Going back to that great governmental split learned from high school civics classes--the Hamiltonian vs. Jeffersonian view of government--Chomsky shows that there has long been an understanding that the people, termed a "great beast" by Hamilton, must be reigned in sharply by those high-born and well raised "men of best quality" who know better. Madison, as well, was in fundamental agreement with Hamilton, understanding that the role of government was to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". The shape of the US government, from its inception, followed these guidelines. When those who were indebted after the revolution sought to use their own militia to keep their land and protest the government, the formerly war hungry elite cried for "law and order," suspended habeus corpus and drew up a Riot Act to prevent the kind of popular uprising that the nation had just been born from. The temporary action was of course not sufficient to guarantee the bankers and business elite the protection they desired, and their concerns dictated the federalist nature of the constitution. The document laid out provisions for the people (white male property owners, that is) to vote for one half of one branch of federal government directly. I'm not about to look up stats on this and take out a calculator, but it doesn't take a great deal of math to see that the percentage of control that "the masses" were given of their government was negligable. (This illustration, by the way, is mine and not Chomsky's. It is much better examined in Zinn's People's History of the United States).
Chomsky might well have traced this understanding of elite governance (now in the guise of democracy) back to Plato's Republic, but he instead looks forward through the 20th Century. The trend of elite governance was seen in the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary (stay out of our hemisphere, Europe, and stay out of control, people, respectively) and up to Wilsonian Idealism--the idea that the US ruling class held the worldwide responsibility to make sure that government positions were in the hands of "the good, though but a few". Of course, this was significantly easier to accomplish abroad than domestically. Military coercion abroad could always be trumpeted and shipped with the stamp of liberation, duty, patriotism, or whatever other trite title the subjugation required. At home, though, the people must be manipulated in a more subtle way. Chomsky points to an early 20th century journalist named Walter Lippmann, who wrote for the need of a system of media which was meant less to inform than to "manufacture consent" for the policies of the "specialized class" of "responsible men". Some 87 years later, we have 6 major media owners in the country, and an army of think tanks ("people paid to think by the makers of tanks," as Naomi Klein put it) looking to focus group the war with Iran. Meanwhile, the democratically elected group Hamas was not invited to the mideast peace conference, and is being systematically denied resources from Israel. But by the logic of the system it makes perfect sense: the people of Palestine were foolish enough to elect the wrong group, and by "[conferring] positions of power and trust upon wicked and undeserving men, they forfeit their power in this behalf". In other words: democracy is granted in the tiniest amount, provided that the information available to the public is of benefit to the neo-aristocracy. And if the people actually manage to elect the wrong person... well, there are ways of dealing with that.
It is especially important for the US left to understand this trend in the meantime, though. While it is quite clearly recognized that the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations were the products of a media putsch backed by the neoconservative Bush administration, the urgency of getting troops out NOW is not so recognized. The propaganda machine has been successful, if not in convincing the US public that we are "making progress," that at least the withdraw of US troops will lead to chaos and all out civil war/ethnic cleansing. With 1 million Iraqis dead and 4 million displaced, one might think that this is what is happening already. The example of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot is used, ignoring the US funding of said regime, as is a slew of racism which seeks to plaster Iraqis as too prone to fighting to actually govern themselves. What is actually happening is as old as imperialism itself: a racist assumption (they can't govern themselves) is being used to justify the continual occupation of Iraq, which could perhaps pave the way towards Iran. When violence actually declines due to a decrease in troops, the evidence is of course ignored. The real logic is that in the absence of US control, the Iraqis might choose the wrong leaders: people not friendly to US corporate control of oil fields, and to do-nothing contractors. And that would be very, very threatening to those "men of best quality".
1 comment:
"What is actually happening is as old as imperialism itself: a racist assumption (they can't govern themselves) is being used to justify the continual occupation of Iraq, which could perhaps pave the way towards Iran"
Though I agree that the United States needs to agree on definite exit strategy, I think your claim about the occupation of Iraq right now as being supported by a "racist assumption" as seen throughout the history of imperialism is a little rash.
If you examine the history of imperialism in countries like Iraq and Syria from the 1920's to the 1950's, you see that it isnt cut and dry--that the response of the people was fueled by many different important factors, none of which adhered to some sort of an anti-imperialism ideology. What I mean by that was that the people's revolt against the mandates came from political and economic concerns, not from a need for autonomy.
The history of imperialism in the middle east does not involve any ideology or the recognition by the people of a "racist assumption". Its more business than that--imperialism has always been about business and a puppet government to protect the business. This is also because in the post-colonial world, Middle Eastern countries were made of so many arbitrary borders that there was no singular sect or religion to pin the claim of "racism" on in any country. In fact, the success of the imperial powers relied on the countries remaining divided.
What we are dealing with in Iraq is, I feel, seperate from imperialism, I think the war in Iraq is founded upon more screwed up ideology than it is on a business plan. That said, I think throwing out any sort of a long term exit strategy because of the felt presence of the "racist assumption" would be taking the bait set out by the administration; the Bush group would want nothing more than for the left to advocate throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so it is my leftist opinion that the safest way out of Iraq is to impeach Bush and set up a real exit strategy (that isnt a complete evacuation in three weeks).
And though it may be the assumption of the government that the Iraqi's cannot govern themselves, it is more my fear that without a strong military presence and a set exit strategy Iraq will simply fall apart. Iraq, like every other country in the middle east, is made up by essentially meaningless borders--it could very easily dissolve into Iran, Syria and Turkey, and that could lead to a disaster ten fold to what is being seen today with sectarian and other violence in Iraq.
It could lead to something much more serious in the middle east than what we are dealing with today.
Great article, man
Post a Comment