Wallerstein on Bush and Macho Militarism

Illimunating as usual.

Steven Sherman

Comment No. 61, Apr. 1, 2001

                                    "The Militarist Camp in the U.S."

George W. Bush has made it quite clear, quite rapidly, that his Administration 
will govern the United States as far to the right as
it politically can. How far can it? To answer that, it is not enough to look 
at the balance of political forces between the
Democrats and the Republicans. Most commentators seem to emphasize how closely 
the two parties are balanced at the
moment in the U.S. Congress. This is the wrong way to look at it. The fact is 
that this is the first time in forty years and only the
second time since 1932 that the Republican Party has controlled the Presidency 
and both Houses of Congress. Numbers of
bills that the Republicans favored in the last six years and for which they 
had the votes in Congress were either vetoed by
Clinton or were withdrawn in the face of a threatened veto. The Republicans 
are today in a relatively strong position, despite the
closeness of the presidential election and despite the narrow margins they 
have in the legislature.

The real political question to look at is potential struggles within the 
Republican Party. Thus far, Bush has been able to hold the
factions together, but can this last? Throughout the post-1945 period, there 
have always been three quite different constituencies
that have made up the Republican Party: the economic conservatives, the social 
conservatives, and the macho militarists. Of
course, many individuals are all three, but most persons give priority to one 
of the three thrusts. And therein lies the problem for
the Republicans.

The economic conservatives are mostly businessmen and their cadres plus 
high-earning professionals. Their priority at the
moment is to reduce their tax burden and to resist any effort to force 
enterprises to internalize their costs (via ecological
legislation). With amazing rapidity, Bush has indicated that he will fight 
very hard for everything this constituency wants. And
they seem clearly to be his personal priority. He may not get everything he 
wants in tax reduction. But he will probably get
almost everything he wants in restricting environmental protection, since a 
large part of what is needed to be done requires the
action of the Executive branch of government. He has already repealed a good 
deal of what Clinton tried to put into effect in the
closing days of his administration. And he has shut the door definitively on 
the Kyoto Protocol. To the Europeans (and
Canadians) who are unanimously very upset, he has said unequivocally that the 
interests of U.S. businessmen are his first
concern.

The social conservatives have played an increasingly important role in 
Republican politics over the last 25 years, due to the
mobilization of the Christian Coalition. Bush has gone out of his way to make 
serious gestures to meet their demands. He has
reinstated the ban on giving any money to any international organization that 
indicates in any way that it favors abortions. He has
appointed one of them as the Attorney-General, a key post. And he has in 
effect promised that his Supreme Court
appointments would be ones they would favor. But he may not be able to get 
those appointments ratified. We shall see.
However, in matters of new legislation, he has in effect told the social 
conservatives that they must do the work themselves to
get the bills passed, and that, if they succeed, he promises to sign them. But 
it seems he is not going to spend too much of his
own political ammunition in an effort to achieve these ends.

The joker in the pack is macho militarism. In a few short months, the Bush 
administration has managed to take on the entire
world. Whereas the Clinton administration seemed to think that U.S. interests 
were served by calming down conflicts across the
world (to be sure, in ways that the U.S. found comfortable), the Bush people 
seem almost to be stoking up the conflicts. They
have said that a lot more has to be done about Saddam Hussein. They have 
withdrawn from mediating Israel/Palestine, and
have shifted from a covertly pro-Israel position to an overtly pro-Israel, 
anti-Arafat position, They have flexed their muscles
with the Canadians and the West Europeans by telling them in no uncertain 
terms that the U.S. will proceed with the new missile
defense proposals, and have shown little interest in maintaining the old 
U.S.-Russian nuclear treaties, saying they are outdated.
They have downgraded the Russians from being a potential ally to being again a 
potential enemy. They seem to be on the point
of giving Taiwan the kind of arms they want and which the Chinese have made 
clear it is their priority for them not to get. As for
easing anything on the Cuba embargo, forget it.

And of course, as I wrote in Comment No. 60, they seem determined to keep 
North Korea as an active enemy. This last
posture has upset the European Union so much that they have sent a special 
delegation to North Korea, presumably to see if
Europe could supply some of the financial assistance that the U.S. is clearly 
no longer ready to negotiate.

Romano Prodi, the President of the European Union Commission, has already 
accused the U.S. of failing to act like a "world
leader" because of its narrow nationalist attitudes on the question of global 
warming. Mr. Bush seems oblivious. In his Press
Conference on Mar. 29, there occurred the following extraordinary exchange:

Question: Mr. President, allies of the United States have complained that you 
haven't consulted them sufficiently on your stance
with negotiations with North Korea, Kyoto Treaty, your deteriorating relations 
elsewhere. If you strictly read the international
press, it looks like everyone's mad at us. Mr. President, how do you think 
that came to be? And what, if anything, do you plan
to do about it?

Answer: Well, I get a completely different picture, of course, when I sit down 
with the world leaders.

Bush then went on to say on the carbon dioxide issue that "we will not do 
anything that harms our economy, because first things
first, are the people who live in America. That's my priority."

Is it really true that Bush is unaware of the fact that everyone is mad at the 
U.S., or does he not care? This is where the macho
militarists come in. This group believes that power talks, and that if the 
U.S. doesn't act tough, it will lose everything - its power,
its wealth, its centrality in the world-system. They don't want to settle 
conflicts; they want to win conflicts. And if it requires a
little military action here or there, they are ready and eager.

The big question is, are the American people eager or even ready? And even 
more important for Bush, are the businessmen,
who are his basic support group and the group to which he owes his loyalty, 
ready? Because, although military armaments
generate a lot of profits (Shaw explained all this wonderfully in Major 
Barbara), it is also true that unnecessary wars interfere
with capitalist profits in many different ways (Schumpeter always argued 
this). One of the major reasons why Clinton (and
before him Bush the father) improved relations with China was the pressure of 
Republican businessmen, who wanted to invest
and trade there. And it was Republican farm interests which pressed Clinton to 
ease the Cuban embargo. The militarist wing of
the Republican Party runs against the grain of the economic conservative wing 
(or at least a part of it).

So the macho militarists may find arrayed against them not merely those they 
regard as their enemies (say, China and Russia)
and the major U.S. allies but perhaps some major transnationals and other 
large U.S. businesses. This may cause Bush to rein in
the macho militarists, because if he doesn't they might escalate the 
provocations. Is Bush strong enough to do this?

Teddy Roosevelt, unabashed spokesman of U.S. imperialism, advised "Speak 
softly and carry a big stick." The Bush
administration is not following this advice. They are speaking quite loudly 
indeed. But what is the size of their stick?

Immanuel Wallerstein

[These commentaries may be downloaded, forwarded electronica