Politics of the absurd..

I scan the news like a good soldier every morning and evening and find more and more trash and less and less journalism. We may be suffering a downturn in interesting news, but I suspect the reason is that we may have a case of news fatigue. Often, when I begin to read an article I don't finish it because I feel that I already know the middle and the end; it is as if I could have written the item myself. And unlike a great novel, old and repetitive news is never worth reading again.  

In another vein, it may well be that we are living in such comfortable times that there is no need for a great leader to come fourth. If this 'give me the times and I will give you the man' scenario is correct, then we have been cheated out of some great leadership figures.

Further to the above, my take is that leaders with the potential of a Churchill are shunning political life because of how filthy it has become. In the West, politics is only about power. The opposition will do anything and everything to get power and the incumbents will do likewise to keep it. Hence, respected leaders like, for example, Colin Powell, will not agree to be put forth as candidates. They are far to intelligent to fall for that scam.

The power theory of contemporary politics as applied to the USA has another facet. The leader him or herself has little power but rather is a puppet of what Eisenhower called the 'military industrial complex'. This complex is composed of super rich and super powerful individuals who 'own' politicians and who are capable of creating and perpetuating public institutions to feed their needs. Such organizations have titles that contain key words that appear again and again in the myriad of institutions created and recreated by Washington. Examples are: energy, security, defense, atomic, American and so on.

The super rich are highly controlling individuals who have amassed fortunes through industry, oil, finance or commerce and who inevitably adhere to right and extreme right wing politics. Examples include Ross Perot, some of the Rockafellers, T. Boone Pickens, members of the John Birch Society. The military side of this equation is represented less by leaders and more by doers. Generals and sometimes colonels are required to promote ideas that conform to the interests of financiers. For example, a general that wants to nuke Iran is of more value to this group than one who wants to talk peace. A general who believes our best line of defense is to have massive armaments at hand is of more interest than one promoting arms control.

The amount of money this power group has to test, foster and finance political candidates is of major concern. Donating through anonymous Political Acton Committees, they can double, triple and even quadruple the millions of dollars amassed in a candidate's campaign chest. There is no question that the candidate with the biggest war chest has the best chance of winning an election. 

My worry is that the above take borders on conspiracy theory and should therefore be thrown out with the bathwater. I have no doubt, however, that these big money, far right people have a consuming financial and political influence on American life. Recall it was T. Boone Pickens who financed the ant-John Kerry ads about his being a poor and cowardly leader as captain of a fast boat in Vietnam. That alone is credited with swinging the public vote to W.