Domhnall

Sheldon Wolin argues that America has sacrificed democracy for a managed state, dominated by the wealthy, by corporations and by a corrupt and reckless political elite. He describes this as, in effect, a form of totalitarianism and discusses the differences between the American model and that of Nazi Germany. In doing so he fails to give a reasonable history of totalitarianism itself - which arguably has its origins in WWI Britain and America, and in the public relations industry born out of that period, models which Germany explicitly emulated. He fails to justify breaking Godwin's Law, because his analogy with Nazi Germany is fruitless and he is arguing in any case that America is totally different, without recognizing America's role as an early and longstanding exemplar of how to get totalitarianism right. He fails to grasp that many of his arguments will appeal to the Right in America rather than the Left. He is so clearly preoccupied with the administration of Bush II (and Cheney) that he understates the extent to which the problems he describes are bipartisan. Assuming that we all know our history neglects the reality that history has many versions; we need better context. For instance, I would have liked more information about Leo Strauss. In general, the book is a topical (and now dated) rant, filled with superb material for a better book, lacking in structure, failing to build up the essential evidence base and failing to offer much in the way of a useful action plan. I am sure the book served a purpose when published and it has lots of good stuff but we need a more coherent statement of the arguments.

To identify the antecedents of inverted totalitarianism, we must bear in mind that throughout much of the past century the American political system was repeatedly subject to the strains and pressures of war. During the twentieth century, war became normalised. [p105]

Wars, especially undeclared ones, invariably boost the powers and status of the president as commander in chief. Just as surely war presses Congress and the courts to “defer” to the wishes and judgement of the chief executive. A president, however feckless or unimposing, is transformed, rendered larger than life. He becomes the supreme commander, the unchallengeable leader and the nation incarnate. [p105]

[World War II required “total mobilization,” the creation of a “Home Front.”] “Strikingly, in the post-1945 wars, whether hot or cold, warfare became normal, incorporated into ordinary life without transforming it.” [p106]

The relationship between democratic decline and the [concentration of] media ownership is illustrated in the contrast between the attention paid by Washington and the national media to the sixties’ protest movements against the Vietnam War and, four decades later, the virtual blackout of the protests against the invasion of Iraq. [p107] ...The current censorship of popular protest against Superpower and empire serves to isolate democratic resistance, to insulate society from hearing dissonant voices, and to hurry the process of depoliticisation. [p108]

While the war on terrorism induces feelings of helplessness and a natural tendency to look toward the government, to trust it, the domestic message of distrust of government produces alienation from government. The people are not transformed into a manipulable mass shouting “Sieg Heil.” Instead, they are discouraged, inclined to abdicate a political role, yet patriotically trusting of the “wartime” leaders. The domestic message says that the citizenry should distrust its own elected government, thereby denying themselves the very instrument that democracy is supposed to make available to them. A democracy that is persuaded to distrust itself, to applaud the rhetoric of “get government off your backs,” “it’s your money being wasted,” and “you should decide how to spend it” renounces the means of its own efficacy in favour of laissez-faire politics, an anti-egalitarian politics, where, as in the market, the strongest powers prevail. What is revealed, or rather confirmed, is that the consummated union of corporate power and governmental power heralds the American version of a total system. [pp110,1]

A closely divided electorate and a Congress with narrow majorities are also conducive to fanning cultural wars. The point about disputes on such topics as the value of sexual abstinence, the role of religious charities in state funded activities, the question of gay marriage, and the like, is that they are not framed to be resolved. Their political function is to divide the citizenry while obscuring class differences and diverting the voters’ attention from the social and economic concerns of the general populace. Cultural wars might seem an indication of strong political involvements. Actually, they are a substitute. The notoriety they receive from the media and from politicians eager to take firm stands on nonsubstantive issues serves to distract attention and contribute to a cant politics of the inconsequential. [pp111/2]

"The archaist, whether political or religious, has a fondness for singling out privileged moments in the past when a transcendent truth was revealed, typically through an inspired leader, a Jesus, a Moses or a Founding Father. The odd-couple of Superpower is an alliance that finds reactionary, backward looking archaic forces (economic, religious and political) allied with forward looking forces of radical change (corporate leaders, technological innovators, scientists) whose efforts contribute to steadily distancing contemporary society from its past. … The American zest for change coexists with fervent political and religious convictions that bind the identity of believers to two “fundamentals”, the texts of the constitution and the Bible and their status as unchanging and universal truths…[p118]

"...An archaic belief is one that flourished in the past and carries identifiable marks of that past, but unlike a relic, it is operative, employed rather than simply preserved…[p118]

"...The archaist is convinced that his core beliefs are superior to rival beliefs and are true because unchanging. The archaist is also a proselytizer who promises that if unbelievers will adopt the true faith, they too can be ‘born again’, transformed. Archaic truths are powerful then because they are transforming truths. They save the true believer not only from error but from the consequences of errors that can corrupt existence and ultimately decide the fate of one’s soul. [p118]

"...Another version of archaism is political and equally fundamentalist. In the narrative of the political archaist the United States was blessed with a once-for-all-time, fixed ideal form, an original Constitution of government created by the Founding Fathers in 1787. In that view, the original constitution is the political counterpart fo the Bible, the fundamental text, unchanging, to be applied – not “interpreted” by “activist judges”. As the political fundamentalists see it, except for the Edenic era of Ronald Reagan, the form of government decreed by the Constitution has been under siege by the “liberal media” and liberal administrations abetted by their minions in Congress and judges who “legislate” instead of “following the letter” of constitutional scripture. The nation is perceived as a wayward sinner who frequently wanders from the straight and narrow and needs to be sobered, returned to its sacred text, its Word. The vision of an idealized original constitution rarely, if ever, includes the kind of participatory democracy that Tocqueville celebrated. Instead, archaism tends to support republicanism rather than democracy, that is, a system in which the responsibility for saving the Many devolves upon a selfless elite, an elect although not necessarily elected…[p118]

...Surprisingly, archaism surfaces where we might least expect to see it, in the economic theory of the free market. The proponents of that theory have been prominent in Republican administrations ever since the Reagan presidency. They have contributed to the general distrust of governmental “intervention” in the economy and hostility to governmental social programmes. The intellectual genealogy can be traced directly to a particular text, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which appeared in 1776 at the outbreak of the American Revolution – a sign not to be lightly dismissed as a mere coincidence. It was written to oppose “mercantilist theories” that assigned to the state an active role in regulating and promoting economic activity.
A mediaeval aphorism summed up the traditional idea of the political: “that which touches all should be approved by all.” [p138]

James Madison declaimed: “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would have still been a mob.” [p151]

To describe the United States as an imperial Superpower is to say that elements of domination are inescapably present in the power relations between the United States and the rest of the world, and that empire’s superior – inferior relationship necessarily means a politics among unequals. … the consequences of empire are evident in domestic politics: in military expenditure, subsidies to globalising corporations, mounting deficits and the decimation of social programs and environmental safeguards….The effects of empire are not solely registered abroad, externalized...[pp192,3]

According to the liberal theory fashionable among academics, the ideal role of the generality of citizens in a democracy is to “deliberate,” that is, discuss rationally and civilly the important political questions of the day. However appealing or remote that ideal may seem, in the reality of the war between imperialism and terrorism, the contemporary citizen, far from being invited to a discussion is, as never before, being manipulated by ‘managed care’ and by the managers of fear. … From one direction the citizen is assailed by fears of terrorism, not knowing when or how terrorists might strike; a fear that the citizen cannot “fight” against has been amplified by fears of natural disasters (tsunamis, hurricanes), of invasions by illegal immigrants and by epidemics (Asian Flu, avian flu) for which...the .. response of the citizens is to look to government for protection and to defer to official judgements. Yet the same citizen … has had it drummed in that “big government” is the enemy who threatens to take away his money and his freedom. The citizen is left with no political ally responsive to his economic fears. Unlike classical totalitarianism, which boasted of the unanimity of its citizens, inverted totalitarianism thrives on ambivalence and the uncertainty it breeds. [p198]

The ambivalent citizen: where is the power located that can be trusted to protect him and her but not to tax them? And what kind of politics would support that kind of power? The answer: a form of antipolitics that reflects a distaste, bordering on intolerance, for frank discussion of inequalities, class differences, the persisting problems of racism, climate change, or the consequences of imperialism. Antipolitics is expressed as patriotism, antiterrorism, militarism – subjects that brook little or no disagreements, provoking fervour while stifling thought. Ambivalence is temporarily suspended before a patriotic power “above” politics, one represented by the armed forces, symbols of heroism, antimaterialism, sacrifice for others, force purified by a righteous cause. Big government may be the problem; big military is the solution. [p198]

The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts points to the crucial fact that, for the poor, minorities, the working class, anticorporatists, pro-environmentalists, and anti-imperialists, there is no opposition party working actively on their behalf.... The character of the Republican Party reflects a profound change: radicalism has shifted its location and meaning. ... Radicalism is now the property of those who quaintly call themselves “conservatives” and are called such by media commentators. In fact, pseudoconservatism is in charge of and owns the radicalising powers that are dramatically changing, in some cases revolutionizing, the conditions of human life, of economy, politics, foreign policy, education and the prospects of the planet. It is hard to imagine any power more radical in its determination to undo the social gains of the past century. [p206]

...is the United States the model democracy or a highly equivocal one? …That our system is democratic is more of an unquestioned assumption than a matter of public discussion and so we ignore the extent to which antidemocratic elements have become systemic, integral, not aberrant. The evidence is there: in widening income disparities and class distinctions, polarized educational systems (elite institutions with billionaire endowments versus struggling public schools and universities), health care that is denied to millions, national political institutions controlled by wealth and corporate power. While these contrasts are frequently bemoaned, they are rarely considered as cumulative and, rarer still, as evidence of an antidemocratic regime. [p212]

To claim that antidemocracy is a regime means expanding the meaning of democracy so that it is not confined to political matters but applies as well to social, cultural and economic relationships. If if it is objected that this stretches the meaning of democracy beyond what it can reasonably bear, my response is this: not to do so implies that democracy can operate despite the inequalities of power and life circumstances embedded in all of these relationships. [p212/3]

An inverted totalitarian regime, precisely because of its inverted character, emerges, not as an abrupt regime change or dramatic rupture but as evolutionary, as evolving out of a continuing and increasingly unequal struggle between an unrealized democracy and an antidemocracy that dares not speak its name. Consequently while we recognize familiar elements of the system – popular elections, free political parties, the three branches of government, a bill of rights – if we re-cognize, invert, we see its actual operations as different from its formal structure. … For example, the privatization of public functions is an expression of the revolutionary dynamic of capitalism, of its aggrandizing bent. Capital brings its own culture of competitiveness, hierarchy, self interest. Each instance of the private inroads into public functions extends the power of capital over society… From a democratic perspective the effects of privatization are counter-revolutionary; but from a capitalist viewpoint they are revolutionary. [p213]

The point is not whether the Founders had a totalitarian vision, but rather what forms of power they were bent on encouraging and what forms they were determined to check. What did they hope for and what did they fear?
The main hope of the Founders was to establish a strong central government, not one hobbled at every turn by an intrusive citizenry or challenged by several “sovereign” states. They professed to be choosing a republic, but it is closer to the truth to say that they were focused upon establishing a system of national power to replace what they considered the hopelessly ineffectual system of decentralized powers under the articles of Confederation.
The new system, with its emphasis upon a strong executive, an indirectly elected Senate composed (it was hoped) of the educated and wealthy, and an appointed Supreme Court also represented the fears of the Founders. Theirs was a counter-revolution against not only the system of politics that had led to the revolution against Britain but against democratic tendencies and populist outbreaks that had persisted from the end of the seventeenth century and throughout the eighteenth.
[p225]

The history of the revolution that most Americans are taught emphasizes the role of selfless generals, patrician leaders – in short, an elite. However, thanks to the efforts of some historians, we are now able to learn about the extraordinary political activities of working class members, small farmers, women, slaves and Indians during the period from roughly 1690 throughout most of the following century. It took several forms: street protests and demonstrations, attacks on official residences, petitions, mass meetings, pamphlets and newspaper articles… Democracy, in this early meaning, stood for a politics of redress, for common action to alleviate the sharp inequalities of wealth and power that enabled the more affluent and educated to monopolize governance. It was of course a fugitive democracy, given to moments of frustration, rage and violence that inspired the dominant classes to describe the people as “tumultuous.” That “turbulence” was in effect the demotic forms of political dynamics. It drew its strength from sheer numbers, but also from the indispensable role of artisans, labourers, small farmers and merchants not only in the economy but as common soldiers and sailors in the military. Except for periods of unemployment, those who protested, marched, organized or propagandised had neither leisure time nor the resources to sustain their own dynamic. [p227]

As Hamilton wrote, “When occasions present themselves in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of their interests, to withstand the temporary delusions, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.” Thus the people, like wayward minors, needed “guardians” - not executors of their will but interpreters of their true interests…. An elite with sufficient leisure to devote itself to governing and schooled in what Hamilton called the “science of politics.” [230]

The “disaggregated majority” is fabricated to endorse a candidate or a party for reasons that typically pay only lip service to the basic needs of most citizens (health, education, non toxic environment, living wages), even less to the disparities in political power between ordinary citizens and well financed interests. Its speciousness is the political counterpart to products that promise beauty, health, relief of pain, and an end to erectile dysfunction.” [p231]

...the religiously obedient Catholic worker, the evangelical African American, the church- and family-oriented Hispanic, the struggling white family with a son in the military because he aspired to go to college, all vote for the party trumpeting values that impose virtually no cost on its affluent and corporate beneficiaries and their heirs. [p231]

If …. we were to list some obvious preliminary actions that re democratisation would require, then ..examples [would include]: rolling back the empire, rolling back the practices of managed democracy, returning to the idea and practices of international cooperation rather than the dogmas of globalisation and pre-emptive strikes, restoring and strengthening environmental protections, reinvigorating populist politics, undoing the damage to our system of individual rights, restoring the institutions of an independent judiciary, separation of powers, and checks and balances, reinstating the integrity of the independent regulatory agencies and of scientific advisory processes, reviving a representative system responsive to popular needs for health care, education, guaranteed pensions and an honourable minimum wage, restoring government regulatory authority over the economy and rolling back the distortions of a tax code that toadies to the wealthy and corporate power. [p274]