected, Belief in public order, Patriotism, and Fear of rapid change.

I wrote that conservatives differs with the white working class on two of those factors: Fear of the present, and fear of rapid change. Conservatives tend to be competent people that expect to come out all right in the future, but the white working class understands that it is economically marginal; that is why the white working class has, sensibly, voted for a big government safety net.

If conservatives want to get the support of the white working class we have to demonstrate that we have concrete, practical plans to provide a social safety net that is better than the government safety net provided by big government. That may not be hard to do in the near future because liberals have spent all the money and the welfare state will have to renege on its promises. It's a Fram oil filter problem. Do we renege now, or do we renege later?

Now let's look at another factor: Anger at being disrespected. Let's look at Olsen's take on that:

This is the flip side of their pride. Working-class voters are very cognizant of their status in American life. They rarely occupy executive positions in their jobs and are consumers rather than producers of ideas. They feel keenly this relative lack of control over important features of their lives, and resent being ordered about as if they were merely pawns in someone else’s grand plan. They particularly dislike having their lives belittled as unsophisticated or inferior to the lives of educated or wealthy folk.

Attention, liberals and President "Bitter Clingers" Obama! Yep, when liberals go around talking about "facts and science and argument" and people not thinking clearly when they are scared, the white working class is liable to ask "are you talking to me, boss?" There couldn't be a clearer demonstration of President Obama's little problem with the voters. It's the liberal presumption that liberals are more intelligent than ordinary people and that the most intelligent should rule.

OK, so President Obama and the liberal Democrats are impossibly patronizing and elitist. But what about conservatives and Republicans?

I have two words for you: Sarah Palin.

Say what you like about Sarah Palin (and liberals certainly have--thanks, liberals) but Sarah Palin is a successful politician whose shtick is pitch-perfect for the white working class.

If the white working class is now up for grabs, and the Democratic Party is hopelessly elitist and condescending, which conservative politician would be the perfect foil for 2012? Which conservative politician would be most likely to hammer out a platform that speaks volumes to the white working class?

OK, put it another way. Which politician will infuriate the liberals and provoke them into saying snobby and mean-spirited things that will speak volumes to the white working class and uncommitted moderates in general?

Yep. Sarah Palin.

What the Working Class Wants

In a powerful article on the failures of Obamism Henry Olsen lists the seven cultural indices of the white working class.

• Hope for the future
• Fear of the present
• Pride in their lives
• Anger at being disrespected
• Belief in public order
• Patriotism
• Fear of rapid change

Looking at that list, conservatives can say that we align automatically on most of them, but on two we have a problem: Fear of the Present and Fear of Rapid Change. For it is on those two items that the working class clings to the government welfare state. And it is there, it seems to me, that conservatives can and should work to prove to the working class that a non-government welfare state will help them and give them a better life: opportunity as well as security.

Let us bring this down to earth. If conservatives want to reform Social Security we must erect institutions that demonstrate to the working class that their savings won't be at the mercy of Wall Street. If we want to reform health care we must demonstrate to their satisfaction that the new system really will be safe and secure for them: that they won't be chucked into a second-rate nursing home for the last years of their lives. If we want to reform education then we have to persuade the working class that they will be able to afford a privatized system, one that values hands-on work as well as academic work.

Conservatives have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop a governing philosophy that converts our limited-government notions into practical ideas that communicate to the working class and also deliver for them.

It is not an accident, of course, that Sarah Palin almost seems to have been sent from central-casting to be the leader that can connect between conservatives and the working class. But you could say the same of Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) or even Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN).

Meanwhile I am still holding out for an 80-seat Republican pickup in the House of Representatives tomorrow.

The Educated Youth Movement

How do we understand President Obama and his curious life journey from semi-abandoned son of a Sixties girl to graduate of leftist Midwest Academy and Radical-in-chief? I believe that the best way is to understand the movement of the left as a kind of religious movement, a secular religious movement of moral renewal that ended up, as so many religious movements do, wanting to capture the political system, become an established church, and legislate its morality upon the populace--in their own best interests, of course.

But isn't this idea of a secular religious movement rather a stretch? Not really, not if you read Discovering God by Rodney Stark.

In Discovering God Stark puts his sociological theories about religion to the test. Mainly, he asserts that there is always a latent demand for religion in society. But usually the supply of religion is throttled by the ruling elite, because religious movements tend to upset the status quo, including the political status quo. The ruling elite prefers to capture religious sentiment into an elite-dominated state religion.

Following Marx, we educated moderns like to think of religion as the "opiate of the masses." But Stark asserts that religious movements are very often started by well-to-do youngsters. Rather than plunge into the hurly-burly of ordinary life they choose a life of asceticism and meditation. Take Buddhism:

Combined with the doctrine that life is inevitably a succession of sufferings and sorrows and that in addition one must strive to frustrate all desires, to become a true follower of Buddha or Mahavira [the founder of Jainism] is to embrace unrelieved pessimism. Such pessimism seems to have attracted some alienated members of the elite to become monks or nuns, but it surely "could not attract the minds of the laity."

Buddhism quickly died out in India, but thrived in China where it grafted on Gods and an afterlife.

The movement started by educated youth in the years after the Napoleonic Wars also embraced unrelieved pessimism, the notion that the lot of the workers would inevitably get worse and worse. It was also godless. And it was particularly attractive to sons of the prosperous middle class. Think Marx, Engels, the Fabians, the Progressives and of course our modern liberals.

This Educated Youth movement began with a moral critique of modern middle class society and then went on to propose a radical reform, to purify it of getting and spending, and to restore an ancient vision of the pure community. It was, of course, a community that had never been. But after the first efforts to found such communities failed, the Educated Youth movement realized that mere voluntary religious communities weren't going to work. They decided that their secular religious movement had to become a state religion. It had to take over the apparatus of the state and impose its moral vision on a society corrupted by "false consciousness" using the force of the law and government bureaucrats.

Of course, the awful rigidities of this moral system, when imposed in practice, results in untold horrors and religious wars. The proselytizing Educated Youth movement naturally faced opposition and it naturally decided that force was necessary where persuasion couldn't persuade.

President Obama is a complete product of this movement. You can call him a socialist, or a radical, or a Marxist. But these names really are the names of individual sects in the overall Educated Youth movement, the secular religious movement to purify corrupt democratic capitalism with a state religion of caring, sharing and, now, saving the planet.

With President Obama the Educated Youth movement is reaching its moment of truth. For its millenniarian promises are turning to dust. Its government-centric model of social cooperation is foundering on a mountain of debt, corruption, and injustice and the ordinary people are rebelling.

For ordinary people the godless religion of pessimism and asceticism doesn't really work. What ordinary people need is an optimistic religion to tell them that their work, their struggles and sacrifices, their families and their loved ones will all come out right in the end, and that virtue will triumph.

In the United States, most of the time, the Educated Youth movement has operated behind a veil, pretending to be moderates instead of extremists. President Obama has been an expert in this, hiding his radical past and his radical friends with the help of a complicit media.

But sooner or later we ordinary folks are going to have to challenge the Educated Youth movement. This challenge must begin, it seems to me, with a separation of the Educated Youth church and state. Let our liberal friends remain free to proselytize all they want. But let's stop them short of building a state church to their liberalism and using government power and taxes to force their belief system upon the rest of us.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: It's in the Constitution, chaps.

Let's curb the Educated Youth movement and close the doors of its established Church of Liberalism.