"Bush and the Wall Street Journal"

Sean O'Torain

It is very difficult to have a proper view of the policies of the US
capitalist class without reading the Wall Street Journal. This publication is
aimed at the capitalists, not in a passive manner, but in order to stiffen
their backbone, to unify them behind specific objectives and to conduct a
struggle with them when they are missing what is in their own fundamental
interests. And to conduct a struggle with them when they are not ambitious
enough. Such as over the past years for example. Since the collapse of
stalinism the US is absolutely dominant militarily, econonically and
technologically on the world arena. The Wall Street Journal strategists have
a simple conclusion that they draw from this. Go out there and dominate. The
world is ours nobody can stand in our way. Go out there and take over and not
only that but deliberately do it openly to drive the lesson home to all. What
drove them wild about Clinton was that he was always consulting and dealing
and talking and trying to get agreement for US foreign policies. Bush in the White House is one of their own. Representing the most savage and
crude sections of US capitalism, the energy sector and the military
industrial complex, the time has now come to show who is boss. This is what
the Middle East plans are about. And it would be a mistake to underestimate
the ambitions of these elements. They want to act against Iraq and from this
to put in place more compliant regimes throughout the entire region and at
the same time let Israel expand and become an even more effective base for
them there. The Wall Street Journal sneers at the "Arab Street". It says that
it has no power and should be ignored. Go into Iraq, go into other areas if
necessary, maybe a "regime change" in Saudi Arabia also, maybe in Iran also.

And in Afghanistan they have this already. This is their view to change the
regimes in the whole area if they can bring it off. And if they cannot it
won't be for want of trying. Of course they are wrong to sneer at the "Arab
Street". They may get a shock from this direction yet. But their thinking is
that even if there are mass uprisings and the present regimes are brought
down who is there to replace them, there are no mass left forces, there is no
Stalinist world anymore, they think that they can deal with any Islamic
regime that comes to power with military threats on the one hand and massive
oil money bribes on the other. The world is in for some big events.

As they contemplate this massive military and political offensive the Wall
Street Journal in their September 11th issue took a look at their boy in the
White House. Was he up to the task? This is not an unimportant question for
them. Also what was the mood of the US masses. A question even more
important. They pointed out that while Bush's popularity was very high, his
approval rate is 64%, this was 12 percentage points BELOW his fathers
standing in September 1990 before the Gulf War. This is a little worrying for
them. They are concerned that his support is not higher given September 11th.

Behind this less-than-spectacular popularity rating lies the economic
developments and anger of the US working and middle classes at the corporate
criminality that has been exposed and at the slow down in the economy. One of
the things that I think we should keep in mind, one of the things that US
capitalism can underestimate, is the possibilty that in spite of the massive
propaganda around September 11th and war against Iraq and "terrorism", there
is still a real anger amongst the US working class and middle class about the
role and activities of the corporations here at home. This could very well
explode in spite of the war propaganda. It is very easy to see overkill on
the part of the capitalist media flowing from September 11th and a real
backlash against the call for war and more war. "United we stand" looks a
little lacking in credibility when the owners of Enron, Worldcom, the banks,
the insurance and health care and pharmaceutical companies etc are lining up
to loot the pockets and bank accounts of the US working and middle classes.

The Wall Street Journal pointed out a few facts about their boy Bush just so
that their readers do not get carried away with their own propaganda. Since
Bush came to power, the Dow Jones has declined by nearly 2000 points,
unemployment has gone up from 4.2% to 5.7%, in the six quarters of the Bush
presidency growth of gross domestic product has averaged 1.1%, down from 3.6%
in the last six quarters of Clinton, and in an NBC poll only 38% thought that
the country was safer now than a year ago. They are worried about Bush's base
at home.

But then, and you have to give it to the Wall Street Journal,they defend
their class and its representatives. If the heads of the AFL-CIO defended the
working class like these people defend their class we would be in good shape.

They talk about their boy Bush, and is he up to the job. And in line with
their time-honored policy they are never prepared to concede to any, to even
the slightest, criticism of any of the representatives who are doing what they
want. This is what they write: "The president who spits the word "Nuance" as
a pejorative must persuade the public." (about attacking Iraq). They go on
"Mr Bush's critics were always wrong to sneer at his brain power." (Their boy
is smart you see). And then in a phrase that should go down in history they
advise: "But this isn't a challenge on which he can indulge his penchant for
cutting corners intellectually". I think it is great. Bush is not stupid. He
just "cuts corners intellectually". My neighbor's labrador, which cannot figure
out where he is supposed to go to the toilet, is not stupid, he just "cuts
corners intellectually". None of us are in any way low in brain power we just
"cut corners intellectually". As I say, we are in for a rough road.