|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The Source of America’s Imperial PresidencyPosted on Jan 19, 2010
The imposingly versatile Garry Wills, Northwestern University historian, political polemicist, sometime philosopher, theologian and church historian, has a new book inspired by liberal disappointment with President Barack Obama, blaming Obama’s faults as well as other U.S. presidential disorders on the atom bomb. He argues in “Bomb Power” that possession of the bomb—a product of an enormous and a secret scientific undertaking, the Manhattan Project, launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt—has ever since given U.S. presidents an intoxicating degree of unchecked personal power, so that there is “no constitutional check on his actions ... [which amounts to] a violent break in our whole governmental system.” The president came into possession of unique power, which according to Wills has resulted in the American people’s “permanent submission” to a commander in chief with supreme global power. This strikes me as interesting but completely wrong. It has little or nothing to do with the case of Barack Obama today, who is mainly criticized for his failure to make use of the domestic political power he possesses to achieve the reforms he promised during his campaign for the presidency, thus failing to fulfill the expectations liberals had invested in him because they had convinced themselves that their beliefs were his beliefs. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would enlarge the war in Afghanistan (the “right war”), while qualifying his promises to remove U.S. troops from Iraq—a policy that today seems, in the conventional Washington (and Baghdad) view, increasingly in doubt. Advertisement While he has promised to begin troop withdrawals next year, there has been no description of what “victory” is sought. Surely not defeat or surrender of the Taliban. It seems to be that the Kabul government will demonstrate an ability to defend itself without American help. What if that does not occur? That unfortunately reminds us of Vietnam, where American victory was construed as America’s “Vietnamization” of the war, something that took place in 1973, following negotiations in Paris between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (over South Vietnamese objections). Vietnamization meant that the United States, weary with the war, abandoned its client government in Saigon to its enemies, whom the South Vietnamese had previously been unable to defeat even with the assistance of a half-million American soldiers. Vietnamization was accompanied by American assurances that if the North Vietnamese resumed the war to take Saigon, the United States would bomb them—which in the event, Congress forbade. The U.S. had been bombing North Vietnam, without constructive result, for nearly a decade. To return to Wills’ argument that nuclear weapons have been responsible for a presidential exercise of arbitrary and unchecked power, it has to be said that in Vietnam it ended in failure and American humiliation. Wills cites the Korean War, in which Washington reacted to an attack that overran American World War II occupation troops in South Korea. That war was another American failure—a stalemate between the North Koreans and a U.S.-commanded U.N. coalition that remains unsettled to the present day. Wills’ argument continues with various Middle East/Africa interventions (U.S. troops in Lebanon; the intervention under U.N. auspices in Somalia), as well as in the Caribbean, where the U.S. has intervened with regularity for many years, all culminating in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq and Afghanistan, with Pakistan and Yemen seeming candidates for future American attentions. It is impossible to see these all as the responsibility of individual presidents, intoxicated by possession of nuclear power. I see them as developing out of an American millenarianism, kept in check in the past by isolationism and hostility toward imperial Europe, which during World War I underwent a vainglorious globalization under Woodrow Wilson—who believed, literally, that God had entrusted both him and the American nation with missions of peaceful global reform. That was a half-century before the nuclear bomb. Rather than inspiring war, it inspired the League of Nations, which the U.S. Senate refused to join, and later the U.N.: not the military-industrial state. Franklin Roosevelt was committed to the Wilsonian mission well before Albert Einstein sent him the fateful letter in which Einstein warned that a nuclear bomb might be feasible and that German physicists might be working to construct one. That—and Bolshevism, a program of secular utopianism based on sectarian power and ambition, which provoked the Cold War that ensued—are the sources of America’s imperial presidency. And however Barack Obama may eventually be judged, he is today anything but an imperial president. Visit William Pfaff’s website at www.williampfaff.com. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.  TAGS:
|
Lock Up Washington
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By samosamo, January 22, 2010 at 6:52 am Link to this comment
I dunno Pfaff, our imperial aristocratic nation may well just
puff out a bunch of hubristic hot air and we MAY not use
nukes, discriminately or indiscriminately but a sure fire way of
checking that would for iraq to start trading oil in euros, china
japan germany all calling for the u.s. to pay up on its debt
which would in essence kill the american economy so fast that
maybe it would temp an imperial president to order nuclear
strikes, but it would be a mistake and I hope that it won’t
happen because that imperial president surely has to consider
that strangely quiet russian bear that would surely inflict
significant damage here if america started tossing nukes
around the world, and I really believe the russia and china are
reasons that america hasn’t invaded iran, yet.
I just had an ugly ugly thought and I hope it doesn’t need consideration but I sure hope none of our nukes are in any corporate hands or influence, now that WOULD be dangerous.
Report thisBy Night-Gaunt, January 20, 2010 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment
We came so close to becoming a monarchy several times not just when Alexander Hamilton lost to Aaron Burr which killed the former and disgraced the latter. Hamilton wanted some kind of monarchy of centralized power whereas Burr wanted to set up his own gov’t further south in the lands that Spain was losing. Also if it weren’t for Washington not wanting to be Washington I that his subordinates wanted him to be things would have been very different today. The most recent example was in 1934 when these same families & corporations almost made us a fascist state and would have joined on the Axis side of World War II. [Note they were not punished in any way and so bide their time and maneuver things to where they stand today. They don’t intend to fail again.]
We are at such a time now only it is the richest 10% that want such a thing for us. Too many will gladly help them or join them once they finish with the economy falling and with it our gov’t. (For it will be disgraced as they have planned for some time.)
Report thisBy PamG, January 20, 2010 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
We are, in effect, already waging nuclear war in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the use of the internationally banned WMD - depleted uranium weaponry. It’s rendered both countries uninhabitable, through contamination of water, soil and air, and has effectively neutered the populations (along with our soldiers). Infant mortality rates have never been higher and birth defects are skyrocketing in children who are brought to term - and these are defects that cannot be endured. Children born without eyes, with tumors protruding from their brains, with hands growing out of shoulders, or sometimes as mere lumps of flesh. The same is happening to the children of our troops. The same is happening in Bosnia too! And DU directly attacks DNA, so that even if, by a miracle, a child is born ‘healthy’, its DNA has still been mutated, and birth defects can occur in later generations. We’ve known that Depleted Uranium does this because of the first Iraq War, and are using these weapons anyway! (It takes about 5 years for the effects to be seen, and goes on to have a half-life of millions of years.) IS THIS NOT NUCLEAR WAR??
Report thisBy idarad, January 20, 2010 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
“And however Barack Obama may eventually be judged, he is today anything but an imperial president.”
Excuse me Mr. Pfaff, generally the head of an empire is the emperor (aka imperial president if that suits your fancy.) Harpers editor Roger Hodge has a much better review of Garry Wills’ book (Notebook February 2010) and traces back the empire to before the ‘american revolution’. He quotes from the Virginia Gazette in 1774
“Some fitter day shall crown us the Masters of the Main
In giving laws, and freedom to subject France and Spain,
And all the isles o’er Ocean shall tremble and obey
The Lords, the Lords, the Lords of North America”
Later Mr. Hodge quotes John Taylor of Caroline from 1814:
“Both the English king and our president are the exclusive managers of negotiation; and secrecy is their common maxim. By negotiation, foreign governments may be provoked; by secrecy, a government may delude and knead a people to rage for war, and war is a powerful instrument for expelling the element of self government, and introducing force….By negotiation, secrecy and war, traitors convert a national detestation of tyranny into a tool for making tyrants”
Nothing new except the tool came with the power of annihilation - emperor obama is simply carrying forth the torch of power for the powerful, leaving only platitudes to the people of the great empire.
Report thisBy c-post, January 20, 2010 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I disagree with Expat Scientist. US nuclear weapons are the subtext to everything in our foreign policy, so much in the background that they are essentially subconscious intimidation. People seldom talk about it. It’s like power steering and power brakes in a car. Nuclear weapons are a kind of “power assist” to foreign policy. The only way to fight or be recognized in the face of that unspoken power, by the account of some, is with terrorist bombs.
Since the promises of the paper dollar are not backed by gold, I submit that the dollar is backed by nuclear weapons almost exclusively. Nobody says it, but if you took the nuclear arsenal away today, the dollar would plummet and our citizens would likely have lots of work producing civilian goods. No more cheap imports from overseas slave labor. And suddenly the middle class citizens will be valuable again. Now, I’m not advocating that such a thing be done, but let’s put things in perspective.
Let me expand on this by saying we have been in an economic war for years, a wage war, and losing badly. It is the excessive and overpowering military spending which causes this, because again, military power props up the dollar and makes it too high, making the labor of American citizens essentially worthless—except for those, of course, in the bloated military industries.
The thing that our most extremist leaders have feared the most through the decades, namely an attack from Communist China, has, in fact, already happened. And it has come from an avenue that no one expected, from a place that no one realized until it was too late.
By opening the floodgates of trade and giving American industry access to dirt cheap foreign labor, Richard Nixon put the dismembered heads of american workers on a plate.
It was an attack of cheap foreign labor on the American worker and American corporations. And still we continue to drink the Kool-aid of cheap imports and the high dollar. Wake up, America! America did fine for years without all these imports!
To make matters worse, most of our best technical people were attracted to the high pay and job security offered by the military complex.
Report thisBy Night-Gaunt, January 20, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment
What, not imperial? How can you say that? We are expanding into Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iraq is now in the 3rd phase of occupation and such countries as Somalia and Yemen are under the gun. So far Honduras isn’t on any bad list but are in fact being considered a way in as is Columbia is our sole base in S.America. That’s not counting the over 878 foreign bases all across the globe either.
Time to take off those rose colored glasses Mr. Pfaff and see that nothing has really changed. We still are drinking poison, it just has sugar in it now.
Report thisBy sciencehighway, January 20, 2010 at 8:22 am Link to this comment
Quick note to Wytelitenin:
Report thisThe acronym for the mid-50s policy of Mutually Assured Destruction was actually MAD, not MADD. MADD stands for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
By chacaboy, January 20, 2010 at 1:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Most of these comments and Pfaff’s essay on Wills, and I’m sure Wills himself
Report thishave something to say that is worthwhile, but all in all, this is historical navel-
gazing that misses the point. Obama, regardless of his intelligence, sincerity,
and charisma has missed a moment that will never return. After promising to
enlarge the war in Afghanistan, we as a nation and as a world community
waited weeks (or was it months?) while he reviewed his options in this matter,
only to choose the most conventional, conservative result fixed squarely in the
middle of the status quo. And he did it without any form of justification that
made sense. “It’s complicated” say the moderates. Not really. This was a
domestic political move or some other form of mistaken rationale that got him
nothing and sent more men and women to their deaths. Now he has lost his
base . He could lose the next election along with a golden opportunity to steer
this country back on the road to peace and away from another excessive
adventure in military politics. Clearly, losing the election by choosing peace
would have been a more desirable result than the result we have, an example
for all the world to follow, and a choice that would truly earn the Nobel Peace
Prize. We should all be in mourning rather than doing historical calisthenics.
By rollzone, January 19, 2010 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment
hello. i agree with his point, and the stark failure of Oboymama to embrace the awesome strengths of America: is one of his many failures to date. the Congress must still declare war, but having the button within reach is awesome. can the pet dog ... nevermind.
Report thisthe real source of the imperialistic nature has been the puppet society called the United Nations, working together with the Federal Reserve, supported by the United States military- salute! the leader of the free world can direct all those resources: if he reigns under the imperial crown. Oboymama acts alike he has other allegiances. not good for America.
By sean, January 19, 2010 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
so many factual errors in this screed that i am not sure if it is satirical?
Report thisBy the worm, January 19, 2010 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment
For those who ever wished for a ‘strong Presidency’, you have Bush and Obama,
Report thiseach with the same Constitutional powers, one does what ever he wants, the other
cant get nothing done.
By Dayahka, January 19, 2010 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment
It all depends on how far back you want to look for origins. If we look back into pre-history, we find genetic and observational evidence for the fact that disunity (anarchy on the political plane) breeds disorder, lack of security, and battle, whereas overwhelming strength, unity, and a willingness to kill without compunction leads to victory. This is written in our genes.
If we look for the origins within our own Western perspective, surely the role of evangelizing Christianity, of saving the world for Jesus, which originated around Constantine’s time, in 3 or 400 AD, is a major factor. The so-called enlightenment, the idea of knowledge as power (Bacon), and related ideas legitimated the idea of the “superior” race dominating and overwhelming the “inferior” (usually colored) races.
While founded by Deists, America still was founded by people inspired by Christianity and Science, and a belief in a destiny of dominance. Look around and name the successful countries—and note what has made them successful: subservience to the American Empire and its dream of world conquest. Japan, Europe, to a lesser extent Russia, and over the last 20 years China have all entered the sphere of American dominance. If China had become economically successful without America’s aid, you can be sure it would be regarded as a major threat to the US. But China is just the latest success story of the American Empire, falling in line, becoming rich. The poor countries are those that resist the dream of global dominance, those with strange and alien religions (Africa and the Moslem countries). Nuclear weapons and the willingness to use them is the icing on the cake—not the cause. Kill an infidel for Jesus or for capitalism.
Report thisBy Wytelitenin, January 19, 2010 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment
Ground zero for the process of nationn state imperialsism began when White Europeans landed in America and anihlated some 10 million Native Americans.
The process of explotation for the control of natural resources and labor continued to evolve into today’s Globalization scheme to keep in check this process to maintain the western economic corporate capitalist state model.
Thus POTUS is merely the conductor on an out-of-control train, as individuals seeking the office of POTUS change from shift to shift to keep the process going by whatever means.
The atomic bomb in the context of the Cold War emanating into the concept of mutually assured destruction(MADD) doesn’t have much to do with our imperialsism only that it is a big stick as we have always had a big stick to maintain status quo for the POTUS.
Report thisBy Wytelitenin, January 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Actually it began when White Europeans landed in North America and wiped out 10 million Native Americans that continued to evolve in order to control natural resources for the western economic corporate capitalist state model.
The President is merely the conductor as individuals seeking the office of POTUS change from shift to shift to keep the process going by whatever means.
I don’t believe MADD has much to do with that in so far as to maintain status quo for the POTUS.
Report thisBy gerard, January 19, 2010 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
How about this for a theory: The source of America’s “imperial presidency” is the previous Republican administration fo George Bush and Dick Cheney, with the nefarious assistance of Carl Rove and the Neo-liberal cabal who had previously planned how the 21st was going to be “The American Century” and the Chicago School of economics was going to take over the world financial system? Talk about delusions of grandeur! What could never have been done legally was done by “executive order” and corporations were going to be allowed to buy into the media and the electoral system to such an extent
that “the people” would b relegated to the status of couch potatoes and consumers of fatty foods.
Hello!
Report thisBy bozh, January 19, 2010 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
William pfaff, imo, is correct! Presidents come and go but US and US longstanding foreign and domestic pocicies remain ab the same.
I have noted long ago that a prez is a mere manager of the ruling class’ affairs.
It is possible or even probable that no more than 2% of american pop rule america.
It cld be as low as 0001% that comprises the cosa nostra, which then easily rules over the much disorganized cosa mias.
Two strogly united or interdependent people can easily rule a hundred disorganized individuals.
Report thisAnd the cosa nostra gang of just a few mn people do control vast majority via cia, fbi, and the army.
tnx
By gerard, January 19, 2010 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment
Is Pfaff avoiding the main point deliberately? The possession of the bomb has created both a fear of, and an illusion of, ultimate power to destroy the world. In the States, the President’s hand is “on the red button,” so to speak. There are six or seven more “red buttons” now, and six or seven politicians have the “ultimate” power and the horrible responsibility that goes with “an intoxicating degree of unchecked personal power, so that there is no constitutional check on (their) actions . . . [which amounts to] “a violent break in our whole governmental system (throughout the world.”
Report thisPerhaps the point Pfaff missed is that the bomb is an illusion of power because it must not ever be used, yet it is also a threat of absolute power because such weapons have not been completely destroyed, and in fact new developments are in the offing, which means it could be used, either deliberately or accidentally.
A truly powerful president would see to it that atomic weapons are all destroyed, mutually and a.s.a.p. Obama has stated that he wants to do this, but he will need tens of thousands of citizens supporting him worldwide. As yet, those citizens are sound asleep at the switch, unfortunately.
By expat scientist, January 19, 2010 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The greatest source of imperial power the U.S. possesses is economic, not military. Please read Michael Hudson’s impressive text entitled Super Imperialism. I think you will find it quite enlightening.
Report thisBy dihey, January 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
Good try Sir, but also mainly wrong, at least since about 1918. There are obviously several socio-economic sources that contribute to US imperialism. In my opinion the most important one which you have overlooked is the insatiable demand of the overwhelming majority of our nation to enjoy the highest average living standard of any nation on Earth. That demand is entombed in the utterly misleading mantra of “national interest”. Since 1918 there was no state on Earth that had the military capability to invade and defeat our country. Why then would our “national interest” demand our military-imperialist penetration of South America, Africa, and Asia if it was not for the above mentioned fact? Cheap oil, cheap goods (from China), cheap services drive the imperialist presidency.
Report this