Page 1 of 1

Ben Bradlee: Class Traitor or Unwitting Tool?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 3:25 pm
by United States of The One Percent
(a valediction)

RIP Benjamin Crowninshield Bradlee, Boston Brahmin, journalist, flack, newspaper editor, author and card-carrying member of The One Percent. At the helm of the Washington Post during a crusading period of its history, he inter alia broke the Watergate caper that brought down the Nixon presidency. But in doing so, was he a traitor to his class or an unwitting tool of the power elite? And what does the answer mean for life in the good old U. S. of A.?

I'd like to digress on one episode in Bradlee's personal and professional life, one he recorded in his memoirs. He was a journalist for Newsweek magazine working in the DC bureau. Newsweek was about to be sold, and Bradlee and others had qualms about who it was going to be sold to.

What he did was he phoned up Post owner Phil Graham and suggested Graham buy the magazine. Graham invited him over and proceeded to pump him for information on the personalities, procedures and politics of the company Bradlee was working for at the time. The upshot was a 50-page typescript, since lost or destroyed. After delivering this what these days would be called confidential business information, Graham bought the magazine and Bradlee found himself, in rather quick succession, DC bureau chief, Graham son-in-law and Post honcho, a position from which he helped bring down a President.

Question 1: How did Graham and Bradlee going after Nixon serve the interests of The One Percent? Wasn't Tricky Dicky a Republican, therefore One Of Them?

Well, yes and no. Nixon, however privileged, wasn't quite Their Class, besides which he instituted wage and price controls at one point. As Democrats, Graham and Bradlee might have preferred a member of their party in the White House, but after a certain net worth party labels lose much of their meaning. And what they got in that case was a couple years of Gerry Ford and the disaster that was the Jimmy Carter administration, which set up the rule by Republican and centrist Democrat tools of the moneyed class that has lasted nearly 34 years.

Question 2: If the Newsweek sale was part of some elitist conspiracy, why be so open about it?

This one goes to the heart of the matter imho. The One Percent don't need to form secret societies, elect officers, collect dues, devise secret handshakes, skulk around like clandestine agents, or pass resolutions about how They are going to run the world.

The interests of the oligarchic class currently ruling the U.S.A. are so intimately bound together, and their sense of personal worth and privilege so innate, that the "conspiracy," if we are to call it that, runs by itself. Bradlee didn't need orders from the Trilateral Commission, Bilderburg or the Illuminati to pick up the phone and sell his company down the river to his fellow oligarch. All he needed was his innate sense of belonging to the right crowd and his desire to keep the news outlet he worked for under that crowd's collective thumb.

One last thing to throw out there: when has the Post, or any other major U.S. news source, last taken any editorial or reportorial position explicitly against the interests of The One Percent, their control of an outsize share of the nation's wealth or their willingness to employ that wealth to defend their position, power and privilege? In what sense then is it, its editor, or any other news outlet or honcho some kind of hero of the people?

(a peroration)

Well, that about wraps it up for me. I leave US-TOP a highly developed, prosperous Nation with huge income disparities, an illusory freedom and scores of controversies that help keep its less-well-off inhabitants' minds off the fact that We control every important aspect of their lives; the U.S.A. with its mask off. I may drop in over the next few days to make a wise crack or scurrilous comment here and there but after that, I'll be done. Be seeing you. Enjoy playing with your zombies.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:14 pm
by Geilinor
You're saying that we should have tolerated a violation of the law because Nixon was otherwise a good president? Yes, Nixon enforced school desegregation, ended the Vietnam War, and improved relations with China and the Soviet Union. That doesn't make Watergate any more acceptable.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:46 pm
by Herskerstad
Shitty poll choices are shitty poll choices.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:51 pm
by The Serbian Empire
An unwitting tool being utilized by someone even higher... Someone like the Hunt Brothers who tried cornering the silver market.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 6:53 pm
by The Sotoan Union
This is too bloggish.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:12 pm
by Murkwood
This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:22 pm
by Benuty
Murkwood wrote:This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.

I really wish there was then it would revive the CPUSA.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:23 pm
by Murkwood
Benuty wrote:
Murkwood wrote:This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.

I really wish there was then it would revive the CPUSA.

Then I'd have to become the next McCarthy to stop that. :p

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:32 pm
by Benuty
Murkwood wrote:
Benuty wrote:I really wish there was then it would revive the CPUSA.

Then I'd have to become the next McCarthy to stop that. :p

I give you ten years before you drink yourself to death after being humiliated in public by an attorney for the US army.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 7:36 pm
by Murkwood
Benuty wrote:
Murkwood wrote:Then I'd have to become the next McCarthy to stop that. :p

I give you ten years before you drink yourself to death after being humiliated in public by an attorney for the US army.

You don't think I'd plan ahead? First day in office, I'd write a bill to ban Military Attorneys, Alcohol, and Communism.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:28 pm
by Trotskylvania
It's like I clicked on this thread, and as the webpage loaded, I apparently stepped out of a time machine into the 1930s.

What next in the rhetoric game OP? Are we to hear talk about the proletarian cadres, or condemnations of the liberal left as "social fascists"?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:30 pm
by Anglo-California
To be a traitor to a class implies that classes are something of allegiance like nations or teams. You cannot betray a group of people who make a similar amount of money to you.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:22 pm
by United States of The One Percent
Murkwood wrote:This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.


The political infighting of The One Percent is along the lines of "I'd like my friends to be in charge of maintaining the status quo, including Our power, privilege and wealth, not the friends of my neighbor who's associated with the other major political party." The only choice, such as it is, the rest of us have is between oligarchs' toadies and oligarchs' whores.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:28 pm
by United States of The One Percent
Trotskylvania wrote:It's like I clicked on this thread, and as the webpage loaded, I apparently stepped out of a time machine into the 1930s.


Get used to the feeling. The 2020s are much more likely to look like the 30s than any previous time. The 1530s that is...

Image

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:29 pm
by United States of The One Percent
Anglo-California wrote:To be a traitor to a class implies that classes are something of allegiance like nations or teams. You cannot betray a group of people who make a similar amount of money to you.


I submit anyone in the U.S. with an income much below $70,000 who votes Republican is a traitor to his or her class.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 8:44 pm
by Text People
United States of The One Percent wrote:
Trotskylvania wrote:It's like I clicked on this thread, and as the webpage loaded, I apparently stepped out of a time machine into the 1930s.


Get used to the feeling. The 2020s are much more likely to look like the 30s than any previous time. The 1530s that is...

Image

Why is that?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 26, 2014 9:11 pm
by Asyir
United States of The One Percent wrote:
Anglo-California wrote:To be a traitor to a class implies that classes are something of allegiance like nations or teams. You cannot betray a group of people who make a similar amount of money to you.


I submit anyone in the U.S. with an income much below $70,000 who votes Republican is a traitor to his or her class.

How so?

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 3:49 am
by Murkwood
United States of The One Percent wrote:
Murkwood wrote:This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.


The political infighting of The One Percent is along the lines of "I'd like my friends to be in charge of maintaining the status quo, including Our power, privilege and wealth, not the friends of my neighbor who's associated with the other major political party." The only choice, such as it is, the rest of us have is between oligarchs' toadies and oligarchs' whores.

Compare Soros and the Koch Brothers. You think they want each other to be in charge? No. The 1%, when they aren't benefiting America by creating jobs and running the economy, are constantly fighting over politics.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:39 pm
by United States of The One Percent
Murkwood wrote:Compare Soros and the Koch Brothers. You think they want each other to be in charge? No.


George Soros would be much more comfortable with a Koch Brothers stooge in the White House than he would be with a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, and vice versa.

The 1%, when they aren't benefiting America by creating jobs


overseas that don't even pay a living wage in the economies they're situated in

and running the economy,


into the ground with Ponzi schemes like credit default swaps and too-big-to-fail deals where they keep the profit if they win and get the taxpayers to set them up for another trial if they lose

are constantly fighting over politics.


It's like money with them, the number and influence potential of the politicians they own is one of the ways they keep score among themselves.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:07 pm
by T Roosevelt
Geilinor wrote:You're saying that we should have tolerated a violation of the law because Nixon was otherwise a good president? Yes, Nixon enforced school desegregation, ended the Vietnam War, and improved relations with China and the Soviet Union. That doesn't make Watergate any more acceptable.
Yes it does, these good actions make Watergate more acceptable many times over. Richard Nixon was one of the best presidents that the United States has ever had.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 8:28 pm
by Geilinor
United States of The One Percent wrote:
Murkwood wrote:This thread is shit. The 1% has as much political infighting as regular America, probably more so. There is no one homogeneous oligarchical group.


The political infighting of The One Percent is along the lines of "I'd like my friends to be in charge of maintaining the status quo, including Our power, privilege and wealth, not the friends of my neighbor who's associated with the other major political party." The only choice, such as it is, the rest of us have is between oligarchs' toadies and oligarchs' whores.

You think they like having a choice of two parties more than the rest of us?