GOP tax pledge causes media meltdown … If Obama moves forward with specific cuts on entitlement programs and Pentagon expenses, Republicans must work aggressively to close loopholes that favor billionaires and multinational corporations. I am quite confident that even tea party members would be fine with Warren Buffett paying more than a 14 percent income tax rate and would be happy to see the world's largest corporation, GE, pay more in taxes than their own household. There is room for compromise. There is still hope for a grand bargain. But launching hyperbolic attacks at conservatives for staying true to their campaign promises only keeps us further away from that final deal. – Politico/Joe Scarborough
Dominant Social Theme: Democrats simply don't understand the anger that American conservatives feel.
Free-Market Analysis: Joe Scarborough (left) recently focused on a kind of sub-dominant social theme in the mainstream American media regarding the debt ceiling that Congress is trying to raise. At the end of the article (see above excerpt), he shows he supports the "grand bargain" in which Republicans come away with massive cuts to federal government programs in return for closing "tax loopholes" for the very wealth.
His larger point is also interesting. It is that the patronization and anger aimed at the Republican conservative wing of the party is fairly radicalized, thus making cooperation between Republicans and Democrats more difficult.
But we would take it a step further: Scarborough is barely scratching the surface when it comes to the disaffection that many citizens in the US now feel. Scarborough sees the current American malaise within the context of America's two main parties. But for several years now (and actually much longer) we have been trying to report that this is not the case.
In our view, America is a somewhat libertarian and anti-government society, at least in its most modern incarnation despite its evolution into empire. That sounds kind of counterintuitive, but we think there is an inherent US libertarianism that has never been entirely damped. The Anglosphere power elite that has created the current dysfunctional culture in the US, has fought to cover up this fact.
A kind of libertarian culture is now re-emerging; ironically many who have fought for free-markets will deny this is the case; they continually mutter about "sheeple" and how things in America have not changed at all. The American patriot movement, especially, is discouraged that change has not moved faster. In our view change has moved very quickly indeed from where it was, say, even during the years of the Bill Clinton presidency.
The entire configuration of the Republican and Democratic parties is gradually breaking down. The societal consensus – whether through purposeful ignorance or not – that supported America-As-Empire is seemingly disintegrating. (More on that below.)
Since the Civil War, the Anglosphere elites that have wanted to use America as an armory for globalism have created a purposefully artificial political dialogue. It is one that uses Hegelian dialectic principals to ensure that government itself is always seen as the solution. But the real alignment in America – and elsewhere as well – is between those who simply seek LESS government and those who seek MORE government.
For the past 150 years, Republicans have been cast as seeking a "small and efficient" government, (though one that is pro-military and apt to interfere in people's personal lives out of moral or religious conviction). Democrats, meanwhile, have been positioned as those who seek a large government that is tax- and welfare-intensive.
This paradigm, in our view, has been deliberately created by the powers-that-be to exclude those who believe in neither the military-industrial complex nor in a massive, high-tax, welfare state. It was deliberately designed to obscure fee-market thinking and its potential rise. Given that the creation of the United States was oriented around Jeffersonian principals of agrarian, free-market republicanism, this state-of-affairs can be seen as ironic, to put it mildly.
And yet … in these dawning days of what we call the Internet Reformation, the libertarian, free-market viewpoint has broken through, nonetheless, led by conservative-libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex). The proximate cause of this growing movement is the economic crisis, but the Internet itself has played a key role in spreading information about free-markets and people have been receptive to that message because mainstream solutions don't seem to be working.
The Scarborough article must been seen within this context. It shows clearly that much of the mainstream media still regard the political right as a kind of radical cult. This predominant viewpoint was on display over the past four years, even though in recent elections Republicans won back many seats in the House and Senate following President Barack Obama's victory in further nationalizing health care.
Scarborough is the host of MSNBC's Morning Joe with Mika Brzezinski, the daughter of former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Zbigniew Brzezinksi is a controversial figure for many in alternative 'Net media. As a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and a spokesperson for the views of power elite broker David Rockefeller, Brzezinksi is seen as an integral player in the Anglosphere elite's ongoing creation of one-world government within the context of a "new world order."
It is a fairly "hot seat" then, that Scarborough occupies; he is an ambitious man and former conservative Congressman, and his program with Mika can be seen as an exercise in elite damage control. It is also a program that conforms to the elitist, Hegelian dialectic, as Scarborough is supposed to represent the "right" while Mika represents the "left."
It is no small task, however. Scarborough must engage in a balancing act of trying to integrate the end-game of elitist world government with "conservative principals" that are supposed to represent, in aggregate, the sentiments of the current US Tea party movement.
Scarborough is good at this, or as good as anyone can be at this juncture. Like other skilled establishment communicators of his sort, he is able to present himself as an advocate for "freedom." This article provides us with a good example of how he does it, via polarization.
He begins, predictably enough, by attacking what he calls the "national press corp," which he suggests conservatives have "really, really offended" by refusing to raise taxes. "Washington pundits are shocked … that conservatives refused to cave in to President Barack Obama's demand to raise taxes" within the context of the current debt-ceiling debate.
He quotes Washington Post's Richard Cohen as writing that "The GOP has become a political cult" and its presidential field is "a virtual political Jonestown." He points to The New Republic's Jonathan Chait, who described Tea Party Republicans as the party's "Hezbollah wing."
The Post and New Republic columnists weren't alone in rolling out comparisons between the GOP and cults and terrorists. The New York Times's David Brooks drew a straight line from fiscal policy positions to the morality of current-day conservatives, concluding that Republicans who have a good faith difference of opinion on tax rates possess "no sense of moral decency." Here's some more:
My goodness. Those are awfully personal attacks to launch against a politician. Who would have guessed that last year these same columnists were then attacking Republicans for — get this — saying nasty things about Democrats. Cohen wrote a piece titled "On the Right, Hateful Words Are Fired Like Bullets" in which he bemoaned the fact that GOP candidates used heated rhetoric to attack Democrats. Cohen concluded that the "language of rage fuels too much of the tea party."
This past week, the man who was so concerned with civil political discourse on the right used his column to compare bland GOP candidates such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty to psychopathic cult leader and killer Jim Jones. Meanwhile, Chait — who once criticized mainstream Republicans for using an apocalyptical approach against their opponents — compared the GOP's leadership to a terrorist organization that killed over 250 Marines in Beirut, tortured to death a CIA operative and a Marine colonel, kidnapped scores of Americans and hijacked TWA Flight 847.
I wonder why Chait and Democratic officials from past administrations feel the need to associate fiscal conservatives to bloodthirsty terror organizations. I also wonder how such inflammatory rhetoric does not qualify as the kind of politics that Chait himself criticized not so long ago. As for Brooks's over-the-top attacks against the Republican Party, I suppose it is the price conservatives pay for having a moderately conservative voice showcased in the Times.
In describing this rhetoric, Scarborough is of course after bigger game. For 50 years, he writes the federal government has expanded at a sickening rate. "Whether Republicans or Democrats run the White House, Washington's establishment always gets its way — bigger budgets, bigger deficits and higher taxes."
He provides figures. "In 1980, the annual budget was $590.9 billion. By the beginning of the next decade, the yearly budget was $1.253 trillion. In 2000, the budget was up to $1.789 trillion in annual outlays, and by 2010, it was up to $3.456 trillion. After a decade of Obama's budgets, the CBO projects our annual budget will explode to $5.451 trillion in 2020 … Washington's annual budget has doubled in the past decade."
Scarborough also notes the GOP just won the largest nationwide landslide victory in modern history "based in large part on its pledge to oppose tax increases." The numbers, according to Scarborough, are significant: Over 230 members of the House signed the no-tax pledge; 40-plus Senate members also signed to oppose tax increases.
He is is frank about tax burden as well, claiming that for many it is close to 35 percent of one's earnings and that after local, county and state taxes are added, one is paying closer to 50 percent, a number he calls "obscene." For Scarborough, Republicans who are fighting against new taxes offer a "a positive political characteristic." In fact, "Republicans who vote to raise income tax rates in 2011 can expect to be sent home in 2012. Period. End of political career."
This is a clever article and the reason shows us why Scarborough is a voluble communicator for the power elite. Throughout it, Scarborough has positioned himself and his fellow travelers as low-tax and small government. He has contrasted his position favorably to the extreme rhetoric used by Democrats.
But at the very end of the article, Scarborough allows that reasonable compromise is not only feasible but an appropriate good to ensure that America continues to function without interruption. "That doesn't mean a grand bargain is out of reach this session of Congress," he concludes and then explains how one might come about.
We are not so sanguine, of course, as Scarborough. We wrote above that we would return to the issue of the disintegration of the American Empire because this is in fact a much more significant issue than whether or not the debt-ceiling is raised (as it probably will be at some point).
What Scarborough has done by concentrating on taxes, is to avoid commentating on the schisms within the Tea Party itself. The biggest schism as we have pointed out many times, is between the neo-con political players who cast themselves as "conservative" and the more libertarian wing of the Tea Party.
There was a huge effort by the authoritarian elements of the Republican party to co-opt the Tea Party a few years ago and on the surface that effort seems to have paid off. Many of the new faces in government would self-identify as "conservative." In this case, conservative means pro free-market but also pro-military and in a sense pro-war.
But the schism between pro-war, pro-military-industrial complex "conservatives" and libertarian tea-party types is quite pronounced and is a kind of festering wound beneath the surface. Scarborough does not deal with this because he cannot.
In our view – and we have been suggesting this for several years – the dollar-reserve American economy died in 2008. The conversation that the political class is now having about taxes is almost besides the point. Power-elite central banking has so distorted the US's (and the West's) economies that something else will replace the post-Bretton Woods system introduced by US President Richard Nixon in 1971.
The elites from what we can tell, are now seeking a global currency that is perhaps backed by gold (a kind of controlled gold standard). We have no great affection for this sort of effort and hope it crumbles into dust. Free banking and currency competition are the hope for the future when it comes to Western money.
The other great hope for the West, is the dawning resistance to the globailst plans of the power elite. We have already described above, as we often do, how this resistance is evolving. While America and Europe would seem to be going in two different directions (European resistance to austerity versus American Tea Party SUPPORT of austerity) the resistance movements are actually two sides of the same coin.
In Europe, the elite's attempts at emplacing austerity are seen as a way of crushing people's ability to live life with even a modicum of freedom and prosperity. In the US, the government's attempts at AVOIDING the downsizing of austerity measures are seen as the same kind of threat. In both cases, however, the targets are the powers-that-be and – more importantly – government itself.
There is no doubt this is a critical juncture. Scarborough, an elite apologist posing as a Tea Party conservative libertarian, can redraw the conversation as he wishes in an attempt to please Mica's father and his crowd. But the larger phenomenon of resistance we see in both Europe and America cannot be gainsaid.
The European resistance to elite plans in our view is gaining momentum. The American resistance to power elite plans has not yet fully coalesced but it will be even more powerful when it does. Not for nothing have the elites embarked on open-air prison building throughout America (Google Jesse Ventura for research on this).
The larger question, of course, is whether the elites can control what is occurring. In a sense, we would argue, the elites have encouraged what's taking place. There is no use denying the strategy they use: Out of chaos … order. The question for us is whether, this time, they will be able to pull it off as they have before in their ever more urgent attempts to build world government.
Some say the banking elites involved in this program are Jewish and we find ourselves engaged in this dialogue frequently. From our point of view, the elite movement toward world government is not by any means entirely Jewish – or not in the lesser ranks anyway, which is why we use the term "Anglosphere elites."
But it is evident and obvious to us that the astoundingly wealth Jewish banking families at the top of the pyramid worship in ways that have little to do with normal Judaism. They are aided and abetted by an extraordinary cross-section of gentile enablers, including corporatists, militarists and even the Roman Catholic Church. It is ever thus.
However the highest elite is configured, Scarborough and others like him are paid to continually repolarize the debate so that each side retains at least a residual element of the requisite government activism. This is indeed a fear-based promotion of sorts, given the underlying message … that a society with little or not government sinks immediately into anarchy and violence.
This is not true, but it is theme that the Anglosphere power elite flogs relentlessly. What is occurring now, however, via the Internet Reformation, is a movement that is evolving away from the governmental shibboleths of the 20th century.
As it evolves, the scripts offered by articles such as this one (by Scarborough) shall become less effective, or certainly less accurate. The conversation is remaking itself along natural lines: Freedom versus government; liberty versus authoritarianism. Ignoring it doesn't obfuscate the reality.
Look back at how far this conversation has come in only a decade. It is a powerful and forceful evolution – and one we suspect may be immune to even the cleverest, paid equivocators. In the end, it will have little or nothing to do with tax rates, or even austerity. It shall likely center around fundamental issues of freedom and even natural rights. Rhetorical manipulations, no matter how facile or practiced, won't shut it down.