Be-In Continued

Meanwhile, there's a whole bunch of subjects which I think are related. In this edition, I would like to try connecting some of the dots. Because this isn't the book, I hope you will accept the sketchy presentation. Or, maybe all I can do is print the dots, and hope you connect them.

I started this weeks ago, but, as you have already read, since then my goals have sunk considerably. Writing is a fits and starts business for me; it happens when the spirit moves. In between the fits, I consider a lot of things to mark down, but end up writing nothing. After all, by the time I get around to the typing, many others have said it all far more eloquently and often. So, why bother?

Then there is the discouragement of it. An old acquaintance sends me accusatory notes; demanding confession as would some old-fashioned backroom cop - the ones before Miranda. Another one sends me various protests intended to save my soul; but, does the evil Walter have one? Then, there are well-meaning friends, who tell me many others think and feel as I do. Despite that, the evils of the world go on, and on, and on. So, why bother?

Actually, there are two reasons. First, selfishly, I feel good about it. That is, when I feel good about it. It's the same feeling I had a few days ago, when I suddenly remembered the birthday of a friend I haven't seen for 40 years. Out of time, without reason, I recalled youthful adventures; some pleasant, some not. But, to have had them, and remembered them, at all!

Second, tritely, I gain a new perspective by reflecting and writing. This morning, I was shocked and horrified to learn something new about myself: I'm part Fascist! In reading Japanese history, I learned:

The Japanese boosters of industrial peace repudiated liberalism and class struggle. They affirmed a literally "corporate" view of the enterprise, which would be echoed through the war and in the postwar era as well. Companies were communities in which all members, equal before the emperor, had equally valuable vocations. In a favorite metaphor of the times, labor and management were likened to the two wings of a bird.¹

Moreover, "Such plans consciously drew on fascist models, such as the 1934 Nazi Law for the Organization of National Labor ..."² Until now, I knew nothing of this; nothing!

What should I do about such an embarrassment? I have long believed that there is no reason for huge differences in compensation for CEOs and workers. In fact, I admire the Japanese system, which still pays most managers at most 4-5 times more than ordinary workers. I can justify pay differentials based on scarcity or undesirability. Just how many people can be a doctor or a scientist? Garbage collecting is a dangerous job and a necessary social service, which few want to do. On the other hand, lots of people can be CEOs - probably more than ? the population. So, what's so special about a CEO? Or a U.S. President, for that matter?

Despite embarrassment, I am not humiliated by agreeing with the Fascists on the equality of labor, because labor is a common, human necessity. We all just do our part. Unlike Fascists, I don't let the capitalists and social elites escape. In the Italy, Germany and Japan of the 1930s, and some more recent societies, the rich and famous were not treated as ordinary people. In fact, what Fascism and Nazism did was create a new aristocracy, while generally making all aristocracy, old and new, more oppressive. In the world of my wish, the rich and famous get demoted; they never get as rich or famous, and they won't pass it on. Taxing and boring perhaps, but I believe we will all be better off that way. I hope the Marxist adage, μFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,' will sooner or later be applied, even if not too exactly. Each person is a human being, not, as in the rest of Marxism or Fascism, merely the means of production.

Democracy requires a reasonably equalitarian society. It shouldn't take a lot of reading or reflection for most Americans to realize we have less democracy in proportion to the money cavorting around Washington, D.C. Our appointed President, George W Bush, has already raised more than $100 million for his re-election, and expects to receive at least $200 million before it's over. The most any Democratic challenger has raised so far is less than $8 million, and all of them combined have less than $25 million in their coffers. Plutocrats routinely give the $2000 limit many times to their favorite Republican spokesmen, but unemployed and poor people must choose between polenta and politics. Consider, whose fantasies are being fulfilled in Washington?

We have passed from a society which sent people to Washington, to a people ruled by Washington.

That is why we should all try to remember what a Human Be-In is.
 

The Trouble Over There ...

is what Empires of all times have in common. It is a strangely human quirk, that people just don't like their unchosen overseers, especially ones that come from far away. Genghis Khan is said to have observed, You can conquer a nation, but not rule it, from a horse.' Which is why, little by little, foreign governors are worn down and get replaced by natives or those who go native. Somehow, Imperialism and colonialism just won't work forever.

The British Empire lasted longer than any other, excepting the Roman Empire. Some Chinese and Egyptian dynasties lasted longer than British rule, but those were not Empires. Now, we - the Americans, once British colonials - are putting on the mantle of Empire left by our former masters. In doing so, we apparently have the willing co-operation and assistance of other former British colonials and the Brits themselves. But, not quite all: the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq amounts to White, Anglo-Saxon, mostly Protestant, English speaking people, and scarcely anyone else. My question is, how long can the American Empire last?

In answering this question, we must ask just how far the U.S. government is willing to go in maintaining an Empire. The Romans (some of whom were my ancestors) were ruthless and merciless. The film , "Spartacus," depicts only some of the horrors Romans practiced upon their subjects and slaves. In the 20^th Century, the Nazis and Stalinists exceeded the Romans in the nature and extent of their cruelties, as did the Japanese in China. But, even in India and the Near Eastern territories, the British were never willing to commit such atrocities. Somehow I still hope Americans will shrink from those barbaric acts, despite an occasional My Lai or Hiroshima; but, maybe not.

The test of American will is upon us, as the Iraqis are already demanding U.S. troops leave the country. The marines have killed some Iraqi civilians here or there to maintain order. We don't know how many more executions will be required to maintain "order," especially since the U.S. intends to operate several permanent military bases in Iraq. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is escorting the Quisling, Ahmad Chalabi, as the U.S. sets up a "friendly" Iraqi government. When the Soviets did this, we called them "puppet governments;" but somehow Iraqis "liberated" by the United States are now free to institute democracy to elect their representatives.

The Wall St Journal ran a series of Internet polls about Iraq. By large majorities, online readers thought the Iraq war was justified, whether or not WMD and Saddam Hussein were destroyed. They believe the U.S. should expropriate Iraqi oil to pay for the war and the occupation. They are hard core neo-conservative Imperialists.

On the other hand, only 35-40% of the same WSJ readers are ready to invade Syria, even though a majority believes Syria is a threat. Even fewer are willing to take on Iran. The Bush Administration has shied away from any direct confrontation with North Korea, which is suspected of having a few nuclear weapons. North Korea is known to have missiles capable of reaching Tokyo, Beijing and maybe Taipei, and is suspected of have tested ICBMs that can reach California. Even the Wolfowitz chickenhawks refuse to show their colors when mention is made of China, which has enough operational ICBMs to flatten important parts of the U.S.

This supports a proposition I floated about a year ago: any two-bit dictator can see the pressing need for nuclear weapons. The lesson of recent American foreign policy is that the United States only attacks 90 lb weaklings, never some muscle-bound Atlas. Possession of nuclear weapons is the modern knight's armor. Except for nuclear weapons and their Chinese auditors, North Korea would probably be a 3 day romp for the American military. Except for the risk of alienating nuclear-armed Pakistan and Russia, some in Washington might be willing to take on Tehran; even though the Iranians can field a large, well armed army. Iran is not a pushover, even without nuclear weapons and even if the Americans are based in adjacent Iraq.

The long and short of it is this: we're too fat and happy to risk total annihilation. Like the classically chicken rowdies from some movie, we are happy to stand about yelling beat the s--t out of him' and so on. But, it is an entirely different matter if we're confronted by the local Mafioso and we're not sure of our strength. It's a fact that we are individually weak and cowardly, and only a strong group when we know we will win.

This is why we are more than pleased to have a paid, permanent professional military service. Our gangsters win. And fewer tears for them if they are beaten, because they volunteered, they knew what they're getting into. We paid for the best weapons money can buy, and made sure those people know how to use them. But, there is a little problem: how do we defend ourselves against our paid defenders?

I received lots of notes during the last year from people telling me (1) I am wrong, (2) I am a commie-pinko traitor, (3) why don't I move back to Russia and so on. A few of the more thoughtful folks tried to justify the war in Iraq, but some of those gave up and reverted to the 1-2-3 pounding technique. Those who gave up may have done so because Bush-neocon³ truth was as difficult to follow as old-time Cominterm. We were going to remove WMD⁴ and prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking his neighbors and America. We were going to liberate Iraqis from the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. We were going to institute democracy, economic growth and a wonderful life for Iraqis. And on and on. For a while, we were hearing the rationalization of the day.

But, none of this matters now that the beast of Baghdad has been subdued or killed. We're there. So, perhaps we can put aside the propaganda and think about this a little. The only consistent factor in this war is that the neocons wanted it all along. They wanted it before Bush got elected. There is nothing in particular that Saddam Hussein did in the last few years that warranted any more or less punishment than he was getting. Eventually, I think most analysts are going to agree that the neocons orchestrated this war, start to finish. Since the neocon lair is in the Pentagon, we get back to the previous question: how do we defend ourselves against our paid defenders?

Putting the matter the other way around: What of CIVILIAN control of the military? It makes a difference in answering the previous question in the stack: do Americans have the guts to run an Empire?

These questions are focused in the matter of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which George Bush brushed aside by waging aggressive, pre-emptive war against Iraq. That Treaty is the basis of all modern international relations, as emphasized by no less than Henry Kissinger.⁵ The Westphalian idea is that States are entitled to territorial and national integrity; States are the meaningful actors in international affairs. Thus, the internal affairs of States are of no concern to other States except so far as that affects relations among States. The Treaty of Westphalia imagines each State as a dot, thus making the art of international relations entirely a matter of what connects the dots. Foreign service professionals have been thoroughly trained in the Westphalian model for centuries. It is at the bottom of the European system of States. Even Asians rely on that perception of the world. Thus, when the Chinese government has, from time to time, rejected American complaints about human rights abuses in China, the legal precedent for their rejection is the Treaty of Westphalia and all that flows therefrom.

Of course, the Treaty of Westphalia has been teeter-tottering on the edge of oblivion for most of the 20^th Century. In 1919, when Clemenceau insisted upon German reparations and demilitarization of the Rhineland, because of the horror of World War I, Westphalia moved to basement storage. When the victorious Allies refused to recognize the equality of the races (as desired by Japan), the internal content of State became visible. All of that undermined the League of Nations, as well as American refusal to ratify the League's Covenant. When the Allies tried and punished German officials at Nuremberg for War Crimes, limits were placed on a State's authority to conduct its internal affairs. Since World War II, more and more "internal affairs" have become the subject of international regulation.

It is exactly this breakdown of Westphalia that allows the European Union to coalesce, and justifies intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and elsewhere. It allows George Bush to argue that Iraq's internal affairs are our concern; that is, we are there to free Iraqis from cruel oppression. Of course, the same breakdown allows and encourages the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, which George Bush disdains.

Which gets us to the First Imperialist Trick. An Imperial State needs to convince the world that matters within its borders - including occupied territories, protectorates, clients and colonies - are only its own affair. Meanwhile, the Imperial State must allow the examination of others; otherwise, Imperial aggression will have no pretext. This amounts to a policy of μwhat is mine is mine, what is yours is up for grabs.' Clearly, the effect of this policy is that yours will remain so only if you can defend it. So, adjacent Imperial States eventually find themselves in perpetual conflict. An outsider observing the situation might conclude that only the μlaw of the jungle μ applies; i.e., might makes right. If, however, the world actually draws such a conclusion, the First Imperialist Trick has failed.

Now, in that light, I would like to propose a revision of 20^th Century History: the Cold War was all about conflicting Empires, the Soviet and the American. I think the Soviet Empire collapsed for economic reasons; retrospectively, it would have collapsed sooner or later regardless of what America did, as long as there was an opposing America.⁶ I don't want to digress into a discussion about the Cold War: the important point is simply that there were two Empires in conflict. That an American Empire existed at least since Word War II is a fact most people deny. Denial of that fact allows Americans to support policies they would otherwise oppose. Therein lies the Second Imperialist Trick: convincing the Empire's inmates that what is done is right and just, or, at the very least, better than what the other guy does. To those most coddled by the Empire, God is on their side and their good fortune is Destiny.

The Third Imperialist Trick is paying off significant elites and enough others to maintain confidence. The Empire should appear as The Way to Succeed for anyone able and willing to serve its purposes. We all know about the Communist cadres - the nomenklatura - who benefitted enormously by ruling Soviet citizens and their allies. It was easy for Westerners to identify the cadres. What's never been easy is to put on the shoes, clothes and glasses of a cadre, and look at the West through Soviet eyes. If you can do that - I feel I have done so - you'd be looking in the mirror. The West is richer, but never was structurally different from the East. The average Soviet citizen was just as convinced of the rightness of the Soviet cause, with or without Stalin, as any American. Which is who just depends on which team you are a player, just like the hoopla over Football Teams.

So, I believe there is an American Empire, and it has been around for several decades. That there are American troops in Europe, Japan, Korea and other places, is one of the signs of Empire. The U.S. government wants everyone to know it is First (among equals?), and it is not letting go its grip on what it owns. This is, in the very first instance, a military policy and, secondly, a military program. Thirdly, it is common knowledge that these policies and programs are supported by the major political parties, corporations and most voters. As long as this consensus holds up without serious challenge, the Empire continues and expands.

Empires must always expand, until confronted by an obstacle. Expansion ("growth") is the psychology of Empire, which turns into hostility when obstacles are confronted. When things stop happening at the frontier, the Empire must wither and die. The frontier is the last hope of the hopeless, and the next prospect of the greedy, which motivates growth. Further, the Empire hopes to make up shortfalls in promises to its residents by extracting the needed materials from "growth" areas.

When growth does not occur, problems arise quickly, and become systemic. This happened to America in Vietnam 30 years ago, and to the Soviets in Afghanistan 25 years ago. Vietnam, Watergate and OPEC nearly destroyed the American Empire during the 1970s. Afghanistan ultimately started the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The important difference in the two series of events was the greater relative strength of the American Empire, and the inability of rivals to take full advantage of temporary weakness. But, sooner or later, Imperial wizards make mistakes and events spin out of control. Sooner or later, like all others that are not conquered, the American Empire will collapse.

Americans have been lucky in their Imperial domains, because they have not encountered and persisted against determined, long-term resistance to those claims. In Vietnam, where resistance was determined, the Americans got out soon enough to avoid fatal injuries. But, the new contest with Islam may be fatal, especially since it begins with a bleeding Achilles heel: Arab oil. Development of Iraqi oil may staunch the losses, but at the cost of maintaining a major, permanent military presence. That presence is almost certain to provoke an on-going guerilla war which, like Vietnam, America cannot win. Muslims have fought for 1,300 years to possess and hold onto what they believe are their lands, their entitlement from Allah. They are not likely to give up now.

This brings me back to my question, whether Americans are prepared for what may befall them? Being a devil, my answer is yes and no.

If Americans are willing to accept a military government, and become a society dominated by fear, then yes. We can keep our Empire and some of our SUVs for a long time, if only we are willing to sacrifice American democracy. Inevitably, the standard of living will be lower, the social classes more stratified, and life more limited. But, we will think we are on top, just as the Brits were on top. The transfer of external stress to internal conditions always occurs; the Soviet Union was just the most recent well-known example. Right now, I believe about 40% of the population is willing to become this latter-day Sparta to preserve their advantages. Of course, this is, for the most part, the most wealthy and privileged 40% of the population who will have to sacrifice the least.

On the other hand, maybe Americans will approve my desired outcome by saying NO to this proposition; it just isn't worth it. In that case, since Empires grow or die, we must accept the end of Empire. This means removing our installations from Europe, Japan and the Middle East. We don't have to do it in a hurry, but in 20 or 30 years our foreign adventures will be over. If we dump the Empire, we can keep our freedoms and our chosen lifestyles, but we will have to accommodate the rest of humanity. Most importantly, we will have to reduce our use of oil dramatically. I think this can be done, with minimal long-term economic consequences, but it will require a major restructuring of energy industries. It will require a major change in how Washington works, and who's in charge. Right now, I think only some 20-25% of the population is willing to take this course. This group is mostly drawn from the professional and technical middle classes.

One way or the other, the trouble over there will soon enough be trouble right here in River City (locally, another name for Sacramento). My worst nightmare is already happening: it is up to the clueless 1/3 to decide which trip we're taking. Although that 1/3 includes the poor and those least benefitting from Empire, I still fear the knock on the door or getting sold down the river.

Reverse Gears

One of the dots is the reversion of America to the 1950s. The current dominant group in our society - the upper classes - votes Republican. They run or control ALL of America's major political, economic and social institutions. They push the ultra-conservative line that something's wrong with Social Security. They're selling the ultra-capitalist idea that Wall St will fund retirement. They have little feeling for the losers in this process. The winners heartily endorse the "Darwinian" economy. Social Darwinism is back.

I would like to throw back a few facts the necons have thrown in the garbage can. For one, poverty in America reached a low point in 1980, and has got worse since. LBJ's Great Society programs actually worked! It's true things got somewhat better in Clinton's last term, but that's because of the boom when everything got better. Since 2000, things have been getting a lot worse.

Thanks to Bill Clinton's deal with the Republicans on Welfare, we don't know how many poor people there are anymore. The other day, one of King George's henchmen bellowed that welfare reform was a success. I can't argue with the claim, because those who used to be on welfare can't come back for more. They're out there somewhere.

Someone - I don't remember who, but it wasn't me - suggested that the real unemployment rate right now is about 12%. I figure it's at least 10%. This guessing is a result of recent (March) unemployment rates remaining steady (5.8%) because many people stopped looking for work. Meanwhile, 2.5 million jobs have been chucked since January, 2001. King George's Tax Cut Budget doesn't emphasize the fact the Administration expects to lose another ? million jobs before maybe gaining back about ? million. Of course, the unemployment rate won't go over 6% despite adding another ? million to the rolls, because the ones out of work longest will just not get counted.

As a welfare worker in Oakland, Calif., in 1965, I was assigned the all-black West Oakland district. One of the truly impressive things about the district was the Cypress Ave freeway, built right through the middle of it. Immediately adjacent to the elevated freeway were the various housing projects for the poor. When you drove through Oakland on the Cypress, going either way, you could not see most of West Oakland. All that changed a little, after the Loma Prieta earthquake flattened the Cypress and ruined a lot of commuters' lives. After that, you could see the squashed cars and trucks on TV. But, you still couldn't see most of West Oakland.

I don't know what it's going to take for people to see West Oakland, or any of the other Bay Area ghettos I came to know very well. Maybe the required pain will be worse than Loma Prieta, although it doesn't have to be that way at all. All you have to do is get off the freeway. You could even get out of your car and look around.

Footnotes

1. Andrew Gordon, A Modern History of Japan, Oxford University Press, NYC, NY 2003, p 196

4. weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear; collectively WMD

5. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon & Schuster, NYC, NY 1994 passim

6. Ronald Reagan got lucky when he demanded, "Mr Gorbachev, tear this wall down" and then the wall came down. What happened was the luck of the draw, not the power of a magic incantation.