GORE, BUSH, AND THE IMPERIAL STYLE
What the attempted coup d'etat now in progress illustrates, aside from the
personal ambition of Al Gore, is how and why a nation makes the transition
from a republic to an empire. I look at Al Gore, George W. Bush, and Bill
Clinton and see Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar. People ask me: "How did this
happen?" They cry out: "Have we really come to this?" and I can only think of
Garet Garrett, the Old Right author and prophet who foretold the coming of
the American Imperium half a century ago. His 1952 polemic, Rise of Empire,
begins with the observation that
"We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. If you
ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and
night: the precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say:
'You are now entering Imperium.' Yet it was a very old road and the voice of
history was saying: 'Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be
irreversible.' And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: 'No U-turns.'"
But the precise moment does matter, at least to those who live through it,
and I believe we have arrived at just such a juncture. It was a long time
coming. Garrett saw that the transformation of the old Republic into an
Empire in everything but name was a "revolution within the form." That is,
the founding documents and traditions of the old Republic were kept around,
for old time's sake, but they were either reinterpreted out of existence (the
Constitution), or else completely ignored. In the formal sense, the chief
executive officer was only the First Citizen of a republic; but, over time –
after two world wars and a fifty-year "cold" war – the American President
became an Emperor in all but name. It is easy to speak of "imperialism" – a
favorite catchword of the Marxists, who use it as a synonym for capitalism –
but what, really, is an empire? Garrett addressed this question, and decided
that you could, indeed, have an empire "with or without a constitution, even
with the form of a republican constitution," and "also you may have Empire
with or without an emperor." Colonies were not a prerequisite, either: look
at Athens, which planted colonies as a tree drops its seeds. Nor was war, or
even territorial expansion the mark of Empire: these, after all, characterize
"the history of any kind of state that was ever known." No, an empire, as a
system of organizing and perpetuating the State, has characteristics peculiar
to itself, and the first one is: "The executive power of government shall be
dominant." [emphasis in original]. A republican form of government, with a
carefully balanced division of powers, could generate a military power
sufficient to acquire an empire: Napoleonic France, and the history of the US
in modern times, are proof enough of that. But in making this tremendous
effort, a republic would be transformed into something else: in the case of
the US, no longer the limited government envisioned by the Founders, but an
imperial Leviathan whose domain extends from sea to shining sea: that is,
from the Red Sea to the Caspian Sea to the South China Sea – and beyond.
The constitutional system devised by the Founders "worked," wrote Garrett,
"and worked extremely well, for the Republic. It would not work for Empire,
because what Empire needs above all in government is an executive power that
can make immediate decisions, such as a decision in the middle of the night
by the President to declare war on the aggressor in Korea, or, on the
opposite side, a decision by the Politburo in the Kremlin, perhaps also in
the middle of the night, to move a piece on the chess board of cold war."
CONSERVATIVE COLLABORATORS
Before Harry Truman sent Americans into battle and only consulted Congress
after the fact, the power to declare war had rested solely with the elected
representatives of the people. It was a precedent that appalled Garrett, and
his fellow Old Rightists, but by that time they were old men on the
knife-edge of mortality, living ghosts haunting the world of the living with
their prophecies of usurpation and American decline. A few years after the
publication of Garrett's pamphlet, the "New" Right of William F. Buckley, Jr.
, and a coven of ex-Communists, arose to endorse and even accelerate the
taxes, the expenditures, the centralization of power required to fight the
cold war. Conservatives who had once agitated for the abolition of the income
tax became, instead, advocates of a less onerous tax increase in comparison
to their liberal opponents. And so the terms of the debate shifted inevitably
in the direction of big government, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but
always the movement was in the same direction. Conservatives, in any case a
pessimistic lot, were reinforced in their inclinations, and they accepted
their fate, which was to stave off the worst – and, also, to expect the worst.
REVOLUTION WITHIN THE FORM
By the time the cold war ended, and the Soviet Union lay in ruins, the worst
had already happened. The revolution within the form was nearly complete. The
US President stood astride the world, monarch of a domain that exceeded the
dreams of Alexander. A single executive order could make or break fortunes,
spare or spend human lives. A contest for such an office must become a
death-struggle if only because the stakes are so high: the fate of nations
rests on the question of who gets to put his feet up on the presidential desk
in the Oval Office. Such a prize is not given up so easily, and it was
inevitable that someone like Al Gore would come along and at least threaten
to cross the Rubicon. The Founders foresaw – and greatly feared – the coming
of such a demagogue, but even if it looks as if he is only a would-be
Napoleon, and will never get to place the crown on his own head, another one
will come along and succeed where Gore failed. The imperial Presidency is
invested with so much power, both domestically and internationally, that
aspirants will do anything to win office – including vote fraud, vote
suppression, even redefining the very concept of voting from an act to an
intention. This crisis has stretched the institutions of the old republic to
the breaking point: next time, that creaking sound will give way to a sharp
crack. And there will be a next time: the only question is how soon? Oh boy,
I can hardly wait for the 2004 elections.
WHAT, ME WORRY?
In a speech the other day, Colin Powell, putative Secretary of State, told
his adoring audience that he gets phone calls from generals in formerly
Communist countries asking if he's worried about the crisis of presidential
succession in the US. His answer:
"Not in the least. You've got to understand that American democracy is not
like the system that you have. American democracy is kind of like a life
raft. It bobs around the ocean all the time. Your feet are always wet. The
winds are always blowing ... but you never sink.''
HUBRIS
Pride cometh before a fall. The American ship of state – surely the biggest,
most expensive, most expansive "raft" in history – is not unsinkable. A
republic, so long as it retains the virtues of its Founders – and at least
some of their vitality – tends to endure, but an empire naturally decays,
like ripened fruit bursting with the seeds of its own corruption. Like the
original sin of Adam and Eve, who ate of the forbidden fruit, the temptation
to usurp the forms of our constitutional republic will in the end prove too
much for our political leaders to withstand. Al Gore may be the first in
modern times to succumb to the lure of a coup, legal or otherwise, but he
will hardly be the last. Our future is rife with Al Gores, not only the
original but some even more ambitious and aggressive models. A more
attractive Gore, a candidate without his alienating ticks, a more truly
Kennedy-esque figure who won the popular vote but lost in the electoral
college – that is the real danger. What this crisis has shown is that a
demagogue with some real charisma could easily shred what is left of our
Constitution, and, commanding popular support – plus an army of lawyers –
overthrow the rule of law.
NO POLITICAL SUPPORT TO BUSH
As longtime readers of this column will know, my opposition to the Gore coup
does not imply any kind of political support for George W. Bush. While the
success of the Gore coup would signal the end of our old republic, the
ascension of Dubya will exacerbate the same retrograde trend, and further
develop yet another characteristic of Empire: As Garet put it,
"A second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire is: 'Domestic
policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.' That happened to Rome. It has
happened to every Empire. . . . The fact now to be faced is that it has
happened also to us."
AN ACT OF WAR?
We are, Garrett pointed out, "no longer able to choose between peace and war.
We have embraced perpetual war. We are no longer able to choose the time, the
circumstances or the battlefield." Our 'vital national interests' – as the
bromide goes – are everywhere: on this question there is no difference
between Republicans and Democrats. The idea that Dubya is somehow less
interventionist because one of his foreign policy advisors – not his putative
Secretary of State – suggested that we might, someday, pull our troops out of
the Balkans, makes no sense at all. As I pointed out before the election, the
Republicans are in favor of a more focused use of US military resources:
their guns are aimed directly at the Middle East, specifically at Iraq. Bush
is not even in office yet, and already the janissaries of Big Oil are calling
for a US military strike. In the Houston Chronicle [December 4], Michael J.
Economides and Ronald Oligney – professors at the University of Houston,
advisers to Fortune 500 companies and authors of The Color Of Oil: The
History, the Money and the Politics of the World's Biggest Business – call on
Bush to unleash the dogs of war against Iraq. Why? Saddam Hussein, it seems,
has halted all Iraqi oil exports, and this – to the two esteemed professors
– is nothing less than an act of war:
"The growing likelihood of a Bush administration is almost certain to provoke
a vendetta on Saddam's part, renewing the Iraqi leader's rivalry with the
senior Bush, through his son. Everything is personal in the Middle East, and
memories are long. But there are some significant differences between 1991
and 2001. Saddam's power today, while in military terms considerably reduced,
is magnified many times because the excess capacity in oil production
worldwide is gone"
THE "REAL" CRISIS
What, then, shall we do? Stop quibbling over the election and get down to
solving the "real" crisis: an impending energy crisis. "The emerging
situation" we are told, "gives additional impetus to resolve the electoral
fight here and to prepare for what likely will be a January with an energy
emergency." First, aver the two professors, Bush must "level with the
American people." Sure, we're into energy conservation and all that stuff,
but for the moment, at any rate, hydrocarbon is king. Secondly, an energy
crunch is not really bad news, indeed, we need to "take credit," because,
according to the learned professors,
"The current tight energy situation is not a failure of policy but a direct
result of the booming US economy, especially because of the voracious
appetite for more energy by the new economy. (Today, 20 percent of all power
generated is used by computers and is growing.)"
THE SOLUTION IS WAR
This is utter crap, of course, since the tendency in computer design is
toward less energy-use for more computer power, and not the reverse, but this
is just hi-tech window dressing for the main recommendation of this duo,
which is as follows:
"A military deployment must start immediately. It is an obvious question
whether Saddam's action should be interpreted by the United States as an act
of war. We think the answer is obvious, but in any case, the time required to
respond militarily will not afford us the luxury to wait. And the excess
capacity of the remaining member-nations of the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries today is essentially zero, so they can provide little if
any relief."
THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL
We need the oil: now, let us seize it. We don't even need to manufacture much
of a provocation. According to Messrs. Economides and Oligny, the reason
Saddam cut off the oil flow was because he's avidly following the remarks of
Judge Saul, and the deliberations of the US Supreme Court: he knows Dubya is
on his way to the White House and so now the Iraqi leader is taking his
vengeance on the son of the man who defeated him. "Everything is personal" in
the perfervid maelstrom of the Middle East, the two professors agree: of
course, every issue of international politics (and all politics) is personal
in the sense that it has an effect on the lives of real world individuals.
Such as the real-world children, more than half a million so far, who have
starved to death due to the Draconian sanctions imposed by the US and
Britain, with support from the United Nations. Such a calamity is bound to be
taken personally by those who suffer from it, but that this might be even
vaguely related to the halt in Iraqi oil exports is apparently inconceivable
to professors Economides and Oligney..
THE IMPERIAL STYLE
The imperial style of leadership is everywhere apparent, and a new age is
upon us. Generals (Colin Powell, Norman Schwartzkopf) have become political
figures, key figures in the Republican campaign and with a clear role to play
in the new administration. With Dick Cheney, the former defense secretary
whose business interests are intertwined with the policy of global
intervention, a virtual co-President, what we are witnessing is the
militarization of American politics, and Garrett predicted this, too:
"Another brand mark of Empire is: 'Ascendancy of the military mind, to such a
point at last that the civilian mind is intimidated,'" he wrote. In ancient
Rome, ambitious commanders went abroad in search of new lands to conquer, to
be greeted on their return with a triumphant march through the city: in the
period of Roman decline, they often wound up conquering the seat of power. As
Garrett put it:
"A Republic may put its armor on and off. War is an interlude. When war comes
it is a civilian business, conducted under the advice of military experts.
Both in peace and war military experts are excluded from civilian decisions.
But with empire it is different; Empire must wear its armor. Its life is in
the hands of the General Staff and war is supremely a military business,
requiring of the civilian only acquiescence and loyalty."
ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES
Having averted a coup – although, as of right now, Tuesday, 2:52 PM Pacific
Time, this is by no means an absolute certainty – those who defend and seek
to restore our old Republic will face even greater dangers. Certainly we will
be granted no respite from our labors: in short, things will only get worse.
A Bush presidency will mean a bipartisan government of national collaboration
– there is already talk of Dubya appointing more than a few Democrats to key
spots in the new administration – and this will mark the final consolidation
of power by a ruthless oligarchy of corporate oligarchs. Divested of any
political constraints, for the next four years the most rapacious and
arrogant ruling elite in world history will be unleashed, and feelling free
to pillage and plunder its way around the world. So after celebrating the
defeat of Gore – if, indeed, we live to hear his concession speech – and
catching a good night's sleep, the next morning get up, refreshed, and roll
up your sleeves, because there's plenty of work to do. Don't put down that
picket sign, or put away that "Sore-Loserman" t-shirt: instead, wear the
shirt as a political statement and come up with some new slogans. For
starters, how about "Hands off Iraq!"? For years we have been embargoing
Iraqi oil, and insisting on keeping it off the market – will somebody tell me
how the US has the nerve to blame the Iraqis, of all people, for the alleged
oil "shortage"? The blame belongs squarely on the US and the Brits, who have
bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age and continue bombing to this day – why the
hell should the Iraqis pump a single gallon of oil? Just to bail out their
tormentors?
THE FACE OF EVIL
This, then, is the height of imperial arrogance: the expectation that even
those we torture will somehow willingly obey us, and kowtow to our every
whim. And if they don't – annihilation. It's as simple, and evil, as that.
Please Support Antiwar.com
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's
out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the
Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send
contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
