Friday, October 10, 2008

big capitalists and their pawns

I think the big capitalists out there have always sought to influence government, since governments, especially democratic governments, can interfere with their plans by empowering the less well-off. This, to the wealthy capitalist, is the greatest injustice - those that have profited from the system are forced to give back (some) of their profits.

But it's a dangerous game. At the same time that they seek to avoid being controlled by government, they are also reliant on it - to maintain order, and to protect and legitimize their investments. A smart capitalist would realize that it is in their best interest to invest in the stability and long term viability of government, while at the same time trying to limit the government's ability to protect working class people from them.

Alas, no one ever said the capitalists were smart. Actually, people say that all the time. But when they get themselves a deregulation through their influence on government, the competetive advantage to them is limited, and brief. The rule change will apply accross the board, and other capitalists will (and yea, must) adjust to the new playing field.

The really smart ones play this cycle as well. Building up wealth during a huge, ill fated boom cycle, they sell at the right time and retain wealth while the rest of the systems collapse. They increase their power this way.

Political leaders that can appear populist but yet are too weak to actually be populist are the kind of political leaders these big capitalist players like. There are different kinds of populism. They hate the 'redistribution of wealth' kind of populism. They're okay with the kumbaya liberal 'love everybody' kind of populism. A lot of Democratic politicians are in this group. But the kind of faux-populist the big capitalist players really prefer is the religious, racist, sexist anti-government kind of faux-populist. Because this kind whips working class citizens up in a frenzy against other working class citizens, cutting their real power in half. Or in quarters.

Still, when the big capitalist players promote politicians like this, they are playing with fire. Sometimes, the politician is useful, but really, really crazy, and a little smarter than they thought. A person like this can really become a dictator and start exterminating people. Hitler is a good example of this. George W. Bush is not - he has that religious sort of populism, but he really doesn't care enough - about anything, I suspect. He's a perfect vessel. McCain is very similar actually. In terms of popular leadership power, he's impotent. But he gives the impression of being a populist - less religious and more 'straight talking fairness'. Bill Clinton was a liberal kumbaya sort of populist with a little bit of a wealth distribution streak, which freaked out the big capitalist players probably more than it should have. Clinton had no problem with the players keeping power. He just wanted the people to have a place at the table, to keep the system going smoothly without people getting hurt too badly. That's why he gets along with George H.W. Bush, who is a more conservative, Republican version of the same. Keep the system going, keep the players happy, keep the people happy enough not to revolt. Man, those players had it good under Clinton. But they couldn't stand it. They wanted more. They are sick, sick people - not really smart, with a self-destructive addiction to wealth.

They wanted more, and they got it with George W. Bush. And now, the system teeters on the brink of collapse, with all but the richest and most entrenched big capitalist players in peril of losing everything. And now, I think, they're split - do we go with the moderate democrat, let the system correct, and mitigate the damage? Or do we go for another one we can control, and keep the scheme going further with more outlandish governmental malfeasance?

Obama is the former, McCain/Palin is the latter. It is scary enough to think of McCain and Palin winning, and the consequences of that. But to me, the thing that is scarier still is the prostpect of Palin becoming President.

I think she may be more than those big capitalist powers can handle. She's got an ideological, religious, dominionist streak, and I think she really believes it. She might be able to outmanuever them and actually implement her radical, apocalyptic agenda.

There are some that think that the Bush administration will, in the end, not cede power - that they will invent or take advantage of a phony or semi-phony crisis to remain and become true dictators. I don't think so. It's always been the Bush way to drive a company or organization into the ground and then jump ship. I think they mis-timed it a little, but I think that's what they're going to do. The treasury is looted, the oil companies are flush with cash. The cheap oil is at least somewhat under our control. The job is done.

Palin on the other hand.... She ain't lazy like Bush. And she isn't a child of the big capitalist players or their friendly politicians. She's a whole 'nother animal. She's more like Cheney, except Cheney isn't religious. I think, potentially a President Palin could become a dictator Palin, complete with military misadventures and bad times for non-believers in the Christian Dominionist thing. I'm not saying she necessarily could or would do that, but the potential is much much greater than with Bush, Cheney, or McCain.

The US attorneys in the swing states are already pursuing their bogus 'fraud' cases. The electronic voting machines are in place. The mainstream press are in semi-revolt against McCain, and some of the American people are slowly waking up, jarred out of their anti-depressant cable-TV stupor by their evaporationg 401K's.

It's down to the wire here. Good versus evil - the United States of America hangs in the balance. If McCain wins, those big capitalist players are about to get a whole lot more than they bargained for. If Obama wins, this country survives to see another day (and fight through Great Depression II)


Blogger Andy said...

I've always thought the "big capitalists" as you call them vote against their own interests. Another example of this is how tax cuts for the poor will help them a hell of a lot more than tax cuts for themselves. You don't pay taxes unless you make money, and if you give the tax cuts to the people who will spend it, you'll make more money (especially if you own a company like Wal-Mart).

Hey, I think you should e-mail people everytime you post. I'm tired of being the only person commenting on here. Just e-mail people that you know wouldn't have minded if you actually sent this in an e-mail instead of a blog.

9:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home