An earlier report had identified a group of right wing politicians from the plains part of Arkansas (unlike Clinton and his group who come from the northern part of the state). This group has links with old plantation attitudes and are soft on racism, particularly in the context of Little Rock. One of them went on record not to admit any links directly promoting the Jones Tripp processes, but saying that he thought it was legitimate to use the sex angle to get at Clinton's politics.
This earlier Observer article also described other members of the conserative religious right, as part of the anti-Clinton network.
The second article, which I cannot find on the internet, described the tobacco connection. I won't quote the names I half remember but subscribers in the US will know them. The critical decision was the little known committee appointing the new post of the Special Prosecutor. A meeting was described putting a key figure into the chair of this committee with connections with the tobacco industry. (Was this the South Carolina Republican who has just lost his seat??) This committee then replaced the previous Special Prosecutor with someone more determined to investigate Whitewater, and who had connections with tobacco, Kenneth Starr. After appointment as Special Prosecutor Starr continued to do legal work for a tobacco company.
Clinton has supported States Attorneys suing tobacco companies for I think I am correct in saying billions, not millions. It would be negligent on their part as capitalists if the tobacco CEO's had not been secretely considering how to lobby the elected representatives of the nation, and they would have a good capitalist motive to ensure that Clinton's trustworthiness was examined even down to the cellular structure of his semen.
I recall in previous incarnations of marxism-space Doug rather dismissing my suggestion that the move against tobacco was a significant progressive move against capitalism. My recollection is that Doug regarded the politics behind it as at best liberal.
That could largely be so, but I do submit that tobacco is the sort of issue where people are no longer prepared to accept that the private ownership of the means of production should prevail without social control. I admit that if it is the thin end of the wedge, it is an extremely thin end.
But in connection with the 1998 Clinton affair it seems to me that the Observer, which has excellent investigative journalists, has indeed sifted the vast mass of material and identified a section of capitalism willing to fuel the attacks on Clinton to an intensity that challenged the constitution.
What does this mean about which sections of capitalism supported Clinton and which his enemies? I would suggest that his enemies have been shown to be a merely heterogenous group of capitalists, with a declining industry, tobacco, as its most powerful section. Clinton by contrast not only retained his support from the majority of the electorate, but the support of US capitalism as a whole. The Stock Market rose on the mid-term elections. People on the Stock Exchange cheered Blair when he came to deliver international speeches alongside Clinton, on the day the Starr report was published in full.
Making marxist connections between economics and politics is not easy, and should not in a reductionist way ignore all the other interactions which come into play. But I submit I have reported a credible case.
The serious problem in the politics of the case, which I would prefer is challenged robustly and politically rather than by personalised attacks by Louis Proyect, is that I am saying that Clinton and Blair not only are successful in capturing the support of their electorates as a whole, but also represent *in aggregate* the best interests of the most far sighted sections of capital, and the broad mass of capital.
Plotting a progressive strategy and progressive tactics in this situation requires complex analysis. Advanced monopoly capitalism does not mind some public accountability. It already spends a lot on public relations. It is better able to take advantage in competition with smaller capitals of new social expectations about health and the environment. Capitalism is not averse to monopoly so long as it can influence the terms.
I would appreciate comments on the class analysis here, and the implications for strategy and tactics.
Chris Burford
London.