Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Don't Want to Rule the World
Americans are famous for not paying much attention to the rest of the world, and it is often said that foreign wars are the way that we learn geography. But most often it is not the people who have little direct experience outside their own country that are the problem, but rather the experts.
The latest polling data is making this clear once again, as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Afghanistan, but the Obama administration is escalating the war, and his military commanders may ask for even more troops than the increase to 68,000 that the adminstration is planning by the end of this year.
This gap between the average American and the foreign policy elite has been around since the Vietnam war and long before. The gap is also large between Democratic voters, three-quarters of whom oppose the war in Afghanistan, and the politicians and thinktanks that represent them in the political arena. A few decades ago there was a real voting base of cold war liberals – people who were progressive on social and economic issues but rightwing on foreign policy. That base has largely disappeared. Yet amazingly, the foreign policy establishment – including most of the media – has managed to maintain this political tendency as a very influential force.
The gap between the public and the foreign policy elite is not due to the ignorance of the masses, as the elite would have it, but primarily to a different set of interests and values. Very few foreign policy decision-makers – just a handful of members of Congress, for example – have sons or daughters who actually fight in the wars that they decide are "wars of necessity". The tax burden for these wars is more affordable for most foreign policy experts than it is for an American with median earnings. And perhaps most importantly, the average American doesn't have the same interest in trying to have the US rule the world.
For the foreign policy elite, the importance of running the world – as much as it is possible – is taken as given. Walter Russell Mead is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most influential foreign policy organisations in the United States. He represents the more liberal end of the political spectrum at the CFR. In a recent interview with The Brazilian Economy, he argued that all countries must accept what he called "the Anglo-American system". For him, the lessons of history show that there is no alternative:
To me, there is one clear lesson: by joining the [Anglo-American] system and becoming part of it, you can achieve far greater results, whether measured by international power, state security or the prosperity of your people. You actually do much better by co-operating than resisting.
While one can argue that Europe and Japan have done reasonably well as subordinate partners to the US in the post-second world war era, the same cannot be said for the majority of countries in the world. This is especially true in the years since 1980, which have seen a sharp slowdown in economic growth, and reduced progress in social indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality, in the vast majority of low-and-middle-income countries.
The biggest exception is China – which succeeded by rejecting the Anglo-American policy prescriptions and opted for state control of their banking system, foreign exchange, foreign capital flows and a host of other important economic decisions. China also remained outside the World Trade Organisation until 2001, when they were economically strong enough to take advantage of it. Resistance, it seems, is not always futile.
Foreign economic policy is even more removed from public input than foreign policy in general, with unaccountable institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and WTO making decisions that affect the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.
It is this one-step-further removal from public accountability – there are no voters that these institutions have to answer to – that makes them so attractive to the elite in rich countries. In the current economic downturn, the IMF can use taxpayer dollars to bail out western European banks who made imprudent loans in eastern Europe, something that the contributing governments might not be able to get away with politically if it were done directly.
Policies that primarily cause harm in other countries, such as the failed macroeconomic and development policies that the IMF, World Bank and WTO have pressured other countries to adopt, would not get as much support from the public as they do from the elite. The average American has a moral sense that seems lacking in policy discussions here in Washington, where it is the custom to appear amoral, almost like an insect.
In 2006, when television newscasts were showing regular footage of Iraqis killed and maimed by explosions, Americans were horrified, and opposition to the war increased substantially. It is only by keeping the ugly reality of our foreign occupations away from the public that our government can even get enough support to keep funding them.
Conversely, where there are independent citizens' organisations that can exert influence, some of the crimes involved in US foreign policy can be successfully challenged. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union waged a five-year battle that led to attorney general Eric Holder's decision this week to appoint a special prosecutor to look into some of the instances of torture and abuse of prisoners by the CIA.
But the powerful and rigid institutional arrangements of our foreign policy establishment, the sloth and weakness among the intelligentsia, as well as the corruption from the interests of military contractors, makes it an uphill battle for common sense to prevail.
It is not that the American people are so backward and ignorant, or bellicose. Rather the main problem is that the public has so little input into foreign policy decisions. That is what must change if we are to get away from the prospect of never-ending wars and conflicts, and from a foreign policy that continues to be one of the greatest obstacles to social and economic progress in the world.
78 Comments so far
Show AllThe Anglo-American system is built around expansionism and exploitation. This fueled by consumerism and supported by Militarism.
None of these are beneficial to the Earth or its peoples.
All they do is provide short term benefit for the few and then an ultimate collapse.
See the example of Easter Island. The people that settled that island had it pretty good until they consumed it to death.
no kidding, but the 'anglo-american' system came from somewhere---greed and piracy aren't confined to any one nation or continent, but can gain a foothold anywhere people are foolish enough to ignore our interconnectedness with all life.... we must be the only species that not only overshoots our natural ecosystem's carrying capacity, but simultaneously fabricates unsustainable artificial ecosystems separate from NATURE in which we can exponentially accelerate our suicidal process. systemic change cannot happen until we build alternative systems which requires unity at the grassroots.
"...can gain a foothold anywhere people are foolish enough to ignore our interconnectedness with all life..."
Good point. The interconnectedness of life is not fully appreciated in the US, and I suspect to an even greater degree the interconnectedness of human society is not appreciated. Cruelty, insensitivity, and kindness all may, and often do, pass from person to person (the first two often pass because of crude grouping and generalization strategies).
"...we must be the only species that not only overshoots our natural ecosystem's carrying capacity..."
I don't buy it. Innumerable species went extinct on their own before humans ever arrived, as each species is sort of an experiment in survival, and some experiments fail. "...we must be the only species..." sounds a bit too much like exceptionalism for the human race. Maybe it is an arguable position, but I would hold that the human race is not particularly exceptional in any negative or positive way, though it obviously has the greatest effect on the earth's ecosystems for the time being. The reason I am pro-human is that I am human as are my loved ones and friends, and my survival and welfare depends on the welfare of the human race, and certainly not because the human race is exceptionally good or bad with regard to its effect on the current ecosystem.
Another quibble is that I do not find it helpful to imply that we are separate from nature or from earth or that the processes we develop are (we and our processes must follow the natural laws as all physical systems must). Imagine a creature from another solar system looking at earth data from what we might call a satellite system, and seeing humans as earth creatures creating earth processes that are significantly different from earth processes that occurred before humans arrived. Such a creature certainly would not conclude that the processes were not of the earth or of nature, but instead that the earth, through its development of human creatures, had begun engaging in new processes.
I would agree with you that unsustainability is the key problem, including unsustainability of the great majority of flora and fauna currently alive and ecosystems currently operating, unsustainability of a decent quality of life for a large human population, and unsustainability of human civilization and even human survival.
-- the war in Afghanistan, --
The author asks us to think globally (We Don't Want to Rule the World). The author then treats the AfPak theater as a separate entity, as does government, the Fawning Media and anyone who somehow comfortably lives with the idea that the topics to be discussed will be told to them (as opposed to locust's humble and earnest 'suggestions' - strategies, if you will).
The biggest 'gap' is between locust and anyone who speaks globally but thinks regionally.
All from such a tiny insect, no less!
I do have over 40 years of wargaming experience and have conquered the world 100 times at least. You know what? It's not worth it, in the long run.
-- opposition to the war increased substantially. It is only by keeping the ugly reality of our foreign occupations --
Iraq was a war until the war ended when the Commander in Chief announced that it had ended. Besides, if you bother to read Public Law 107-243, the law that allowed that particular insanity, you will find that war goals were achieved before the invasion, as all accusations cited were lies and deceits.
Unless of course you think we deserve some sort of Mulligan, and should refight a war already won in hopes of a better score.
Stop the DAFT war (Defense Against Future Terrorism). Revoke, repeal Public Law 107-40, the most insanely dangerous legislation ever enacted in what remains of our Republic here. Don't take my puny word for it. Read it.
The "experts" who the author accuses of promoting the AfPak war are part of the miltary industrial media complex. The one thing they learned from the Viet Nam occupation is that you don't listen to the American people when they want to end an occupation, war ,(call it what you want). The end of a war means a diminished revenue stream for the miltary industrial media complex...eternal war means an eternal revenue stream for the military industrial media complex.
If you get past your anti-Americanism (not aimed at anyone specifically)and quit blaming Americans for everything......
This article is pretty colse to the truth. Though he left out the influence of Corporate interests in foreign policy.
"The biggest exception is China – which succeeded by rejecting the Anglo-American policy prescriptions and opted for state control of their banking system, foreign exchange, foreign capital flows and a host of other important economic decisions."
Bunkum! Check back....China was nothing till she embraced a Capitalist form of economy. Since then she has come on and she is building her military by leaps and bounds....financed by guess who? Us. Hows that for stupidity.
North America is on the road to almost complete isolationism, as has happened in many a wargame o' mine whenever America has a fascist system of government (Canada will be swallowed whole - don't think you're safe from us).
The ROW (Rest of the World) is coalescing into stronger aggregations of power in order to stand up to Amerikkka.
I've played both sides of this scenario and we don't want to go there in reality, trust me on this.
Apr. 16, 2007 - "The leaders of Russia, China and Iran said Thursday that Central Asia should be left alone to manage its stability and security _ an apparent warning to the United States..."
An alliance of those 3.
Because of American military involvement in the AfPakIraqistan theaters of the absurd.
America is stuck in the thinking that more and more power makes it safer. Au contra ire, it scares the bejeebers out of others who must then band together for protection, to put it simply.
As I've posted before, this is strategy worthy of Elmer Fudd.
It will be decades and decades before China can stand up to us or anyone else for that matter. I don't believe most folks here even begin to understand the depths of our real power to defend ourselves and destroy attackers. I'm not speaking of Nukes.
"The leaders of Russia, China and Iran" know quite well that they are, even combined, no real threat to us militarily. China's working on it though. Hard.
That said, I believe you may be right. Obama indeed seems intent on installing a Fascist regime....which would indeed lead to your senario.
I believe he will fail as he should, but aside from that we could easily go isolationist. The American people are pretty pissed off. We are broke and our government is doing diddly. They are also tired of hearing from Europe about how civilized they are and so perfect.
You may be right.
You say the US can defend itself in a war with China, Russia and Iran?
Yes, it is called Mutually Assured Destruction and is working so far.
Even Iran on its own if bombed can inflict Unacceptable damage in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Insurgents in Afghanistan have been standing up to the US for 8 years now and they keep on ticking.
Gee Rich....I just don't have your intellectual brain power.
Darn it, I'm so simple I realize that most things are indeed....simple.
"China's becoming capitalist means China accepted "Anglo policy prescriptions."
Of course it doersn't mean that. Capitalism is an economic system that has no particulsr ideology. It is the only system so far that produces consistently and realistically. Your contention that elites mean Corporatists I can't see. As far as I could tell the references were to political elites and academic elites, not economic elites. But then I see things so simply.
." What you're missing, however, is most of the story: namely, that China's move towards capitalism developed in a way that (despite certain shared interests) was largely independent of US preferences."
I didn't miss that at all. Preconcieved notions are misleading sometimes.
"Unlike US client states & traditional allies, China does not concede permanent global primacy to the US. It's striving for success on its own terms, & aspires to more than just playing second-fiddle to the US. It's trying to build its own global framework of relationships,"
Gee....really? I figured that out all by myself....it must be simple.
As you can tell the arrogant tone and patroniizing manner didn't sit well. Thiongs are not nearly as complicated as you suggest, unless you trained to be a lawyer and wish to obscure points with pointless rhetoric.
Good Day To You.
Amen.
Amen.
Amen.
Amen.
Good five...!
Hang in there, Henry.
If you ever find an Energizer for that there brainpower stuff, please post the URL: I'll beg, buy, or steal any of that I can get.
I've flattened the battery so it won't charge, and I just snapped a prong off the adapter. Now the whole blamed thing whizzes and whirs and sparks every time I try to use it. The parallel goes serial, the horizontal goes vertical, the CPU goes WTF and sends images to my CPA that don't balance. My Left slud into my Right. My conservatives overspent so my liberals are talking tax-credit to make up the difference. My free-marketeers got Law & Order under those little caps with the big mouse ears, too. My bank's drawing welfare, so I need to apply for a loan to pay my taxes, but the bank can't loan me the money because I don't have it. The school just told my kids they HAVE to play hookey for a couple weeks until the school can get the ROTC booth set up. I can't stay in the apartment because the landlord says I have to work to pay rent. I can't get health insurance because I might get sick, but when a Mercedes hit me last spring the paramedics refused to take me to the hospital because I might have sued. The judge says my state has to let 40,000 prisoners go because the jails are criminal. The actor who plays the Governor says he'll appeal the case because he needs all those extras in jail to go on with his part, but the producers won't recast him because of some contract, though surely not one I ever signed. I can't eat corn because I have an allergy to wheat and the corn at my store is apparently genetically wheatish or wheatley or something. The moon is high in the heavens because it's almost noon, and global warming makes my blood run cold.
Henry, I wish this were simple, but all this leads me to another question.
Just what is it that capitalism reliably and realistically produces?
For the record (Are we recording, CD? Wow) your dividing academic and governmental from corporate elites does reflect my intentions. However, I would say that there's a large overlap between "elites" and "corporatists" in corporatist societies - and I would include the US in that.
So, I would say that we're mostly talking about the same persons, though certainly not the same groups: most members of government and academic elites in the US are corporatist, though not necessarily members of corporations. I would call them that in that they tend to approve of corporate personhood and in some sense approve of corporate lobbying.
I would have called them skanks, but I'm trying to keep this simple.
China embraced capitalism, albeit not democracy. So a very few Chinese have made money. However, they did not follow "Anglo-American policy prescriptions."
The so-called "American consensus" or "free market initiative" involved total or near-total removal of protective tariffs. China allowed some foreign investment, but maintained high tariffs and considerable protective legislation, unlike the African and Latin American satellite countries under the dubious protection of the World Bank, IMF, and American Military.
They did that in direct opposition to repeated American, IMF, and Euro requests.
Consequently, Americans purchase not only Chinese labor, but Chinese manufacturing from Chinese-owned companies.
They got a lot of press as "opening" because prior restrictions on investment had been so prohibitive. "Open to investment" qualifies the difference between China 2009 and China 1955, but it does not qualify the difference between Chinese policy and the policies of African, Latin American, Middle Eastern, or southern and eastern Asian nations in general. The others have generally been far more open.
..
What you mean "was something" or "was nothing"? I'm too mystified to disagree.
The Chinese are financing the American military and could easily finance their own instead - given only a steady stream of American consumers.
Do you mean that we consumers finance the Chinese military one T-shirt at a time? If so, that sounds likely.
Agreed.
I've been saying since Raygun's first term that China would be the model for the USA in the 21st century: a crony-capitalist economy overseen by a Stalinist state apparatus.
Want fries with that Mao jacket?
No law says you have to have a Democracy to have a Capitalist economic system. The Chinese look to be forming their own system to benefit themselves and why not?
"The so-called "American consensus" or "free market initiative" involved total or near-total removal of protective tariffs."
I believe we have the only government that is stupid enough to indulge in "free market initiative". The Chinese practice National trade policies instead of following our nit wits.
"Consequently, Americans purchase not only Chinese labor, but Chinese manufacturing from Chinese-owned companies."
Exactly my point! We are the stupid ones in this game.
"What you mean "was something" or "was nothing"? I'm too mystified to disagree."
Sorry, I was speaking of her economy that amounted to not much till she adapted capitalist economic systems. China's economy is still small compared to most.
"Do you mean that we consumers finance the Chinese military one T-shirt at a time? If so, that sounds likely."
I mean expanding, modernizing, re-equiping, reorganizing their military....and furiously building a new Navy. Its far more than a couple of T-Shirts. And we are paying for it.
Henry8 sez: "No law says you have to have a Democracy to have a Capitalist economic system."
***
Correct. Just look at the U.S.
Capitalism v Democracy: point granted. As to "was something," point clarified, thank you.
The States does not go without tariffs, though -- though I suspect the ought to be higher. They advise others to, and the IMF and the WB* and eventually the armored divisions go in to clinch the deals. So again, the "American Consensus" does not reflect American actions.
And as to NAFTA, well, did anyone imagine US business would not compete with Mexico or Canada?
Henry, I don't doubt that the Chinese are building military, and I don't mean to minimize their expense, but I don't know what gov't $$ you're talking about. As stands, China is lending boatloads of money to the States, and the States is building militarily more than the rest of the world combined, and clearly doing it with Chinese money.
That's the way the balance sheet is going between the governments.
On the other hand, there are other things you could mean. US companies are likely selling arms to China. (They sell to pretty nearly everyone else, right?) China's getting the money they're loaning the States somewhere.
What have they done to get that money? Well, as far as I know, the major source of capital flowing into China comes from cheap consumer goods sold to Western markets.
I've seen "MADE IN CHINA" on a lot of T-shirts.
.
.
* (World Bank, not Warner Brothers, though I must say I find the image I get of the rabbit & Elmer playing Good Banker Bad Banker apt enough to leave the abbreviation as stands)
Chomsky once went out of his way to remark how unique thw way critics af US foreign, or much domestic, policy are called "Anti-American" or "Un-American". In no other nation on earth are such expressions used. If a French or Italian ever accused a critic of being "Un-French" or "Un-Italian", they would be laughed out of the room.
Weren't some people called 'anti-soviet' during the show trials that Stalin put on?
But yah, try to use 'un-Canadian' in a sentence.
of course it would be anti-Semetic for me to suggest that perhaps Israel plays this game.
The majority of Americans may well be for getting out of Afghanistan but as long as there are oil and gas routes in that bombed out place, we'll be there.
Who made this mess? Not you and I gentle reader. Energy companies, the Pentagon , Wall Street, Big Media--the four horsemen of the apocalypse did---
Raises the question, doesn't it: Is what's good for Enron, good for America ?
But most often it is not the people who have little direct experience outside their own country that are the problem, but rather the experts.
These people are not "experts". They are, in the immortal words of Michael Herr in his great Vietnam war book, "Dispatches", nothing more than "closet throatstickers". They are killers by remote control, phony tough guys, strutting little punks and schoolyard bullies talking shit out of the sides of their mouths. Their "statecraft" can be compared to their recreational habits, i.e., tying a loaded 44 Magnum to their penises with nylon fishing line and doing this as an exercise in penile enlargement.
My goodness, MS, have you no shame?
Sir, I wish you were the Attorney General of the United States. I'm sure things would get done to cut the present crap quite rapidly.
-- the public has so little input into foreign policy decisions --
So, as a suggested strategy, locust humbly suggests that everyone reading this focus on 'a single message', a term seen on this site many times and quite applicable.
-- the prospect of never-ending wars --
Justified and enshrined by Public Law 107-40.
-- one of the greatest obstacles to social and economic progress in the world. --
No reform will occur, no progress will be made...
until the DAFT war is ended and 107-40 killed with a stake through its heart before IT finishes sucking the remaining life out of the American Republic, comatose and dying as it is.
A single message from all the locusts everywhere, from all the little Whos yearning to be heard. A single message...
until we pierce the 'fogs of war' and our single message is heard by a multiplier such as Olberman or Maddow, someone who can get past gatekeepers and force Americans to face this head on.
Single message - get the attention of a multiplier - you start the message and you control its paradigm (as opposed to the healthcare reform charade, where any new voices are lost in the cacophony already produced by those paid to do so and which makes your voice unheard and inconsequential).
End the DAFT war. Repeal, revoke, slay Public Law 107-40. Bring us home to peace.
locust -
I've read your posts previously regarding Public Law 107-40, what you call "one of the greatest obstacles to social and economic progress in the world", which you advocate repealing. As one who picketed against passage of that act of Congress (the 2001 authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan) as well as against militarism in Vietnam and in Iraq, I respectfully disagree.
First, as it is written (yes, go link up and read the AUMF's short text), Public Law 107-40 is narrowly directed, and speaks entirely in the past tense. It authorizes US military force to be applied only against nations, nongovernmental entities, or individuals who took part in the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11, 2001 in the United States, and/or nations that "harbored" those involved in that one, particular attack.
Despite some early hushed back room arguments to the contrary from Dick Cheney and a few others in the bowels of the George W. Bush White House, it is precisely because of the narrow, event specific focus of the 2001 AUMF that the Bush administration sought a second Congressional authorization in the fall of 2002 in order to attack, invade and occupy Iraq. Public law 107-40 would not suffice. There was simply no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad had any meaningful real world connection to Osama, Zwahiri, KSM, Padilla, Moussasoui, or the official rogues' gallery of dead 911 hijacker/conspirators.
Along with cynically finessing the domestic election cycle of 2002 for GOP demagoguery and electoral gain, Public Law 243 had to be enacted in 2002 because the language of Public Law 107-40 was simply too event-specific to provide any basis for overthrowing the lawful government of Iraq - much less for launching and sustaining a sprawling, endless global war on potential terrorist evildoers by Uncle Sam's soldiers and spies, wherever those swarthy, non-Christian bad boys might be found on the face of the earth.
Second, hectic as the fear mongering atmosphere of late 2001 was, the legislative history of what passed for debate by our elected representatives over Public Law 107-40 clearly shows awareness of the 2001 AUMF's narrow, 9/11 specific scope. Mission creep was a valid, recognized concern by many who voted for it, and the few brave public servants who voted nay. There was history here. When Richard Nixon used the Vietnam war Tonkin Gulf Resolution as the basis to invade Cambodia, articles of impeachment were introduced for this blatant abuse of executive war waging power.
Rather than repeal, why not clarification?
An approach that Congress could take to complement Senator Russ Feingold's recent courageous call for an exit strategy from the deepening Af/Pak quagmire could run something like this:
"Resolved: Public Law 107-40 shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days after Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zwahiri, and any other individual identified by name by the President known to have taken part in the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 shall have been delivered into secure custody of the United States, or any other nation state, for purposes of prosecution and trial under international law for the crimes committed in that attack."
The locals on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the tribal areas, and nearby really want to get the foreign troop presence out of their neighborhoods. Such a supplementary Congressional resolution, clarifying Public Law 107-40, would create a positive incentive to marginalize what is left of Al Qaeda, and transition back towards the creative use of law rather than more and more raw militarism.
I would be interested in your views on this alternative legislative approach to creating a possible end to the escalating escapade into Afghanistan.
Rather than repealing Public Law 107-40, why not instead build upon its language in the interest of harnessing the Pentagon war machine, scaling back imperial ambitions, and bringing about peace?
Bill from Saginaw
double post
Hats off to Mark Weinsbrot for an excellent article. I say this because this article is far more profound than which first meets the eye.
It is about the public need for the transcending wisdom of a healthy well informed "populist" democracy verses anti-democratic institutions of power that seek only their own perpetuation.
This article cuts to the core of what is wrong with American politics. American politics is ruled by the elite, dangerously limited to numerous institutions of group think. These institution are made up of people who are highly paid to be team players, or else your fired. What happens is that these institutions, whether it be the Pentagon, the State Department, the corporate defense industry, the WTO, IMF or the world Bank, etc., become totally incapable of self-critique. Thus they become blind with their own narrow vision, never capable of thinking outside the box. The people themselves in such institutions can be good people, but as a whole, a true evil can really eminate from such institutions of power.
Mark Weisbrot says: "The gap between the public and the foreign policy elite is not due to the ignorance of the masses, as the elite would have it, but primarily to a different set of interests and values." That says it all.
The answer is simply more democracy as with more democracy, the people will ultimately become smarter than the dominate "blind" institutions of power. With a healthy democracy, the national conversation becomes more honest. The people will be smarter because public discernment will always seek the common good.
Too many posters on CD condemn the stupidity of the masses, but the unwashed masses are not stupid on the long run if they are properly informed.......... The lack of democracy and an honest civic press is the problem.
Democracy is nearly dead in America. Fascism will rule by way an alliance between government and corporate institutions of immnense power and wealth. Those citizens who understand this should be hitting the streets! Radical social change has always begun with the radical few....always.
OK Steven V. Riley,
But we have had the freedom to watch Democracy Now, or the O'Reilly Factor. We have had the choice to watch Oprah and Nascar and professional wrestling, or do some reading about foreign policy. We have the choice to visit porn sites, or read the articles on Common Dreams. I am very much with you on the truth and information aspect. But, the statistics seem to speak volumes on the choices we make, even as semi-free citizens. What will it really take to protect the dwindling amount of democracy left in our nation? We can lead the horse to water......
Much of the truth is out there lying around. It's up to us to go out and gather it up. It seems like to me that many, if not most, Americans refuse to see the truth, even when it's right in front of our faces. I believe that we have a responsibility to ourselves, and to those around us, to seek out good information, necessary to make good decisions. I get very frustrated at times. Should it be called "condemning the stupidity of the masses?" Stephen, inherently I believe that you're right. "The lack of democracy and an honest civic press is the problem." However, I can see for myself that my fellow Americans seem almost proud of their widespread and far-reaching ignorance, at times. Embarrassingly so.
Wayout: As I said, it is up to those who see the problem to take action. The masses do not understand because American democracy is broken. We, you and I who are informed must become the radical ones to hit the streets and change the national conversation. Once this is done, the masses will become smarter. But it must start with the radical few.
The issue is clear. America cannot afford to wait for EVOLUTION, America needs REVOLUTION!
I must add this though: The lessons of history have shown that radical social change against the oppression of an unjust status quo and entrenched corporate interests can only succeed through a HIGHER PUBLIC AWARENESS made possible by massive non- violent civil disobedience and an engaged spirituality of creative nonviolence by the radical few.
Agreed. Thanks!
Stephen V. Riley August 27th, 2009 2:01 pm..........You cannot have more of what you never had to begin with. We need a true Democracy and that is simply not going to happen short of revolution.
I do agree that we need to return the MSM to We the People. This MAY help to inform the average citizen. BUT, many are asleep because they want to be asleep. And for those, all the info in the world will make no difference. 'You cannot awaken a person who is pretending to be asleep'. I would be afraid to venture a guess as to how many Americans fall into that category.
It's like 911. The facts are all there that this was an horrendous false flag. Many citizens refuse to take the time and do the research, depending upon the MSM for the 'official story'. I do not see this as coming from being misinformed or a lack of democracy. I see it as intellectual laziness; a desire to not have to reason or think.
Nevergiveup: see my above response to Wayout.
Nice thread here. Let me toss this changeup in.
On Weisbrot's major point, few people are aware of it but during the Vietnam War, antiwar sentiment was inversely related to educational level, income, and social status. From the mid-60's through the early 70's, shifting popular attitudes were opinion polled like crazy using the best tools available at the time. Dozens of polling groups reported on the rises and falls in public support for escalating or ending the war in Vietnam, using dozens of different framing questions and indexes.
Popular myth has it that the antiwar movement was spearheaded by what George Wallace snidely called those "pointy headed college radicals who can't even park their bicycles straight." Surprize! Statistically speaking, time after time, poll after poll, study after study, antiwar sentiment was actually directly contrary to this commonly held, widely expected stereotype.
Proportionately, high school dropouts opposed the war more than high school grads, college undergrads more than those holding advanced college degrees. The blue collar working classes opposed the Vietnam war more than white collar, middle class Americans did, and the most affluent, most highly educated elites tended to support the war and disapprove of the antiwar peace movement most disproportionately of all.
The more educated those polled were, and the higher up the socioeconomic scale they had climbed, the less likely they were to want to see the troops come home from Vietnam.
There is food for thought in this. I wonder if the same phenomenon is taking place today, now that we have an all-volunteer military force waging a hi tech, low visibility counterinsurgency campaign using a heavy emphasis upon spooks and contract mercenaries. I also wonder if the existence of Faux News and right wing hate talk radio have skewed the Vietnam era dynamics.
Regardless, my feeling is it's the Council on Foreign Relations types who are the real problem, more than the Joe Six Pack couch potatoes.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill from Saginaw: Thanks for that most interesting perspective. I guess sometimes it depends upon how much a citizen has bought into the "system". I always look forward to reading your excellent posts'
Hi Bill,
Things must look different in Saginaw since I last visited there in the 1960s. As I recall from visiting my uncle who was a GM foundry foreman, there was a strong feeling of patriotism among the rank-and-file back then. I'd compare that to the anti-war ferment on campuses at Ann Arbor or Madison (my alma mater). I distinctly recall that in Dane County, Wisconsin that the likelihood that someone was an anti-war activist was strongly correlated with how close that individual lived to the Bascom Hill Quad. My personal experience is absolutely nothing like your upside down revisionist history. Sure, by 1972 the campuses were pacified, mostly with an assortment of recreational drugs and groovy hippie psyops about "tuning in, turning on and dropping out". You'll recall that when the creator of that meme was "liberated" from prison by earnest leftists that Timothy Leary almost immediately ran back into the arms of the Establishment and snitched on those who considered him a counter-cultural hero. So by 1972 the strongest element of the anti-war movement was the cohort of twenty-something draftees who returned to the U.S. determined to stop the madness of the next class of poor Americans who couldn't escape the draft being sent to Southeast Asia as pointless cannon fodder for the war profiteers. The movie "Sir, No Sir" http://www.sirnosir.com/ is a real eye opener for those who weren't part of the vociferous, vocal and determined resistance to the military that sprang up near many if not most military bases across the nation.
So, as a witness to history, and as someone who was tear gassed on multiple occasion on and around the campus of the University of Wisconsin from 1969 through 1971 I can attest that your description of the resistance to the Viet Nam War is simply not something I can accept unless you have some sort of verifiable evidence, case studies or reliable sources to cite. From what I could tell at the time, there was no other community anywhere within 60 miles of Madison with its elite academic populaton that ever bothered to lift a finger, hold a vigil or have a street protest in opposition to Viet Nam War.
so what - the sheeple don't want to rule the world
it don't matter, the sheeple's opinion is neither sought nor valued. the fact we have these increasingly garish spectacle elections every so often should not mislead anyone into thinking this is "input".
the constitution itself was designed to ensure the rich were securely in control -
"The main designer, furthermore, was an astute political thinker James Madison, whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that if elections in England" were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "secure the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights.
Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that "the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power (Lance Banning). The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today"
n chomsky
as the sheeple sink further and further into their newfound lives as landless peasants they may ponder this reality a bit and leave the john wayne injun killin' gung ho country mother's son shit behind them, it is not true now and it never was.
the sheeple are so dumbed and ignorant they can no longer even pursue their own interests, healthcare being a glaring example - a case where the vast majority of americans want a single payer system but are rejected/denied by a couple of million well placed bribes from the sickness industry to the political hacks we call politicians.
end of story, in fact now that obama has sold us completely down the tube with his sweetheart, behind closed doors deals with all the big boys, thereby ensuring their sick profits and killing reform, now that obama has done all that it may be prudent to drop this reform package now rather than going backwards.
i hope that the sheeple are seeing obama more for what he is - a nwo shill. never mind his birth certifate, this brother has facilitated the greatest public theft in the history of the republic, one that threatens our very existence.
obama is a heartless war monger with all his bullshit about "good" wars and such.
the controllers have got the sheeple so fucked in the head they think their judas is their jesus and their armies and their protecteors.
american armies exist to kill peasants throughout the world to facitltiatee the theft of resouces on behalf of corporations who pay no taxes.
talk about a disconnect...
Yeah, but you're not disconnected lebeau. I feel everything you've written. Right on! These truths suck. Now, how do we keep our heads held high?
we are led to find what was so well articulated by camus; resistance.--and to free ourselves from fear, and to be o.k. with, to come to terms with, death, which, in the end, is the only power they have..
guernica: well said - exactly on point
in the face of false flag "terror" we have surrendered our rights - rights provided by better men then us, paid for with their blood
a coward dies a thousand times...
As a student of Asia, I suspect the "Anglo-American" style of militarism/fascism will disappear because other countries like China and India have "seized the day." Money talks and they have or will have most of it.
That doesn't mean everything will be fine. Both countries do not particularly care about the environment, democracy, social inequality, and the excesses of consumerism. I predict they will take the place of the US when it comes to political manipulation, assassinations, jiggered elections, biased propaganda, and military interventions. Power/money corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. It isn't weakness in the American moral character that lies behind our shabby foreign policy efforts, but the iniquity of power.
Locust, please clarify for this dense Senior:What exactly is Public Law 107-243? How does one "stop" the Defense Against Future Terrorism? What do you mean Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are "multipliers"? and what is the Single Message you support?
None of this matters. We just found OIL in Yemen ! yippeeee !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_yemen_terror_threat
"We" don't.
But the fascist scumbags do.
From the article:
"The gap between the public and the foreign policy elite is not due to the ignorance of the masses, as the elite would have it, but primarily to a different set of interests and values."
This is phrased incorrectly...the gap between the public and foreign policy is due to the elite control of the policy setting bodies...bodies ostensibly under the jurisdiction of their constituencies, but actually under the direction of the corporate elite...the constituents, you and I, have no representation, no voice in the direction we are being taken...we are, simply put, hostages...
"We Don't Want to Rule the World"
This is yet another piece of sophistry designed to further propagandize the reader in a manner common to television viewers or listeners of PBS (the Privatized B.S. network). Some of the typical fallacies of political indoctrination.
1. The title is false on several levels.
To say "We" is to immediately gloss over any class differences between the capitalist ruling class and everyone else (i.e. working class).
The ruling class of the United States is most explicitly wanting to "Rule the World". Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Project of the New American Century (signed by many of the top Bush neo-cons), became the foreign policy of the United States under Bush and now Obama, and is fully endorsed by both political parties.
The decline of U.S. capitalism of the last 30 years, and now collapse, unable to compete economically with China,India, etc., but the U.S. having a military budget equal to twice the rest of the planet combined, the U.S. is seizing this historically unique opportunity for global military hegemony, to seize control and rule the world for corporate economic profit.
2, "Americans are famous for not paying much attention to the rest of the world..."
How is it possible to pay "attention" when the corporate mass media totally own and control mass media? When is there ever an opportunity, let alone a daily program, to answer the daily rants of a Rush Limbaugh? When, on FOX News, is there a voice that expresses the political, social or economic interest of the people, essential to even maintain a facade of democratic discourse?
There is NOT a single national radio or television program, or a regular column in any major community newspaper that is a "pro-labor" column or print section that communicates the economic needs of working people. (The sorry state of the unions is equally to blame, perhaps, as the unions are "business partners to corporate capitalism.)
THERE IS NOTHING FOR THE MASS OF WORKING PEOPLE TO 'PAY ATTENTION TO" that speaks to their needs or the their interests. The needs of the people, of society,
forever are opposed to the needs of capitalists to maximize profit. The class war indoctrinates almost subliminally on mass media 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The vast social inequality, violence and greed intrinsic of capitalist culture become a part unquestioned and accepted "human nature".
The American people are not "stupid"! But they are IGNORANT (not knowing) because, for DECADES, the corporate mass media has kept the people in ignorance of their own human interests and needs. These are needs for a for a social and economic democracy (universal free public education,universal national public health system, open public debate in an open media, etc.).
(As a "comment" I think I will stop here!)
A daily read of the World Socialist Web Site at www.wsws.org is an excellent alternative to try and de-program capitalist babble.
Also check out Global Research in Canada:
www.globalresearch.ca.org