by Philip Greenspan
(Swans - August 13, 2007) When my father and I disagreed on some issue he might ask "Why do you always look at things ass-ways?" I didn't have an answer then and don't have one now. So I view Gilles d'Aymery's reasonable and logical analysis of the elite's concerns of Bush junior's policies ("The Establishment's Tocsin") from a different perspective. I equate the Establishment with the elite, the real rulers of the country -- a not unreasonable belief.
F. Scott Fitzgerald correctly observed and many agree that "The rich are different than you and me." The elite, the super rich, who comprise a unique class, are absolutely, positively and most assuredly different. What may seem logical and reasonable actions for you, me, Gilles, and most others does not apply to them! They are not loyal citizens of this country or of any other country. Their loyalty is limited to wealth and power. They are unprincipled and will forsake any country, and many have, and would willingly back any government including a kakistocracy if it would enhance their bottom line. Sensible people agree that Junior's dubious accomplishments are a disaster but the elite, recipients of the trillions that are being squandered, view those accomplishments blissfully. Billionaires are sprouting in their ranks like weeds. The ultimate collapse of the dollar will not trouble them for their assets are in PROPERTIES that will retain their relative values.
They control the political destiny of the country, irrespective of the party or the individuals in office. The parties and individuals govern somewhat differently but all forge policies to effectuate the master's goals.
How can you size up the Establishment? For clues to their thoughts observe the positions espoused by their faithful agents, the two parties; and how the mainstream media, owned and controlled by prominent members of the Establishment, presents -- distorts, covers up, or creates -- the news. Legislation readily passed with support of both parties and sanctified by the press is a sure sign that it's the Establishment's baby.
Using those criteria, I don't believe they were unhappy with the Gipper. Quite the reverse. They felt he was finally liquidating the hated New Deal. And if anything they were delighted with the reduction of taxes. While they were satisfied with Ronnie's successers, poppa Bush and Clinton, they are ecstatic about Junior.
The Establishment is not a monolith. Differences amongst the members frequently arise. Business interests of one group may conflict with those of another group. That's why some groups, while contributing generously to both parties, will favor one party over the other. Strong minority positions can be detected on major issues by clashes between the parties and/or opposing views among the media's columnists and pundits.
The pre-election (2000) press enhanced Bush and demeaned Gore. When the Supreme Court got their chance to pick the winner they chose whom they knew the rulers preferred. Bush Junior is the guy the Establishment wanted and they are delighted with what he has done. Would they have accepted Gore? Yes, but that is always true. The primaries are so rigged that the candidates selected are invariably acceptable to the elite. Gore quietly walked away from a court challenge -- as did Kerry in 2004 with evidence available of Republican electoral shenanigans -- because he and all the insiders knew the score.
Since then the opposition Democrats and the media have strongly aligned themselves with the administration. The public now vehemently demands impeachment and fault John Conyers for reneging on his promise to press that issue if the Dems won the 2006 election. The party's leaders have taken that option "off the table," given Conyers his orders, and he has obediently fallen into line. If the Establishment were unhappy with Bush and Cheney don't you think both parties would have been moving on impeachment with the media piling on?
Although they may hedge their comments to appease voters, all of the major Democratic and Republican candidates for president strongly favor not just continuing but expanding the war. They are quite outspoken in pressing for a war against Iran. Ron Paul, the relatively unknown antiwar candidate, rapidly boosted his recognition and support, as indicated by his fund raising and polling numbers, by brief television exposures in the Republican debates for the presidency. Yet the media downplays his candidacy. They and their Establishment allies do not want him to win the nomination. This tells you what makes a MAJOR candidate -- one WORTHY in their judgment of voter consideration. The more acceptable a candidate, the bigger the build up; the unacceptable are demeaned or ignored.
The public's confidence in the media has been eroded by its failure to question and expose the lies of the administration that got the country into war. To prevent further declines of readers and viewers it must turn out a credible product. Yet it still promotes the discredited pro-war policies. Why? Because that's what the Establishment wants!
Continuing and expanding the war will make this disastrous situation worse. The elite, however, can only see more and more profits pouring into their pockets. The country and most of the citizenry will suffer. From the Establishment's point of view -- tough shit! As usual they will come out on top!
If you find our work useful and appreciate its quality, please consider making aMoney is spent to pay for Internet costs, maintenance and upgrade of our computer network, and development of the site.