By Sheldon S. Wolin
Sheldon S. Wolin is emeritus professor of politics at Princeton University and the author
of "Politics and Vision: The Presence of the Past" and "Alexis de
Tocqueville: Between Two Worlds."
July 18, 2003
Sept. 11, 2001, hastened a significant shift in our nation's self-understanding. It became
commonplace to refer to an "American empire" and to the United States as
"the world's only superpower."
Instead of those formulations, try to conceive of ones like "superpower
democracy" or "imperial democracy," and they seem not only contradictory
but opposed to basic assumptions that Americans hold about their political system and
their place within it. Supposedly ours is a government of constitutionally limited powers
in which equal citizens can take part in power. But one can no more assume that a
superpower welcomes legal limits than believe that an empire finds democratic
participation congenial.
No administration before George W. Bush's ever claimed such sweeping powers for an
enterprise as vaguely defined as the "war against terrorism" and the "axis
of evil." Nor has one begun to consume such an enormous amount of the nation's
resources for a mission whose end would be difficult to recognize even if achieved.
Like previous forms of totalitarianism, the Bush administration boasts a reckless
unilateralism that believes the United States can demand unquestioning support, on terms
it dictates; ignores treaties and violates international law at will; invades other
countries without provocation; and incarcerates persons indefinitely without charging them
with a crime or allowing access to counsel.
The drive toward total power can take different forms, as Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's
Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union suggest.
The American system is evolving its own form: "inverted totalitarianism." This
has no official doctrine of racism or extermination camps but, as described above, it
displays similar contempt for restraints.
It also has an upside-down character. For instance, the Nazis focused upon mobilizing and
unifying the society, maintaining a continuous state of war preparations and demanding
enthusiastic participation from the populace. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism
exploits political apathy and encourages divisiveness. The turnout for a Nazi plebiscite
was typically 90 percent or higher; in a good election year in the United States,
participation is about 50 percent.
Another example: The Nazis abolished the parliamentary system, instituted single-party
rule and controlled all forms of public communication. It is possible, however, to reach a
similar result without seeming to suppress. An elected legislature is retained but a
system of corruption (lobbyists, campaign contributions, payoffs to powerful interests)
short-circuits the connection between voters and their representatives. The system
responds primarily to corporate interests; voters become cynical, resigned; and opposition
seems futile.
While Nazi control of the media meant that only the "official story" was
communicated, that result is approximated by encouraging concentrated ownership of the
media and thereby narrowing the range of permissible opinions.
This can be augmented by having "homeland security" envelop the entire nation
with a maze of restrictions and by instilling fear among the general population by
periodic alerts raised against a background of economic uncertainty, unemployment,
downsizing and cutbacks in basic services.
Further, instead of outlawing all but one party, transform the two-party system. Have one,
the Republican, radically change its identity:
From a moderately conservative party to a radically conservative one.
From a party of isolationism, skeptical of foreign adventures and viscerally opposed to
deficit spending, to a party zealous for foreign wars.
From a party skeptical of ideologies and eggheads into an ideologically driven party
nurturing its own intellectuals and supporting a network that transforms the national
ideology from mildly liberal to predominantly conservative, while forcing the Democrats to
the right and and enfeebling opposition.
From one that maintains space between business and government to one that merges
governmental and corporate power and exploits the power-potential of scientific advances
and technological innovation. (This would differ from the Nazi warfare organization, which
subordinated "big business" to party leadership.)
The resulting dynamic unfolded spectacularly in the technology unleashed against Iraq and
predictably in the corporate feeding frenzy over postwar contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction.
In institutionalizing the "war on terrorism" the Bush administration acquired a
rationale for expanding its powers and furthering its domestic agenda. While the nation's
resources are directed toward endless war, the White House promoted tax cuts in the midst
of recession, leaving scant resources available for domestic programs. The effect is to
render the citizenry more dependent on government, and to empty the cash-box in case a
reformist administration comes to power.
Americans are now facing a grim situation with no easy solution. Perhaps the just-passed
anniversary of the Declaration of Independence might remind us that "whenever any
form of Government becomes destructive ..." it must be challenged. Copyright © 2003,
Newsday, Inc.