Democracy or Empire? We cannot have both.
Submitted by Cristian Brown on February 1, 2007 - 11:38pm.
U.S. Foreign Policy | Civil Liberties | International Affairs
This brilliant article by Professor (and former CIA analyst) Chalmers Johnson ought to be required reading for anyone who cares about the United States and the values upon which she was founded. His core thesis is that it is not possible for a state to be both a democracy and an empire; the prerequisites for each are irreconcilable with the other.
Johnson, who was interviewed at length for the documentary Why We Fight, is the author of The American Empire Project, a three book series including Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire; The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic; and the forthcoming Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.
This is Johnson's key passage:
By the time I came to write Nemesis, I no longer doubted that maintaining our empire abroad required resources and commitments that would inevitably undercut, or simply skirt, what was left of our domestic democracy and that might, in the end, produce a military dictatorship or -- far more likely -- its civilian equivalent. The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, an ever growing economic dependence on the military-industrial complex and the making of weaponry, and ruinous military expenses as well as a vast, bloated "defense" budget, not to speak of the creation of a whole second Defense Department (known as the Department of Homeland Security) has been destroying our republican structure of governing in favor of an imperial presidency. By republican structure, of course, I mean the separation of powers and the elaborate checks and balances that the founders of our country wrote into the Constitution as the main bulwarks against dictatorship and tyranny, which they greatly feared.
We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation starts down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play -- isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy.
And that, indeed, is what Johnson believes is our future:
Whatever future developments may prove to be, my best guess is that the U.S. will continue to maintain a façade of Constitutional government and drift along until financial bankruptcy overtakes it. Of course, bankruptcy will not mean the literal end of the U.S. any more than it did for Germany in 1923, China in 1948, or Argentina in 2001-2002. It might, in fact, open the way for an unexpected restoration of the American system -- or for military rule, revolution, or simply some new development we cannot yet imagine.
Certainly, such a bankruptcy would mean a drastic lowering of our standard of living, a further loss of control over international affairs, a sudden need to adjust to the rise of other powers, including China and India, and a further discrediting of the notion that the United States is somehow exceptional compared to other nations. We will have to learn what it means to be a far poorer country -- and the attitudes and manners that go with it. As Anatol Lieven, author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, observes:
"U.S. global power, as presently conceived by the overwhelming majority of the U.S. establishment, is unsustainable. . . The empire can no longer raise enough taxes or soldiers, it is increasingly indebted, and key vassal states are no longer reliable. . . The result is that the empire can no longer pay for enough of the professional troops it needs to fulfill its self-assumed imperial tasks."
Wes Clark has also argued that the current U.S. stranglehold on the world's resources is not sustainable. Perhaps Wes can rescue us from Johnson's dark forecast. The American people owe it to themselves to give him the chance. For no one else seems to recognize the true magnitude of the threat.
Crissie
The author brings up some points that are true - The Presidency has gotten too powerful, our military budget is too big, etc. But it sounds like he goes over the top in some ways, with a touch of self-loathing thrown in. If you asked General Clark if he wanted us to abdicate our role as an engaged Superpower in the World I doubt if he would say yes. And believe me most of the world doesn't want that either. It's how you do it. Clark would do it the right way - leading by example, etc. As opposed to the arrogant Bush foreign policy. Let's not forget we have taken most of our troops out of Europe voluntarily, and closed down a huge base in the Phillipines because we were asked to leave. Hardly what an evil empire does. And frankly I don't buy the notion that we are just another country. That doesn't mean we are "better" than others. But name another country that was founded specifically on freedom, etc as we are. By that I mean our Constitution. Most countries be it Italy or whomever are based on nationality, a common language/culture, etc. Britain is a wonderful country, but has no Constitution or Bill Of Rights as we do. All over the world people say they look to the USA for inspiration. Why deny it? We should embrace that. Do we fall short of our ideals? Of course, because we're human beings. But why do think the rest of the world is so horrified by Guantanomo Bay and things like that? If it was China doing such things it would pretty much be expected. Right now we have an Administration that falls woefully short of our ideals, but this too shall pass by 2009. The World can't afford a weak and/or isolationist USA.
Hi Guyman,
Nor is he arguing for weakness.
And if you think the U.S. has been a beneficent superpower since WW2, you really need to read Johnson's books, along with John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Or read the history of Guatemala since we knocked off Arbenz, a history I researched in some depth -- including several visits -- for one of my books.
All empires are evil, because the nature of empire is to exploit other people for the benefit of the home population. We've been doing that.
Ending that isn't isolationism, nor is it weakness. It would be a return to the very ideals on which we claim to have been founded.
Crissie
I'm not proud of every thing our nation has done over the years. During the Cold War we made plenty of mistakes - but the Evil Empire was the side that lost the Cold War. The free enterprise system we believe in leads to economic exploitation sometimes, there's no doubt. I think multi-national corporations with no alleigance to any flag are the real empire builders. But believe me the reason other countries have not pursued some of the policies we have is not because they didn't want to, it's because they were unable to. You can't run the nations's foreign policy as if we're the Salvation Army. A world with no conflicts, no injustice, no inequities is never going to exist. That's just the way it is. That doesn't mean you don't strive for a better world, it does mean you look at things rationally and defend your nations's interests.
Hi Guyman,
But believe me the reason other countries have not pursued some of the policies we have is not because they didn't want to, it's because they were unable to.
And the skinny nerds in school would beat up the bully jocks if they could, so why criticize the bully jocks for being better at it, right? That's the same moral argument you just made.
The difference is simply whether you believe the rules of morality apply (or ought to apply) to nations as well as to individuals.
Crissie
I simply said our nation, any nation has to look out for its own interests. I believe the USA is an imperfect Superpower, you see us as something more sinister. I'm curious, was General Clark's NATO part of this Evil Empire of ours?
Hi Guyman,
Was/is NATO part of the empire-building "corporatocracy" that Perkins describes in Confessions of an Economic Hitman? Yes, though not in the way you're thinking. NATO is certainly part of what Eisenhower (a former NATO C-in-C, and Wes' hero) termed "the military-industrial complex," part of the permanent militarization of the U.S. and our political discourse. Wes has talked about that at some length, expressing his agreement with Ike's warning, and America's need to counterbalance the influence of the defense establishment.
The problem with the phrase "Evil Empire" is its implication that some empires are not evil. But empires, by definition, violate the fundamental ideals on which America is founded: political self-determination, free speech (especially of dissenting speech), no taxation without representation, etc. The American Empire has violated those very ideals, and because those are our own expressed ideals, that is to our shame.
We claim to support democracy, yet we reject and even assist in the overthrow of democratically-elected governments that threaten our economic interests. We claim to support free speech, yet reward repressive despots who are loyal puppets. And because of the petrodollar monopoly -- a 1973 agreement with Saudi Arabia, spread to all of OPEC, to accept only U.S. dollars for oil purchases -- we tax the entire world through seigniorage. (Indeed, it has been argued that the growing friction with Iran is grounded in the Iran Oil Bourse, a Eurodollar-based petroleum commodity market and which threatens to undercut the petrodollar monopoly.)
Is that an "Evil Empire?" Or is it simply the evil of empire itself?
Crissie
There is some truth in all of your Posts - I said earlier I'm not proud of many policies we have pursued in the past. But on NATO specifically - it was founded for a damn good reason. Now the threat of Russia appears to be gone for now, but NATO has evolved into something very important for the Western world. It binds us to the nations of the world that share our beliefs. It's military, but more than that. I'm sure General Clark would say he is proud of his service to NATO - with no ifs, ands, or buts. And he should be.
Hi Guyman,
Please stop playing the GOP spin game, implying that I'm smearing Wes (I'm not), when I argue that NATO is part of the defense establishment (it is) which has led to the permanent militarization of American culture and discourse (it has). It is entirely possible to: support Wes Clark (I do) and oppose the defense establishment (I do).
Was NATO founded for good reasons? That depends on which reasons you believe were at its root. NATO was sold to the American people for one reason: to halt Soviet expansionism. I believe it was founded for an entirely different reason: to impose a Pax Americana on Western Europe -- particularly France and Germany -- so they would stop their obscenely destructive cycle of mutual suspicion, rearmament, and war.
The latter reason was both noble and successful. The economic redevelopment of Western Europe, the formation of the European Union, and the fundamental changes in the Western European view of the military and its role in affairs of state, are all in part the fruits of that Pax Americana. The NATO protectorate -- which also ensured that they couldn't go to war! -- enabled Europeans to get out of that cycle, to replace conflict with cooperation, warfare with negotiation.
Had that also been the rationale Americans were taught, NATO might have had as benevolent an impact in the U.S. as it had in Europe. Alas, it wasn't, and it hasn't. We were told that NATO was created to halt "the Red menace." We can debate how much that rationale was grounded in fact or fiction, how much the fiction was due to misunderstanding or disinformation. Regardless, the effect on American culture and politics was exactly the opposite of that in Europe. While Europeans were leaving a cycle of suspicion-rearmament-war, we were entering one: the Cold War.
That forty-year struggle so completely militarized U.S. culture and discourse that, when the Soviet Union finally crumbled in the late 1980s, U.S. leaders immediately began casting around for a new enemy to replace "the Red menace." We'd become totally conditioned to seeing the world through a military lens. We had the world's most powerful (and expensive!) military. We couldn't maintain that military -- and the by-then customary profits of the defense industry -- without an enemy.
NATO demilitarized Europe. But it so thoroughly militarized the U.S. that, even here on CCN, people often assert that the war in the Middle East will be the most important issue in the 2008 election, and that it's absolutely crucial that we elect a Commander in Chief who knows how to win a war (or at least lose less catastrophically).
I believe a more sober and realistic assessment of the current world situation would say that the combined threats of terrorism, the escalating Sunni-Shi'a conflict in the Middle East, and a nascent Iran pale to insignificance as compared to the threat of global warming. We do face a Big Enemy, one that does pose an "existential threat," not only to the United States but to civilization as we know it. But that enemy is Earth itself, or more accurately, our continued fouling of it.
Fifty years from now, it will not much matter what steps the U.S. took in the Middle East during the period 2009-2016. The people there will have resolved their issues -- or not -- pretty much regardless of what we've done or not done.
But fifty years from now, it will hugely important what steps the U.S. took to address global warming during the period 2009-2016. The steps we take -- or don't take -- in the next decade, will likely decide whether civilization as we know it will see the dawn of another century.
That is not an argument against Wes Clark. We don't have to choose between a leader who has a sensible plan for the Middle East and one who understands and has a plan for the much greater threat of global warming. Wes scores top marks on both issues. The former may be what makes him most electable in 2008, but it is the latter that will mark his place in history.
Crissie
I wasn't going to say anything here, as others know so much more than I, but I clearly heard Wes speak out against the military industrial complex at the DNC on Friday.
Yes, he is, and should be, proud of his service both in and out of NATO. No one here (including Cris) would slam him for it.
But he's also aware of the dangers, Thank God. And as for NATO, it's reigning us in more and more because heads over there don't agree with our cowboy C-in-C. As Wes has so often repeated, War is a last resort.
Read CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN. I can't say I was shocked, which is maybe the worst part of it all, but it's a real eye-opener.
That Military-Industrial complex thingie? It's even bigger than that.
Sue
Run, Wes, Run! (Please?)
and I'm glad just as you are. That's one more good thing about NATO. I'm well aware of the military industry complex - the last thing I want is our foreign policy dictated by corporations trying to improve their profits. Like with many of my Posts I'm just trying to inject some differing views, instead of having 30 Posts marching in Lock Step, looking at an issue from one view point only. If anyone considers that "GOP Spin" it's pretty sad.
building, and they sometimes bend the truth or bribe governments to get their way. When that doesn't work, they go political - and have done so with the US government - working behind the scenes to use our governmental agencies to put pressure on those who most resist their will. Finally, when that doesn't work, they press for a military "rescue operation" or attack against their most stubborn opponents. John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" details some of this. As Crissie suggests, you ought to consider reading it. I think you're both partly right about this issue.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
is coming to an end, Oil, the life blood of the modern industrial complex is running out, it's running out and most of what is left is in the middle east, that in and of itself is pretty profond statement of what the future is going to look like.
We are a country that has 5% of the worlds population, but consumes 25% of it's energy. our fight to sustain our addiction to oil is not going well, our oil empire will one way or another come to an end and soon.
The question is are we going to have a soft relatively controled landing into a sustainable future or are we going to go out in a final blaze of imperialistic glory...
I hope we have the common sense to choose the former although the later is looking more likely everyday.
Hi James,
Exactly. We're not entitled to five times "our share" of the world's resources just because we want it and have the power to take it. A lot of us are coming to realize that, and demanding a change. I think Wes stands for that change.
Crissie
Thanks for saying it so well, James. My thoughts exactly.
Been listening to Wes lately, and I get the definite impression he's aware of the problems, both the ones you mention and the ones Crissie referred to. We can be good without being weak, and we can use our strength to help the weak, not strangle them. In fact, that's the kind of strength we most need: moral strength.
Sue
Run, Wes, Run! (Please?)
Something else may knock us of the catbird seat in the world. The global warming report from the UN has unleashed a call for international policing behind which more than forty nations have lined up. Jacques Chirac called for stronger policing from the UN, and for possible carbon taxes on U.S. exports if we don't comply.
Considering that we're the world's largest emitter of CO2, maybe our government needs to wake up. Certainly big business has, among them utilities, manufacturing, chemical companies and even Exxon-Mobil. They've called for Carbon caps, and carbon trading, and demanded in a letter to Bush that caps be put in place.
Sue
Run, Wes, Run! (Please?)
We may well get stuck with the carbon tax, but it's only fair play, after all our environmental and economic polices are wrecking havoc on the third world. We do need to wake up.
I still have serious doubts about Exxon, BP has been doing more and they have been really investing in green energy, I think they want in on the next energy economy.
I think Exxon is just trying to do the same thing they used to do just through middle men. AEI for example receives $1.3 million a year from Exxon, and they recently offered $10,000 bounty to any "sceintist" that would dismiss the conclusions of the IPCC report.
It's lip service with them, nothing more...
James, I was interested to read that Exxon-Mobil have pulled out of the API and other oil lobbying groups and joined the USCAP group called for carbon caps.
What impressed me was not that they joined USCAP, but that they pulled out of all the oil lobbies.
That gives greater weight to their move. At least IMO.
Sue
Run, Wes, Run! (Please?)
England managed to continue to be a creditor nation as it gave up the empire. Since Nixon, we just keep sliding further and further into debt. During Vietnam, we had a draft, didn't pay soldiers very well and we had to give up what was left of the gold standard to turn to the fiat money we have today due to the debt from that war.