The precedent that internal improvements such as great canals were not part of the responsibilities of the national government had been established with the Erie Canal itself, a monumental project that took two decades to accomplish.
New York had gone to the Jefferson Administration looking for federal money to build a connection between the Hudson and the Great Lakes.
The debate was long and took years to sort out. For Jefferson and others, there was a philosophical issue, of whether such allocations from the treasury, and even such acts, lay within the power of the federal government as chartered in the Constitution (many in both parties were eager to figure out a way to say yes).
These considerations, however, were overridden, as they often were in that day, by regional issues of power. Despite the obvious national advantages of building the canal*. the other states objected to a federal outlay of money for the project on the grounds that not only was the project entirely within the territory of one state, it would, despite the national benefit, greatly elevate the position of that state with respects to the others. It did not take great foresight in that day to realize that by making the Hudson** into the water highway to the interior of the continent, New York City would be crowned among its rivals as the premier city of North America.
The result of this defeat on the national level was that the State of New York had to figure out a way to finance the project on its own, which it subsequently proceeded to do. Over the course of the next two decades the backers essentially cobbled together a string of allocations from the New York State Legislature as well as multiple rounds of subscriptions from private investors, in order to survey land, acquire rights, and eventually begin construction.
The result was one of the great triumphs of American history. The canal indeed helped propel New York and New York City into prominence and regional power. It had been paid for entirely by the State of New York, and by private funds. It seemed everyone had been proven right. The system had worked.
But that was New York, which was known even in the colonial era for its wealth (which in that day was not yet concentrated in the City, but was skewed more upstate among large landowners).
Out on the frontier, things were very different. There were hardly any wealthy landowners to fall back on for private subscriptions. Money as a whole was scarce. Even if such projects could find private subscriptions, who had the patience to wait as long as it took to build the Erie Canal?
All could see that canals in Illinois would open the Great Lakes to the Mississippi. The little burg of Chicago, at the mouth of one of the ancient portage rivers, would then lie along a continuous water route from New York to St. Louis and New Orleans. Commerce would flow through the continent like a circulatory system. Everyone in the entire state would benefit economically. Civilization would inevitably flood into the frontier.
But how could the Illinois legislature finance it? Like other states, in order to solve this problem, they turned to the credit markets, both in the eastern U.S., and also across the Atlantic.
*Not just economic but strategic. See note below.
**instead of the St. Lawrence. By connecting the Hudson to the Great Lakes, the canal
wold mean that New York would steal the
natural advantage held by (British) Montreal, in guarding the most
natural access point to the Great Lakes and thus to the interior of the
continent. The strategic advantage of this for the United States would
have been intimately understood by all in that day. The American hold on the Ohio Country and beyond was still tenuous in that day, and the American area was occupied by the British in an ongoing basis until 1815. Had not Madison
vetoed the appropriations bill for it in 1817, the project would have
received federal backing.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
The Hunger of Lincoln
The political obsession of the young Abraham Lincoln, and many men like him on the western frontier of those days, could be summed up in two words: internal improvements.
On the frontier, men hungered to bring civilization to them. Internal improvements, everyone knew, were the key to bringing it there.
The phrase was very potent in its day. It usually meant canals and roads. Roughly it could be equivalent to mean large-scale public works, but in those days it was not assumed that such projects would necessarily be taken by public entities. The fact that we think of these projects as naturally public today reflects the victory of the political movement to make it so.
In the first half of the Nineteenth Century, the political party best associated with a platform of internal improvements were the Whigs. Not surprisingly, they were led during much of that era by a prominent man from the western frontier, namely Henry Clay of Kentucky, which was a hotbed of Whigism.
The platform of the Whig Party, on a national level, reflected the frustration and hunger of the West at bringing civilization to it. This frustration was borne out of the political reality of the day, namely that internal improvements, although considered within the realm of what government could undertake, were nevertheless established as being (with few exception) the responsibility of the individual state governments, and not the national government.
On the frontier, men hungered to bring civilization to them. Internal improvements, everyone knew, were the key to bringing it there.
The phrase was very potent in its day. It usually meant canals and roads. Roughly it could be equivalent to mean large-scale public works, but in those days it was not assumed that such projects would necessarily be taken by public entities. The fact that we think of these projects as naturally public today reflects the victory of the political movement to make it so.
In the first half of the Nineteenth Century, the political party best associated with a platform of internal improvements were the Whigs. Not surprisingly, they were led during much of that era by a prominent man from the western frontier, namely Henry Clay of Kentucky, which was a hotbed of Whigism.
The platform of the Whig Party, on a national level, reflected the frustration and hunger of the West at bringing civilization to it. This frustration was borne out of the political reality of the day, namely that internal improvements, although considered within the realm of what government could undertake, were nevertheless established as being (with few exception) the responsibility of the individual state governments, and not the national government.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
The Reason for Government
The building of canals, according to one historian, was the reason behind the creation of the first known governments (in Ancient Sumer, to divert the unpredictable river floods). These were specifically the first city states.
By the time of the American Revolution, little had changed in many ways. Men still wanted to create waterways, but now it was principally for transportation, mostly to trade goods.
Geography is historical destiny, according to another famous historian. Canals changed geography radically.
They had already done so in recent memory in Britain and continental Europe, in an ongoing way that generated the early industrial revolution.
In America, especially in the Northern United States, the idea was as is Europe: use canals to leverage the existing navigable river network. In America this river system was extensive and navigable throughout the continent, hindered only in certain areas requiring portages, or the crossing of mountains, but in a way that could be overcome through the right engineering.
The earliest canal networks in America were not surprisingly in New England, and in the Middle Atlantic states. The one that would become the cradle of the expanded America network was the one centered on the Delaware River, specifically by linking this river to the Hudson to the east and the Susquehanna to the west. This network destined upper New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania to be the natural cradle of American industry, especially given the coal reserves nearby. It carried Philadelphia into a prominence past the colonial era and into the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries.*
The most profound single alteration of the natural geography of the continent, however, was the building of the Erie Canal, which, after it opened in 1825, solidified a link between New York City (and Boston) and what would become Chicago. The nation (at least the North) was thus bolted together by water, one end to the other, by the third decade on the Nineteenth Century.
Out in frontier Illinois, at the furthest inland reaches of the navigable system, where the portages connected to the Mississippi basin, men like Abraham Lincoln, who had traveled on the river extensively in his youth, could easily see that canals would one day make Illinois the center of a great network of trade and civilization.
They formed political movements and ran for legislature with the idea of using the power of the state in order to make this happen.
In a way it was full circle, back to Ancient Sumer.
* The strategic position of Philadelphia was amplified by the later construction of the navigational part of the Main Line of Public Works, that boldly leaped across the ancient barrier of the Allegheny Mountains, and linked the Susquehanna (and thus the whole eastern seaboard) to the upper Ohio valley. This network across the Allgeghenies drew both parts of Pennsylvania together as a powerful trans-mountain political entity, as well as opened the West.
By the time of the American Revolution, little had changed in many ways. Men still wanted to create waterways, but now it was principally for transportation, mostly to trade goods.
Geography is historical destiny, according to another famous historian. Canals changed geography radically.
They had already done so in recent memory in Britain and continental Europe, in an ongoing way that generated the early industrial revolution.
In America, especially in the Northern United States, the idea was as is Europe: use canals to leverage the existing navigable river network. In America this river system was extensive and navigable throughout the continent, hindered only in certain areas requiring portages, or the crossing of mountains, but in a way that could be overcome through the right engineering.
The earliest canal networks in America were not surprisingly in New England, and in the Middle Atlantic states. The one that would become the cradle of the expanded America network was the one centered on the Delaware River, specifically by linking this river to the Hudson to the east and the Susquehanna to the west. This network destined upper New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania to be the natural cradle of American industry, especially given the coal reserves nearby. It carried Philadelphia into a prominence past the colonial era and into the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries.*
The most profound single alteration of the natural geography of the continent, however, was the building of the Erie Canal, which, after it opened in 1825, solidified a link between New York City (and Boston) and what would become Chicago. The nation (at least the North) was thus bolted together by water, one end to the other, by the third decade on the Nineteenth Century.
Out in frontier Illinois, at the furthest inland reaches of the navigable system, where the portages connected to the Mississippi basin, men like Abraham Lincoln, who had traveled on the river extensively in his youth, could easily see that canals would one day make Illinois the center of a great network of trade and civilization.
They formed political movements and ran for legislature with the idea of using the power of the state in order to make this happen.
In a way it was full circle, back to Ancient Sumer.
* The strategic position of Philadelphia was amplified by the later construction of the navigational part of the Main Line of Public Works, that boldly leaped across the ancient barrier of the Allegheny Mountains, and linked the Susquehanna (and thus the whole eastern seaboard) to the upper Ohio valley. This network across the Allgeghenies drew both parts of Pennsylvania together as a powerful trans-mountain political entity, as well as opened the West.
No American Nobility
One of the fundamental questions about New World society, in particular in British North America, was whether it would adopt an extension of the Old World titles of nobility (i.e.. the Norman lines)
The answer in the Anglo-Saxon world was no. Partly this was because titles of nobility had begun to be less important overall in Britain, following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which brought about the beginnings of new middle class, and was right around the time that the British colonies were taking off.
The last serious attempt to create a line of American nobility following the Revolution was in the Society of the Cincinnati. The country was too vast for such a thing to work. It was not necessary, especially after the years after opening up of the Ohio Country.
Men dreamed of greater things. They dreams of making canals.
The answer in the Anglo-Saxon world was no. Partly this was because titles of nobility had begun to be less important overall in Britain, following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which brought about the beginnings of new middle class, and was right around the time that the British colonies were taking off.
The last serious attempt to create a line of American nobility following the Revolution was in the Society of the Cincinnati. The country was too vast for such a thing to work. It was not necessary, especially after the years after opening up of the Ohio Country.
Men dreamed of greater things. They dreams of making canals.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
The Genesis of the Establishment
The peace at the end of the Napoleonic wars yielded one of the most famous examples of leverage in world history.
There were many victors present at the Vienna conference, because so many nations had participated in the alliance against Napoleon. There were many agendas that had to be balanced. But historians agree that one nation came after from the conference with exactly what it wanted, which in fact was the key to world mastery in the coming century, and the conditions for creating a whole new world economy.
The victors at the conference, being almost entirely continental in orientation, essentially allowed Britain to gain a military monopoly over the high seas. This amazing development, which was hardly challenged by other nations at the conference, ended a period of approximately three centuries during which the various European powers had struggled over control of the oceans in the age of sailing ships. In the end, Britain had come out on top, having put down its last rival, which was France.
In the decades that followed, the British monopoly on the high seas turned out to be a massive boon for world economy of all nations, not just Britain. The ability of single naval force to patrol the oceans and to keep them free of piracy, among other things, provided the stage by which world trade could explode in volume, right as the industrial age was taking off.
For all its other drawbacks, the Victorian era (especially the latter half of the century) is regarded as a period of great liberalization and stability, with advancement of openness and prosperity broadly across society, including the rise of a large middle class in many nations. It also provided the circumstances for the rise of populist awakenings and democratically inspired revolutions across the western world.
The triumph of the British Century is due to the fact that Britain had been wise early enough after the Napoleonic wars ended to know that its military position alone, even at sea, would be insufficient to sustain this situation over the long term. Thus began a century long era in British politics and statecraft known as the Great Game, which can be interpreted as saying that they were looking for the best forms of leverage in any situation over time, to maintain their position at the top.
Not surprisingly, one of the first things, if not the first thing, that the British obtained monopoly over, in order to sustain their military power, was mastery over capital, via the formation of a new global banking system that was based on gold and centered in London.
Of course, this would also provided the means by the which the new American elite, in the second half of the century, could most easily join with their British counterparts ultimately to create a unified Anglo-American ruling class.
There were many victors present at the Vienna conference, because so many nations had participated in the alliance against Napoleon. There were many agendas that had to be balanced. But historians agree that one nation came after from the conference with exactly what it wanted, which in fact was the key to world mastery in the coming century, and the conditions for creating a whole new world economy.
The victors at the conference, being almost entirely continental in orientation, essentially allowed Britain to gain a military monopoly over the high seas. This amazing development, which was hardly challenged by other nations at the conference, ended a period of approximately three centuries during which the various European powers had struggled over control of the oceans in the age of sailing ships. In the end, Britain had come out on top, having put down its last rival, which was France.
In the decades that followed, the British monopoly on the high seas turned out to be a massive boon for world economy of all nations, not just Britain. The ability of single naval force to patrol the oceans and to keep them free of piracy, among other things, provided the stage by which world trade could explode in volume, right as the industrial age was taking off.
For all its other drawbacks, the Victorian era (especially the latter half of the century) is regarded as a period of great liberalization and stability, with advancement of openness and prosperity broadly across society, including the rise of a large middle class in many nations. It also provided the circumstances for the rise of populist awakenings and democratically inspired revolutions across the western world.
The triumph of the British Century is due to the fact that Britain had been wise early enough after the Napoleonic wars ended to know that its military position alone, even at sea, would be insufficient to sustain this situation over the long term. Thus began a century long era in British politics and statecraft known as the Great Game, which can be interpreted as saying that they were looking for the best forms of leverage in any situation over time, to maintain their position at the top.
Not surprisingly, one of the first things, if not the first thing, that the British obtained monopoly over, in order to sustain their military power, was mastery over capital, via the formation of a new global banking system that was based on gold and centered in London.
Of course, this would also provided the means by the which the new American elite, in the second half of the century, could most easily join with their British counterparts ultimately to create a unified Anglo-American ruling class.
Winning Requires Leverage
Winning requires leverage. Always winning means always having leverage.
Leverage means having a means by which one can always enforce one's will on the other side, no matter what the particulars of the circumstance.
It is very important to understand the principle in general. To build an effective stable ruling class, in any era, it is necessary to understand the chain of leverage, and to concentrate on gaining and keeping control of the highest forms of leverage.
What are the highest forms of leverage, or more accurately---what have they been at any point of history? (for the chain of leverage is not constant over historical time).
The lowest form of leverage is enforcing one's will is through physical violence or threat. To put it bluntly, a loaded gun or a bayonet, is a spectacular means, in the short run, of getting someone to do what you want. But the effect only lasts as long as the weapon is pointed. It can produce the opposite long term effect than what one desired.
Likewise, on a large scale, control over armies, navies, air forces, and ballistic missiles, is a tremendous way of projecting one's will onto an entire nation or even the world in any immediate circumstance. Control over such forces is absolute prerequisite of power. But as on the personal, reliance on this alone is insufficient, and can produce great complications in regard to the maintenance of stability.
For one thing, men simply tire of pointing weapons at each other. Armies want to go home.The people desire peace most naturally.
Partly because of this, the ownership of a great military---although an absolute prerequisite for maintenance of power---is not at the apex of the pyramid of leverage. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Since the end of the Napoleonic wars at least, it is generally something that one controls by means of leverage through other forms of power.
Leverage means having a means by which one can always enforce one's will on the other side, no matter what the particulars of the circumstance.
It is very important to understand the principle in general. To build an effective stable ruling class, in any era, it is necessary to understand the chain of leverage, and to concentrate on gaining and keeping control of the highest forms of leverage.
What are the highest forms of leverage, or more accurately---what have they been at any point of history? (for the chain of leverage is not constant over historical time).
The lowest form of leverage is enforcing one's will is through physical violence or threat. To put it bluntly, a loaded gun or a bayonet, is a spectacular means, in the short run, of getting someone to do what you want. But the effect only lasts as long as the weapon is pointed. It can produce the opposite long term effect than what one desired.
Likewise, on a large scale, control over armies, navies, air forces, and ballistic missiles, is a tremendous way of projecting one's will onto an entire nation or even the world in any immediate circumstance. Control over such forces is absolute prerequisite of power. But as on the personal, reliance on this alone is insufficient, and can produce great complications in regard to the maintenance of stability.
For one thing, men simply tire of pointing weapons at each other. Armies want to go home.The people desire peace most naturally.
Partly because of this, the ownership of a great military---although an absolute prerequisite for maintenance of power---is not at the apex of the pyramid of leverage. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Since the end of the Napoleonic wars at least, it is generally something that one controls by means of leverage through other forms of power.
Saturday, March 26, 2016
The Heidi Game
Ted Cruz's public actions betray those of a man who does not consider himself an insider, but very much wants to be proclaimed as the adopted scion of the Establishment. By far he is not the first man to be in those shoes, and sometimes in the past they were filled by men who through pluck and marriage, were successfully at establishing their family lines as future members of the ruling class (although they themselves remained as junior insiders).
But Cruz is not even there yet. He is yet an outsider. He has had to hustle to get where he is, including adopting Texas as his home, a method of legitimacy used exactly the same way by the Bush family. But he is not trusted by them, and it is too late in life for him to become a true insider member of the elite. He has certainly given his children the opportunity to marry into the high elite, however, which is the traditional way in which junior families ascend to higher status. The key is that it must play out over several generations.
For this and other reasons, Cruz is reminiscent in his career of Richard Nixon, another outsider who was semi-adopted by the elite but never allowed to become a full member. Nixon's fate (ignominious downfall at the hands of the Establishment itself) should be a reminder of what happens to those who are not fully in the circle of power, when they are no longer useful to the Establishment.
Cruz's best play so far has been his marriage to Heidi Nelson, who is a fully-made insider (of junior rank), and who has played all the right cards in her life to become a member of the circle of power. In the Establishment eyes, she would make a far more acceptable candidate than her husband.
In some ways she is the perfect Republican counterpart of Hillary Clinton---the last one standing, holding up that wing of the Establishment.
But Cruz is not even there yet. He is yet an outsider. He has had to hustle to get where he is, including adopting Texas as his home, a method of legitimacy used exactly the same way by the Bush family. But he is not trusted by them, and it is too late in life for him to become a true insider member of the elite. He has certainly given his children the opportunity to marry into the high elite, however, which is the traditional way in which junior families ascend to higher status. The key is that it must play out over several generations.
For this and other reasons, Cruz is reminiscent in his career of Richard Nixon, another outsider who was semi-adopted by the elite but never allowed to become a full member. Nixon's fate (ignominious downfall at the hands of the Establishment itself) should be a reminder of what happens to those who are not fully in the circle of power, when they are no longer useful to the Establishment.
Cruz's best play so far has been his marriage to Heidi Nelson, who is a fully-made insider (of junior rank), and who has played all the right cards in her life to become a member of the circle of power. In the Establishment eyes, she would make a far more acceptable candidate than her husband.
In some ways she is the perfect Republican counterpart of Hillary Clinton---the last one standing, holding up that wing of the Establishment.
The Sanders Play
From the beginning of the campaign, the Sanders movement has had the character of a typical modern insurgency, one that garners up to a third of more of the base of support of its party, based on fresh new ideas that appeal to the college crowd and intellectual set. Previous examples include Eugene McCarthy, Jesse Jackson, and Ron Paul.
Such campaigns serve the Establishment well by field testing the ideas and (to use the modern jargon) memes that will ulimately steer the demos of controlled democracy toward suppporting the correct insider candidates. This phenomenon and strategy of the Establishment is sometimes derisively called sheepdogging.
Sheepdogging, to adopt the term for now, is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the Establishment. This is because the Establishment, being elite guardians removed from the demos, cannot intuitive understand what motivates the people. The Establishment depend on insurgencies to create and reveal the popular will in a continuing evolving fashion.
The media is designed to feed themes back to the people, and to amplify the trends of the moment towards an overall goal of societal conservativeness (as opposed to social conservativeness), which is simply the idea that no matter what else happens in society and the world, the Establishment will still be in charge.
In the mind of the Establishment, this process of co-opting populist themes is proof that their system does indeed "serve the people," since it must necessary discern and harvest the raw emotions of the people on a continual basis, and refine these energies in the interests of stability of the (otherwise fragile) global postindustrial world.
Such insurgent campaigns as the Sanders movement are welcome by the Establishment precisely because they are "doomed" in the traditional sense, in the candidate never had a chance to get close to the real levers of power.
Many fail-safe mechanisms have existed over the decades to prevent such a thing, with modern radio and television media being the most powerful mechanism.
Like clockwork, the supporters of these failed candidates go back to the endorsed Establishment one, and their energy is used to feed the stability of the system. They grumble about it, and some even stay home on election day, but nevertheless they vote based on the idea that their side's candidate is "infinitely better" than the insider candidate of the other party. Electoral "trinket issues" are dangled for support, based on the rhetoric of the insurgency. After victory, a few of them are enacted to satiate populist cravings in issues that Establishment cares little about, or actually endorses.
The 2016 election is a little different, however, because the Establishment is hard pressed to the point of crumbling. The normal fail-safe mechanisms that would have prevented insurgent candidacies apparently are greatly weakened. Specifically the media feels impotent to force the demos of each party to rally on the consensus insider pick.
In the Republican Party the situation has gotten so bad that the Establishment is on the verge of being driven out of power completely (something that is unacceptable to them, and that they will do hardly anything to stop). That the Establishment has had to turn to a man they do not trust to be their standard bearer is indicative of their desperation.
The revolt in the Democratic Party has been more traditional so far. Initially Sanders was a perfect sheepdog during the phase in which his candidacy could be dismissed by the media. But the Establishment is quite weak in the Democratic Party as well, and the crumbling of the Republican Establishment has accelerated the process among the Democrats.
Sanders supporters sense this, and believe with good reason that there is a real chance for an overthrow of the party control. They see what is happening in the Republican Party and tell themselves why could it not happen in their party as well.
As long as the media is kept off guard, and in a state of being unable to declare the consensus winners, then everything is still up for grabs.
Thus the bar for Sanders to continue is very low at this point. He barely needs to win any states---just stay competitive in most of them. The goal would be to deny Hillary an outright majority consisting only of her bound delegates.
Even if she goes into the convention with a majority, Sanders and his supporters will likely not concede, based on the idea that they can yet convince enough party superdelegates to change their minds.
Given that Hillary is likely to keep her delegate lead all the way to the convention, the only viable way in which this strategy will work is that if Hillary can be disqualified as a candidate. As the convention nears, and as the media does its best to try to put forth the message that Hillary is the certain victor, enormous pressure will be on the Sanders supporters to find a way to make Hillary unacceptable. If they can pull this off, then there will be little or nothing to stop a Sanders-backed takeover of the Democratic Party at the convention. He can freely pick someone like Elizabeth Warren as a VP, and (according to his supporters), they will triumph over any Republican, Establishment or otherwise, in the general election.
The supporters of Sanders sense victory is very close for them. It simply depends on disqualifying Hillary in the minds of enough people, so that ideally she steps aside and lets Sanders win.
We are probably past the point of no return, in regard to a graceful end of the Sanders campaign in which the energy of his movement is channeled back into the Establishment-backed candidate. If they must, of course, Sanders' supporters will suck it up and vote for Hillary in the end. After all, they still believe in the Establishment.* They just want to run it.
* (as seen by how much they yearn for a restoration of it within the Republican Party).
Such campaigns serve the Establishment well by field testing the ideas and (to use the modern jargon) memes that will ulimately steer the demos of controlled democracy toward suppporting the correct insider candidates. This phenomenon and strategy of the Establishment is sometimes derisively called sheepdogging.
Sheepdogging, to adopt the term for now, is absolutely necessary for the continuation of the Establishment. This is because the Establishment, being elite guardians removed from the demos, cannot intuitive understand what motivates the people. The Establishment depend on insurgencies to create and reveal the popular will in a continuing evolving fashion.
The media is designed to feed themes back to the people, and to amplify the trends of the moment towards an overall goal of societal conservativeness (as opposed to social conservativeness), which is simply the idea that no matter what else happens in society and the world, the Establishment will still be in charge.
In the mind of the Establishment, this process of co-opting populist themes is proof that their system does indeed "serve the people," since it must necessary discern and harvest the raw emotions of the people on a continual basis, and refine these energies in the interests of stability of the (otherwise fragile) global postindustrial world.
Such insurgent campaigns as the Sanders movement are welcome by the Establishment precisely because they are "doomed" in the traditional sense, in the candidate never had a chance to get close to the real levers of power.
Many fail-safe mechanisms have existed over the decades to prevent such a thing, with modern radio and television media being the most powerful mechanism.
Like clockwork, the supporters of these failed candidates go back to the endorsed Establishment one, and their energy is used to feed the stability of the system. They grumble about it, and some even stay home on election day, but nevertheless they vote based on the idea that their side's candidate is "infinitely better" than the insider candidate of the other party. Electoral "trinket issues" are dangled for support, based on the rhetoric of the insurgency. After victory, a few of them are enacted to satiate populist cravings in issues that Establishment cares little about, or actually endorses.
The 2016 election is a little different, however, because the Establishment is hard pressed to the point of crumbling. The normal fail-safe mechanisms that would have prevented insurgent candidacies apparently are greatly weakened. Specifically the media feels impotent to force the demos of each party to rally on the consensus insider pick.
In the Republican Party the situation has gotten so bad that the Establishment is on the verge of being driven out of power completely (something that is unacceptable to them, and that they will do hardly anything to stop). That the Establishment has had to turn to a man they do not trust to be their standard bearer is indicative of their desperation.
The revolt in the Democratic Party has been more traditional so far. Initially Sanders was a perfect sheepdog during the phase in which his candidacy could be dismissed by the media. But the Establishment is quite weak in the Democratic Party as well, and the crumbling of the Republican Establishment has accelerated the process among the Democrats.
Sanders supporters sense this, and believe with good reason that there is a real chance for an overthrow of the party control. They see what is happening in the Republican Party and tell themselves why could it not happen in their party as well.
As long as the media is kept off guard, and in a state of being unable to declare the consensus winners, then everything is still up for grabs.
Thus the bar for Sanders to continue is very low at this point. He barely needs to win any states---just stay competitive in most of them. The goal would be to deny Hillary an outright majority consisting only of her bound delegates.
Even if she goes into the convention with a majority, Sanders and his supporters will likely not concede, based on the idea that they can yet convince enough party superdelegates to change their minds.
Given that Hillary is likely to keep her delegate lead all the way to the convention, the only viable way in which this strategy will work is that if Hillary can be disqualified as a candidate. As the convention nears, and as the media does its best to try to put forth the message that Hillary is the certain victor, enormous pressure will be on the Sanders supporters to find a way to make Hillary unacceptable. If they can pull this off, then there will be little or nothing to stop a Sanders-backed takeover of the Democratic Party at the convention. He can freely pick someone like Elizabeth Warren as a VP, and (according to his supporters), they will triumph over any Republican, Establishment or otherwise, in the general election.
The supporters of Sanders sense victory is very close for them. It simply depends on disqualifying Hillary in the minds of enough people, so that ideally she steps aside and lets Sanders win.
We are probably past the point of no return, in regard to a graceful end of the Sanders campaign in which the energy of his movement is channeled back into the Establishment-backed candidate. If they must, of course, Sanders' supporters will suck it up and vote for Hillary in the end. After all, they still believe in the Establishment.* They just want to run it.
* (as seen by how much they yearn for a restoration of it within the Republican Party).
Friday, March 25, 2016
Always Win: the 2016 Presidential Race
Of the candidates left, we have one who is pure Establishment insider (Hillary Clinton), and three who are not (Cruz, Sanders, and Trump).
The supporters of both Cruz and Sanders believe in the Establishment and want it to continue. They simply want to reform it in their own image and to their liking. Trump represents an apocalyptic end to the Establishment, and is therefore the most unacceptable of the three.
Ideally, in the Establishment thinking, Jeb Bush will find a way to be President in January.
This is how it goes: nothing is conceded to Trump ever. Every state must be contested, every delegate fought for until the very end. He must not gain the magic threshold of 1237 committed delegates. If he gains that number of bound delegates, it would still be possible to thwart him at that point at the convention, but it would not play out well. He must be stopped short of that, even if by one delegate. So we are going to have every primary be a big battle, all the way to California on June 7. It will be as intense as Iowa and New Hampshire, all the way down the line.
If Trump can be stopped even one committed delegate short, there will be a way at the convention to scuttle his nomination. This is just a fact. They will find a way to do it. They know how.
Cruz will not get the nomination. Having sold his soul to them (his plan all along), he will be used and thrown away by them, just as Rubio was. Another candidate can be picked at that point. Why go through all that trouble if not to put Jeb Bush back on the ticket?
Cruz's supporters are die-hard believers in the Republican part of the Establishment, so they will feel slighted from this maneouver. Almost certainly we are looking at a Bush-Cruz ticket, to propitiate them. Cruz will never be allowed any real power, however, as they don't like him and don't trust him.
Kasich did his role in winning Ohio. His reward is nothing---because they don't have to give anything, so they won't.
How does Bush win the presidency?
His opponent will be Hillary of course. Given recent electoral history, Hillary would probably beat him in a straight up contest, so she must be hamstrung. This is happening exactly with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the best thing to happen for Bush all this past year, in that he is siphoning off legitimacy and support from Clinton, so that when all is said and done, there will be little enthusiasm for her.
Ideally Sanders' supporters will be so disgusted that they will urge him to run on a third party ticket, such as the Green Party. Why not?
In November, Jeb wins in a narrow election and takes oath of office in 2017. Obviously Jeb is not very enthusiastic about being President. But the Establishment (and especially the Bush family) is very enthusiastic about not losing the Presidency, and even more importantly they do not want to let go of either of the two major political parties. Jeb's election will be a defensive election for them, simply to maintain power.
The worst case scenario is Hillary beats Jeb, which an acceptable outcome. In some ways, one thinks Jeb would prefer that.*
Will any of this happen? I don't know. But certainly this is one of the possible scenarios that they have considered as viable. If yours truly can think it up, then surely they have done so already, and more. I know this because their motto is Always Win. That means never giving up. It means figuring out a way to take it from the other guy, just when it seems like it is over. One keeps fighting forever, looking for the last minute victory. Hillary earned her stripes this way in 2008 against Obama, and showed she is worthy as a successor to the line of the Establishment (the Democratic branch).
But it is too late really for all them. Even if it played out as this, and Jeb (or Hillary) found a way to win, it would simply mean that they volunteered to be the ultimate scapegoat as it all came crashing down around them.
*One thing that could really muck up the works, and spoil the whole plan at this point, is if Cruz's campaign collapses and Trump steamrolls the rest of the way into the convention while piling up more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot. If Trump can actually seize the Republican Party from them, you will see end-of-the-world kind of desperation from them. Likewise if Hillary were to collapse before the convention, and Sanders could somehow become the nominee, then he could beat Bush-Cruz in a straight up two-party election. Hillary can be allowed to collapse, but not until after she becomes the nominee. They cannot lose the party---either one.
The supporters of both Cruz and Sanders believe in the Establishment and want it to continue. They simply want to reform it in their own image and to their liking. Trump represents an apocalyptic end to the Establishment, and is therefore the most unacceptable of the three.
Ideally, in the Establishment thinking, Jeb Bush will find a way to be President in January.
This is how it goes: nothing is conceded to Trump ever. Every state must be contested, every delegate fought for until the very end. He must not gain the magic threshold of 1237 committed delegates. If he gains that number of bound delegates, it would still be possible to thwart him at that point at the convention, but it would not play out well. He must be stopped short of that, even if by one delegate. So we are going to have every primary be a big battle, all the way to California on June 7. It will be as intense as Iowa and New Hampshire, all the way down the line.
If Trump can be stopped even one committed delegate short, there will be a way at the convention to scuttle his nomination. This is just a fact. They will find a way to do it. They know how.
Cruz will not get the nomination. Having sold his soul to them (his plan all along), he will be used and thrown away by them, just as Rubio was. Another candidate can be picked at that point. Why go through all that trouble if not to put Jeb Bush back on the ticket?
Cruz's supporters are die-hard believers in the Republican part of the Establishment, so they will feel slighted from this maneouver. Almost certainly we are looking at a Bush-Cruz ticket, to propitiate them. Cruz will never be allowed any real power, however, as they don't like him and don't trust him.
Kasich did his role in winning Ohio. His reward is nothing---because they don't have to give anything, so they won't.
How does Bush win the presidency?
His opponent will be Hillary of course. Given recent electoral history, Hillary would probably beat him in a straight up contest, so she must be hamstrung. This is happening exactly with Bernie Sanders. Sanders is the best thing to happen for Bush all this past year, in that he is siphoning off legitimacy and support from Clinton, so that when all is said and done, there will be little enthusiasm for her.
Ideally Sanders' supporters will be so disgusted that they will urge him to run on a third party ticket, such as the Green Party. Why not?
In November, Jeb wins in a narrow election and takes oath of office in 2017. Obviously Jeb is not very enthusiastic about being President. But the Establishment (and especially the Bush family) is very enthusiastic about not losing the Presidency, and even more importantly they do not want to let go of either of the two major political parties. Jeb's election will be a defensive election for them, simply to maintain power.
The worst case scenario is Hillary beats Jeb, which an acceptable outcome. In some ways, one thinks Jeb would prefer that.*
Will any of this happen? I don't know. But certainly this is one of the possible scenarios that they have considered as viable. If yours truly can think it up, then surely they have done so already, and more. I know this because their motto is Always Win. That means never giving up. It means figuring out a way to take it from the other guy, just when it seems like it is over. One keeps fighting forever, looking for the last minute victory. Hillary earned her stripes this way in 2008 against Obama, and showed she is worthy as a successor to the line of the Establishment (the Democratic branch).
But it is too late really for all them. Even if it played out as this, and Jeb (or Hillary) found a way to win, it would simply mean that they volunteered to be the ultimate scapegoat as it all came crashing down around them.
*One thing that could really muck up the works, and spoil the whole plan at this point, is if Cruz's campaign collapses and Trump steamrolls the rest of the way into the convention while piling up more than enough delegates to win on the first ballot. If Trump can actually seize the Republican Party from them, you will see end-of-the-world kind of desperation from them. Likewise if Hillary were to collapse before the convention, and Sanders could somehow become the nominee, then he could beat Bush-Cruz in a straight up two-party election. Hillary can be allowed to collapse, but not until after she becomes the nominee. They cannot lose the party---either one.
Multigenerational Winning
To the Establishment, the criteria for winning included the stipulation that it necessarily be multigenerational. The guardians of the modern democratic state cannot be interrupted by the normal process of replacing their key members. Only family lines are capability of this kind of stability over the long term. By necessity the ruling class within a modern industrial society must need be centered on bloodlines.
New family lines can be admitted into the guardianship class. This is precisely what happened in the Nineteenth Century when key American families leveraged middle class fortunes into what became ultimately a parity of stature vis-a-vis their Old World counterparts.
This was not an easy process for the Americans. The American elite families who gained this stature did so only with great effort over a long term. This kind of resistance to admittance from below is necessary for the guardian class to preserve itself against dilution of its competence and its role.
Like all families, the American ones had to break down the door by brute force---with a weapon, until they had to be reckoned with as equals.
New family lines can be admitted into the guardianship class. This is precisely what happened in the Nineteenth Century when key American families leveraged middle class fortunes into what became ultimately a parity of stature vis-a-vis their Old World counterparts.
This was not an easy process for the Americans. The American elite families who gained this stature did so only with great effort over a long term. This kind of resistance to admittance from below is necessary for the guardian class to preserve itself against dilution of its competence and its role.
Like all families, the American ones had to break down the door by brute force---with a weapon, until they had to be reckoned with as equals.
Always Win
The motto of the Establishment is simple: always win.
Always winning is crucial, not only because one wants naturally to win, and to stay on top, but also because the management of society, and the globe, depends on the continuation of the Establishment.
To the Establishment, always winning is literally a matter of life and death, for to lose would mean that very bad things would happen in the world---for everyone.
Always winning is crucial, not only because one wants naturally to win, and to stay on top, but also because the management of society, and the globe, depends on the continuation of the Establishment.
To the Establishment, always winning is literally a matter of life and death, for to lose would mean that very bad things would happen in the world---for everyone.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
The Anglo-American Merger of Elites
The mutual problem faced by the elites on both sides of the ocean---namely how to tame democracy, and harness it for the good purpose within a modern industrial society, forced the British and American cohorts towards a close cooperation by the end of the century.
British financial interests in America had regrown quickly following the revolution, but the pivotal year was around 1850, owing to developments in industrial technology, as well as the influence of certain individuals, most particularly Junius Morgan, founder of J.S.Morgan & Co., who spearheaded the great flood of London capital into American markets following the laying of the first translatlantic telegraph cable in 1858.
As they did in the home isles, British debt instruments financed a huge explosion in the most important technology of the era---railroads. The American states individually went into a frenzy of government-backed railroad building, greatly in competition with each other until two regional railroad blocs were formed, one of the northern states and one of the southern states. The rapidity by which this situation exploded into open warfare is indicative of the magnitude of the importance of the railroad as a technology.
It is not surprising that the House of Morgan eventually (by the 1890s) became known as much for its ownership and control of the American railroads as it did for its (London-backed) domination of the American financial markets.
British financial interests in America had regrown quickly following the revolution, but the pivotal year was around 1850, owing to developments in industrial technology, as well as the influence of certain individuals, most particularly Junius Morgan, founder of J.S.Morgan & Co., who spearheaded the great flood of London capital into American markets following the laying of the first translatlantic telegraph cable in 1858.
As they did in the home isles, British debt instruments financed a huge explosion in the most important technology of the era---railroads. The American states individually went into a frenzy of government-backed railroad building, greatly in competition with each other until two regional railroad blocs were formed, one of the northern states and one of the southern states. The rapidity by which this situation exploded into open warfare is indicative of the magnitude of the importance of the railroad as a technology.
It is not surprising that the House of Morgan eventually (by the 1890s) became known as much for its ownership and control of the American railroads as it did for its (London-backed) domination of the American financial markets.
Monday, March 21, 2016
America Needed a Ruling Class
At the turn of the Twentieth Century, it was apparent to many educated and enlightened individuals that the idea that America could continue to go without a true ruling class had become dangerously outdated with changing times.
The demands of a modern industrial society, faced with the advances of other similar industrial nations, required a large-scale organization principle which simply was not possible under the constitutional republic structure at the time, let alone under a true democracy. Without such a principle, it was realized, capitalism would produce a situation in which the democratic system would ultimately destroy itself through lack of wisdom.
The same question had been faced in Britain: namely, in the wake of the French Revolution, and the other revolutions of the Nineteenth Century which awakened a conscience of popular sovereignty of the masses of peoples, how was it is possible to maintain a well-organized modern industrial society in the face of the fickleness of the people, who cannot possibly know how to operate the world, and who are easily led by the blandishments of electoral promises and platforms?
The common man is easily led astray from the wise path of governance. Such a thing could be tolerated in a nation of disconnected farmer-legistatures, but no longer in the era of great machines and factories.
Britain had come up with a solution the problem, in part by turning to Plato, who had suggested that society must be run by enlightened guardians. The elite of the time---the landed aristocracy of Europe, together with the middle class on both sides of the ocean, buttressed by their supporting academics---generally agreed that the way to accomplish this was either through keeping a very low profile, or, if necessary, through outright deceit of the masses.
The demands of a modern industrial society, faced with the advances of other similar industrial nations, required a large-scale organization principle which simply was not possible under the constitutional republic structure at the time, let alone under a true democracy. Without such a principle, it was realized, capitalism would produce a situation in which the democratic system would ultimately destroy itself through lack of wisdom.
The same question had been faced in Britain: namely, in the wake of the French Revolution, and the other revolutions of the Nineteenth Century which awakened a conscience of popular sovereignty of the masses of peoples, how was it is possible to maintain a well-organized modern industrial society in the face of the fickleness of the people, who cannot possibly know how to operate the world, and who are easily led by the blandishments of electoral promises and platforms?
The common man is easily led astray from the wise path of governance. Such a thing could be tolerated in a nation of disconnected farmer-legistatures, but no longer in the era of great machines and factories.
Britain had come up with a solution the problem, in part by turning to Plato, who had suggested that society must be run by enlightened guardians. The elite of the time---the landed aristocracy of Europe, together with the middle class on both sides of the ocean, buttressed by their supporting academics---generally agreed that the way to accomplish this was either through keeping a very low profile, or, if necessary, through outright deceit of the masses.
The Establishment is a Ruling Class
The description of the Establishment as discussed so far is that of a ruling class, in the classic sense of the word, as might be applied throughout many phases of human history.
The idea that a ruling class has been in charge of any type of societal entity, at any point in human history, is without controversy, except as applied to recent American history. In that case, Americans adopted the idea that they are a free people without a ruling class.
Thus the adoption of a ruling class within American society needed to happen in the manner of it not being a ruling class at all.
The idea that a ruling class has been in charge of any type of societal entity, at any point in human history, is without controversy, except as applied to recent American history. In that case, Americans adopted the idea that they are a free people without a ruling class.
Thus the adoption of a ruling class within American society needed to happen in the manner of it not being a ruling class at all.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
The Triumph of the Establishment
That the term Establishment has come to refer to so many individuals, all of whom have a large stake in the continuation of their order, is an indication above all that the Establishment was a successful operation.
We should not confuse the disorder at the end of its tenure as indicative of failure. Rather it is a sign of just how big and important the Establishment came to be, and of how many people bought into it, in the end.
It was so successful that the end of the Establishment is terrifying not only to the individuals within it, but to just about everyone else as well, even its severest critics. This is because the Establishment was able to embed itself so thoroughly in the process of normal stability, within the mind of the public. That is why the end of the Establishment looms so horribly in so many people's mind. They cannot imagine a stable, normal world, as they have come to expect it to be, without the Establishment continuing to exist.
History proves however that stability and normalcy, as we have come to define it generally in the West, is the exception rather than the rule. In our historical consciousness we all realize this, and thus the idea that our "special" stability could be revoked, and we would return to a more normal period of want and death, etc., surely drives much of the crazed fear that is happening, up and down the political spectrum.
Both major political parties are completely infested by the Establishment. They both are fighting with all their might to keep the Establishment in charge. So is all the mainstream media. So is almost all of credentialed academia.
Everyone is fighting to keep it going. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans now fight alongside each other, back to back like two front lines collapsing on a Reich. It was not supposed to be this way, in the original plan. That's probably the only thing that the Establishment really ever failed at, was how to make itself eternal.
We should not confuse the disorder at the end of its tenure as indicative of failure. Rather it is a sign of just how big and important the Establishment came to be, and of how many people bought into it, in the end.
It was so successful that the end of the Establishment is terrifying not only to the individuals within it, but to just about everyone else as well, even its severest critics. This is because the Establishment was able to embed itself so thoroughly in the process of normal stability, within the mind of the public. That is why the end of the Establishment looms so horribly in so many people's mind. They cannot imagine a stable, normal world, as they have come to expect it to be, without the Establishment continuing to exist.
History proves however that stability and normalcy, as we have come to define it generally in the West, is the exception rather than the rule. In our historical consciousness we all realize this, and thus the idea that our "special" stability could be revoked, and we would return to a more normal period of want and death, etc., surely drives much of the crazed fear that is happening, up and down the political spectrum.
Both major political parties are completely infested by the Establishment. They both are fighting with all their might to keep the Establishment in charge. So is all the mainstream media. So is almost all of credentialed academia.
Everyone is fighting to keep it going. Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans now fight alongside each other, back to back like two front lines collapsing on a Reich. It was not supposed to be this way, in the original plan. That's probably the only thing that the Establishment really ever failed at, was how to make itself eternal.
Saturday, March 19, 2016
An Establishment of One
Now that the Establishment is crumbling, it is much easier to talk about and describe. Up until now, when one used this phrase, it was often not mutually understood in discourse what the term Establishment meant. This led to a great deal of misunderstanding.
But now everyone seems to understand what the term means, because the Establishment has become very easy to identify.
Apparently it means the individuals who comprise the "order" that is apparently losing its grip on power. The loosening of this power is resulting in a period of "world crisis," which marks the transition from one age to another. This is giving a lot of people a lot of anxiety, both within the Establishment and outside it.
So who is the Establishment? We can definitely include the following people, with very few exception: nearly all American politicians on the national level, including senior members of both major parties, as well as the people who give them money, including the large banks, as well as the apparatus of legal firms, etc., which facilitate this process. It also includes the intelligence community, senior military officers, members of globalist think thanks, and the part of Academia that supports all this. It also definitely includes all the large media organizations, and the people who own and operate them, as well as major media figures.
There are definitely other people in the Establishment, but the above list is a good start, I believe.
Notice the list includes many people in politics and in the public eye.
Notice as well that the number of people is very large.
All of this last part is very ironic, given that once upon a time, when it all started out, the idea of the Establishment was meant explicitly to be apolitical and outside the public eye.
Moreover, not surprisingly, the term Establishment was meant to refer to a very small group of people, and ultimately, if one took a poll of the insiders, the idea Establishment would have been embodied arguably in single individual, upon whose identity nearly all of them would have agreed.
But now everyone seems to understand what the term means, because the Establishment has become very easy to identify.
Apparently it means the individuals who comprise the "order" that is apparently losing its grip on power. The loosening of this power is resulting in a period of "world crisis," which marks the transition from one age to another. This is giving a lot of people a lot of anxiety, both within the Establishment and outside it.
So who is the Establishment? We can definitely include the following people, with very few exception: nearly all American politicians on the national level, including senior members of both major parties, as well as the people who give them money, including the large banks, as well as the apparatus of legal firms, etc., which facilitate this process. It also includes the intelligence community, senior military officers, members of globalist think thanks, and the part of Academia that supports all this. It also definitely includes all the large media organizations, and the people who own and operate them, as well as major media figures.
There are definitely other people in the Establishment, but the above list is a good start, I believe.
Notice the list includes many people in politics and in the public eye.
Notice as well that the number of people is very large.
All of this last part is very ironic, given that once upon a time, when it all started out, the idea of the Establishment was meant explicitly to be apolitical and outside the public eye.
Moreover, not surprisingly, the term Establishment was meant to refer to a very small group of people, and ultimately, if one took a poll of the insiders, the idea Establishment would have been embodied arguably in single individual, upon whose identity nearly all of them would have agreed.
Friday, March 18, 2016
The Rise and Fall of the Establishment
In the context of the crazy times, many people are using the term Establishment quite a bit lately.
Ironically, that's exactly the concept I spent many years researching, with my friend Thor.
Summed up in one big huge word, we were studying the Establishment. As it happens, the very word and concept as we know it was coined and adopted to refer to a specific group of individuals, some of whom I have already introduced to you via this blog.
The quest to understand these individuals and their actions in history led us down many rabbit holes, ones that stripped away our previous concepts and conceits about politics, America, and world history (and moreover about human nature).
It was a brutal quest. Thor wound up in the hospital for a year, and almost lost his life. I wound up roaming the country and the world as a digital vagabond. We are both still reeling from the effects.
Fortunately I was able to find answers, almost at leisurely pace, and having done so, I now feel at great peace, with an ability to stand aside of the craziness, and to empathize with those who are struggling with apparent disintegration of their world-reality.
Ironically, that's exactly the concept I spent many years researching, with my friend Thor.
Summed up in one big huge word, we were studying the Establishment. As it happens, the very word and concept as we know it was coined and adopted to refer to a specific group of individuals, some of whom I have already introduced to you via this blog.
The quest to understand these individuals and their actions in history led us down many rabbit holes, ones that stripped away our previous concepts and conceits about politics, America, and world history (and moreover about human nature).
It was a brutal quest. Thor wound up in the hospital for a year, and almost lost his life. I wound up roaming the country and the world as a digital vagabond. We are both still reeling from the effects.
Fortunately I was able to find answers, almost at leisurely pace, and having done so, I now feel at great peace, with an ability to stand aside of the craziness, and to empathize with those who are struggling with apparent disintegration of their world-reality.
These Crazy Times
They are nutty, aren't they?
Pretty much everything that has been happening is no surprise to me at all---including the fact that it is taking so many people by surprise.
"Many are going to lose their minds," I used to tell people, a couple years back.
I knew the kind of thing they were going to go through, when their "reality" of the world begins to change rapidly away from what they had depended upon. It feels like a crumbling away.
Pretty much everything that has been happening is no surprise to me at all---including the fact that it is taking so many people by surprise.
"Many are going to lose their minds," I used to tell people, a couple years back.
I knew the kind of thing they were going to go through, when their "reality" of the world begins to change rapidly away from what they had depended upon. It feels like a crumbling away.
New Style---Short Notes
...at least at first.
Have to figure out a way to continue the writing project, the one I have dedicated to my friend Thor, who is a really person, and not a mythological figure.
Have to figure out a way to continue the writing project, the one I have dedicated to my friend Thor, who is a really person, and not a mythological figure.
Back After a Break
It was a tough fall and winter. My father passed away over the New Year. Lots of grief for the family. Life has been slowly returning to something a bit normal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)