During political discussions I find that inevitably, people accuse those in power of belonging to some cabal devoted to a certain kind of ideology.

What's most amusing is that in these situations, the politics of these groups is always at odds with the views of those in the discussion.

For example, those who I can term loosely as from the 'right' tend to assume there's some conspiratorial socialist group at the reins of power, while those on the 'left' say that there's a group of unfettered capitalist neo-cons calling all the shots.

(For the purposes of this discussion, the 'right' is in favour of minimal government intervention on economic matters whilst supporting government involvement in social policy, and the 'Left' being the opposite, though of course, there are stereotyped 'right' and 'left' positions which differ in matters such as gun control, immigration or the environment).

Seems to me that everybody seems to believe their cause is the punching bag.

The beauty of being fairly centrist is that I can laugh at how almost everybody has this same conceit. It may be an obvious remark, but it seems clear to me there is a) no international conspiratorial cabal but b) there are multiple groups, each comprised of members with differing views.

Now of course, a movement can coalesce around a certain ideology. It seems clear that the recent US administration had a decidedly Christian bent, though given that they presided over a massive blowout in government spending, I dunno if they're really conservative.

Being the most prominent recent power, many would claim they were the nexus of a cabal of corporate powers and oil merchants.
Because there were elements of truth in this, it allowed many to fantasise about an international corporate conspiracy, possibly including the media, oil companies, banks and anybody else they can formulate a shadowy conspiracy about, some even making up ridiculous theories about 9-11 or the Opus Dei or whatever puts bees in their bonnet.

The question is: is Obama a mere stooge of an international cabal?

Is there such a cabal?

Dear TRTL,

If you haven't seen the film, "W,"
(about George W. Bush) I suggest
you take the time and go see it. It may
clear up a lot of things for you regarding
the truth about the war in Iraq - the "Axis
of Evil," Cheney, and the politics of the previous
American Administration.

As for Obama - I think he's his own man.
But, let's judge him - after he's been
in office full term. It's early days yet.

One day TRTL you will awake to the fact that we are all either instruments of God or the devil. Behind every man and woman is ideology and spiritual influence. Obama is influenced just like Bush, Rudd, Hitler, Thatcher, Herod, Pilate or any other person in authority. I personally believe that any man who has made so many ungodly (albeit) popular decisions in such a short amount of time as Obama has is totally deceived.

Are you saying that Obama is influenced by the Devil runner? And that Bush was influenced by Christianity?

You should google the Carlyle Group and maybe the Bush Family Values. It might surprise you that many in power use religion to blinker the public to their other agendas, power and money. Money is a nice sideline but power is the driver for many leaders. And remember, it's easier to lie to a country than is is to a single person.

TurnRightThenLeft
"The question is: is Obama a mere stooge of an international cabal?"
Are you joking TurnRightThenLeft?
Obama is elected from USA citizens and represent them!
USA citizens are not idiots and they do not take instructions from anyone. International Companies, the big corporations have bad name , little efect on Obama's voters, supporters.
Boush's huge mistakes, his extremely bad policies, increased the popularity of Obama overseas but this has to do more with Bush and less with Obama but this has nothing to do with any international cabal
A black USA president won the support from the colored people and migrants worldwide but this has nothing to do with any international cabal
All progresive people in any part of the world like President Obama but it has nothing to do with any International cabal.
What realy happen with president Obama is that he changed the way people show USA before him.
NOW FOR THE PEOPLE OF OUR PLANET, AMERICAN PRESIDENT IS A RESPECTABLE AND CREDIBLE PRESIDENT.
GOOD FOR AMERICA, GOOD FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD!
Antonios Syeonakis
Adelaide

Dear TRTL,

My dad used to tell me, "Don't discuss politics,
religion, or in Australia, - football!"

It was good advice - as I've learned since coming
on OLO. They're all emotive subjects that some people
seem to get very upset about, especially if your views differ
from theirs. At times, - it can even get downright
nasty. It was on OLO that I was called a "Socialist
....(something)," I've forgotten exactly what. But it
was insulting! That, I do remember.

And, I didn't think it was funny at the time. However,
since then, I've learned to move onto other threads
when things get too heated or personal.
It's not worth getting ulcers
over things you can't change.

Anyway, I was cleaning my book shelves, and came across
a book by Peter Garrett called, "Political Blues,"
in which he says, and I quote:

"...The concept of the New Right is the politics of money
and power. It's the idealogy of greed, filled by an
unbridled commitment to individualism. It leaves no room
for social equity ... its made up of leading business
executives, employer organisationsm some farmers'
organisations, a few conservative academics, and anybody
else who hasn't witnessed the divide and fall of Thatcher's
Britain.

Like Mr Reagan, Mrs Thatcher is very New Right.
Most New Right Leaders, are in fact, old. The New Right
believes that neither Government nor associations of working
people (unions), should be able to restrict the proper
application of capital (money) in the economy...

The New Right, it seems, are pro America, pro nuclear weapons,
pro the monarchy, pro big business, and pro development. They
are anti conservation, anti union, anti peace movement,
anti multi-culturalism, and anti government. Mr Howard agrees
with their views. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had their support..."

How accurate is this depiction in today's Australia?
The book was published in 1987.