Social -vs- Economic Priorities
Prior to the 2012 election and the rise of the Sandra Fluke free birth control narrative, we used to call them social issues; however, the usefulness of cultural wars has morphed into the larger war of wokeism.
In the big picture, keeping the base GOPe voter distracted from the economic expansion of multinational globalism, the corporate ‘masters of the universe’ (ie. the Big Club), need to keep pushing anti-wokeism as a political strategy.
The cultural issues are useful tools to keep control of an alignment of voters. It has always been thus, and even more important now that people are starting to realize the expansion of the rust belt.
The rust belt, the diminishment of the U.S. economic manufacturing base, was an outcome of corporate control over politics. Corporations and banks seek profit, those profits are inflated by a U.S. service driven economic model. Skilled jobs require higher wages.
If the skilled jobs can be outsourced to lower cost labor nations, the subsequent lowered labor costs drive bigger margins. Again, it has always been thus.
At the core of the U.S. political issue, you discover that both wings of the DC UniParty agree with this basic economic model. Republicans and Democrats now use the catchphrase ‘service driven economy‘ with bipartisan frequency.
Many voters no longer have any reference to an economic system that is anything except a ‘service driven economy’, yet nothing about that system provides long-term value for U.S. voters or workers.
Within this very specific dynamic, you find the root of the support for Donald J. Trump. A larger, formerly considered silent majority who comprise the baseline middle class workforce, find common understanding with President Trump because he sees the flaws in the economic model.
Not coincidentally, it is only Donald Trump who has ever discussed these economic issues. Factually, no national politician in the modern era prior to Donald Trump ever dared broach the subject of economic nationalism, economic globalism and the negative consequences therein. Republican candidates who would disagree on economic policy would find themselves in the target field of the corporations who fund the political system.
A general platform more akin to a code of omerta covered the entire subject of republican economic policy.
As the pandemic years have shown, economic security is deeply tied to national security. As an outcome, economic policy ultimately drives foreign policy. When combined, the economic and foreign policy outlooks form the structural alignment of the UniParty platform.
Following the downstream effect of multinational corporate influence, modern Democrats support expansionist and interventionist foreign policy. Meanwhile, modern Republicans, previously called “neocons” have always supported expansionist and interventionist foreign policy.
Leadership of both parties now align in a singular foreign policy outlook; thus, we see support for the Ukraine spending and intervention by both Democrats and Republicans. However, outside the DC bubble of multinational corporate influence, the support for the interventionist foreign policy doesn’t exist in the same scale and scope.
Voters inside both the Democrat and Republican base do not support U.S. foreign policy intervention at the same level as the political leadership of both parties. There is a structural break between the priorities of voters and the priorities of the elected officials. None of this is new discussion, we all accept this basic reality and we see it every day amid the headlines.
With political leadership of both parties supporting the same economic outlook, and both parties supporting the same foreign policy outlook, we find the source of opposition against U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Economic policy and foreign policy form the uniting bond that drives both parties to oppose Trump’s America First ideological outlook.
As long as Donald J Trump singularly represents the only counterforce against this UniParty globalist construct, he will continue to be targeted by the system of financial controllers who fund the political system. For the sake of brevity this alignment of multinational corporate and financial economic interests is called “the big club.”
As part of the strategic political effort, the Republican wing of the Big Club needs to carve up the supporters of Donald Trump into smaller, easier to target, pieces. This is where the value of the culture war, what is now considered as ‘wokeism‘, plays into the strategy of those who seek to control political outcomes and remove the threat that Trump represents to their financial interests.
In many ways, this is why we are seeing prominent Republican officeholders pushing the culture war as a tool for their own political advancement. The same Big Club members who are directly fighting against the America-First economic agenda, are the same Big Club members who are funding the Republican politicians to push the culture war.
The corporations, billionaires and multinationals who are funding the Republican candidates do not have any vested interest in the culture war. For them the social issues are a tool, technique or insurance policy to guarantee security of the interest that does matter, their financial status.
There are trillions at stake, literally trillions. Additionally, decades of their prior investment interests are contingent upon the ‘service driven economy’ being maintained.
Dollars drive the U.S. global trade and financial exchanges. The multinationals, both corporations and banks, have pre-deployed investments all around the globe. However, many of those investments are entirely contingent upon the retention of the U.S. economic system they pre-established before the investment was made. President Donald J. Trump represents the threat to that entire financial system.
Once you understand this, then a great deal of the more nuanced and granular U.S. political moves, almost all of which are funded by the corporations and billionaires who are attached to the global investment process, begin to make sense.
Every non-Trump candidate, funded to create the opposition to America First, is part of this process to use anti-wokeism as a strategy.
With this level of money at stake, do not be surprised when you look at how much is being spent to construct the system that guarantees the continuation of globalism. The money spent in funding the Republican candidates to advance the distracting cultural war pales in comparison to the amount of money at risk in the 2024 election outcome.
That’s the baseline for this:
…“GOP leaders and candidates should take from this poll one important lesson: voters expect them to fight wokeness,” American Principles Project President Terry Schilling said. “Support for policies protecting families from gender ideology is off the charts, with the majority of the base showing a strong preference for tackling these issues. Meanwhile, approval of Republican establishment priorities was much more muted, with most of those surveyed even agreeing that GOP elected officials have given up too much ground in the culture war.”
…“Any candidate who expects to win a Republican primary next year for any office needs to lead on cultural issues in order to win over voters,” Schilling said. “Perhaps the two most prominent leaders on these issues so far have been Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, so it should be no surprise they are far and away the favorites in the presidential field. It’s time for the rest of the party to pay heed and set their priorities accordingly.” (more)
Candidate Donald Trump understands the real priorities of the Big Club extend beyond this useful cultural war, deep into the world of economics and foreign policy.
As each of the corporate funded Republican candidates hits the cultural war (wokeism) effort as part of the distracting political strategy, watch President Trump generally agree with the ‘social issues’, but then counter the distraction with arguments specifically targeting economic and foreign policy.
The entire field of Republican candidates will hold the same economic and foreign policy outlook (Ukraine example), with only Donald Trump representing an alternative.
Post a Comment