JanD03 februari 2009 – 13:50

Let’s not forget that only 200 years ago John Brown was strung up for being an abolitionist and - more amazingly - that 50 years ago there was still secession on the basis of race in the “united” States. In the last 200 years the United States have built a reputation of being interventionist and imperialist. They mainly thank this reputation due to the role of “policeman of the world” that was forced upon them after the 2nd World War. The term “policeman” itself testifies of the view that foreigners have of Americans in general. A more positive terminology would be “firefighter of the world”, but can one blame anyone for making the “policeman”-allusion? Let’s hope that the Obama administration is up to the major task of changing the image of the strongest state of the planet. If not, the masses that are now so vividly supporting Obama could see their illusions in a political change of their situation scattered.

Diplomacy
Some presidential administrations were not very diplomatic in their approach of foreign matters, to say the least. Especially, In 1979 during the Iran hostage crisis Jimmy Carter showed exactly what not to do. The Democrats have always been skilled in applying the wrong kind of tactics in their foreign politics. In fact, Democrats have such a tradition of applying incorrect tactics in their foreign policy that even many Republicans now think that this is the correct way forward. Japan’s Prince Yamagata said in 1916: “A strong emperor is the most essential factor for the regeneration of China and to enable her to surpass Japan. Consequently, Japan does not want a strong emperor in China. Still less does Japan desire a successful republic in this country. What Japan wants is a feeble and powerless China. A weak China under a weak emperor under the influence of Japan would be ideal.” Democrats stand for weak, pacifist, left-wing governments and thus for “unsuccessful republics”. In a global and competition-driven free market you may as well collaborate with one of the other major economical blocks (China, Russia, Japan, Europe, Middle East). This does not necessarily mean that the US should constantly wage war or intervene in other country’s affairs. In business a good manager knows how to delegate and to compete, but knowing how to ally and to lead is more important. The most important fundament of diplomacy is the skill to avoid making enemies and conflicts. The United States have lost this skill to a certain extent in the post-war bipolar world and a situation of cold war with the Soviet Union. Since 1989 this has gradually changed and today capitalism dominates the planet and communism is as good as exterminated. Even though capitalism and the free market-system have never been stronger, capitalist theoreticians have problems adapting to this new objective situation. President Bush’s policies were met with adversity both at home and abroad.

Damages
Under the Bush administration the American euphoria of the beginning of the nineties – when communism received a major blow – ebbed away silently. The attack on the World Trade Center may have hurt the American ego, but this covers only part of the blame. The 2nd Gulf War did not improve the situation. A short and extremely victorious war would have polished up the image quickly. By waging a “never-ending” war in Iraq the USA is doing even further – after Vietnam - damage to its blemished star-spangled banner. It is high time to iron the creases out of their blazon if they do not want to walk the road of Rome. Machiavelli knew five hundred years ago that one should use violence as briefly as possible whilst conquering a territory. A long war is against common sense and technically not defendable. It is a false assumption that a war machine could be the engine of the US economy over an extended period even when we include the advantages of controlling the Iraqi oil fields.

Worse even: today, by many foreigners the USA is seen as public enemy number one. And instead of having used the external enemy to divert attention from their internal problems, they have chased layers of foreign and American Muslims into the camp of Muslim fundamentalism. Instead of having made a step forward, they have been forced to retreat. Now is not a time to make war with an insignificant country like Iraq, no matter how much oil they have. Now, the US would want to strengthen their own forces. Again, Machiavel knew 5 centuries ago that when you annex a territory you do not start where you expect most opposition. He made the comparison with a plate of soup. You don’t start to eat soup in the middle of the plate where the soup is hottest, but you start on the side of the plate.

Machiavel would most definitely have agreed that if a ruler is not carried on the hands by his own people then something is wrong. A good ruler doe not 50 or 60% of the vote, but 90 or 95%. One could think that if the US would mainly focus on the internal kitchen that the would loose status and power abroad. On the contrary: they will win allies, their companies will be able to close deals faster and foreign workers working for American companies will be a lot more motivated. Politics is a lot like playing chess and Europeans ‘see the lines’ differently. An impetus of European methods into American politics can have a positive influence. After all, Europeans have been dealing with politics since the ancient Greek Empire. The American ‘rookie’ politician should learn from his European colleague how to ‘play chess’.

New Political Culture
Political transparency is the general key to good government. Politics are never neutral, but the 1st Article of the Constitution says: “we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.” If Bush would have lived up more to the contents of that very article his policies would have been far more popular. For example, if the Republicans would need to choose between the oil-lobby and Greenpeace, their first instinct would say oil-lobby. This does not necessarily need to be like this. They could as well ask Greenpeace to come up with a viable and economically feasible alternative that would also be acceptable for the oil-lobby. Good internal diplomacy is even of more importance than foreign diplomacy. Openness and sincerity can gain more votes, because of the surprise effect that it would have on the American voter (sic). Trying to actually reach the goals of the 1st Article of the Constitution would be new for Republicans, but the Democrats could certainly use a bit more idealism as well. A new political culture that looks for solutions will do America a lot of good. The Democrats won’t exactly (need to) become hippie or communist, but having a glance at the backside of the medal can sometimes solve a problem before it arises.

Past Policy
The role of policeman of the world has pushed the US foreign administration to act along a very well outlined pattern: diverting attention from their “internal enemy” (the poor working class in the American inner-city ghettos) to an artificially created new1 “external enemy” (Arab terrorism). This fear of an internal revolution has been the predominant motivation for the policy. And the danger for revolution is very realistic. It would be incorrect for right-wing tacticians not to study the left wing’s classics and analyses. Actually, in economical prognoses some left-wingers are batting homeruns whilst capitalist theoreticians only hit hot air. One of the foundations of Marxism is that capitalism intrinsically provokes revolutions, because it goes into crisis over and over again. Marxists blame “competition” for the development of crises. In capitalism to make more profit one needs to produce cheaper than the opponent. If one follows the laws of offer and demand, the only way to do so is by producing a larger amount. This can easily lead to overproduction what in its turn can lead to an overproduction capacity crisis. At the beginning of the nineties car manufacturer Renault moved huge parts of its Belgian and French plants to Russia because of this. Their main plant just outside of Paris at Bois de Boulogne was producing at maximum 20% of its capacity at that moment. This is not uncommon in the automobile industry due to the high level of competition, so the given example is very valid. Thus, the regular occurrence of crises makes the capitalist system volatile. A volatile system with high unemployment makes the workers insecure about their future. Sooner or later the masses are bound to come into motion. Lenin and Trotsky – the leaders of the Russian communist revolution - explained in their propaganda that it is therefore fundamental for communists to patiently build their parties and gain the confidence of the vanguard of the working class, even over a long period of time. Eventually, when revolutions take place, communists grab power.

The paranoia of the Cold War - in which secret underground CIA-directed European anti-communist operations like Cosmos made up big conspiracy theories of communist revolution – strengthened the - now generally accepted - illusion that revolutions can not take place without communists. The French Revolution was a capitalist one, the revolution in 1979 in Iran was religious and the revolutions in Eastern Europe and Russia at the beginning of the nineties were even anti-communist. Che Guevara himself said: “I’m not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. It’s the peoples who liberate themselves.” Mainly, this means that in a class society there is a constant threat of revolutions whether communists or revolutionaries are present or not. The more insecurity for the workers, the more volatile their existence, the bigger the threat. This insecurity can differ from revolution to revolution. In Eastern Europe in 1990 the revolutionaries were well fed, had a Skoda car, a steady job and a family apartment. With the benefits of communism gone and capitalism in crisis, the working class of Eastern Europe and Russia will be the first to experience a major loss of income.

Alternative policy
Maybe, the American government did create an artificial enemy or maybe they did not, but that is not a very relevant issue. Relevant is: if there is an “external enemy”, then that gave the establishment time to make peace with the “internal enemy”. How did they do on that level? Otherwise said: did the social situation of the American working class improve during the nineties and the beginning of the new millenium whilst attention was diverted towards the Arab danger? If a country is inapt to house people properly after a natural catastrophe with 150,000 soldiers abroad, something is seriously wrong. They could have invested this kind of manpower to rebuild housing. And – unwilling to learn from their mistakes as usual – already a new external enemy is queuing up: the Chinese yellow danger. The “rulers of the world” flunked the test! The search for an alternative policy is imminent. If there is reason for anxiety over a threatening revolution there are three pragmatic ways to react to this phenomenon: one could keep the stick of repression behind the door, one could try to prevent the occurrence of crises or one could opt for a New Deal to improve the living conditions of the American citizen.

The stick-behind-the-door-policy is America’s contemporary policy. An isolated use of the first option testifies of shortsightedness and could lead to a wave of more powerful revolutions, cfr. the effect that the “Winter Palace” had on the Russian revolution.
The second method: preventing crises in a global market requires the goodwill of a large majority of the rich to agree on prices and tariffs. The role of GATT is largely underestimated. In a monopoly there is no competition and thus no risk for overproduction capacity crises. That was the major advantage of the Soviet Union’s planned economy: it was one huge monopoly. In those sectors where monopoly is nearly accomplished the government should encourage it. Takeovers, fusions and mergers are progressive measures to prevent capitalist crises. Where the market is split between a number of large domestic opponents, cfr. Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola, the government could negotiate between them to set up gentleman’s agreements against price fluctuations and “naked” domestic competition.

The third option is a tested method. Even the Roman Senate knew that the key to their success lay in their popularity with the plebeians of Rome. And even though today we live in a global economy, in a period of crisis a capitalist will always fall back on his own national state. If a multinational company would go bankrupt it would close all of its premises and offices abroad first, before it closes anything back home.
America should be a strong economical fortress, before other territories can be conquered. If America is not, the economical advantages of imperialism are being undermined. It’s like mopping a flooded floor with the tap wide open. Combined with a New Deal in the US and its satellite states this may relief the feeling of insecurity among many workers and the rise in American working class purchasing power could very well be the motor that pulls the global economy back into motion.

Foreign Policy
Under present-day capitalism waging wars is a direct consequence of a failed trade conflict or a neo-colonial strategy. There is no reason whatsoever for the US to wage wars or conquer territories. If a territory should be annexed or subjugated, then that territory should be Canada (or even Mexico and Central America). After the fall of the Berlin wall we saw what can happen if one forgets to completely annex its satellite states. The chance that, with support of the Canadian government, the majority of Canadians would vote for a unified Northern American Union in a referendum is far greater than that one Iraqi rebel will become docile and pro-American. The psychological impact that such a Union would have on the world economy would be far greater than any war. The GDP would be expanded from 11 to 12 trillion US$. The surface of the country would more than double and the additional 25 million inhabitants (if Quebec were to be given sovereignty) speak the language as a mother tongue and grew up in the same culture. Secession has not occurred very often in history, but the loss of protectorates is extremely common. T

he Canadian economy is highly intertwined with the American one and the British influence has degraded. Today, 85% of Canadian exports goes to the USA! That is almost like a domestic market. (The same goes for Mexico who depend on the US for 87.6% of their exports). There is even one common telephone system, but Canadians and Americans refuse to recognize that they are one nation! The sole frontier between Canada and the USA is a psychological one. Economically it is one country. All that needs to be done is to formalize the Union, something that should have been done 250 years ago at Albany, when 25 delegates met to consider a “union or confederation”. Sir Robert Falconer, former President of the University of Toronto said back in 1925: “Americans of Anglo-Saxon origin and English- speaking Canadians are more alike than any other separate peoples. Not even among the associated nations of the British Commonwealth does there exist such a substantial community of ideals and manners.” This has only increased. As for Mexico, the necessary should be done to reassure that the country’s education, language and living standards are brought up to level, so that they would be able to join the Union at a later stage. Expansion is always beneficially to a country – even marxists agree on that. Professor Coolidge said in 1908: “It is a fact of the present that the drawing together of Great Britain and Canada is in no sense to the benefit of the United States.” The contrary would also be true: the drawing together of the US, Canada and Mexico would be in no sense to the benefit of their competitors, would it not be for globalization. Hesitation in that matter is in everyone’s disadvantage.

In the meanwhile the main competitors overseas - in the first place Europe - have gathered their ‘troops’. The European Union’s territory has grown, it should now also be seen as a military power thanks to the military impettus from Eastern Europe and it is slowly but very steadily centralizing its structures. China is crawling out of the third world into a competitive role on a world scale.
The Russian bear has licked its wounds and is fiercer than ever before and in comparison to those of the US, Russia’s wars are brief and victorious. Japan is helping China to rise up from the third world and China is helping Japan with cheap labour.
In this light, the annexation of Mexico seems to make a lot of sense. Even if it was only to rejuvenate the population of the US. Mexico has a young population and does not need to deal with the “career-effect”, the surflux from blue-collar to white-collar workers in welfare states. The Fox administration - as a priority– should balance the trade deficit, but it is equally important to introduce mandatory English as a second language. And if Barack Obama would want to realize his ambitions to be the first president of the whole world he will need to unite the Americas first.

Economy
Capitalists’ worst fear has now come true: a crisis of the global economy in a period of war in which they expected growth. Let’s face it, if the economy does not grow through the financial injections from a war apparatus, then when will it grow? War in the Gulf may have shown that the US will retaliate when under attack, but it still leaves them with a huge vacuum. On the one hand the clock for communism has been turned back to 1900, whilst on the other capitalists do not have any idea of how to run the planet nor how to improve general living conditions drastically. The best example of this is the fact that the most powerful country on the planet, the United States of America, did not make use of this new, unipolar world-situation to pull the economical tablecloth more its way. The pie is still in the middle of the table and the US economy is like an old lady instead of the young energetic woman that she should be. Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry and co seem very loyal to their Irish roots, but a lot less loyal to the United States. Thanks to US investments the Celtic tiger did very well under Clinton, but the American taxpayer was left unemployed. Why did the American government not come up with tax-amnesty counter-measures under Bush?

In the eighties, under Reagan, Francis Fukuyama called American society the pinnacle of human development. Twenty years later there are still homeless people starving on the streets in America’s major cities. In New York alone there are 8,000 homeless families of which 14,000 are children. The pinnacle looks more like a debacle. Republicans are good at pep-talking other republicans, but the danger of this rhetoric is that they sometimes believe some of their own tactical white lies or exaggerations. They are very transparent for the electorate. The priority of the American Republican Party lies in the interest of the American people. For some Republicans the priority lies in the interest of the American rich people. But the rich American’s interest – strange as it may seem – is pretty similar to that of the American people in general: a stable and prosperous America with a well-nourished and healthy working class. Happy domestic workers are good for productivity and for consumption. They are the engine of economical growth in the first place.

A new deal
A new era is demanding new methods. A modern capitalist state should have ultra-modern facilities for its workers. Free health care and free public transport for example are not socialist measures. Not only do they improve the workers’ living conditions, but they are also services to the employers. In this case unraveling traffic jams saves them a lot of time and health services provide them with healthy human resources and better transportation for both workers and goods. Many countries in Northern Europe provide these services to their workers. Better facilities for US workers would also put pressure on their competitors. The revolutions in Eastern Europe took place because the Eastern European workers peeked over the Iron Curtain and got tempted. America should have the best fed, best dressed, best housed and best entertained working class in the world. Warfare does not necessarily need to be physical. Psychological warfare can be much more effective.

One of the major problems that the current administration is facing, is the decreasing social security-reserve and the failing pension system. According to president Bush the social security-reserve will be empty in 10 years time at the current pace. Although the matter is certainly worthwhile looking into, in essence this will prove to be a self-regulating mechanism. The US competitors struggle with the exact same problem. China has major demographic problems with an immense population and a very small GDP per capita. The American GDP per capita is 8 times higher. Europe has a state-owned pension system that only recently began to move in the direction of private pension funds. “Europe’s pension is what social security in the United States will become when the Baby Boomers start retiring in a few years”, Grover Norquist, President of Americans for tax reform claimed back in 2003. And Japan has been struggling with both demography and pension-system for decades. So, if competitors need to find extra funds for social security and pensions this has an impact on their economy. Pension reserves do not come out of thin air.

The idea to have mandatory “private” pension accounts taxed directly on the wages seems to be an excellent system to “secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity” for what concerns pensions and social security. Naturally, employers will need to make their contribution to this system as well. As previously mentioned: if America is the leading state should not US workers have the best living conditions on the planet?

If Obama says that he wants to create 4 million jobs that means that there is massive unemployment, otherwise he would not mention it. Yet, at the same time companies are closing worldwide due to the present credit crisis. What seems to be a very easy mechanism is still very hard to learn for capitalists: good wages give more purchasing power, more purchasing power gives more demand, more demand, gives more offer, more offer gives more production, more production gives more jobs, thus good wages give more jobs. How hard can it be to understand? The problem is not with the working class, the problem is with the rich. The challenges for Obama are huge and the major challenge he faces is to restore the faith of the rich in the economy internally and be extremely careful on the foreign front. More than for any American president before him it is true that he will need to “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” Give the man some slippers and a tooth-pick!

Footnotes:

1.As opposed to the old external enemy, the Soviet Union.