Angelo M. Codevilla, Populist

Posted on | July 16, 2010 | 36 Comments

OK, he’s a professor emeritus at Boston University, but his new article at The American Spectator is a 12,000-word indictment of the nation’s ruling class so thorough that I can only snap my suspenders and say, “Harumph!”

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

36 Responses to “Angelo M. Codevilla, Populist”

David M. Wagner
July 17th, 2010 @ 3:11 am

Prof. Codevilla has always been an incisive political analyst. And (in the past) a conservative Senate staffer. And a translator of Machiavelli. And a close reader and diligent teacher of Plato. And, I’m reasonably certain, a Straussian.
David M. Wagner
July 16th, 2010 @ 11:11 pm

Prof. Codevilla has always been an incisive political analyst. And (in the past) a conservative Senate staffer. And a translator of Machiavelli. And a close reader and diligent teacher of Plato. And, I’m reasonably certain, a Straussian.
JSF
July 17th, 2010 @ 5:00 am

The great science fiction writer Frank Herbert (of the Dune Series) wrote truth in G-d Emperor of Dune:

Scratch a Liberal, find an aristocrat.

How true.
JSF
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:00 am

The great science fiction writer Frank Herbert (of the Dune Series) wrote truth in G-d Emperor of Dune:

Scratch a Liberal, find an aristocrat.

How true.
Estragon
July 17th, 2010 @ 5:24 am

There will be more ups and downs, but I stand by my prediction that we will see the Dow under 9000 before we see it over 11,000 again.

The market hasn’t really begun to discount the fiscal realities in the major industrialized countries. It has reacted too positively to the stop-gap measures taken by the EU and IMF to stabilize the so-called “PIGS” (Portugal, Italy & Ireland, Greece, and Spain), failing to recognize them for the cosmetics they were. French and German banks are on the hook for huge and probably noncollectable sums from those southern EU basket cases, and we will see major bailouts and/or major failures across the pond by the end of next year, with wide-ranging repercussions. This doesn’t even consider our own devastating spending hole – “Thanks, Comrade Obama!” – and its inevitable effects.

There isn’t much to be done to correct this that our present political class is even willing to consider. Probably the best outcome for Republicans this year is to leave the House in Pelosi’s hands by one vote, and the Senate in care whoever replaces Reid as Majority Leader (they wouldn’t seriously elect Durbin, would they? my money’s on Schumer) by one vote also. We’d have the filibuster to stop any further odious stuff, and be in position to win nearly every office in 2012.

We need to win the Governors’ races though – it’s a redistricting cycle.
Estragon
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:24 am

There will be more ups and downs, but I stand by my prediction that we will see the Dow under 9000 before we see it over 11,000 again.

The market hasn’t really begun to discount the fiscal realities in the major industrialized countries. It has reacted too positively to the stop-gap measures taken by the EU and IMF to stabilize the so-called “PIGS” (Portugal, Italy & Ireland, Greece, and Spain), failing to recognize them for the cosmetics they were. French and German banks are on the hook for huge and probably noncollectable sums from those southern EU basket cases, and we will see major bailouts and/or major failures across the pond by the end of next year, with wide-ranging repercussions. This doesn’t even consider our own devastating spending hole – “Thanks, Comrade Obama!” – and its inevitable effects.

There isn’t much to be done to correct this that our present political class is even willing to consider. Probably the best outcome for Republicans this year is to leave the House in Pelosi’s hands by one vote, and the Senate in care whoever replaces Reid as Majority Leader (they wouldn’t seriously elect Durbin, would they? my money’s on Schumer) by one vote also. We’d have the filibuster to stop any further odious stuff, and be in position to win nearly every office in 2012.

We need to win the Governors’ races though – it’s a redistricting cycle.
Bob Belvedere
July 17th, 2010 @ 5:27 am

Great minds think alike!…or, at least, sodden minds: I printed the article out this afternoon and intend to read it on Monday between sessions of studying for my colonoscopy.
Bob Belvedere
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:27 am

Great minds think alike!…or, at least, sodden minds: I printed the article out this afternoon and intend to read it on Monday between sessions of studying for my colonoscopy.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 17th, 2010 @ 8:39 am

And, I’m reasonably certain, a Straussian.

Yeah, the “Claremont conservative” touches were evident, but the general excellence of the article compensated for such deficiencies. Codevilla’s overall theory of the ruling class reminded me of a certain student of James Burnham. When Straussians start sounding like paleocon populists, this is a good thing, even if the intellectual debt is not acknowledged.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 17th, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

And, I’m reasonably certain, a Straussian.

Yeah, the “Claremont conservative” touches were evident, but the general excellence of the article compensated for such deficiencies. Codevilla’s overall theory of the ruling class reminded me of a certain student of James Burnham. When Straussians start sounding like paleocon populists, this is a good thing, even if the intellectual debt is not acknowledged.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

There isn’t much to be done to correct this that our present political class is even willing to consider.

To say nothing of their utter cowardice toward the entitlement liabilities, as was demonstrated in the Social Security reform debacle of 2005.

Don’t know if I agree with you about the wisdom of leaving Pelosi in (narrow) control of the House. I could see that leading to a blame-Republican-obstructionists rhetoric for 2011-12, so that the 2012 election (with Obama at the top of the ticket to drive Democratic turnout) would be a complete disaster for the GOP. This mid-term is the real opportunity, although I have very little faith in the NRCC’s ability to exploit it, and things are even worse with the NRSC, so I don’t hold out much hope for Republicans having a more credible filibuster threat next year.

Notice how easily the Dems got Scott Brown to roll over on fin-reg, and witness also how few conservatives are supporting Hayworth’s challenge to John McCain. Fiorina in California is no conservative, and Mark Kirk in Illinois is a weak sister. So even if Republicans gain seats in November, the Senate GOP caucus is likely to be even more-RINOish come January.

It’s becoming very hard to fight off stark pessimism.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 17th, 2010 @ 9:15 am

There isn’t much to be done to correct this that our present political class is even willing to consider.

To say nothing of their utter cowardice toward the entitlement liabilities, as was demonstrated in the Social Security reform debacle of 2005.

Don’t know if I agree with you about the wisdom of leaving Pelosi in (narrow) control of the House. I could see that leading to a blame-Republican-obstructionists rhetoric for 2011-12, so that the 2012 election (with Obama at the top of the ticket to drive Democratic turnout) would be a complete disaster for the GOP. This mid-term is the real opportunity, although I have very little faith in the NRCC’s ability to exploit it, and things are even worse with the NRSC, so I don’t hold out much hope for Republicans having a more credible filibuster threat next year.

Notice how easily the Dems got Scott Brown to roll over on fin-reg, and witness also how few conservatives are supporting Hayworth’s challenge to John McCain. Fiorina in California is no conservative, and Mark Kirk in Illinois is a weak sister. So even if Republicans gain seats in November, the Senate GOP caucus is likely to be even more-RINOish come January.

It’s becoming very hard to fight off stark pessimism.
Peter Courtenay Stephens
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

I coined the phrase a number of years ago, “The Criminal Class”, when referring to Washington and Wall St. I now have to update it after Professor Codevilla’s wonderful article. The Ruling Elite Criminal Class.
The American People Pretend to Be Free. Our Rulers in Washington Pretend to Agree.

Military and Law Enforcement
Defend the Constitution and the People not
corrupt, on the take politicians and The Ruling Elite Criminal Class.
“The Constitution Can Not Defend itself. We the People Must Do So”.
The Republicans and the Democrats have been running this country for over 150 years, and run it into the ground they have.
Peter Courtenay Stephens
Revolutionary Patriot
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Peter Courtenay Stephens
July 17th, 2010 @ 9:39 am

I coined the phrase a number of years ago, “The Criminal Class”, when referring to Washington and Wall St. I now have to update it after Professor Codevilla’s wonderful article. The Ruling Elite Criminal Class.
The American People Pretend to Be Free. Our Rulers in Washington Pretend to Agree.

Military and Law Enforcement
Defend the Constitution and the People not
corrupt, on the take politicians and The Ruling Elite Criminal Class.
“The Constitution Can Not Defend itself. We the People Must Do So”.
The Republicans and the Democrats have been running this country for over 150 years, and run it into the ground they have.
Peter Courtenay Stephens
Revolutionary Patriot
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Adobe Walls
July 17th, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

Has the patent expired on the guillotine.
Adobe Walls
July 17th, 2010 @ 11:01 am

Has the patent expired on the guillotine.
Angelo Codevilla; Wow « Obi’s Sister
July 17th, 2010 @ 12:22 pm

[…] July 17, 2010 at 11:22 am (America 101, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, Politics, What Would WFB Have Said?) (Via The Other McCain) […]
MFS
July 17th, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

Just finished it and thought it was blockbuster.

Guess I’m just not in the know: What’s wrong with Claremont conservatives?…

Best wishes,
-MFS
MFS
July 17th, 2010 @ 5:20 pm

Just finished it and thought it was blockbuster.

Guess I’m just not in the know: What’s wrong with Claremont conservatives?…

Best wishes,
-MFS
Shakes
July 17th, 2010 @ 8:44 pm

That is one of the best pieces that I have read in awhile. Really struck something with me.

One of my favorite points in political history was when Newt Gingrich shut down the government. I wish they would do that again. Reason magazine wrote an article of just what “essential” services needed to stay open for a skeleton government to operate. Turns out we didn’t really need a Department of Education. What a big surprise!

Codevilla rocks my world. He says that Bin Laden is dead as a doornail too, and he is right.
Shakes
July 17th, 2010 @ 4:44 pm

That is one of the best pieces that I have read in awhile. Really struck something with me.

One of my favorite points in political history was when Newt Gingrich shut down the government. I wish they would do that again. Reason magazine wrote an article of just what “essential” services needed to stay open for a skeleton government to operate. Turns out we didn’t really need a Department of Education. What a big surprise!

Codevilla rocks my world. He says that Bin Laden is dead as a doornail too, and he is right.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 18th, 2010 @ 2:43 am

What’s wrong with Claremont conservatives?

In two words: Harry Jaffa. I don’t mean to stir up old arguments, but this goes back to the 1970s when, in a dispute with Willmoore Kendall, Jaffa published an article called “Equality as a Conservative Principle.” This elicited a reply from Mel Bradford (PDF). Obviously, Jaffa’s argument put him at odds with any Burkean understanding of conservatism and yet, unwilling to yield the point, he and his allies have pursued something of an intellectual vendetta, of which Bradford was a victim.

All of this, you must understand, goes back to Jaffa’s book about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, published in 1959 — the year I was born! Jaffa made his name as a Lincoln hagiographer, and has spent a half-century attempting to make Lincoln’s rhetoric the basis of a sort of conservatism. But as Kendall, Bradford and others pointed out, Jaffa’s arguments are ahistorical and serve to obscure, rather than reveal, the genuinely conservative nature of the American founding. This has also brought Jaffa into conflict with Robert Bork, among other conservative thinkers.

Let me cite just one example of the fundamental problem with Jaffa-ism: Jaffa has argued against gay rights. Yet if equality is, as Jaffa insists, a conservative principle, why shouldn’t this principle apply to homosexuals?

This is the kind of problem that Kendall and others foresaw, and Jaffa clearly did not: Equality is a ravening wolf (cf., Matthew 7:15) with a boundless appetite, and there is no telling what future use might be made of such a “principle,” which is most certainly not conservative. So we see that conservatism has to a great degree become mired in philosophical incoherence because of one man’s stubborn vanity.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 17th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

What’s wrong with Claremont conservatives?

In two words: Harry Jaffa. I don’t mean to stir up old arguments, but this goes back to the 1970s when, in a dispute with Willmoore Kendall, Jaffa published an article called “Equality as a Conservative Principle.” This elicited a reply from Mel Bradford (PDF). Obviously, Jaffa’s argument put him at odds with any Burkean understanding of conservatism and yet, unwilling to yield the point, he and his allies have pursued something of an intellectual vendetta, of which Bradford was a victim.

All of this, you must understand, goes back to Jaffa’s book about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, published in 1959 — the year I was born! Jaffa made his name as a Lincoln hagiographer, and has spent a half-century attempting to make Lincoln’s rhetoric the basis of a sort of conservatism. But as Kendall, Bradford and others pointed out, Jaffa’s arguments are ahistorical and serve to obscure, rather than reveal, the genuinely conservative nature of the American founding. This has also brought Jaffa into conflict with Robert Bork, among other conservative thinkers.

Let me cite just one example of the fundamental problem with Jaffa-ism: Jaffa has argued against gay rights. Yet if equality is, as Jaffa insists, a conservative principle, why shouldn’t this principle apply to homosexuals?

This is the kind of problem that Kendall and others foresaw, and Jaffa clearly did not: Equality is a ravening wolf (cf., Matthew 7:15) with a boundless appetite, and there is no telling what future use might be made of such a “principle,” which is most certainly not conservative. So we see that conservatism has to a great degree become mired in philosophical incoherence because of one man’s stubborn vanity.
Carol Platt Liebau: Worth Your Time | MorallyRight.org
July 18th, 2010 @ 9:19 am

[…] Angelo M. Codevilla, Populist : The Other McCain […]
S.L. Toddard
July 18th, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

Bravo, Mr. McCain. It is sincerely heartening to see you raising and charging with this fallen flag. At heart the issue is about the objectively conflicting natures of genuine American conservatism (Bradford et al) and the neoconservatism that has become the ideological engine of the Republican Party and establishment elite.

In this reader’s opinion, the component of your philosophy exhibited here is one that should be mined more often in your columns. It doesn’t seem to me that there is any great need for another conservative columnist to criticize the left. It seems far more imperative to recapture the Republican Party than derail the Democrats. None can recapture the Party while it is in power and waxing in strength. And even if one considers these goals of equal importance, there are far more endeavoring to accomplish the latter than the former. What you are fighting here is the proverbial Good Fight. It is easier and more profitable to join the chorus than it is to fight to change its tune, which makes what you’re doing here all the more admirable.

We need more columnists to be more admirable more often. Your efforts here are sincerely appreciated.
S.L. Toddard
July 18th, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

Bravo, Mr. McCain. It is sincerely heartening to see you raising and charging with this fallen flag. At heart the issue is about the objectively conflicting natures of genuine American conservatism (Bradford et al) and the neoconservatism that has become the ideological engine of the Republican Party and establishment elite.

In this reader’s opinion, the component of your philosophy exhibited here is one that should be mined more often in your columns. It doesn’t seem to me that there is any great need for another conservative columnist to criticize the left. It seems far more imperative to recapture the Republican Party than derail the Democrats. None can recapture the Party while it is in power and waxing in strength. And even if one considers these goals of equal importance, there are far more endeavoring to accomplish the latter than the former. What you are fighting here is the proverbial Good Fight. It is easier and more profitable to join the chorus than it is to fight to change its tune, which makes what you’re doing here all the more admirable.

We need more columnists to be more admirable more often. Your efforts here are sincerely appreciated.
S.L. Toddard
July 18th, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

That is an idea I think it would behoove everyone on the right to really consider: True conservatives cannot recapture the GOP while it is in power, so it is counterproductive to fight to empower the GOP until after it is recaptured. Until the GOP re-embraces conservatism, it does conservatism and therefore America a grave disservice to empower that party.

I would like to know what Mr. McCain thinks about that argument.
S.L. Toddard
July 18th, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

That is an idea I think it would behoove everyone on the right to really consider: True conservatives cannot recapture the GOP while it is in power, so it is counterproductive to fight to empower the GOP until after it is recaptured. Until the GOP re-embraces conservatism, it does conservatism and therefore America a grave disservice to empower that party.

I would like to know what Mr. McCain thinks about that argument.
dad29
July 18th, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

Well.

Codevilla may well admire ‘equality,’ but if he’s actually a disciple of Aquinas, he also posits that “error has no rights.”

From Natural Law we learn that, for example, homosexual marriage is “error.” So: can Jaffa really claim heritage of Aquinas and imply that homosexual “marriage” is possible?

The ‘equality’ of man, properly understood, means ONLY that each human being is equally a child of God. No more, no less. It is impossible that Plato, Aquinas, and Lincoln understood ‘equality’ to mean ‘equality of results,’ or for that matter, ‘fungibility’ of individuals.
dad29
July 18th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

Well.

Codevilla may well admire ‘equality,’ but if he’s actually a disciple of Aquinas, he also posits that “error has no rights.”

From Natural Law we learn that, for example, homosexual marriage is “error.” So: can Jaffa really claim heritage of Aquinas and imply that homosexual “marriage” is possible?

The ‘equality’ of man, properly understood, means ONLY that each human being is equally a child of God. No more, no less. It is impossible that Plato, Aquinas, and Lincoln understood ‘equality’ to mean ‘equality of results,’ or for that matter, ‘fungibility’ of individuals.
dad29
July 18th, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

One more thing….

Aquinas CERTAINLY knew that the Eschaton cannot be immanentized; that is, that politics cannot bring about heaven on earth.

I haven’t read Jaffa. It’s possible that he im- or ex-plicitly contradicts that in his writings.

If so, he’s a damn fool and is a Progressive.

But I doubt it.
dad29
July 18th, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

One more thing….

Aquinas CERTAINLY knew that the Eschaton cannot be immanentized; that is, that politics cannot bring about heaven on earth.

I haven’t read Jaffa. It’s possible that he im- or ex-plicitly contradicts that in his writings.

If so, he’s a damn fool and is a Progressive.

But I doubt it.
Kent Ramsay
July 20th, 2010 @ 7:02 pm

The comments about Strassians and Claremont Review indicate some very shallow commentary. Harry Jaffa did not write the article, Angelo Codevilla is affiliated with the Claremont Institute and is knowledgable about Leo Strauss. He is also a very intelligent individual with his own thoughts. He is not a robot reciting Leo Strauss lectures or some orthodoxy from the Claremont Review. I have read articles he has written for that excellent publication, and the following issue always carries several letters to the editor from various well known conservatives critiquing Codevilla’s analysis. The point is, conservatives are supposed to believe in the individual, logic, rigorous debate etc. This process is not helped by shallow statements that imply a person’s thinking can be reduced to their superficial associations. If you have an intellectual point to make do so. But don’t use this tactic of attacking people based on their fact that they have relationships with excellent conservative thinkers like Leo Strauss, Harry Jaffa, Robert Bork, Hayek or whoever. The ideas should be judged on their own merits. Marxists are the ones who use this sort of tactic to discredit and thereby avoid the intellectual argument
Kent Ramsay
July 20th, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

The comments about Strassians and Claremont Review indicate some very shallow commentary. Harry Jaffa did not write the article, Angelo Codevilla is affiliated with the Claremont Institute and is knowledgable about Leo Strauss. He is also a very intelligent individual with his own thoughts. He is not a robot reciting Leo Strauss lectures or some orthodoxy from the Claremont Review. I have read articles he has written for that excellent publication, and the following issue always carries several letters to the editor from various well known conservatives critiquing Codevilla’s analysis. The point is, conservatives are supposed to believe in the individual, logic, rigorous debate etc. This process is not helped by shallow statements that imply a person’s thinking can be reduced to their superficial associations. If you have an intellectual point to make do so. But don’t use this tactic of attacking people based on their fact that they have relationships with excellent conservative thinkers like Leo Strauss, Harry Jaffa, Robert Bork, Hayek or whoever. The ideas should be judged on their own merits. Marxists are the ones who use this sort of tactic to discredit and thereby avoid the intellectual argument
Bob Belvedere
July 22nd, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

I am quite late to this, so I will just offer a few short comments…

1) The problem with Mr. Jaffa’s thinking is that it is Leftist thinking. He has obviously been infused with that programming. We are all equal before God and, in America, before the law, but that is where it ends. As Russell Kirk wrote in The Politics Of Prudence:

[Conservatives] feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

2) This is what happens when ideology is allowed to penetrate conservative thought. Kirk again [from the same work]:

…conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

It is not about developing ideas in sterile laboratories sheltered and cocooned away from the real world. It is about the art of the possible and respect for individuality and eccentricity [in it’s neutral sense]. The conservative knows that the Immanentization of the Eschaton is, not simply a fool’s errand, but a dangerous endeavor.

3) When are you going to write a book, Stacy, on these thoughts of your’s? Such a work would be a useful guide for those who are in the TEA Party Movement and are searching for understanding of the underpinnings of the thoughts they are having.
Bob Belvedere
July 22nd, 2010 @ 11:03 am

I am quite late to this, so I will just offer a few short comments…

1) The problem with Mr. Jaffa’s thinking is that it is Leftist thinking. He has obviously been infused with that programming. We are all equal before God and, in America, before the law, but that is where it ends. As Russell Kirk wrote in The Politics Of Prudence:

[Conservatives] feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

2) This is what happens when ideology is allowed to penetrate conservative thought. Kirk again [from the same work]:

…conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

It is not about developing ideas in sterile laboratories sheltered and cocooned away from the real world. It is about the art of the possible and respect for individuality and eccentricity [in it’s neutral sense]. The conservative knows that the Immanentization of the Eschaton is, not simply a fool’s errand, but a dangerous endeavor.

3) When are you going to write a book, Stacy, on these thoughts of your’s? Such a work would be a useful guide for those who are in the TEA Party Movement and are searching for understanding of the underpinnings of the thoughts they are having.