> The classic version of this-- right populist and left -- is to identify some
> institution whose members happen to be powerful and then target that
> institution as the source of their power-- the Council on Foreign Relations,
> the Carlyle Group, and so on. In most cases, such institutions look for
> people who already have power and invite them as members, so the organization
> has no real power unto itself. Such institutions may facilitate strategic
> cooperation among such elites, but then so do any other social clubs.
The one thing this seems to miss is the extent to which certain of these - esp. Carlyle and the like - manage to bridge the gap between self-interested, heavily-capitalized corporate entities with a very broad reach, and supposedly public-minded governing bodies at the highest levels, via the acquisition of highly-placed members who have their feet firmly placed in both sectors. Naturally there has always been functional intermingling of the two, from the smallest townships on up to the level of national governments. But there seems to be a significant qualitative and quantitative difference with some of the examples we're seeing today in areas like oil and defense. Sages might proclaim it a sign that we've reached some kind of saturation point or critical mass with regard to capitalism, with the potential outcomes being global emancipation of the working class or the end of everything as we know it. (Perhaps this is where the Third Way comes in: a sort of structurally inevitable stop-gap measure, staving off both revolution and total annihilation...)
--
/ dave /