The sale of the U.S. presidency: Trilateralism and Jimmy Carter's chart. J.R.R. Tolkien tribute. A special edition of Planet Waves FM...this is a cross-post.
Other presidents who were Trilateral Commission members are/were George H.W. Bush, an original charter member who went on to become UN Ambassador and CIA head for Ford, and then of course Reagan's "vice president" for Reagan (John Hinckley was used to remind Reagan who was really in charge) and then outright president. and Bill Clinton.
EDIT: My bad, Bush did not become a member till after he was CIA head, served on the Commission after leaving office, '77-8, left before his planned run for the GOP presidential nomination in 1980, which he lost to Reagan but won by being the effective controller while ostensibly being vice president.
I forgot to mention Bush serving under Reagan was their Trilateral controller in the White House. And now that you mention it, yep he was listed as a "former member in public service" at some point. Also, the leadership is not seamless; there is dissent and there are variables that go outside of the control of people calling the shots, but they deal with the contingencies.
The members often have diverging interests. Capitalism has two fundamental structural dynamics to it which are mutually contradictory. There is a dynamic toward concentration and centralization, and there is one toward competition and fragmentation. Back and forth they go, with the contradiction being a key reason for recurring crises which worsen as history proceeds and the system develops further and spreads.
and in terms of controlling politics, there are limits. So too with policy: PNAC wanted to go into Iraq; there was obviously no geopolitical strategic rationale for that. But they did it....and nobody could stop them. This was pure self-interest on Cheney's part -- I think he's too independent and stubborn to play into this kind of cabal...he wants his own mafia.
Each of them has his/her agenda, but some times some of them push their own agenda regardless of the group's collective agenda. That's the competition/fragmentation dynamic asserting itself over the concentration/centralization one.
And Cheney also played with the team a couple of months ago, endorsing Kamala over the Donald. Or at least a branch of the team. Elections are after all a mechanism which the elite use to settle disputes, see which possible policy options sell better with the public.
Nelson Rockefeller served as veep under Ford, not Nixon, and was his running mate in 1976.
Keir Starmer current British Prime Minister is a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Other presidents who were Trilateral Commission members are/were George H.W. Bush, an original charter member who went on to become UN Ambassador and CIA head for Ford, and then of course Reagan's "vice president" for Reagan (John Hinckley was used to remind Reagan who was really in charge) and then outright president. and Bill Clinton.
EDIT: My bad, Bush did not become a member till after he was CIA head, served on the Commission after leaving office, '77-8, left before his planned run for the GOP presidential nomination in 1980, which he lost to Reagan but won by being the effective controller while ostensibly being vice president.
I forgot to mention Bush serving under Reagan was their Trilateral controller in the White House. And now that you mention it, yep he was listed as a "former member in public service" at some point. Also, the leadership is not seamless; there is dissent and there are variables that go outside of the control of people calling the shots, but they deal with the contingencies.
The members often have diverging interests. Capitalism has two fundamental structural dynamics to it which are mutually contradictory. There is a dynamic toward concentration and centralization, and there is one toward competition and fragmentation. Back and forth they go, with the contradiction being a key reason for recurring crises which worsen as history proceeds and the system develops further and spreads.
and in terms of controlling politics, there are limits. So too with policy: PNAC wanted to go into Iraq; there was obviously no geopolitical strategic rationale for that. But they did it....and nobody could stop them. This was pure self-interest on Cheney's part -- I think he's too independent and stubborn to play into this kind of cabal...he wants his own mafia.
Each of them has his/her agenda, but some times some of them push their own agenda regardless of the group's collective agenda. That's the competition/fragmentation dynamic asserting itself over the concentration/centralization one.
And Cheney also played with the team a couple of months ago, endorsing Kamala over the Donald. Or at least a branch of the team. Elections are after all a mechanism which the elite use to settle disputes, see which possible policy options sell better with the public.