Thanks Michael Hoover. The analysis I first read (re sectional interests the "Yankees" vs the "Cowboys") did indeed invoke Ogelsby. It was in a work by W.B.Bland in an issue of Communist League from the 70's; & discussed matters of the USA politics - from the Kennedy assassination - through to Watergate - in terms of power blocks within the USA ruling class. Points arising: YOU WROTE: 1) former sdser/new leftist turned conspiracy theorist carl oglesby may have been first to use cowboy/yankee concept/terminology in his early 70s book 'the cowboy and yankee war'... distinction probably more relevant at that time re. some differences between 'frostbelt' and 'sunbelt' capital... significantly, however, u.s. foreign policy never changed much regardless of whether 'liberal' yankees or 'conservative' cowboys won elections... REPLY: Well - well the direction of US foreign policy need not necessarily change. All I am suggesting is that within the context of an overall agreement to screw the workers/peasants fo the USA/the world - there may be cause to disagree on some matters within the ruling class. I am trying to understand why there can be a lobby within the US ruling circles that might at this present juncture contradict the general agreement ot launch war. Now while I agree with the other Michael P - that this si pretty muted opposition (Michael Pereleman says it is none) there si some. Why? Who (which sectional class interest) gains? 2) You wrote: "ruling class differences - between domestic and transitional capital, for example - revolve around how best to stifle class conflict in order to maintain existing system... 'debates' rarely consider interests of working people... certainly, restraints upon ruling class exists, a no small part of which is what they think they can get way with, but also (somewhat ironically, perhaps) co-optation/ legitimation of representative' government..." REPLY: No disagreement! Thanks again. I will check out Thomas Dye. Cheers! Hari
