Part 4 (1/2)

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any country in the world, a prison system with brutalizing conditions, and one that has been significantly privatized.19 Equally striking, a disproportionately high percentage of the imprisoned are African Americans. a.s.suming that most of the imprisoned African Americans have committed some crime, their incarceration would appear to contrast with the n.a.z.i policies that herded millions of Jews, Gypsies, h.o.m.os.e.xuals, political opponents, and Slavs into slave labor camps for no other reason than to satisfy irrational ideological beliefs (”racial purity”) and obtain ”free” labor. Or do the high incarceration rates among blacks reflect not only old-fas.h.i.+oned racism but inverted totalitarianism's fear of political dissidence?

The significance of the African American prison population is political. What is notable about the African American population generally is that it is highly sophisticated politically and by far the one group that throughout the twentieth century kept alive a spirit of resistance and rebelliousness. In that context, criminal justice is as much a strategy of political neutralization as it is a channel of instinctive racism.

Our government need not pursue a policy of stamping out dissidence-the uniformity imposed on opinion by the ”private” media conglomerates performs that job efficiently. This apparent ”restraint” points to a crucial difference between cla.s.sical and inverted totalitarianism: in the former economics was subordinate to politics. Under inverted totalitarianism the reverse is true: economics dominates politics-and with that domination come different forms of ruthlessness. It is possible for the government to punish by withholding appropriated funds, failing to honor ent.i.tlements, or purposely allowing regulations (e.g., environmental safeguards, minimum wage standards) to remain unenforced or waived. What seem like reductions in state power are actually increases. Withholding appropriated money is an expression of power that is not lost on those adversely affected; waiving minimum wage standards is an act of power not lost on those who benefit and those who suffer.20 Such strategies play a major role in the incorporation of state and corporate power. Incorporation need not always require, for example, that corporate representatives sit on review committees that judge new drugs or gather in the office of the vice president to consult on energy policies. Power is typically exercised in a context where the partic.i.p.ants know their cues. Recently a major television network withdrew a program dealing with Ronald Reagan after the Republican National Committee protested a scene where the former president was portrayed as less than inclusive about h.o.m.os.e.xuals.21 This surrender occurred at the precise moment when the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission was promoting greater concentration of media owners.h.i.+p and, in the process, ignoring an unprecedented outcry from thousands of citizens.

VII.

The fact that politically organized interest groups with vast resources operate continuously, that they are coordinated with congressional procedures and calendars, that they occupy strategic points in the political processes, is indicative of how the meaning of ”representative” government has radically changed. The citizenry is being displaced, severed from a direct connection with the legislative inst.i.tutions that are supposed to ”stand in” for the people. If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called ”misrepresentative or clientry government.” It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy.

How is the role of the citizen being redefined and to whose advantage? Almost from the beginning of the Cold War the citizenry, supposedly the source of governmental power and authority as well as a partic.i.p.ant, has been replaced by the ”electorate,” that is, by voters who acquire a political life at election time. During the intervals between elections the political existence of the citizenry is relegated to a shadowcitizens.h.i.+p of virtual partic.i.p.ation. Instead of partic.i.p.ating in power, the virtual citizen is invited to have ”opinions”: measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them.

There is an especially revealing contrast between the n.a.z.i use of public opinion surveys and the methods of contemporary pollsters. The n.a.z.is were interested primarily in constructing a ”ma.s.s” opinion, a monolithic expression of the citizens without qualification or nuance. Hence the plebiscite and its stark choice of ”yes” or ”no.” In contrast, the American method is to prepare for elections by first splintering the citizenry into distinct categories, such as ”between 20 and 35 years old,” or ”white male over 40,” or ”female college graduate.” The potential electorate is thus divided into small subgroups that candidates can then ”target” with messages tailored to the ”values,” prejudices, or habits of the particular category. The effect is to accentuate what separates citizens, to plant suspicions and thereby further promote demobilization by making it more difficult to form coherent majorities around common beliefs. At the same time, the dicing of the public into ever more refined categories renders their const.i.tuent members more easily manipulable: cheaply reproduced in ”focus groups,” their conclusions are represented as political reality. The respondents, for their part, are not obligated to act on their opinions: giving an opinion entails no political responsibility.

The advanced stage of the art of opinion construction and its manipulation is indicative of the forces molding the political system. It combines advanced technology, academic social science, government contracts, and corporate subsidies. We shall encounter this same combination of powers in later pages; it plays a vital role in coordinating the powers on which Superpower depends.

In a genuinely democratic system, as opposed to a pseudodemocratic one in which a ”representative sample” of the population is asked whether it ”approves” or ”disapproves,” citizens would be viewed as agents actively involved in the exercise of power and in contributing to the direction of policy. Instead citizens are more like ”patients” who, in the dictionary definition, are ”bearing or enduring (evil of any kind) with composure; long suffering or forbearing.”22 A demotion in the status and stature of the ”sovereign people” to patient subjects is symptomatic of systemic change, from democracy as a method of ”popularizing” power to democracy as a brand name for a product manageable at home and marketable abroad.23

VIII.

”Superpower” signifies the emergence of a new system. Its guiding purposes are not democratic ones of promoting the well-being of its citizens or involving them in political processes. The new ident.i.ty and how it is to be measured were stated by the administration: ”the United States possesses unprecedented-and unequalled-strength and influence in the world.”24 Implicit in that declaration is a reformulation of the nation's ident.i.ty: it stands for sheer power, economic and military, that is measured by a global standard rather than the nation's const.i.tution; freed not only from const.i.tutional democracy but from any truly political character.

Inverted totalitarianism, the true face of Superpower, represents a blend of powers that includes modern as well as archaic ones. It comprises the business corporation-once hailed as ”the city of G.o.d on earth” and even formally theologized25-the organization of science for continuous advance, and the systematic conversion of new scientific knowledge into new technological applications, especially military ones. A common characteristic of each of these powers is a presumption of virtually limitless development. That dynamic governs economic behavior, the pursuit of knowledge, the production of culture, and military weaponry. The paradox is that the inevitable changes accompanying the development of these powers, indeed, changes that are often consciously sought, are promoted by an administration and a political party advertising themselves as ”conservative.”

Democracy proposes a radically different conception of power. Democracy is first and foremost about equality: equality of power and equality of sharing in the benefits and values made possible by social cooperation. Democracy is no more compatible with world domination than is ”the political,” which is first and foremost about preserving commonality while legitimating and reconciling differences. Both democracy and the political become distorted when the scales are continually expanded. In the United States, from the beginning, there has been a persistent tension between the drive for expansion (the Louisiana Purchase, ”Westward, Ho!”) and the struggle to devise new inst.i.tutions for adapting the practices of democracy and its ethos of political commonality. An enlarged spatial scale both requires and promotes a technology of power that can make occupation and rule effective. America's westward migration was facilitated by new technology, from the covered wagon, the Pony Express, the railroad, and the telegraph to the Winchester rifle. To the technology of expansion there should be added the ideology of ”Manifest Destiny,” which served to legitimate and fuel the ”drive” westward. Ideology can be as vital a part of the technology of power as any mechanical invention, provided it is dynamic-that is, if it possesses a ”thrust” forward in time (e.g., the ”Last Days”) to accompany the occupation of new s.p.a.ce. Such an ideology rea.s.sures those who are applying mundane forms of technology that the act of ”taking over” what was not previously theirs is ”just” by some higher principle. Manifest Destiny, religious conversion, the counterparts to Lebensraum, the Redskin to the Jew.

The preconditions for Superpower are the availability of a totalizing technology of power and an accompanying ideology that encourages the regime's aspirations to global domination. These preconditions were satisfied during the Bush administration. It succeeded in systematizing and exploiting a dynamic complex of powers already existing. Its princ.i.p.al elements include the state, corporate economic power, the powers represented in the integration of modern science and postmodern technologies, a military addicted to technological innovation, and a religious fundamentalism that is no stranger to politics and markets. By ”dynamic” I mean to emphasize that they are powers which constantly supersede their own previous limits and are totalizing in the sense that infinity, or the persistent challenging of the constraints of existing practices, beliefs, and taboos, rather than simple superiority, is the driving force. This is accompanied by a systematic effort to establish the conditions that facilitate power and eliminate those which interfere-from government regulations that frustrate entrepreneurial energies to the ”wall separating church and state” that constrains religious zealots from purifying schools, placing the Ten Commandments in courthouses, preaching redemption to a captive audience of welfare recipients, sometimes using terrorist violence against medical clinics, and setting the limits of scientific research in the name of protecting ”life” before birth but less zealous about promoting health care for the postnatal poor. Such religiosity fits comfortably with a regime promising a ”compa.s.sionate conservatism” that ”will leave no child behind” although, in practice, it frequently fails to provide adequate funds for social and educational programs designed to a.s.sist poor families. It does not emulate the rhetoric of n.a.z.is and Stalinists by extolling the values of ”hardness” and ”steel.” Instead, it coexists easily with a culture of softness, indulgence, and fantasy, of comfortable viewers watching superb athletes perform physical prodigies of grace and violence.

IX.

Hitler was a parvenu in relation to the existing political system. He and his intimate circle began as ”outsiders” who were not a part of the conventional system of political parties and elites in pre-Hitler Germany. In keeping with that character they adopted unconventional, often illegal, means to gain power. The court circle of George II, in contrast, was composed of highly seasoned political operatives, such as d.i.c.k Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove, insiders rather than outsiders. Not only were they experienced in government, but most of them were intimately familiar with the inner workings of the corporate world. Their talents lay in managing the dual system of state and corporation. In Hitler's regime the subjectivity of arrivistes reigned; in Bush's governing circle the ”objectivity” of professional politicians, the aggrandizing of corporate managers on loan, and the stratagems of consultants prevailed. The revolving door of the dual system suggests a certain parity between corporate and state power; the actuality is asymmetrical. While the corporate ethos has overwhelmed the ideal of government as the servant of the people, the old governmental ideals-such as the view that power is to be used for the public good, not for private profit-supply no model for corporate behavior.

One truly fundamental difference between cla.s.sical and inverted totalitarian regimes is that in the years before a.s.suming power, the n.a.z.is had attracted only limited support from the representatives of ”big business.” And during their years of rule it was abundantly clear that capitalism was subordinate to the power of the state and the party. In contrast the Bush administration openly flaunts its connections with corporate powers by appointing their representatives to high positions in government and in the hierarchy of the Republican Party. Another revealing difference: alongside their highly selective celebration of Kultur (e.g., Wagner) the n.a.z.is celebrated a certain barbarism that was contemptuous of ”civilization,” seeing in high culture an effete decadence that sapped the will to power. The Bush administration's spokespersons, as well as supporters of the attack on Iraq and the war against terrorism, portray the United States as the defender of ”civilization” against ”barbarians” and ”apocalyptic nihilists.”26 In one instance the distinction between ”real” and ”inverted” totalitarianism nearly-or, perhaps, ironically-appears to break down. The n.a.z.is came to power by an election in which they won more votes than any rival party, although not a majority. The election, while formally free, was marred by episodes of violence enacted by party thugs. George II was also elected or, better, anointed without a popular majority. Thanks to the manipulation of a dubious electoral process in the state of Florida, an aggressive, experienced, and highly paid ”hit team” of lawyers and political consultants, a timid opposition party, and a highly partisan Supreme Court, the high-handed violations of elementary principles of legitimacy were treated as just another bit of dirty politics, easily forgotten in the rush to ”get on with the nation's business.”27 Behind the benevolent rhetoric of the Bush administration lies perhaps the most crucial inversion. One of the striking features of the three princ.i.p.al twentieth-century totalitarian regimes was a focus on maintaining their societies in a state of continuous political mobilization. Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Stalin's Soviet Union all held periodic plebiscites in which, unfailingly, more than 95 percent of a mobilized citizenry went to the polls and voted yes. There were endless political rallies, public spectacles, rousing oratorical performances by the leaders.h.i.+p, tireless propaganda extolling the leaders, the party, and the ideology, and warnings that heavy sacrifices lay ahead.

In contrast, inverted totalitarianism thrives on a politically demobilized society, that is, a society in which the citizens, far from being whipped into a continuous frenzy by the regime's operatives, are politically lethargic, reminiscent of Tocqueville's privatized citizenry. Roughly between one-half and two-thirds of America's qualified voters fail to vote, thus making the management of the ”active” electorate far easier. Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism. Yet apathy is not simply the result of a TV culture. It is, in its own way, a political response. Ordinary citizens have been the victims of a counterrevolution that has brought ”rollbacks” of numerous social services which were established only after hard-fought political struggles, and which the earlier Republican administrations of Eisenhower and Nixon had accepted as major elements in a national consensus. Rollbacks don't simply reverse previous social gains; they also teach political futility to the Many. And along the way they mock the ideal and practice of consensus.

Where cla.s.sic totalitarianism-whether of the German, Italian, or Soviet type-aimed at fas.h.i.+oning followers rather than citizens, inverted totalitarianism can achieve the same end by furnis.h.i.+ng subst.i.tutes such as ”consumer sovereignty” and ”shareholder democracy” that give a ”sense of partic.i.p.ation” without demands or responsibilities. An inverted regime prefers a citizenry that is uncritically complicit rather than involved. President Bush's first words to the citizenry after 9/11 were not an appeal for sacrifice in a common cause but ”unite, consume, fly.”

Yet elements of inverted totalitarianism could not crystallize in the absence of a stimulus that would rouse the apathetic just enough to gain their support and obedience. The threat of terrorism supplied that element. It could evoke fear and obedience on demand (”according to unverified reports . . .”) without causing paralysis or skepticism.

What is the temptation of a democracy without citizens?

A clue was suggested in the recent remarks of a member of the president's inner circle: ”Even the president is not omnipotent. Would that he were. He often says that life would be a lot easier if it were a dictators.h.i.+p. But it's not, and he is glad it's a democracy.”28 Presumably, the nation exhaled.

X.

The n.a.z.is developed an extreme form of politicalization. The leaders.h.i.+p continuously drummed into its population the necessity of personal sacrifice, of subordinating one's personal concerns to the good of the whole. It was, however, a ”politicalization without politics.” It actively suppressed free public discussion, discouraged the airing of policy alternatives, and clamped down upon the expression of group conflicts. Instead of a politics of open contestation and public involvement, the n.a.z.is pursued a vicious politics of cronyism, intrigue, ruthless ambitions, and periodic purges within the party and its various auxiliaries (SA, SS, etc.). There, hidden from view, individuals and cliques fought over the spoils and prerogatives of office.

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.

XI.

The twentieth-century totalitarian systems in Italy and Germany were made possible by the weakness and eventual collapse of parliamentary government and the failure of the conventional political parties to mount and sustain an effective opposition. The latter proved incapable of countering the tactics and appeals of both extreme Right and Left that had made no secret of their ultimate purpose of dismantling elected governments and outlawing the system of free politics. Cla.s.sic totalitarianism first gained power by capturing the existing system and, once in power, proceeded to destroy it. The break was abrupt and complete.

Inverted totalitarianism has a different background, undramatic, no ma.s.s movement driving it, no putsches or Marches on Rome, no abrupt discontinuity. Instead a scarcely noticeable evolution, an undramatic convergence of tendencies and unintended consequences. In historical terms, corporate power itself is at least as old as the ”trusts” of the nineteenth century; similarly, the role of big money in corrupting politics was well established by the end of the nineteenth century and had aroused a whole generation of ”muckrakers” in the early years of the twentieth. In the 1920s political scientists were already describing interest groups and lobbies as ”the fourth branch of government.” What is unprecedented in the union of corporate and state power is its systematization and the shared culture of the partners.

Inverted totalitarianism begins to crystallize amidst the affluence of the world's most dynamic economy. In contrast, the n.a.z.is' ascendancy was aided in no small measure by the severe economic depression, high inflation, and acute unemployment afflicting Germany during much of the 1920s and early 1930s. Once in power they began to mobilize the society for total war. The resulting full employment reduced the regime's need to exploit economic fears. Where Hitler's party, the National Socialists, had-for a brief period-made gestures in the direction of socialism and the working cla.s.ses but remained cool toward capitalism, inverted totalitarianism is just the opposite. It is resolutely capitalist, no friend of the working cla.s.ses, and, of course, viscerally antisocialist. In contrast to the n.a.z.is, the ever-changing economy of Superpower, despite its affluence, makes fear the constant companion of most workers. Downsizing, reorganization, bubbles bursting, unions busted, quickly outdated skills, and transfer of jobs abroad create not just fear but an economy of fear, a system of control whose power feeds on uncertainty, yet a system that, according to its a.n.a.lysts, is eminently rational.

XII.

One of the most revealing contrasts between cla.s.sic and inverted totalitarianism is in their treatment of what an inspired university president designated ”the knowledge industry.” Under cla.s.sic totalitarianism, schools, universities, and research were conscripted into the service of the regime. Scientific establishments and independent critics were either silenced, purged, or eliminated. Those who survived were expected to faithfully echo the party or government line. The primary task of all educational inst.i.tutions was the indoctrination of the population in the ideology of the regime.

Inverted totalitarianism, although at times capable of hara.s.sing or discrediting critics,29 has instead cultivated a loyal intelligentsia of its own. Through a combination of governmental contracts, corporate and foundation funds, joint projects involving university and corporate researchers, and wealthy individual donors, universities (especially socalled research universities), intellectuals, scholars, and researchers have been seamlessly integrated into the system. No books burned, no refugee Einsteins. For the first time in the history of American higher education top professors are made wealthy by the system, commanding salaries and perks that a budding CEO might envy. During the months leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq, university and college campuses, which had been such notorious centers of opposition to the Vietnam War that politicians and publicists spoke seriously of the need to ”pacify the campuses,” hardly stirred. The Academy had become self-pacifying.

CHAPTER FOUR.

The New World of Terror.

I.

The victor will not be asked later whether he had spoken the truth or not.

-Adolf Hitler.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. . . .

Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.