The Prophetic Rothbard

Murray Rothbard’s political insight — always filtered thorough his unique brand of Power Elite analysis — was never less than startling. And often prophetic.

Case in point: while I rummaged through old issues of Rothbard-Rockwell Report yesterday, I came across Murray’s postmortem on the 1992 presidential election (“The ‘Watershed’ Election,” January 1993). How, Rothbard asked rhetorically, did William Jefferson Clinton, the smirking, insufferable punk from Arkansas, so effortlessly seize the White House from the grasp of George Herbert Walker Bush? After all, following the Gulf War, Bush had looked like a shoo-in for re-election. But he seemed strangely passive during the presidential debates, unwilling to fight his opponents. He was holding back. For someone known as a gut fighter, Bush was struggling on the ropes. Why? Murray offered this theory:

Here I must advance the hypothesis, the fascinating possibility, that Bush deliberately threw the election. This possibility must not be ruled immediately out of court merely because “conspiracy” analysis is not fashionable. ...

Consider this possible scenario: George Bush enters the palatial office of David Rockefeller, Senior, the Godfather, capo di tutti capi of the Rockefeller World Empire.

“Sit down, George,” David says in the gravelly voice made famous by Marlon Brando as Don Corleone.

“George,” David begins, “let me tell you something: You are going to lose this election.”

“But Godfather,” protests George, “haven’t I been a good and faithful servant of the Family?”

“Yes, you have, George,” Rockefeller assures him, “but conditions have changed. Our multicultural friends demand another Leap Forward. So you’re going to lose; but George, it’s important that you lose with dignity, with honor. Nothing negative against Clinton. We don’t want to spoil his Administration.

“George, I can assure you,” Rockefeller tells the shaken Bush, “if you lose with dignity, your children will prosper. If not...” Rockefeller makes a cutting gesture across his throat.

All right: if this scenario is untrue, answer me this: Why was George Bush so darned happy on Election Night? Why were we depressed, but he, the ostensible loser, happy? The answer is that he was “relieved” that the whole thing was over doesn’t account for his joy. How about: relief that he hadn’t blown the deal and actually won the election?

Two years after Murray wrote this, Bush son George W. was elected governor of Texas. Four years after that, son Jeb became governor of Florida. And two years after that, George W., in a still-controversial election, became president in one of the tightest races in history. And then, unlike his father, won a second term (in another relatively tight race).

“George, I can assure you, if you lose with dignity, your children will prosper.”

Anyone else feel a chill?

-----
Technorati Tags: Politics