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.

The reason Foxy we all got that warning may well have been more than the fight such conversations bring.
If we do not inquire constantly into who rules us and how we are very foolish and lazy.
Runner highlights for me all that is wrong with religion, blind faith some one else will fix it.
In runners case the Truth we are alone and waiting for something that will never come has been lost.
Even here in this thread evidence has been shown we do defame those who think differently than us.
Obama is no ones man, no puppet, but in America if he comes up against the stake holders he will have to watch his back.
Those dreadful bonuses area symptom of a dreadful illness in American business.

I've seen 'W' Foxy. I thought it was a bit simplistic, but I guess that was inevitable. I don't think you can reduce it all to Christianity and a desire for paternal approval.
The film only depicted Bush's presidency until the 2004 election, which Stone assumed Bush would lose. I only give Bush credit for two things - being the first president to elevate african-americans to prominent positions, and the troop surge in Iraq (though the overall Iraq project was idiocy). This film didn't really highlight either of those.
I thought 'W' was OK and the main actor did a good job, but the acting of Condolezza Rice and a few others made me cringe.

I'm aware of middle eastern politics and Bush's 'axis of evil' (diplomatic idiocy rivalling Howard's anti-Obama comments) but simply because the US administration had a global plan, doesn't mean they were networked to such an extent.

I guess I bring this black to globalisation - what are the international groups which wield significant power?

The Catholic Church? OPEC? Al Qaeda? The White House? Given the financial crisis, will the influence of corporate entities wane? What about Chinese companies backed by the state, which have unprecedented liquidity at present and are buying while the buying's good? Are those arms of the government, or will they inevitably become capitalist corporate icebergs?

Do these groups work together? Who is the most powerful?

runner - heh. Your satire gives me such chuckles.

Foxy - Religion politics and... football? Evidently the three taboo subjects I was informed of are a little more risque!

Nevertheless, I also believe that they're among the most important subjects, so they can't be avoided if we're going to address our most significant issues.

"Conspiracy theory" is an abused term. The simple fact is that the powerful conspire against us regularly, but 99.99% of the time, it's human nature and the law of averages that dictate history. For example, if it weren't for an extraordinarily unlikely set of circumstances, in 2009 the Right would be laughing at the tinfoil hat loonies who believe that a US president would be so petty as to send agents to burgle the Watergate hotel. But it happened, just as other hidden machinations do to influence the turn of events. The lines are blurred. For example, it's highly improbable that the Bush administration engineered the 9/11 attacks, but it's clear from the aftermath that it almost certainly predicted them. Is not stopping a terrorist attack a conspiracy? Additionally, the role of religion in US politics is insidious, but hardly a global conspiracy. Google "the family" and then read runner's post above. It's obvious that some people will believe anything if it's wrapped in religion, which was Karl Rove's election strategy, but it's hardly global. Regardless of the efforts of the elite to make us serve their desires, secular democracy mostly delivers power to the populace, even though we have to accept compromise as part of the bargain.

"Conspiracy theory" is an abused term. The simple fact is that the powerful conspire against us regularly, but 99.99% of the time, it's human nature and the law of averages that dictate history.

For example, if it weren't for an extraordinarily unlikely set of circumstances, in 2009 the Right would be laughing at the tinfoil hat loonies who believe that a US president would be so petty as to send agents to burgle the Watergate hotel. But it happened, just as other hidden machinations do to influence the turn of events.

The lines are blurred. For example, it's highly improbable that the Bush administration engineered the 9/11 attacks, but it's clear from the aftermath that it almost certainly predicted them. Is not stopping a terrorist attack a conspiracy?

Additionally, the role of religion in US politics is insidious, but hardly a global conspiracy. Google "the family" and then read runner's post above. It's obvious that some people will believe anything if it's wrapped in religion, which was Karl Rove's election strategy, but it's hardly global.

Regardless of the efforts of the elite to make us serve their desires, secular democracy mostly delivers power to the populace, even though we have to accept compromise as part of the bargain.

Dear TRTL,

It's late and I'm tired - (just got home
from the theatre) - but I
thought I'd type a few words before I go.

Well, I guess I must be 'simple-minded.'

I got a different take from the movie 'W'
to you. My reaction was - 'only in America,'
could someone of the calibre of George W.
be elected President.

I found it rather frightening
the way those around him manipulated him, Cheney
I found especially scary. And the reasons for getting
involved in Iraq - oil, and more oil - was quite an
eye-opener.

Anyway, as for a 'global conspiracy?'

What do you know about the 'Trilateral Commission?'

I'll write more later - go to go.

Foxy, my apologies. I certainly didn't mean to imply fans of W were in any way simple minded, and in fact, many of the simplest films have the greatest impact. 'W' was ok and I give Oliver Stone props for tackling the subject.
I guess I don't believe Bush could possibly be as dumb as people make him out to be.
Sure, he was probably a stooge of those around him, but even if they did simply put a stooge in place, he'd still need a certain something to warrant such a position - I note in the film they mentioned that Bush was gifted with the common touch and rote memorisation.

It is because I loathe what his administration represented, that I must check myself in believing the worst of it. It's so easy to lose perception when assessing those with whom one disagrees.
(Mainly I was just ticked off by the godawful acting by the woman who played Condolezza Rice. Josh Brolin did a good job though).

It's late here and I haven't googled the trilateral commission but I'll check 'em out tomorrow.

I think Sancho says things pretty well... though I'm still curious as to people's thoughts on how significant the influences of the aforementioned international groups are. Are we due for some kind of de-facto capitalist one-world government that has an international multi-cultural face but a globalised nature? Or as Sancho points out, does fate ensure otherwise?

Dear TRTL,

Thanks for the apology. It's appreciated - and I
do admit that I am biased as far as George W. is
concerned.

As far as who are the most powerful organisations
in the world? I remember reading John Pilgers
book, "The New Rulers of the World," a few years ago -
and finding it fascinating. Pilger presented arguments
that,"economic globalisation is but the latest phase of
colonial domination of the week by the powerful..."

He argued that, "Globalisation is being moulded by
such powerful International forces like, 'World Trade
Organisation,' 'The World Bank,' and the 'International
Monetary Fund.'"

I believe that oil companies in the US have great control
over the Government, a point made by Stone in his movie,
'W.'

Anyway I came across the following website which may also
be of some interest:

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=300
"The State is more powerful than ever; the view
that big business alone shapes the new world order
is wrong."
9 July 2001.

It presents another perspective.

Tough issues to grapple with TRTL.

This whole debate is really about power and who wields it. On the one hand, it might be simplistic to argue an international conspiracy or an illuminati that controls world affairs, but this may in fact be the case at both a macro and micro level at times. Some argue it was the interests of big armaments business that pushed the invasion of Iraq.

There are certainly power-factors at play that may change from time to time based on shifts in economic power or economic thinking/ideology or through war/natural disasters. There certainly seems to be swings in ideology and surges in the religious intrusion in politics both in the Christian and Islamic world. I suspect these movements become stronger when there is a perceived enemy at the gates.

I agree with Sancho's comments although I don't personally think 9/11 was a US conspiracy but history has revealed other self-interested manipulations on the part of governments, so maybe I will be proved wrong.

I am not savvy enough to work out what influences or factors are at play that lead to an emphasis of either RW or LW ideology in relation to power. We know that John Howard's government was very much influenced by the NSW Right, but why did this happen and were there larger global factors at play? What influences induced economic rationalism, increase in free markets and a move away from some of the principles of a social democracy? I don't know the answer to that.

For me, the extremes of anything are always of concern and either RW or LW and both work against harmonious and just societies.

The way I see it, "Power" is an amorphorous thing at best, it waxes and wains, and shifts constantly. Some of the Oligarchs that run most things in "Western" society, the big companies and corporations, Banks, Gov' etc, have "power" in certain areas at certain times, often even, but this can change at any time, a populist movement, a war, bad weather, anything can re-write the political landscape. Of course those at the top talk to each other, support each other, but I really don't believe that in this day and age that any one group could retain true "power" for any length of time, let's face it, they're notorious for self-serving and untrustworthiness, one or other would soon see advantage in selling out. Try looking at it as a giant swimming-pool full of ping-pong balls, if enough people operate together, or one has a big enough paddle, some influence can be exerted, but the pool will always be a swirl of changes, and one never can tell which particular butterfly's wing is going to cause the storm, thank god!
Long live us butterflys, lol

Obama is either a part of the cabal or a witless pawn.
Democracy has long gone from this world, most nations have 2 main parties that are for all intents and purposes the same (can you name 5 policys IMPLEMENTD by the ALP that differs from any IMPLEMENTED policy of the LIBERALS?)
candidates are preselected by faceless factions ( the exception being unwinnable seats where the "people" are given their (worthless) choice to placate them )genuine minor parties/independants have no hope to cause a real difference with the electrol system from funding to preferences designed for the big 2 the few independants are merly window dressing to show that we have a working democracy.
cival servants have mort power than cabinet members who have more power than backbenchers who have more power the opposition......