U.S. Governance

As long as the U.S. remains the most powerful country, a key question for the world will be the quality of governance in the U.S. The relationship between the nature of domestic governance--democratic or corporatist or fascist; capitalist or socialist--and the nature of U.S. foreign policy is tight. A time lag between, say, an elitist domestic policy and an elitist foreign policy may obscure this tight relationship for years, but in the end, democracy at home and a considerate, moderate foreign policy facilitate each other; similarly, a domestic police state and an a militant foreign policy promote each other. Thus, the nature of domestic U.S. governance affects the world just as the nature of U.S. foreign policy affects Americans at home.

Key sections from selected posts on U.S. governance are collected on this page.

Corporate Subversion of Democracy

You elected those politicians to represent you. Are they, or are they perhaps colluding to enrich themselves by creating a corporate state or, even worse, a fascist state? One of the best clues to this shadowy operation is government facilitation of corporate corruption.

No one, and certainly no government, is perfect, so "perfection"--e.g., the absence of corruption in government--may be a nice ideal but is hardly a realistic standard for daily performance. Therefore, it is perhaps a bit unfair to condemn a government for exhibiting corruption. A more realistic standard for daily performance would be this:

Does the government facilitate or combat corruption in its own ranks and among the broader corporate elite?

That standard is one that separates good governance, i.e., government for the people, from bad governance, i.e., government for the elite. That standard also directly addresses the more particular issue of whether or not a government is moving toward corporatism, i.e., the enrichment of corporate elites at the expense of the society as a whole. That standard also exposes rising fascism, a particularly pernicious form of corporatism.

Slippery Slope to Fascism?

Fascism in America? The most disturbing evidence of all is the refusal of major party candidates to address Ron Paul's charge.

The most significant statement to be made in this pathetic U.S. campaign season of brainless, superficial soundbites should constitute the core of the debate until election day:

Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen. [Ron Paul as quoted by CBS News.]

With bailouts of billionaires, oil wars by leaders who oversee multi-billion-dollar sole source contracts to the companies they previously headed, laws supported by both “parties” that are steadily chipping away at Constitutional protections, a Supreme Court that magically transforms corporations into people, the careful avoidance of criminal action against corrupt corporate leaders for poisoning the environment or wrecking the economy, and a foreign policy based on military forceRepresentative Paul has a strong prima facia case that the U.S. is sliding down the slippery slope toward corporate control at the expense of civil liberties and democracy in combination with militarism rather than protection of society as the purpose of the state. That combination essentially constitutes the definition of fascism.

If there is a counter-argument to this prima facia case that the U.S. is slipping toward fascism, then the candidates who give credence to that counter-argument should make it. This charge is central to all we believe in. Silence = agreement.


Connecting the Dots: War Profiteers Target Iran

The pro-war political propaganda of a defense industry booster firm reveals one way that war-profiteering corporations promote international tension and war for private gain.
The formula is pretty simple: 

Arms Factory + War-Mongering 'Independent' Propaganda = $$$.

Corporate War At Home and Abroad

If a simple explanation suffices, perhaps one need not look any further, and the simplest explanation for the rush to attack Iran is greed.

Meir Dagan, recently retired head of Mossad, is on a campaign to prevent an Israeli attack onIran. And now, the New York Times reports:

American intelligence analysts continue to believe that there is no hard evidence that Iran has decided to build a nuclear bomb.

Mossad says no; U.S. intel analysts say no. So, why are so many politicians trying to start a war?

Follow the money. The U.S. political system is increasingly under the control of major corporations. Corporations exist to make money; they do not possess “patriotism” or, indeed, any other “feelings.” Why would they? You did not think they were people, did you?

Now consider how Iran looks to a major U.S. corporation…say, a corporation that makes its money rebuilding infrastructure destroyed in a war, a corporation that buys drinking water systems or telecommunications systems or petroleum production facilities or…oil. Considering the profits such companies made from the attack on Iraq (also see here), imagine the profits they would make from rebuilding a destroyed Iran, a country three times as large.

No comments: