More Thoughts on Imperial America

Michael Gersh responded to yesterday's post with the following comment. Now that I've had another day to think about it, my thoughts are crystallizing.

The overthrow of Mossadegh was the first point of entry for the people of the former Persian Empire to enjoy the fruits of modern civilization. Our involvement with the overthrow of Mossadegh was no more and no less than our (and President Carter's) involvement in the overthrow of the Shah - followed by the theocracy of Khomeini and the Ayatollahs - which also lies at our feet.

So, which is better - Eisenhower's support of the modern Iran, or Carter's support of the theocracy? At least the Shah made for a better environment for American interests to make some money. And what if you do not like either version - then you want to isolate the U.S. rather than staying involved in world geopolitics.

Whatever way we go, there will be winners, losers, and unintended consequences. Me, I'll take Eisenhower over Carter any day. And George W. Bush first of all. And, in case anyone wants to label any of this, support for the Shah, and opposition to Saddam, and the use of force to accomplish same, makes me a LIBERAL. Calls for withdrawal and leaving the Iraqi people to their own fate, makes you an isolationist conservative, supporting an imperialist fascist.

So much for labels

Fair enough; that has pretty much been my feeling about it for a long time, too, but the conclusion, I suspect, is based upon the flawed premise that our two options have always been either isolationism or coercive puppetmastering.

If Perkins is telling the truth, then ever since Teddy Roosevelt cited manifest destiny as the justification for the creation of the US-owned "canal zone" in Panama, the US has used economic coercion with the veiled threat of force to pull a dispicable bait and switch on some of the world's neediest people.

The bait is, on the one hand, the promise of prosperity for the general population of our "new ally" (the stated benefit), and on the other hand, great riches for the leaders (the real benefit, the one that matters most). The switch is the fact that only the latter comes true. Indeed, it usually turns out that, though the country's leaders do become quite wealthy and surrounded in the latest western comforts, the crushing debt that accumulates due to the massive loans from the World Bank and IMF (which are heavily, if not solely, influenced by the American government) are too much for the national economy to absorb. The result is the diseappearance of the middle class,which pretty much spells doom for any population. How does this work, you ask?

These poor people are simply being conned into buying more of "the good life" than they can afford. The wealthy Americans show up and convince the leaders that the solution to their problems is modernization. Once the country gets a modern infrastructure, including widespread (and I mean widespread) power distribution, roads, sewage and garbage management, telecommunications, and on and on, the pieces will be in place for the economy to really take off! Don't have the cash? No problem. Fucking finance it!

Because we're such nice folks, we offer to put together detailed plans for the build-out, and then offer to procure the loans from the "international" finance organizations, the ones we control. All we ask is that the plan be implemented by American engineering and constructions companies. (After all, who else can do such amazingly complex projects?) If that weren't enough gall, we then inflate the expected benefits of the modernization project, so as to inflate the size of the project, thus inflating the size of the loans.

There are two great benefits to this little gem of a plan. First, we (I mean a select few US corporations) get to do the biggest, most technologically advanced engineering projects in the world - any fix-it kid's dream - at a price that staggers the mind. Second, the enormous size of the loans all but ensures that they can't be repaid. This makes the leaders who signed up for them beholden to the good ole USA, and who doesn't like to have folks beholden to them?

As a simplistic metaphor, we get our patsies fired up about the idea of buying a basic boat (making life easier and more productive), but we end up selling them a cruise ship. They qualify for the loan because we know the guy at the bank, and we know that he'll take a pretty (and lengthy) report saying that the cruise industry is waiting to explode. Then, in what would seem to be a sign of things to come, we construct a walled compound complete with every luxury for the benefit of the ship builders. The patsies must be salivating at the glimpse of the kinds of prosperity they'll soon be enjoying when the cruise ship is done. Alas, this is not the case. Instead, the new "owners" are forced to operate the cruise ship on a shoestring budget - the payments on the ship are way beyond what they can handle. They default on the loan, but the guy at the bank doesn't care - as he has close ties to the US government which sees it as an investment. Our patsy is officially trapped. If he tries to resist our influences, we send our repo guys, and they don't play. And, to cap it all off, the ship builders, enjoying their new paradise, stay on in their walled compound area while the masses decline. This is pretty much how Panama went down. (Again, if we can believe John Perkins.) This, to me, is NOT the American way.

We are not about conning people. Our system doesn't require it in any way. As I said, the free market is about voluntary trade. People who knowingly con people are technically operating within their rights, but like lots of other "legal" behaviors, their behavior is frowned upon. People who take advantage of other people are generally driven out of the marketplace, or they are relegated to the gutters, where desperate folks will occasionally fall prey to their grift at a lower price. But here we are, the greatest country on the planet, going around like the worst kind of con man - taking the savings of little old ladies. It's fucking terrible!

Now, I know the value of hindsight, and I know that cultural concepts such as manifest destiny were once powerful rationalizations for wholly unacceptable behavior. But we are now enlightened enough to know what's right and what isn't when it comes to dealing with other countries. We know that imperialism is not justified on any grounds. Were this not true, you can bet we'd be overtly pursuing an imperialist agenda - there's still good money in it. The problem is that this sordid history (and whatever its modern day equivalents may be) brings with it serious collateral damage - it sullies the good reputation of the rule of law combined with a free market.

It seems that just as a handful of human wackjobs have co-opted Islam to justify their murderous behavior, so have a handful of greedy soulless pirates co-opted American ideals for their own shortsighted and lecherous behavior. As I said earlier, I think the premise that we either influence heavily in international affairs or we isolate ourselves is flawed. It's just a matter of being clear about how we go about exercising our influence.

As I said before, the American system is not about the conjob. If we decide to assist a less developed country, we do it like a good business would do it - we come up a phased plan that eases them into things, being careful to make sure that the cost of the solution never outweighs the benefits. We set milestones to determine when we proceed from phase to phase. And just like a legitimate bank, we don't make loans that we think won't be repaid. In short, we operate in good faith, only selling what the buyer really wants. This is how above board, respectible business is done, and it's high time we took another step forward in the advancement of our species.

I recognize that this is how deals are done between modern countries and less developed countries these days - globalization, I think they call it. There's no question that we'll lose a great deal competitively-speaking in the world marketplace if we reject the conjob as a revenue stream. However, just as we were the first country in history to reject slavery on ethical grounds (even though it was the human capital basis of much of the US economy), it is now time to be the first wealthy nation to reject the vieled exploitation of less developed countries.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not about to say that doing this would end our PR problems in this world, that suddenly the America-haters around the world would embrace us. The fact is that whenever some humans have a lot and some humans have very little, there will always be animocity on the part of the latter toward the former. This is not some Clintonesque attempt at garnering popularity. I know that we'll never get a fair shake with everyone. What I will say is that we'll be in a much more credible position to influence foreign affairs in the interests of our security than we are today. Just imagine.

Imagine if our next president stood up on the world's stage and admitted that we have engaged for decades in a covert, but pernicious form of imperialism all over the world. That though we have in the past convinced ourselves that we were righteous in our actions because we believed that the prosperity afforded our people was something that all people should have, the fact is that we were often coercing more than helping. That we're sincerely sorry for the trouble that has been caused by the out-of-control greed of a few powerful people. Imagine if the president proclaimed that we have cleaned house, that these practices are not the American way and that they will no longer be tolerated by representatives of this country. This would instantly take the wind out of a multitude of our enemies' sails. We could reclaim the moral high ground - our system, when run ethically, is better than any other. It does offer the best hope for mankind. We just have to have the courage to publically reject corrupted capitalism. It's the only way.

I know I'm dreaming now. I know this is so far from the realm of the possible that it's almost childish to ponder it. It would take nothing short of a complete replacement of our government. But however implausible the right thing may be, there's still some value in pursuing it. It pains me to be disillusioned so, and so late into my political investigations - it's not like I just started studying politics, economics, history, and philosophy. To wake up and realize that things are much worse than I ever knew is tough, and for a guy like me, the only way to cope is to search for solutions. There has to be a way out of this. I mean it's nothing more than an international extension of the same plague we face domestically - the rule of the corrupt. But we're America.

Keep in mind that the American colonists in the mid-1700s were enjoying a quality of life that far exceeded that of much of Europe, but that wasn't good enough for them. Yes, they were prosperous, but they were under the yoke of the unjust, and that was simply unacceptable. They risked their comfort and their lives for the ideal that became the USA. I wonder if there are any more people like that in this country today. If so, this can be fixed. If not, pack your shit folks. It's gonna get uglier.