MERCANTILIST WORLD ORDER
President Barack Obama’s discognitive effort as “war president” at the U. S. Military Academy December 1 brings front and center a profound question in American politics. Those on the liberal or Left side of political debate are universally defined as more idealistic in their agenda for human progress, even earthly utopia, than the conservative or Right. Yet the Left adamantly opposes American efforts to “nation-build” or to spread democracy among other nations. Is this not a glaring contradiction?
The Dominant Elite Oppose Spreading Democracy
By Wayne Jett © December 3, 2009
The point is raised, not to pick a fight with the Left, but to encourage examination of the parties and motives which influence U. S. policy. The same parties and motives are behind the Left’s national security policy as are behind economic policies which have devastated the American middle class during the past two years.
The Kennedy-Obama Contrast
President Obama expressly rejected “nation-building” in Afghanistan because that “project” would be “beyond … reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests.” Citing “the connection between our national security and our economy,” the president reiterated “we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”
The contrast could hardly be greater between this position and ideals of the “new generation of Americans” for whom President John F. Kennedy spoke in 1961 at his inaugural “to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Turns out President Kennedy, despite his father’s ties to Wall Street and the dominant elite, spoke ideals of the surging American middle class which prevailed in World War II. That another president elected with votes of minority and poor a half-century later should voice the dominant elite agenda is testament to their influence in major media.
As a campaigner in 2008, Barack Obama was praised by President Kennedy’s daughter as the “once in a generation” inspirational leader. Yet Obama’s break with Kennedy is consistent with policy supported by the contemporary Democratic Party and is correctly explained without reference to orthodox “lessons learned in Vietnam.”
The Dominant Elitist Agenda
The dominant elite determine the Democratic Party’s posture on foreign policy, and they do not support spreading democracy abroad. Indeed, they have made deep inroads in undercutting and weakening democracy in the U. S.
A century ago, the dominant elite had its primary political home in the Republican Party, though its influence in both parties was significant. A favorite theorist of American elite at the time was H. G. Wells, who openly detested democracy and capitalism because the two systems were the political and economic tools used by the middle class to impose a “dictatorship” upon the elite.
In a nutshell, the dominant elite control the giant capital pools on and around Wall Street. They are near achieving the aggressive social and economic agenda championed by Wells in private conferences with U. S. presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Franklin Roosevelt.
Do not be misled to think those who control those giant capital pools are “capitalists.” They are financial mercantilists who use influence flowing from their capital to capture U. S. government power, which enables them to exploit regulators, rob the middle class and cripple representative democracy.
The dominant elite who deplore and defeat democracy in the U. S. do not wish it to be spread abroad, where they do better without it. The opposite view is held by Main Street capitalists, who prosper in free markets with rule of law preventing violence and fraud. Though President George W. Bush had family ties to Wall Street through his grandfather, he almost certainly was not in league with the dominant elite, as evidenced by his nation-building effort in Iraq.
Elitist Redux: 1933/2009
President Bush’s serious error occurred, not in spreading democracy, but in succumbing to pressure from Senate Democrats led by Wall Street’s Charles Schumer to appoint Henry Paulson, CEO of the world’s largest investment bank, Goldman Sachs, as Treasury secretary in July, 2006. That decision was as tragically consequential for the middle class as was President Herbert Hoover’s request to Congress in 1932 to raise marginal rates of federal income taxes.
Both Hoover’s and Bush’s actions were pressed upon them by the same circle of dominant elite. In each case, the American electorate was flushed by deplorable economic conditions into the waiting arms of a federal administration completely dominated by those Wall Street elite: Franklin Roosevelt’s in 1933 and Barack Obama’s in 2009.
Power Flows from Capital
Mao’s dictum that “all power flows from the barrel of a gun” is wrong. Power flows from barrels of capital, which buys guns, bullets, men, politicians, governments and whatever else those who control the capital desire. Presently they desire even greater domination of the U. S. government and the private economy, and they are getting it. The world order envisioned by the dominant elite does not include true representative democracy. ~