It'll Be a Cold Day in Hell

I was pondering today, “Under what circumstances could there be a coup or totalitarian takeover in the US?” This may seem an odd thing to ponder, but this is how I spend my days.

I came up with several groups that would have at least the desire, if not necessarily the ability to rule the American people with an iron fist.

• Fundamentalists
• the Far left
• Environmentalists
• Charismatic Personality Cult

Another group has the ability, but in all likelihood will never have the desire: The US Military.

The problem with fundamentalists on one side, and with the leftists/greens on the other is that their positions are completely unacceptable to huge numbers of people on the opposite end of the political spectrum.  It is unlikely that they could ever get close to the levers of power and pull a Hitler.  If they have to get in legitimately, they never will, because the American people are naturally centrist, and because our political structures encourage that.

The only other way that we could have a takeover would for there to be some sort of monumental catastrophe that created a collapse in the existing government, creating a power vacuum that some small group could exploit.

The German Weimar government, weak as it was, was able to resist many attempts on its life - communist, the beer hall and other putsches, and so on.  It was only when Hitler gained a significant popular following that we was able to take power - after being legally elected.

The Communists under Lenin were able to take power largely because of the total collapse of almost every cultural and political institution in Russia.  And even then, they almost collapsed on several occasions.

The chance, short of massive asteroid strike, of the US government collapsing is very close to nil.  Which rules out the shortcut to power.

I have ignored two options.  One I mentioned above, and the other is creeping fascism.  Libertarians talk about the ratchet effect, where once an invasion of our liberty is in place, it never goes away.  In this manner, we slowly stagger towards totalitarian oblivion.  I don’t think this is really true.  In many cases, repressive laws have been removed - especially after both world wars.  The experience of the civil rights movement flies in the face of this.  For every patriot act, there is a EFF and a hundred other organizations fighting against it.  In the society we have, it is so easy to organize to oppose the actions of our government.  These two forces will oppose each other, and I think in the end will cancel each other out.

The only chance of creeping fascism actually happening is if the government gets its hands on technology that allows it to suppress the people.  David Brin talks about this in his book, the transparent society.  But the flip side of that argument is that the government is notoriously slow to adopt technology.  I work in the government, I should know. 

In this era of amazing technological change, it is people in general who will be getting the cool stuff first.  For all that the government might spend, there are hundreds of thousands of engineers designing for the consumer market.  The military is slowly realizing this, and has begun in the last decade to gear its procurement toward the civilian market.  Technology can be abused by governments (see A Deepness in the Sky, by Vernor Vinge) but if it is also in the hands of the far more numerous public, that cancels out as well.

The last option, now that is the only one that at all worries me.  Imagine a combination of a Huey Long’s political skills, a Lincoln or Martin Luther King’s oratory, the charisma of Washington, set in a Kennedy like charm and vigor (viga), and guided by a ruthless and amoral mind with power as its only goal. 

Imagine that he is a democrat, but a professed Christian - he is a hard core environmentalist, but calls it “stewardship.” He calls for every kind of social program, but uses biblical imagery and Christian charity instead of neo Marxist and class warfare rhetoric.  He satisfies the fundamentalists by calling for bans on pornography, but does not offend the left by castigating gays and lesbians.  He is a foriegn policy hawk.

Someone like this could convince enough people, and get a big enough following to win an election.  If enough of his followers got into congress, he could conceivably pull a Hitler, or at least a Hitler lite, and push through some sort of totalitarian agenda.

Every policy could be justified in some part of American society’s desire to control other people. 

Other than that, I don’t think it’s possible.

Now, wars can be fought without imperialistic aims. A war of defense, for example would not have imperialistic aims. WWII was not a war of Empire for the United States. Imperialism could be considered natually aggressive, though the effects of imperial rule would range from sadistic to benign. But one key factor in an Empire is that subject territories always remain subject territories, used for the benefit of the nation at the center of the Empire.

There is certainly no rule that says that empires are ruled by emperors. Most of the territory eventually ruled by the Roman Empire was conquered by the Roman Republic. Democratic Athens created an Empire. Britain had an empire, but was ruled by a Parliament and Prime Minister. But India never sent ministers to Parliament. America has never exactly been an Empire - conquered territories are either integrated directly into the nation itself, or eventually granted independence. We conquered California from the Mexicans, but in no sense is California a subject territory of a separate United States.

Now cultural influence - here is where it gets more interesting. Mike cites several examples where cultures have voluntarily borrowed from another civilization. This, he says, is not cultural imperialism, or hegemony. The United States is the most influential part of the most influential civilization on Earth. To what extent are other nations or cultures voluntarily borrowing from our culture? Does cultural hegemony require an analog of the aggressiveness of imperialism? Are we forcing our culture on others, are are they voluntarily adopting Levis, Michael Jordan basketball Jerseys, Rock and Roll and Rap music, McD’s hamburgers, watching Hollywood movies and so on?

I would argue that China’s impact on Japan was larger than America’s impact on much of non-Western civilization today - maybe just because it operated over a longer period - but if that isn’t cultural hegemony or informal empire, then what do we have? We are clearly a daughter culture of England, western Christendom, Rome and Greece. Of those, only England survives, and we are now having more impact on them than they are on us. We have overtaken our parent culture. We influence the whole world, not just because we have more money, and thus more guns. Our technology, freedom and cultural dynamism are what effects everyone. Our military impacts only a small part of the world. We aren’t forcing people to buy into our culture.

If we have an informal empire, a halfway state between empire and not empire, how does it work? Rome in republican times had a dual empire - parts were directly controlled, others were client states who had local autonomy but had no control over external affairs. Various territories often moved from the latter status to the former over time. Is this an informal empire? We have trade agreements, but they are that - agreements. We negotiate them. We do not have client states.

Our companies, and industry, and so on have subsidiaries in other nations. But they have been nationalized in the past, or lost money and closed, or whatever - we don’t force nations to open McD’s. The Thais who work for Nike, or for third world employees of just about any American company not run by Kathy Lee Gifford generally make more money than their counterparts in local industries. Sure, they are paid less than an American worker, but the cost of living is vastly lower as well. The South Koreans leveraged participation in the lower rungs of the American and Japanese economies into growing prosperity, and their per capita wages are now higher than much of Europe. Is this a voluntary adoption of a American cultural ideas, and fitting them into their existing culture to make a better life for themselves, or is it rapacious and arrogant US economic imperialism compounded by showing them a vision of heaven while denying them admittance?

The Japanese and South Koreans were exposed to American culture more than most nations in the last fifty years. American soldiers were the primary vector for this infection. In the first case, our troops remained after WWII for our security interests due to the recent phenomenon of Japanese militarism. South Korean and, later, Japanese bases were maintained to protect those nations (and us) from communist aggression. These two nations have borrowed more from our culture than most. Their cultures do not seem in imminent danger of disappearing. They are also the two richest non-western nations in the world. Are they part of our Hegemony, or our informal empire?

Or is it only voluntary adoption when ethnically similar cultures borrow from each other? Are we victims of Chinese cultural imperialism because we have Chinese restaurants, manned exclusively by ethnic Chinese waitresses and cooks, and there are Kung Fu schools in every village across the land? American Ecofreaks (sorry, environmentalists) in the US dream longingly of the unspoiled rainforests where earthy people live in harmony with Gaia. Tribesman in Borneo and elsewhere dream of getting to America where they can have a house and a car and big screen TV. Which if these people did American Cultural Hegemony brainwash?

Well, a final (at last!) point. Johno asked, “Is cultural hegemony like empire? By its own lights, it is not. But, if empire implies achieving dominance via force, and hegemony implies achieving dominance via way of life, what do you call it when we go kick some ass for the sake of asserting (and, arguably, protecting) our way of life?”

That depends.

Also, he gives support to terrorists of all stripes as a matter of state policy. He has invaded his neighbors. He has developed chemical and biological weapons, and used them. He has attempted to develop nuclear weapons, with the help of the French. There is a strong likelihood that Saddam would either provide such weapons to terrorists, or adopt terrorist methodology himself to deliver those weapons to American targets. These are all reasons that pretty much everyone agrees the world would be a better place if Saddam predeceased us. (The French have been very careful not to talk about Iraq – their opposition is based on America, not Iraq.)

On the other side of the moral calculus, we must take into consideration the consequences of using military force. This, I think, is where John has the most problems. Mike seems to have more problems with justifications for war, even admitting that Saddam is the star of his own personal villainous Jackasserama. There are two groups of sane arguments against a U.S. invasion. One focuses on the practical aspects:

1) Civilian casualties
2) Diplomatic blowback / Increase anti-Americanism worldwide
3) Destabilize the Middle East / Make things worse

The other is more theoretical.

1) Just war theory / Applying the Golden Rule to International relations
2) Moral Equivalence Arguments
3) Great Power politics

In the first category, we have some potentially serious “less than optimal” outcomes. Are we justified in invading when things might end up worse? Are we justified in invading – Even if we succeed in all our goals – if thirty thousand Iraqis die? These are the core questions.
First, based on my study of the U.S. military, I can virtually guarantee that the now imminent conflict with Iraq will be swift and relatively bloodless. There will be no Stalingrads. (Ve vill not have much fun in Stalingrad, no.) The U.S. armed forces are in the early stages of a revolution in military affairs that is equal in importance to the adoption of gunpowder. No other nation has begun this process. The result is that our military has an unparalleled comparative lethality and effectiveness.

The war will be over in two or three weeks, and civilian casualties will be low – probably less than 2000, though we will hear complaints from the left that casualties are in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. The Iraqi army will for the most part simply surrender. Those elements of the Army that do resist will be swiftly annihilated. The Iraqi army is to the U.S. military what the Zulus were to the British army. And yes, I know about Isandhlwhana – which was the result of stupendous idiocy on the part of the British commander – who did absolutely everything wrong. More important, as an example, was Rourke’s Drift, where 100 British soldiers held off 5000 Zulus for almost a day, killing half of them in the process. Technology and discipline allowed the British to defeat vastly numerically superior forces. The same will happen in Iraq. (and the Iraqi army isn’t as big as it once was…)

So, that objection is out of the way. The other two are closely related, and harder to figure. However, given that the calculated risk in terms of battlefield and civilian casualties is so low, that gives us wriggle room in our calculations for the other factors.

Here are some points to consider. The French have always been pains in the ass. Their behavior over the last several months should come as no particular surprise, though we should wonder what they hope to gain from it. Nearly every European nation except France, Germany and Belgium officially supports us. Around the world, the reaction is mixed, but hardly uniformly against us. China and Russia are opposed, but China is still officially a communist nation for Christ’s sake, and Russia has legitimate sphere of influence style arguments against American involvement, as well as lucrative trade deals and mountains of uncollected debt with the current regime.

All of these nations are acting in what they perceive to be their own national interest. They are accorded no opprobrium for doing so. Only the United States is targeted with this criticism. The French, for example, have been fighting for months in the Ivory Coast without UN sanction. The African terrorists didn’t destroy the Eiffel tower and kill 3000 French citizens, either.

I don’t think the world will hate us any more (or any less) after we induce Saddam to shuffle off this mortal coil. Most people will breathe a quiet sigh of relief that someone did the job. And though they wish the cowboy Americans weren’t so damnably powerful, they certainly weren’t going to do the job themselves.

In the next couple years, I think that the real diplomatic blowback will be on the French and the Germans. They have pissed us off. They will be locked out of the settlement in post war Iraq. France’s arrogant attempts to usurp leadership of the still nascent European superstate have alarmed much of southern and eastern Europe. I don’t think that they’ll be able to quietly slip through the pro-French EU constitution. And they won’t get any help from us. France’s position in the world has already been weakened, and will be weakened further once we successfully and very quickly put an end to Saddam’s regime.

As for destabilizing the Middle East, that’s not a bug, that’s a feature. We will be installed directly in the geopolitical heart of the Middle East. We’ll have bases that no one will be able to dictate the use of but us. U.S. Army, Air Force and Marine units will be bordering Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia; the three largest surviving Islamic terrorist supporting nations. We will be able to put the arm on them, but good.

And remember, similar fears were voiced about the first Gulf War. The eruption of the “Arab street” after our stunning victory was rather… anticlimactic. I think the same will be true here. And as for making things worse in Iraq, I don’t see how they could be significantly worse. If we succeed in establishing a new polity that is as prosperous and free as say, South Korea in 1970, we will have achieved a great victory. If we do better – and we have in the past – then that’s just gravy. A prosperous and free Iraq would virtually win the war on terrorism all by itself.