Imperial Perspectives (Part IV)

by Jim Miles

2005

The thirteen New England colonies continued the British Empire’s division of people into the aristocracy and the poor. Part IV of Imperial Perspectives looks at how a plutocracy is more evident than a democracy as the nation developed.

IV. Plutocracy Rules

Through the next century and a half, American history consisted of the establishment of the thirteen original colonies following the manner in which the Jamestown establishment started – ongoing occupation of native land and violent reprisals against the natives when they dared attempt to protect themselves from the invaders. The Indians were pushed back as the frontier gradually spread towards the Appalachians with some plucky settlers carrying their burden into Indian Territory then crying for assistance when the Indians attempted to repel them. The rules remained the same with religion and conquest by a superior civilization being the rhetorical mainstay of the progress being made.

Natives as Terrorists

The modern interpretations continue along the line of the Indians as being particularly savage and creating the atmosphere of terrorist tactics used against white settlers, such that, according to military historian Caleb Carr, “most European newcomers… knew only that they had never personally witnessed such depths of bloody indulgence among their own people.” [1] Here again, the Indians are up against the imperial effect in which the occupied nation(s) or peoples become the guilty party in fomenting atrocities against the invaders. This is a convenient twist and rational for newcomers trying to maintain control of the people and the land, an idea seen today in particular with the Palestinian suicide bombers acting against the invading and occupying Israeli army forces. It is also visible with the insurrection that continues in Iraq, an event beyond the scope of American intelligence. The invader becomes the victim.

Perhaps not intending it in the manner in which I am interpreting the wording, Carr continues more accurately indicating that “Westerners were capable of formulating and expressing tremendously admirable principles concerning individualism, liberty, and participatory government; but when it comes to the treatment of Indian tribes and other dangerous elements, internal and external, these principles were considered void and non-binding.” [2] Carr uses language describing the natives as ‘dangerous elements’ using ‘ritualized violence’, ‘depredations’, ‘vicious’, and ‘capricious’.

These views are evident in a return to Fukuyama’s work as he uses the metaphor of wagon trains in his conclusion, with “Several wagons, attacked by Indians, will have been set aflame and abandoned along the way.” This is a continuation of the myth of the white mans’ excellence conquering the evil savages that stood in the way of progress, “one of America’s most deeply embedded clichés of primal conflict between cowboys and Indians.” [3] These myths and clichés are so deeply embedded “that the coloring of these events can help tint the basic psychology of very basic forms of collective self-understanding,” the amnesia of the American society towards its historical roots. [4]

Government by the Wealthy

Apart from the Indian conflicts, another ‘traditional’ element arises as the colonies approached the era of the Declaration of Independence and its subsequent revolution, that of the divide between the rich, the landed wealthy, and the poor, the workers and wage earners who controlled little of the wealth.

In his pivotal work Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond discusses the concept of a kleptocracy – governmental theft – as one particular bureaucratic form of rule. [5] He asks what the elite need to do to gain popular support, and answers that kleptocrats have resorted to a mixture of four solutions. His first is “disarm the populace, and arm the elite.” While this may seem to be contradictory at first to the American right to bear arms, if the overall picture is examined the United States has an enormous military machine that, depending on the will of the government, can defeat any enemy be it external self defined ‘rogues’ or internal militias of the type that ended up burning at Waco, Texas. Secondly, he says the kleptocrats need to “make the masses happy be redistributing much of the tribute [taxes] received in popular ways.” From what I have read, much of this largess goes to the large corporations and less and less is going towards the masses, yet they remain “happy” through the efforts of the mass media and the mindless consumptive orientation of the economy.

His third idea ties in directly with the first, “use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence.” The United States takes a slightly different stance in that violence is a much displayed fear factor, a combination of racial fears and terror fears. “The remaining way…to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.” This becomes especially important with Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the American occupation of Iraq, both of which carry strong religious elements, and “at the cost of a few…who die as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies….”

Diamond’s ideas are clearly defined, but for the purposes of this essay I will use the term plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, as it is a more obvious statement of what occurs within the United States government. Indeed, it occurs within many governments, as the right to vote is only one small aspect of democracy even though it is publicly flaunted as being the end all and be all of democracy, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Florida. Either way, the rich are in control and they intend to keep it that way.

New American Plutocracy

The settlers in America essentially re-established the British system at home, with an elite aristocracy of the nouveau riche and the greater masses of poor landowners, the landless, and the unemployed. Women, blacks, mulattos, Indians, the landless had no say in the development of revolutionary thought which was controlled by the new aristocracy in order that the revolutionary ideals did not deprive them of their wealth and power. In effect, the unruly masses were manipulated by the wealthy to support their actions against their British overlords, but were to be restrained sufficiently to prevent them from overthrowing their new lords, even though terms of royalty became illegal. “By creating a nation…they could take over land, profits, and political power…” while at the same time “hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.” [6]

Statistics support the divide between the poor and the wealthy, a divide that is still very much in evidence today: in the early 1770’s “the top 5 per cent of Boston’s taxpayers controlled 49% of the city’s taxable assets.” [7] So when the colonists expressed anger about British taxes, it was the wealthy who were mainly concerned, it was the wealthy who directed the anger of the poor to serve their own interests by directing it towards the British yet at the same time “denounced the violence and disavowed the action of the crowd.” [8] After the presentation of the Declaration of Independence, it was not the landed gentry and the wealthy that marched to war, but a draft was instituted to gather up the poor to serve in the new army.

The wealthy, comprising familiar names, J.P. Morgan, “John D. Rockfeller, Andrew Carnegie, Philip Armour, Jay Gould, and James Mellon…escaped military service in the Civil war by paying $300 to substitute.” Mellon’s father had written to him that “a man may be a patriot without risking his own life or sacrificing his health. There are plenty of lives less valuable.” [9] That pattern of actions has served up to current events in Iraq and other countries, where most of the fighting forces are comprised of ethnic minorities and the poor looking for some supposed advantage to dying for one’s country, a position avoided by the wealthy.

The current leaders of America consisting of Bush and his un-elected cabinet and advisers, the likes of Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashton, Rove, Feith, Bolton, have not served in any active military capacity but are the ideological force behind the physically aggressive stance of ‘pre-emptive war’ and ‘full spectrum force’ taken by the current government. They have all worked through the revolving door of the military-industrial political process and all are supportive of the Christian fundamentalist view of the world.

In particular Dick Cheney, one of the top paper warriors in the current administration, made a speech to veterans in which he spoke hypocritically by thanking them for “the great honor you have brought to your uniform, to our flag, and to our country.” [10] He should have continued, I would have joined you but “I had other priorities in the 60s than military service,” [11] ironically about the time he was at Yale. There, an early colleague, Jacob Plotkin, says of his record “It’s hard to flunk out of Yale, It’s something that one really has to put effort into,” with that effort being put into “talking, drinking, or playing cards with his football buddies,” all good pre-requisites for American politics. [12]

After the ‘rebellion’, the ‘insurrection’, the ‘war of independence’, the new rulers argued as to the type of government they wanted. It became an argument for the control of the masses against further insurrection and rebellion in order to protect the power of the wealthy. Democracy, as defined by the institutions set up in its favor, was limited.

Notes

[1] Carr, Caleb. The Lessons of Terror A History of Warfare Against Civilians. Random House, New York, 2003. p. 122.
[2] Ibid, p. 123.
[3] Hall, Anthony J., The American Empire and the Fourth World. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal. 2003. p.99.
[4] Ibid, p. 117.
[5] Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel – The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1999. pp. 273-276.
[6] Zinn. ibid, p. 59
[7] Ibid, p. 60
[8] Ibid. p. 66.
[9] Ibid, p. 255
[10] White House news release.
[11] CBC News: The Fifth Estate
[12] Plotkin, Jacob cited in "The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney", CBC News: The Fifth Estate

© Jim Miles. Used with permission.