Click here to access article by Robert B Reich from The Guardian.
Reich, the former Sec. of Labor under President Clinton, frequently writes for publications expressing a quintessential liberal point of view. He is on the left end of the liberal spectrum in the US because he is a strong advocate of labor rights and civil liberties. Generally, he is most concerned about the growing fact of income inequality in the US and the growing evidence of police-state type measures.
In this article he expresses concerns about the influence of money in elections which was just made more convenient by a recent Supreme Court decision that prompted his article. As in this article, he has written many articles expressing concern over the rightward drift in US politics. Generally over the past 50 years, the whole political spectrum has moved from the liberal end to the right. He, like other liberals, are mostly concerned about the political stability of the capitalist ruling class given such aggressive attacks on the poor, on civil liberties, and as we see here, on the strong influence of money in the electoral system.
To understand the US ruling class power structure, it is helpful to acknowledge that there are differences among those supposedly elected to represent Americans, but they are always sponsored by the One Percent. One must not be confused about party labels because each party has members with varying views on issues. Parties largely exist to provide the appearance of choice, therefore the trappings of "democracy". Although individual political agents do express differences on various issues, their view are always within limits tolerated by the ruling capitalist class. If agents stray too far from these limits, they soon lose their offices--for example, Sen. Frank Church who aggressively sought to investigate and control the activities of the CIA and NSA. I distinguish basically three political positions within this ruling class: 1) neoconservatives, 2) liberals, and 3) old-fashioned conservatives. They all strongly support a capitalist system. (No other political orientation is allowed any influence.)
Reich, the former Sec. of Labor under President Clinton, frequently writes for publications expressing a quintessential liberal point of view. He is on the left end of the liberal spectrum in the US because he is a strong advocate of labor rights and civil liberties. Generally, he is most concerned about the growing fact of income inequality in the US and the growing evidence of police-state type measures.
In this article he expresses concerns about the influence of money in elections which was just made more convenient by a recent Supreme Court decision that prompted his article. As in this article, he has written many articles expressing concern over the rightward drift in US politics. Generally over the past 50 years, the whole political spectrum has moved from the liberal end to the right. He, like other liberals, are mostly concerned about the political stability of the capitalist ruling class given such aggressive attacks on the poor, on civil liberties, and as we see here, on the strong influence of money in the electoral system.
To understand the US ruling class power structure, it is helpful to acknowledge that there are differences among those supposedly elected to represent Americans, but they are always sponsored by the One Percent. One must not be confused about party labels because each party has members with varying views on issues. Parties largely exist to provide the appearance of choice, therefore the trappings of "democracy". Although individual political agents do express differences on various issues, their view are always within limits tolerated by the ruling capitalist class. If agents stray too far from these limits, they soon lose their offices--for example, Sen. Frank Church who aggressively sought to investigate and control the activities of the CIA and NSA. I distinguish basically three political positions within this ruling class: 1) neoconservatives, 2) liberals, and 3) old-fashioned conservatives. They all strongly support a capitalist system. (No other political orientation is allowed any influence.)
The first group, the neoconservatives, have now largely taken control of US society. This takeover roughly dates from the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980. Their outlook tends to be strongly influenced by imperialist policies (spreading the Empire's capitalist domination over as much of the world as possible) has a strong component of Zionist influence, and an aggressive anti-working class/pro-business orientation domestically. They also advocate strong authoritarian policies to control dissent.
The second group, the liberals, are characterized by a concern for civil liberties, pretend to be concerned about the preservation of social welfare systems and the interests of labor unions, and are more oriented toward the interests of the middle class (managers, professionals, and highly skilled technologists). Generally speaking, the want to preserve some remnants of the social contract. Most liberals only pay lip service to concerns about climate destabilization. This group presently has little influence over government policies. Liberals largely serve the function of providing alternative views which ruling class media publish to provide the appearance of differing points of views in the government.
The third group, the old-fashioned conservatives, are a vanishing breed of politicos. They are against the imperial adventures of the neoconservatives, they have some concerns about civil liberties and a growing police state, but otherwise they mostly want to promote domestic private enterprise. I would include libertarians such as Ron Paul in this group, but figures such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts best express their politics.
Addendum, 4-8-2014. The term "libertarian" is a very confusing concept in the US. People such as David Koch identify themselves as libertarian. I think the term has been appropriated by many of the right wing who are, in fact, fascists (they promote the unfettered rule of corporations in a police state). "Libertarian" sounds a lot nicer.
