What Do Elena Kagan And The European Bailout Have In Common?

President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court is, essentially, the same type of governing act as the EU decision to bail out European banks vulnerable to the Greek crisis. In both instances political leadership serves the interests of financial elites — plutocracy advancing while veiled by supposedly democratic institutions. In both cases the power of government grows as it defends the critical interests of financial policy overlords.

The EU support package is ostensibly to prevent the financial crisis in Greece from creating a domino effect into other EU countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy. (It is evolving into a mutual insurance pact, working class people bearing the brunt load.) While the political call to arms is supposedly economic solidarity on behalf of the common man’s standard of living, the real objective is the protection of mega-banks that hold debt generated by EU countries. Indeed, announcement of the massive EU support package triggered a bank stock rally in the U.S., the top five U.S. banks having a mountainous $2.5 trillion exposure in Europe. (It may be that the attack by bond vigilantes on the treasury paper of ‘weak’ EU countries reflects an orchestrated effort to blackmail the EU into a taxpayer supported bailout of banks. The earlier parallel in the U.S. would be the stunning attack on the U.S. stock market in 2008 when Congress initially resisted Treasury Secretary Paulson’s demands for a big bank bailout.)

For years big European banks have lent money to fund the national debts of European countries, apparently unconcerned that the easy money resulted in the over-expansion of the countries’ economies. Ballooned economies cannot support employment and spending levels without a continuing supply of new debt. The goal of financial elites is to control policy (and thus the distribution of financial rewards), by sweeping most major nations into debt dependency — only to later refuse additional debt purchases, presumably because elected politicians are incompetent stewards of financial power.

Until 2008, Americans and Europeans tapped rising home value as a means of pursuing the good life, apparently oblivious to the risk that private debts would impair their ability to later demand government reforms to hold banks accountable. Now, neither Americans nor Europeans can afford to confront moral hazard because their economies are predicated upon the continuance of monetary inflation and paper asset appreciation as crucial means of dealing with debt loads.

This Is Freedom?

America and Europe are no longer politically free, politics being sold to financial imperatives. (Indeed, the German voters are being forced against their will to bail out Greek excesses.) Freedom is de-actualized and turned into little more than a gutted claim gussied up in its trappings. Its “political religion” without piety, power, integrity or repentance from financial sin.

The testimony of the newest chapter of EU bailout politics is that most European politicians are pawns. They have choice without having choice, for they cannot afford choices that would deny the prospect of economic growth or the overthrow of economic hegemons. They’re “free,” quite like the Russians were free as a result of the Bolshevik revolution. We in America are free, too, helped by two parties that are just one when it comes to finance capitalism’s essentials — inflation, growth, and Ponzi style asset markets.

Kagan's Links To Financial Elites

While the politicians are dispensable, as are governing coalitions, the interests of the elites who whisper to politicians, are guarded jealously. It is the relentless guarding of these interests that joins in theory and practice the newest EU financial support package and President’s Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. The EU’s rescue of bankers who lead blind countries into sovereignty risks undoubtedly meshes with Obama’s choice of Kagan for the big court job. Kagan will foist “junk liberties” on the American public while working to extract from the people the means to call hijacked government to account.

Prior to becoming Obama’s Solictor General of the United States (on March 19, 2009), Elena Kagan was a law professor at Harvard. At Harvard she was elevated in 2001 to Law School Dean by then-Harvard President, Lawrence Summers (currently Obama’s director of the White House National Economic Council). Summers’ ties to Wall Street are deep, reflected in the compensation he has been given from a major hedge fund operator and Wall Street speaking fees. (Summers also has ties to persons and groups who aided and abetted the plundering of Russia by elites following the collapse of Communism; think Andrei Shleifer, Harvard economist, for example.) Many observers associate Summers’ thinking with that of former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner. Since Elena Kagan has operated as a member of the Goldman Sachs Global Market Institute (2005-08), there is little reason to think she is less attuned to the interests of global financiers than is Summers.

Kagan has no experience on the judicial bench; granted, she was nominated in 1999 by President Clinton to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals — a nomination that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin hatch refused. Kagan does have experience, however, as a policy advocate, serving President Clinton’s Administration in two high level policy advisory roles. In her policy advocacy initiatives Kagan has emitted signals that she is supportive of expansive sexual rights for gays and lesbians. But these are only “signals,” for Kagan has shown restraint in making public statements, thus causing some to view her as a potential David Souter stealth candidate — a view supported by Kagan’s advancement to the Solicitor General’s Office as a status set-up.

If Kagan is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court — populated with three Jews and six Catholics — will look even less like American demographics. The pool of surmised potential Obama high court nominees included persons of several descents and advocacy groups (e.g., Deval Patrick, a black; Harold Koh, an Asian; John Echohawk, an American Indian; Pamela Kalan, a open LBGT adherent; and Cass Sunstein, an advocate of government infiltration of conspiracy theory groups and an opponent of governmental recognition of marriage). Obama did not get court diversity with this pick. He got something more important: someone with a tough guy persona to support big government authority and defend the people increasingly populating the government’s highest positions.

Some liberal Supreme Court observers are concerned about Kagan’s nomination to the high court because she seems supportive of invasive powers for the national executive — powers that neo-conservatives and neo-liberals jointly appreciate but on different planes. So while Kagan may want to use the high bench to change policy and expand protections for what many Americans consider licence (not true liberty), she may also pursue judicial activism to strengthen the boot heel of big government against people who oppose the hijacking that is underway.

How Real Liberties Are Lost

Serious political minds have long recognized that to take critical rights from electorates it is usually necessary to boost access to the liberties (or vices) that gratify the senses and the fleshly appetite — licentiousness, liquor, drugs, entertainment, gambling, celebrity competitions, gladiatorial contests, lotteries, revelries, and vicarious participation in conspicuous consumption. (These were hazards against which traditional American Protestantism set its guard.). Viewed from this perspective, elites overwhelm republican defenses against plutocratic engineering by causing politically naive electorates to buy into the spin that nondiscriminatory civil rights are being expanded while essential republican liberties are actually withdrawn.

The year is not far removed when government will constrict civil disobedience when that disobedience strikes at the legitimacy of the hijackers’ authority. Homeland Security will deal with protesters as if they were inciting violence or terrorism. The primary media spin will be that economic recovery and growth are dependent upon the health of asset markets. They’ll say: ‘With asset price security remaining fragile, the national interest can ill afford the uncertainties or turmoil that public outcry may bring’...ad nauseam. Kagan will make Woodrow Wilson look like an amateur when she tramples the constitution in support of claimed financial expediencies.

Kagan will help protect the LBGT interest against intolerance and “hate speech” — a claimed victory for civil liberties. Not long afterwards, she will argue to protect government officials and bureaucrats from ‘hate speech’ — confidence in our leaders being expedient to the right function of our markets and our prospect of government and market subsidized retirements. In this context count on an increasing marginalization of persons who describe the national condition as it is.

What will be the price of courage in the days to come? Is there still sufficient time for American patriots sharpen their economic and constitutional wits? Are bailouts, economic rescues and key political appointments moving too rapidly for reasoned and effective resistence to form? You be the judge.