25 Sept 2017

The Exit Strategy Of Empire + Thoughts On Trump, Fake Patriotism And ‘Taking A Knee’

The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man’s burden. We have added freedom and democracy. - Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire
By The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible or substantial threat. But if that’s the entering strategy, what is the exit one?
One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is — a nation exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil, financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.
In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur.
 Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully on the American empire because he’d had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.
A path to reversing Empire
Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:

  • the dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
  • the subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
  • the rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
  • a system of satellite nations in the name of collective security;
  • and a zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear: bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.
Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage. The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates power in various ways. They include:
By delegation — Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never considered them.
By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
Through usurpation — the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.
Entanglement in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.
A sixth component of Empire
But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out. A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.
That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a “prisoner of history” in a trap of its own making. He writes, “A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power.”
In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett’s point: “[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s] itself to be ‘a prisoner of history.’ For beyond fear lies ‘collective security,’ and the playing of the supposedly destined American role upon the world stage.”
Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire — imprisonment — comes directly after the two components of “a system of satellite nations” and, “a complex of vaunting and fear.”
Satellite nations
“We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations,” Garrett wrote. “Nevertheless, satellite is the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard.” Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe … [how] could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we … may lose a following of dependent people who act as an outer guard.”
An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America’s modern system of satellites. “We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid — though that is vital — it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance.“
In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.
Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear  — real or created — drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. In his introduction to Garrett’s book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett’s point. Ramsey writes, Empire has “‘less control over its own fate than a republic,’ he [Garrett] commented because it was a ‘prisoner of history’, ruled by fear. Fear of what? ‘Fear of the barbarian.’”
It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy’s savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other.
The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also “vaunting.” Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively — for example, to laud and exaggerate America’s role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that “there is soon a point from which there is no turning back….The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, ‘Shall we break the heart of the world?’ So now many are saying, ‘We cannot let the free world down’. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like.”


Conclusion
In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.
It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire is best opposed.

Source




_____



Thoughts on Trump, Fake Patriotism
and ‘Taking a Knee’
Americans do not and should not worship idols. We do not and should not worship the flag. As a nation we stand in respect for the national anthem and stand in respect for the flag not simply because we were born here or because it’s our flag. We stand in respect because the flag represents a specific set of values and principles. – From: I Understand Why They Knelt
I almost always disagree with mainstream critiques of Trump, which is why I tend to stay away from commenting on the endless battles between the destructive and dangerous status quo and the dangerous and destructive Donald Trump. Critiques of Trump from status quo types and their supporters are almost always hysterical and superficial, based upon the false premise that everything was going just fine until Trump was elected.
I believe that sort of myth making is as dangerous as Trump himself, and I’ll never support a preposterous “resistance” strategy which elevates Wall Street CEOs, the CIA, neo-cons, neo-liberals and all sorts of other destructive elements of our society into saviors. These shallow resistance types focus on the symptom of the disease versus the disease itself, and therefore can never offer a constructive path to a batter future. That said, in this instance I completely agree with the view that Trump’s authoritarian tweets with regard to NFL player protests in recent days are extremely dangerous and encourage his supporters to rally around a debased and superficial fake patriotism based on symbolism as opposed to ideals and values.
First, let’s start with a little history. Former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started his protest in August 2016 when Barack Obama was still President and the mainstream narrative assumed Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump handily later that year. He was clear about the intentions behind his protest from the beginning, which related to his disgust with unaccountable police brutality against people of color. Here’s some of what he had to say when asked about his actions a year ago:
“I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change. When there’s significant change and I feel that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, and this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.”
“This stand wasn’t for me. This is because I’m seeing things happen to people that don’t have a voice, people that don’t have a platform to talk and have their voices heard, and effect change. So I’m in the position where I can do that and I’m going to do that for people that can’t.”
“It’s something that can unify this team. It’s something that can unify this country. If we have these real conversations that are uncomfortable for a lot of people. If we have these conversations, there’s a better understanding of where both sides are coming from.”
“I have great respect for the men and women that have fought for this country. I have family, I have friends that have gone and fought for this country. And they fight for freedom, they fight for the people, they fight for liberty and justice, for everyone. That’s not happening. People are dying in vain because this country isn’t holding their end of the bargain up, as far as giving freedom and justice, liberty to everybody. That’s something that’s not happening. I’ve seen videos, I’ve seen circumstances where men and women that have been in the military have come back and been treated unjustly by the country they fought have for, and have been murdered by the country they fought for, on our land. That’s not right.”
Kaepernick has suffered the consequences of his actions, as he remains unsigned by any NFL team following last season’s protest and the controversy that followed. This is what tends to happen when someone sticks their neck out to make a point and enough people, especially extremely wealthy people like the owners of NFL teams, don’t like it. As anyone who’s ever held a job knows, if you act in a way that the boss doesn’t like and you do it consistently enough, you’ll get fired. This is simply how power dynamics work.
I’m sure Kaepernick knew this going in, yet he stuck to his principles irrespective of the likely negative consequences that would follow. Whether you agree or not with how he decided to make his point, I think it’s disingenuous to argue he wasn’t coming from a genuine place. If he had started this protest after Trump’s election, I would have seen it as superficial and fame-whoring, but that’s not what happened. He started it while the first black President was in office. Like it or not, the guy was clearly coming from a genuine place and sacrificed a lot to stand his ground.
Which brings me to Trump’s commentary on the subject. Much can be revealed about his nature and his plans for the future by analyzing some of what he said. First, here’s what got the whole thing going. During a Friday rally in Alabama, Trump said the following:
“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. He is fired.”
In subsequent days, he added to that angry, authoritarian rant with a stream of related tweets, some of which are highlighted below:




These tweets are interesting. He conflates wealth and success with a requirement to be submissive. This is an implied threat that if you want to be successful in America, you’d better learn to stay in line.
Importantly, a healthy society would see things in the exact opposite way. Those who have the ability or platform to express dissent most meaningfully are the ones with the greatest moral obligation to do so. Moreover, this entire country was founded by wealthy colonists who decided to become subversive and rebellious. I’m quite certain King George III would have called them ungrateful. Trump should take a crash course in U.S. history.
Here Trump equates standing for a song and flag with patriotism, which is preposterous. True patriotism involves making sacrifices for the principles outlined in the Constitution. If we want to really talk about who “disrespects the country” let’s start with George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, three men who have demonstrated zero regard for our founding document.
This is him defining what sort of protest is acceptable and what isn’t. He’s trying to make himself the arbiter of a new type of shallow patriotism with him as the figurehead.
No one fought for a piece of fabric. Trump knows this, and it’s imperative that we do not underestimate what he’s doing here. Yes, Trump is a thug and an authoritarian. Yes, it’s clear he could care less about the Constitution and the principles that the American flag actually stands for. That said, he’s not a stupid person, particularly when it comes to manipulating people in general, and his diehard supporters specifically.
When I look at Trump’s commentary and tweets in aggregate one thing becomes crystal clear. Trump is trying to redefine America and what it means to be a patriot in superficial and jingoistic terms. He’s essentially grooming his supporters into thinking that worshipping a piece of fabric is what separates those who love this country from those who hate it and want to destroy it. By making this about a symbol as opposed to the ideas that this symbol represents, he allows his supporters to feel they are a part of “taking America back” while not even remotely comprehending what the country is actually all about. It’s like losing weight while eating whatever you want, all you have to do is vomit afterwards. Trump is essentially conditioning his supporters to follow him as he regurgitates all over the Constitution, because as long as they stay true to a piece of fabric or song, they honor the country. Patriotism made easy.
Which is why what Trump did here is the most dangerous thing he’s done since becoming President. He’s using an issue that existed and was already divisive as a way to redefine what patriotism means in America. It’s no longer about free speech, the right to privacy and the rest of it, but rather patriotism now revolves around a song and a flag. A societal embrace of this sort of fake patriotism is how horrible things happen, and I hope most Trump voters are wise enough to see this.
As much as I hate the deep state, corporate media, Wall Street, etc, I don’t hate them enough to fall for this sleazy ploy. In order for Trump to start some stupid war with North Korea or Iran he requires a sizable percentage of the population to feel so connected to him as a cult of personality that they’ll support anything he does. Most politicians need this sort of cult worship to do what they want, and Obama was certainly no different. His extensive cadre of cult of personality supporters allowed him to do awful things, which is partly why we find ourselves in this predicament today. Actions have consequences and the path we’re on remains extremely treacherous.
America is not a flag or a song, but a set of ideas. Ideas and civil liberties set forth in our Constitution. This is what people who serve the country swear allegiance to, not a song or a piece of fabric, but to the Constitution. One thing Trump never mentions in any of his tweets is the Constitution and that’s no accident. He’s quite deliberately attempting to redefine patriotism in his image.
This is a very existential issue and one I have thought about for a long time. It’s quite worrisome how many Americans seem to care very little about the Constitution, the document which is supposed to define the entire nation.
As I wrote in a recent post titled,The Political Environment I Want to See:
It is my suggestion that we all take a step back and ask ourselves what it means to be an American. If the vast majority of us cannot agree that The Bill of Rights is fundamental to citizenship, then the country is already lost. If that’s the case, we need to accept there isn’t much that unites us anymore, thus the divisions will simply get worse and worse until one political gang takes total authoritarian control over Washington D.C., or we break off into separate political entities. Either one of those scenarios, or both, is the likely outcome should we not find a way to come together as a people around something as fundamentally important as constitutional civil liberties.
These United States cannot stay together if we’re no longer united in our founding principles. If cohesiveness on such a core issue is no longer there, we’re nothing more than a giant blob of culturally disconnected subjects toiling within in an imperial oligarchy. I’d like to think we’re better than that.
This isn’t about Trump versus the discredited establishment. This is about Trump trying to redefine patriotism in superficial terms which he can then exploit to his advantage while showing the same disregard for the Constitution that Obama and Bush did before him. This is a very dangerous game, and we can’t let it happen again.
America isn’t a flag or a song, but a people united in dedication to the principles of the U.S. Constitution. If that no longer exists then this nation is already gone.

 In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

 Source


at

No comments:

Post a Comment