The Bell Tolls for the Government Unions
In 1919, after Boston police went on strike to protest the city's refusal to recognize their new union, Gov. Calvin Coolidge ordered the National Guard into the streets.
Sam Gompers, the legendary father of American labor, wrote the governor that the Boston police had been denied their rights.
Coolidge's terse reply put him in our history books:
Your assertion that the Commissioner was wrong cannot justify the wrong of leaving the city unguarded. ... There is no right to strike against the public safety by anyone, anywhere, any time.
Ronald Reagan's firing of the striking air traffic controllers, whose union had been among the few to endorse him, marked him as a leader willing to act against a powerful union if the public interest commands it.
Gov. Scott Walker is now in that tradition. He has just routed a recall campaign that began with state senators disgracefully fleeing to Illinois rather than provide a quorum and mobs occupying his capitol.
Walter's victory is a fire bell in the night for the public-sector unions. It reflects a rising realization among all Western peoples that to continue accommodating the demands of government unions is to risk our survival as free and prosperous nations.
The Badger State rout of Big Labor was total.
The public-employee unions first capitulated to the governor's demand that they contribute more to their pensions and health care benefits. But they drew the line at Walker's determination to curtail collective bargaining and to cease deducting union dues from the paychecks of state workers.
Collect your dues yourself, the governor was telling the unions.
With their union dues no longer taken out of their paychecks, tens of thousands of Wisconsin public employees refused to pony up those dues and quit their union, instead. What does this tell us?
Many union members do not believe they get their money's worth from unions that claim to represent them, and would prefer to get out of the union and keep the dues money themselves.
This desertion by their members represents a massive vote of no confidence in unions like the America Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Teachers. AFSCME in Wisconsin lost 34,000 of its 62,000 members last year alone.
From the Wisconsin experience, if right-to-work laws were enacted in every state, giving employees freedom to join or leave a union, public-employee unions would be abandoned, reduced to shadows of what they are today. What does it say about a union if its members would prefer not to belong, if they were free to leave?
The curtailment of collective bargaining is the issue on which Walker appeared to be on the weakest ground, as school kids are taught that collective bargaining is a sacrosanct right.
Yet here, too, the governor has a compelling argument.
When union leaders put piles of cash into political campaigns, and union bosses then sit down to bargain with the people they have just put into office, who represents the public?
Is there not an inherent conflict of interest when unions literally purchase with campaign contributions the election of officials with whom they are to negotiate the new contracts for their members?
There are other reasons public-employee unions are losing public support. The pay and benefits of federal employees are twice that of the average private-sector worker, while the pay and benefits of state employees are half again as high. And government workers enjoy a job security few private-sector workers ever know.
Unionized government workers are seen by almost no one as victims. Yet their numbers are huge.
Where there were twice as many Americans working in manufacturing as in government in 1960, today the reverse is true. We have 22 million workers in government and 11 million in manufacturing.
This is an immense and costly army for taxpayers to sustain.
Even Democrats, though they howl that we must milk the rich more, are starting to concede that the government sector, now at a peacetime record 37 percent of the gross domestic product, must be pared back.
The salad days of the government employee are coming to an end, as they have already in Greece, Italy and Spain.
As Europe went farther down that "road to socialism" than did we, the pain there will be greater. But it is coming here, too.
Already, states and cities have begun cutting their labor force. And the states that were most indulgent in providing pay and benefits their taxpayers could not afford are the states being hit hardest, like Barack Obama's Illinois and Jerry Brown's California.
The anger and accusations of union leaders, directed at Gov. Walker, testify to their shocked awareness of the new political realities.
And Obama's conspicuous absence from the battlefield—he sent a tweet and did a flyover—testifies to his recognition that while government unions may be his loyal political allies, they are also an albatross hanging around his neck this November.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
I am not an anti-union person, but there is one interesting element to this story.
In this dispute, a group of (probably hard-working and serious) workers were asked to contribute more to their own retirement. For people in this particular situation, one of the biggest changes in their life has been them paying more out of their own pocket for their own retirement.
Meanwhile, millions of people working in other sectors are paying for 100% of their retirement, and they have taken this situation for granted for most of their lives. They will never ever get to have anybody else pay for their retirement. If they did, it would be a tremendous luxury and privilege in their eyes.
If one is forced to pay more for one's retirement but if one still gets one's retirement paid by someone else - my god, that's a golden situation. Right now, millions of people across the world could look at them and say, "I wish I had your problems".
Where there were twice as many Americans working in manufacturing as in government in 1960, today the reverse is true. We have 22 million workers in government and 11 million in manufacturing.
1920 Total population: 105,710,620; farm population: 31,614,269; farmers 27% of labor force; Number of farms: 6,454,000; average acres: 148
1950 Total population: 151,132,000; farm population: 25,058,000; farmers 12.2% of labor force; Number of farms: 5,388,000; average acres: 216;
1990 Total population: 261,423,000; farm population: 2,987,552; farmers 2.6% of labor force; Number of farms: 2,143,150; average acres: 461;
If a country quits growing things, quits making things and quits raising families, evidently the country becomes a polyglot boarding house for international wanderers, global traders, money changers and government employees who supervise the world, making it safer for... who?
Mrs. Reavis,
At response to the closing words of your post supra:
This is what Jefferson Davis saw in December of 1862 as articulated in an address to the Mississippi Legislature:
"There is indeed a difference between the two peoples. Let no man hug the delusion that there can be renewed association between them. Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world. Gathered together by Cromwell from the bogs and fens of the North of Ireland and of England, they commenced by disturbing the peace of their own country; they disturbed Holland, to which they fled, and they disturbed England on their return. They persecuted Catholics in England, and they hung Quakers and witches in America."
http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=113
We knew who our enemies were then; we should know who they are now; for they have not changed; they have, however, become more numerous and more powerful.
Thank you, Mr. Peters.
Mr. Davis was correct in 1862 and his truth was echoed again in 1942 by the following writer :
"The modern attack is at once materialist and superstitious.
There is here a contradiction in reason, but the modern phase, the
anti-Christian advance, has abandoned reason. It is concerned with the
destruction of the Christian faith and the civilization preceding
therefrom. It is not troubled by apparent contradictions within its own
body so long as the general alliance is one for the ending of all that by
which we have hitherto lived. The modern attack is materialistic because
in its philosophy it considers only material causes. It is superstitious
only as a by-product of this state of mind. It nourishes on its surface
the silly vagaries of spiritualism, the vulgar nonsense of "Christian
Science," and heaven knows how many other fantasies. But these follies are
bred, not from a hunger for religion, but from the same root as
that which has made the world materialist_from an inability to
understand the prime truth that faith is at the root of knowledge; from
thinking that no truth is appreciable save through direct experience.
Thus the spiritualist boasts of his demonstrable manifestations,
and his various rivals of their direct clear proofs; but all are agreed
that Revelation is to be denied. It has been well remarked that nothing is
more striking than the way in which all the modern quasi-religious
practices are agreed upon this ------that Revelation is to be denied."
For the North it was always about "the economy, stupid." For the South it was otherwise and will remain so until the beast either dies from estrangement or dies from eating only the husks that the swine did eat."
"The Badger State rout of Big Labor was total." Much as I admire Mr. Buchanan, I cannot leave his exuberant conclusion undisturbed. Firstly, because big labor as understood in the time of Jimmy Hoffa is already almost dead. That is, 'private industry' unions. But for government feeding tubes, they would be extinct. Additionally, unions as configured in the public sector are not defeated. They still possess the will and the means to fight on. Certainly, the public unions took a licking in Wisconsin. But it was no rout. It was instead akin to Grant's victory at Vicksburg. The enemy has been split apart. And I would hesitate to award the crown for this victory to Governor Walker alone. The truth is, government unions are slipping all over. They wither not so much as a function of assertive leaders, but as a function of no money to give them. If there was money in the kitty, even Gov. Walker would have given it to them. But there isn't. So, in NY and other democrat governed states, the public unions are left begging. Bigger picture, this is another symptom of a nation insolvent. Just as the EU is falling apart because American financial, military and political power is ebbing away, the states, and their functionaries, must begin fending for themselves. When the time comes to bail out California, how many states will say no? Fun times.
I loved Pat's reference to the albatross. Will need to rant more about collective doom, another time.
"When the time comes to bail out California, how many states will say no?"
Do you really think they're going to give us a choice? States exist only as organizational divisions of the "One Nation" that is indivisible. Nobody in D.C. will care about bailing out California with Virginian money, any more than they cared about bailing out Fannie & Freddie or GM . . . .etc.
My personal experience leads me to believe that the union issue is a bigger issue with state governments than with the federal government, and also more of an issue with blue collar vice white collar workers. Most of the folks I know in D.C. are not a member of any federal union. I know of "bargaining unit" feds, but they are all blue collar types.
I've already said it elsewhere - cutting government employees is great and necessary. Even if money were not a problem, its something that should be done sooner than later. However, the folks making the cuts need to have the guts & intelligence to actually cut the government services that go along with it. If we plan on keeping all of the government functions but reducing the number of employees we're only making a headache worse. Since our current political crop cannot fathom the possibility of even considering addressing a serious problem with any sort of rational thought, we can likely expect more sound bites from both sides, petty bickering, and, in the end, a non-solution that somehow winds up stiffing government employees and still costing the taxpayer more money at the same time. Given the Republicans track record for the last decade or more I think that's a safe bet.
"Do you really think they're going to give us a choice?" As far as I know, most or all states must balance their budgets each and every year. Now, they have, at times, used creative book keeping to make the budget balance. For example, they have skipped making their contractually obligated contributions to state employee pension plans. However, the bottom line is considerably firmer when speaking about a state's budgetary limitations compared to the federal budget. So, in terms of choice, the choices are limited to whatever the state has in the kitty. With the 'stimulus' money running out as we type, the state's have to fund their operations with less. The financial screws are tightening. Many large states are saddled with enormous liabilities in pension and health insurance for their future retirees. Mathematically, they are unsustainable. In NJ, the Governor's widely applauded negotiations with the state unions did not solve that problem. He merely delayed the day of reckoning mainly by shorting future union employees. The fundamentals are still unsound, but further agreements might correct that. In California, the fundamentals are wildly unsound. It's current budgetary shortfall is huge and it's future liabilities are so large, they will never be paid. Which brings us to the dilemma I mentioned above.
What does an insolvent California look like? What happens when a political subdivision of the US the size of California goes bankrupt? Naturally, they will beg the federal government for a bailout. But, with Obama's spending frenzy all but tapped out, where will the money for a bailout come from? I surmise that money would have to come from the money now flowing to the other 49 states in it's myriad pathways. What will the other 49 states say when their budgets get demolished? Well, one thing is for sure, the residents and employees of those states will scream bloody murder. What will people who have their benefits, pay, services and pensions slashed do?
In Wisconsin, they formed mobs, invaded the state capital and tried to recall the Governor. And that was because the Governor asked some of them to contribute a little more to their pensions and benefits and restricted some of their bargaining power. What will people do when thousands upon thousands get fired, when schools, firehouses, hospitals and police stations are closed? I don't think riots, torch lite marches and frenzied talk of secession is very far fetched. Which brings us to the other states who will be demanding bailouts. Ooh la la.
Of course, at some point, despite it's ability to print endless money, the feds will also need to cut back. After all, it's debt load is rapidly approaching something resembling California's. Correction, I think it already is. And when the feds cut back on benefits and services, the states and the people will have less incentive to pay homage to Washington.
As I indicated above, the union trimming we saw in Wisconsin is not the problem or the solution. And it's only a union issue by accident, if there were no unions, the cuts would have been made elsewhere. This is merely proof that when states can't pay their bills, they cut back. No heroic politicians are required. Republican or Democrat is irrelevant. Because they must balance their budgets, we see the 'issue' at that level first. In time, you will see that 'issue' at the federal level too.
So, will the government give us a choice? Well, maybe a better question would be, how will the federal government retain control? And, this theoretically 'indivisible' union can indeed split apart. Nothing lasts forever.
Except some of my comments...
About that polyglot boarding house, I hope you enjoy this little tidbit I found in, 'The Discourses'.
"The liberality with which the Romans used to grant the privileges of citizenship to strangers had attracted a great many new families to Rome. These began to exercise so great an influence in the elections that it sensibly changed the government, and caused it to deviate from the institutions and principles of the men who had been accustomed to direct it. When Quintus Fabius, who was Censor at that time, observed this, he had all the new families that had caused this disorder enrolled into four tribes; so that, being confined to such narrow limits, they should not corrupt all Rome."
If the Romans could do it, why can't we? Of course, it was Rome, but still?
Mr. Peters.
Could this statement not be applied the other way round?
Wouldn't union-busters basically be the Puritans who want to attack another people's standard of living purely out of moral self-righteousness and not any inclination to serve any greater communal good?
Wouldn't workers in public sector unions be just another on that long list of persecuted peoples alongside the Irish, the Catholics, the Quakers, and the alleged witches? A group of people disliked simply because they don't live up to Protestant standards of hard-working private sector people who don't have the nerve to live off public money?
Prateek,
You always ask good questions in the sense that you always ask what you would like to understand. Our traditions suggest:
"A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to maintain himself, his wife, and his children in reasonable comfort.
THE RIGHT TO THE FULL RESULT OF LABOR
It is just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.
THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION, that is LABOR UNIONS The State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them.
And if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely the natural tendency of man to dwell in society.
THE WORK-FOLK'S SPECIAL RIGHT TO PROTECTION When there is a question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and helpless have a claim to special consideration.
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas those who are badly off have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, who are undoubtedly among the weak and necessitous, should be especially cared for and protected by government.
BAD LAWS ARE NO LAWS
Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason.
Thus it is manifest that it flows from eternal law.
Insofar as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law.
In such a case it is no law at all; but rather a species of violence.
So you see. Prateek, the issue in its current form is one of justice. "And if it forbid its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own existence, for both they and it exist in virtue of the like principle, namely the natural tendency of man to dwell in society."
As Mr. Buchanan stated correctly "Many union members do not believe they get their money's worth from unions that claim to represent them, and would prefer to get out of the union and keep the dues money themselves.
This desertion by their members represents a massive vote of no confidence in unions like the America Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Teachers. AFSCME in Wisconsin lost 34,000 of its 62,000 members last year alone.
Finally, "Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world." If one is divorced from this understanding he will never see the current questions in proper proportion,( and truth is always propotionate to the subject -- vast or venial) how these problems arose and how the current GOP leadership can no more address the evils of socialism as Obama can address the injustice of government theft, union chicannery or the destructive forces inherent in miltancy and hate towards a country's upper class citizens.
"..the injustice of government theft, union chicannery or the destructive forces inherent in miltancy and hate towards a country's upper class citizens."
About that upper class thing Mr. Reavis:
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Mr. Taqiyya,
We are all free to envy them, hate them, admire them or ignore them but to despise them simply because they are intelligent and wealthy, wealthy and stupid, or wealthy and pittiful is to wish for an artificial equality and uniformity, and not unity, among a people. Having ones own way forever is the classical definition of hell and will remain so, even for classical liberals and libertarians.
Mr. Taqiyya,
Is it the "upper class" people you dislike in general, or the banksters and Wall Streeters in particular? I mean, there may not be many left today, but there are still folks out there with big ranches who work hard and qualify as "upper class" because of their total "net worth". And there are still rich people who keep some small business alive, at no profit to themselves, simply because they can afford to do so and it keeps people they know employed. I know this since my dad actually has a job thanks to one like that - the owner of the company has had a net value loss after depreciation of invested equipment is considered, but has kept the business alive even through the economic down turn.
With the possible exception of considering the political class and the banksters true classes, I don't know if its safe to actually engage in any type of class warfare.
Mr. Reavis,
I'm glad I found your reply, as I was not expecting one. Well, sort of glad. Yous see, I don't understand it. My comment was to your use of the words, upper class. Nothing more. So, I fail to see the connection between my reference to the Constitution and your comments about hatred, envy and the rest. You see, 'upper class' connotes nobility and that whole class system thing. I might have used an Indian caste system reference but for the fact that this isn't India.
"Having ones own way forever is the classical definition of hell and will remain so, even for classical liberals and libertarians." This one is mysterious too. I would hate for you to assume that I am some raving classical liberal or libertarian who wants to maintain the status quo forever. I think I need a definition for these terms, as you express them, before I can make anything out of this. Although, I have noticed that you often make references to libertarianism. Sometimes, if I may say so, those references appear to be somewhat off point. It seems to me that libertine might better express your meaning, on at least some of those occasions? I stress might, because I really don't know. Thank you.
Mr. Cornell,
No my friend, you credit my earlier comment with much more meaning than it deserves. And the meaning you see is very far off the mark. You see, I haven't mentioned class warfare. I didn't even pick a class to root for or against. And, I won't pick one. I was just pointing out the obvious, but apparently forgotten fact, that America was designed to be classless. (Insert joke about how classless America is, here.)
But, since you brought it up.
"Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world." If one is divorced from this understanding he will never see the current questions in proper proportion,( and truth is always propotionate to the subject -- vast or venial) how these problems arose and how the current GOP leadership can no more address the evils of socialism as Obama can address the injustice of government theft, union chicannery or the destructive forces inherent in miltancy and hate towards a country's upper class citizens."
I did not delve into the complexities of Mr. Reavis's comment, because it is too convoluted. I can't understand clearly how he connects President Davis's dislike of Puritans/Yankees/Carpetbaggers with the hows and whys of the current GOP leadership's inability to address the evils of socialism and Obama's inability to address the injustice of government. OK, he conflates wealth with upper class, even though they are not the same. Fine and dandy, a mere detail.
However, Mr. Reavis appears to be saying the Puritans are the root cause of all the major social maladies. And, that they are beyond anyone's ability to fix. So, you can maybe appreciate why I didn't want to get involved with this. Frankly, if that is his meaning, it is preposterous. Even if he means that groups like the Puritans having similar motives are the cause, it is still too much. Now, making this even more convoluted is the aroma of carpetbagger I sense lurking nearby, unspoken, in the bushes. Puritan - Bible Thumper - Yankee - Capitalist - Abolitionist - Carpetbagger - Bureaucrat. Maybe it's the Davis quotes.
Now, I see the progression from Puritan to Bureaucrat. And, I even added a couple of optional categories. I'm not saying this is what was meant or implied. This is just the sense I can make of it. Now, to the next part. These destructive social forces all spring from the abiding hatred of the Puritans, etc. towards wealthy people. The ruling or upper class, to use Mr. Reavis's parlance.
So, I guess it's all the fault of the peasants. The Puritan peasants. I won't go into the historical realities of the south or discuss how and why peasants somehow rule the ruling classes. Or, how Republican and Democrat leaders are powerless and seemingly play no role in politics. I just can't, It's too much already.
Well, just one thing. The idea that an ideologically pure south exists, is sadly disconnected from reality. Those carpetbaggers I love to discuss? Yeah, they occupy every state. I must try to remember that Puritans, Carpetbaggers and Peasants are the same thing. Thats a good one.
"You see, 'upper class' connotes nobility and that whole class system thing. I might have used an Indian caste system reference but for the fact that this isn't India."
Mr. Taqqiya,
Every community has a class system because human beings are not equal. Old people are not young, infants are more helpless than young adults, some people have physical impairments, others cannot control their emotions, while still others cannot control their mouths or their bowels. Some are rich, some are poor and some are more or less noble than others. This is not my opinion but observable facts of our human condition. We can indeed prohibit calling everything under the sun by its true name, just as we can refuse to tell all that we might know about a particular subject or person, or do away with the corrupt practices of buying and selling titles of nobility, or blaming the poor or the rich for our fallen condition. I was simply suggesting in my remarks that rich and poor are much alike in that a few of them are quite extraordinary individuals, some are truly wretched and most are pretty ordinary. I am not sure if this was always the case but it appears to be so today.
As for having ones own way forever? Every good story has a beginning, middle and end. The story that goes on forever is not a story. "Why ask my lineage? The lives of men are like the generations of the leaves." You are correct when you say," It seems to me that libertine might better express your meaning, on at least some of those occasions? " Yes, you are correct. I am sorry if I offended any readers who may consider themselves libertarians. I know it is almost impossible to be a true socialist and sincere Christian. I am not sure about a true libertarian and a sincere christian. I also have a dear friend who once mentioned the "common good" in their presence at their famous Cato Institute and was later treated with contempt by alot of the little men who take their religion there seriously.
Finally you must not take anything I say seriously if it gives offense. I think Chronicles is one of the few blogs worth visiting but it is still a blog and certainly not a conversation. The posters are anonymous and almost always deserving of more respect in person than any of us could expect as bloggers.
I know it is almost impossible to be a true socialist and sincere Christian. I am not sure about a true libertarian and a sincere christian.
Sir, let me just opine that you possess the virtue of kindness on a level that I will probably be mystifying over until the day I go into the ground. In recent memory I have not felt any impulse to speak with such warm nuance about socialists (particularly given the ongoing elections in the country in which I reside, but in that case the "S" is capitalized; see below) or libertarians.
Part of the problem is that people conflate "a socialist Christian" with "a Christian who voted Socialist" or "a libertarian Christian" with "a Christian who voted Libertarian." Note the deliberate strategic use of capital letters. (That being said, I used to joke, "How the heck could François Hollande have won? I don't know a single person who voted for him!" but that's not entirely true. I am told that there are Catholics/traditionalists/aristocrats of solid psychological and sociological convictions who voted Socialist at least in the second round in the recent elections here, as a matter of long-term strategy. However, all of them definitely knew better than to admit that fact to yours truly.)
On the other hand, there are Catholics of even the most uncompromising Traditionalist strain (I'm not judging) who claim to be "profoundly Catholic and profoundly Liberal" (in the Misean-Libertarian sense of the word, which contrary to what some of these types would like to believe is not purely synonymous with "Classic Liberal," which denotes, strictly speaking, a Whig) and "see no contradiction therein." One hundred percent of the cases I have observed have shown a contradiction at some key point and I have concluded that anyone who claims to be "profoundly Catholic and profoundly Liberal" or libertarian is either poorly catechized or poorly read in libertarianism (usually the former).
I'm not judging, mind you. Some of these types lead lives that are far more virtuous and infinitely less scandalous than my own. (That however is not at all true of "Christian" socialists; libertarianism [and Liberalism] remains the less mutant ape of Christian virtue, though it is still a mutant.)
Friend Reavis,
Not to belabor a minor point, but I do hope you see how, in the context of your earlier remarks, I could not be certain of the meaning you ascribed to the 'class' terminology. Class is very definitely a term whose meaning, while not mathematically certain, is specific. At least it has been, traditionally. Perhaps an Englishman might better understand the traditional meaning I attach to the term. No matter, now I know you meant category or condition.
Certainly, people come in every shade of condition and can be categorized thereby, just as you say. And yes, the government uses the term class when they describe the various 'protected classes'. And, that is most unfortunate since it creates a class system where one should not be and places those people in an artificially elevated position they have not earned. I also think it's an affront that lawyers presume to call themselves esquire. Better they stick with J.D. But, that's another minor detail.
It's funny how easy it is to be confused by words. Which is why I try to be cautious and specific, especially when using terms like liberal, libertarian, Christian, socialist, etc. I know those terms have no generally agreed upon specific meaning. Thus, they can only really be used safely when intending the broadest sense of the term. Which makes those terms minefields of confusion. I can't recall ever trying to describe myself in those terms and it's because those words can mean anything and everything to anyone. Which makes them mostly meaningless. For example, I have no clue what you mean when you say, 'true socialist and sincere Christian'. Just as I have no firm idea what, 'profoundly Catholic and profoundly Liberal' means to Mr. Nicholas. Cheers.
Mr. Taqqiya,
Thank you for your kind response. You are so correct when you observe "Class is very definitely a term whose meaning, while not mathematically certain, is specific. At least it has been, traditionally." In a traditional culture the goal of education would be to provide each person with the best means, so that his own qualities can be developed completely, since tender age. These distinctions are, however, based on spiritual differnces that have nothing to do with socioeconomical position. The traditional castes of India for instance are: Brahmana, Kchatriya, Vaishya and Shûdra. Such division settles on criterion of hierarchy, that is, from the highest stature - the spiritual - until the more inferior, the material. In Western culture as we know it and breath it, there is no spiritual hierarchy of any sort left unless one were to refer to what is left of the Catholic and orthodox Chuches. Our only point of refernce is the material. Without a spiritual basis the idea of class is meaningless as is obvious by looking at what remains of the poor Englishman today you kindly reference in your reply. The only intelligent commentary I am aware of in regard to this traditional understanding of class is Plato and perhaps Rene Guenon's commentary on the Castes of India. In the United States we have Marx -- the upper classes against the lower and a little pretentious class based on only God knows what. There were probably still Aristocrats and Timocrats exististing in the South before the civil war but I intentionally avoided such traditional usage so that those who pretend to such heights today would not be offended. You of course, the curious and persistent type that you are, have called my hand. See the link below for a more traditional approach to class distinctions as opposed to the only one familiar to us today. Thank you again for your posts.
http://elkorg-projects.blogspot.com/2005/07/ren-gunon-hindu-doctrine-of-castes.html
No indeed sir, you need not observe any deference to me, my friend. Please, call me WC, if it's easier. You are very kind to agree with me, if only in the smallest meaningful measure. My first instinct is to disagree with you and make an argument for spiritual basis in a materialistic world. However, upon reflection, I too wish to avoid a disagreeable circumstance between the Royalists of Plato and the Plebeian/Lesbians of Marx. Or, is that a poor Englishman and his tippled cow? In either case, I'm sure you will never know what those guys will do. Up the patricians. Thank you very much.
See? It really is possible to avoid all those complicated words. Jeepers.
Mr Taqiyya,
Writes:
"In either case, I'm sure you will never know what those guys will do."
Of course not, Sir, as I am no judge of these or any other matter of importance. I am content to live as a simple stockman in a very obscure part of the world and would have no way of judging a man except as to how he handled his horse or worked a steer. Your posts are always great pleasure to my small mind and I always look forward to them each morning. Cheers.
Mr. Reavis,
I can't be sure, not actually being a stockman myself, but I think you have my dream job. Good on yer cobber! Whatever difficulties you might have, it sure beats the pants off of spreadsheet wrangling. Trust me!
Mr. Cornell,
Mr. Belloc once commented that it takes three generations to make a farmer whereas bankers, stockbrokers, lawyers can be created in one generation. I am grateful for my grandparents and uncles for teaching me what I know about raising cattle and farming. Unfortunately my grown children are all reading spread sheets in New York and Chicago, although one is working as a nurse in a Hospital.
On this related matter, I just received my July issue of Chronicles and Mr. Chilton Williamson makes a valiant attempt at defending what one philosopher called " Leisure as the Basis of Culture." Although I doubt more tax cuts for our plutocratic leaders will lead us where he desires, he hits all the right notes and many of the issues we have been discussing. If we had an authentic Aristocracy we would probably have higher taxes on the plutocratic class, since it has been the traditional means of keeping their vulgar desires in check. Once they have manuevered themselves free of such restraints they become as Jefferson Davis decribes them " a traditionless and a homeless race; and great disturbers of the peace of the world."
Hilaire's father was a lawyer. What the son knew of farming seems to have escaped the historical record. If we had an authentic aristocracy might we simply not have higher taxes -period ? And if we had an "authentic" aristocracy might we not have -to paraphrase Belloc's corpulent friend- rule of the ignorant-ignorant of work ? And if ignorant of work - traditonless as well- since that same jolly lover of fairy tales also claimed that " aristocrats live not in traditions but in fashions".
r.a. schultz writes; "What the son knew of farming seems to have escaped the historical record."
Mr. Schultz,
You represent all that is wrong with blogs and I think I have had enough of them. Your comment is so full of ignorance and contempt that I am inclined not to respond at all . I doubt that your name is even Mr. Schultz because your response has all the qualities of a type --- the type of a damned fool and coward. In a happier age I would invite you to twenty paces with small arms for your rude manners and stupid insults, your silly jesture towards a real life, and your willful glee towards assertions of inanities so remote from any known realities even to the point of the unimportance of faity tales. As it is, you are not worthy of the time it would take to humble your angry ego and temperamental assertions. I think I have met you before and even then found you to as the pretentious bore that you are or perhaps it was your wife as I cannot recall. Yet for those who care for the truth, I should at least offer one last reference to correct your silly and vulgar stupidity about Mr. Belloc and his knowledge of farming.
http://distributist.blogspot.com/2008/07/mowing-of-field.html
the link would have sufficed to prove ignorance. as for contempt and angry ego- the horseshoe seems to fit another. the wife sends her regards and as always-good to hear from you- even at twenty paces .
I'm not one to stick my nose into other's people's business, but, Mr. Reavis, I did want to pass on one comment with some thanks. You say that there is much wrong with blogs and that you have just about had enough of them. I greatly sympathize with this sentiment. However, in all fairness I have to tell you that an off-handed comment you made recently on this website was the catalyst for me to change my thinking a great deal.
You mentioned mortgages, reality, and slavery as being linked, and as a result I am now determined to pay off my mortgage as soon as I can. You convinced me that I'm sick of this pretended reality where I have a mountain of debt on my head but it's acceptable because it's called a "mortgage". So pretty much every spare nickel I can wring from my monthly budget is going to feed that beast until it is finally fat enough for me to slay. And, as a man, it is invigorating to have a dragon to combat, one I can actually do battle with, no matter how big. Being frustrated and helpless against the politicians and banksters and smut peddlers and me railing against the world at large to no avail only goes so far. It's nice to have an enemy that is actually within my grasp.
So, as with almost all things in our world to day, there is some good that comes even through a bad medium. My thanks to you.
Belloc, not unlike yourself, had something to say about many topic. As i'm sure you know,"the path to rome" is a recount of his travel on foot from france to italy- that excursion does not make him a travel agent any more than sharpening a scythe or knowledge of farming made him a farmer [ a show of hands will do] , and it's neither rude nor insulting- flippant perhaps- to say so. perhaps flippancy needs to be expunged from what you consider to be "a real life" in any case, since you insist we have met before- did you happen to see me handle a horse or work a steer? pretentious or hollywood "type" screenwriting?
God Bless you, Vince Cornell.
"that excursion does not make him a travel agent any more than sharpening a scythe or knowledge of farming made him a farmer."
Excellent response. Honestly, I have no reply.. Afterall, who would not rather walk around Europe with a travel agent as oppossed to a lowly Catholic of Mr. Belloc's caliber ? Enough of this. Enjoy the Goodyear blimp this weekend.
What is true about Belloc and Chesterton is that both were intelligent, erudite fellows who were not exactly specialists in any particular field, but had (for the most part) a solid sense of how the world turned, as a whole. Their pithy observations make more than worthy citations for an intelligent discussion. So far as I know, no one here has attempted to cite them as serious scholars or to claim to be an expert on a subject because he read a Chesterbellocian time on it. I am not claiming myself to be innocent of intellectual (among other kinds of) snobbery, but frankly, anyone thinking to lecture the likes of Robert Reavis is more than a little pretentious. (He of course does not need me to defend him, but I thought I'd make that point all the same.)
But back to Chesterton and Belloc. Their observations on agriculture and society are more than theoretical, not the least because they lived just after the agricultural society that was Old England had given way to the industrial megalith of the British Empire. The old trappings and folkstories were fading but still vivid enough that anyone who cared to look could easily understand where they had come from. These days one has to know au préalable (do not know how to translate that) that one is looking for "tradition" to ever hope to find anything resembling it.
Mr.m: Let me be " more than a little pretentious" and suggest that "tradition" might give good counsel as to what one ought to mind. But tell me, what would "tradition" or anything rembling it , have me make of a man who says "Honestly, I have no reply" and then proceed with a short ,sarcastic lecture? What would "tradition" have me make of a man who says "Enough of this" and then from his inflated blimp fires a cryptic , but true to type, snarky departing shot? What would "tradition" have to teach a prudent person if that same fellow should propose a duel at 20 paces? Should one not expect a gun shot at 15 paces? And if that quick draw artist should ask { close quote " who would not rather walk around Europe with an (ignoble and vulgar) travel agent as opposed to a Catholic of Mr. Belloc"s high caliber ? " - might the answer not be- "you Col Quick Draw, lest Mr. Belloc should discovers you to be an everlasting bore of a travel companion. " A trifecta wager- arrogance, contempt and stunted imagination can't permit the possibility of a mere travel agent being other than merely vulgar. Enough of this.
With all due respect, good sir, this is a fine example of what is commonly known as "missing the point."
Nicholas,
Thank you for helping me up and dusting me off. I knew when I started this ruckus and attemmpted to stand my ground with Mr. Schultz that I should have packed a lunch. The only clarification I would make is that my reference to judging men by how they ride a horse or work a steers was from the Frost poem in which he distingushes between amateurs and professional :
"Out of the wood two hulking tramps
(From sleeping God knows where last night,
But not long since in the lumber camps).
They thought all chopping was theirs of right.
Men of the woods and lumberjacks,
They judged me by their appropriate tool.
Except as a fellow handled an ax
They had no way of knowing a fool.
As for the rest of what I have written, it could be reduced to saying I almost always prefer the amateur to the professional ---- in writing history, soldiering, poetry, farming and most everything else. But "my back has been throwed out" by this ruckus so I am going to go rest for a while. PAX to Mr. Shultz and the rest.