Wikipedia and Unprincipled Right

We all know some people on the "right" who we might call "principled." They hold to a value and apply it consistently, regardless of Party politics pressure. Maybe it's you, or a relative, a friend, co-workers or even someone in the corporate media. Ron Paul, a US Congressman, is a classic, if not extreme, example... and there are other less notable examples.

There is Walter B. Jones, a US congress member made famous for coining the phrase "freedom fries" as an insult to the French for not getting on board quickly with the Iraq war. He now regrets saying that.

Joness represents an area of North Carolina that has a sizable military population. His about-face reflects an undercurrent of honest feelings in the military communities. Walter Jones is now a vocal critic of the Iraq war.

The other conservative faction is the "unprincipled" right... they represent a different color in the "conservative" spectrum. We know them too: The Republican water-carriers and self-promoters like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill Kristol, and Rush Limbaugh, who admits he carries water for the Republicans:

On the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to "feel liberated" by Democratic victories in the House and Senate on November 7 because he is "no longer going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."

But this is all a long-winded way of being able to say that the vocal unprincipled right is misdirecting the conservative base when they tell the base not to use Wikipedia. We all know it can have significant flaws on a particular subject, but the majority of the time, it answers your question or directs you to the answer. Adding "wiki" to your search can be a powerful information tool that gives you an information-access advantage. Conservatives who dismiss Wikipedia might just be giving themselves a handicap.

Oxford Dictionary editors

Wikipedia on the "Establishment"

According to Wikipedia:

The Establishment is a term used to refer to the traditional ruling class elite and the structures of society that they control.

Through these "structures of society that they control," they control society itself... or at least have more control than the rest of us. Thus, if we want to change society, and the establishment does not want those changes, we have a conflict. Here in lies the motivation for this blog's title "Challenge the Establishment."

Because the establishment class is closely associated with wealth, that "conflict" to which I refer naturally includes a conflict among classes. It is taboo to speak of class conflict (class war) in the United States. This is due, in part, to an establishment that has helped perpetuate a myth that classes don't exist in the US. We are led to believe that, even if income and wealth differ among Americans, this is simply part of the American Dream playing out with different timing for different people. We are told that such differences are petty and that we are all bound together as Americans with a common "national interest."

Ah, but that "national interest" differs for different wealth classes. Here's an example. The US families that have benefited from United Fruit's corporate exploitation in Central America had the "national interest" of suppressing the democratic dreams of peasants in those countries. Their "national interest"was to support the local establishment that would use their power to keep foreign corporate taxes low, allow damage to the environment, maintain exploitative labor laws and allow the US military to participate in crushing the aspirations of the peasant class of those countries. Ironically, the grunts in the US military were typically themselves drawn from the lower class of our country. Hence the phrase "rich man's war."

I could go on, but won't. Read MORE on Wikipedia's take on "the Establishment."