HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The Tradeoff Between Military and Civilian Outlays Is Undiscussible In This Corporate Pseudo-Democracy: We Need To Make Bolder Moves Toward Media Democratization
by
Edward S. Herman
April
22, 2003
President
George Bush has asked congress for $63 billion to fund the invasion,
pacification, and occupation of Iraq, and there will almost surely be
supplementary monies needed later.
Meanwhile,
the states in this country, suffering from falling revenues and rising demands
in a recessionary economy, face an estimated $70 billion deficit and they,
along with thousands of municipalities, are scrambling to slash back outlays
for education, health care, housing and public services across the board.
(With
few exceptions, states by law cannot run deficits but must balance their
budgets each year.) While Bush is asking for the $63 billion for military
spending his January budget proposal did nothing to alleviate the domestic
fiscal crisis, and he has proposed nothing since January to help state and
local governments cope.
In
order to get congressional and public approval of his military plans and priorities,
Bush also spent several millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money propagandizing
for the planned attack on Iraq, and with arguments that none of the world outside
the United States swallows.
His
argument that Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction posed a
credible threat to U.S. national security is one that any moderately intelligent
and informed high school freshman could refute; and Bush’s claim that he and
his administration were devoted to liberating Iraqis from tyranny--increasingly
stressed as the missing weapons of mass destruction failed to show themselves
to the invasion forces--reeks of cynicism and hypocrisy, given the long U.S.
support of Saddam Hussein as well as tyrants in his neighborhood and across the
globe..
But
although the Bush arguments have been puerile and eminently challengeable, and
the internal crisis of the states and civil society needs are severe, with
damage already being felt and likely to hurt millions more U.S. citizens in the
future, the mainstream media of the United States and the national legislatures
have not only not challenged the Bush priorities, they have not even discussed
them or allowed them to be discussed. The media have cooperated with the Bush
cabal in SELLING the Bush military adventurism and its lies, and the Democrats
have joined the mob or lapsed into silence.
You
might think that somebody with communication system outreach or political power
would ask about the tradeoffs being imposed by Bush—about whether it is the
best use of $100-200 billion of taxpayers money and resources to displace a
regional dictator, formerly a valued ally of the Republican Party leadership,
or whether it might not be better to use those resources to serve the domestic citizenry
and protect them from increasingly severe public service cutbacks. Honest polls
have for many years shown that, except in times of war or aggressive war
propaganda, the U.S. public wants less "defense" expenditures and
more for education and other public services (e.g., Steven Kull, Americans on
Defense Spending, A Study of Public Attitudes [January 19, 1996].).
Given
these public preferences, and given the grotesque Bush case for the Iraq
assault and occupation, plus the pressing needs of the troubled states and
civil society, at least debating these issues would seem to be a minimal
requirement of a democratic community.
But
we have not had that debate in any way, shape or form. The media have presented
the Bush military buildup, invasion and occupation as an unchallengeable and
meritorious given, the big questions being whether the UN would go along with
this noble venture and whether we would be able to finish off another virtually
defenseless target with celerity and minimal casualties.
The
state and local fiscal crisis and daily and planned service cutbacks are
reported as unconnected in any way with the federal budget decisions being
made. The costs of the Bush wars are accepted without question and the
tradeoffs are not discussed and not subjected to debate. And the Democrats are
too afraid of being called unpatriotic and offending powerful lobbies to even
squeak mouselike as the interests of their voting constituencies are
traded-off.
This
is another reflection of the fact that we don’t have a democratic community in
the United States, we have a plutocracy, a two-party system that is subject to
"golden rule, "with the fragmented general citizenry onlookers and
sometimes pesky protesters, the citizens interests simply ignored.
In
his outstanding book Golden Rule, Thomas Ferguson argues that in a money-driven
political system, where the major funders of parties agree on an issue the
parties won’t compete on it--so if those investors all approve of a fat
military establishment and the way George Bush is serving their own interests,
both the Republicans and Democrats will go along with him and give him his
gigantic military budget and even actual wars; and where no effective
constituency exists to force an issue like the crisis of the states and civil
society onto the public agenda, it won’t get on it "no matter how many
little investors or non-investors might benefit."
The
mainstream media are an integral part of this golden rule establishment, ruled
themselves by investors (proprietors, advertisers), and just as they decided
that Bush and Gore were all the candidates needed to present the issues in a
national debate in 2000, so they feel that nobody outside the
investor-dominated establishment is needed to discuss Bush’s aggression or
national priorities.
These
trade-offs have been widely discussed on the Internet and in labor and other
citizen venues, but in a highly fragmented way, without coalescence or link to
political action. They are not going to be given much attention or make their
mark in the political area without an independent media and strong grassroots
organizations that can mount a mass challenge.
As
regards the media, we desperately need our own. A hopeful lesson may be drawn
from recent South Korean experience, where a startup free online newspaper
OhmyNews, which began only three years ago with four employees, was registering
20 million page-views a day in late 2002, and is widely regarded as having
helped transform Korean politics from conservative to liberal "almost
overnight" (Howard French, "Online Newspaper Shakes Up Korean
Politics," NYT, March 6, 2003).
OhmyNews
simply ran around the country’s overwhelmingly conservative newspapers, found a
receptive audience, and made a difference. Such an enterprise here would be an
important step toward democratization. We should be making such moves before it
is too late.
Edward S. Herman is Professor
Emeritus of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania,
and a contributor to Z Magazine.
He is author of The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Global Capitalism
with Robert McChesney (Cassell, 1997), Triumph of the Market: Essays on
Economics, Politics, and the Media (South End Press, 1995), and Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media with Noam Chomsky (South
End Press, 1988). This article first appeared on ZNET (www.znet.org/weluser.htm).