What Is "The Establishment"?

We often hear people talk about "the establishment". But what is it?

Owen Jones - A columnist for the Guardian newspaper says the following:

quote:

---

Here is what I understand the establishment to mean. Today's establishment is made up – as it has always been – of powerful groups that need to protect their position in a democracy in which almost the entire adult population has the right to vote. The establishment represents an attempt on behalf of these groups to "manage" democracy, to make sure that it does not threaten their own interests. In this respect, it might be seen as a firewall that insulates them from the wider population. As the well-connected rightwing blogger and columnist Paul Staines puts it approvingly: "We've had nearly a century of universal suffrage now, and what happens is capital finds ways to protect itself from, you know, the voters."

---

He goes on to say:

quote:

---

The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously. It is unified by a common mentality, which holds that those at the top deserve their power and their ever-growing fortunes, and which might be summed up by the advertising slogan "Because I'm worth it".

---

Full article here Link

The focus of his article is the UK but it seems to me that the same could be applied to the US or any other Western nation.

Is there a global "establishment" and if so what is the consequence of that?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

that the wealthy control(or attempt to control) their interests first?

Straggler writes: Is there a global "establishment"?

quote:

---

The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously.

---

Since those groups (corrupted, powerful peeps) do exist throughout the world, and their interests do connect unconsciously (whatever that means...), the answer to this question seems to be an easy "yes."

...if so what is the consequence of that?

Could range from "nothing" to "dire."
Depending on how consciously they are connected and how much you, personally, are in their way.

Or, at least, that's what the voices that get through my tinfoil hat are saying

Is there a global "establishment" and if so what is the consequence of that?

I honestly don't know, but I'd nominate these people:

Dontcha think the folks at the G8 summit could be considered "The Establishment"?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The Man The System The Machine Big Brother The Establishment

quote:

---

A functioning police state needs no police.~William S. Borroughs

---

Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

The establishment isn't a group of people, it's our institutions. It's our political systems, the criminal justice system, financial and banking systems, education and welfare systems, regulatory systems, local government, religious organisations, media and so on. These things keep us secure and make economic and societal and cultural progress possible. We shouldn't think of institutions in purely negative terms, you only need to see what happens in failed states to understand how valuable these things are.

The trick is to keep them in balance.

We often hear people talk about "the establishment". But what is it?

To add to what others have said . . .

The Establishment is most strongly influenced by what will keep them in power. This can run the gamut from pandering to the rich for campaign money, or pandering to the majority at the expense of the minority. What you have is an institution that is slow to respond, takes fewer risks, and is more concerned with solutions that will appease voters than solutions that will actually solve a problem.

Hi Tangle,

Tangle writes: The trick is to keep them in balance.

I realize your in the UK, unfortunatley in the U.S. the establishment is interested in one thing maintaining
Power to further enrich themselves.
We seem to have a polarized disfunctional government completely at odds and balanced only in fecklessness at this time..imo.
I really wonder sometimes how things would work if they were more representative and efficient. If the buracracy existed to acutally do something other than maintain it's existance.

Edited by 1.61803, : added the word 'only'

Tangle writes: The trick is to keep them in balance.

So how is that balancing doing at present?

Because a lot of people, myself included, feel that there is a large and growing imbalance. We seem to be experiencing a period where "the establishment" is serving too few at the expense of too many.

We seem to have a polarized disfunctional government completely at odds and balanced only in fecklessness at this time..imo.

To put it another way, there is a segment of the political body that is more concerned with ideological purity than actually solving problems. There is the idea that it is a bad thing for something in government to work well if your political opponents can take credit for it. It is better that America fail at the expense of someone getting credit for America working.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Taq writes: To put it another way, there is a segment of the political body that is more concerned with ideological purity than actually solving problems.

So which segment of the political body is "the establshment"?
The ideological-at-all-costs segment? Or the other segment? Or is this a case of one part of the establishment Vs another part?

It's difficult for the people within all established institutions to relinquish power, that's why we have other systems, like the law and the media and limited terms of office, compulsory votes to elect representatives and so on.

I'm not a fan of the American democratic process or many of your cultural practices, in many respects your society is a 19th century throwback surrounded by 21 century technology but you do have a modern, functioning democracy that allows freedom of expression and individual rights. Y'all just think you're still in the Wild bleeding West.

Phat writes: that the wealthy control(or attempt to control) their interests first?

OK. But is that it? People looking out for their own interests? Don't we all do that to an extent? What makes it different or somehow more insidious than just generic self-interest? Or is it ultimately no different to you or I looking for a pay rise or increased job security or better pension?

Taq writes: It is better that America fail at the expense of someone getting credit for America working.

Yes, I have noticed this as well. Especially since we have a Black Democrat president.

Some of the very policies or ideas his opponants have in the past suggested would be immediately villified the moment he embraced they're ideas.

It's just crazy.

But I believe it is more than just partisianship in nature. I believe it is also having to do with the Corporations being able to shape policy at the expense of common sense and the common good for the short term profits. All the sudden in 2014 we can see corporations beginning to back pedal and be all about US workers manufacturing again as opposed to liquidating our factories and shipping jobs abroad. It is saccarine and fake as hell to see a Walmart commercial touting US home grown goods now. Now that we have had such a tremendous backlash from decades of Banks and Corps stuffing they're collective gullets they have realized they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The worker. Now and only now do we see the importance of small business and reinvestment in the public good. But the paritisianship continues in ernest.

So which segment of the political body is "the establshment"? The ideological-at-all-costs segment? Or the other segment? Or is this a case of one part of the establishment Vs another part?

The whole thing is the Establishment, and it is incapable of solving problems right now because 1/2 of 1 branch of government doesn't want the government to solve anything. When your ideology is that government doesn't work, where is the incentive in making government work?