Conservative Law Enforcement

Matthew Yglesias  is noticing and commenting on the conservative view of law enforcement being revealed by the Underpants Bomber case. He notes

The underlying issue here, as I’ve been saying, is that conservatives think that any constraint on the state security apparatus is too much. They believe, contrary to all of the evidence, that the rule-bound criminal justice system can’t or doesn’t function and that things would be better if we scrapped all the rules.

Matt's observation is true as far as it goes, but this admiration of state police power, as Atrios notes, is narrowly confined. Specifically:

Conservative hatred of a civilized system of justice is based on their "othering" of criminals. The instant they feel the jack-booted thugs of the state of[sic] treated them or someone like them unfairly the squealing is deafening.

Indeed, the mere possibility that one of them could be the subject of prosecution is evidence of overreaching by the state. Or consider the case of James O'Keefe (or Scooter Libbey for that matter) and the conservative response. One can see outrage at the fact that one of there's could be arrested.  I don't think there is any mystery to this response at all.  This is exactly in keeping with the conservative dream of a Servile Society as I've discussed here and here.

What I mean by the Servile Society can be summarized by looking at the conservative dream world for taxation and spending.  On taxes they would have us eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains and draw all government revenue from a flat tax on income.  Spending would be limited to military and police protection, which amounts to just the protection of property.  So there would be no government expeditures on the middle class wage earners.  In this world then a person who owned extensive property could cover all his yearly expenses from interest, dividends and capital gains and thus pay no taxes.  This in spite of the fact that the ability to have these expenditures is completely dependent upon the security of the property that is being provided by the government.  In short such a person would enjoy all the service that government provides, service essential to his prosperity, at no cost to the recipient.  A perfect hand-out.  The costs of providing this service then would be born entirely by those who labor for wages, and in turn they would receive no direct benefit to themselves from the government who's although they supply the governments revenue.  A privileged class of property owners and a servile class of wage earners.  This is the conservative ideal. 

First I would note that not only is this a thouroughly unjust and unfair system, but it is also the system used throughout the world for most of history and has been universally really awful. 

With regard to the points made by Matt and Atrios, the attitude toward law enforcement is perfectly in keeping with their belief in a Servile society.  Law enforcement needs to be as brutal and unforgiving toward the servile class as is needed to keep the privileged class from being afraid.  Servile insurrection is quite scary to the privileged and they need to be keep perfectly at ease.  It is part of the privilege.  But of course the purpose of law enforcement is to maintain the security of the privileged class, so it is a gross failure if it ever threatens them.  This is a view that is utterly incompatible with equality and liberty.

As a final point observation there are a couple of points that should be noted by progressives.  The distinction between serevile and privileged is not purely one of wealth. Yes generally the wealthy would be more likely to be in the privileged class, but there is no strict dividing line. The breakdown is more like an aristocracy, in which poorer titled nobles might well be looking down upon commoners who vastly surpass them in wealth.

Nor is it, in fact, entirely one of race.  Now race has obviously played a huge role in the imposition of a servile society historically and will continue to do so if the conservative tide continues to grow.  I do not pretend that race is not an issue. What I'm suggesting is that for most of the chapions of this system the master/servant relationship.  comes first, whoever is going to be the servents. As long as they get to be masters, they are not on the whole overly concerned with how the servents are defined.  Or to put it another way, most don't actually have much problem with Condelezza Rice being included in the privileged class.  The larger point here is that this servile society is more of a threat to most white folks than is often admitted.  This organization of society is very bad for everybody, except, perhaps, the privileged. 

Incorporation is Social Insurance

Strictly speaking the title is not true. A well accepted definition of social insurance can be found here at Wikipedia, and incorporation would not quite meet the definition. However, I will argue that the incorporation is essentially a type of insurance supplied by the government, and therefore should be considered the same sort of thing as social insurance. The reason for making the connection is the right wing's supposed horror at the existence of social insurance while at the same time adoring incorporation.

When a business is incorporated only the assets of the business are subject to being seized to pay off creditors or to satisfy other debt and payments. But the debts and payments still exist, they are effectively paid off by some other members of society. Generally they are not paid off by the government itself, rather by various members of society who get caught by the falling company. The various assets of the owners of the company are not subject to paying off the debts, with the exception of the money invested in the corporation. Essentially, if you are an owner or part-owner of a corporation, due the intervention of the government you are insured against the failure of the company, with your investment being the deductible.

While not strictly "social insurance" according to the Wikipedia definition, it is, in substance, a government run insurance program.

My point is to note that this then is really the first major government insurance program created by the U.S. government, far predating Social Security, unemployment insurance, or any of the other bugbears of conservative angst. The implication of this observation is that the main dispute between conservatives and liberals is not whether the government should provide social insurance, but rather whether it should be supplied only to a select group of privileged individuals. The liberal position is that government is well suited to provide insurance like incorporation, as well as the others, that are valuable to people throughout the entire income scale. The conservative position is that it should be reserved only for a special, privileged portion of society. I am not a conservative.

Josh Gets It

Check out this Josh Marshall post at TPM about Bob Shaffer, the Republican running for Senate in Colorado.

A bit of background, Bob Shaffer has made himself famous over the past several years supporting the sweat shop and sexual slavery operations in the Mariana Islands, back when Abramoff was a favorite within the Republican party. Shaffer is currently running for the Senate seat in Colorado and has recently been in the news over a web site his son set up at college, in which the son promotes the positive side of slavery. As Josh points out, one of the things that distinguished Shaffer in the Mariana Islands episode was Shaffer's support of the slavers. Josh is sensing a connection.


I believe that Josh's basic conclusion is essentially correct. I've written myself before (see here, here and here) that the basic character of the Conservative view of the world is to have a society composed of a Privileged class (Comprised of well-to-do, well-connected conservatives natch) and a Servile class supporting them (Comprised of the rest of us). That would match up closely with what Josh is seeing from Bob Shaffer and his son.

To understand modern conservatism, and the current state of national politics, we really need to get a grasp on this idea. There are probably 20-30% of the population that does want what I refer to in the posts above as a Servile Society. Those are the current crop of Bush dead enders and the majority of McCain's support. The rest of the country does respect a free and basically egalitarian society, but opinions within that 70% of egalitarians range from quite progressive to traditionally conservative. (I'm using the phrase 'traditionally conservative' to mean conservative opinions that are consistent with a free and egalitarian society, as opposed to the supporters of a Servile Society). The past decade or so has seen the conservative wing of the egalitarians lining up with the Servile Society (largely due to the skill with which the Servile Society supporters have masked there actual views), but they are open to being won back at this point. This election, I believe, is focused on winning back a governing majority dedicated to the principals of a free and egalitarian society. It also appears that we are well set to win back just such a majority.

Different Universe

The other day I wrote of the different Universe in which we find the likes of Mitt Romney, and many other conservatives. But the population filling this odd space is actually much larger than the politicians or even conservatives. Glenn Greenwald has a post up here illustrating the huge disconnect between our journalists and pundits and much of the rest of the country. Glenn's point hinges on an exchange between Mike Gravel and Tom Edsall as reported by Jebediah Reed here. According to Reed

Beaming after the Columbia event, Gravel walks with Alter to a nearby Cuban restaurant for a late lunch. On the way they encounter a gray-haired gentleman in owlish glasses. Alter greets him very respectfully. "This is Tom Edsall," he says. Edsall was a senior political writer for the Washington Post for 25 years. He retired from the paper in 2006 and now writes for the New Republic and teaches at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.

Gravel smiles broadly and says, "Hey, can you straighten out David Broder?" Broder, an influential columnist at the Post and the unofficial godfather of the D.C. press corps, has been a target of much criticism from liberal blogs for seeming to provide political cover for Bush on Iraq, even with a majority of Americans now opposing the war. "He doesn't believe in the power of the people!" Gravel says. Edsall blinks and looks perplexed. "David Broder is the voice of the people," he replies matter-of-factly. Gravel starts to smile, assuming Edsall is making an absurdist joke. But Edsall is not joking. The two men look at each other in awkward silence over a great gulf of unshared beliefs, then Gravel chuckles and walks ahead into the restaurant.

The disconnect is striking, but it is far from unique. Consider first that it is not just that Edsall believes Broder to be correct and Gravel (and much of the left blogesphere and much of the country) believe that Broder is very much out of touch. Rather, Edsall truly believes that Broder is the "voice of the people" and Edsall cannot seem to understand that many of "the people" feel that Broder is out of touch. Consider the disconnect between poll results on the opinions Americans have of the Iraq war and of Bush with Broder's expectation of a Bush political resurgence. Or consider Broder's views on Bush's veto with those expressed by Americans again via polls. However much Tom Edsall might respect and like David Broder, there is clear reason to believe that he might be a bit out of touch, and the title "voice of the people" cannot clearly be assigned to him any longer, if it ever could be.

This is, I believe, a common theme of our times (probably of all times). It puts me in mind of Richard Feynman's conclusions on the Challenger disaster. One of the more striking discoveries he made was the disparity in opinion concerning mission safety between engineers and management.

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

In both cases we have a population of leaders, people in charge, who are seriously disconnected from the reality they are in charge of. Whatever good reasons management had to believe the shuttle safe, their estimate of 1 in 100,000 were absurd. As Feynman points out those in charge then believed that the shuttle could be launched every day for 300 years with but one failure and we've had two in the comparatively tiny number of launches to date.

Now this disconnect is a broader problem that has surfaced many times in history. One need read only briefly of the various high commands during the first World War to see the same kind of utter disconnect between those in charge and those at the front. With little difficulty one could find many more examples, I'm sure. This disconnect is, I believe, a predictable consequence of the kind of privileged/servile society I've written of elsewhere.

My arguments elsewhere on this blog is that the modern conservative movement is motivated by a desire to create, a belief in the superiority of, a society consisting of a privileged, leading class and a servile, subordinate class. While they have not succeeded in creating that society, great strides have been made over the past few decades. The policies advocated by the conservative movement, for all they talk of freedom and equality, their policies are consistently directed and the one object, granting privilege to those with substantial ownership in property and making subservient those whose ownership of property is sufficiently limited that their subsistence depends upon their labor.

There are two main problems with this model of society, however. On the one hand it is wrong. There is no justification for granting special privleges to some members of society that are denied to others. Among the foundational principals of this nation was the fundamental equality of all people under the law. Secondly, a society composed of the privileged and the servile is weaker and more succeptible to failure than a society based upon equality. The disconnect of our press corps, of NASA management, of the commanders of WWI all derive from the growth of a two class system. Such a system does not make our nation better able to face the dangers we will face but rather less able.

Conservatives have been selling the idea that with leadership taken from our proper leading class we will get the strong leadership that will make us safe and secure. But instead we have the disconnect of the press, 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, Challenger and other failures of even basic management. Our hope lies not in a saviour from our privileged class, but rather in the strength of all of the people of America.

David Broder

Well the whole David Broder disconnect has become striking. He writes on April 26th that Sen. Harry Reid is the Democrat's Gonzales. Yes, that Harry Reid shows the same degree of incompetence that Alberto Gonzales does. Specifically, Broder claims that there is a "...long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end." Referring to Gonazles and Reid. Yet the next day the entirety of the Democratic Senatorial caucus wrote a letter backing up Reid completely. So much has been made already of the absurdity of Broder writing an editorial saying that many Democratic Senators considered Reid an embarrassment and inept when, in fact, all support him entirely.

I think that Atrios captures the attitude of someone like Broder nearly exactly. This nation does not have a privileged class, it has no aristocracy. People like David Broder believe that it does, or at least that it should, and that they comprise it. And these folks are very angry at those forces that would prevent the coming into existence of their beloved aristocracy.

Suffering over Iraq

From AmericaBlog Joe Subday has this observation

Listen, you Americans, Laura Bush wants you to know the President is suffering over Iraq. In fact, Laura told Anne Curry on the Today Show, that the American people need to know that "no one suffers more than their President and I do." No one? She's as delusional as her husband. Of course, her husband is the person who caused the suffering -- and is the one person who can end it.

I would wager that there are 3,300 families in America that are suffering more than George Bush. And, there are tens of thousands of injured soldiers who are literally suffering.

But Joe just doesn't get it. In the Bush world this country is divided into two classes, a servile class and a privileged class (see here, here, here, here and here). The Bushes, the media, political, social and economic elites are of course part of the privileged class. All those soldiers and soldiers families are part of the servile class so they don't count. Now you can understand. Among the people who actually matter, the privileged class, George and Laura Bush no doubt suffer as much or more than anyone. Once you understand that, it all makes perfect sense and Laura is being fine.

Indeed, once you understand the servile/privileged distinction, much of what has happened over the past six years makes perfect sense. The only question is, do we want that kind of a society. I say, No!

Support the Troops

Of course, the past several days have been filled with the report, and commentary on the report, by the Washington Post on the conditions at Walter Reed. The report consists of part one and part two. Read them, they are eye opening, terrible, and a disgrace to this nation. Another report can be found at the Army Times. Or, for a complete listing of this issue go to America Blog and read throughout.

More shocking, perhaps, than the conditions at Walter Reed and the treatment of our soldiers returning from Iraq, though those are atrocious, have been the responses from the White House, and the administration. The Tony Snow response today was pretty much - this is somebody elses's problem, why are you bothering us. These people really do think in terms of a servile class and a privileged class (to which they belong), and our soldiers are just servants to be used and discarded solely for the well being of the privileged few.

Note the difference from the Democrats on the same issue. Expect that some action will soon be taken and that, via Congressional action, some improvement will be made. The White House will not do, or accomplish, anything.

FWIW

There has been a lot of attention on the Lieberman/Lamont match up, so much that it might seem to be overkill. However, I believe that this fight embraces two of the major issues that underlie the current political scene, Critical Review and Privilege. The Bush administration is all about opposition to using Critical Review in making decisions and in favor of have one Servile Class and a Privileged Class. The net roots is all about using Critical Review and opposed to Privilege. Lieberman stands with Bush on both these matters.

Servile Society - Part II

The Republican view of the servile society does not end with the distribution of the monetary costs of defending property. It extends further into where the manpower will be found to defend property. From Limbaugh, Cheney and Bush who all managed to avoid actually facing combat in Viet Nam to todays Jonah Goldberg and Bush twins, there is a clear preference for having other people take care of the difficult job of actually fighting the war. Now there is some merit to the argument that not everyone who supports a war is required to be part of the military. But what makes Operation Yellow Elephant so effective is the striking trend among supporters of the war to refuse service. It's not just that one or another conservative who is a passionate supporter of the war has declined to join up, it is that nearly all (if not in fact all) of the most vocal supporters of the war have "other commitments." I think this is just another example of the servile society. These conservative Republicans believe that they themselves need to be protected, but that some other class of people should provide the bodies needed to do that protecting. Again, the wealthy, propertied class will enjoy security and protection provided to them by the servile class.

Again, I do not find this a desirable state of affairs.

Those kind of people

Just read this by Hunter at daily Kos.

The Servile Society - Part I

Consider the policies on taxation and Government preferred by Republicans. On the one hand they want taxes eliminated (or very nearly so) on interest, dividends and capital gains. Now, if this policy wish is enacted then those who own large amounts of property can meet all their expenditures from these sources, live a rich and comfortable life and avoid paying taxes all together, or very nearly so. In this world taxes would be collected almost entirely from the wages of those who labor in order to provide for their expenses.

On the other hand, the only role that Republicans see for Government is police and military. These essentially serve to defend and protect property. Yes, there would still be the odd serial killer I suppose, but most crime and war are directed at property not lives. Recall, however, that those who own most of the property are now paying nearly nothing in taxes but deriving nearly all the benefit from the taxes paid. Those who are paying the taxes, however, own little of the property, and therefore derive no direct benefit from the taxes they pay.

This is the world that the modern Republican party is trying to bring into being. A society consisting of two classes of people the property owning, privileged class, and the working or servile class. Indeed it would seem that the two things that most outrage Republicans is either the propertied class paying any part of the cost of defending their property or the working class deriving any benefit whatsoever from the taxes that they pay. This is a world I refer to as the "Servile Society" in honor of the less desirable of these two classes of people. As I hope is clear, this is not a world I want to see brought into being.