|
It
is very difficult to have a proper view of the policies
of the US capitalist class without reading the Wall
Street Journal. This publication is aimed at the
capitalists, not in a passive manner, but in order
to stiffen their backbone, to unify them behind specific
objectives and to conduct a struggle with them when
they are missing what the Wall Street Journal
thinks is in their own fundamental interests. And
to conduct a struggle with them when they are not
ambitious enough. Such as over the past years, for
example.
Since
the collapse of Stalinism, the US is absolutely dominant
militarily, economically and technologically on the
world stage. The Wall Street Journal strategists
have a simple conclusion that they draw from this.
Go out there and dominate. The world is ours nobody
can stand in our way. Go out there and take over and,
not only that, but deliberately do it openly to drive
the lesson home to all. The US rules. What drove them
wild about Clinton was that he was always consulting
and dealing and talking and trying to get agreement
for US foreign policies.
Bush
in the Whitehouse is much closer to their hearts.
Representing the most savage and crude sections of
US capitalism, the energy sector and the military
industrial complex, the time has now come to really
show who is boss. This is what the Middle East plans
are about. And it would be a mistake to underestimate
the ambitions of these elements. They want to act
against Iraq and from this to put in place more compliant
regimes throughout the entire region and at the same
time let Israel expand and become an even more effective
base for them there. The Wall Street Journal
sneers at the "Arab Street". It says that
it has no power and should be ignored. Go into Iraq,
go into other areas if necessary, maybe a "regime
change" in Saudi Arabia also, maybe in Iran also.
And in Afghanistan they have this already. Their view
is to change the regimes in the whole area if they
can bring it off. And if they cannot it won't be for
want of trying. Of course they are wrong to sneer
at the "Arab Street". They may get a shock
from this direction yet. But their
thinking is that even if there are mass uprisings
and the present regimes are
brought down, who is there to replace them, there
are no mass left forces, there is no Stalinist world
anymore; they think that they can deal with any Islamic
regime that comes to power with military threats on
the one hand and oil money bribes on the other. The
world is in for some big events.
As
they contemplate this massive military and political
offensive the Wall Street Journal in their
September 11th issue took a look at their boy in the
Whitehouse. Was he up to the task? This is not an
unimportant question for them. Also, what was the
mood of the US masses? A question even more important.
They pointed out that while Bush's popularity was
very high, his approval rate is 64%, this was 12 percentage
points BELOW his fathers standing in September 1990,
that is before the Gulf war. This is a little worrying
for them. They are concerned that his support is not
higher given September 11th. Behind this less than
spectacular popularity rating lies the economic developments
and anger of the US working and middle classes at
the corporate criminality that has been exposed and
at the slow down in the economy. One of the things
that should be kept in mind, one of the things that
US capitalism can underestimate, is the possibilty
that in spite of the
massive propaganda around September 11th and war against
Iraq and "terrorism", there is still a real
anger amongst the US working class and middle class
about the role and activities of the corporations
here at home.
This
could very well explode in spite of the war propaganda.
It is very easy to see overkill on the part of the
capitalist media flowing from September 11th and a
real backlash against the call for war and more war.
"United we stand" looks a little lacking
in credibility when the owners of Enron, Worldcom,
the banks, the insurance and health care and pharmaceutical
companies etc are lining up to loot the pockets and
bank accounts of the US working and middle classes.
The
Wall Street Journal pointed out a few facts
about their boy Bush just so that their readers do
not get carried away with their own propaganda. Since
Bush came to power, the Dow Jones has declined by
nearly 2000 points, unemployment has gone up from
4.2% to 5.7%, in the six quarters of the Bush presidency
growth of gross domestic product has averaged 1.1%,
down from 3.6% in the last six quarters of Clinton,
and in an NBC poll only 38% thought that the country
was safer now than a year ago. They are worried about
Bush's base at home.
But
then, and you have to give it to the Wall Street
Journal, they do not miss but defend their class
and its representatives. If the heads of the AFL-CIO
defended the working class like these people defend
their class we would be in good shape. They talk about
their boy Bush, and is he up to the job. And in line
with their time honored policy they are never prepared
to concede to any, even the slightest, criticism of
any of the representatives who are doing what they
want. This is what they write: "The president
who spits the word "Nuance" as a pejorative
must persuade the public" (about attacking Iraq).
They go on, "Mr Bush's critics were always wrong
to sneer at his brain power" (Their boy is smart
you see). And then in a phrase that should go down
in history, they advise: "But this isn't a challenge
on which he can indulge his penchant for cutting corners
intellectually". There you have it. Bush is not
stupid. He just "cuts corners intellectually".
My neighbor's labrador, which cannot figure out where
he is supposed to go to the toilet, is not stupid,
he just "cuts corners intellectually". None
of us are in any way low in brain power we just "cut
corners intellectually". As I say, we are in
for a rough road.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
