YC writes: >>Is there in the United States a significant portion of the population which is naive enough to believe that Clinton and Obama were elected AGAINST the will of the majority of the ruling class, of the ruling circles of the State, of the Secret Services, of the Armed forces, etc. ?
So why all this fuss about the CIA ?<< First could I ask a question? Why do educated 'Europeans' know so little about America? I would guess it's because you are largely politically speaking children on the world stage, 1945-2010--France being an exception--and fail to realize just what an old power the US actually is and how much continuity there is to the federal system constitutionally established in the late 18th century. Second, I believe you have misidentified where the 'fuss' is. It's not for the most part on the hard left of the US--the 10% of the population or less who would leave the Democratic Party in a heartbeat if they had a viable peace candidate and certainly not in the much smaller percentage of self-identified Marxists, anarchists, Chomsky-like 'democratic socialists' etc. The fuss is with the people who thought there was something transcendental about the yellow color of Obama's skin, that in that container of flesh there was somehow a metaphysical liberation from white guilt and the failing imperium. Guess what, there isn't! The people kicking up a fuss though are either the usual right-wing demagogues (who openly support complete CIA insiders like the warpig family of Bushes everytime one gets to the federal level). Or the very 'populist' segment I already identified, the ones who withheld their love from Gore and Kerry but gave it to Obama. They really thought the guy was going to somehow save the imperium while making it look like it wasn't an imperium. He would I guess usher in a new Disney America, like in the movies. All we are saying on the left is what we said about Carter--Obama simply represents a different faction of the federal national security state apparatuses. And as I've said before, in popular and populist terms, a 'successful' president, at least as remembered say his first ten years after office, is one who manages to surpass the narrow factional base that financed his way to the top office. Bush didn't do that, so he is reviled. Clinton didn't do that, so he is reviled. Poppy Bush didn't do that, so he is reviled. Reagan did that, so he is revered--but that might also be because out of sheer luck. The guy was senile for the last 6 years in power, so the national security state more or less brought in a consortium of people, who often clashed among themselves, and more than a narrow faction got well served. At any rate, Carter never surpassed the narrow faction that got him elected, and he more than displeased the nationalist populist types who voted for him. It looks like Obama is set to do the same. That doesn't mean he might not get re-elected for a second term. It means that when they sit down to write the history books it will in terms of his failures. CJ http://eltinjapan.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
