Realpolitik & Outlook II

"I had no idea..."

In this piece I'm going to rip off a few more masks too, so that we can understand the outlooks that shape the world around us.

The Great Stage Show in America;

Program for Scene 2; South Carolina.

Last Saturday, there was a primary election held in the state of South Carolina, pitting a son of a President against a U.S. Senator with a war record in the "blue league" of the Great Show. The President's son, who has all along been favored to win, did in fact win, beating the Senator by more than some people had hoped. It showed the power of the traditional support of the "blue league" in South Carolina. The "blue league": read "blue blood". For the uninitiated, let's have a look at the teams.

Red League, Blue League

I remember as a boy asking my father what the difference was between two groups who called themselves Democrats and Republicans since we supposedly lived in a democracy that was organized as a federal republic. (Ah, there's the word "federal" in there too, joined together, made up of separate parts, segmented, the "United Snakes", the fifty headed leviathan from across the sea, etc. Well, some other time for that.) The same question has always been on people's minds; is there much difference between the two political parties in the United States? This explains in part the idealism for a third party. Here are some basic facts.

Of the two, the Democratic party is the oldest. It can definitely trace itself back to Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, a General, the man on the $20 bill. It was a party of the farmer, the landholder, of the old gentry of the South, the planters and slave holders, the party of agriculture and forestry.

But going back before Jackson, the Democratic party has always preserved a reverence for the person and ideas of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence (along with John Adams, his friend and rival), the third President of the United States, the man on the limited circulation $2 bill.

Jefferson was a complex man, in many ways his life was a confluence of all the important ideas of his time. He was a petty gentleman farmer, an amateur natural scientist, an inventor, a violinist, a lawyer. Like other Thomas', Jefferson was a doubter on many issues of common faith. He doubted the divinity of Jesus, he doubted the divine right of kings. His God was a creator who walked away from his creation. Jefferson was a humanist, believing in the perfectibility of the human being by his own efforts. Jefferson was an optimist when it came to human nature: he believed that human beings were basically good.

Jefferson was a friend of the French Revolution and of much else that is French. The French influence throughout the entire southern United States, from Virginia to New Orleans, owes something to the connection between France and Jefferson and to the generations of planters who came after him who sought to decorate their affluence by all that was French.

But Jefferson was a partisan of revolutionaries and even called a Jacobin to his face, never denying it, while being himself firmly of the ranks of an establishment of gentleman farmers, an aristocracy who sent their sons to the best universities, etc. Many of the dualities working within this party are reflections of the life and works of Jefferson. Democrats consider themselves liberal, but they are also interested in preserving the reigns of control in their own hands if possible. Jefferson did free his slaves, but only after he died.

From the time of Andrew Jackson onward, the Democrats have been the party of "professional politicians," of a view of government as a way of opportunity for the common man to better himself through public service, and of the reverse side of that coin; that public servants could and would have the power to extort the rewards for this service from the public. It was called "the spoils system"; those who help a politician get elected get to serve in his administration, get the benefits accruing to such a position.

Quigley described the Democrats as comprising the social ranks of the poor, of skilled and semi-skilled labor, of the professions, especially law and education, of the lower middle class generally, and conversely of the ultra rich, especially those in the media or entertainment industry.

The Republicans call themselves the "Grand Old Party", but they can trace themselves back only to Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of the United States, a self made man from nowhere, a lawyer, the man on the $5 bill. Theodore White characterized the Republicans as the party of "the good and the greedy" in The Making of The President 1960, which is by far his best book. They are as Quigley correctly points out, the party in the middle, of industry and commerce, of the middle classes, the party of self made people, of frontiersmen, of adventurers. Their first national candidate was James C. Freemont, "the Pathfinder", friend of Kit Carson and Daniel Boone.

The roots of Republican thought and ideology are traceable to the Federalists, to Alexander Hamilton, to Fisher Ames, to John Adams (the second President of the United States and co-author with Jefferson of the Declaration of Independence), to Boston Brahmans and Whig politicians. These factions supported central banking, independent prairie farmers, inventors, mining and industry, later, the stock market, extending credit while extolling thrift.

Because the American Civil War was not just about slavery but about which economic system would dominate the future of America, the agricultural system vs. the industrial system, the Republican party has been associated with industrial management, big business and banking now for over a century.

Republicans also by tradition tend to support a social conservatism, derived out of their middle class roots, that is variously looked upon with derision or dread by the usually "Freethinking" Democrats. This social conservatism is pessimistic concerning human nature; all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. Their God is Biblical and personal; people are in need of redemption, sins may be forgiven but going bankrupt is unforgivable, cleave always to the values of your English and Scot ancestors. This has to a great extent limited Republican appeal in a country of immigrants who may not have English or Scot ancestors and has caused the Republicans and to some extent the American middle classes to become exclusive rather than inclusive. If a French influence pervades the Democrats, a British one influences the Republicans.

Because there has always been a radical bent to the Democratic side; Jeffersonian, confederate, organized labor (and crime), socialists and communists, either actively involved or in sympathy with, we'll give them the red uniforms. Because the Republicans have always represented themselves as interested in the true blue virtues including keeping the national union together under their blue uniforms, the police, the FBI, etc. their championing of conservative social values based on the typical American middle class view of the world, we'll give them the blue uniforms. Now we have two teams on the stage. As I said before there are strings attached.

Lumping Them All Together.

Politics is a game, a contest, public entertainment. The real issues have already been decided. There are certain ideas and policies that those who pay those who pull the strings want to bring into being as widely accepted values in society. We'll deal with these "ideas of the string pullers" in future articles. Meanwhile they have set going a fight in the blue league between a real blue blood, who must do what he's told in part because he believes in the goals and guidance of these people above him and is probably one of them himself and his opponent, an upstart, who is spouting some ideas of the string pullers and getting cheered on by press partisans wearing red uniforms. Do the string pullers really care whether the red or blue league ultimately win? No, because they've already picked all the contestants on both sides and they can usually buy someone off if they get out of hand. If they can't be bought, ....

For instance, Vice President, Albert Gore is the son of a famous U.S. Senator, with the same name, from Tennessee, an updated version of a young Southern poltroon. He was born and bred to be President. His views are in concord with many of the ideas of the string pullers and their backers. If he's elected he can do what Gerald Ford did for his fallen predecessor; Gore could pardon Bill Clinton. Gore could also continue Clinton's policies which are essentially to water down the Anglo-centric American middle class, replace it with a multi-ethnic one of their own making, further reduce American sovereignty by following some policies that support the power sharing guidelines of the string pullers, especially concerning China, both as an expanding market and a power rival. Meanwhile even one Gore term could greatly help the string pullers continue their "third way" policies.

Texas Governor, George W. Bush is President George Bush's son. The Bush family are real blue bloods but let's not bother going there. Gore could be just as blue blood as Bush anyway. They both know the celestial picture that's for sure. They do what they're told. So what if John McCain wins the Republican nomination? The powers that be will approach him, tell him what to do and he'll do what he's told too, because his own personal vanity is involved, or he'll lose, or worse. McCain is hyping some ideas that are dear to the hearts of some people in high places anyway, so if he wins he'll just play into their hands. But if you doubt any of this consider who's paying for McCain's campaign, and for that matter, why?

What do the handlers want? Well first and foremost they want their power and privileges to remain unchallenged. Secondarily they seek to balance political power around the world so that no one government or group of governments ever gets too powerful to dominate world affairs. Were that to happen, a politician or group of politicians would slip from the strings and begin acting on their own. That simply can't be allowed to happen ever again. It happened once in the 20th century, a character on strings got free of his strings, with terrible results.

When people at the bottom just want to be free, they often assume that if their government was really free of any strings to act as it would or should, that things would be better. They are usually optimistic about human nature. The string pullers aren't. What the people don't know is that it is much more likely that someone without strings would be incapable of handling political power and would become a tyrant, making the lives of his subjects terrible and causing problems for other people living around the area of his rule. So this is a situation the handlers are not likely to want to see emerge anywhere on a real big scale ever again. What of Saddam Hussein then? Why is he left alive? Two reasons, 1) he's a business partner, which means in part that he has been bought off and 2) he's not a big enough fish to worry about.

And yes your vote counts. Even though there are two parties that have both been bought, and even though all the characters have also been bought, and even though the seats in the theatre that you and I occupy have also been bought, yes, your vote matters. You can still decide whether you prefer the government to be run by Lord Albert Gore of Tennessee and his retinue or by Prince George W. Bush of Texas and his. In either case the string handlers will adjust their strings for the players and the action will go on; new characters are brought on stage, new issues are dealt with, old issues are kicked aside for a while once more.

Next scene, Michigan.

The Polar Bear