See other World News Articles
Title: “THE THIRD WAY” TO A FASCIST WORLD? The cryptic international political movement of Clinton and Blair
Source:
WMR
URL Source: http://waynemadsenreport.com
Published: May 27, 2006
Author: Wayne Madsen
Post Date: 2006-05-27 22:23:07 by BTP Holdings
Keywords: None
Views: 132
Comments: 6
May 27, 2006 -- WMR has gone back into the archives to find an article from 2000 that explains the current love affair between Bill and Hillary Clinton and the family Bush. The "Third Way" was the launching pad for the current Tony Blair-George W. Bush-Democratic Leadership Council troika of neo-con/communitarian control. The Third Way explains why only 14 Democrats (which, surprisingly included Mrs. Clinton) voted against the confirmation of Gen. Michael Hayden to be the next CIA Director. It explains why Democrats refuse to filibuster Bush's crop of extreme right-wing and fascist-inclined federal judges. The cryptic international political movement of Clinton and Blair April 9, 2000 Wayne Madsen During his recent European trip, President Clinton could not pass up the opportunity to gather together his merry band of Third Way world leaders at a summit in Florence, Italy. Putting aside the fact that no one at the conclave could actually explain the true philosophy of their so-called centrist political movement, Clinton and his sycophantic British comrade-in-arms, Tony Blair, rambled on about the generalities of the “progressive governance” intentions of the Third Way. The Third Way is truly an enigma. No one is quite sure when it began as a movement. Its major inauguration was on September 21, 1998 when a gathering of like-minded politicians met in New York to officially kick off the movement. Those attending that meeting included Clinton and Blair. Along with the political leaders came a parade of New Age policy wonks and party apparatchiks. They included Professor Anthony Giddens, the director of the London School of Economics, author of a book not surprisingly titled The Third Way, and the intellectual guru of the movement; David Miliband, Blair’s Policy Chief; Peter Mandelson, one of Tony Blair’s closest advisers and current political fix it man for Northern Ireland; and the First Lady of the Global Village, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Together, the New York grouping set out to chart a confusing tertiary political course between conservative laissez-faire capitalism and an odd form of hands-off-big business and anti-labor "socialism." Clinton reconvened his Third Way comrades during the NATO summit held in Washington, DC in April 1999. While NATO planes and missiles pummeled Yugoslavia, Clinton chaired a Third Way session titled, “The Third Way: progressive governance for the 21st century.” Blair took center stage with Clinton. The leaders once again bantered about generalities like “communitarianism” and “enterprise and justice.” Third Way Agitprop Although the political philosophy behind the Third Way is somewhat murky and there are no published manifestos or platforms, much can be gleaned from statements made by the propagandists for the movement. The Progressive Policy Institute, an adjunct of the Democratic Leadership Council, issued some Third Way missives. It’s web page states: The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves. The international aspect of the Third Way is also described: Starting with Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign in 1992, Third Way thinking is reshaping progressive politics throughout the world. Inspired by the example of Clinton and the New Democrats, Tony Blair in Britain led a revitalized New Labor party back to power in 1997. The victory of Gerhard Schroeder and the Social Democrats in Germany the next year confirmed the revival of center-left parties, which either control or are part of the governing coalition forming throughout the European Union. From Latin America to Australia and New Zealand, Third Way ideas also are taking hold. The internationalist nature of the Third Way is echoed by Tony Blair’s shadowy aide, Jonathan Powell, a former British MI-6 intelligence operative who was once posted to the British Embassy in Washington. Powell was instrumental in establishing the Third Way’s Anglo-American connection during a meeting between Clinton and Blair at the Prime Minister’s country residence Chequers in May 1998. According to the Guardian, Clinton and Blair agreed to make the “social investment state” the cornerstone of Third Way philosophy. They also decided to link the Democratic Party with Britain’s Labor Party and reach out to other European social democratic parties to bring them into the Third Way fold. Asia and The Third Way Interestingly, Asia was originally put on the back burner by the Third Way. Japan’s political leadership was not invited to New York in 1998. Third Wayers apparently considered Japan’s moderate and center-left political parties as too close to Japanese business interests to be of much use to the Third Way agenda. However, Japan’s feelings about the Third Way may be changing. Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi told the Far Eastern Economic Review that he favored combining Japanese business management practices with ideas from the West. Not surprisingly, he termed this approach “The Third Way.” The Third Wayers are also reassessing their original bypassing of Asia. Before the Third Way’s Florence meeting, Germany’s chancellor suggested that China should be admitted to the G8 Group of Nations. Earlier, Blair had tried to sign up Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji as a member of the Third Way club. France’s Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was having nothing of the British-German embrace of China. He said the G8 consisted of countries sharing democratic values and he declared that China was certainly not in such a category. Hurdles in Europe The Third Way has achieved only limited success in Europe. While some Western European leaders have embraced the Clinton-Blair ideology, Jospin is suspicious of the important “Anglo-Saxon” composition of the Third Way. The French Prime Minister was quoted in The Sunday Times of London as saying, “If there is a third way between communism and laissez-faire liberalism, then I am for it . . . but if that third way is situated between social democracy and laissez-faire capitalism, then I’m against it.” Calling the Third Way “absurd,” Jospin decided not to attend the September 1998 meeting in New York. When he was coaxed into attending the recent Florence summit, Jospin continued to express misgivings about the movement. Jospin’s political co-habitation partner, President Jacques Chirac, a neo-Gaullist, not only has shown his contempt for the Third Way but has made no secret of his loathing of both Clinton and Blair. The Third Way’s Undemocratic Strands Some political observers have pointed out that the term “third way” was used by many countries in the interregnum world war years of the 20th century years to show that they were neither embracing communism, Nazism, or fascism. For example, Spain’s General Franco and Portugal’s General Salazar saw their governments as championing corporate statism as an alternative to communism and fascism -- a “third way” in their eyes. Limiting Representative Government and Traditional Institutions One tenet of the Third Way that is emerging is the goal of limiting current national government systems in order to prepare the world for global governing structures. The Third Way has already given increased military and political authority to NATO. Clinton’s Third Way marching orders included curtailing America’s federal form of government. In May 1998, while preparing to meet Blair and the other G8 leaders in Birmingham, England, Clinton issued Executive Order 13083, a dictate that sought to erode the power of state and local government in relation to the federal government. The order effectively nullified the Tenth Amendment that reserves some powers for the states over those of Washington. Faced with a barrage from Republican and Democratic governors alike, Clinton quietly suspended the Executive Order on August 5, 1998. Recently, Blair carried out his part of the Third Way manifesto – limiting the power of the British monarchy. In early September 1998, the Labor Party policy think tank “Demos” issued a report that recommended that the Queen be stripped of much of her power. This came at a time when polls in Britain showed that Britons’ view of the monarchy had decreased dramatically since the death of Princess Diana. Under the Demos proposals the Queen would no longer appoint the Prime Minister, give Royal Assent to parliamentary bills, or even open Parliament. British citizens would also be empowered to vote for those in succession to the throne. The failure of an heir apparent to achieve a majority referendum vote would result in the next in line of succession going before another referendum. Labor’s proposals would also disestablish both the Churches of England and Scotland, abolish the Privy Council and the Royal Household, and nationalize royal properties such as castles and lands. The Speaker of the House of Commons would appoint the Prime Minister and dissolve Parliament. Blair has already achieved success in his plan to delimit the monarchy. He managed to sack 500 hereditary peers from the House of Lords. It is anticipated that once the upper chamber of the British Parliament is remodeled, it will become a denizen for Blair’s political friends (referred to as “Tony’s Cronies” by some in the British media). The Birmingham Post summed up general frustrations with Blair’s plans to transform British government: “The demise of hereditary peers is a matter of regret in that it seeks to cancel out a British tradition which has lasted for the whole of the millennium. In their place comes ‘the third way,’ offering neither aristocracy nor democracy but New Labour’s New Oligarchy.” Blair’s future Britain would also see the British monarchy’s crown fiefdoms of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands of Jersey and Guernsey incorporated into the United Kingdom, thus losing their separate government structures and financial independence. The governments of the islands were not pleased when Blair dispatched Laborite officials to seek their compliance with European Union laws on taxation and corporate reporting requirements. The three governments rightly argue that they are neither part of the United Kingdom nor the EU so therefore Blair’s minions have no control over their internal affairs. Now there are serious calls for the islands’ independence. Quietly, some Tory politicians are advising the islands to declare independence sooner rather than later or they might lose their “tax haven” status altogether. The Queen is also not pleased with Blair’s meddling in the affairs of her principalities. While Blair seeks to bring the British offshore islands under the control of London, his attempt to devolve powers to Scotland and Wales now appears to have been directed more at weakening the monarchy power base inherent in the “United Kingdom” infrastructure than in spinning off power to the two regions. But that plan may have backfired on Blair. Scottish Nationalist Party leader Alexander Salmond has declared that an independent Scotland might just keep Elizabeth II as the Queen of Scotland, where she would proudly wear the crown of Scotland. Moreover, Salmond has struck up a cordial relationship with Prince Charles. Just as Clinton underestimated the power of the Congress and the states to forestall his federal power grab, Blair and his think tank denizens misread the feelings of the English and Scots for the monarchy. So did the Australian Third Wayers. Australian traditionalists, who include a number of old school Labor party politicians, saw the November 6, 1999 referendum to replace Queen Elizabeth as head of state with a parliamentary-appointed president as an attempt to enable political cronies to become Australian Heads of State Third Way politicians in London were jolted by Australia’s vote to keep the Queen as their Head of State. For Blair’s Labor Party hacks, Australia’s vote inevitably meant reinvigorated support for the monarchy in Britain. Subsequent to the referendum, Australian Prime Minister John Howard flew off to Durban, South Africa to meet with the Queen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Not happy with the specter of Howard using the meeting to revitalize Commonwealth support for the British monarchy, Blair had earlier complained that he would have rather stayed back home to watch an England-Scotland soccer match. Blair also did not like the fact that the Durban Commonwealth meeting brought together 47 heads of government, the largest number ever presided over by the Queen. Never happy with being overshadowed, Blair decided to launch a sneak attack on the Commonwealth. One of Labor’s think thanks, the Foreign Policy Center, issued a report just prior to the Durban meeting. The report suggested that Prince Charles should not automatically become the Head of the Commonwealth upon his succession to the throne. Although Blair did not indicate if this role should instead go to the more compliant King of Lesotho or King of Tonga, his suggestion certainly did not sit well with either the Prince of Wales or his mother. The Third Way Versus the Future King Prince Charles has become an unlikely hero for those who oppose the Third Way manifesto. Wary of Blair’s plans for Britain, Charles has taken every opportunity to stick it to the pretentious Prime Minister. In October 1999, Charles refused to attend an official banquet for visiting Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The Prince of Wales has a close personal relationship with the Dalai Lama of Tibet and his snub of the Chinese sent a very clear message of royal disapproval over the way China is handling the Tibet issue. Even some Labor politicians openly supported Charles’ act of protest. Charles was more successful in making his own protest known than anti-Chinese demonstrators who were roughly handled by the London police, resulting in protests from the civil liberties community, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats. How did Blair react to the Prince’s slight? The Prime Minister called the future King of England a “goon.” Charles does have a knack for knowing how to drive Blair up the walls of his Number 10 residence. Rather than dining with Blair and Mr. Jiang, Charles instead chose to have dinner with his friend Rowan Atkinson, the actor who plays Mr. Bean on TV and in the movies. When Blair looked set to push through a ban on traditional fox hunting, Charles, along with his two sons, took part in a very public hunt. And the final straw was Charles indicating that he would skip the New Year celebrations at Blair’s beloved Millennium Dome. Charles, an avid architectural buff, apparently considers the gaudy structure on the Thames an eyesore. He has chosen instead to be in Scotland where he feels more comfortable being around Scottish Nationalists than English New Laborites. Closing the Third Way to Nationalism The idea of ethnic nationalism, be it Scottish or French Canadian, does not sit well with the Third Wayers. They see it as adversely affecting the drive toward a border-less global market and a supranational governing authority. For that reason, it was Bill Clinton who chose to make the first speech outlining the Third Way’s opposition to ethnic nationalism. He chose as his venue a summit on federalism held in Mont Tremblay in secessionist Quebec. There, he took on the secessionist Quebec government of Premier Lucien Bouchard. Canadian papers reported that Clinton had put Bouchard in his place. It was a strange foray for an American president. Traditionally, U.S. presidents have avoided becoming directly involved in Canadian politics because of the sensitivities surrounding Canadian sovereignty. However, the Third Wayers have no qualms about involving themselves in the domestic affairs of other countries. However, more troublesome for the world’s suppressed ethnic groups was Clinton’s puzzling description of the Third Way’s views on ethnic nationalism. In a speech given on October 8, 1999, Clinton indicated that only where an ethnic minority is repressed could there be an expectation of independence. Therefore, in his mind, the Kosovar Albanians were justified in breaking from Yugoslavia. However, Clinton lamented the inability of East Timor to remain an autonomous province of Indonesia, even though the East Timorese were as brutalized by their masters as were the Kosovars by the Serbs. Clinton’s speech serves as a stark reminder that many ethnic nationalist movements will have to find ways other than independence to satisfy their need for self-determination: It seems to me that the suggestion that a people of a given ethnic group or tribal group or religious group can only have a meaningful communal existence if they are an independent nation -- not if there is no oppression, not if they have genuine autonomy, but they must be actually independent -- is a questionable assertion in a global economy where cooperation pays greater benefits in every area of life than destructive competition . . . And so we have spent much of the 20th century trying to reconcile President Woodrow Wilson’s belief that different nations had the right to be free - nations being people with a common consciousness -- had a right to be a state . . . When a people thinks it should be independent in order to have a meaningful political existence, serious questions should be asked: Is there an abuse of human rights? Is there a way people can get along if they come from different heritages? Are minority rights, as well majority rights, respected? What is in the long-term economic and security interests of our people? How are we going to cooperate with our neighbors? Will it be better or worse if we are independent, or if we have a federalist system? And the practical knowledge that we all have that if every racial and ethnic and religious group that occupies a significant piece of land not occupied by others became a separate nation -- we might have 800 countries in the world and have a very difficult time having a functioning economy or a functioning global polity. Maybe we would have 8,000 -- how low can you go? For Tibetans, Kurds, Chechens, Scots, Welsh, Manx, Quebecois, Taiwanese, Tamils, Montenegrins, and hundreds of other secessionists around the world the Third Way is not a home for nationalist aspirations. The Third Wayers seem to feel that 200 existing nations are too many and that they will do everything possible to ensure that number does not increase. Airstrip One There is another more disturbing aspect to the Third Way agenda. The rights of the individual are increasingly marginalized in nations governed by Third Way leaders. In Blair’s Britain this trend has manifested itself into a call by Home Secretary Jack Straw for the elimination of trial by jury for all but the most serious crimes and scrapping the law against double jeopardy, which protects someone from being tried multiple times for the same crime. Straw has also promoted enhanced police surveillance capabilities of communications (wiretapping) and activities (video surveillance). Third Way Britain is rapidly beginning to look like 1984’s Airstrip One, the British component of the totalitarian transatlantic realm known as Oceania. George Orwell’s Thought Police also seem to have come alive in Third Way Britain. Straw wants to elevate certain public comments to the level of a major crime. Similarly, the Clinton administration, through its efforts to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies practical unfettered access to communications, including the Internet, is endorsing the Third Way’s enmity towards an individual’s right to freedom of speech, thought, and assembly. Limiting privacy has been embraced by another philosophical guru of New Age political thought, George Washington University sociologist Amitai Etzioni. He heads the Communitarian Movement, an eclectic assortment of Third Way and global village aficionados. Etzioni, who is greatly admired by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Blair, and Jack Straw, argues that people have nothing to worry about when it comes to government invasion of privacy and that governments must put limits on privacy in the interests of “public safety.” Therefore, the Communitarians support drunk driving checkpoints, intrusive security screening of airline passengers, and mandatory drug and alcohol testing for certain professions. The Communitarians decry civil liberties groups as “radicals." In his book, The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni argues that private companies are more of a threat to an individual’s privacy than government. However, the fact that the Third Way philosophy combines government and corporations into an unholy alliance of exploiters presents the real threat to individualism and privacy. Add to that the Third Way’s argument that people must surrender all kinds of personal liberties to fight the so-called “Drug War” and “Terrorism War” for the common good smacks of Orwellian Newspeak at its worst. The Communitarians and Third Wayers see privacy-intrusive technologies like biometrics and DNA testing as enabling mechanisms for their “brave new world.” The Sound Way It is certain that the Third Way politicians will continue to hammer at the institutions that stand in the way of their amorphous plans. Fortunately, some are beginning to wake up to their machinations. Continued skepticism by old-line European socialists like Lionel Jospin, fresh opposition from the future King of Great Britain, and a realization by a coalition of progressive and conservative forces, including Greens, trade unionists, human rights activists, and nationalists, will go a long way in exposing the intentions of the Third Wayers and hinder their plans for an autocratic world led by an elite group of political connivers and opportunists. What is needed, however, is an organization dedicated to stymieing the goals of the Third Way. This can only be accomplished by building cohesive coalitions of like-minded peoples and groups. The Internet, with its rapid means of communications, serves as an excellent conduit to begin this process. By sharing information on the goals of the Third Way, opponents can strategize on the means to combat their internationalist efforts. The Internet, therefore, far from being transformed into a surveillance platform for the Third Way, must be used as a liberating technology to protect us from the movement’s ultimate goals.“THE THIRD WAY” TO A FASCIST WORLD?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: OKCSubmariner, SKYDRIFTER, robin, Fred Mertz, Burkeman1, Red Jones, HOUNDDAWG, loner, wbales, Eoghan, bluegrass, Max, christine, Zipporah, mehitable, Diana, tom007, RickyJ, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, lodwick, Brian S, valis. Itisa1mosttoolate, ruthie (#0)
PING!
"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954
PING!
"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954
We can definitely include Dumbya in this Third Way communitarianism.
"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954
The issue is settled by the question - "Is Nazism bad, if Jews control it?" It's all in plain sight - for those who choose to focus and pay attention.
Worldwide, if every politician, prime minister, ruler, king, governor, county commissioner, city council member, anyone who has the power to tax or make "law," were to clutch their heart and drop dead - would that be a bad thing?
It would eliminate most of the problems except getting rid of the many brainwashed enforcers running around with guns looking to plunder people on a daily basis.
"Our constitution relies on our ... freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses... The priceless heritage of our society is the ... right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error. Robert Jackson, US Supreme Court, 1954
#2. To: Ferret Mike, MUDDOG, orangedog, Mind_Virus, Jethro Tull, Dakmar, Hmmmmm, Freedom William, TommyTheMadArtist, who knows what evil, YertleTurtle, Starwind, Mekons4 (#0)
#3. To: All (#0)
#4. To: BTP Holdings, Christine, Zipporah, robin, Zoroaster, Arator, Bayonne, Brian S, A K A Stone, Steppenwolf, Bub, mugwort, bluegrass, Bill D Berger, FormerLurker, Uncle Bill, Dakmar, Flintlock, Neil McIver, tom007, aristeides, Burkeman1, Diana, (#0)
#5. To: BTP Holdings (#1)
#6. To: lodwick (#5)
Worldwide, if every politician, prime minister, ruler, king, governor, county commissioner, city council member, anyone who has the power to tax or make "law," were to clutch their heart and drop dead - would that be a bad thing?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest