Know your enemy
June 8, 2011 5:50 AM Subscribe
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 17 January 1961
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
posted by exogenous at 6:08 AM on June 8, 2011 [6 favorites]
From the comments on that post:
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” - Frederic Bastiat
posted by briank at 6:18 AM on June 8, 2011 [9 favorites]
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” - Frederic Bastiat
posted by briank at 6:18 AM on June 8, 2011 [9 favorites]
Oshkosh? Wow.
Noooo. It's the other Oshkosh.
posted by nickyskye at 6:20 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Noooo. It's the other Oshkosh.
posted by nickyskye at 6:20 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
I would say that in a lot of instances, sharing a lobbying company reflects the fact that many complex military products have input from multiple suppliers (i.e. Boeing make and maintain the AH-64 Apache fleet, they share lobbying with Raytheon who in turn make and maintain the AGM-114 Hellfire missile which is used by the AH-64 - both companies work together to ensure those delicious contracts keep rolling on in).
I still enjoy Godspeed You! Black Emperor's Yanqui UXO album cover which relates record companies to the military-industrial-entertainment complex. The world is terrifically complex and tracking corporate relations is as byzantine as some folks' facebook relationships so it is handy to discover this incestual relationship laid out so clearly.
posted by longbaugh at 6:28 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
I still enjoy Godspeed You! Black Emperor's Yanqui UXO album cover which relates record companies to the military-industrial-entertainment complex. The world is terrifically complex and tracking corporate relations is as byzantine as some folks' facebook relationships so it is handy to discover this incestual relationship laid out so clearly.
posted by longbaugh at 6:28 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
Google Cache Link of the article from the FPP, as the website linked seems to be down at the moment.
posted by hippybear at 6:44 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by hippybear at 6:44 AM on June 8, 2011
From the OP website: "Tightly connected. Massively funded. Working for war. This is what the peace movements are up against." Yes, it's a revoltng truth that. When malignants gather together, I call it an Abuse Support System, ASS for short.
This is the head of the number one lobbying group, Etherton,used by 6 of the arms suppliers. Any nation at this time in history needs arms, realistically speaking. But the lobbying part seems to add an evil component to the story because it, apparently, creates a need for the weapons, which means creating war.
Etherton has over 25 years of experience working in and with Congress and the Executive Branch on national security funding and policy issues.
And then the evil gets deeper: President-elect Barack Obama appointed a defense contractor's lobbyist yesterday to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, acknowledging that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length.
OMG: This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management. | Allowing Lynn to take over the No. 2 spot at the Pentagon invites conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. The deputy secretary of defense is the department’s chief operating officer – which includes overseeing acquisitions. If he gets the job, he’ll pretty much have to do business with Raytheon.
The question that comes to my mind is that, after the lobbying has succeeded, the billions of dollars of weapons having been procured, the US government then would need a war to put the new gadgets to use and who decides which country - or countries- will be the recipient of the deaths and destruction that these weapons create?
posted by nickyskye at 6:45 AM on June 8, 2011 [6 favorites]
This is the head of the number one lobbying group, Etherton,used by 6 of the arms suppliers. Any nation at this time in history needs arms, realistically speaking. But the lobbying part seems to add an evil component to the story because it, apparently, creates a need for the weapons, which means creating war.
Etherton has over 25 years of experience working in and with Congress and the Executive Branch on national security funding and policy issues.
And then the evil gets deeper: President-elect Barack Obama appointed a defense contractor's lobbyist yesterday to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, acknowledging that his choice appeared to break with his self-imposed rules to keep lobbyists at arm's length.
OMG: This year President Barack Obama is putting Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist in charge of the Pentagon's day-to-day management. | Allowing Lynn to take over the No. 2 spot at the Pentagon invites conflicts of interest, both real and perceived. The deputy secretary of defense is the department’s chief operating officer – which includes overseeing acquisitions. If he gets the job, he’ll pretty much have to do business with Raytheon.
The question that comes to my mind is that, after the lobbying has succeeded, the billions of dollars of weapons having been procured, the US government then would need a war to put the new gadgets to use and who decides which country - or countries- will be the recipient of the deaths and destruction that these weapons create?
posted by nickyskye at 6:45 AM on June 8, 2011 [6 favorites]
Speaking of dirty money, former senator Evan "Revolving Door" Bayh is gobbling down lobbying cash, after sanctimoniously decrying Washington culture.
It's graft all the way down.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on June 8, 2011 [3 favorites]
It's graft all the way down.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:01 AM on June 8, 2011 [3 favorites]
Two words: economic stimulus.
Every single dollar spent "working for war" found its way into a consumer's pocket. Lockheed Martin employs 133,000 people, and a boatload of them are engineers making above-average wages. If Keynes is right--and I'm not saying that he is, but he's certainly used to justify government stimulus of the economy--this is great: doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends it.
Even more than that, the military-industrial complex is largely responsible for the growth and expansion of the American university system. The biggest source of hard science funding from the end of WWII until the mid-1980s was the Department of Defense, and most of it went straight into university budgets. Money being fungible, this enabled universities to invest in and expand other departments, i.e. the humanities and social sciences, because DoD R&D funding freed up endowment and donation monies that would otherwise have been needed for hard science and engineering departments. And remember how university tuition has skyrocketed for the past few decades? That trend started almost exactly when the DoD started tapering off its R&D and has accelerated as such cuts have accelerated. Funding had to be made up somewheres.
So yes, there's an argument to be made that all this "spending on war" is not optimal, though really, before 2001 we weren't actually doing all that much with it other than keeping congrescritters' constituents happy and employed. It's kind of strange when you think about it: the largest, best-funded, and best-equipped military force in world history has, by historical standards, sat remarkably idle since WWII. The full resources of the US military have really only been tested three times since 1945, if that. It's a testimony to something that we haven't annexed both Mexico and Canada, since it's entirely within our power to do so, and until the twentieth century, most other nations faced with such an opportunity would have at least tried.
There's also an argument to be made that spending it on something else would have been better for society, though again, a lot of that "spending on war" was really spending on education and what amounts to glorified ditch-digging programs. We've spent $65 billion on the F-22, a weapon that has never seen combat. If that isn't a ditch-digging project, I don't know what is.
But let's not kid ourselves that we haven't benefited from this (because we have), or do a disservice to the argument by pretending that this is an uncomplicated issue (because it isn't). The better argument is not that this has all been a waste of money, but that spending it in other ways would have benefited us more. Speaking more concretely, the argument is that direct funding of education and jobs programs would have been better than indirectly funding them through defense spending. Which is a subtler position not as amenable to sensational rhetoric.
posted by valkyryn at 7:21 AM on June 8, 2011 [12 favorites]
Every single dollar spent "working for war" found its way into a consumer's pocket. Lockheed Martin employs 133,000 people, and a boatload of them are engineers making above-average wages. If Keynes is right--and I'm not saying that he is, but he's certainly used to justify government stimulus of the economy--this is great: doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends it.
Even more than that, the military-industrial complex is largely responsible for the growth and expansion of the American university system. The biggest source of hard science funding from the end of WWII until the mid-1980s was the Department of Defense, and most of it went straight into university budgets. Money being fungible, this enabled universities to invest in and expand other departments, i.e. the humanities and social sciences, because DoD R&D funding freed up endowment and donation monies that would otherwise have been needed for hard science and engineering departments. And remember how university tuition has skyrocketed for the past few decades? That trend started almost exactly when the DoD started tapering off its R&D and has accelerated as such cuts have accelerated. Funding had to be made up somewheres.
So yes, there's an argument to be made that all this "spending on war" is not optimal, though really, before 2001 we weren't actually doing all that much with it other than keeping congrescritters' constituents happy and employed. It's kind of strange when you think about it: the largest, best-funded, and best-equipped military force in world history has, by historical standards, sat remarkably idle since WWII. The full resources of the US military have really only been tested three times since 1945, if that. It's a testimony to something that we haven't annexed both Mexico and Canada, since it's entirely within our power to do so, and until the twentieth century, most other nations faced with such an opportunity would have at least tried.
There's also an argument to be made that spending it on something else would have been better for society, though again, a lot of that "spending on war" was really spending on education and what amounts to glorified ditch-digging programs. We've spent $65 billion on the F-22, a weapon that has never seen combat. If that isn't a ditch-digging project, I don't know what is.
But let's not kid ourselves that we haven't benefited from this (because we have), or do a disservice to the argument by pretending that this is an uncomplicated issue (because it isn't). The better argument is not that this has all been a waste of money, but that spending it in other ways would have benefited us more. Speaking more concretely, the argument is that direct funding of education and jobs programs would have been better than indirectly funding them through defense spending. Which is a subtler position not as amenable to sensational rhetoric.
posted by valkyryn at 7:21 AM on June 8, 2011 [12 favorites]
It's kind of strange when you think about it: the largest, best-funded, and best-equipped military force in world history has, by historical standards, sat remarkably idle since WWII.
What? Not idle since 1945, at all, including The Korean War, The Viet Nam War, The Gulf War, The Invasion of Iraq and The Invasion of Afghanistan.
posted by nickyskye at 7:32 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
What? Not idle since 1945, at all, including The Korean War, The Viet Nam War, The Gulf War, The Invasion of Iraq and The Invasion of Afghanistan.
posted by nickyskye at 7:32 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? Only, this one can be kept secret. Controlled by Americans, built by the Japanese subcontractors. Who, also, happen to be, recently acquired, wholly-owned subsidiaries...
Ellie Arroway: ... of Hadden industries.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:43 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
Ellie Arroway: ... of Hadden industries.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:43 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
Don't forget Grenada and Panama, not to mention all the military bases which are scattered all over the world. Whenever we finish a war, we don't leave, we keep troops there indefinitely.
posted by hippybear at 7:45 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by hippybear at 7:45 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
"Doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends it."
If this is true then why the hell spend it on war machines? I realize that graft and influence buying are never going to go away. That's the nature of politics and capitalism. But if we must have an industrial complex running Washington, why can't it be a Clean Energy and Infrastructure Building Industrial Complex? And I know many defense contractors have branched out to run, for example, the red light cameras on my commute (which I'm fine with), and yes, there are a lot of defense dollars that do go to education, brass bands, and other non-fightin' stuff. But why build insanely expensive planes we'll never use and not build giant solar farms in the desert, fix all our crumbling bridges and levees, and massively build out high speed rail? Those would be stimulative AND actually improve our quality of life.
How can we make this switch?
posted by jetsetsc at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2011 [10 favorites]
If this is true then why the hell spend it on war machines? I realize that graft and influence buying are never going to go away. That's the nature of politics and capitalism. But if we must have an industrial complex running Washington, why can't it be a Clean Energy and Infrastructure Building Industrial Complex? And I know many defense contractors have branched out to run, for example, the red light cameras on my commute (which I'm fine with), and yes, there are a lot of defense dollars that do go to education, brass bands, and other non-fightin' stuff. But why build insanely expensive planes we'll never use and not build giant solar farms in the desert, fix all our crumbling bridges and levees, and massively build out high speed rail? Those would be stimulative AND actually improve our quality of life.
How can we make this switch?
posted by jetsetsc at 7:53 AM on June 8, 2011 [10 favorites]
What? Not idle since 1945, at all
Note the "by historical standards" caveat.
Korea lasted three years, but the scale of the engagement was much smaller than WWII.
Vietnam was technically twenty, but the main engagement was fifteen, and again, the theater was very limited.
But between 1975 and 2002, the military didn't do all that much. GWI didn't happen for fifteen years after the conclusion of Vietnam, only lasted six months, and was resolved without the military even really breaking a sweat. The current wars didn't really get started for more than a decade later.
By contrast, most European nations were at war more often than they weren't for about the thousand years before 1900. I'm not saying that the US military has been sitting on its hands since V-J Day, but that compared to what historical nations would have done with a fighting force like this one, it's been put to very little use.
posted by valkyryn at 8:02 AM on June 8, 2011
Note the "by historical standards" caveat.
Korea lasted three years, but the scale of the engagement was much smaller than WWII.
Vietnam was technically twenty, but the main engagement was fifteen, and again, the theater was very limited.
But between 1975 and 2002, the military didn't do all that much. GWI didn't happen for fifteen years after the conclusion of Vietnam, only lasted six months, and was resolved without the military even really breaking a sweat. The current wars didn't really get started for more than a decade later.
By contrast, most European nations were at war more often than they weren't for about the thousand years before 1900. I'm not saying that the US military has been sitting on its hands since V-J Day, but that compared to what historical nations would have done with a fighting force like this one, it's been put to very little use.
posted by valkyryn at 8:02 AM on June 8, 2011
I can't favorite jetsetsc's comment enough.
The defense contractors and oil companies should be given the contracts. The unions the labor. The congresspeople the jobs in their districts. Everyone makes out like a bandit.
Only difference: we kill less people, and do some good for the human race.
posted by lalochezia at 8:05 AM on June 8, 2011
The defense contractors and oil companies should be given the contracts. The unions the labor. The congresspeople the jobs in their districts. Everyone makes out like a bandit.
Only difference: we kill less people, and do some good for the human race.
posted by lalochezia at 8:05 AM on June 8, 2011
the "by historical standards" caveat
By historical standards the US is spending vastly more now on war than ever before. "WWII was a relative bargain".
And, to quote a memail I just received, "We're not in Libya for humanitarian reasons."
blue_beetle, LOL, I can vividly hear John Hurt speaking those words in Contact.
posted by nickyskye at 8:06 AM on June 8, 2011
By historical standards the US is spending vastly more now on war than ever before. "WWII was a relative bargain".
And, to quote a memail I just received, "We're not in Libya for humanitarian reasons."
blue_beetle, LOL, I can vividly hear John Hurt speaking those words in Contact.
posted by nickyskye at 8:06 AM on June 8, 2011
Oshkosh? Wow.
Yeah, who else is going to make the adorable overalls for the child soldiers?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:09 AM on June 8, 2011
Yeah, who else is going to make the adorable overalls for the child soldiers?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:09 AM on June 8, 2011
Those would be stimulative AND actually improve our quality of life.
How can we make this switch?
Part of the problem here is the Constitution. It's absolutely clear that Congress can spend money on the military. Says so right in the text. And as long as it's at least tangentially related to the military, the courts aren't going to object. As a matter of fact, the Interstate Highway System was originally couched as a defense project. Eisenhower was inspired by the German Autobahn system as a means for moving war materiel around the country rapidly and efficiently and thought we should have the same thing. It turned out to be one of the most awesome and economically productive public works projects in human history, but that wasn't the original idea.
But it's less clear that Congress can just go out and spend an arbitrary amount of money on jobs or other purely economic programs. The limitations on the Commerce Power have eroded a lot in the last sixty or seventy years, but they're still real, and up to this point no Congress has suggested that it has the power to do the sort of thing you're talking about. The 2008-2011 stimulus spending is completely unprecedented and if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people were afraid that the wheels were going to completely fall off the economy, it probably would have garnered a far more organized and concerted opposition movement premised on it being unconstitutional.
The short version is that seemingly as the result of a historical accident, Congress's ability to spend money on "national defense" is unlimited, but its ability to spend money on other things is limited. I'm not taking a position on whether or not this is a good thing, just trying to explain what's going on.
posted by valkyryn at 8:10 AM on June 8, 2011
How can we make this switch?
Part of the problem here is the Constitution. It's absolutely clear that Congress can spend money on the military. Says so right in the text. And as long as it's at least tangentially related to the military, the courts aren't going to object. As a matter of fact, the Interstate Highway System was originally couched as a defense project. Eisenhower was inspired by the German Autobahn system as a means for moving war materiel around the country rapidly and efficiently and thought we should have the same thing. It turned out to be one of the most awesome and economically productive public works projects in human history, but that wasn't the original idea.
But it's less clear that Congress can just go out and spend an arbitrary amount of money on jobs or other purely economic programs. The limitations on the Commerce Power have eroded a lot in the last sixty or seventy years, but they're still real, and up to this point no Congress has suggested that it has the power to do the sort of thing you're talking about. The 2008-2011 stimulus spending is completely unprecedented and if it weren't for the fact that a lot of people were afraid that the wheels were going to completely fall off the economy, it probably would have garnered a far more organized and concerted opposition movement premised on it being unconstitutional.
The short version is that seemingly as the result of a historical accident, Congress's ability to spend money on "national defense" is unlimited, but its ability to spend money on other things is limited. I'm not taking a position on whether or not this is a good thing, just trying to explain what's going on.
posted by valkyryn at 8:10 AM on June 8, 2011
By historical standards the US is spending vastly more now on war than ever before. "WWII was a relative bargain".
WWII cost anywhere from about 3.6 trillion to 4.9 trillion dollars when you adjust for inflation. It was not a 'relative bargain'. WWII cost 2-3 times as much as what we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 8:15 AM on June 8, 2011
WWII cost anywhere from about 3.6 trillion to 4.9 trillion dollars when you adjust for inflation. It was not a 'relative bargain'. WWII cost 2-3 times as much as what we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 8:15 AM on June 8, 2011
Two words: economic stimulus.
Three words: Wasted economic stimulus.
A missile does not produce wealth. An assembly-line robot does produce wealth. They each require about the same manpower and resources to build. If this stimulus was used to create assets that generate wealth, instead of non-productive resource-holes, then you could call it economic stimulus.
Otherwise, you should call it the Broken Window Fallacy.
The only way countries ever prospered from building war machines is by selling them, or by using them to plunder the wealth of others. The USA is arguably doing both, but it also seems to be getting high on its own supply - selling them to itself, and not plundering very much. At that point, it's like a labourer putting his time into masturbating instead of going to work - eventually the cupboards will be bare.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 AM on June 8, 2011 [6 favorites]
Three words: Wasted economic stimulus.
A missile does not produce wealth. An assembly-line robot does produce wealth. They each require about the same manpower and resources to build. If this stimulus was used to create assets that generate wealth, instead of non-productive resource-holes, then you could call it economic stimulus.
Otherwise, you should call it the Broken Window Fallacy.
The only way countries ever prospered from building war machines is by selling them, or by using them to plunder the wealth of others. The USA is arguably doing both, but it also seems to be getting high on its own supply - selling them to itself, and not plundering very much. At that point, it's like a labourer putting his time into masturbating instead of going to work - eventually the cupboards will be bare.
posted by -harlequin- at 8:16 AM on June 8, 2011 [6 favorites]
"As long as it's at least tangentially related to the military, the courts aren't going to object. As a matter of fact, the Interstate Highway System was originally couched as a defense project."
Exactly. I would think that under that broad (and even broader today) interpretation, then modernizing our energy and transportation infrastructure could fall under defense spending. Heck the army is already investing heavily in alternative energy.
It would just be a matter of re-balancing the defense departments priorities. Becoming less dependent on foreign oil is as much about national defense as anything. Let's point the graft machine at that project.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2011 [4 favorites]
Exactly. I would think that under that broad (and even broader today) interpretation, then modernizing our energy and transportation infrastructure could fall under defense spending. Heck the army is already investing heavily in alternative energy.
It would just be a matter of re-balancing the defense departments priorities. Becoming less dependent on foreign oil is as much about national defense as anything. Let's point the graft machine at that project.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:20 AM on June 8, 2011 [4 favorites]
(You suggested there are other spending options that would be more beneficial, but I think that may be understating things.)
posted by -harlequin- at 8:22 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by -harlequin- at 8:22 AM on June 8, 2011
modernizing our energy and transportation infrastructure could fall under defense spending
I mean, hell, it works for me. I'm down with that. Maybe some enterprising politician will be able to get some bipartisan support for the idea by appealing to conservatives' fondness for military boondoggles and liberals' fondness for more social projects. Just slap the "military" label on it and have done with it.
posted by valkyryn at 8:25 AM on June 8, 2011
I mean, hell, it works for me. I'm down with that. Maybe some enterprising politician will be able to get some bipartisan support for the idea by appealing to conservatives' fondness for military boondoggles and liberals' fondness for more social projects. Just slap the "military" label on it and have done with it.
posted by valkyryn at 8:25 AM on June 8, 2011
If this is true then why the hell spend it on war machines?
Because that's currently where the big wealth and, by extension, the political power in Washington is.
That's why I have so little interest in piling on Obama most of the time. He's not all that powerful in the current status quo. Even Bush only seemed politically powerful because he was essentially riding on a political wave: Bush went willingly with the flow of the existing power structure in Washington. The crowd in Washington carried him, cheering, on its shoulders when he delivered the policies they already wanted. That's easy.
But we're talking about a power establishment that's been many decades in the making. And popular will can't really touch that world too much, outside of radical popular political movements of a form that make themselves impossible to ignore. The real power today in Washington isn't at the ballot box, it's a step before that: the step at which the candidates we get to choose from are funded and allowed to become politically viable in the first place. It's the political equivalent of the classic magician's technique of "forced choice," writ large. Even in the rare case that a real reformer slips through and gets elected, the rest of the power establishment still knows which side its bread is buttered on, and that's wherever the money is. No one in the political establishment is going to support a candidate that can't hang with the rest of the pack when it comes to fund-raising--not when they campaign, and not when they introduce or promote legislation.
The real power in Washington is wherever the most money is, and the money is still largely where it was in Eisenhower's day: the Military-Industrial Complex, the energy industry--big business in general. That's why regardless of party in power the outcome tends not to change too much. No reformer, no matter how committed or highly-positioned in the political system, has the power to force the other actors in that system--the ones who actually have to carry out reforms--to ignore their own political self-interest. And the voters don't have much power to exert either, due to the inherent, practical choice restrictions built into the political process. So the power is where the money is in reality, whether that's desirable or not, and unless that changes, the system will continue to function the way it does now according to its own internal logic regardless of what any of us--elected officials or otherwise--might want.
Das System ist schuld.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:27 AM on June 8, 2011 [5 favorites]
Because that's currently where the big wealth and, by extension, the political power in Washington is.
That's why I have so little interest in piling on Obama most of the time. He's not all that powerful in the current status quo. Even Bush only seemed politically powerful because he was essentially riding on a political wave: Bush went willingly with the flow of the existing power structure in Washington. The crowd in Washington carried him, cheering, on its shoulders when he delivered the policies they already wanted. That's easy.
But we're talking about a power establishment that's been many decades in the making. And popular will can't really touch that world too much, outside of radical popular political movements of a form that make themselves impossible to ignore. The real power today in Washington isn't at the ballot box, it's a step before that: the step at which the candidates we get to choose from are funded and allowed to become politically viable in the first place. It's the political equivalent of the classic magician's technique of "forced choice," writ large. Even in the rare case that a real reformer slips through and gets elected, the rest of the power establishment still knows which side its bread is buttered on, and that's wherever the money is. No one in the political establishment is going to support a candidate that can't hang with the rest of the pack when it comes to fund-raising--not when they campaign, and not when they introduce or promote legislation.
The real power in Washington is wherever the most money is, and the money is still largely where it was in Eisenhower's day: the Military-Industrial Complex, the energy industry--big business in general. That's why regardless of party in power the outcome tends not to change too much. No reformer, no matter how committed or highly-positioned in the political system, has the power to force the other actors in that system--the ones who actually have to carry out reforms--to ignore their own political self-interest. And the voters don't have much power to exert either, due to the inherent, practical choice restrictions built into the political process. So the power is where the money is in reality, whether that's desirable or not, and unless that changes, the system will continue to function the way it does now according to its own internal logic regardless of what any of us--elected officials or otherwise--might want.
Das System ist schuld.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:27 AM on June 8, 2011 [5 favorites]
Echoing the above for legal ironcladness (pardon the pun)
Make a constitutional amendment or law stating alternative energy and safe infrastructures are national security issues. Hell, we do SO MUCH that is *patently* not defense of the country with defense dollars, that why not just include it ALL.
posted by lalochezia at 8:27 AM on June 8, 2011
Make a constitutional amendment or law stating alternative energy and safe infrastructures are national security issues. Hell, we do SO MUCH that is *patently* not defense of the country with defense dollars, that why not just include it ALL.
posted by lalochezia at 8:27 AM on June 8, 2011
Geschirr "das System", so dass es hilft allen reich
posted by lalochezia at 8:28 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by lalochezia at 8:28 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Make an 8th branch of the uniformed services "the national clean energy dominance force" america fuck yeah" etc and fund the shit out of it. Have other armed force members rotate through the organization. etc. etc.
posted by lalochezia at 8:32 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by lalochezia at 8:32 AM on June 8, 2011
Part of the problem here is the Constitution
Not really. Some New Deal programs got knocked down (e.g. the first AAA), but many of them did not (e.g. the WPA, the second AAA), and the scope of the Commerce Clause has arguably only expanded since then. Further, the government wouldn't have to do all of this directly. The spending power is virtually unlimited, so a lot could be accomplished through grants to states and private companies.
I don't think there's a legal reason why the government could not turn the military-industrial complex into an infrastructure-industrial complex. There's no need to put a 'military' label on it, except perhaps political expediency.
posted by jedicus at 8:33 AM on June 8, 2011
Not really. Some New Deal programs got knocked down (e.g. the first AAA), but many of them did not (e.g. the WPA, the second AAA), and the scope of the Commerce Clause has arguably only expanded since then. Further, the government wouldn't have to do all of this directly. The spending power is virtually unlimited, so a lot could be accomplished through grants to states and private companies.
I don't think there's a legal reason why the government could not turn the military-industrial complex into an infrastructure-industrial complex. There's no need to put a 'military' label on it, except perhaps political expediency.
posted by jedicus at 8:33 AM on June 8, 2011
"Because that's currently where the big wealth and, by extension, the political power in Washington is."
But I'm saying leave the power right where it is, keep those companies sucking at the tax dollar teats. Heck, throw more contracts their way. But refocus the flood of money subtly towards less killin' and towards more beneficial infrastructure stuff. Their profits would not suffer, but America (fuck yeah) will actually get some tangible benefit. Win win.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:40 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
But I'm saying leave the power right where it is, keep those companies sucking at the tax dollar teats. Heck, throw more contracts their way. But refocus the flood of money subtly towards less killin' and towards more beneficial infrastructure stuff. Their profits would not suffer, but America (fuck yeah) will actually get some tangible benefit. Win win.
posted by jetsetsc at 8:40 AM on June 8, 2011 [2 favorites]
There's no need to put a 'military' label on it, except perhaps political expediency.
I think saulgoodman makes an adequate case for the value of political expediency.
posted by valkyryn at 9:01 AM on June 8, 2011
I think saulgoodman makes an adequate case for the value of political expediency.
posted by valkyryn at 9:01 AM on June 8, 2011
> WWII cost anywhere from about 3.6 trillion to 4.9 trillion dollars when you adjust for inflation. It was not a 'relative bargain'. WWII cost 2-3 times as much as what we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nope. "Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion."
posted by nickyskye at 9:07 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nope. "Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion."
posted by nickyskye at 9:07 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nope. "Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion."
Well, you might want to let the CRS know that then, since they apparently disagree.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:33 AM on June 8, 2011
Well, you might want to let the CRS know that then, since they apparently disagree.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 9:33 AM on June 8, 2011
Strategm #2 - Besiege Wèi to rescue Zhào
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:43 AM on June 8, 2011
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 11:43 AM on June 8, 2011
I get the anti-war sentiment and that we'd rather see our resources directed somewhere else. That makes perfect sense to me. I don't however, understand what point this article is intending to prove. The fact that everyone recognizes that if you want the inside track to influence congress that it is extremely helpful to hire Jon Etherton? Well, duh. The dude practically ran the Senate Armed Services Committee for like 8 years. He knows his stuff. People (correctly) listen to what he has to say. The real question is why the others didn't hire him. They are probably making a tactical error. Lobbying firms that specialize in DoD work that only have one top ten client are probably not long for the world.
A much better demonstration of the tight intercoupling of defense firms would be the extent to which they subcontract to one another. I am reasonably sure we have shared contracts with all 10 of 'em.
He's using the wrong list too. If he wanted the top ten DoD contractors, he should remove United (15th), Oshkosh (not top 20), and BAE (12th). He'd add KBR, CSC and ITT if it was by DoD spending. That would get Etherton another client, too. He is apparently using the all govermnent spending number. Plus some firms are much bigger than is reported because certain spending isn't reported on those lists.
posted by Lame_username at 12:34 PM on June 8, 2011
A much better demonstration of the tight intercoupling of defense firms would be the extent to which they subcontract to one another. I am reasonably sure we have shared contracts with all 10 of 'em.
He's using the wrong list too. If he wanted the top ten DoD contractors, he should remove United (15th), Oshkosh (not top 20), and BAE (12th). He'd add KBR, CSC and ITT if it was by DoD spending. That would get Etherton another client, too. He is apparently using the all govermnent spending number. Plus some firms are much bigger than is reported because certain spending isn't reported on those lists.
posted by Lame_username at 12:34 PM on June 8, 2011
That would be Breaux Lott Leadership Group, which is now part of Patton Boggs Breaux Lott.
... also first read:
Denny Miller Associates: hired by 4 of the top ten
as:
Dennis Miller Associates: hired by 4 of the top ten
shudder
posted by hambone at 7:48 PM on June 8, 2011
... also first read:
Denny Miller Associates: hired by 4 of the top ten
as:
Dennis Miller Associates: hired by 4 of the top ten
shudder
posted by hambone at 7:48 PM on June 8, 2011
"An America that uses its military power less promiscuously, more intelligently and in a targeted and focused manner might once again gain the world’s respect and fear, if not affection."
— Fareed Zakaria, Time, May 20, 2011
posted by nickyskye at 10:36 AM on June 9, 2011
— Fareed Zakaria, Time, May 20, 2011
posted by nickyskye at 10:36 AM on June 9, 2011
« Older Pool party at Saleh's | So shall we come to look at the world with new... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nickyskye at 6:08 AM on June 8, 2011 [1 favorite]