[Marxism] Re: Follow-up from Joel Kovel (Louis Proyect)

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

Unlike Kovel, I don't think the Bushites are a "rogue fraction" of the
ruling class. There is just too much consonance between their program --
particularly, their drive to U.S. world domination, with its "eternal war"
and pre-emptive doctrine and their efforts at gutting constitutional
protections -- and the wish-list of major political players and theorists,
at least since the 70's.

During the past few decades, these illuminaries have repeatedly expressed
need to eliminate the Vietnam War syndrome, bemoaned the dangers of "too
much" democracy and reiterated the need for "lowered expectations" on the
part of the U.S. public (working people).

For example, in the 70s, the Trilateral Commission lamented the "crisis of
democracy," in which certain citizens had become too politically active.
They qualified this in these terms: "the effective operation of a
democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and
non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups."

They were, they said, concerned with the erosion of "the legitimacy of
hierarchy, coercion, discipline, secrecy, and deception - all of which are,
in some measure, inescapable attributes of the process of
government...people no longer felt the same compulsion to obey those whom
they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status,
expertise, character, or talents."

And they were quite specific regarding the "people" they referred to:
"previously passive or unorganized groups in the population, blacks,
Indians, Chicanos, white ethnic groups, students, and women now embarked on
concerted efforts to establish their claims to opportunities, positions,
rewards, and privileges, which they had not considered themselves entitled
before."

And they recommended that: "marginality on the part of some groups...has
enabled democracy to function effectively."
(http://cyberjournal.org/cj/authors/fresia/c5.shtml)

Sounds like Bush's domestic policy to me!

Then there is the famous memo by Truman's State Department Policy Planning
Head George Kennan: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only
about 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the
object of envy and resentment. [...] The day is not far off when we are
going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are hampered
by idealistic slogans, the better" (L. Brenner, The Lesser Evil, p.83).

Bush's foreign policy doesn't seem quite so "roguish" if it could be
anticipated by the 1948 State Department.

Bush policies are also too congruent with more isolated efforts made by
successive U.S. administrations -- particularly, but not exclusively
--  the Reagan government (and wasn't it Clinton who first appointed a
"domestic military czar" and implemented "Operation Garden Plot"?). In
terms of secular trends, the Bush program represents one logical outcome of
the rightward drift of successive administrations following the end of the
postwar boom, a drift driven by bourgeois consensus.

On the other hand, I don't think that the Bush cabal is the same as the
Reagan administration. While the latter may qualify as the intellectual
authors, the political progenitors and even a dress rehearsal for the
former, the difference lies not in the ideology or personnel -- with which
the Bush Jr. administration represents continuity -- nor even individual
"roguish" policies, such as "rollback," but the systematic change in
preceding governing principles. Some have pointed out that Bush's economic
policies represent a blatant effort to restore 19th century class relations
(and expectations). The group of political policies like the Patriot Act,
the Homeland Security Act, TIPS, immigration policy, etc., represent a
systematic attempt to alter the political balance of forces and
institutional framework of hegemony decisively in line with the needs of
the rulers (as *expressed* previously by such instruments as the Trilateral
Commission). And Bush's foreign policy, summed up in the phrases "unipolar
world order," "eternal war," "pre-emptive attacks," represents a
significant policy change with respect to Reagan's foreign policy with its
proxy wars in Nicaragua and Afghanistan, if only because the USSR no longer
exists to constrain the naked bid for empire.

So, in my opinion, the Bush administration does represent a sea change in
politics, and a very dangerous one. But, precisely because it does
represent overall bourgeois consensus (which doesn't mean that all sectors
agree with it all of the time), as shown by the bipartisan support his
policies have enjoyed, I would argue that the Democrats do not represent an
alternative or a "lesser evil," except rhetorically. If a Democrat, whether
Dean or Clark, actually wins the presidency, I would not expect him to
dismantle the institutional framework constructed by Bush.

Even if the Bush administration were to stage- a coup d'etat under the
pretext of the war against terrorism -- as some fear -- I expect most
Democrats would support it, although THAT would almost certainly pare down
the ruling class consensus (which is why I believe it is unlikely). But,
remember the attempted coup that the Morgans, Duponts, Bushes, etc.,
attempted to foment against Roosevelt? They were no "rogue group" either,
but a significant section of the U.S. ruling class, which is why Roosevelt
didn't act against them. But I digress...

Mike


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism