In an article published today, Chalmers Johnson, a former professor of Asian Studies and one-time consultant to the CIA, makes a persuasive argument that, "We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire."
The language and concepts that Johnson uses reveal much that is left out of mainstream political debate and conventional news coverage. It is vital for progressives to bring these ideas before the broader public and to speak out for the values that are at risk.
Johnson's article, Empire v. Democracy: Why Nemesis Is at Our Door, outlines why the military commitments of the United States threaten our democracy and why this threat is difficult to avert. The article highlights the themes of a trilogy of Johnson's books related to this subject, which Johnson has just completed.
The first frame that Johnson introduces to make his argument is "blowback," which he referenced in the title of the first of the three books, published in 2000. The concept of blowback, which Johnson defines as "retaliation for illegal operations carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public," is not new, but awareness of blowback became much more widespread after September 11, 2001. What is compelling about Johnson's discussion of blowback is that he provides a narrative showing that blowback defines a cycle. After listing a litany of covert operations, from coups and assassinations to the rigging of elections, Johnson illustrates that blowback is part of a descent into empire:
"The fact that these actions were, at least originally, secret meant that when retaliation does come -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is incapable of putting the events in context. Not surprisingly, then, Americans tend to support speedy acts of revenge intended to punish the actual, or alleged, perpetrators. These moments of lashing out, of course, only prepare the ground for yet another cycle of blowback."
Johnson then turns to what he terms America's "imperial basing policy," which places 737 bases, according to the Pentagon, in over 130 countries worldwide. While U.S. military bases are subject to the assent of government elites of those nations, in many countries, local citizens have "no say in the decision to let us in." Even in nations with close ties to the U.S., such as Japan, the effects of a large concentration of American soldiers and weapons on foreign territory can easily lead to long-simmering conflicts with local citizens, as Johnson observed in Okinawa. It should therefore be no surprise that American military bases in countries without such close relations with the U.S. should breed resentment, especially in undemocratic regimes that deny peaceful means to change government policy or express dissent.
Johnson demonstrates that failures in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the lingering resentments mentioned above caused much of the world to view the U.S. differently after the 2004 election. With the results of that election, Johnson argues, the world had reason to view the American people as having endorsed all the policies of the Bush administration:
"Whether Americans intended it or not, we are now seen around the world as approving the torture of captives at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Bagram Air Base in Kabul, at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and at a global network of secret CIA prisons, as well as having endorsed Bush's claim that, as commander-in-chief in 'wartime,' he is beyond all constraints of the Constitution or international law. We are now saddled with a rigged economy based on record-setting trade and fiscal deficits, the most secretive and intrusive government in our country's memory, and the pursuit of 'preventive' war as a basis for foreign policy. Don't forget as well the potential epidemic of nuclear proliferation as other nations attempt to adjust to and defend themselves against Bush's preventive wars, while our own already staggering nuclear arsenal expands toward first-strike primacy and we expend unimaginable billions on futuristic ideas for warfare in outer space."
Next, Johnson uses a slippery slope frame to argue that it is untenable to be a democracy at home, but maintain an empire abroad. (George Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute explain how slippery slope frames work in "The Art of Arguments," Chapter 8 of the book Thinking Points.) With growing economic dependence on military spending, a state of permanent war, and increasing powers for the executive branch, we are witnessing the erosion of our democracy. While conservatives may reject this use of the slippery slope frame, progressives are likely to accept Johnson's view that allowing such trends to continue may leave the United States a democracy in name only.
Whether this message reaches and is accepted by active biconceptuals -- people who apply progressive values in some parts of their political thinking and conservative values in other parts -- could make all the difference. Reaching biconceptuals on this issue is likely to be challenging because right-wing politicians cast violent incidents, including the consequences of their own failures, in terms that can activate the conservative worldview in biconceptuals.
There is much more worth examining in Johnson's article and no doubt in his upcoming book, Nemesis, as well. As people who value America's progressive and democratic traditions, we have the responsibility to ensure that we express clearly and accurately the great challenge that our nation faces and the values that are at stake. If we do not, others who claim to speak for the center will be content to tinker and compromise while our nation descends into the precipice.
Written by Evan Frisch, an employee of the Rockridge Institute, who blogs as evan_at_rockridge at the Rockridge Nation blog, where this is cross-posted.