What is Hillary Clinton's Relationship to The Establishment

I would define the establishment as entrenched corporate powers, including and especially banks and other financial institutions. There are organizations in this country which have a vested interest in supressing real reforms to our economic system. Almost every politician adheres to their wishes. A select few, like Ron Paul and possibly Bernie Sanders, seem to buck the trend and are predictably attacked for it.
 
In the case of abortion and gay marriage, you're talking about the gov't not preventing something. In the case of the ACA, you're talking about the gov't helping poor people get healthcare (and paying for it with taxes on the rich) and keeping healthcare costs down. Bizarre to call those "pro-establishment" positions.

"Bizarre"? It is bizarre to claim that the official, ruling law of the land, and the state violence that enforces it, is not, by definition, the policy of The Establishment.

You've shown repeatedly that you have no substantive counter argument to this position. Just hollow eye rolling.

You've essentially become a CT'er in your crazy attempts at rationalizing your position on Hillary. You're effectively saying that some sort of shadow forces run the country, contrary to the rules that exist on paper within the government. And that these "behind the scenes" players represent the mysterious "Establishment". It's like you're channeling Alex Jones all of a sudden. :icon_lol:

Personally, I would love to live in a nation where everything that I, personally, believe is just and ethical was codified in that nation's law. I would be a proud member of The Establishment at that point.
 
Bold: that makes sense- in which case, aren't we back to the hierarchy/equality polarity between left and right? Where "anti-establishment" would just mean "more left-wing"?

Red: Or maybe "anti-this-particular-sovereign" ;)
"The establishment" in this sense isn't left or right. We defined it here is solely as the body with the legal right to violence (i.e. the state). We could approach this from a Marxist point of view, where the police are the effective security force of the bourgeoisie, but we're splitting off track in relation to the context at hand.
 
The word 'Establishment' isn't really as useful in the United States as it is in the nation where it was coined -- England. It works well in nations with an extremely narrow track of power (a couple specific schools, closely tied to the gov't, closely tied to industry) where you are either 'inside' or unable to ever get into power. France, Japan, and Korea, for example, have this kind of setup.

The purpose of the word is to reflect a tightly-interlocked set of social circles that wield disproportionate power ... ecclesiastical, academic, financial, social, political ... wound up together. This exists in more socialist nations, but the closest the U.S. came is the "WASP elite," which largely collapsed and died in the 1960s. Capitalism and immigration largely obliterated any ability to form a true Establishment long ago in the United States. This is, interestingly, one of the reasons why it's almost impossible to even be anti-Establishment. Capitalism is so dominant that things like elite academic institutions get crushed beneath its wheel just as easily as immigrant labor ... they are mere minor details.

Great post.
 
"Bizarre"? It is bizarre to claim that the official, ruling law of the land, and the state violence that enforces it, is not, by definition, the policy of The Establishment.

Nah. If you're defining it that way, there's no such thing as an "anti-establishment" candidate, and thus it makes no sense to call any particular candidate "anti-establishment" or "pro-establishment."

You've shown repeatedly that you have no substantive counter argument to this position. Just hollow eye rolling.

I have had a very simple argument. The Establishment in America is roughly speaking the rich.

You've essentially become a CT'er in your crazy attempts at rationalizing your position on Hillary. You're effectively saying that some sort of shadow forces run the country, contrary to the rules that exist on paper within the government.

LOL! I'm saying that the interests of the rich as a whole often get more consideration than the interests of the median American (or especially the poor). If that's a "CT," then call me IDL.

I will say that this thread is showing me that the mainstream media is more influential than I would have guessed.
 
how is this even a question? She's just as establishment as Jeb Bush. She's a much better option but they are both in the "good ol' boys" club in Washington.
 
I have had a very simple argument. The Establishment in America is roughly speaking the rich.


.

Which basically accepts the Marxist framework. What I'm telling you is that violence is a much more real currency than capital.
 
Which basically accepts the Marxist framework. What I'm telling you is that violence is a much more real currency than capital.

Violence isn't a separate currency from capital. Capital ownership is the right to call on state violence.
 
Well, Hillary Clinton used to work for Wal-Mart, so she ain't shopping on Rodeo Drive or Fifth Ave like all of the rich people. She is a Democrat so she is always for the American working person
 
Violence isn't a separate currency from capital. Capital ownership is the right to call on state violence.

And the monopoly of violence can destroy or redistribute capital. Capital flows from violence, not the other way around.
 
Nah. If you're defining it that way, there's no such thing as an "anti-establishment" candidate, and thus it makes no sense to call any particular candidate "anti-establishment" or "pro-establishment."

Of course there is. As demonstrated by my Venn diagram. An anti-establishment candidate is one pushing for the type of policy change that will result in a significant move, to left or right, away from the current state's recognized policy paradigms.

So, for example, a Cuban pushing for free-market capitalism in Cuba could be labeled an "anti-establishment" Cuban. And an American pushing for Marxism in the US could be labeled an "anti-establishment" American.

This is not hard, man.

I have had a very simple argument. The Establishment in America is roughly speaking the rich.

That's only because the interests of the rich are reflected in and enforced by the current laws of the US to an overwhelmingly obscene degree.

LOL! I'm saying that the interests of the rich as a whole often get more consideration than the interests of the median American (or especially the poor). If that's a "CT," then call me IDL.

Saying the rich have an inordinate amount of power over the mechanisms of the state within the US goes without saying. Nothing could be more true. But that is very different than suggesting, as you have, that no matter what gets decided by the White House or the Congress or the Supreme Court or the people, it cannot be considered "Establishment" because the establishment is always and forever the rich who are attempting to conform the state to their own will.

Imagine the government is a weather vane. The rich are represented by the wind that always blows hard to the North. The non-rich are represented by a wind always blowing to the South. It is the weather vane, not the breezes themselves, that we must look to to conclusively determine which wind has established itself as the dominate one.

I will say that this thread is showing me that the mainstream media is more influential than I would have guessed.

Nothing I have offered on this topic has been in any way influenced by the mainstream media. I think you confuse dislike of Hillary with the recognized definition of the word "establishment". Bill Clinton was and still is fairly beloved by the mainstream media. It doesn't make him any less a part of the Establishment than his repugnant wife.
 
Of course there is. As demonstrated by my Venn diagram. An anti-establishment candidate is one pushing for the type of policy change that will result in a significant move, to left or right, away from the current state's recognized policy paradigms.

So your definition of "The Establishment" is just the two major political parties. So, again, there can be no major political candidate is "pro-establishment" or "anti-establishment."

More broadly, you're saying that any effective action is by definition "pro-establishment," which drains the term of any meaning.

Saying the rich have an inordinate amount of power over the mechanisms of the state within the US goes without saying. Nothing could be more true.

Good to see you acknowledge this! Last I saw you were calling it a CT.

But that is very different than suggesting, as you have, that no matter what gets decided by the White House or the Congress or the Supreme Court or the people, it cannot be considered "Establishment" because the establishment is always and forever the rich who are attempting to conform the state to their own will.

I said what now? If you can't refute my points without resorting to fabricating positions of mine, maybe you should think about the possibility that I'm right.

Nothing I have offered on this topic has been in any way influenced by the mainstream media.

Sure it has. The whole idea of Hillary as "pro-establishment" comes from the mainstream media. It's obviously not something that is supported by looking at her record or platform.
 
I said what now? If you can't refute my points without resorting to fabricating positions of mine, maybe you should think about the possibility that I'm right.

You're just lying. But, hey, prove my interpretation of your position wrong:

Give me an example of a government policy that's been enacted in opposition to "the will of the rich" that could be called an "establishment" policy based on the way you're defining the word.
 
You're just lying. But, hey, prove my interpretation of your position wrong:

Doesn't work like that. You said that I suggested, "no matter what gets decided by the White House or the Congress or the Supreme Court or the people, it cannot be considered "Establishment"." If you're not lying, point to where I ever posted anything remotely close to that.

I'm happy to defend my real positions, but the kind of low tactics that you're pulling are a waste of time.
 
Doesn't work like that. You said that I suggested, "no matter what gets decided by the White House or the Congress or the Supreme Court or the people, it cannot be considered "Establishment"." If you're not lying, point to where I ever posted anything remotely close to that.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to point to the part where you acknowledged the government as being part of the establishment?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,816
Messages
55,309,557
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top