Have US citizens really voted for change?
Recently I watched a documentary entitled "Why We Fight". It was well made, demonstrating competently how the prescient warnings of President Eisenhower against corporate interests having too much influence in matters of war have not been heeded. However, in light of recent elections, I feel compelled to comment regarding part of the film's message.
The filmmakers seemed to conclude that the current state of affairs in the US (where corporate interests have taken us into war) has come about due to lack of vigilance on the part of US citizens. My more cynical observation is, however, that the vast US middle class is well aware that corporate interests direct all aspects of American life and they're perfectly fine with that.
The truth is that Americans today are enmeshed in corporate culture. Citizens are indoctrinated into the cult of capitalism from infancy. The value of any political system is determined not by a quotient of justice or human empowerment but by its economic model. Our philosophies never challenge the assumption that only selfish motives exist. Look inside any sizable workplace and you'll find employees throwing stones at greedy, disconnected executive management while admitting they'd do precisely what the executives do if they were in the same position. It's a hallmark of our sprawling middle class that they resent the rich because they want to BE them.
A polarized electorate obscures the facts somewhat, but it's important not to confuse those who oppose the Bush doctrine on American security with those who merely oppose Bush. I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the people from the last presidential election who voted against Bush based on party or personality, rather than on principle, that Bush would have won by a landslide. The true opposition of corporate imperialism is vastly outnumbered in the US.
While it's true that the US Constitution envisions a government that functions above the vagaries of commerce, nearly all governments ever founded in world history were done so under the same motivations that lead one to start a business. Like businesses, most governments have served to help their founders accumulate wealth and power. While in its inception the US sought, by its most fundamental articles, to buck this overwhelming historical trend, all governments attract political opportunists just like all businesses attract financial opportunists. So in spite of what might have been the US Founders' best intentions the US has never, to this day, functioned according to its principles but, rather, according to its material interests. It isn't a new development since Ike's day. Why did President George Washington during his farewell address warn of the dangers of the US establishing standing armies in foreign countries? Was he just being philosophical? Or could he see, even in his time, that the Constitution was failing to quell the human tendency toward imperialism?
In the end, corporate imperialism is what the majority of Americans really want. They comfort themselves in thinking it makes the world better by spreading "free trade" which they equate completely with "liberty". They believe it makes them richer. They believe it makes them safer. America today is exactly the way Americans have voted it to be.
Thus the film's comparisons of the US to the Roman Empire are apt, but not particularly insightful or surprising. It should be clear to everyone by now that Rome never actually fell. It just did a little offshore outsourcing.
Make no mistake, though. I'm not suggesting that the Constitution has failed Americans. I'm saying that Americans have consistently failed the Constitution, and along with it Native North Americans, African slaves, Constitution-defending US military personnel, and ultimately the entire world with an ill-conceived "War on Terror".
Ironically, though, this revelation should give us hope. Our Constitution is still able to guide us to better things. But will it? The answer can only be determined by the people.
Not the politicians.
Re: a small bone of contention
Point well made and well taken. Please allow me to clarify my statement.
I'm certain that for a person who votes on principle, issues of party and personality also play a part. However, by drawing my oversimplified distinction I was suggesting that it's possible for a person to vote on the basis of party or personality without regard to principle. In my observation, this is a very common practice.
So while I'll agree with you that "party/personality vs. principle" is a false dichotomy, it is one that emerges in practice as a significant number of voters ignore the issues because they're "just going to vote a straight ticket anyway" or allow their choices to be based on appearances and/or swayed by slanted political ads.
All of that said... thank you so much for your thoughtful comment! ![]()

delicious
digg
a small bone of contention
... in otherwise complete agreement.
You said: I'm willing to bet that if you take out all the people from the last presidential election who voted against Bush based on party or personality, rather than on principle, that Bush would have won by a landslide.
I would contend that party vs. principle is a false dichotomy, and perhaps even personality vs. principle as well.
How can one separate a politician's principles from her party affiliation or personality? Of course there is never a one to one to one correspondence among those characteristics. Yet studies done by personality psychologists have shown that certain personality types tend to correlate with certain political beliefs (Google authoritarian personality and conservative politics). As for party affiliation, does not a declaration of party serve the distinct purpose of aligning the declarer with a(n admittedly broad) political movement and thus a set of political principles? Votes based solely on the party affiliation or perceived personality of a politician may appear to be simplistic, but I don't believe they can be automatically excluded from the category of anti-imperialist votes precisely because a politician's declared party and her personality may well be good, if not perfect, indicators of her imperialistic tendencies.Nevertheless, I still think you are right in that Americans are, by and large, in love with corporate imperialism.