President Eisenhower was right, it’s obvious now. He warned Americans about permitting the dominance of the “military-industrial complex.” But it definitely dominates. Today is the 4th of July. It’s worthwhile to explore the juxtaposition of our independence with the power of the military-industrial complex.
The US’s commitment to containing communism after WWII ordained that the military would increase. Eisenhower’s efforts to control its growth were in vain when Kennedy took office. Kennedy raised the issue of a “missile gap” when campaigning, despite knowing that there was none. He increased military spending substantially, to ensure a “flexible response” to military threats. That meant having a larger conventional military, as opposed to Eisenhower’s “New Look” which less expensively relied on nuclear weapons. His pugnacious Secretary of State John Foster Dulles described the strategy as “more bang for the buck.”
The military under Kennedy grew not only in response to campaign pledges, but also to the US’s increasing involvement in Vietnam. Though beginning well before Kennedy’s inauguration, the US presence in Vietnam was enhanced during his term, and the US role became more active. The 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution gave President Johnson carte blanche to wage war there. The goal of US involvement was to preserve the independence of South Vietnam. Ten years later, at the cost of 58,000 American, and 2 million Vietnamese, lives, that goal was not achieved. Another casualty was Johnson’s Great Society agenda for social programs. Johnson sincerely wanted to help the poor, minorities, and other powerless groups. But, he could not both have his programs and the war in Vietnam. The last major effort to use American wealth to benefit underprivileged citizens was another victim of the war. In reflecting on that, Martin Luther King, Jr., observed that “The bombs dropped on Vietnam land at home.”
President Reagan was committed to defeating communism, to lowering taxes, and to deregulating corporate America. Within the decade after his inauguration, the Soviet Union disappeared, tax rates had plummeted, and corporations were unshackled.
President Clinton did little to change the country’s direction. The incompetent effort to create a national healthcare system handicapped him, and helped to give Republicans the majority in both Congressional houses for the first time in 40 years. Then, Clinton had no chance of getting anything done that he wanted domestically. Soon after the 1994 election, Clinton was reduced to defending his relevancy. “The President is relevant” he argued.
Corporate influence in politics was not reduced during the Clinton era. The very demise of the healthcare effort showed the power of it. The Telecommunications Act of 1996, deregulating that industry, is another example. So is the wave of mergers that took place in the 1990s, creating fewer choices for consumers, but bigger profits for corporations. As well, Ross Perot was right about NAFTA: There really was a “giant sucking sound” of jobs going to Mexico after its passage, under a Democratic administration.
President Clinton’s failure to arrest the military-industrial complex is not wholly a personal failure. Probably no president could have accomplished much. But as a Democrat, he was expected to improve the condition of the middle and lower classes, and to establish a more equitable playing field. Most Americans benefitted from the economic expansion of the 1990s, which began in March 1992, before Clinton was inaugurated. Clinton’s failure highlights that Democrats have ceased to be an opposition party. In the 1980s, Democratic leaders realized that if they did not begin competing for corporate contributions, they would be swamped by Republicans, who courted such donors unabashedly. So Democrats did begin actively pursuing campaign contributions from Big Oil, Detroit, Big Pharma, and the rest. At that point, of course, the Democratic Party became a client of those interests. That is why Ralph Nader argues that there is essentially no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. Given how they have variously governed throughout the last 20 years, it’s hard to dispute his claim.
The two parties are both supported by the same corporations, that is why they propose nothing radical, and why they are both complicit in ensuring the continuation of the status quo. In this 2008 campaign, there is talk about the “huge differences” between the agendas of the two candidates. However, no one is proposing fundamentally changing how corporations are regulated, a substantially higher minimum wage, a drastic reduction of the military, a huge increase of corporate taxes to pay for health and educational programs for the underprivileged. It’s true that Barack Obama is less beholden to special interests, mainly because he hasn’t been in politics too long. However, it’s unreasonably optimistic to suppose he can truly be an agent of change. Though, again, there is more reason to think it will come from him than John McCain.
The “Power Elite” have not only gained control of the country during the past 60 years, they have also run it badly. There is no better illustration of that than the current administration. The Bush Administration argued that we needed to invade Iraq and topple Saddam because doing so would: eliminate a producer and potential distributor of weapons of mass destruction; make Iraq a bastion of freedom; increase the oil supply and thus reduce prices; be seen as a benevolent act by the US by the global community. And it would all happen fast. Of course, the situation now is that Iraq had no WMD, they had no relationship with Al-Qaida, Iraq is barely a functioning state, Iran is actively building a nuclear program and has known ties to terrorists, oil is at historically high prices, and the US is seen as a warmonger and completely inept by the global community. And 5 years have passed. The historical record of the past 6 years, since just before the war, is definitive: The Bush Administration went to war primarily for ideological reasons, bent the facts to fit their ideology and, at last, was completely incompetent in the planning and execution of a major military operation. The result has been a situation totally opposite of what they naively expected. The result has also been hundreds of thousands killed directly or indirectly by the US-lead action.
The success of the Power Elite is also evident by comparing the US to other industrialized countries. For example, in practically every European country, healthcare is free, education – including university – is free, the standard of living is high, 4-6 weeks of vacation are standard, and the work week is about 37 hours. The tired counterpoint is that citizens of these countries pay 50% of their income in taxes. However, average Americans pay about 30% of their income in taxes – the first 4 months of the year – and get absolutely nothing for it. It’s probable that the vast majority of Americans would pay an additional 20% if that meant obtaining some actual benefits from the garnishment of their wages. Citizens of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and such countries that have a complete social support program, hardly complain about their high tax burden simply because they are actually receiving tangible, real benefits from that money. A Dane who reflects on half his wages going to the government can then think about how he has 6 weeks off per year, how he can go to the hospital for free, obtain free medicine, can go to college for free, and, if a father, can have 6 months of paid paternity leave. When an American reflects on working 4 months of the year to pay taxes, he can only then think about upon how his money is spent on subsidies to giant oil companies, to produce $1 billion aircraft, and to pay for the defense of a country in which Bibles are banned, women are forbidden to drive, adulterers are stoned, and Jews are presented as “pigs and monkeys” to elementary school children.
Worker productivity is at its highest level ever, but their standard of living is what it was in the 1970s. That means people are working more, and earning less. That is the ideal situation for the capitalist. Benefits are declining, wages are stagnant, and the gap between rich and poor is the same as it was back in 1929, the year of the Great Crash. Corporate spokespeople argue that it must be this way to ensure that the US is competitive in the global economy. However, after 25 years of this, the US has become substantially less competitive. Our debt to other countries is in the trillions. Our dollar is at extraordinary lows. Industrial jobs have been disappearing for decades. No, the only beneficiaries of the reduction of perquisites and the slow growth of wages are the corporations, in the form of increased profits.
The policies of the last 60 years have resulted in a country with a weakening middle class, a bloated defense industry, a corrupt political system, an apathetic citizenry, a failed foreign policy, a dominant corporate class, and an elite upper-class that is as extravagant as it is disdainful of everyone else.
The ineptitude and myopia of political leaders since WWII, but especially in the last 8 years, have stripped the US of real global influence. Yes, the US has a strong military, but it lacks a strong moral force. Consider the effect in Africa: To whatever extent the US ever cared about Africa, the Chinese are now the dominant foreign influence there. China is using its new wealth to build and maintain social programs throughout eastern and southern Africa. Poor Africans are finding food, clothing, and education next to the Chinese, not the American, flag. Indeed, China is distributing its billions all over the globe, to establish friendly relations with other countries, to increase Chinese prestige, and to create strong trade relationships. The US has enough wealth to do that, but that wealth is instead transferred to military contractors like Boeing, Halliburton, and Lockheed.
It has been the mantra of the left for decades that the US could use its immense wealth to build schools, to provide healthcare, to provide free education, to fix its infrastructure, to help its poor, and to assist the needy throughout the world. If that happened, perhaps the US would become even more wealthy, because people would be happier and healthier. A large military wouldn’t be needed, because US aid programs would have built global goodwill toward Americans. The US wouldn’t need to be defended, because, since America would keep to itself, no one would have cause to attack it. Yes, this can be dismissed as being “the mantra of the left for decades.” However, there are no obvious flaws in the reasoning.
On the 4th of July, Americans will be celebrating our powerful military, our extravagant wealth, and our limitless freedom. On that day, the average American CEO will earn $23,000, 170 times more than the average worker; the War in Iraq will absorb another $341 million; and 18 million American children will be where they were the day before: trapped below the poverty line.
Happy Independence Day.
