Abstract: It requires several hundred pages
to address the complex subject of challenges to American democracy in the
post-Cold War era of a global multi-polar economic and political power
structure. In this brief essay, I identify only a few of the current challenges
to American democracy that appear permanent fixtures of society in the early 21st
century. The objective is to provide but a sample of some issues, regardless of
how the corporate media, government, and presidential candidates wish to define
challenges to democracy.
Introduction: Erosion
of Public Confidence in Liberal Democracy
From the writing of the
Constitution until the present, there have been many challenges to American
democracy. This reflects an ideological struggle between those closer to John
Locke’s classical Liberal model of government and those advocating a social
democratic model based on jean-Jean Rousseau’s view of the Social Contract.
One of the first challenges to
America’s liberal democracy intensified in 1805 during the Federalism vs.
Democratic-Republican controversy (10th Amendment) that was not
resolved until Civil War (states’ rights issue with slavery at the core – 14th
Amendment). A second significant challenge came during the early years in the
Age of Progressivism (1900-1920) the struggle to modernize the state to reflect
the industrialization of society, to rationalize capitalism and balance
pluralistic interests against the very rich demanding control of all
institutions from the press to politics was a challenge that made its return in
the Great Depression when FDR strengthened the central government and used it
to keep capitalism afloat amid its self-destructive course. The last major
Constitutional challenge manifested itself during the Cold War followed by the
institutionalization of counter-terrorism culminating in the Patriot Act that remains
a very serious threat to the US constitution and the tradition of liberal
democracy. At the core of national security issues if the violation of the 4th
Amendment dealing with privacy and 6th Amendment dealing with due
process. (Joe Kay, Deal to renew
USA Patriot Act extends police-state measures; Tom Carter, 13 December 2005; Capitalism, war and the collapse of
democracy 22 April 2015 – World
Socialist http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/12/patr-d13.html)
Despite America’s history as a
former European colony that would emerge to emulate the imperial motherland,
similar challenges confront other open societies as well. Depending on one’s
ideological perspective, such challenges can be anything from corporate
institutional hegemony to lack of respect for human rights, as far as
progressive analysts are concerned, to lack of a strong defense and absence of
tough policy on illegal immigrants, according to right wingers. To
left-of-center critics, the challenges to American democracy are invariably
associated with the dismantling of just about everything that the FDR and to
some degree Kennedy-Johnson administrations created as part of a pluralistic
multicultural society. The Tea Party movement within the Republican Party has
its own list of challenges to American democracy, and those focus on
immigration, gun ownership, and complete deregulation of Wall Street. Ironically,
everyone from Tea Party Republicans and Libertarians to liberal and leftist
Democrats and claim Jeffersonian democracy expresses their ideological
position. (Andrew Burstein, Democracy's Muse: How Thomas Jefferson Became an FDR Liberal,
a Reagan Republican, and a Tea Party Fanatic, All the While Being Dead)
Some of the challenges facing
the US also confront many other developed countries, including all of the
richest nations on the basis of GDP. America’s history, traditions and
institutions distinguishes it from Europe as well as Canada and Australia for
that matter, despite their common heritage as British colonies that
industrialized and moved into the core of the world capitalist system. As the
world’s economic and military superpower for the last six decades, the US has a
different set of challenges confronting its democratic institutions than any
other nation on earth. The inherent contradiction between liberal democracy at
home and economic imperialism backed by a global military network has always
been irreconcilable and will remain so in this century as the US will more than
likely become even more militaristic in ordert to counter-balance China’s rising
economic and political hegemony.
In so far as democracy
operates under the political economy of international capitalism that shapes
institutions and molds the class structure, it is inevitable that challenges in
American society have common characteristics with other countries far less
militaristic than America. Clearly, official corruption, minority rights, human
rights, and elitism that the political economy produces, to mention just a few,
are challenges in all democracies and they are permanent no matter how
ephemeral politicians try to portray them.
Beyond presidential elections
that generate vacuous rhetoric about “change” when in fact the basic institutional
structure remains unchanged there is the larger question of the evolution of
American democracy owing to objective economic and geopolitical conditions at
home and abroad. The US is facing challenges of global economic preeminence
from China, unconventional warfare around which the US has built an elaborate institutional
counter-terrorism structure and culture, and massive social and economic
problems at home that are becoming worse with every downward economic cycle.
Challenges to democracy are
bound to test the republic in the future partly because China will replace the
US as the world’s number one economic power at some point in this century – China
is already ahead in PPP (purchasing power parity) terms. The US, which has been
the world’s number one economy since 1872 when it overtook UK, will try to
compete by placing even greater emphasis on its defense sector and military
adventures. The US will continue the current policy of containment and
destabilizing various parts of the world, while continuing with corporate
welfare that has drained the economy in the last four decades. The result of
this at home will be detrimental for the economy and the tradition of liberal
democracy, and observance of the Constitution.
Do the American people have
the same confidence in their government and institutions – political at all
levels of government, media, educational and in corporate businesses – as the media
tries to convince its audience? According to one public opinion poll, 75% of
all Americans polled indicated they were “angry” with the policies of their federal
government, albeit for different reasons depending on their ideological and
political orientation. Naturally, people look to government for solutions to
serious problems ranging from unemployment to living standards, but they also
like to believe their government is fulfilling the social contract and not
marginalizing the majority of the people to further the interests of the small
minority.
According to Thomas J. Scott (“Democracy and its Discontents” Truthout.org ; January 2015), the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) data for 2013
indicates that only 35% of Americans have confidence in their government.
Statistics are even worse among young people who simply become disengaged from
the political process. A Rasmussen poll indicates that a tiny 8% of all voters
have confidence in US Congress doing a good job, and a Gallop poll suggests 44%
approve of the Supreme Court, while a Rasmussen poll for December 2014 notes
that more than half of the citizens disapprove of Obama.
While one could argue these
are not bad statistics when compared with approval ratings for governments in
other developed countries, similar public opinion poll results for European and
non-European countries only prove a general decline in confidence for open
societies that claim to the name democracy but fail to deliver what the
majority believe is the democratic social contract. Again, the percentage of
young people dropping out of the political process completely is rather common,
reflecting the high level of youth unemployment and expectations of their
government vs. reality of “bourgeois democracy” as it is shaped in each country
reflecting its dominant culture and heritage.
It is of interest to note that
public opinion polls show a sharp drop for democracy and capitalism (from low
70th percentile in favor in the early 1990s to mid-30s today) on the
part of people across all of the former Soviet republics. This includes Ukraine
where a minority of the population turned to neo-Nazism (SVOBODA) under the guise of freedom and democracy. The reason for
the drop in public support of democracy and capitalism is largely because the
dust has settled and people have now seen that behind the mask of democracy is
a small clique of oligarchs on whose behalf government conducts policy.
The lack of confidence in
public and private sector institutions in the US, and other open societies reflects
a widespread recognition that these only serve the interests of the small
privileged political, social, and financial elites to the exclusion of all the
rest. Despite this reality, the corporate-owned media would have the public believe
that the single most important challenge to democracy is none other than
“foreign threats”. Government must meet these “foreign threats” by becoming
even more militaristic in its foreign/defense policy, and more authoritarian at
home, all in the name of imposing conformity.
Media-defined Threats to
Democracy
On a daily basis, the mass
media projects the image that the threat to American democracy comes mainly from
abroad and from domestic violence that includes everything from petty crime to
gun violence by some emotionally unstable individual. Large crimes that involve
billions of dollars in banking scandals are hardly a threat to the integrity of
the political economy. In short, the neighborhood burglar and foreign and
domestic security are newsworthy, while rarely is the challenge to democracy
the growing inequality gap, persistent culture of racism, political alienation
by the majority of citizens, to mention only a few problems of major societal
significance. Meanwhile, all the media and political focus stays on Islamic unconventional
warfare – “terrorism”, Russian foreign policy, Chinese economic hegemony, North
Korean adventurist statements and military exercises threatening America’s
regional allies, and defiant states such as Syria, Venezuela, Argentina, Iran,
etc.
Almost every Republican Party
politician embraces the theme of a foreign enemy threatening American democracy.
Therefore, the response to such ominous challenges is a massive military
buildup and military solutions to international conflicts, so the people at
home “feel safer”, regardless of whether they are actually safer. In the
absence of the Cold War because there is no longer a Warsaw Pact but under the
persistence of Cold War institutions and policies of containment, surveillance,
counterinsurgency and militarism, the US has redefined and subordinated
democracy to “emergency politics”
invariably associated with a state of war or national emergency. In this
manner, the government can justify everything from unilateral military interventions
to violating the Constitutional rights of its own citizens. Using the politics
of “foreign enemy distraction” government uses the fiscal system to favor the
top ten percent of the population, while slashing social and environmental
programs. (Des Freedman Daya Kishan Thussu, Media and Terrorism: Global
Perspective; Bonnie Honnig, Emergency Politics: Paradox, Law, Democracy; Pippa Norris, Montague Kern,
Marion Just, eds., Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government and
the Public; Douglas Kellner, Media Spectacle and the Crisis of Democracy:
Terrorism, War, and Election Battles (Cultural Politics & the Promise of
Democracy)
Populist rhetoric on the part of the two major political parties is the key
in convincing public opinion that “the foreign enemy” threatens democracy and
freedom, both in increasingly short supply because of “emergency politics”. Populist rhetoric is the catalyst for winning
elections for both the Republic and Democrat parties and for defining democracy
and its threats real and perceived in the manner that engenders optimum
sociopolitical conformity and distracts from issues significant to the larger
population. While Republicans and Democrats agree the threats to democracy are
terrorism and foreign enemies, it is mostly Republicans that subscribe to a
xenophobic and Islamophobic, often latent racist agenda targeting Latin
American immigrants who make up the cheapest labor force, African-Americans,
and Muslims.
Perception and reality of what
threatens American democracy are two different things, just as there is a huge
gap between what politicians promise and what they actually deliver. The
populism of the ruling parties in the US is also a characteristic of Europe
where both conservative parties and center-leftist under the label of
“Socialism” employ similar rhetoric but wind up supporting globalization,
neoliberal policies, strong defense and weak social programs, all resulting in
downward social mobility of the middle class. (Claire Snyder-Hall and Cynthia
Burack, eds., Right-Wing Populism and the Media; Daniele Albatazzi and Duncan
McDonnell, Twenty-First Century Populism: The
Specter of Western European Democracy)
If indeed people care more about safety and security, or at least if the
media and their political, business, and social leaders convinces the public
that nothing matters more than safety and security, people will voluntarily
surrender any commitment to democracy for the perceived guarantee of safety and
security. If the US moves increasingly toward a more authoritarian model under
the political shell of “democracy,” as it could if in the future it faces more
and deeper economic contractions that result in an increasingly smaller and
weaker middle class, the cause will not be the UN, the WTO, Islamic
“terrorism,” rogue nations like North Korea, etc.
“Military
Keynesianism” in the Age of Counter-terrorism
It is not as ironic as it may appear that American democracy is facing more
challenges in 2015 than in 1950. This is because the East-West confrontation (Cold
War) provided a consensus that the “war on terror” has not replaced as the
Republican and Democrat parties had hoped. The breakdown of consensus revolves
around the huge gap between what government, business and media promise and
what actually transpires in society. The “open society” would deliver even
greater rewards because the Communist threat does not exist. However, there is
continued downward socioeconomic mobility and decline in personal freedoms for
the vast majority of citizens and not much hope the future has the American
Dream in store for most people.
For conservatives the solution is “Military Keynesianism' an early Cold War containment military doctrine refers
to defense spending as a means of stimulating the civilian economy by allowing
the surplus to be absorbed by the defense sector. This was feasible when the US
enjoyed balance of payments surplus in the early 1950s, but in 2015 when its
public debt surpasses its annual GDP, “Military
Keynesianism” is obviously destructive, especially when combined with the
policies of corporate welfare capitalism where the state essentially is
steering subsidies and contract to private companies to keep them healthy. (Jerry
Sanders, Peddlers of Crisis: The Committee on the Present Danger and the Politics
of Containment).
The result of this doctrine can be seen in the immense
US sovereign debt that has been skyrocketing in the last fifteen years, as we
will see below when analyzing debt as a challenge to American democracy.
Moreover, the doctrine of “Military Keynesianism” has weakened the economy with
the middle class and laboring classes as the victims paying the price. As David
Shreve points out: “Because they sap the
strength of the already bastardized Keynesianism built on the weak reed of the
defense industry multiplier, the lingering advantages of Keynesianism itself
become attenuated even further, devalued and increasingly misconstrued in
political circles, and felt only perversely by most affected citizens. “Making
the eagle scream” as John Dos Passos once described it, to compensate partly
with ever increasing military expenditure, can postpone some of the reckoning,
just as it did in the last days of the Soviet Union, but it cannot stave off
the inevitable weakening of the overall economic fabric.” (David Shreve, “Defense
Spending and the Economy: The Pitfalls of Military Keynesianism”. @War
IS A Crime.org
By itself, “Military
Keynesianism” does not constitute a threat to American democracy, but when
put in the institutional context of a state that violates the constitution by
keeping its citizens under surveillance, denying human rights to prisoners,
denying due process to citizens, and expanding the “counter-terrorism”
institutional structure to the degree that “security transcends democracy”,
then there is a very serious problem. The continuation of “Military Keynesianism” and pursuit of counterterrorism measures
used as a pretext for police state methods benefits the political, economic,
and social status quo. At the same time, counterterrorism precludes societal
progress to the benefit of all people, social justice, and above all democratic
practices. The result of the “military-solution based foreign policy” invariably
weakens democracy at home as domestic institutions mirror the military foreign
policy regime. (David C. Unger, The Emergency State: America's Pursuit of Absolute Security at All
Costs; James Petras, The New Development Politics: The Age of
Empire Building and New Social Movements .)
The irony about “Military
Keynesianism” is that its congressional advocates castigate government spending
as counterproductive to the free market system, as though such a market exists,
but they have no problem with government engaged in deficit financing to dish
out contracts to the defense industries. The argument is that despite deficit
financing, defense spending, inherently capital-intensive rather than labor
intensive, creates jobs as though non-defense spending such as infrastructural
development is detrimental to jobs growth. “Because the
combination of defense spending, massive tax cuts, and the bailout had led to
large budget deficits, the proponents of this perverted military Keynesianism
insisted that programs for productive government expenditures had to be cut in
the name of fiscal responsibility to make way for (wasteful) military spending.” (Michael Perelman, “The Rise
of Free-Trade Imperialism and Military Keynesianism” , May 2014, @Naked
Capitalism.com)
At the core of
this doctrine that goes back six decades rests the assumptions that: a) the US
as an imperial power has enemies that refuse to accept its political, economic
and military integration model; and b) whether it is the East-West conflict as
its evolved during the Cold War or the ongoing “war on terror”, conflicts
between the US and its “enemies” have an inherent military solution. Given that
such assumptions impede on the nature of the economy and social structure as
well as on the kind of democracy the US has, “Military Keynesianism” will
remain a major threat to democracy in the 21st century.
No comments:
Post a Comment