Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Hillary, Jeb, Rand or does it make a difference anyway?

In my post this morning I failed to realize how many new readers there are on this blog, so I did not repeat things which I had sad many times in the early years of this blog.  Your comments and questions made me realize that I needed to clarify my view of the US political system.

First - I see the USA as run by a tiny elite which is good at "pretend democracy" but which makes darn sure that the people vote the "correct" way.  I consider the primaries, conventions, caucuses,and elections themselves as a mix between a farce, a form of entertainment, a re-legitimization of a system and a secular liturgical act (a form of public self-worship).  There is no "democracy" in the US and there probably never was.  However, if the regime does not change, the specific clans within the 1% do fight each other and struggle for control of the regime.

Second, there are different clans, interest groups, factions who fight *within* the top 1% and they can, and do, make use of the electoral process not as a means of popular expression, but as a way to impose their agenda and interests.  I often speak of the "old Anglo guard" (best represented by the Bush clan before Dubya) and the "Neocons", but there are many more interest group (oil, banking, military, drug warriors, big pharma, etc.) who all participate in the internal struggle for power.

Thus, there is no real difference between the Republicrats and the Demoblicans, they are all part of the same elite, but there are differences between different political figures who are more, or less, aligned with any specific interest group.  Thus Greenwald is correct when he identifies the various groups who would support a Hillary Presidency.  This has nothing to do with democracy, the political parties or even her own views and everything to do with which interest groups she sold out to.

Even in the course of a single presidency, these groups can struggle with each other and trigger a change in policies.  Initially, the election of Obama was a victory of the old Anglo guard and a defeat of the Neocons who then came right back in through the back door and ended up re-taking control.

[sidebar: I got two college degrees in the USA between 1986 and 1991 and at the time I was pretty close to several conservative think tanks in Washington DC.  I saw with my own eyes how the agents of the Israel lobby, which before that had been aligned with the supposedly "liberal" Democratic party, suddenly realized that the Republicans were a much better host, and how they then began to take control of the previously paleo-conservative think tanks and turned them into Neocon mouthpieces.  It was quite amazing.  First, they funded them.  Then, they influenced the nominations of senior officers and finally, they took them under complete ideological control.  The case study of that kind of "subversion and acquisition" of an Anglo paleo-conservative think tank by Zionist interest groups is what happened to the Ethics & Public Policy Center, but there are many many more].

The US elites agree on most goals (world domination, wealth, economic feudalism, etc.) but they can, and do, disagree on methods and priorities.  The Israel lobby wanted a war with Iran.  The old Anglo guard did not.  The latter prevailed.  As long as their interests coincide, they act as one.  But as soon as there is a real danger or a real threat - they begin to "pull" the agenda over to their own interests.

Whether it will (Hillary) Clinton vs (Jeb) Bush again or not, whoever wins the presidency will have to continue to preside over the gradual erosion of the US imperial power and thus will have to decide whether the use of force (or threat of use, which is, in many ways, almost the same thing) against Russia can, if not reverse, then at least slow down that process.  At this point whether the US goes to war or not will depend on both the of correlation of the various interest groups inside the 1%ers and on the collective personality (President + advisors) who will be sitting in the White House.

This is the moment when having a generally mentally sane Jeb Bush (and his staff)  might be better than a clearly rabid Hillary (and her staff).  This has nothing to do with being "better" or "liberal or conservative" because on all these levels there are not meaningful differences between the Left/Liberal/Democratic side and the Right/Conservative/Republican side: they are all equally for sale, they all represent a pseudo-democracy of "one dollar one vote", they all are a government "by the billionaires for the billionaires" and none of them gives a damn the 99% of the planet or even the 99% of the American people.

As for Rand Paul, his function is the same as of Dennis Kucinich: get more votes into their respective parties.  Besides, unlike Kucinich, and even very much unlike his father Ron, Rand Paul is a puppet in the hands of the Israel Lobby.

Right now, there is nobody out there representing the interests of the vast majority of the people of the USA.  No "American Putin".  This is both scary and very sad.

Anyway, these are my 2cts on this depressing issue.


The Saker

PS: as always, David Rovics put it best:'