Democracy v. Empire

Historian Chalmers Johnson is guest-blogging over at TPM Cafe to talk about his new book with the provocative title Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.

His thesis is essentially that America's imperial ambitions, like those of so many empires before us, will ultimately doom America to either dictatorship or bankruptcy.

And while I don't entirely share his rather gloomy view (though he makes a compelling argument for it, and is clearly much, much smarter than your humble CaliBlogger), I do like how he formulates the current American dilemma:

As a form of government, imperialism does not seek or require the consent of the governed. It is a pure form of tyranny. The American attempt to combine domestic democracy with such tyrannical control over foreigners is hopelessly contradictory and hypocritical. A country can be democratic or it can be imperialistic, but it cannot be both.

His post should, of course, absolutely be read in full to appreciate the depth of his arguments, but the above point well illustrates something I've always felt regarding our current entanglement in Iraq.

That lacking any overwhelming provocation so necessary to muster a democratic country's will to war, we would never be willing to make the very real national sacrifices necessary to winning it.

Many armchair generals on the right have (rightly) criticized the war effort as the result of Rumsfelds determination to do this war on the cheap. What they fail to realize is that Rumsfeld had no other choice.

As we now know to a certainty, Saddam Hussein never posed a level of threat to this country that would unify it in the manner that, say, Pearl Harbor did in WWII. And such unity is a prerequisite for war in a democratic republic.

Sure it's easy to gain support from armchair chickenhawks when their biggest sacrifice is to pop for a frigging yellow ribbon bumper sticker to slap on their SUVs.

But clearly there was never enough support for this invasion to get people to pay more for gas, or even put off a tax cut.

And a draft? Get serious.

So, devoting the level of resources required to both eliminate Hussein and pacify the population of Iraq not only didn't happen, but could NEVER have happened.

And this case in point shows why I'm more optimistic than professor Johnson.

That while the US remains a democracy, however tenuously under the current regime, the major depredations required of aspiring empire-builders (read neo-cons) will prove impossible.

Such thought though should not be cause for complacency. It should instead emphasize the urgency of protecting our democratic institutions from would-be Caesars.

For failure to do so may well doom an American Empire to a fate like those of all the empires before us.

Democracy on the march

The recent landslide victory by the radical Islamic group Hamas might cause some to question the validity of our president's claim that democracy is the magic potion that will lead to global peace. I mean Hamas seems rather an unsavory group upon which to pin one's democratic hopes.

Hamas is closely related to the Muslim Brotherhood and its stated goal is to "remove Israel from the map", and to establish an Islamic theocracy in the area that is currently Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip. In pursuit of this, Hamas affirms a right to engage in military struggle.
[snip]
Hamas is listed as a terrorist group by the European Union, Canada, the United States, and Israel, and its attacks targeting Israeli civilians and other human rights abuses have been condemned by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

But perhaps Hamas victory this week is a function of the peculiar history of the Palestinian people and is now way indicative of a democratic trend.

Just because the people of the Gaza strip have voted into office a religiously fundamentalist and warlike group doesn't mean that trend will happen in any other countries.

It certainly couldn't happen here.

On Brand Recognition

Your CaliBlogger has been in sales and marketing for far longer than he'd care to admit. But one thing I've (sorry about the third person intro, I must've been channeling the Bull Moose there for a sec') learned is the importance of branding.

Brand recognition can be a critical asset in making a sale if the organization's reputation is a good one, and a deal breaker if it's bad.

What brought this to mind was a headline from Raw Story: We have to destroy their brand which quote is from their interview with House minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

The full quote:

“So we’re going after them, we have to destroy their brand,” she added. “And I think when it comes to Social Security, their brand is tainted. And now we can move in with a positive way with our brand.”

Ms. Pelosi's comment is interesting in that it points out a major problem Democrats face when challenging Republicans: While the Republican message can be expressed in three short phrases: cutting taxes, free markets, pro-military, Democrats have no analagous rallying points. When Democrats discuss what they believe in, what develops is a litany (a word Ms. Pelosi herself uses) of issues covering the economy, education, healthcare, environment, civil liberties, immigration, abortion, unionization, war et cetera, et cetera.

This puts Democrats at a distinct disadvantage. Without any unifying principals Democrats are forced to rely on either pandering to each individual subgroup, or rely solely on the personal popularity of a candidate in order to win elections.

Without any unifying principals Democrats are condemned to seeming merely opportunisitic or demagogic in our stances on any given subject.

So, as far as branding goes, as Ms. Pelosi points out, Democrats face two challenges: "destroying" the Republican brand, and establishing a Democratic one.

Both are doable, though the second is easily the most important.

Destroying the Republican brand can be accomplished in two ways. First is by re-branding Republicans for what they truly are, a party slavishly dedicated to the interest of corporate business interests and all those whose money comes from investments rather than work. Secondly, and the current leadership seems intent on helping us with this, we must continue to point out the degree to which Republicans are catering to their most extreme elements, something they're forced to do to provide a smokescreen for their corporate pandering.

The scond task, establishing the Democratic brand, is simple to articulate, yet difficult to achieve. Given the Republicans' servitude to corporate power, the obvious Democratic stance should be to position ourselves as the representatives of those who actually work for a living.

The elements and inferences of this stance are already part and parcel of most Democratic positions, or else they should and can be. Some are obvious: support for unionization and worker rights, stewardship of the environment which we all must share, protection of the rights of individuals in their homes, their businesses, their bodies, their beliefs. Some are less so: support and respect for the men and women who make up our military (like, for instance, not sending them off to die in unneccesary wars), support for the small and medium sized business owners who are the backbone of our communities, and daily face the perils of corporate competition.

The problem with making such a stance more than a platitude is of course (drumroll please)

money.

So long as Democrats are forced to suckle at the corporate tit in order to raise the campaign contributions vital to getting elected, Democrats, and especially those running for state-wide or national office, will continue to be beholden to corporate interests. And to be clear, I'm not talking about the quid pro quo, pay to play sort of corruption (though I suspect that to be a greater problem than we allow ourselves to admit), I'm talking about the simple fact that, if the Democratic party allows corporate contributions, then that money will go to those registered Democrats who harbor pro-corporate tendencies.

True campaign reform is, then, a key.

On the positive side are moves, like that seen in Arizona, for public financing of elections. Another plus is the continuing development of net-roots/grass-roots organizations, which had such an enormous, if not completely successful, impact on the last election cycle.

But campaign reform is not enough. So long as politicians can except ANY form of corporate inducement, corporations will seek to provide the same.

Politicians must be prohibited from accepting anything provided of financed by corporate interests, including "fact-finding" tours to golf destinations.

Most critically, and most controversially I suspect, politicians must be prohibited from accepting any remuneration, gifts, or EMPLOYMENT, from any corporate interest AFTER they've left office.

Now I realize that some fairly tricky personal freedom issues arise from this last proposal especially, but remember this, running for office is a choice. And every choice neccessitates the rejection of some alternatives. If someone wishes for a spot on the corporate ladder, then by all means go apply at GE. But if someone wishes to serve the public in a leadership position, then that position must be as unsullied as possible by the taint of non-public interests.

And, if Democrats are going to successfully brand themselves as the party of/for those who work, this must be especially true.

[x-posted at Daily Kos]

Supporting Democracy...When it's convenient

From the Washington Post:

Not all rebellions against tyranny are created equal, it seems.

When the people of Ukraine took to the streets to overturn a rigged election, U.S. officials hailed the Orange Revolution.

When the Lebanese public rose up against Syrian occupation, a U.S. State Department official dubbed the movement the Cedar Revolution.

But when popular protests in the Central Asian nation of Uzbekistan were violently crushed over the weekend by the government of President Islam Karimov, the Bush White House responded not with a media-genic brand name but with a mild statement urging both sides to show restraint.

Of course no-one not blinded to BushCorp™'s routine brand of self-serving sloganeering is surprised by this turn of events. Calls for Democracy and Freedom apply solely when it suits Bush's perceived short term strategic interests.

Want to increase the availablilty of local markets to US interests? Up the Orange Revolution!

Want to discomfit a recalcitrant rogue nation? Syria out of Lebanon! Go Cedar Revolution!

Want to maintain a US military presence in an authoritarian regime? Want to maintain relations with your islamic fundamentalist petroleum pusher? BushCorp™'s near silence truly deafens.

The latest episode in Uzbekistan demonstrates yet again BushCorp™'s hypocrisy, and further underscores the reasons for the US' lack of credibility in much of the world.

It's the logical corollary to Bush's "with us or against us" rhetoric: if the US isn't with you, then it's against you. And that's a lesson the world has long since learned.