I doubt that the Republicans, let alone the ruling class, knew what they were getting with Bush. He hadn't screwed up badly in Texas. He was affable and the son of a president, admittedly not a particularly popular one. His grandiosity came later.
Even so, I can't imagine that the ruling class somehow came to a consensus that he really represented them. Bush was only a candidate who could get elected. Mention of Ferguson reminds us that what we are calling the ruling class is really fractious, just as what we would call the left is so. That is why making speculations about what the "Left" is leads nowhere. Yet, when capital faces a serious crisis, it does coalesce and behave as if there were an almost unified ruling class. P.S. In my earlier note, I was trying to say that subjectivity on the part of members of the ruling class plays a role. I really don't think that the factor of subjectivity can be ignored. On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 04:14:37PM -0500, Mark Lause wrote: > It's fashionable to describe Bush as a sort of Dan Quayle buffoon. > > However, Bush lost the 2000 election and took office anyway, and he probably > lost reelection in 2004 but ended up getting a second term. His approval > collapsed at least three times and always got it back up until the fall of > 2006. In the end, he not only sold, started, waged, and defended the most > indefensible kind of war, but cajoled the so-called opposition into > supporting it. > > Bush was remarkably cunning and very clever about getting and retaining > power. He was certainly no more a sign of decay than his entire class... > > ML -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
