Jump to content
The Education Forum
Ron Bulman

Democracy In Chains

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

By Nancy MacLean, mentioned by W. Niederhut in another thread.  After reading it I think it is relevant to discussion of the JFK assassination.  The libertarian principles discussed in it are in direct opposition to JFK's philosophies from what I've read of them.  He or the assassination are not mentioned it.  They, the Kennedy's, are once.  The featured protagonist, Economist James Buchanan hated them.  He began spewing his elitist vitriol in the1950's.  Much of this view can be seen in both the East Coast Establishment and the Oil Barron Right Wing of the Southwest in the late 50's and early 60's. From Dulles and his employers to Murchison, Hunt (H.L) and, under the radar at the time Prescott and GHWB.  Today the principles are embraced  by the 1%.  Buchanan's theories have been hijacked, refined (gerrymandering/REDMAP, voter repression) and stealthily implemented by Charles Koch and his lesser brother David.  They have multiple billionaire contributors to their cause.

I've read the death of JFK was the start of the downfall trust in government.  Libertarians don't want a government we the people trust, or control.  JFK advocated participation of the people in multiple respects.  Principles in this book give an understanding of the attitude of some in power at the time of his death IMO.  It carry's forward to this day.

Taken more especially in conjunction with Jane Mayer's Dark Money this book is a call to arms to "ask not what Your Country can do for you, but what You can do for your Country".

https://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=democracy+in+chains+maclean+nancy&sprefix=democracy+%2Cstripbooks%2C374&crid=1QLH4YIJH6X68

https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0307947904/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533700089&sr=1-1&keywords=dark+money

    

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

         Prescott Bush was always hostile to the utilitarianism of the New Deal, and was, apparently, involved in the attempted plutocratic coup against FDR in 1934.  According to some accounts, the plan was foiled by General Smedley Butler, who had been approached by Bush and others (?) about U.S. military support for a right wing coup.

         And Prescott Bush was far right of Eisenhower on most political issues in the 1950s.  He was, surely, angry about his protege, Richard Nixon, losing the 1960 election.

         As for JFK's assassination, we know that Prescott Bush bitterly resented JFK's firing of his friend Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and that GHWB and Zapata Offshore were, allegedly, quite actively involved in Operation 40.

        Based on this circumstantial evidence, I find it hard to believe that GHWB was NOT involved on some level in the plot to assassinate JFK-- especially in light of the fact that he was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 as a representative of the CIA.

       As for the veiled "misanthropic libertarian" legacy of the affable George W. Bush, in particular, how can we ever forget his cynical comment at that fund raiser in 2000 where he joked, "You are the haves and the have mores.   I call you my base?"

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

         Prescott Bush was always hostile to the utilitarianism of the New Deal, and was, apparently, involved in the attempted plutocratic coup against FDR in 1934.  According to some accounts, the plan was foiled by General Smedley Butler, who had been approached by Bush and others (?) about U.S. military support for a right wing coup.

         And Prescott Bush was far right of Eisenhower on most political issues in the 1950s.  He was, surely, angry about his protege, Richard Nixon, losing the 1960 election.

         As for JFK's assassination, we know that Prescott Bush bitterly resented JFK's firing of his friend Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and that GHWB and Zapata Offshore were, allegedly, quite actively involved in Operation 40.

        Based on this circumstantial evidence, I find it hard to believe that GHWB was NOT involved on some level in the plot to assassinate JFK-- especially in light of the fact that he was briefed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/29/63 as a representative of the CIA.

       As for the veiled "misanthropic libertarian" legacy of the affable George W. Bush, in particular, how can we ever forget his cynical comment at that fund raiser in 2000 where he joked, "You are the haves and the have mores.   I call you my base?"

I’m convinced that the Bush connection explains many unreleased docs. Two in particular - DUBRINY-2, cryptonym still hidden. DUBRINY-1 has been identified as Bush crony Thomas J. Devine. The two of them met with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles as CIA reps in 1963 in NYC,  DeMohrenschildt thought enough of his friendship with Bush to send him a letter asking for help just before his apparent suicide while Bush was CIA director. Just as Prescott was Nixon’s benefactor, Nixon promoted George Bush. Appointed CIA head in 1976 with no prior experience in the Agency? Just when the CIA was facing its toughest battles. Second, someone is putting enormous pressure on Canadian authorities not to release Bloomfield’s papers from the crucial years 1960-64 approx. I think it’s the Bush Family. Heck, when that family found out that there was a Neil Bush card in my Savings and Loan Scandal trading cards, they threatened lawsuit against me and my publisher if we went to print without first letting them see the text.

there are major skeletons in the Bush Family closet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush, HW, is mentioned once in the book as an aside to the end of the cold war.  I'd not thought of it but his bachelors degree from yale is in economics like Buchanan.  Easy to see how he could be of a libertarian persuasion in his thoughts, helping the cause along as he went.  Then one of his daughters is now named Dorothy Bush Koch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bush, HW, is mentioned once in the book as an aside to the end of the cold war.  I'd not thought of it but his bachelors degree from yale is in economics like Buchanan.  Easy to see how he could be of a libertarian persuasion in his thoughts, helping the cause along as he went.  Then one of his daughters is now named Dorothy Bush Koch. 

    From what I have heard and read, ( e.g., American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips, Family of Secrets, etc.) Prescott Bush greatly admired the British aristocracy and caste system.  The family was very conscious of their status as wealthy, well-connected, New England blue bloods.  As an example, Barbara Bush (nee Pierce) was a direct descendant of U.S. President Franklin Pierce, (from New Hampshire.)  The Bush family has been an integral part of the old W.A.S.P. aristocracy of New England, New York , (New Haven, etc.) 

   So, IMO, the Bush family's anti-utilitarian, "misanthropic libertarianism" has not been a result of any deep philosophical or economic theorizing in the Gothic lecture halls of Yale, but is inherent in the culture of their family and exalted Yankee social class.  And, like most wealthy old Yankee families, the Bushes have always downplayed their high socio-economic status-- even adopting the dress and vernacular of west Texas cowboys, Spanish-speaking Floridians, and what-have-you.

    In that sense, the Bush family's New England WASP social class and culture was a notch or two above the successful Irish immigrant Kennedy clan, and two or three notches above the gauche, nouveau riche Taj Mahal Casino culture of Donald Trump.  Unlike Trump, people from those old, wealthy, Yankee families in New England never brag about their immense wealth.

    Both George Bush's were very skilled at concealing their political advocacy on behalf of their own class interests, while promoting their policies through subtle appeals to the commoners.  (As was Winston Churchill.)   GHWB used to say, "I want to be the "Education President," while doing photo ops at inner city black schools.  Then he would quietly slash public education funding.  At heart, the Bushes always seemed secretly cynical -- almost amused-- about the necessary pretense of populism.

     With the Kennedy family, it was no pretense.   IMO, they sincerely cared about the fate of humanity.

   

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OMG, going from this  interesting book to Bush pressuring Canada not to release Bloomfield documents?

McLaren's book sounds like a fascinating expose of a whole school of government that arose in direct opposition to what had come about because of the Kennedy brothers--that is the idea that government can be a positive force in the public square.  

Believe me, I know the depth of this antipathy in the upper classes toward the Kennedys.  Since I have been exposed to it and read about it.  They really considered him the anti Christ.

Her book exposes the Libertarian ruse that was used to counter Kennedy's appeal by cloaking it in a pseudo populist manner.  And working in the field of education for decades I thoroughly understand how that conspiracy works--and that is what it is, make no mistake about it.  When did real estate developer Eli Broad become an expert in education? The whole idea of charter schools, "choice" schools, breaking down teachers unions  and privatizing education is backed by bundles of Broad money.  Sort of like the Right to Work bills, which really are right to be poor and have no benefits acts.

That is what this is about.  Two opposed philosophies of government.  And this board has to reduce it to Bush?  Please.  Let us see the big picture once in awhile.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is an interesting interview with McLaren.

Note, at the start, she talks about Brown v Board and Galbraith.

Unlike Eisenhower and Nixon, the Kenendys announced they were going to support the Brown decision.

Galbraith's whole economic philosophy was Keynesian, and also for the use of tax money  to support public projects, in other words those that would help the populace in general.  Galbraith of course worked for JFK.  As she talks further, she explains how the super wealthy are repelled by that idea.

This is why these people hated the Kennedys.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

OMG, going from this  interesting book to Bush pressuring Canada not to release Bloomfield documents?

McLaren's book sounds like a fascinating expose of a whole school of government that arose in direct opposition to what had come about because of the Kennedy brothers--that is the idea that government can be a positive force in the public square.  

Believe me, I know the depth of this antipathy in the upper classes toward the Kennedys.  Since I have been exposed to it and read about it.  They really considered him the anti Christ.

Her book exposes the  Libertarian ruse that was used to counter Kennedy;s appeal by cloaking it in a pseudo populist manner.  And working in the field of education for decades I throughly understand how that conspiracy works--and that is what it is, make no mistake about it.  When did Eli Broad become an expert in education? The whole idea of Charter schools, "choice" schools, breaking down unions  and privatizing education is backed by bundles of Broad money.  Sort of like the Right to Work bills, which really are right to be poor and have no benefits acts.

That is what this is about.  Two opposed philosophies of government.  And this board has to reduce it to Bush?  Please.  Let us see the big picture once in awhile.

   

      Speaking for myself, I certainly wouldn't "reduce" this philosophical Koch/Buchanan movement to Bush, by any stretch.  If anything, I view the Bush family as being somewhat to the left of the Koch-funded Tea Party "misanthropic libertarians" on the current political spectrum.

      I was merely pointing out that Prescott Bush, in particular, spent his political career trying to protect the financial interests of his immensely wealthy Wall Street peers, (as did the Dulles brothers) from the progressive, utilitarian reforms of the New Deal.

    And, surely, Prescott Bush and his family despised the Kennedy brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One of the points of her book and what she is talking about is that this country has gone so far to the right that liberals today have now become conservatives.  And she actually says that.  In the respect that progressives have now been reduced to just trying to preserve things like Social Security and Medicare.

A really good example of this would be the Clintons. I mean before Monicagate, Clinton was going to meet with Gingrich to talk about privatizing Social Security. The only good thing about the Lewinsky scandal is that it defused that.

And she also adds that the whole Radical Libertarian movement has gotten so pervasive that not only has it completely vitiated the idea of conservatism, but it has made passé what we once thought Democrats and Republicans should be.  They do this by threatening Republicans with primary challenges.

Great and apt title.

Please do not talk about W being to the left of the Koch brothers.  I mean that whole BS about compassionate conservatism was a Rovian ruse.  W took a meat axe to the economy and the budget.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

One of the points of her book and what she is talking about is that this country has gone so far to the right that liberals today have now become conservatives.  And she actually says that.  In the respect that progressives have now been reduced to just trying to preserve things like Social Security and Medicare.

A really good example of this would be the Clintons. I mean before Monicagate, Clinton was going to meet with Gingrich to talk about privatizing Social Security. The only good thing about the Lewinsky scandal is that it defused that.

And she also adds that the whole Radical Libertarian movement has gotten so pervasive that not only has it completely vitiated the idea of conservatism, but it has made passé what we once thought Democrats and Republicans should be.  They do this by threatening Republicans with primary challenges.

Great and apt title.

Please do not talk about W being to the left of the Koch brothers.  I mean that whole BS about compassionate conservatism was a Rovian ruse.  W took a meat axe to the economy and the budget.

        Agreed.  Bush's "compassionate conservatism" shtick was always bunk.  On the flip side, Barbara Bush publicly criticized the Tea Party House's adamant refusal to accept Obama's July 2011 "Mother of all no brainers" debt-reduction deal, by saying, "Compromise is not a dirty word."

       A person standing slightly left of the Koch's Tea Party "libertarians" would still be playing squarely in right field.

      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is an interesting interview with McLaren.

Note, at the start, she talks about Brown v Board and Galbraith.

Unlike Eisenhower and Nixon, the Kenendys announced they were going to support the Brown decision.

Galbraith's whole economic philosophy was Keynesian, and also for the use of tax money  to support public projects, in other words those that would help the populace in general.  Galbraith of course worked for JFK.  As she talks further, she explains how the super wealthy are repelled by that idea.

This is why these people hated the Kennedys.

 

I read the book but she's dynamite in person.  She knows what she's talking about. Thanks for posting this.  Just listened to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's somewhat of a minor miracle this book was written.  She's a social historian studying the effects of policy on society.  In this case the role of school privatization/vouchers the leading proponent of at the time was Milton Friedman.  In researching his views she came across James Buchanan's name a couple of times and began to investigate.  This led her to Gorge Mason University in Washington and his archive in the "Buchanan House", a pretty well abandoned place.  They just let her dig on her own.  Buchanan had died a year before.

He began his real climb in 1956 at the University of Virginia establishing an economic policy center, as a direct result of roe vs wade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Jim says: Please do not talk about W being to the left of the Koch brothers.  I mean that whole BS about compassionate conservatism was a Rovian ruse.  W took a meat axe to the economy and the budget. 

Actually Jim, W. Neiderhut who I assume has more of a  poly/sci background than you is right. The Koch's are way farther to the right than GW. Your counter  to his assertion to that fact is based on pedestrian media campaign rhetoric, and no one would argue with that.  But if you want to see a meat axe taken to the budget, you just let the Koch's prevail and you'll be screaming for GW to return!  And they make no bones about it, compared to the Koch's, and to a lesser extent Trump, GW was a big spender. You're already experiencing a meat axe to the budget outside of  increased military spending with Trump, but you don't seem too concerned about that, which is cool---------------- I suppose?

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Give us a break.

When Clinton left office this country had a BUDGET SURPLUS, that was actually fairly large.

The combination of Bush's war of choice in Iraq, his unnecessary tax cuts, and then the stock market real-estate meltdown, as a result of those three, for the first time in the history of the republic, the annual budget deficit reached over a trillion dollars in 2008.  As a point of comparison, Kennedy did not like it when it was seven billion.

But what made what Bush did even worse is that he blew such a hole in the budget that it became pretty much structural.  Reagan's nutty budgeting was susceptible to being cured.  Bush's nuttiness was a quantum leap beyond Laffer's crackpot supply side economics.  Mainly because that crazy war he started ended up costing something like three trillion and we are still counting.

What that means is that there is really no end in sight to the annual giant deficits. When that happens this accumulates the total national debt, since what you are doing is simply rolling over annual giant deficits into a colossal total national debt.  That figure is about 21 trillion now.  And again, there is no end in sight.  Now its about 77 per cent of GDP.  Many economists project it to go to about 100 per cent of GDP in about 7-10 years.

The main thing holding up the American economy is the financing of this debt by foreign countries, especially China.  What will happen if this continues is that discretionary spending will continue going down down down.  And once the dollar evaluation is threatened, which Trump has already done, the cries will go up to cut things like Medicare and Social Security.  After all, the country is pretty much broke.  Unless there is a huge turnover in Washington, and I do not just mean the House, defense spending will be touched very lightly.  If at all.  I mean we have this war on terror right?  Plus Cold War 2.

George W Bush fulfilled the dream of Grover Norquist.  A dream that Ronald Reagan could not come close to fulfilling.  He strangled government spending in the bathtub.  And no one screamed bloody murder.

If you want to complement him on that, by my guest.  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dispute with me, at all, about Dubya's many policy disasters, Jim.

I have always been the very opposite of a Dubya Bush apologist.  In my view, the man's White House tenure was an unmitigated disaster for this country.

In January of 2001, Bill Clinton left Bush and Cheney with very realistic prospects of paying off the $5 trillion dollar national debt-- as even Alan Greenspan said in his memoir, A Time of Turbulence.

Instead, Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney pushed through their misguided Reaganomic tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and amassed multi-trillion dollar Afghanistan and Iraq war debts on carefully crafted, false pretexts.  As Paul O'Neill described in The Price of Loyalty, Rumsfeld talked about the PNAC Iraq War agenda in the very first Bush-Cheney cabinet meeting in 2001.

No doubt, Bush and Cheney contributed bigly to the misanthropic libertarian "Starve the Beast" strategy for the destruction of the U.S. welfare state.  They simply passed the buck, and their $10 trillion dollar debt, to Obama.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×