Military-industrial complex & empire-building: Is change possible?

For me, the powerful, unrestrained military-industrial complex and the desire for empire are the most serious issues we face, for many reasons. Yet they sometimes seem to be elephants in the living room which do not get confronted head-on. Confronting them head-on in public often seems to be a ticket towards being marginalized and not taken seriously.

How heavily do DUers weigh the issues of militarism and empire-building?
Where do you believe we are headed if we do not change?
Do you believe these problems pre-date George W?
And most importantly:
What will it really take to make a difference?

Back in 1975, I got a copy of "The People's Almanac" by David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace -- a sort of hippie-eye view of the world, a warped take on a standard almanac. It gave me considerable pause to see that under United States of America it said, "Who REALLY Rules -- There are many forces at work in U.S. society, but the most powerful by far are the interlocking directorates of the major banks, corporations, and insurance companies, with the backing of the leaders of the military: In the words of former President Dwight Eisenhower, 'the military-industrial complex.' "

That bothered me a lot. Even after Vietnam and Watergate, I still thought the people held ultimate power in the US, even if they didn't always use it widely. I didn't want to believe that the military-industrial complex was really running things. I thought that perhaps the authors were just being cynical, so I checked what was said about the other Western democracies and found that, except for Norway (which was said to be "governed by its elected representatives"), they were all described as dominated by one party, by trade unions, or by business interests. But none of the other descriptions had quite the starkness and conspiratorial overtones of that of the US.

I've been thinking for almost thirty years now about your last question: what it will really take to make a difference. It was obvious even in 1975 that there was no point in going up against them directly. They're far too powerful, and you'd only be asking to get your head beaten in. The best answer I have is that we need a set of sweeping paradigm-shifts, to get things to the point where nobody can possibly take CEO's or generals seriously as figures of authority or respect.

The problem is that, short of a new religion, I can't see any way to bring about such a sweeping change -- and I don't, by and large, have much faith in religion as a solution to social problems.

Some authors succeed in inducing dramatic paradigm shifts in their readers -- Chomsky, Zinn, Vidal, Blum, etc. Is it possible to have 'mass appeal' with something that comes closer to the attention span of the U.S. public? (15 seconds..;) )(Perhaps getting some Chomsky and Zinn books in the hands of the offspring, the future heirs, of the moneymen of the MIC would be worth a try.)

Pamphlets -- short pamphlets perhaps some in graphical format that give snapshots which conflict with the prevailing paradigm.

'Culture jamming' -- like 'Adbusters', this involves linking ubiquitous symbols/propaganda with the ugly realities behind them. (I.e., whose blood flows in the red stripes on the U.S. flag?)

Mockery of our opponents. Hey, the other side does it to us all the time.

Infiltrating their organizations. (Ditto, but its easier for the powerful to pretend to be compassionate (or liberal) than for the compassionate to pretend to be powerful...)

'Innoculating' youth -- I have in mind a short glossy book for youths/teens that glorifies / highlights the uncommonly-known radical peacenik side of 10 or 15 great and commonly admired people, such as Martin Luther King and Mark Twain.

P.S. Thanks for the book tip.

It's an excellent work on many of the things discussed in this thread.

One of the main fallacies I have to point out in your post is how many of the tactics focus on information. The simple dissemination of information is not a viable strategy. If it worked, Noam Chomsky would be on the NYT Bestseller's list, and anyone who read his works would immediately have their eyes opened. That isn't the case.

Why isn't it? Well, since we're talking about a paradigm shift, we're talking about challenging the base perceptions that people have of the world around them. The immediate reaction by most people, when confronted with this, is to recoil in fear, and to clearly reject this challenge. While it may work with a small percentage of people, it doesn't work across the board.

The best way to do this is truly through the philosophy of "be the change you wish to see in the world." By that, I don't mean that we should all go live on communes, but that we need to look for ways to facilitate the gathering of people for mutual support and sharing of problems. When we find out ways to do this, then we begin to instill in each other the importance of community, compassion and empathy -- and how these values can actually benefit our self-interest. Once that is done, THEN, the "circles of caring" can begin to be widened out further and further, to the point that they literally bring the walls of the military-industrial complex crashing down.

Of course, what we are talking about is a work that will take the better part of several generations -- and in some ways (environmental), it may even be too late. But that does not mean that this work is any less important.

"The underlying reason that non-zero-sum games wind up being played well is the same in biological evolution as in cultural evolution. Whether you are a bunch of genes or a bunch of memes, if you're all in the same boat you'll tend to perish unless you are conducive to productive coordination.... Genetic evolution thus tends to create smoothly integrated organisms, and cultural evolution tends to create smoothly integrated groups of organisms."

I read this book soon after it came out in 1999, and since then fresh evidence has continued to support its central theme, which is that selfishness may occassionally pay off in the short run, but that in the long run cooperators survive where rugged individualists go extinct.

The current Western world-order is based on the assumption that raw, self-interested competition is not only inevitable but ultimately a good thing for everyone. Liberals have accepted this premise every bit as much as conservatives -- the only difference is that liberals try to take the edge off it by educating people to enable them to compete more effectively and by providing social safety nets for the elderly and disabled who can't compete.

At present, our society seems to be pushing its faith in the premise of self-interest to a point so extreme that it becomes obviously self-defeating. (For example, in the vote-'em-off-the-island style of reality show.) We're overdue for a correction in that area, and I think we're like to get one very soon.

However, that won't help much if ideas about cooperation are adopted in a superficial way that just props up the existing system -- by being used to justify corporate mergers, say. What's needed is a deep understanding that the ideal of organic cooperation is fundamentally at odds with all rigid hierarchical structures, most specifically corporations and the military.

But even beyond that, the really crucial change (which Nonzero doesn't properly address) has to involve the question of purpose: What is the significance of living in a synergetic universe where all evolution (physical, biological, and social) has worked over billions of years to promote the creation of increasingly elaborate, complex, and flexible cooperative systems?

This question of purpose is where religion comes in -- but to offer what is needed, it would have to be an evolutionary religion. Present-day religions are still rooted, for the most part, in the static or cyclical cosmologies of 3000 years ago. (This may be why fundamentalism is so oddly compatible with free-market capitalism. Neither one really believes in change.)

I suspect that what I'm looking for would require the most sweeping set of cultural innovations in the last 2500 years -- new institutions, new forms of government, and new beliefs about the ultimate purpose of life. And while I can imaging that happening, I don't have a clue as to how to get there.

Your post raises a lot of interesting points -- I can never tire of talking about all of this existential stuff!

Your statement about the fact that BOTH liberals and conservatives have bought into the "greed is good" set of societal values is spot-on, IMHO. In fact, I wrote a piece just last week touching on that theme: The Failure of Liberalism. Of course, if you take the time to peruse it, you will see that I received my fair share of detractors -- which I fully expected.

And the extent to which we have come to view our place in society like a contestant on "Survivor" is a chilling observation, indeed.

If you're looking on how to enact this spirit of cooperation in a meaningful way, all I can tell you is to pick up the Lerner book. It is all about explaining WHY we feel so much "disconnect" in our daily lives, and HOW we can go about changing it.

As for the purpose of religion, I'm a Unitarian Universalist, so I can definitely dig what you're saying. But I think you're underestimating the ability of religion to be a moral basis for affecting positive change -- just look at the origins of the abolitionist and civil rights movements. The key is to embrace the good aspects of it and to diminish the bad.

As to how we get there -- that's easy. One step at a time. ;-)

which I had somehow missed. I truly, TRULY enjoyed your essay, and I think that you and I would agree quite a bit on these subjects.

To a population that is depressed by the meaningless of the passive, empty "shut-up&shop&watch TV" prescription of our culture, a vision of how to connect, build community, and raise themselves above the level of self-interested-consumer-units would be like water in the desert. How to get this across easily (as a soundbyte??) without frightening people off by launching into what I would laughingly call the 'burden of consciousness'-- i.e, recognition of our dire straits -- is a challenge.

A focus on the community as a whole (as MLK did) is unifying, uplifting, and resilient. Often, his greatness shone through in his magnanimity toward the oppressors, and melted the opposition.

Ordinary rightwingers sometimes say that leftwingers are too negative, too cynical. It hides an idealism and a pain. To say, "I want my life to mean something" seems embarrassing and laughable, but isn't that what motivates us?

Repeat after me ;) :
A global community worth leaving to our children.

I also referenced an article I got published in Feb in that thread you read. I wrote the initial article from a personal perspective of feeling disconnect and realizing the need to try and live a life worthy of a better world. But it wasn't until I read the Lerner book that a lot of the pieces began to fit together for me. But it's been quite an enlightening (and frustrating) experience. I have come to really understand why I became so alienated from so many of my long-time friends over the past few years. I have come to realize how far out of "mainstream" my belief system really is. And I've come to realize that the path ahead is not an easy one. Still, I would not trade this evolution of perception for anything right now.

The diminishing of the MIC as the holder of power in our society will only come about through its eventual discrediting. That, in turn, will only occur when we have a vast paradigm shift in our country.

A great book I read on this same vein (a little more on the "strategy" side and a little less on the "history" side) is The Politics of Meaning by Michael Lerner. The overriding theme is the need to make values such as compassion, cooperation and empathy central themes to our society. And before the first charge is leveled against me, the elevation of these values does not require us to deny our innate self-interest. In fact, by embracing these values, we can affirm our self-interest and reject narrow selfishness.

For those that think that a new political party can change this, all I can tell you to do is to keep dreaming. A political party or even political candidate will not change this one iota so long as the ethos of greed and selfishness remains dominant. This is why, no matter who the Democrats nominate, and whether or not that nominee defeats Bush, things will not change drastically. Certainly they will change noticably on the political front -- but our society will remain just as much in need of repair and renewal as before.

I would cite the Clinton years as a case in point. Certainly there were more jobs and less international belligerence. But the stock market was glamorized even as companies continued to send jobs overseas to boost stock price, we still failed to make any sort of meaningful change to environmental policy, and we essentially gutted the welfare system without providing real help to those trapped within it. The same problems were still glaring beneath the glossy surface.

As for the place of religion, I don't think you should be so quick to dismiss it. Nearly every major movement for social consciousness and change in our nation's history has been founded in religion: Abolition, Labor, Civil Rights, etc. This is a bad misconception of many of us on the "Left" -- our knee-jerk reaction to immediately reject religion in any form. In doing so, we succeed only in separating ourselves from not only some of our greatest allies, but also one of our greatest bases of power. For religion is one of those things that is capable of speaking with a moral imperative on matters in a way that can get people in "middle America" to take notice. The Right has only seized this opportunity when the Left abandoned it. We need to seize it back, if we are interested in truly affecting the paradigm changes that will be necessary to our base survival.

This is where you say For those that think that a new political party can change this, all I can tell you to do is to keep dreaming..

I agree that a new political party would not be sufficient to bring about any fundamental change in our culture of greed & selfishness. However, a new party could play a central role in a broader movement, very conceivably in concert with religious & cultural components. The uniting theme in such a movement would be specifically the building of a society that was more humane & less selfish. This kind of philosophy needs political expression; it certainly has none in the confines of today's party politics.

IOW, not to make a speech, but: - the idea of a new party built on new principles should not be looked at as salvation in & of itself, but neither should its potential value be underestimated, just because it would not in itself bring some ultimate salvation. There is a need, IMO, in fact a very great need, for a new party founded on new principles -- because both major parties today are miserable failures. Neither has any claim to democratically representing the broad working population, & the 2 often collaborate to maintain their narrow monopoly control.

Because that's what I see you doing here. I could be wrong, but it's what I see.

Politics is forced to reflect the attitudes of society, whether it wants to or not. Throughout most of our history, the powers-that-be have been successful in manipulating society into supporting the status quo -- which has, in turn, helped entrench the ethos of righteous selfishness and "might makes right" within our society and politics.

The issue of politics will evolve naturally out of such a movement, Rich -- it doesn't need to be forced. In fact, I would argue that forcing the political angle could cause the whole movement to be corrupted before it was truly ready to take over and revolutionize the political scene, by forcing it into an arena in which it is forced to compete by the rules of the status quo in order to WIN.

Look at it this way -- as these "circles of caring" and sense of general community begin to widen out, it will be people involved in this movement who will naturally take over the local town offices, political party committees, county boards, etc. It is only natural that this process then extends further to state offices, and finally national office. It is important to remember that we are talking about a deep paradigm shift here -- one that, even if successful, will take generations. In this perspective, the short-term political arena is simply a sidenote, rather than something that must be immediately given a large part of our concentration.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that we ignore politics altogether. What I am suggesting is that we not fall into the trap of realistically expecting this kind of great change to come through the ballot box. Change at the ballot box will instead come about as a result of this paradigm shift.

http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research071803.htm

I think Kucinich fans will be impressed, and Dean fans will be envious.

of Democrats will be a decisive factor in ensuring that there is no change.

Just look at this message board -- it has been swarmed and completely taken over by militarist brownshirted nitwits who want to put someone straight from the military-industrial complex into the White House, calling him a "Democrat" and a "progressive."

If those know-nothings are "DUers," then the answer to one of your questions must be that DUers don't give a fig about the military-industrial complex at all.

Of course the problems predate GW Bushler. The US has been an aggressive predator nation since it was founded. Remember exterminating the Indians & stealing their land? Then the phony unjust war on Mexico to steal Calif, N Mexico & Texas? Then we had a brief pause in the imperialist land-grabs, to duke it out with the Southern slave-owners. After which, we started stealing land again in the Spanish-Am War. And it never stopped, after that.

This country is an imperialist monster that will bring the whole world down with it. Perhaps 15% of Democrats see US imperialism as a problem; the rest don't give a hoot.

What would it take to really make a difference? The ruling elite of the country will ALWAYS favor having a military-industrial complex, & having working-class kids go fight their wars. Waiting for them to "get nice" and voluntarily relinquish the advantages of the MIC would be a wait until Judgement Day. The only way it can be changed is if a party is built that represents working people against the oligarchs. It has to be a class war, because that is the nature of the phenomenon -- an exploitation of one class by another. As long as the US is controlled by the 2-party monopoly, they will never speak this language of class conflict, so the requisite consciousness will never be allowed to develop.

The Democrats are part of the problem -- a very major part. Their part is more insidious than that of the Republicans, who everyone realizes are the overt bad guys. The Democrats help to confuse matters by posturing as -- but not at all being -- the party that defends "the little guy." Their role of "false savior" keeps the oppressed classes confused and with NO real representation.

n/t

-- at the lack of direct discussion of the MIC of the U.S. in the DU. Is that because people don't care, aren't aware, or are afraid, or is it simply the elephant in the living room?

I think that some of the criticism of Wesley Clark comes from people concerned that he will continue with the militarism of the Bush clan, albeit with more finesse and intelligence. Yet, I think that the MIC will remain intact REGARDLESS of which Democratic candidate wins (except of course my man Dennis). Okay, maybe Dean or Kerry or Edwards or others might halt development of new nukes and likely, none of them would give an ear to the neocon PNAC lunacy. But the fact remains that wars themselves are -- and will remain -- an integral part of the U.S. government and economy:

Countries bombed by the U.S. since WWII From William Blum
China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964
Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-99 Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 (Afghanistan 2001 Iraq 2003)

From my reading, I'm coming to the conclusion that the president alone can't do it, even if we elected one who wanted to. (For that matter, Congress can't even close the School of the Americas.) I ponder the idea that a Wesley Clark at least has the knowledge of the military establishment to know what he's up against. If Mr. Clark came out wholeheartedly anti-empire-building, I'd be thrilled to campaign for him. If he DID come out "wholeheartedly anti-empire-building", he'd be painted as a lunatic and cast out of the mainstream.

Can an outsider coming in to the presidency -- like Dean -- do anything about the MIC? Whether outsider or insider, doctor or general or anything else, the only way that any of them can do anything about it is if they have a loud, clear mandate from the public (along with a supportive Congress).

Mass protest / mass education seems to be the only way.

As IMPOSSIBLE as that seems, the alternative is to doom our children or grandchildren to a nuclear nightmare, a growing police state, frequent terrorist revenge attacks (not to mention dirty hands or a life of lies), or some combination thereof.

things, none of them good. First, it shows that Democrats lack an overall political analysis. They are like children: capable of seeing simple points like "Bush is our enemy," but incapable of any view extending beyond that. In particular, they are unable to see that it doesn't help at all to replace Bush with someone who protects the same social interests that Bush does, "albeit with more finesse and intelligence."

Second, the simplemindedness of the "ABB" sloganeers demonstrates yet more Democratic cluelessness. These people push the idea that the only thing that matters is "supporting the Democrat," regardless whether it's a quasi-Republican like Clark (Lieberman) or a near-socialist like Kucinich. No one who looked into it could support both ends of such a contradiction (unless they are simply blind party zealots). Kucinich has NOTHING in common with those other guys -- in fact, the very things that make him GOOD also make him DIFFERENT from the Pentagon creature or the corporate tool.

You are exactly right with this: If Mr. Clark came out wholeheartedly anti-empire-building, I'd be thrilled to campaign for him. If he DID come out "wholeheartedly anti-empire-building", he'd be painted as a lunatic and cast out of the mainstream. This mechanism is solidly in place: the only way to be painted as being IN THE MAINSTREAM is to be UNWILLING to challenge important elements of the status quo.

I've posted several thoughts on this, because this is getting right to the heart of my overall political/philosophical/life system of beliefs.

But given the fact that we are in GDF, in which the best way to draw a crowd is to post something bashing one candidate or another, or to mention the name "Ralph N---r", thus reducing everything to the lowest emotional argument possible -- I'm not at all surprised to see a low response to this thread.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sizable minority who DO have thoughts on this, and might be willing to post them....

It is by far the most interesting thread I've read in awhile. Someone is over there on another thread challenging the Republican's domination of the military and I am so tired of being through the looking glass lately, just when there was a glimmer of hope.

It's pretty hard to deny that in many ways, you need to check your brain at the door before entering GDF due to all of the inane discussions and naked emotional appeals that go on here.

And I agree -- I too love threads like this in which we can discuss the real issues UNDERNEATH the issues. :D

Peace.

Is that is too scary too big and has a tinge of a "conspiracy theory"
I think that most people want to believe that all the problems can be solved if only their candidate is elected. When you look at the MIC as a whole, I know I say to myself, it's too big, it's too late, there is nothing anyone can or will do.

For an example, take the Franklin cover-up that was brought to everyone's attention yesterday and today on this board. There hasn't been, in 15 years someone able to expose and punish these monsters. And these are criminal acts against children for God's sake.

Another recent example, 70% of the American populace thinks Sadam is responsibly for September 11. You can't even get nation informed enough to know that we went to war under false pretenses. And there is probably half the population that will never believe it even in the face of evidence.

The first action that needs to be taken is a general awareness of the Military Industrial Complex, and what their functions are, that can only be done through information. How do you do that?

I have found myself with such a feeling of hopelessness and despair over my revelations of the last year or so. I think people don't go there because they sense it is a lost cause. It is the elephant on the discussion board.

on edit too many damn words in one sentence.

this happened in the 60's with the cultural revolution and civil rights - music, art, popular film and ideas that bloomed into movements for change.

I don't know whether the revolution can be won over night, so to speak, but it would be an improvement if the present course was at least reversed, rather than adopted by all sides - as seems to be the trend on these boards of late.

Yes, it does instill a feeling of hopelessness that induces the lure into the personal life - with the resignation that no change is possible at least in this country, for the near future.

because I had an infant in my arms then, and as much as I wanted to go back to my self-absorbed life (bothered by wars and Bush but not an activist), I realized that I had to TRY, at least, to understand and to do what I could.

That is true.

the only way that any of them can do anything about it is if they have a loud, clear mandate from the public (along with a supportive Congress). Mass protest / mass education seems to be the only way.


The growing power of the police state is being set up to stop that very thing from happening, IMHO. For a chilling read, check out the section of the PATRIOT ACT which deals with the description of domestic and commercial terrorism. It is conspicuously written to allow the DOJ (sic) to define terrorism like the Justice Stewart defined pornography, "I know it when I see it."

I guess we could look at the Progressive movement as a movement to enlighten, educate, and inspire. If we focused on those words, which I am encouraged to be witnessing more of in politics, particularly at the activist realm, and particularly in places that do not include Washington DC, we will inspire a movement and a unified resounding message that I think brings so many of us together even here at DU. We have to get out of ourselves really, and reach out. That is the only way.

I also appreciated you addressing that one leader cannot do it all. Howard Dean, Ramsey Clark, Carole Mosley Braun*, Hillary Clinton, are all in my opinion wonderful people, and Dean has certainly shown me as a supporter that he does believe in taking our government and our country back through all of us working together. Regardless who is at the helm, we are all at the helm when it comes to responsibility. We have to talk in first person, and get out of the third person realm. Its not about them, its about me and what am I doing.

Anyway thanks for the post - ***

Regardless who is at the helm, we are all at the helm when it comes to responsibility. We have to talk in first person, and get out of the third person realm. Its not about them, its about me and what am I doing.

"Be the change that you want to see in the world." That's the way I see it. But just as important as being that change, is looking to do so in constructive ways that widen your attitudes from internalization to something that can affect and inspire others to do the same.

I heard a talk by Jim Hightower a few nights ago. He said the only solution to our problems is to take the grassroots approach. He talked about pockets of ordinary people around the country who are keeping Walmarts out of their towns and organizing for living wages rather than minimum wages, among other issues. In a roundabout way he was saying don't look for answers from outside yourself as we've been conditioned to do. There is no knight in shining armor coming to our rescue in 2004 or beyond.

On a related note: Check out this comic book Addicted to War: Why the US Can't Kick Militarism.

http://store.yahoo.com/truemajority/adtowarwhyuc.html

And I'm jealous that you had the opportunity to hear him speak a few nights ago!

But you're exactly right in your analysis, that it is up to US to affect these changes, because the white knight just isn't out there. I've said this on these boards many times before, but it's a proposition that seems to emit quite a nasty reaction from many people for the mere suggestion that we can't count on the Democratic Party to make these changes for us. :shrug:

But equally important is that we focus on the RIGHT things. I'm not saying I disagree with what Hightower cites as successes -- but we have to go even a step BEYOND that, so that we can help forge true communities of meaning within our society and begin to realize not only the value and power, but the HAPPINESS that can come about from cooperating and working together. And from that naturally springs the idea of caring for rather than exploiting one another, and treating each other with compassion rather than mistrust.

He was great. He puts on a good show. Two of my favorite lines:

"Donald Rumsfeld drinks his dirty bathwater and thinks it's champagne." and "They sent Ashcroft on a charm tour to promote the Patriot Act II? What's the matter, wasn't Bela Lugosi available?"

OK, all that folksy Texas charm aside, he has a very keen mind and is very quick on his feet. He is well informed and talked with ease at at length on taxes, the environment, MIC, the PATRIOT ACT, touch-screen voting and several other topics.

I agree 1000% we have to start trusting each other and cooperating. It's no coincidence that the two darlings of the right are Coulter and Limbaugh. As long as they keep us bickering and finger pointing among ourselves, we won't unite to fight those who are truly the enemies of the people.

Just as everyone else on the Right is. They know that people feel isolated, and they tap into it. The only problem is that they tap into it by allowing people to feel that source of connection of being part of an "us" (patriotic, right-wing Americans) whose unhappiness is attributable to a "them" (liberals, minorities, etc.).

But there's no denying how successful the right has been at exploiting this generally good part of human nature and twisting it toward unconscionable ends.

I mentioned it above, and I'll mention it again -- one of the best books I've read on all of this is The Politics of Meaning by Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder of Tikkun. Hightower has gives on of the endorsements on the back cover. Surprisingly, I found it at a tag sale for something like $0.50 this spring. One of the best investments I ever made!

Associated with this book is an outstanding video tape called ""What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy: The War Against the Third World." The video has segments with Bill Moyers, Ramsey Clark, Amy Goodman, etc, and is of fantastic quality. You can see the individual segments online at:

http://www.peace.ca/basement.htm (scroll down a bit from the top)

Or you can buy the whole video at: http://www.addictedtowar.com

I went to an antiwar conference last year where a guy was selling copies of both the video and the comic book on a table outside the event. I think he was Frank Dorrel, in person. I'd never heard of him before, so thought nothing of it -- until I took the video home & watched it.

PS to Monica -- I'm glad you're going to get a chance to see Parenti speak. Let me know your impressions. He's on a nationwide speaking tour now with Howard Zinn, Medea Benjamin, Chomsky, Norman Solomon & others ("Speaking Truth to Empire"). Sounds like one hell of a speakers' list!
http://antiwarnetwork.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=41

Parenti is giving a talk "Global Conquest and Corporate Empire" Mon. night about 90 minutes from Philly but I'm willing to bet it'll be well worth the drive. I'd be delighted to talk to you about it.

It would be fantastic to get a chance to hear the other talk. What a lineup! Are you planning on attending?

Parenti is one hell of an orator. He is quite capable of lifting the roof off of a large gathering. I hope that happens when you see him.

The tour I mentioned will be in Berkeley on Oct 8. I'll certainly be there!

Is that because people don't care, aren't aware, or are afraid, or is it simply the elephant in the living room?

Little bit of everything. We like our way of life and many Americans are unaware of what goes on beyond our boders. The MIC provides much of what we have in life (how many Americans are willing to pay $4 or more per gallon of gas), of course if we would actively look for alternatives, it would not be a problem, but that could cut into the MIC's profits.

No politician except those committed to what they believe (like Dennis) would try to change the paradigm, fearing for their political future. But many have yet to learn a change of your own choice is easier then one that is forced upon you. Wars will remain the conerstone of our foreign policy until there is someone (probably several someones) who have the strength and courage to take us away from it, or until the MIC sucks us dry like the parasite it is.

A mass education/protest campaign would be difficult, becasue there are many who are willfully ignorant. They don't want to admit their parts in the suffering the MIC has caused around the world, or face the prospect of change (or pay that $4 per gallon).

Many would be happy to put a happy face or a (D) on it, but ultimately it will get us nowhere and only slow down the course rather then stop or reverse it. But the end of the road is clear: is seeing the country destroyed, an entire young generation gone, either dead on the battlefields, or as part of the American Exodus. That will only make it that much harder to rebuild.

The MIC is the gravy train of the uber elite with connections
to all the old money that has been in control of this country
for a very long time.

Fascism is a 20th century phenom and it must be noted that
this same capitalist class helped finance the 3rd Reich.

We are headed towards total destruction of civil society if
nothing changes.

Although Kucinich is clearly the most committed to dismantling the miitary-industrial complex, Kerry is the one in the best position to actually do it.

He just wants to cut funding to it to a slight degree. And given the current political climate, I'm not certain that he would be willing to do so.

The difference between Kerry and Kucinich in this instance is the fact that Kucinich is looking for a true paradigm shift away from militarism as a cornerstone of foreign policy. Kerry may be looking to cut expenditures, but he is still from the school of using force to protect the United States and our overseas interests. Kucinich advocates military force only as a response to an outright attack on the United States by another sovereign nation.

It's funny how that phrase "our overseas interests" makes my blood boil. Just the other morning, I saw Tom Harkin on CSPAN, and he used that term. To me, the entire idea is just repugnant. It basically says to me that we feel we have the right to any of the world's resources we choose. I'd prefer to live in a nation that seeks cooperation and brotherhood with other nations over one that seeks domination.

I'm really glad to see that he had the guts to vote against even some of the weapons programs -- that's great. A 2% cut isn't nearly enough, of course, but he had to deal with political realities.

As important as it is to discuss candidates' positions, maybe the first step is identifying why it is that so few people consider this issue to be of utmost importance. How is it that the rightwing and centrists are so successful in framing the debate at "Massive military buildup vs. 2% cuts" instead of "Hold steady vs. massive cuts"? How are people so deceived that this is an issue of defense not offense?

Refusal to support it.



Observation: the MIC became an issue of discussion with the emergence of Clark and the circumstances around his candidacy.

$400 billion a year, and that was before we decided to invade Iraq.

The biggest threat to the World community is not the exploitation of oil, it is the proliferation of WMDs; right here in the U.S., facilitated by a nest of former military industrial executives (military industrial warriors) in the Defense Dept. and in the Bush administration.

Andrew Card, Chief of Staff- General Motors

Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy- General Dynamics (defense contractor), Former President Lockheed

Don Evans Commerce, Secretary- Tom Brown Inc. (oil)

George W. Bush, President- Harken Energy

Dick Cheney, Vice President- Halliburton

Paul O'Neil, Secretary of the Treasury- Alcoa (chemicals and metals)

James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force- Northrop Grumman Corp. (Former President)

Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary- G. D. Searle, General Instrument

Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor- Chevron, Charles Schwab, J. P. Morgan

Thomas E. White, Secretary of the Army- Enron

Richard Armitage - State, Deputy Secretary | President and partner, Armitage Assoc. LLP, a Boeing consultant, a Raytheon consultant; Advisory board member

Karl Rove - White House, Senior Advisor to the President | Boeing Shareholder

I. Lewis Libby - White House, Chief to the President | Northrup-Grumman Consultant

Dov Zakheim - Defense; Under Secretary for Comptroller | Paid advisory board Northrup-Grumman

Douglas J. Feith - Defense; Under Secretary for Policy | President and managing partner of former law firm, Feith & Zell; clients include Northrop Grumman

Paul Wolfowitz - Defense; Deputy Secretary | Northrop Grumman Consultant

Nelson F. Gibbs - Air Force; Assistant Secretary for Installations, Environment and Logistics | Former corporate comptroller ,Northrop Grumman

Sean O'Keefe - NASA Administrator | Paid advisory board: Northrop Grumman, Raytheon

Peter B. Teets - Air Force; Assistant Secretary | Former CEO, Lockheed

Everet Beckner - Energy; Administrator for Defense Programs | Former Vice President, Lockheed

Otto Reich - State; Assistant Secretary for Latin America | Paid Consultant, Lockheed

Norman Mineta - Transportation; Secretary | Former Vice President; Shareholder, Lockheed

Michael Jackson - Transportation; Deputy Secretary | Former Vice President; Former COO Lockheed Information and Management Services; Shareholder

Larry C. Johnson - Justice; Deputy Attorney General | Partner at Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding, client to Lockheed

David E. Jeremiah Vice Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board | Board of Directors, Alliant Techsystems

"Bush Top 100" at the Center for Public Integrity:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/cgi-bin/whoswhosearch.asp

William D. Hartung, "About Face: The Role of the Arms Lobby in the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of U.S. Nuclear Policy," World Policy Institute
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/reportaboutface.html

I know the post heading is corny, but bear with me for a minute.... ;-)

One of the main fallacies I have to point out in many posts on this thread is how many of the tactics focus on building political parties and spreading information. The simple dissemination of information is not a viable strategy. If it worked, Noam Chomsky would be on the NYT Bestseller's list, and anyone who read his works would immediately have their eyes opened. That isn't the case.

Why isn't it? Well, since we're talking about a paradigm shift, we're talking about challenging the base perceptions that people have of the world around them. The immediate reaction by most people, when confronted with this, is to recoil in fear, and to clearly reject this challenge. While it may work with a small percentage of people, it doesn't work across the board.

Equally, the forming of new political parties is not enough, because it is forced to compete in an arena in which the rules of the status quo -- mainly the ethos of righteous selfishness and "might makes right" -- still apply. Therefore, such a political party would be destined for a nearly immediate death, assuming it could ever get off the ground in the first place!

The best way to do this is truly through the philosophy of "be the change you wish to see in the world." By that, I don't mean that we should all go live on communes, but that we need to look for ways to facilitate the gathering of people for mutual support and sharing of problems. When we find out ways to do this, then we begin to instill in each other the importance of community, compassion and empathy -- and how these values can actually benefit our self-interest. Once that is done, THEN, the "circles of caring" can begin to be widened out further and further, to the point that they literally bring the walls of the military-industrial complex crashing down.

Of course, what we are talking about is a work that will take the better part of several generations -- and in some ways (environmental), it may even be too late. But that does not mean that this work is any less important.

So said Poppy Bush, and the reaction, across party lines, was much closer to, "Damn straight," than, "Hold on a second there."

The first step toward addressing the elephant that eats our prosperity is acknowledging that the principal purpose of the US military is not to protect the US from invasion, but to protect the treasured "American way of life." It would be nice to think that this is a recent phenomenon, an aberration from our typical role of world savior, exhibited most splendidly in WWII. But Gen. Smedley Butler thought differently back in the 30s. For that matter, perhaps someone could point me to a US use of force, other than WWII, which didn't smack rather strongly of imperial adventure and protecting downtrodden corporate interests from the powerful, overreaching natives of other lands.

But there's a trickle down aspect to all of this, which makes it difficult even for common folk to countenance the notion of a major retraction of the US military. Because, after all, even though that tiny top layer is beyond-obscenely wealthy, most of the rest of us are actually doing pretty well. Somewhere, deep down, there's this still, small voice telling us that, if our 5% of the world population is consuming 25% of the world's resources, there's gotta be some folks getting burned out there. But we don't think about that. Because if we did, we might have to think about the real meaning, the real source, of our comfortable lives.

It's a little harder than usual to do that right now, because the great Iraqi oil theft isn't going so well, and weren't we supposed to, as is our American birthright, get something for nothing there, and didn't all those people just want to be Americans anyway, and, gosh, whereinhell is my cheap gas, anyway?

We don't have a military budget that's bigger than the next 25 countries combined because our territory is in danger. We have that military budget so we can dash around the world and whup folks into line if they start getting the uppity idea that the natives might have as much right to their own resources as Americans do.

So long as the vast majority of Americans agree with Poppy Bush, there's nothing to be done about the military budget. Because the American way of life is not negotiable, and we don't negotiate it. We enforce it.

The sad truth is that many people are left unfulfilled by the "American way of life". Everyone from the fast-food worker eeking out a living to the high-level manager earning $250K per year -- many of them are left unfulfilled due to the lack of connections we feel with other people.

And no wonder we feel this lack of connection. Many people spend 12 hours or more a day away from home at work -- and we wonder why 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce, our kids are suffering and lashing out, and we don't know any of our neighbors outside of saying "hi" to them on the street. We are raised in a culture in which we are constantly looking at others, wondering what we can get from them -- and how we can sell ourselves to other people. And we're constantly looking over our shoulder, watching for someone who might be trying to take what WE have.

This consumerist, wealth-centered, selfishness-affirming culture in which we live is an unhealthy one. It's one in which we are conditioned to think that happiness is only a new outfit, new car, or new house over the horizon; only to discover that we are left feeling just as empty as before once we have it.

The only reason that the American way of life is non-negotiable is that we've been collectively conditioned to believe it. Of course, breaking this conditioning is a daunting task. But we can accomplish it over several generations by simply concentrating on the creation of small circles of caring that will widen out over time -- until they literally engulf "the American way of life" and send this myth crashing to the ground in a million pieces.

and some excellent insights.

A couple of things I thought I might throw in.

First, as far as strategies, examine the way you live your life first. Are you a consumer or a citizen? Is your life built around the acquisition of material goods? What are you teaching others in your life (children, friends, family, etc.) by the example you set?

I've taught classes on voluntary simplicity, and people are often amazed when they wake up and realize how much they are impacting society and the world by the simple daily choices they make, and how their consumption has failed to make them happy. I honestly believe that the first step is changing the way you live. The next is communicating the benefits of that lifestyle to others. We encourage or discourage the MIC by every job we take, every morsel of food we eat and every dollar we spend.

Second, I think it is so important to think beyond electoral politics. As was mentioned, politicians don't change society, they reflect it. The slaves weren't freed because of Lincoln, they were freed by the tireless work of abolitionists for decades. Womens' sufferage, workers' rights, civil rights...none of these things were handed down from above. Every one of them happened from below, and it usually took elected officials years or even decades to catch up with the public and actually pass the laws.

The wealthy and powerful in America have been very efficient at seperating the person in the street from this sort of grassroots activism. I think we are starting to reawaken it, but it is going to take a huge effort and a lifetime commitment. One of the worst things we can do is get people to the polls to elect a candidate we like (or at least can accept) and then say to them "Okay, go back home and watch CNN now, everything will be all right." We need to get those people in the streets.

I agree with you and IrateCitizen; I'm just a bit on the Eeyore side these days.

The task is overcoming several generations of indoctrination in a couple of key ideas:

(1) The history of America as a series of gifts from the great people to the small people. As you correctly point out, the vast majority of people-centered (as opposed to money-centered) progress in this country has been the result of people pushing on the government. But we all grew up learning that we have this great egalitarian society that pretty much made itself; every once in a while it gets a little off-kilter, but some enlightened leader comes along and fixes it all up. The truth, of course, is that us little folk get what we demand, and we only get it when we manage to band together enough to worry the big guys with all the bucks.

(2) America is not a secular society; we practice the religion of consumption. As IrateCitizen points out, we're getting to the junkie phase, where the promised high of that shiny new dingus doesn't even last to the next paycheck. I'm actually still naive enough to believe that there may have been a time when the American dream consisted of gaining a measure of dignity and self-sufficiency. Now the American dream is rather strictly defined as getting more stuff.

IrateCitizen's model is a good one. The question is: Do we have several generations left to make the change? I've been wondering whether I was just being pessimistic in my belief that we don't; then I read Paul Krugman's interview on calpundit, and see him saying he can't see any ending to this story but catastrophe. Krugman's not exactly some unreconstructed hippie-type voluntary-simplicity Luddite. . .

This is a viable question, dpibel -- for there are times that the Eeyore in me comes out as well, and I am prone to feelings of hopelessness. But at the same time, it's an inane question -- because the future is something that is completely uncertain, and all we can do in our lifetimes is do the most with the time we're given to try and forge a positive future.

Every time I start feeling down or hopeless, all I have to do is read something from Doris "Granny D" Haddock or Jim Hightower. After that, I realize that my feelings of hopelessness are really, in fact, completely unjustified -- nothing more than a great bit WWWWHHHHIIIIINNNNEEEE! as Hightower would put it -- and that people throughout our history have faced tougher odds than most of us have. But that didn't stop them from doing what they could to help forge a better future.

I guess what I'm saying in my rambling is that it's important to remember that the future is far from set, no matter what we may BELIEVE otherwise. There is always the possibility of change, and often change on levels that we could never even dream of right now. The challenge before us is whether we are willing to do the heavy lifting necessary to help make that change become a reality.

Do we truly have another choice???

The pursuit and defense of oil and other materials has driven a great deal of our foreign policy over time. We possess a mere 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but we consume fully 25 percent of the world's oil supply.

I do believe that weapons have become a valuable commodity again after the period of draw down from our cold war level of military spending. Not that disarnament really meant getting rid of anything we were going to explode anyway.

North America accounts for over 65% of the world's arms exports.In order to replace weapons used in Afghanistan and in preparation for military action in Iraq, most U.S. weapons makers increased production. With the new influx of money for homeland defense ($38 billion for FY 2003), virtually all of the big defense contractors—Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon have adapted their marketing strategies and are repackaging their products for use in domestic security. And the administration's nuclear ambitions are a shell game, hidden within the Energy and Defense budgets.

Bombs are big buisness again and the Bush administration has opened the store, exporting death, conquest, and perpetual war.

to the rubber meeting the road. Being that there is no longer a majority in agreement with the Bushes, the screws have been being tightened on Americans with things like the Patriot Act, DARPA, the privatization of our voting and companies like Diebold and SAIC, ES&S and everything other event, act and intimidation they can use to remain in power and of course seize more of it.

I think you brought up a brilliant point that even though the richest of rich are light years away from our reality and the disparity is all but criminal, most of us are living light years ahead of so many in other countries, although American workers within the past 20-30 years have been taking on a much longer, larger workload, and I believe one reason is to maintain the wealthiest and their lifestyles, along with getting caught up in keeping up with the Jones.

My views in this are a little skewed, because I was raised in a Military-Industrial Complex Home in a Military-Industrial Complex City in the 50's and 60's (Cold War). So it basically clothed me and fed me, I was exposed to a lot of people at the core of it, and was surrounded by its economic impact.

I also got exposed to the other side in college (and a little in high school).

And it's like two diffeent realities.

The MIC was (is) a beast that grows of its momentum. Like a shark, itr moves forward relentlessly, outside of human reason or logic.

Most of the people in the MIC (military officers and the private sector employees of contractors) I met growing up were very decent people, who believed completely in what they were doing, in terms of defending the United States and promoting peace. They saw it largely as a technical challenge, in addition to being a necessity to maintain parity of strength. It's hard to stop because it becomes a spiral. They more weapons "they" get the more we need. And "they" are thinking the same thing.

It's really hard to step outside of that mindset when you're surrounded by it. Especially if you assume (as I do) that we do need to have a strong national defense.

But it's equally valid to see it from the other side as pure insanity. We have long had more then enough weapons to blow up the world hundreds of times over. The more sophsticated our weapons become, the more dangerous the world becomes.

In a sense we are seeing those chickens coming home to roost now, with the fears engendered by the War on Terror. If it was only truck bombs and dynamite people were worried about today, it'd obviously be a vastly different picture than worried about nukes and bio-weapons.


No easy answers, but I think the first step to toning it down is to start to decouple legitimate defense issues from ideology and from commercial interests. The fact that it fuels so much of our economy is one part of the problem. The fact that strength is being used too often for the wrong reasons is anotehr.

Just my 2 cents.

as someone who is familiar with the MIC mindset from the inside, what you make of Clark's ability to operate outside of the prism he has viewed the world through his entire life, as a major player?

MPRI in its current incarnation is exactly what we have come to. Secret military operations which are essentially out of the conbtrol or watchful eye of Congress.

Clinton used them with Clark in Columbia and Kosovo and there are many fairly reliable journalists who are claiming that MPRI in collusion with Clark and the CIA did covert ops that were "off the shelf" and brutal.

Now I just really discovered this MPRI connection in the last two days while researching Clark.

But MPRI does covert private corporate warfare for "discrete" jobs (like training the Saudi security forces for the House of Saud or Faud or whatever: the Saudi Royal family), They have been used in the Congo as well as in the drug war. Retired generals, defense intelligence agency types and pentagon retirees with LISTS of mercenaries and civilian soldiers who can go anywhere and do anything for a buck.

THESE are the folks who are using their clout to get one of their own elected in the person of General Clark, He has worked with them. He knows them. He has used them and they may be using him.

Someone needs to ask him about the MPRI.

He won't admit anything (except that perhaps they are great and fine with him, like Kerry and Skull and Bones but Shhhh) BUT this issue MUST be on all our radar.

THIS is why we need DEAN and NOT Clark.

Dean is NOT an entrenched part of the military-industrial complex.

Clark IS!!!!

:kick:

As long as we are dependent on cheap foreign oil, the military industrial complex will aid policy makers in using force to control the supplies.

The EU is taking the opposite tack by taxing petroleum heavily to discourage use, making public transportation attractive, and investing heavily in windmill, solar and other alternative fuels.

You are right. It is the most important issue confronting us and how we deal with it will determine the fate of this country for the next century.

Reactionary forces are dictating the maintenance of the doomed status quo. How the conquest of Iraq turns out may determine whether we continue on this course, or move toward the EU model.

If alternative energies are the key to this, and the MIC is completely opposed to alternative energies because its existence is centered around access to cheap foreign oil, and the MIC controls the policy-makers in the federal government at every level, exactly HOW do you propose that we develop these alternative energies that will bring down the influence of the MIC?

And given the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the country have been conditioned to SUPPORT the MIC, how do you propose we get this through AGAINST their will within a democratic process?

Unfortunately, this is yet another case of putting the cart before the horse -- relying on a POLITICAL solution to a problem that is much more pervasive throughout our entire SOCIETY. No political solution will solve any of these problems unless we induce a paradigm shift on some of the most basic ATTITUDES that are reinforced within our society as a whole.

Note, I'm not disagreeing with you that alternative energies are a part of the eventual solution -- but we need to realize that there are certain shifts that must take place within our society before any sort of massive alternative energy project will ever take hold, especially if it will occur at the expense of the massively influential military-industrial complex.

for like with the USSR it is leading the US economy in the path to
ruin.
When confronted with harsh economic difficulties, americans will be forced
to get their heads out of the sand and confront the MIC.
As simple as that.

It's essentially a gangster state, in which life expectancy has plummetted by 10 years since the fall of the USSR and the vast majority of people now live in poverty and hopelessness.

That's not the kind of future that I want. The question is, what kind of future are you willing to WORK toward? The reason I ask is that it is far from fixed -- it is affected by the most basic actions we all do on a daily basis.

Over the last 3 three years.First they lost over 2.3 Trillion and then 1.3 Trillion. The US GDP is about 10 Trillion.

Now General Clark said on the record that he'd cut Pentagon spending to pay for Health Care. Some Democratic candidates MIGHT be labeled "soft of defense" if they proposed this but at any rate... ALL THEY'D HAVE TO DO IS MENTION THAT 3.6+ TRILLION.

That large an amount of money is not corruption or bad accounting... it's covert activity funding something that our elected representatives haven't voted on. Is it paying for the newest version of Saddam/BinLaden or Missile Defens.

At any rate, that 3.6 Trillion is a gift for the Democratic Candidates provided they actually MEAN to change things.

Iratecitizen mentioned Rabbi Lerner and the Politics of Meaning.

One of the major reasons people voted for Reagan and turned to the Right is because they spoke of "Family Values".

Even though it's empty rhetoric for the GOP, as their policies ADVERSELY effect Family Life, Americans fall for their b.s. becasue only the right talks about Values.

The Left essentially ceded Family Values and its definition to the Right.

And they also bought into the Materialistic View Point. And Materialism goes further than Greed is Good. For many on the Left and this board, Materialism also means bashing those who are Spiritually inclined.

..look behind the Republican nightmare to identify what it was that drew their constituency. I hate the Republican agenda as much as anyone, but I keep reminding myself to get beyond the hate and try to grasp the good ideas that ordinary good people are being swayed by.

Thanks for this great thread. I believe this issue is key to the survival of our democracy.

I think the very first step in breaking this cycle of endless war and military build-up is getting rid of the influence of money in politics. Take a look at how much money the defense industry spends lobbying our elected officials. It is staggering.

This is also the issue that keeps us from Universal Health Care and perscription drug price reform. I thiunk the way to sell this to the American people is to show the cost benefit of reform. The recent Enron/Corporate scandals for example show the correlation between campaign contributions and the lessening of regulations. These scandals hit many of us with pensions, 401ks.

We need a combination of grass roots and a political leader who will drive this point home. I think will all the troubles we are having, campaign finance reform is doable.

My 2 cents...

At least, in the sense, that we are talking about over the next decade rather than over generations.

But I would hardly hope for CFR to just dry up the military-industrial complex overnight. Even if we vastly reduce the amount of money in political campaigns -- a step that will drastically help with issues such as health care, drug law reform, etc. -- most people out there still support the MIC.

It's a valuable step, and doable, judging from the Clean Money, Clean Elections reforms that are now in effect in ME and AZ -- but it is just a step toward the ultimate goal of transforming our society.