|
Wesley Clark: Darling of the 'Wall Street Journal'?by
Jim Grichar (aka Exx-Gman)
Sensing that George W. Bush may be defeated in his reelection bid next year because of the mess in Iraq created by his neocon advisers, the Wall Street Journal (this is a subscriber web site) published an interesting commentary piece by Yale Professor of Humanities Harold Bloom on October 14 in which Bloom promoted former Army general Wesley Clark as the ideal man to be president of the United States. The Journal, official mouthpiece of the neo-con Wall Street group (identified years ago by Murray Rothbard as the leaders of the neocons), normally does not often publish such articles, although it sometimes tries to give the appearance of being fair. But the publication of this piece may indicate not only worry by the Journal’s neocon insiders (such as former editorial page director Robert Bartley and current director Paul Gigot) about Bush’s chance for reelection but also a desire to shape the election outcome by promoting a Democrat who could actually pass for being a neocon and most likely could be manipulated into doing the bidding of the neocons. The Journal’s Neocons Are Worried, And Possibly Angry With Bush’s popularity having fallen because of his and his administration’s lies about why the U.S. needed to go to war in Iraq, by the constant loss of U.S. lives in that country due to Iraqi and other guerrilla fighters, and by the increasing cost to U.S. taxpayers of completing "nation building" in that country, the Journal’s leading neocons may have concluded that promoting the candidacy of someone who would have virtually the same policies as George Bush, but who would not carry Bush’s heavy political baggage, is a good tactic. For years, the Journal’s editorial page has promoted the neocon line of tax cuts to promote revenue growth, big defense budgets and continuous meddling in foreign affairs so as to shape an international business climate favorable to large multinational corporations, and only marginal reductions in the power and scope of the Leviathan state. Even the Journal’s stand on Social Security and Medicare reform leaves the federal government with a major role to play in this area. Regarding the war on Iraq and the nation building there, the Journal editorial page has been a shameless promoter of the neocon agenda, namely, using U.S. military power to extend American political and economic influence around the globe. The Journal has often published commentary pieces indicating that the U.S. is in a war with Islam and that it needs to gain a foothold in the Middle East to squelch radical Islam and promote a secularized Islam in order to assure the expansion of its version of American democracy and capitalism (really fascism) to every corner of the planet. Now that Bush appears to be in significant political trouble, it seems like a good time for the Journal’s neocons to implement a Plan B, i.e., promoting an alternate candidate. Bush himself, through a deliberate announcement by Condoleezza Rice to the New York Times, even appeared to want to take the lead in running U.S. policy in Iraq by subjecting Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their neocon buddies to tighter control from the White House. With their feathers ruffled – as well as those of fellow neocons, both Cheney and Rumsfeld have gone to the media complaining about how they were correct and their critics wrong. Rumors of infighting among Bush’s national security team have also surfaced in the press, informally confirming what appears to be disarray in the Bush administration foreign policy. And the implicit criticism of the neocons and their goofy imperial agenda that was made when Bush started to take greater control of the Iraqi mess probably angered the Journal’s neocon senior editors. Bush taking – or attempting to take – direct control of the Iraqi mess is a slap in the neocons’ faces. It may also indicate that the neocons are losing their control over Bush so it may be time for them to get their hooks into someone new who will carry out their agenda. Wesley Clark – another Dwight Eisenhower? In his commentary in the Wall Street Journal, Harold Bloom discussed American imperialism and the imperial presidency as a fact of life since Lincoln confronted the "... South’s rebellion...." He suggested that America is only doing what needs to be done in the face of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist assault on the world. Bloom even refers to Edmund Gibbon’s "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and contends that the U.S. empire has not yet begun to fall. In discussing the U.S. empire and the imperial presidency, Bloom stated: " Our decimation of the Taliban, and continued pursuit of bin Laden, are inevitable responses to Islamic terrorism. But our wars with fundamentalist Islam will continue, and will broaden; others will be attacked. We have no option except imposing a Roman peace. The question I bring forward is: What is the proper training for our imperial presidents?" Well, Bloom’s answer is that we need another Dwight Eisenhower, and his name is Wesley Clark. Air-brushing Clark’s Clinton-sanctioned fiascos in Bosnia and Kosovo as successes, Bloom refers to Clark as "... a diplomatic unifier, an authentic hero, wise and compassionate." Claiming that Clark would not pursue a unilateralist foreign policy approach like George Bush has done, he seems to believe that it is possible to pursue what he stated above to be the U.S. foreign policy mission and still get international support for it. Clark has also talked about creating another new federal department – a Department of International Assistance, one that would exist to shovel out much more foreign aid. Bloom concluded his article with the following statement: "As a lifelong Democrat speaking to other Democrats, I urge his nomination. To Republicans and independents, I put the question: Weigh Gen. Clark’s qualifications against President Bush’s performance, and who seems likelier to lead us effectively in the years of trouble ahead of us?" But Bloom has slipped up and set forth the fallacy of the false alternative. Bloom says Clark is needed to execute the neocon imperial policy that George Bush has pursued but failed at. Bloom thinks that only Clark can convince the Europeans and others that the neocon policy is a good policy. There are three possible explanations for the apparent contradiction between Bloom’s vision of how Clark would act and Clark’s beliefs: 1) Clark really believes what he stated in one of his recent books – that the U.S. needs to work more closely with our allies and not run a go-it-alone foreign policy, but has conned the neocons into believing that he would indeed carry out their agenda; 2) Clark was lying in his book about what he would really do, that is, pursue the neocon imperial policy along the lines cited by Bloom; or, 3) Clark can be captured intellectually and politically by the neocons and then manipulated into carrying out the neocon agenda, much like Eisenhower was manipulated by the military-industrial complex during the late 1950's.
Bloom does not deal with Clark’s domestic policy beliefs (or lack thereof), but does put out a line that the nation is being run by a plutocracy. The most that Clark – who once supported Bush enthusiastically – has stated is that he wants to rescind some of the tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year (does Bloom think that $200,000 per year is the threshold income for being qualified as a plutocrat?) and use that money for defending the homeland (more firefighters, customs agents, etc.); funneling money to state and local governments to help with education, health care, and state budget deficits; and providing tax incentives to businesses that hire new employees. Clark also called for the establishment of another civilian "volunteer" corps, akin to a civilian national guard that the president could call up during emergencies. The one possible question mark as far as the neocons are concerned is that a number of Clark’s supporters are hard-core Clintonites, such as New York Congressman Charles Rangel. A Schwarzenegger, an Eisenhower, or a bit of both? Thus far, with the exception of calling for a rescission of tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year, Clark’s domestic agenda sounds no different than Bush’s, which is that of a social democrat. Maybe Clark is saving more detailed economic and domestic proposals for the primaries next year, but he does sound like Dwight Eisenhower in that he is saying little or nothing about what he would really do on the domestic front and trying to run on his popularity as a retired military man. And in that he also sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger, who won the California gubernatorial recall election by saying as little as possible and running on his personal popularity. Clark can garner the votes of those who instinctively would support a military man as being trustworthy in office. Maybe he will promise to get the U.S. out of Iraq more quickly, just as Eisenhower did in saying he would end the Korean war. But unlike the situation Ike faced in Korea, Clark would have to either get the U.S. out quickly, which would risk alienating the neocons, or con the public into believing that he had some secret plan (like Richard Nixon’s for getting the U.S. out of Vietnam) to quickly solve the Iraqi mess. Which brings me back to the neocons of the Wall Street Journal. While they may not have Clark wrapped around their fingers, totally willing to execute the neocon imperial policy at this time, they certainly understand Clark’s desire to make enough compromises to win a nomination and an election, a set of circumstances that make him ripe for manipulation by the neocon Wall Street Journal. And despite other talk, Clark appears to support the same type of social democrat agenda as George Bush does. The Journal’s neocons may also believe that a Republican-run House and Senate would keep a president Clark in check, just as it appeared to do when Bill Clinton was in office. If Clark were to get the Democratic nomination and win, that would finish off the presidential aspirations of Hillary Clinton, still loathed – for good reasons – by even the Wall Street Journal neocon insiders. Now all the Journal folks have to do is make sure that Clark does not pick Hillary as a running mate! October 16, 2003 Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
|
