Localism, Power and the
Technological Society in an Age of Total War
Some time ago I listened to an
interview with former senator Jim DeMint who had recently left the senate in
order to take over as leader of the Heritage Foundation.
DeMint is a member of the PCA,
the Reformed conservative remnant of the old Southern Presbyterian Church and a
denomination which I'm sad to say I used to be a member of.
All that said, the point that
struck me in the interview was that he insisted we can have a strong America
rooted in both Localism and Military Strength. I'll dispense with some of the
normal euphemisms like 'defense'.
It's interesting because many
economists and sociologists will point out that this combination is impossible.
In addition to showing a lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of
government and the role business plays in our modern society he doesn't seem to
understand the economic system that has led to all the big economic power
players which he seems to be critical of.
In the face of the Libertarian
dream, power-vacuums are always filled. If the state hands over governmental
and societal responsibilities to private interests then the Corporatocracy
begins to form. Some kind of government (even if it's corporate) will
ultimately fill the vacuum and begin to function (even if in an unofficial
capacity) as the government itself.
I've argued repeatedly that
government officials would be abandoning their responsibilities regarding the
civil order if they allowed social stability to be subject to market forces. In
a technological society allowing utilities and infrastructure to be subject to
boom-bust cycles and to simply shrug off shortages and periods of market adjustment
are not only an abdication of responsibility but a great security risk.
Localism is wonderful in many
ways, but it must be understood that for a nation to revert to such a model it
means an absolute abandonment of geopolitical influence and power. You cannot
have a strong military, especially in the industrial/technological age and also
have localism. You cannot build a 'great' nation with Localism. Like them or
not the Progressives of the early 20th century understood this
principle.
With regard to the military, DeMint
needs to revisit Eisenhower's famous farewell speech. Eisenhower helped to
create the Military-Industrial Complex but seemed to pause in reflection and
warn of the consequences. Ike wasn't the brightest but even he could see how
this was affecting all of society and once the bridge was crossed there would
be no turning back.
We can't take automotive
factories and re-tool them to make tanks. Not anymore. Post-World War II
warfare is a different animal. Modern militaries require an economic sector all
to themselves and because of the tempo of technological development it requires
significant investment and dynamism usually expressed in diversity and options
with regard to available products. This is true from night vision goggles to
the state of the art bomber. This means lots of money flowing into large
diverse corporations in order to give the military the flexibility and
innovation it will require.
Localism means an end of both
national unity and military strength. It cannot simply represent an economic
aspect of a larger social cohesiveness. Ron Paul's vision is not compatible
with John McCain's which is akin to what DeMint is proposing.
DeMint is illustrative of the
fact that even many people within government, people writing, sponsoring and
voting for legislation often lack basic understandings of the institutions they
operate within and how they integrate into the larger whole. If that seems
harsh, I think it's deserved.
In addition I would also point
out the Libertarian movement (which at present is dividing Christian
conservatives and conservatives in general) hasn't given serious thought to the
implications of living in an age of Total War. Many who believe the government
first and foremost has a responsibility for the safety and welfare of its
citizenry has to take on a new role in an age of Total War. There's no way
around this.
Just as the 14th
Amendment almost fundamentally changed the nature of the US Constitution and
the role of the Federal Government, the World Wars forever changed the nature
of Executive power.
The age of technological
warfare not only signals pervasive change in the economic structure it also
mandates a re-thinking of how the military chain of command works and how the
president functions as the head of the military. This was probably best
illustrated in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the nuclear age decisions
must be made in the blink of an eye. Presidents can enter into conference
concerning strategic goals and overall planning and preparation but in delicate
moments a quick decision must be made and obeyed. This is best illustrated by
the guy who follows around the president bearing the briefcase known as the
football.
In addition there would be many
that would acknowledge that constitutionally Congress declares war as was done
in 1941. Since then (it is argued) the nature of war has changed and the
president has to be given flexibility. After Vietnam this power was checked
somewhat. The president can launch strikes etc..., but is given a window within
to operate. Even with something like the Iraq War (it is argued) the president
needs to be given broad and sweeping powers.
Obviously there are many who
disagree but even many Conservatives are forced to acknowledge there are
aspects of the Constitution which have to be updated (at least in application)
to the contemporary situation. Others would extend these powers when it comes
to the Commerce Clause and other contentious issues of legal interpretation.
Like it or not the balance of
powers and the relationship between the federal government and the states have
not stayed the same as they were in days past and to a large degree cannot
remain static.
As I said, there are many
conservatives who have acknowledged this. They wish to 'conserve' aspects of
the society but also understand the deep fundamental shifts that have occurred
since 1865 and 1945. There's still a debate over the nature of the change which
was generated by 1989 and 2001. Frankly I don't think DeMint is really aware of
these things. I think his book project points to this fact.
That is unless we want to be
completely cynical and recognize the book as disingenuous and thus pure
propaganda. Heritage has a long track record in that department.
Like DeMint I would like to see
a return to Localism. But he hasn't a clue in how to get there and in fact is
schizophrenic in his desires for the nation he professes to love... a nation
that I think exists as a romantic notion in his mind. It has never existed in
reality and the America of today is one that would resonate little with his
hopes, aspirations or interpretations of history.
One must ask then, does he
really believe in democracy or does he believe the nation should be ruled by
force in order to maintain a codified order? To accomplish his vision (which in
many ways is impossible) he would have to mandate some kind of ideological
tests before anyone was admitted into congress, academia or Hollywood. If that
stirs memory, it should.
Ultimately these folks, if they
had their way would resurrect McCarthy's Inquisition and the era of Blacklists
and Thoughtcrime. That's hardly democratic and certainly not a form of Localist
autonomy.
Localism will mean the
dismantling of the American Empire. In that sense it must be understood as not
a reform but a revolution. There are very few examples in history of people
voluntarily giving up power. Presidents step down after bitter election fights
but Establishment's don't step down. Empires never dissolve peacefully. Britain
gave us the closest example of what a peaceful dissolution might look like, but
that wasn't entirely worry free either. From India and Malaya to Kenya and
Egypt to Sub-Saharan Africa it proved all too often a messy business. Oh, and
then there is of course the question of Ireland which still isn't quite
resolved.
DeMint at this point doesn't
really mean what he says and he simply doesn't understand the issues. Heritage
has always been a key mechanism of the Military-Industrial Complex and I'm sure
under DeMint this legacy will be perpetuated. He also stands to do well on a
personal level. I will grant him one moment of political brilliance. He was
right. He probably will wield greater influence running Heritage than he would
in the polarized and thus largely impotent Congress.
Deregulation on the local level
simply means handing the reins over to the Corporatocracy. Those at the top of
the pyramid will benefit. Those of us at the bottom will suffer everything from
high utility bills to poor customer service and healthcare and an ever
decreasing standard of living. We've already had a pretty good dose of this.
DeMint also fails to understand
that Localism has to be protected. There's a reason France, Italy and other
countries still have forms of Localism. That's because they regulate and won't
allow the Wal-Mart's and other forces to move in. That will mean zoning laws,
environmental and building codes, enforcement mechanisms which must be funded
through taxation and licensing. You actually can end up losing freedom but
you're part of and have a genuine voice in the affairs of your local community.
Localism without these things
will not only lead to another form of Cronyism (which is by nature
discriminatory and harmful to democracy) or even what you might call patronage
or quasi-feudalism. You end up with a good-old-boy network running the
community or perhaps even a mafia-type chieftain.
Unregulated Localism can also
lead to instability. Think of being back on the frontier and without laws and
the threat of violence to back them up, contracts and disputes cannot be
resolved and enforced. This is not a favourable environment for investment.
These are all things the
business community is generally against but if given the choice between a
regulated system versus a free-for-all, most would rather see regulation. Once
there are rules the business sector can figure out how to operate within them.
Without regulation unless the business literally takes over as the governing
authority there will be a certain amount of caution, or there can be a bonanza
where they come in get what they can and get out.
Unregulated Localism can almost
work in homogeneous societies on a small scale. If you live in a town where
most of the people are related and share the same race, culture and social
values... it can work up to a point. Ultimately though someone starts to get
greedy and it leads to social tension.
In the end none of these
systems will actually work, and if they do it can only be for a generation at
best. Do we throw our hands up in the air and give up?
As the Church we (as opposed to
DeMint) love Zion, not the Babylon known as America and realize that we're
pilgrims here. Peace and harmony can only be found in Christ. That's our
message. That's our solution. Everything else is just a band-aid to stop the
bleeding for a few minutes. No man-made system will work or last. This doesn't
mean we embrace anti-intellectualism and say that we just don't know about
those sorts of questions.
No, if we're honest we'll point
out the complexities. If anything the reality should rightly lead people to
frustration and despair and an acknowledgement that the world we live in is
hopelessly corrupted and that are no solutions for this age but in the age to
come.
I would like to see all power
limited and that would include both DeMint's friends in the business world and
organizations like Heritage.
But I also realize it won't
happen on this side of glory. In the meantime people like me can continue to
point out why DeMint (and Carson who wrote the forward) are naive and deceived
and in terms of the Church... dangerous blind guides.
Ultimately they offer a false
hope, a pseudo-Zion that many Christians are keen to embrace. We will continue
to warn even if no one listens.
Come out from among them and do
not partake of their sins. Let them build their Babel's. They will all burn and
their wicked works. They baptize evil and worship their own lies and the works
of their hands.