Reply #8: I use the term "establishment" in a particular sense.

[David__77]

I use the term where some might say "ruling class." While the ruling class has a strategic orientation, it does not ultimately have a party. I had a strong sense that Bush I could not be reelected after Los Angeles erupted in May 1992. It was clear that between that, and the struggles over abortion and AIDS, that many ruling class forces--think tanks, nervous big financiers, media moguls, others--felt that change was needed for the face of U.S. capitalism. Bill Clinton fit the bill. And it can be argued that Clinton's presidency fit in very nicely with furthering the destruction of the New Deal-era social contract, eg., "the era of big government is over."

While Democrats held power, arguably, even during much of Eisenhower's presidency, it was not the same "Democratic Party" politically as today. The southern Democrats and conservatives held a great deal of influence. Meanwhile, "liberal" Republicans were not uncommon.

The "GOP establishment" is interested in GOP power. But fractions within it, like neo-conservatives, do not act in mechanical accord with the fundamentalist right. Many Jewish neo-conservatives, for instance, are quite liberal in the British sense--free trade and "libertarian" socially. And divisions within ruling forces should be utilized and fully exploited. I have no illusions that George Soros is wonderful humanist dedicated with the well-being of the people. No, first, he is a mega-speculator--a financier. But progressives should take his money and further their aims. He feels that another political orientation is called for. It's just important that people use the establishment when they can, without becoming pawns for the establishment.