The theoretical definition of government is essentially a compact of behavioral rules formed among a group of people who agree to abide by these rules. In actual modern practice, few people are going to freely agree to abide by all of these rules, as they have had little involvement in their creation. Under such conditions, the majority of people must have trust that their rights aren't going to be abused by those who hold the power to exercise these rules, or what passes for democracy ends in failure.
Yet the history of the United States mirrors that of most nations. The powerful eventually reach a level of control which eliminates the limits that may have been imposed by the existence of other powerful groups. These opposing groups have by now been eliminated or neutralized, and such elimination or neutralization was generally facilitated by the abuse of the trusting by the powerful.
The trusting never thought that the powerful would abuse their trust, and only realized their mistake when it was too late to change course. The historical examples seem endless, and include such notable sandy-headed ostriches as the Roman Republicans, the French revolutionaries prior to The Terror, the pre-WWII European Jewish community, the current-day Georgians, and the American working class, who voted for Ronald Reagan's presiding over the initiation of domestic corporatism.
This last is germane to my topic, as the loss of trust in the Party of the New Deal led to the rise of the Party of the Raw Deal.
The loss of trust in and by the Republican Party through the abuse of the economy up to 1929 opened the door for Franklin Roosevelt to claim the now-orphaned trust of the people. His policies eventually made things better for a majority of the people despite some actions of dubious legality, and the trust he garnered through his efforts to aid the common man helped to prevent the rise of an American fascism modelled after that of Adolf Hitler. (Google "The Business Plot" if you want to know more.)
But Roosevelt was mortal. As the European war crept ever closer to American shores, Roosevelt needed the power of those who had attempted to oust him several years earlier in order to mobilize the nation to participate in its own defense. He ended up making a very rash decision based on trusting that these industrial cabalists had learned their distasteful lesson, and were again true patriots anxious to rise - as he was - to battling the same enemy. He was quite wrong.
The cabalists felt that Hitler was fighting the correct enemy and that the US should have been his ally. It didn't help their cause that Hitler had declared war on the US, due to treaty obligations to the Japanese to do so should the empire be at war with us. But since Roosevelt was essentially opening up the war chest for them to scoop their fill, they hid their real motivations and grew massive mounds of armament argent hay while the brilliant war sun shined.
Article comments
1 - Baritone
I don't quite know how to respond to this. I do have a question.
Who are these corporatists? Exactly who are the power brokers running the show? Or is it all too nebulous to pick them out? I'm not trying to be ironic or a smart ass here. I'm genuinely curious about who these people are. What is their ultimate goal? What or who could stand and oppose them?
B
2 - bliffle
Good article. It is certainly true that traditional American trust in institutions and people has deteriorated badly in the last 30 years especially. Partly because there seems to be no consequences associated with a betrayed trust. High school students cheat on some tests, and their teacher joins with them to scam some competition!
All that remains is the presumption of trust: a person offers you a handshake deal and you ask for a written contract, and he replies (with hurt demeanor) "don't you trust me?".
In fact, the system punishes the trustworthy. The person who follows through on his promises and seeks to meet his obligation is piled on, and possibly defamed (often for being untrustworthy!), for his trouble.
3 - Baronius
Is "corporatism" the right word? Wikipedia says
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups.
My understanding of corporatism is that it's only been tried in Portugal, and fascist Italy and Germany. You could argue that military contractors have too much influence in the US, but that's hardly corporatism. You'd have to have direct authority of the private sector in the hands of the public, or vice versa.
There's bound to be some exchange of ideas between the government sector and the private sector, especially in fields like education and defense, where the government is active. And some people with experience in one sector will find jobs in the other. But that's not corporatism either.
4 - Ruvy
Baritone,
Who are these corporatists? Exactly who are the power brokers running the show? Or is it all too nebulous to pick them out?
Read the book "A Century of War", by George Engdahl. Go to the website of Joel Bainerman (google him up). The two don't exactly match, but they do track a lot of the way.
I know individuals who can tell you the answsers you seek, but they won't tell you; they don't know you, so they don't trust you.
So check out these two sources and get back to me....
5 - Silas Kain
Interesting read. But have we been sold out for thirty pieces of silver? Or has the new American way of life caused us to be overwhelmed with earning our own pieces of silver that we've forgotten the importance of taking an active role in the political discourse?
As a child, I remember my parents discussing national matters at the dinner table. NBC Nightly News with Huntley and Brinkley were required watching for all us kids. Even today my 80 year old Irish Catholic mother is concerned about the plight of Ethiopian Jews in being repatriated to Israel! I'm just trying to make a point here. Back in those days a family of four could get away with Dad working 1 or 2 jobs and Mom maybe taking on a part time job. Those days are long gone.
Families today have day care to pay for. Parents have leased people to serve as their surrogates. How many parents in America today can honestly say that they have a handle on their child's education, development and basic character? Our Presidents are a reflection of our society. The current is a fair imitation of typical America today. The Fundamentalists can sing Bush's praises until Christ comes down on His cloud but it doesn't change the truth. He is by far the worst President to serve in the entire history of this Nation. And that's because we've evolved into a society that is nothing like the forefathers envisioned. Clueless, apathetic, cocky - yep that's George W. Bush. AND, that's 80% of America.
6 - bliffle
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington today filed a complaint against Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
CREW
Rep. Buchanan owns several car dealerships in Florida. In September 2005, dealership employees were pressured into contributing to Rep. Buchanan’s congressional campaign and some were reimbursed for making contributions. Former employee Carlo Bell was called into a manager’s office and told that if he was part of the “team” he would make a contribution. Fearing for his job, Bell agreed to make the donation and was handed $1,000 in cash. Bell also saw two other employees, Jack Prater and Jason Martin take cash in return for promising to write checks and FEC reports confirm that both men made $1,000 contributions to the Buchanan campaign.
7 - Ruvy
Silas,
The book "A Century of War", by George Engdahl, explains why it is that parents have to lease out their kids to caretakers instead of actually raising them.
Interesting to see how your perceptions of the United States economy track with mine.
A side note: tell your mom that the kessim - religious leaders - of the Ethiopian Jews now living in the country do not want the "Falashmura" as they are called, admitted to our country, as they are not really Jews but Christians. Given that Ethiopia is a Christian country, the Falashmura have no place here. And wish her good health from a writer in the mountains of Samaria.
8 - Lumpy
Amazing. It's like Realist lives in a different universe. Almost as delusional as the conspiracy nuts but with a different agenda.. I, glad I don't live in his world of nindless class envy and oppressive populist collectivism. His conclusion? The only way to be free from oppression is oppression: just by a different set of masters.
9 - Condor
Taken from a Bachavich interview 2008 with Bill Moyers. I’m not in the mood to rewrite it….
It’s only partial. But the defining answer is “We have met the enemy, and it is us” Not corporatists, not government… but us, the consumers. We are allowing this crap to happen either by consuming, or by voting in the wrongs dolts to do the bidding……
Quote:
"The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people," you write, "is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part of through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad." In other words, you're saying that our foreign policy is the result of a dependence on consumer goods and credit.
Our foreign policy is not something simply concocted by people in Washington D.C. and imposed on us. Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington D.C., but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we want, we the people want. And what we want, by and large - I mean, one could point to many individual exceptions - but, what we want, by and large is, we want this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods.
We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the book's balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year. And therefore, we want this unending line of credit.
Well, I think one of the ways we avoid confronting our refusal to balance the books is to rely increasingly on the projection of American military power around the world to try to maintain this dysfunctional system, or set of arrangements that have evolved over the last 30 or 40 years.
But, it's not the American people who are deploying around the world. It is a very specific subset of our people, this professional army. We like to call it an all-volunteer force-
but the truth is, it's a professional army, and when we think about where we send that army, it's really an imperial army. I mean, if as Americans, we could simply step back a little bit, and contemplate the significance of the fact that Americans today are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ask ourselves, how did it come to be that organizing places like Iraq and Afghanistan should have come to seem to be critical to the well-being of the United States of America.
There was a time, seventy, eighty, a hundred years ago, that we Americans sat here in the western hemisphere, and puzzled over why British imperialists went to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We viewed that sort of imperial adventurism with disdain. But, it's really become part of what we do. Unless a President could ask fundamental questions about our posture in the world, it becomes impossible then, for any American President to engage the American people in some sort of a conversation about how and whether or not to change the way we live.
How is Iraq a clear manifestation, as you say, of this, "yawning disparity between what Americans expect, and what they're willing to pay?"
Let's think about World War Two. A war that President Roosevelt told us was essential to U.S. national security, and was. And President Roosevelt said at the time, because this is an important enterprise, you, the American people, will be called upon to make sacrifices. And indeed, the people of the United States went off to fight that war in large numbers. It was a national effort. None of that's been true with regard to Iraq. I mean, one of the most striking things about the way the Bush Administration has managed the Global War on Terror, which President Bush has compared to World War Two.
One of the most striking things about it is that there was no effort made to mobilize the country, there was actually no effort even made to expand the size of the armed forces, as a matter of fact. The President said just two weeks or so after 9/11, "Go to Disney World. Go shopping." Well, there's something out of whack here, if indeed the Global War on Terror, and Iraq as a subset of the Global War on Terror is said to be so critically important, on the one hand. And on the other hand, when the country basically goes about its business, as if, really, there were no War on Terror, and no war in Iraq ongoing at all.
"So it is," you write, "seven years into its confrontation with radical Islam, the United States finds itself with too much war for too few warriors and with no prospect of producing the additional soldiers needed to close the gap." When I hear all this talk about increasing the troops in Afghanistan from two to three battalions, maybe even more, I keep asking myself, where are we going to get those troops?
Unquote
There's a lot more to the interview... but just google Andrew Bachevich interview with Bill Moyers... read it, and weep.
10 - Baronius
Condor, I read the interview - you had linked to it previously. I found it unpersuasive. Free trade benefits both parties. If a person or a government is buying things it doesn't need, it should stop. But the ability to buy and sell overseas isn't the problem. And I don't see a way to accept what Bachavich is saying without rejecting free trade.
I hope that makes sense. The writer was connecting dots (at least half of which I think are wrong) to create a picture that doesn't quite fit together anyway.
11 - Condor
I believe the key to Bachevich's argument is not that free trade stop, but that the U.S. has to start producing goods again, or, level the balance of trade. Currently we are 800 billion in trade deficit. That's not healthy. How do we correct the balance in trade? Tariffs? Insistance? What? To put all the eggs in the offshore industrial basket is asking (and looking) like economic disaster.
12 - bliffle
We don't have to suppress Free Trade but we should control it for best outcome for the USA and it's citizens. We should negotiate tougher.
The USA has always been a leader in Free Trade, often sacrificing our own interests to provide opportunities for other nations.