HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
The
Coalition of the Shilling
The
Iraqis Will Have to Learn
Democracy
Someplace Else
by
Sam Smith
May
6, 2003
Tired
of killing Muslims, we are now trying to teach their survivors some democracy.
There
are a number of practical problems with this, among them being that the
curriculum is in the hands of the most authoritarian, deceitful,
anti-democratic, and constitution-wrecking administration we've ever had. But
there's an even more disturbing matter: wander around your nation's capital and
try to find something better. Leaving aside anomalies such as the ACLU and the
Cato Institute, a few members of Congress, and a handful of anachronic
journalists, this town shows virtually no interest in liberty, the
Constitution, or democracy these days - except when prescribing them to those
in far away lands.
This
is not hyperbole; it is simple, grim fact. And also essential, because what
makes a democracy or constitutional republic function are not words written on
paper, not oaths uttered, nor clichés reiterated in public addresses, but
natural, visceral, organic love of the principles overtly avowed.
You
can not find such a spirit, such love, such loyalty in today's Washington in
any corner that matters. Certainly not in the administration but also not in
Democratic salons, not in the media, nor amongst the ostentatious ministrations
of the think tanks. The nation's capital has given up on the very principles it
wants to teach the Iraqis. With such leadership, it is small wonder that so
much of America no longer wishes to be America anymore.
There
are plenty of signs of our democratic dysfunction, beginning with the fact that
we're sending a bunch of generals and corporate executives - professionally
groomed to honor anti-democratic procedures - to do the job. Then there is the
most elitist media in American history demonstrating its love for democratic
debate by blacklisting voices of dissent before and during the Iraq invasion,
turning its airwaves over to spooks and military brass, and embedding itself
without a hint of skepticism in the administration's agitprop.
Most
of all there is the atmosphere of hubristic homogeneity that has seized the
capital, so full of arrogance, jingoism, narcissism and the political
equivalent of the hyperbolic deceit that buoyed the economy in the 1990s. The
difference is that instead of a stock market bubble we are now in the midst of
an imperial one. Some day, it, too, will end and in a manner not of our
choosing.
People
who truly believe in democracy are not hard to spot. For one thing, they take
an active part in democratic affairs at every level. But you never see any of
the prominent figures talking about democracy for Iraq at any meeting in this
city other than ones called by the most established powers. Where do they get
their practice in democracy? On C-SPAN? At the Metropolitan Club? At lunches of
the Council on Foreign Relations?
Admittedly,
this is not a new problem. Once, during the Carter years, a member of the administration
stopped me in the gym to ask how to vote in an upcoming local election. The guy
had been insurance commissioner of his state and I told him, "I'll tell
you, but you sure as hell would know who to vote for if you were back in
Massachusetts." He smiled and sheepishly agreed.
The
disconnect between global rhetoric and local behavior can be remarkable.
Consider a recent conference described by Dorothy Brazill in DC Watch:
"Last
Thursday, the Greater Washington Research Program at the Brookings Institution
held a roundtable forum on 'Revitalizing Washington's Neighborhoods.' At the
forum, Alice Rivlin released a new study she wrote for Brookings. . . In
conducting the research for the report, Rivlin and her staff at Brookings
relied almost exclusively on information provided by District government
officials, particularly by the Office of Planning, and they did not attempt to
meet with neighborhood groups or residents or to do any independent analysis.
Compounding the problem of planning for neighborhoods without neighborhood
input, no civic or community leaders or representatives of neighborhoods were
invited to the Brookings forum. Instead the invited audience consisted of representatives
of government, business, foundations, community development corporations,
developers, universities, hospitals, and other large institutions."
Then,
of course, there is the fact the would-be saviors of Iraq happily operate -
without notice let alone shame - in America's oldest colony: Washington, DC.
Those who have tried to change this situation are the ones who could teach the
Iraqis what to expect, things like the tendency for large and small concerns to
get hopelessly intertwined, for the colony's interests to be always subjugated
to, or negated by, those of its overlords, and for the place to end up a
playpen for predators of every conceivable variety. If DC is any example, real
liberation for Iraq is at least two hundred years off.
Of
course, there is a patina of politeness in dealing with one's own with which
you can dispense in the case of foreigners, as demonstrated by Michael Ledeen,
holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute. Said Ledeen,
"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small
crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we
mean business." When you sit in the Freedom Chair you get to say things
like that. And in Washington, they call you an intellectual for it as well.
The
blood-gorged and brain-drained of the capital find nothing wrong with such
thoughts, for they have increasingly reached the conclusion that while
democracy was a nice way of getting our country going, it doesn't meet the
needs of a complex world. This is more properly business for the expert, the
profound, and the intelligent - virtues they rarely associate with the general
citizenry. Thus at the very moment that Washington is blathering over the need
for democracy in Iraq, one of its favorite books, "The Future of
Freedom," strongly suggests that democracy easily becomes dangerous and is
best left in the hands of those who know how to use it, such as the author and
his friends.
Here
is how Salon described the writer: "This season's intellectual pinup,
Fareed Zakaria, author of 'The Future of Freedom,' explains why the romantic
myth of freedom could harm Iraq -- and why power elites aren't so bad."
For his part, Zakaria writes, "Western democracy remains the model for the
rest of the world, but is it possible that like a supernova, at the moment of
its blinding glory in distant universes, Western democracy is hollowing out at
the core?" And he adds, "The deregulation of democracy has ... gone
too far."
The
retreat from America's democratic spirit has been underway for a long time and
one of the great enablers has been television. With television, you no longer
needed a politics that wells up from the bottom, forming a pyramid built on
memory, association, reciprocation, and gratitude. While lying and mythmaking
have always been a part of politics, television allowed them to become
ubiquitous and impenetrable.
It
started early, with Nixon's Checkers speech in the 1950s. In the 1960s, Jack
Kennedy used TV to create the myth of Camelot. Then Kennedy was killed and
instantly television helped create the myth of the lone assassin.
In
the 1970s Jimmy Carter rewrote the meaning of town meetings, turning them
forevermore from a fundamental expression of democratic action into the political
equivalent of a televised papal audience.
By
the 1980s we were ready to ditch politicians altogether and so chose a TV star
as president. Then in 1992 and 2000 we elected deeply corrupt governors to the
White House based on tube-honed false images. We had, by this time, become
couch potatoes of politics.
With
television an overwhelming distraction, those of the kind that live to
manipulate power now had a far easier time of it. All they had to do was come
up with some screen myths to cover their tracks.
One
of the most successful of these myths was that of the infinite wisdom of the
"free market," launched during the Reagan years. Even a NASDAQ crash
paralleling the 1929 disaster, even criminal charges against a long list of
free market icons, even the collapse of phony corporate balance sheets were not
enough to alter the myth of inexorably beneficent predation paraded in the
media.
Another
example was the "war on drugs," which has killed as many Americans as
Vietnam and which has been a demonstrable failure from the start. Nonetheless,
the contrary media myth was so powerful that even liberals supported an assault
on the Constitution in the name of ending a scourge far less powerful than the
vodka or whiskey many of them drank each night. The so-called Patriot Act and
other Bush regime obscenities had their roots in the war on drugs and in the
cowardly refusal of liberals to stand up against it.
There
was other mythmaking business, such as redefining the citizens as merely
'customers' of the American system rather than as owners. This was spurred in
part by a book called 'Reinventing Government' by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler
which would become a Clinton administration bible. The book was well described
by Bill Clinton himself in the cover blurb: "Should be read by every
elected official in America. This book gives us the blueprint." True, for
at its core the book was a guide showing politicians how to run things their
way and get citizens to like it.
What
the book did not do was tell citizens how to regain control of their
government, revive democracy, or mediate amongst the various cultures and
ideologies they found in their communities. Government was instead reduced to a
matter of management and the citizen to a mere purchaser of services.
'Customer'
and 'consumer' were not the only words being used to change the nature of
citizenship. David Kemmis, the mayor of Missoula, MT, pointed out that the word
'taxpayer' now "regularly holds the place which in a true democracy would
be occupied by 'citizen.' Taxpayers bear a dual relationship to government,
neither half of which has anything at all to do with democracy. Taxpayers pay
tribute to the government and they receive services from it. So does every
subject of a totalitarian regime. What taxpayers do not do, and what people who
call themselves taxpayers have long since stopped even imagining themselves
doing, is governing."
Then
there was growing use of the term "stakeholder" that covertly
diminished the citizens' role to that of a minor participant. Ironically,
'stakeholder' literally means a person who holds the money while two other
people bet. Whoever wins, the stakeholder gets nothing.
Another
phrase that started cropping up was 'civil society,' a patronizing description
of people who, in a democracy, are meant to be running the place. The term has
come to used in elite circles with roughly the same condescension of a bishop
talking about a church altar guild.
Such
dispensing with traditional citizenship even attracted the admiration of former
rebel Vaclav Havel, who wrote in the New York Review of Books in 1999:
"In
the next century I believe that most states will begin to change from cult-like
entities charged with emotion into far simpler and more civilized entities,
into less powerful and more rational administrative units that will represent
only one of the many complex and multileveled ways in which our planetary
society is organized. . . The practical responsibilities of the state - its
legal powers - can only devolve in two directions, downward or upward;
downward, to the non-governmental organizations and structures of civil
society; or upward, to regional, transnational and global organizations."
Thus
in a few paragraphs, Havel scrapped democracy at every level of society leaving
us to be run, presumably, by business improvement districts and NATO. It was a
profoundly anti-democratic view, because at none of Havel's levels was the consent
of the governed considered.
It
is comfortable to blame the disintegration of our constitutional republic on
George Bush, but the president - though arrogant, proto-fascist bully he may be
- is walking on well tilled ground. In a July 1983 series in the San Francisco
Examiner, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Knut Royce reported that a
presidential directive had been drafted by a few Carter administration
personnel to allow the military to take control of the government for 90 days
in the event of an emergency. According to Royce there was a heated debate
within the Carter administration as to just what constituted an
"emergency."
A
NSC directive written by Frank Carlucci in 1981 stated blandly: "Normally
a state of martial law will be proclaimed by the President. However, in the
absence of such action by the President, a senior military commander may impose
martial law in an area of his command where there had been a complete breakdown
in the exercise of government functions by local civilian authorities."
The
issue arose again during the Iran-Contra affair, but even in the wake of all
the copy on that scandal, the public got little sense of how far some America's
soldiers of fortune had been willing to go to achieve their ends. When the
Iran-Contra hearings came close to the matter, the chair, Senator Daniel
Inouye, backed swiftly away:
REP
JACK BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned, at
one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a
major disaster?
BRENDAN
SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman?
SEN
INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified
area so may I request that you not touch on that.
REP
BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami
papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed by that same
agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the
American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that
was the area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get
his confirmation.
SEN
INOUYE: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at
this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made
for an executive session.
With
a few exceptions, the media ignored what well could have been the most
startling revelation to have come out of the Iran/Contra affair, namely that
high officials of the US government were planning a possible coup. First among
the exceptions was the Miami Herald, which on July 5, 1987, ran the story to
which Jack Brooks referred. The article by Alfonzo Chardy revealed Oliver
North's involvement in plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
take over federal, state and local functions during an ill-defined national
emergency. According to Chardy, the plan called for 'suspension of the
Constitution, turning control of the government over to the Federal Management
Agency, emergency appointment of military commanders to run state and local
governments and declaration of martial law.' The proposal ignored that
Congress, legislatures and the judiciary even existed.
In
a November 18, 1991 story, the New York Times elaborated: "Acting outside
the Constitution in the early 1980s, a secret federal agency established a line
of succession to the presidency to assure continued government in the event of
a devastating nuclear attack, current and former United States officials said
today." The program was called "Continuity of Government." In
the words of a report by the Fund for Constitutional Government,
"succession or succession-by-designation would be implemented by unknown
and perhaps unelected persons who would pick three potential successor
presidents in advance of an emergency. These potential successors to the Oval
Office may not be elected, and they are not confirmed by Congress. According to
CNN, the list eventually grew to 17 names and included Howard Baker, Richard
Helms, Jeanne Kirkpatrick James Schlesinger, Richard Thornberg, Edwin Meese,
Tip O'Neil, and Richard Cheney."
The
plan was not even limited to a nuclear attack but included any "national
security emergency" which was defined as, "any occurrence, including
natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that
seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United
States."
That
was ten years before September 11. And how did the liberal and centrist media
respond to those who tried to raise warning flags: with an explosion in the use
of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe anyone who questioned
the stability of American democracy and the righteousness of those leading it.
Sometimes
it became bizarre. Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy wrote a piece
based on an article of mine in the mid-1990s about the militarization of
America. One week later, as though in anguished response, the Post ran a
front-page Style section article on the virtues of generals in civilian life
complete with a 13" photo of General Patton in jack boots pointing his
baton. The following week the Post ran a page one article with the headline:
"Generals in Command on the Home Front." The subhead ran: "In
need of discipline, order, honor, polish? Civil institutions find old soldiers
pass muster."
The
author, Marc Fisher, wrote: "A retired general is spit-and-polish. Order
and discipline. Expectations and results. Retired general. Two words with such
Taoist balance. At once at ease and in charge. Calm yet powerful. Benign yet
can-do." Sounds just like present day reporters writing about Jay Garner.
From
General Don Scott, deputy librarian of the Library of Congress: "We're
proven. We know how to take orders, we know how to do more with less. Society
wants more order and more structure."
Charles
Moskos, a sociologist who studies the military: "Making the trains run on
time is not to be pooh-poohed. In a world of crumbling institutions, the
military stands out for its cohesion."
Fisher
ended his piece with a quote from a retired general: "Let those in uniform
fight the cold and hot wars. Let those who have retired fight the domestic
war." Fisher forgot to ask the general just when and why the American
people became the enemy.
My
story had been based in part on an article in the winter 1992 issue of
Parameters, the quarterly of the US Army College. The piece was written by Lt.
Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., USAF. Dunlap was a graduate of St. Joseph's
University, Villanova School of Law, the Armed Forces Staff College, and a
distinguished graduate of the National War College. In 1992 he was named by the
Judge Advocates Association as the USAF's outstanding career armed services
attorney. In short, not your average paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Dunlap's
article was called 'The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.' In it,
he pretends to be writing to a fellow military colleague in 2012, explaining
how the coup had occurred. With eerie precision he described America's state:
"America
became exasperated with democracy. We were disillusioned with the apparent
inability of elected government to solve the nation's dilemmas. We were looking
for someone or something that could produce workable answers. The one
institution of government in which the people retained faith was the military.
Buoyed by the military's obvious competence in the First Gulf War, the public
increasingly turned to it for solutions to the country's problems. Americans
called for an acceleration of trends begun in the 1980s: tasking the military
with a variety of new, non-traditional missions, and vastly escalating its
commitment to formerly ancillary duties.
"Though
not obvious at the time, the cumulative effect of these new responsibilities
was to incorporate the military into the political process to an unprecedented
degree."
Dunlap
quoted one of Washington's liberal journalistic cherubs, James Fallows, in a
1991 article:
"I
am beginning to think that the only way the national government can do anything
worthwhile is to invent a security threat and turn the job over to the military
. . . The military, strangely, is the one government institution that has been
assigned legitimacy to act on its notion of the collective good."
Also
in the mid 90s, Stephen Rosenfeld of the Washington Post wrote a strange and
scary column praising one of the Army's advocates of Dunlap's bad dream.
Rosenfeld described US Army Major Ralph Peters this way:
"At
home, use of the military appears inevitable to him -- though not yet to an
American consensus -- 'at least on our borders and in some urban environments'
. . . He deplores our military's reluctance to join the war on drugs, which he
attributes to a fear of failure. He would dutifully prepare for the
traditionally 'military' missions, plus the new one of missile defense. But he
would be ready to engage with drugs and crime, terrorism, peacekeeping, illegal
immigration, disease control, resource protection, evacuation of endangered
citizens . . ."
Peters
would later become a favorite military 'expert' embedded in network news shows
- including NPR's - during the second Gulf war.
The
retreat from democracy continued with little attention during the Clinton
years. Incidents such as Waco were only the tip of the iceberg. Lesser known
phenomena included using mercenaries from Dyncorp to help in domestic drug
raids. As Daniel Forbes wrote in Alternet, "This band of retired military honchos
has 1,000 operatives with some sort of "secret" mojo, spying on the
American public at the feds' behest and helping to hoover up vast sums of money
in over 60,000 seizures."
In
1997, the Washington Post finally caught up with the fact that mock military
urban attacks had taken place in 21 cities. And the academic journal Social
Problems found that 89% of the over 500 police departments it surveyed had
fully functioning special operations units trained and modeled on military
principles. For all practical purposes, these units represented a military
force whose target was American communities and citizens. Between 1980 and
1995, the number of incidents involving paramilitary units quadrupled.
Thus,
in many ways, America over the past two decades was an accident waiting for
September 11 to happen. All the pieces were in place - an increasingly powerful
military; a corrupt and leaderless Congress; the disappearance of civics from
school curricula; the slow acculturation to unconstitutional behavior by
police, military and prosecutors; a media more interested in the power to which
it aspired than in the readers and viewers it was meant to serve; the
concentration of formerly devolved power inside of Washington, and the
concentration of Washington power inside of the White House.
True,
contempt for the citizenry has long been part of the character of the capital.
For example, in 1963 J. William Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a capital favorite, said, "The case for government
by elites is irrefutable...government by the people is possible but highly
improbable."
What
has changed is the impunity with which those in power can act as though they
believe something different. Washington has become the capital of great
pretenders, where the powerful talk as democrats but walk as tyrants and where
television and advanced agitprop have made it perfectly possible to create a
dictatorship that the people still regard as a democracy. This is the same
coalition of the shilling that now purports to export its sordid distortion of
democracy to Baghdad. Don't be too hard on the Iraqis if they fall for it.
After all, we did.
Sam Smith is a writer,
activist and social critic whose essays have appeared in the newspapers such as
the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the Boston Globe among many others.
He is author of Why Bother?: Getting a Life in a Locked-Down Land, and The
Great American Political Repair Manual. He is the editor of the
indispensable Progressive Review in Washington, DC (http://prorev.com/).
He can be contacted at: news@prorev.com