Public Policy 11
Franklin Roosevelt is sometimes considered the first "modern" president because of the massive expansion in the power of the state under his administration. Although other Cabinet departments had been added to the government such as the Department of Agriculture created by Lincoln, the Department of Commerce in 1903, and the Department of Labor created during the Wilson administration, Roosevelt drastically increased the power of the president by enlarging the personal staff of the president, creating the first chief of staff and many other positions. Of course, FDR's importance is also guiding the U.S through the Great Depression and World War II, where it emerged as a global empire.
After FDR was elected for a completely unprecedented four terms, many began to fear the growing power of the President. The 22nd Amendment was introduced in 1947 and ratified in 1951, explicitly limiting the number of terms a president could serve to two–or a maximum of 10 years if they assumed office as a Vice-President. In between this time, the Republican Party once again came to dominance which culminated the following year when Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961), the Allied Commander during World War II, was elected President. Despite briefly winning Congress in 1952 when Eisenhower is elected, by 1954 Congress was still in Democratic control again, and would remain so for decades until 1994.
The major issue of the election was foreign affairs, specifically the threat of Soviet Communism. During World War II, U.S. propaganda referred to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin as "Uncle Joe" when the Russians were allies against the Germans. After the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, a new conflict emerged between the U.S. and the Soviet Union over the fate of Germany and the rest of Europe. By the end of the 1940s, the conflict had extended throughout the world. It is after this period of time that the U.S. begins to transition into the role of global superpower, a reversal of its traditional non-interventionist, or isolationist, position throughout most of its history dating back to George Washington's administration. The shape and design of many international institutions today are clearly influenced by the U.S. political system, as is the still vague notion of "international law." This has created impressive new challenges to balance the requirements of democratic government with the sensitive nature of geopolitical affairs. In many regards, the demands of specialized technical knowledge has only increased the distance between the government and the public.
The most traditional role the President has is dealing with foreign nations, especially the command of the military, or "commander-in-Chief." In the post-war era, the Presidency took on the role of maintaining global order.
In 1950, the Korean War began after communist North Korean (supported by China and the Soviets) forces overran the South. The U.S. intervened. This was the first war the U.S. fought since World War II, only five years later. The war turned into a stalemate, after China and the United States both entered the war against each other. The inability to resolve this conflict, contributed to the Democrats' defeat. In 1953, under Eisenhower, a ceasefire was signed, today North and South Korea are still separate. 3-4 million North and South Koreans are estimated to have been killed, and approximately 1 million Chinese soldiers, in what was only a preview of the devastation in East and Southeast Asia in the ensuing decades.
During World War II, Japan conquered the colonial empires of the British and the French in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. The unintended consequence of this created nationalist movements in these countries, fighting, first, the Japanese, and later the European colonial empires. The most important French colony was Indochina. France claimed a right to rule after the war, until 1954 when communist forces in Indochina under Ho Chi Minh defeated the French, leading to the province being split into different countries: Cambodia, Laos, and most notably North and South Vietnam. The French appealed to the U.S. for assistance, filling the void of the departing French. The U.S. tried supporting the South Vietnamese government, until 1963, when the CIA ordered the leader of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, to be overthrown, and eventually murdered. The US took direct control over the war (20 days later President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas).
After Kennedy's suspicious assassination in late 1963, plans were set in motion to start the war in Vietnam in 1964, a fake assault on U.S. naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin was used as a justification.
By 1968, over 500,000 U.S. military personnel were in Vietnam. The result of the war left almost 60,000 Americans killed, and an almost unbelievable figure of possibly more than 3 million Vietnamese killed, and for what?
After the Vietnam War (and all the lies surrounding it were exposed) for a number of decades the U.S. did not fight any large scale wars, until 2003. There was the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91 and the various secret and covert wars like funding the Contras in Nicaragua or the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but these conflicts were not as large as the Vietnam War. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 prompted many responses, like Sheldon Wolin's article "Inverted Totalitarianism," published byThe Nation, in 2003. The Nationis an important publication in US history, especially in the post-World War II era, under the editorial direction of Carey McWilliams, and provided a voice of dissent during McCarthyism, gave a platform for Martin Luther King Jr., and spoke out against the Vietnam War, when newspapers like The New York Timessupported it initially. McWilliams even gave "gonzo" journalist Hunter S. Thompson his first job, reporting on the Hells Angels. Wolin deals with what he considers the corruption of all American political institutions: the Presidency, legislatures, courts, political parties, the media, universities, labor unions and more. He states:
Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.
Wolin argues, this is due to the American pursuit of Empire since the end of World War II, but during the Bush administration (and after) has become increasingly overt in its imperialistic designs:
The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. “Empire” and “superpower” both suggest that a new system of power, concentrated and expansive, has come into existence and supplanted the old terms. “Empire” and “superpower” accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to “the Constitution of the American Empire” or “superpower democracy.” The reason they ring false is that “constitution” signifies limitations on power, while “democracy” commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens. For their part, “empire” and “superpower” stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry.
This has created a new form of political power in the U.S. in what he calls inverted totalitarian. Where historical examples of totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union featured a leader surrounded by cheering masses. The inverted state prefers the anonymity of the corporate-state the fusion of economic and political power, and passive citizens who do not participate in politics at all:
By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the “streets” were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive–while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.
Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive.
Wolin still retained some faith in the Democratic Party, but had he lived to see the 2016 election (he died in 2015 at 93) would he still retain faith? Does the critique need to go even further back to the origins of the country?
Another important work, this one written during the Cold War in the 1950s was The Power Eliteby C. Wright Mills, first published in 1956. Mills argued that political power in the U.S. was concentrated among what he called the "power elite" or the close-knit group made up of government bureaucracy, the military, and corporate elites. This view was affirmed by of all people Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Commander during World War II and President of the U.S. during the 1950s, who in his farewell address warned of the "military-industrial complex"
After almost twenty years of war in the Middle East, what are the outcomes? The Taliban controls more territory in Afghanistan than it did in 2001.
Now, with the withdrawal of American forces (most of them) the Taliban has in almost no time retaken Afghanistan.
After ousting Saddam Hussein, and enduring two decades of civil war, the people in Iraq now have to deal with a corrupt, incompetent government that has killed over 300 people in recent protests in Baghdad against the corruption, and neoliberal policies of the state, which has left most Iraqis poor, as the 1 percent in their country, in alliance with the capitalist elites in other countries feed off the country's resources.
Worse still, the casualties of these wars has led to at least a million deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria since 2001. Besides intervening directly in the Syrian conflict since 2014 (and possibly creating lies about Syrian gas attacks), the very reason this country and others in the region have become so destabilized is a direct result of the American wars in Iraq
Domestically, these wars have led to an increase in totalitarian power, as seen in the illegal surveillance program revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013 (and suspected by many others for years before that).
The importance of foreign policy brings to light one of the central contradictions of life in America today: how can a democratic government also be a global empire? The obvious answer is that it cannot, although for decades political leaders (and a large part of the population) have deluded themselves into thinking it could. Any attempts to make government and the policy that comes from government actually responsive to public interests will have to come to grips with this pursuit of empire.
I have always said that America is trying to play hero to a populous that sees them as a villain. What does the country gain by policing the world when there are several issues here in America to address. It always boils down to profits, not humanity.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your comment. There are so many issues that should be addressed within the country and a lot that need immediate attention, but unfortunately it falls on deaf ears or they turn a blind-eye to it.
DeleteMarcel Thomson
ReplyDeleteDecember 2, 2020
Public Policy #211
“How can a democratic government also be a global empire? The obvious answer is that it cannot, although for decades political leaders (and a large part of the population) have deluded themselves into thinking it could. Any attempts to make government and the policy that comes from government actually responsive to public interests will have to come to grips with this pursuit of empire.”
It is very crucial that President of The United States power have limitation usage. who have or will obtain power can abuse or missed used their powers. The 22nd Amendment was introduced in 1947 and ratified in 1951, explicitly limiting the number of terms a president could serve to two–or a maximum of 10 years if they assumed office as a Vice-President.
Many cabinets were formed to help in decision making relieving the President of heavy burden.
These offices were to be staffed with scientifically trained officials, overseeing the complex functions of the government. These offices, along with the office of the Vice-President, are "Cabinet-level," equal to Cabinet department.
The importance of policy gives life in America today. It makes sense that government have the authority to govern its citizens in order to have rules and regulations to follow in compliance.