Moreover, the Power Elite appears though to be relevant and useful as a suitably economical, all-encompassing, generic term. But to the extent that a "complex" of sorts is an accurate descriptor, such as it now exists it is more accurately the military, industrial, scientific, security, academic, business, media, intelligence, finance, technological, congressional, judicial, executive, and economic complex.
In this respect, Sheldon Wolin's view of the systems of power and power structures in the US, as delineated in his book Democracy Incorporated -- Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, are instructive . As the book's sub-title suggests , he invokes/invents the term 'inverted totalitarianism' to describe the state of play in American power politics. Unlike its more 'popular' and better-known cousin, traditional or classical totalitarianism - exemplified by the Fascists and the Nazis - the inverted variety is less obvious and therefore less distinguishable, but no less democracy defying and insidious, indeed, probably even moreso.
According to Wolin, the inverted type of totalitarianism is
not personified by Il Duce or Fuehrer Type-A alpha-male personalities. Instead
the 'dictators' -- whether corporate, military, financial, congressional, media,
intelligence etc. -- that embody, embrace and wield power are numerous, they are
an amorphous collective who act collusively and arbitrarily across and within
their mutually familiar domains, and above all they are anonymous. We might say they are hidden, but at best they "hidden" in plain sight, and only in "plain sight" for those who know where - and are inclined - to look.
The folk who comprise the inverted-totalitarian regime hierarchy publicly promote the values of democracy,
freedom, the Bill of Rights and the rule of law and the principles of the US
Constitution from without all the while undermining and thwarting them
from within. For them privately the "national interest" is an
irrelevant concept (even less so one suspects, the 'public interest'). That is
of course unless invoking or shilling the "national interest" is simpatico
with their own interests and/or the interests of the elite groupings of which
they are a part or represent, or it is a means of engaging the rank and file
citizens to their own ends and who themselves aren't able to discern the
difference between what is in their own interests and what is in their
country's interests, either out of ignorance, intellectual laziness, or because
they have succumbed to the shill. Or don't want to rock the boat.
The National Interest
A word about the aforementioned "national interest" here is also apposite before continuing. The concept is a frequently invoked yet slippery concept that is used to both rationalise and prescribe foreign policy. It plays a crucial role in diplomacy, national security, statecraft, and international relations, where the national interest is employed as the foundation of the Realist school. To understand the abstraction that is the "national interest" is to "view it through the prism of a country's defined goals and ambitions", whether they are economic, military, (geo)political or cultural, and it is a 'multi-faceted notion'. The state's survival and security "are the key common elements though".
Through the prism of the national interest, seen as equally important by many in the US is the pursuit of wealth, prosperity, and, in many cases, undue influence and power, along with unfettered economic growth for the country. Increasingly, in modern times, the "preservation and dispersal of the nation's culture to other cultures and societies" is also seen as being important.
It's notable that at least one secretary of state John Foster Dulles -- under President Dwight (Ike) Eisenhower -- described American allies not so much as "friends", [but] as "interests", revealing a less than diplomatic, yet nonetheless candid, realpolitik sentiment. It's also notable that for several years his brother Allen Dulles presided over the one institution that from its formative days was and remains the all-time great champion of the U.S. national interest, the CIA. Given that the CIA is sometimes referred to as [the] Corporate Interests of America, or Capitalism's Invisible Army, it seems reasonable to view these designations as perhaps providing the most accurate -- if somewhat mischievous -- definition of what the U.S. "national interest" has always been about.
Yet when invoked in international relations, often in a prescriptive role, the concept of "national interest" is used by political Realists in order to distinguish their policies from more "idealistic" policies and those who might espouse them. According to the political Realist school, the 'idealists' attempt to either inject -- even codify -- morality into foreign policy or to promote solutions relying on multilateral institutions that could weaken the independence of the state.
It probably goes without saying then that within political discourse, there often exists considerable disagreement over what is and what is not in the "national interest." In contexts such as this one, the term is as frequently invoked to justify isolationist policies, as it is to justify interventionism, militarism, and von Clausewitzian "war is politics by other means" solutions to 'protecting' and 'preserving' the ever moving smorgasbord of said "national interest".
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
