The Foolhardiness of American Presidential Elections

[Encephalon]

The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew J. Bacevich author of The New American Militarism

 

I snatched this up at the LA Library used bookstore for fifty cents and finished it in two days. It was breathtaking. Much has been written about the dark side of American profligacy and consumer culture - I cited a small portion of it for my graduate thesis - but this is the first time I've seen the subject treated by a retired Army colonel, currently a professor of history at Boston University and the author of four other works.

 

I typed out this excerpt from the concluding chapter. I would like to believe that it could offer some clarity and resolution. He will no doubt be regarded as a fool by some for having the temerity to speak truth to power, but he does it so well.

 

Conclusion: The Limits of Power (2008)

 

Victorious in snowy Iowa, the candidate proclaimed – to wild applause – that “our time for change has come.” If elected president, he vowed to break the power of the lobbyists, provide affordable health care for all, cut middle-class taxes, end both the war in Iraq and the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and “unite America and the world against the common threats of the twenty-first century.” In an earlier age, aspirants for the highest office in the land ventured to promise a chicken in every pot. In the present age, candidates like Senator Barack Obama set their sights on tackling “terrorism and nuclear weapons, climate change and poverty, genocide and disease.”

 

The agenda is an admirable one. Yet to imagine that installing a particular individual in the Oval Office will produce decisive action on any of these fronts is to succumb to the grandest delusion of all. The quadrennial ritual of electing (or reelecting) a president is not an exercise in promoting change, regardless of what candidates may claim and ordinary voters believe. The real aim is to ensure continuity, to keep intact the institutions and arrangements that define present-day Washington. The veterans of past administrations who sign on as campaign advisers are not interested in curbing the bloated powers of the presidency. They want to share in exercising those powers. The retired generals and admirals who line up behind their preferred candidate don’t want to dismantle the national security state. They want to preserve, and, if possible, expand it. The candidates who decry the influence of money in national politics are among those most skilled at courting the well-heeled to amass millions in campaign contributions.

 

No doubt the race for the presidency matters. It just doesn’t matter nearly as much as the media’s obsessive coverage suggests. Whoever moves into the White House on January 20, 2009, the fundamental problem facing the country – a yawning disparity between what Americans expect and what they are willing or able to pay – will remain stubbornly in place. Any presidential initiatives aimed at alleviating the crisis of profligacy, reforming our political system, or devising a more realistic military policy are likely, at best, to have a marginal effect.

 

Paradoxically, the belief that all (or even much) will be well, if only the right person assumes the reins as president and commander in chief serves to underwrite the status quo. Counting on the next president to fix whatever is broken promotes expectations of easy, no-cost cures, permitting ordinary citizens to absolve themselves of responsibility for the nation’s predicament. The same Americans who profess to despise all that Washington represents look to – depending on partisan affiliation – a new John F. Kennedy or a new Ronald Reagan to set things right again. Rather than seeing the imperial presidency as part of the problem, they persist in the fantasy that a chief executive, given a clear mandate, will “change” the way Washington works and restore the nation to good health. Yet to judge by the performance of presidents over the past half century, including both Kennedy and Reagan, (whose legacies are far more mixed than their supporters will acknowledge), a citizenry that looks to the White House for deliverance is assured of disappointment.

 

“Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.” When the Hollywood mogul David Geffen offered this stinging assessment of Bill and Hillary Clinton as the 2008 presidential campaign began, he made headlines. To some, Geffen’s assessment smacked of cynicism. In fact, he was expressing an essential truth.

 

Politics requires artful dissembling. Those who aspire to the presidency offer large promises, while delicately skirting any complications that might call into question their ability to translate promise into reality. The Big Lies are not the pledges of tax cuts, universal health care, family values restored, or a world rendered peaceful through the forceful demonstrations of American leadership. The Big Lies are the truths that remain unspoken: that freedom has an underside; that nations, like households, must ultimately live with their means; that history’s purpose, the subject of so many confident pronouncements, remains inscrutable. Above all, there is this: Power is finite. Politicians pass over matters such as these in silence. As a consequence, the absence of self-awareness that forms such an enduring element of the American character persists.

 

At four-year intervals, ceremonies conducted to install a president reaffirm this inclination. Once again, at the anointed hour, on the steps of the Capitol, it becomes “morning in America.” The slate is wiped clean. The newly inaugurated president takes office, buoyed by expectations that history will soon be restored to its proper trajectory and the nation put back on track. There is something touching about these expectations, but also something pathetic, like the battered wife who expects that this time her husband will actually keep his oft-violated vow never again to raise his hand against her.

 

For the abused wife, a condition of dependence condemns her to continuing torment. Salvation begins when she rejects that condition and asserts control over her life. Something of the same can be said of the American people.

 

For the United States the pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence – on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people, whether they admit it or not, is that nothing should disrupt their access to those goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. Government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part through the distribution of largesse at home (with Congress taking a leading role) and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad (largely the business of the executive branch).

 

From time to time, various public figures – even presidents – make the point that dependence may not be a good thing. Yet meaningful action to reduce this condition is notable by its absence. It’s not difficult to see why. The center of authority within Washington – above all, the White House and the upper echelons of the national security state – actually benefit from this dependency: It provides the source of status, power, and prerogatives. Imagine the impact just on the Pentagon were this county actually to achieve anything approaching energy independence. U.S. Central Command would go out of business. Dozens of bases in and around the Middle East would close. The navy’s Fifth Fleet would stand down. Weapons contracts worth tens of billions would risk being canceled.

 

So rather than addressing the problems of dependence, members of our political class seem hell-bent on exacerbating the problem. Rather than acknowledging that American power is not limitless, they pursue policies that actually accelerate the depletion of that power. Certainly, this has been the case since 9/11.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Encephalon

[Chang]

Yes.

[humbleone]

sounds like a good book to read.

 

i have heard that there are four(4) lobbyist in Washington for every congressman! Even the supreme court said that it is OK to spend unlimited amount of money on elections, thus the super packs. It is nutty to read that superpacks, all funded by billionairs are out spending the candidates in the republican primary race.

94% of the time, the congressional candidate with most money wins, so yeah, all about maintaining the status quo.

 

Americans talk a good talk about 'buy made in america', but Walmart parking lots are overflowing with consumers who can't wait to buy cheap 'made in china' imports...

 

imo, the president maynot be able to bring about much change, but it is the bad decisions that really hurt us. President Bush, the two wars and the dreaded tax cut for the rich. so we the electorate are really choosing the lesser to two evils, which candidate will do the least damage

[joeblast]

I'm still scratching my head

 

the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do.

 

But when anyyone asserts from whatever height of their position on high that they may wave a wand and solve the ills of the nation, I chuckle and say to myself "really that means getting out of the way and limiting your influence, whereas all you seek to do is assert and grow your influence, at the expense of everyone."

 

But then I get called a discompassionate bastard in some fashion or another since that gets interpreted by some as I want to take away food from poor people or take away schooling for disadvantaged kids

 

and people especially go nuts when I point out that despite the cost of two wars, what Obama has sent since getting into office has already far eclipsed the money (as in at least doubled) we've spent on two wars, most of it simply being pissed away - and oh, the dreaded tax cut for the rich that was an across the board flat tax cut for everyone - but that's just inconvenient data that doesnt fit a particular narrative! (the same narrative that tries to use bush as any sort of indictment of conservatism...c'mon, you cant really call bush fiscally conservative.) and of course ignore that if Gore was elected in 2000 we would have hit the financial wall a lot sooner than 2006

[Apech]

Why don't you guys just accept you would be far happier being part of Greater Britain again. Its been a 250 year experiment that quite frankly has been full of disappointment. Go to Boston, fish the tea bags out of the harbor, pay your taxes properly and we can arrange for proper parliamentary elections and a real democracy. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II and we will overlook your rebellious nature.

[Aetherous]

Why don't you guys just accept you would be far happier being part of Greater Britain again. Its been a 250 year experiment that quite frankly has been full of disappointment. Go to Boston, fish the tea bags out of the harbor, pay your taxes properly and we can arrange for proper parliamentary elections and a real democracy. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II and we will overlook your rebellious nature.

 

Are you joking? There's almost no way in hell this would happen.

 

I could speak about GB as well, but I don't want to be insulting to the people who unfortunately happen to live there.

[zerostao]

i always appreciate Apech's great sense of humor. or is it humour?

GB is trying to be the monkey wrench in the EU while we(USA) are trying to

form a NAU.

 

scotty remember

it is like GB are buddhists & americans are taoist

 

i do agree with the OP that as long as we continue to follow this 2 party system that is serving the lobbyists so well we will not make a meaningful breakthru.

so, maybe even if we dont have the perfect third party candidate, should vote for him anyways

to rattle the system a bit.

one day GB may end up being the 57th state of the union, so try and get along with the blokes, or the bloody blokes or whatever seems appropiate.

 

her majesty is a pretty nice girl but she aint got alot to say

 

roger waters for president

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tcRYdVlGXNQ

 

the question is "why shouldnt you"

Edited January 22, 2012 by zerostao

[Encephalon]

Are you joking? There's almost no way in hell this would happen.

 

I could speak about GB as well, but I don't want to be insulting to the people who unfortunately happen to live there.

 

Yes, he's joking... no need for insults at all.

[Apech]

Are you joking? There's almost no way in hell this would happen.

 

I could speak about GB as well, but I don't want to be insulting to the people who unfortunately happen to live there.

 

Scotty - have you no sense of humour ... sorry humor?

 

You say almost no way it would happen ... therefor you have left open the possibility it might. I admire your realism. Jolly good show.

[Aetherous]

I apologize, my sense of humanity was getting in the way of my sense of humor again.

[Desert Eagle]

Why don't you guys just accept you would be far happier being part of Greater Britain again. Its been a 250 year experiment that quite frankly has been full of disappointment. Go to Boston, fish the tea bags out of the harbor, pay your taxes properly and we can arrange for proper parliamentary elections and a real democracy. All you have to do is swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II and we will overlook your rebellious nature.

 

love it! by some strange synchronicity I have stumbled on a site that says America didn't declare independence and was wondering if it was true then i saw your post.

 

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/essays.htm

[Aetherous]

Desert Eagle,

 

Is that link also a joke? Just to be clear, and (forgive me but) serious...what that author writes is a lot of misinterpretation! Pretty much everything listed is false.

[Aaron]

Hello Encephalon,

 

Nice post. I appreciated much of what was said by the original author. A point that I particularly found interesting was his assertion that weare avoiding energy dependence because of the massive amounts of money made by military contractors because of our involvement in foreign affairs.

 

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have any interest or involvement in what the rest of the world does, but rather worry about our domestic policy. The cold war is long gone, and our naive belief that one power would take over and rule the world if we didn't stand to defend it, is (I pray) over as well.

 

As far as the position of president, I think it's very different today than it was intended to be back in the 18th century.

 

Aaron

Edited January 23, 2012 by Twinner

[Desert Eagle]

Desert Eagle,

 

Is that link also a joke? Just to be clear, and (forgive me but) serious...what that author writes is a lot of misinterpretation! Pretty much everything listed is false.

 

I wouldn't really know either way so I'll take your word for it. who knows what happens in secret behind closed doors? anything could happen. though i heard that list is connected to a religious agenda that exaggerates and takes things out of context.

[Apech]

Hello Encephalon,

 

Nice post. I appreciated much of what was said by the original author. A point that I particularly found interesting was his assertion that weare avoiding energy dependence because of the massive amounts of money made by military contractors because of our involvement in foreign affairs.

 

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have any interest or involvement in what the rest of the world does, but rather worry about our domestic policy. The cold war is long gone, and our naive belief that one power would take over and rule the world if we didn't stand to defend it, is (I pray) over as well.

 

As far as the position of president, I think it's very different today than it was intended to be back in the 18th century.

 

Aaron

 

On a serious note also ... I hope the US does not stop its involvement in what the rest of the world does. A lot of mistakes have been made ... that is true ... but to retreat from the foreign policy agenda would create a massive power vacuum. God knows what would fill it. On a positive note look what the US did for Japan and Germany (and the rest of Europe including Britain) after WWII. After years of fighting against the Nazis and Japanese imperialism ... instead of retribution the US rebuilt both those countries and established a successful and peaceful future for them both. I am sure there was self-interest there but that's just how things work.

 

I think that the problem for the US has always been understanding the rest of the world properly. To understand you have to engage and avoid the kind of hubris which led to Vietnam and also the aftermath of Iraq.

 

I'd like to see a US president who really understands the rest of world not one who turns inward.

[Apech]

I apologize, my sense of humanity was getting in the way of my sense of humor again.

 

[Mal]

All you have to do is swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II and we will overlook your rebellious nature.

 

Works in Australia

[little]

On a positive note look what the US did for Japan and Germany (and the rest of Europe including Britain) after WWII. After years of fighting against the Nazis and Japanese imperialism ... instead of retribution the US rebuilt both those countries and established a successful and peaceful future for them both. I am sure there was self-interest there but that's just how things work.

Not sure what this is referring to. From what I know Germany had to do reparations in the billion areas with manufactory plants. There were other things like enforced labor, export of technology, know how, scientists, patents and such.

[Apech]

[little]

I'm referring to the Marshall Plan in Europe and the McCarthy administration in Japan. The Marhsall plan allowed Europe including Germany to recover quickly after the war even though its manufacturing base had been destroyed.

 

Ok, I see.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations

After World War II, according to the Potsdam conference held between July 17 and August 2, 1945, Germany was to pay the Allies US$23 billion mainly in machinery and manufacturing plants. [..] In addition, in accordance with the agreed-upon policy of de-industrialisation and pastoralization of Germany, large numbers of civilian factories were dismantled for transport to France and the UK, or simply destroyed.

 

Take 23 billion and destroy the remaining economy from germany and redistribute the US part in europe (germany got 1.4 billion from the Marhsall Plan). But I agree they could have acted less nice. Thanks for the clarification.

Edited January 23, 2012 by little

[Apech]

[Apech]

Works in Australia

 

Yes but I think you need a criminal record to live there don't you?

[Birch]

Yes but I think you need a criminal record to live there don't you?

Poor old Apech in that terrible sunny colony;-) You must be missing a bit of the old banter matey:-)

[JustARandomPanda]

On a serious note also ... I hope the US does not stop its involvement in what the rest of the world does. A lot of mistakes have been made ... that is true ... but to retreat from the foreign policy agenda would create a massive power vacuum. God knows what would fill it. On a positive note look what the US did for Japan and Germany (and the rest of Europe including Britain) after WWII. After years of fighting against the Nazis and Japanese imperialism ... instead of retribution the US rebuilt both those countries and established a successful and peaceful future for them both. I am sure there was self-interest there but that's just how things work.

 

I think that the problem for the US has always been understanding the rest of the world properly. To understand you have to engage and avoid the kind of hubris which led to Vietnam and also the aftermath of Iraq.

 

I'd like to see a US president who really understands the rest of world not one who turns inward.

 

Interesting. I tend toward favoring the governmental organizations of the U.S. being way more isolationist while actual U.S. citizens becoming way more Internationally minded and rolling up their sleeves to discover ways to engage and help both locally and internationally.

 

I've spent time abroad myself and it brought home fast just how insular and parochial the average American is.

 

What I've long been flustered about is my country's hubris in thinking there should be a "one-size-fits-all" path to superior economic and societal development. Of course, having said that...there are plenty of other countries that have the same kind of hubris. So it's not as if this superiority mindset is somehow restricted to only Americans. It's just that since the U.S. is still the top-dog (for now) it's easy and popular to hate on America and Americans.

 

I'm pretty sure as China, India and other countries like them overtake the U.S. they will finally begin feeling the heat of anger and envy that was long reserved strictly for Americans.

[Mal]

Yes but I think you need a criminal record to live there don't you?

 

haha the Ashes will be on soon enough mate