Skip to main content

John Walsh: Clash of the Elites

http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh01052007.html


January 5, 2007


Beltway Insiders Versus Neo-Cons

Clash of the Elites



By JOHN WALSH

A titanic power struggle is being waged within the policy elite or power elite, or more simply the U.S. ruling class. The clash is taking place over the war on Iraq, U.S. policy toward Israel--and ultimately over the best way to run the U.S. empire. The war on Iraq is shaping up as such a disaster for the empire that it can no longer be tolerated by our rulers in its present form. The struggle is as plain as the nose on your face; nevertheless it draws little comment. One reason is that we are taught to view matters political through the prism of Democrat versus Republican, whereas this struggle among our rulers cuts across party lines. On the "Left," few so much as allude to this internecine war, much less use it to good effect. This is apparently due to a very rigid, very dogmatic view of how empires function, indeed how they "must" function, and due to a fear of being labeled anti-semitic and thus running afoul of the Israeli Lobby. In many cases this silence reflects an actual sympathy among "liberals" for neocon foreign policy, either out of a latter day do-gooder version of the White Man's Burden, or an attachment to Israel.

This struggle is in no way hidden and definitely not a secret conspiracy. It is out in the open, as it must be, since it is in great part a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. This fact makes the absence of commentary about it all the more chilling. The fight among our rulers sets the neocons against other very important elements in the establishment: the senior officer corps, represented by Jack Murtha and Colin Powell; the old money like Ned Lamont; the oil men, like James Baker (With Baker against the war, how then can oil be the only reason for the war?); those who want to see the American imperium run effectively, like Lee Hamilton and Robert Gates of the Iraq Study Group; many in the CIA, both active duty and retired; policy makers like Zbigniew Brzezinski who has long opposed the war which he has ascribed to the influence of certain "ethnic" groups; and even former presidents Gerald Ford who kept his mouth shut and Jimmy Carter who has not and whose frustration with Israel and the neocons is all too clear in his book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid."
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Yet another one of our hourly anti-Iraq war posts. Didn't make it half way through.

Lets see doesn't Counterpunch also publish articles by the likes of Fidel Castro and Cynthia McKinney? Isn't that a publication that has been criticized for being anti U.S. and anti-Israel? Why not just start posting news articles from Hezbollah? Wasn't it you who was talking about biased media a day or two ago?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CounterPunch_(newsletter)
Right-wing relativism and the worth of Wikipedia
One of the great ironies of the current administration is its insistence on its ability to determine truth. It's ironic because they end-up sounding like the post-modernist morally relativistic academic straw-people they so vehemently attacked not too long ago. I've already written about this topic, but wanted to return to it as an excuse to link to this Stephen Colbert video segment that satirizes the phenomenon using Wikipedia as the central metaphor (HT: Sullivan).

As much as I like to see right-wing reality revisionism skewered so expertly, I don't think the use of Wikipedia as a metaphor is really fair to the online encyclopedia. I actually like Wikipedia a lot. In a comparison to to the Britannica that the NYT did a while back, it held its own in many areas. (The journal Nature did a comparison and found similar results. I'm sure Many can come up with Wikipedia doozies (especially on highly controversial topics, or on neglected topics that don't receive much editorial scrutiny), but I don't think this Onion parody is justified from what I've seen.



Here's a fascinating bit of wiki trivia: The original Oxford English Dictionary was put together in a proto-wiki-like way. People were asked to send in definitions and quotations on scraps of paper, which were then organized by an editorial staff. A great book about this process is The Professor and the Madman.
The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry...?r=1&isbn=0060839783



I love it when right wingers complain about the liberal bias of wikipedia.

elephants are now considered a controversial subject and the Wiki article is locked down against edits. Actually, that in itself is a great rebuttal to the criticism that the entries are entirely "anything goes".

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×