One more reply to this: >>>>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 ?<<<<
I would also point out that this analysis might be wrong. At least since the time of Andrew Jackson, and most likely before it, yes indeed, someone could get to the highest office WITHOUT the support of the MAJORITY of the 'ruling class(es)'. I'm not sure that means it violated any 'collective will', but... Obama seemed to get overwhelming support from the 'ruling class in crisis' as well as a populist upswell. Two entirely different things. The original factions supporting Obama would appear to be close to those supporting Kerry in the previous election. They sensed that Bush and Co. were taking the imperium into dangerous areas in terms of fiscal, monetary, trade and foreign policies. One, they were alarmed at the deficits. Two, they were alarmed at the lack of control the Fed had over monetary policies and the larger economy. Three, they were alarmed that many allies expressed doubts about the Bush war policies--and did so very openly, even as they sent troops and materiel support to the US through NATO or, as with Japan and S. Korea, through their own militaries which are closely linked to the US's. Four, some were uneasy over the lack of any social policy, such as the total inability to deal with Katrina clean up and reconstruction (remembering the LA riots that helped end Poppy Bush's reign). When Paulson and Bernanke were more or less running the government in the waning days of the Bushwa presidency, there was a real sense of drift and crisis, which most definitely sealed McCain's fate and got the ruling class consensus a 'majority' president likes to have. Clinton most likely got to power on fairly narrow 'ruling class' minority support. Some of the military men under Powell , at least in rhetoric, mutinied. Powell, a holdover from the Poppy Bush administration, put them down, which won him no friends with the hardright Republicans, who wanted to stir up trouble for Clinton right from the start. Why were the Clinton years so troubled by all the other politicians? Because they never accepted his minority rule--look how far they were willing to take it with their bogus impeachment. The irony of the Clinton presidency is he first got into office with a ruling class minority and a popular minority in the votes as well. Usually, a 'majority' is forced onto the nation through the institution of the Electoral College, which is by its nature skewed rightward and conservative --or reactionary --because of the way it divides up geographically, over-representing under-populated swathes of the country (though no where near as skewed as the institution of the Senate does). This failed in the case of the Gore-Bush election though. So Bush, Bushwa the Younger, most likely had the majority ruling class backing and a popular minority. If Gore had contested the northern counties in Florida (where Republican mail-in ballots were often fraudulent multiple votes), he might have plunged the system into a real crisis--but you can also see the Supreme Court stepping in and asserting its will and this was accepted by the 'ruling class'. Barry is a different horse altogether. He has lost his shine with the rightwing and 'centrist' populists. He hasn't lost his majority support from the ruling class apparently. If he gets Bernanke removed and Geithner gets the boot, that will be signs that trouble is stirring in the halls of power. CJ _______________________________________________ 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
