Oresta wrote:

"Reading the papers and pamphlets of Gallatin, Taylor, Findley et. al written during the early 1790s, there is no doubt these guys had Hamilton's number.

"Findley said of the Federalists:

"Monarchy and aristocracy cannot yet come to perfection in the American soil. Our citizens are possessed of too much information, and have too high a sense of their indivicual rights and independence, to suffer themselves to be governed by a junto, who have found the means of monopolizing the public wealth. [Damn, these guys could write!]

The Federalists are still among us, once again in ascendancy."

_____

But in view of the corporatization of the federal government, the concentration of 84 % of America's wealth in the hands of 20% of the

population (and 33% of that in the hands of 1%), the militarization of foreign policy, the declaration of their right to attack preventively any country or any group of people on earth, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and other assaults on the Bill of Rights, to name but few, how much is left for the latter-day Hamiltonians to achieve of their programme?

And if Bush and Cheney are not acting like a junta, what is it to be called?

Besides the books by Korten and Gross I've cited previously, see those of Kevin Phillips, former Republican strategist and advisor to Nixon, on the concentration of power and wealth in the United States. From one review of one of them:

"In American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush, Phillips traces the rise of the Bush family from investment banking elites to political power brokers, using their Ivy League network, vast wealth, and questionable political maneuvering to obtain the White House and consequently, shake the foundation of constitutional American democracy. Citing the Bush family mainstays of finance, energy (oil), the military industrial complex, and national security and intelligence (the CIA), Phillips uses copious examples to show the dangerous alliance between the Bushes' business interests (huge corporations such as Enron and Haliburton) and the formation of national policy. No other family, Phillips says, that has fulfilled its presidential aspirations has been so involved in the ascendancy of the arms industry and of the 21st-century American imperium--often at the expense of regional and world peace and for their personal gain."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_commentator)]

U.C. sociologist G. W. Domhoff, in "Wealth, Income, and Power" writes:

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2004).("http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html)

If we look at the concentration of wealth and power in the United States and at the corporatized US government, is it more accurate to say that the Federalists "are in the ascendancy" or that Hamilton's programme is a fait accompli?

Rather makes one think of St. Paul's observation that "Love of money is the root of all evil." (Timothy 6:10, KJV), doesn't it?

KR

It's always nice to know that Howard Kurtz thinks that everyone in the Republican Party is doing a goose step to the Bush Beat.

They are so lock step with Bush that Rep Ron Paul,currently running for President wants us out of the War, thought it was a bad idea from the beginning and didn't vote for it like (SOME) Democrats we know. If you don't know who those Democrats were I will say their names (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards). (oops, was that supposed to be a secret?)

Don't make the excuse that the Democrats were mislead, just face the facts that they wanted that War as much as the some of the Republicans did.

Whether it is the Neo-Conservatives or the Neo-Liberals, both parties have been taken over by BIG BUSINESS. Just look at who is funding most of these Presidential candidates. Over 60% of their campaign donations come from Corporations and you know that they want something in return for all that money.

Please don't even say that the corporations that give to the Republicans are evil and the ones that give to the Democrats are altruistic, they in many cases are the same companies, just vying for the almighty Federal Teat at the Taxpayers expense.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117790069010286617-Xz4XikFqFlSwWSokkpgptCULmoo_20080428.html

Both parties will sell the American Taxpayer out just so they can have the same wealth or power as John Edwards or Mitt Romney.

Ignore Party politics and vote for the person that won't sell you out to the highest bidder.

Anyone who is so out of touch with the public mood on Bush, the war, and the rigging of the economy to improve the lot of the top .1% of incomes at the expense of the bottom 99.9% could help the Democrats even more than the Republican robocalls and revival of bin Laden as a bogeyman played into their hands last November.

Thanks for saving me the necessity to post a fuller response to L.M.W. regarding an anti-Federalist's perception of the Federalist agenda. Your partial post, to whit:

But in view of the corporatization of the federal government, the concentration of 84 % of America's wealth in the hands of 20% of the

population (and 33% of that in the hands of 1%), the militarization of foreign policy, the declaration of their right to attack preventively any country or any group of people on earth, warrantless surveillance of US citizens, and other assaults on the Bill of Rights, to name but few, how much is left for the latter-day Hamiltonians to achieve of their programme?

And if Bush and Cheney are not acting like a junta, what is it to be called?

Yes, it is more exact to describe the latter-day Federalists as at their apogee rather than in ascendancy.

No doubt Findley and others were onto Hamilton well before Jefferson got back from France where he was, in his own words, "succeeding" Franklin as noone could ever "replace" him.

Once Hamilton really got his mojo going, an alarmed Madison had an epiphany, realizing those anti-Feds were right all along. He and Jefferson worked together through to a center, which perhaps lost the best of either of the nascent parties.

L.M.W., while I disagree with you that Findley "flunked the test on accuracy," I agree he did fail on prediction. He believed his faction would prevail because of an informed citizenry. That body, alas, has gone extinct in the wake of talk radio and FOX "fair and balanced." If we were so fortunate to have a George Seldes today, noone would read him, and if he were on TV, O'Reilly would tell him to shut up.