Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Michael Pollak wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> >> But let's shift the question: Why does the Wall St. Journal Comics Crew
> > > push for so hard a line in the Mideast?
> >
> >The WSJ editorial page position on Israel has long been somewhere to the
> >right of the Hebron Settlers. It's an invariant that's independent of
> >current events.
>
> Ok, but why? It's one of the major sites for American conservatism to
> "think" out loud. It's morally conservative, but not Xian fundie. The
> corporate culture of Dow Jones was basically midwestern isolationist
> for decades. So why is it so hardline?
>
>
Yes. That's why I asked the question to begin with. The politicians in
Washington may be influenced by campaign money (or even some form of
outright bribery), but that doesn't apply to the WSJ. There is some
drive _within_ the U.S. ruling class (not the _only_ drive but clearly
an important element) reflected in the WSJ, and I would argue that it is
that 'drive,' not particular political gains (such as Jewish campaign
contributions) that we have to explain if we want to explain the policy
on Israel over the last 50 years.
The explantion in terms of campaign contributions is just plain goofy. What is the total disposable income of the wealthiest 5% of the U.S.? And a few hundred million from allegedly Jewish contributors just simply doesn't have that much weight to be much of a factor at all. It deflects us from the serious problems of analyzing u.s. imperial strategy.
Those who blame special interest groups for the policy of the ruling class don't _mean_ to be apologists for capitalism, but objectively they are. The "logical" implication of their arguments is that if it wasn't for this particular group, u.s. policy would be different. But that isn't true. U.S. policy is going to be essentially destructive to the world no matter _what_ elements of the ruling class are in power at any given time. It's systemic. And to switch the analysis from systemic to particular people is moving us, willy-nilly, towards the socialism of fools.
Carrol