Maybe, as Baldrick would say, "goldy" would be a better word.
Either way, power or no power, the thing about Kerry vs. Bush is that there is one good guy in Kerry vs. one bad guy in Bush. The factions divvy up along the lines of the Yankee-Cowboy war, the term author Carl Oglesby used to describe the rift between the old-line northeastern "Liberal" Wall Street establishment and the emerging "Conservative" nouveau riche Texas oil boys. Seems the CIA was split down the middle, eventually, with the two factions literally going to arms. Here's some background:
MYTH OF OLD MONEY LIBERALISMEXCERPT...
This conflict was dubbed the “Yankee-Cowboy War” by New Left theoretician Carl Oglesby (1971) and, by the mid-1970s, Kirkpatrick Sale (1975) declared that the battle had been largely won by the upstart “Cowboys,” resulting in a fundamental shift of power fromthe Eastern Establishment to the nouveaux riches of the Southern Rim. Consistent with the thesis of old money liberalism, Sale viewed the political ascendancy of new money as portending
a radical shift to the Right.
Yes, the newly rich. Particularly, they tend to move toward the Right. . . . As with the nouveaux of the late nineteenth century, who were notoriously reactionary, so the nouveaux of the middle twentieth century: they try to freeze the world at the point where they have reached their success, resisting advances by other people, other kinds, protesting anything that threatens their worldly goods (taxes, governments, unions). Far more than the families of established wealth, who have grudgingly adjusted to the inevitability of taxes, the painlessness of charity, and oblige of noblesse, the families of nouveau wealth still tend to protest the pulls at their purse strings and are not too concerned with the sophistication of that protest (Sale 1975:160–161).
This prognosis seemed to be confirmed by the election of Ronald Reagan, whom many viewed as an embodiment of the reputedly reactionary right-wing politics characteristic of the Sunbelt nouveaux riches (Sale 1975; Crawford 1980; Davis 1981; Dye, 1995). As already noted, evidence to support the thesis of old money liberalism, when any is given, typically takes the form of confirmation through the selective citing of individual cases.
For example, Franklin Roosevelt is routinely cited as evidence of the liberal predisposition of old money. The fact that Roosevelt was almost universally loathed within aristocratic circles as a “traitor to his class” (Aldrich 1988:227, 238) and bitterly opposed by a phalanx of du Ponts, Mellons, Pews, Harknesses, Aldriches, Pratts, and even Roosevelts within the ranks of the
arch-conservative American Liberty League (Wolfskill 1962) is for some reason not seen as a problem for theory. To demonstrate the right-wing proclivities of the nouveaux riches
it usually suffices to mention a Texas oil millionaire or two who have bankrolled right-wing causes (Sale 1975:160) or to assemble a list of a dozen new rich supporters of Ronald Reagan (Davis 1981:39–40). Whether these cases are representative of new wealth in general or whether a comparable list of old rich supporters of right-wing causes and candidates might just as easily have been assembled are never seriously considered.
CONTINUED FROM A GOOGLE ARCHIVE…
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:2I6-CXzRc0wJ:darkwing.uoregon.edu/~vburris/oldmoney.pdf+%22yankee-cowboy+war%22+%2B+oglesby&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
