Those Common Folk Are Just SO Annoying

In both the US and Western Europe a class war in the making. No. It's not the old Marxist thing lurching out of the tomb.

The Geek sees it as conflict between the social/economic/political elite and the hoi polloi, those of lesser income, lesser political potency, lesser social status, lesser inherent organization. A lot of lessers balanced by one "greater." Greater numbers.

A while back the hoi polloi in Ireland outraged the European elites by voting "no" on a proposed new constitution for the European Union. The chattering members of the European elite damned the Irish majority as unenlightened, xenophobic and not knowing what was in its own best interests.

The Euro-litists have gone exoatmospheric now because twenty-nine percent of the vote in this past weekend's Austrian election went to a pair of "far-right, anti-immigration, anti-foreigner" political parties. The Freedom Party took eighteen percent and the younger Movement for Austria's Future won eleven.

The Freedom Party's thirty-nine year old leader, Heinz-Christian Strache, has been deprecatingly characterised throughout the media as a "former dental technician." Presumably this occupational background as opposed to one of "lawyer" makes a person unfit to be taken seriously as a political figure.

Strache is on record as saying, "Vienna must not become Istanbul." The Geek must point out that a few hundred years ago Vienna withstood a prolonged siege and stopped the Ottoman Empire's thrust into Central Europe. The Ottoman Empire, it must be recalled, had its capitol in Istanbul.

The Freedom Party head is also notorious among the Euro-litists for favoring a Ministry of Deportation and a constitutional ban on minarets and for a fondness for wearing cammies whilst toting a firearm in the forests of the Land of Gemutlichkeit. Finally he has been described as a "neo-Nazi, a Holocaust Denier and the new poster boy for Europe's extreme Right."

The Austrian election results in some respects echo the experience in Italy where the Northern League has been successful with the common folk while being damned as xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-foreigner.

One time rivals Austria and Italy are not alone in the apparent drift to the right among the European states. Much to the dismay of the Euro-litists from the UK to the shores of the Baltic, the hoi polloi are rejecting in ever increasing numbers the elite-approved, politically correct themes of unlimited tolerance and acceptance for immigrants, non-European cultural and social norms and alternative lifestyles.

Looking beyond the usual reasons adduced by the elites for the contrariness of the hoi polloi what might be motivating the new, strong wind from the Right?

There are several historical trajectories in play, aligning in the rejectionist focus.

The first is simply the Nanny State orientation of the Euro-litists. There is (and has been for some while now) a we-know-best attitude arising as an individualist obliterating cloud from both the national governments and the EU establishment in Brussels. As one Irish lady put it when explaining her "no" vote, "We have too much government now. Why should we want more?"

The Nanny State aims at restricting individual choices in the presumed interest of some sort of ill-defined greater good such as reducing health care costs. Or eliminating prejudice. Or assuring that the sensibilities of whatsoever nature of any more-or-less definable sub-culture within the larger society will not under any circumstances be abraded.

Not surprisingly the hoi polloi who are the unconsulted objects of these restrictions has begun to chafe (loudly) under the erosion of individual exercise of individual selected options by the individual.

A second trajectory is the rejection by the Euro-elitists of the notion of a specific national or even regional cultural identity and history worthy of both celebration and protection against erosion. This attitude was famously expressed recently by a Swedish Minister, "Tell me what is Swedish culture?"

People, or at least the hoi polloi, want a sense of belonging, a feeling of familiarity. They want to identify with and be members of a unique culture backed and produced by a specific national history. This reality has been openly cast aside by the elite in its embrace of something called "multi-culturalism" and the siren song of "globalism."

Obviously the people of the hoi polloi reject this contention. They do not see themselves as part of the multi-billion crew members of "spaceship Earth." No. They understand their individual identities as part of a specific linguistic/cultural/ethnic/religious community inhabiting a specific geographical entity bound together by a specific set of historically rooted myths.

There are other trajectories at work but those are the major actors.

The same forces are at work here in the United States. They are pushing and pushing hard to create the same elite-hoi polloi dichotomy here as is being seen in Europe. Perhaps they are pushing even harder here than there.

Why?

The US population has wrestled with a recurrent identity crisis throughout its history. This is the inevitable consequence of being a nation of folks from other places. It is the necessary result of being citizens of an artificial nation.

"Artificial!" You interrupt.

Yes. Artificial. The US and its citizens did not arise organically out of a native soil, melded in its identity over centuries. We are as is so often said, "A nation of immigrants." Our national identity revolves around an intellectual construct: The Constitution.

Being the People of an Artifact, it is not surprising that we have had and continue to have doubts about just who we are. An identity crisis.

Part of the current identity crisis revolves around the conflict between the mythology of the individual and the seemingly reality based requirements of the community, of the nation, of the State. The conflict between the rights and risks of the individual and the costs which exercising those rights and taking those risks might impose upon the rest of society.

"Hey, Geek! Aren't you getting way off your foreign policy and national security message?"

No. Until and unless we here in the US can settle, abort if you will, the growing split between our elites and our hoi polloi, there is no way that we can effectively address the foreign policy and national security challenges that are looming in our immediate future. From the need for energy independence to the costs of global capital movement, from the threat of rogue states and terrorism to the question of "stealth jihad," We the People must decide and know if we speak as one people or two.

One American voice or two competing voices, that of the elite and that of everybody else.

How Much Is Enough?

How much government is enough?

The question was raised a few days ago by a comment in one of the early Reuters articles covering the defeat in Ireland of the proposed amendments to the European Union's organic document. It was the most insightful comment encountered as the Geek has tried to keep up with the flood following the triumph of the "No's."

The forty-six year old woman said, (as far as the Geek can remember--he keeps berating himself for not having saved the link and now can't find it) "We have government enough as it is. Why would we want another layer?"

The quick answer is this. "Because the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia, and journalism think it would be good for you."

Usually the Geek is sceptical of quick or easy answers to hard questions, but in this case he is more than willing to make an exception. His exception is based on the reactions given by the chattering classes of Europe and elsewhere to the voice of the Irish public.

The UK is home to a very interesting newsletter called Spiked. In American terms its editorial line might best be characterised as "left wing libertarian." If one wants to be spared the task of clicking though innumerable British, Irish and European sites, take a quick run over to Spiked for this week. Frank Furedi's piece is an excellent summary of the state of rhetorical play since the referendum. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5347/

Giving an additional emphasis to the fear and loathing of ordinary people felt so deeply by members of the several elites subsumed under the "chattering class" rubric is a fine view by an expat Irishman. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5348/.

Underscoring the utter contempt for the "no" voting Irish citizens is a third story. This one is by a teacher of political science and government living in London with the suspiciously Irish name of Kevin Rooney. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/5349/.

It is telling that Ireland alone out of the twenty-seven countries comprising the EU put the matter to the decision of the public rather than leaving it in the far more manageable hands of the local parliament. More telling is the total refusal of governments to stop and give due regard to what might undergird the Irish rejection.

The governments, the leaders including those of France, the UK and Germany as well as the business, media and academic establishments from the edge of the Irish Sea eastward have excoriated the Irish as a collection of brain dead, xenophobic, reactionary, provincial cretins who are not only short-sighted and fear-ridden but also ungrateful. The name-callers are all, in principle at least, committed to the notion of democracy. They--leaders, governments, pundits, professors and business wallahs--profess to believe fully that the will of the people is supreme.

Yeah. Right. Sure they do.

Of course for the Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists, the Irish defeat is a replay on a much smaller scale of what happened in 2005. Back then it was the uneducated, xenophobic, reactionary, fearmongering, provincial populations of France and the Netherlands who voted "no" to the EU's new constitution.

The Eurocrats and other High Minded Internationalists went back to work and regenerated the defeated constitution as a series of amendments. The Geek has read a (small) portion of the nearly three hundred pages of nearly opaque bureaucratise (OK, the Geekmo admits that he is a masochist--but a limited one.) The damn thing made no sense at all.

Except in one major area.

That area?

Simple. With the amendments the European Union would look, act and in most salient respects become a supra-national government.

That was what made the Irish woman's comment so trenchant. The amended constitution would impose another level of government on the heads and shoulders of the already (arguably) over-governed population.

The strongest defense offered on behalf of the amendments and the new structures they would call into existence is taken straight from Jeremy Bentham. The EU would be better able to provide "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Wow! Sounds wonderful. "The greatest good for the greatest number."

Who could be against that?

No one. At least in principle.

Until the critical question is posed.

Who decides? That's the key question. That's the weak point of Utilitarianism. That's the frail center of the argument advanced by the Eurocrats in favor of the new constitution.

Who decides?

That question also lets everyone know why the several interlocking elites of politics, business, academia and media so strongly support not only the centralising of power in the EU but do so everywhere.

Elites of whatsoever nature are in the power game. Every elite regardless of its specific type--monetary, intellectual, religious--is a political entity, seeking the maintenance and aggregation of power over those people who are non-elite.

Elites pursue power by asserting that they have the key to achieving the "greatest good for the greatest number." Often, even nearly always, the key seems to be one of limiting the indivdual's right to decide, to choose, to risk, to be autonomous. To be free.

To put it simply the elites--those who have their meaty fists around the levers of power and influence--do not trust, do not like and frankly often resent the presence of the hoi polloi. (Unless, of course, the common herd merely hears and obeys the desires of the Older and Wiser, the Best and the Brightest.)

And why shouldn't we listen and heed? After all, the elite is richer than the rest of us. It's better educated than the rest of us. Has access to airwaves and print that the rest of us lack. It's even been democratically elected by the rest of us.

Why shouldn't we hear and obey? The movers, shakers, power brokers and opinion molders have our best interests at heart. They know what is the greatest good. They know who is the greatest number.

Why shouldn't we dumbly submit to our betters?

The Irish woman knew why. Her statement--and her question is one we should all ponder. Wherever we live.