The Domino Theory

THIS WILL EITHER MAKE YOU LAUGH OR MAKE YOU THINK

What has unfolded in the past 7 months has been a case of classical domino theory. On a deeper level, it has wiped away the last remnants of the idea of independent nation-states, revealed the true global power structure (a feudal order), and the first glimmerings of a global civil society.

Firstly, let us begin with some myths about American government. There does exist a general sense among the American populace of a ‘democracy’, or a government controlled by the people. This is backed up by all of our traditions and myths. However, as the politically savvy will quickly point out, we really have a representative Republic, not a direct or proportional democracy. We usually have only two possible candidate choices, and these candidates only have to answer to the people once every 2, 4, or 6 years, depending on the position they hold, despite the thousands of decisions made between that time. And even when election time comes around, at least half usually feel it useless to vote (or don’t care), and the decisive factors often involve special interests very heavily. Once in office, politicians are highly influenced by these same lobbyist groups.

In this light, the classical liberal triumph of modern times can be seen less as an assertion of the rights of man, but with the perspective of a simple de-centralization of power necessitated by changing economic conditions on the eve (and aftermath) of the industrial revolution. And America can be seen less as a country controlled by the people, as an oligarchy of interests reinforced by a semi-accurate image of democracy.

Presidents then are not candidates of the people but candidates of the oligarchy accepted by the people based on their alleigance with interested groups. And the men who surround the president under his appointment may hold the ideas and interests of only a small minority of Americans. None of this is new to the politically savvy, but simply provides the context of the discussion.

Because in the past, these advisors have generally remained just that, and have not fully leveraged their power. However, all fo that changed with the current administration and the Iraq controversy, where the world’s true power structure has been gradually revealed.

The hawks in the administration, led by Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, in the winter of 2001-2002 represented a very small minority in America. Yet because of the decentralized nature of the administration (divided between them and the doves, led by Colin Powell), they were able to, by the summer of 2002, persuade Bush that a war with Iraq was necessary, given that he would go to the United Nations first. The president and then Powell agreed… the first and second dominoes had fallen.

Now that the administration was serious about war, Tony Blair had to decided to hop on the bandwagon for desires of glory, giving the hawks a toe-hold in Europe. Smaller European nations seeking American support and governed by conservative governments elected on issues totally different from the war, also hoped on the bandwagon. The third domino had fallen.

Once the front was presented, Republicans had to choose whether or not to support their president in an election year; some Republican Congressmen nevertheless voiced objections, but they were eventually isolated and pressured to tow the line. The fourth domino fell.

Now the Democrats had to decide in an election year with their wafer-thin senate majority; the pressure to be moderate proved too much for Daschle and Gephardt. The fifth domino fell. It had taken some time, but now it was paying off for the administration hawks: within a few months, the entire American political system had fallen into line.

By falling into line, the Democrats also fell into the trap of having no alternative plan or anything to offer except half-hearted support. In November 2002, faced with a dismal choice, American voters backed clarity over confusion. The sixth domino had fallen into line. The people had exercised ‘their voice’.

The vote directly accelerated the pressure on the international community; faced with the possibility of a unilateral attack, the U.N. Security Council thought it could stop the war by appeasing the exploding power of administration hawks: mistake. Within a few days of the election, a seventh domino fell when 1441 was passed.

Despite that no country bordering Iraq wanted war, not even Kuwait, large amounts of American troops began to mass in that small monarchy, which agreed along with other small Gulf monarchies (due to desire for U.S. friendship and support) to be springboards. The crucial eighth domino.

The process slowed again as the remaining independent opponents finally decided to take a stand against the administration… But it was too late. Despite 94 percent of Turkish public opinion against the war, despite that Mufasta Kemal Ataturk once said that no foreign troops, friendly or not, would ever set foot in Turkey, the newly elected JDP and Turkish military is about to approve of U.S. troops based on Turkey. The ninth domino.

This week, the six undecided countries of the Security Council, poor, 3rd world nations, will put their national interest ahead of their beliefs and vote for a war they strongly disaprove of. The tenth domino.

If France vetos, it will still look bad and the U.S. will go ahead. Paris will be the 11th domino to fall.

After the war, strong anti-war feeling around the world will have amounted to nothing, and they will be the 12th domino, a victim of their own irrelevance.

Thus, a series of nominally independent entities (1) the president (2) the administration doves (3) the hawkish allies (4) the Republican party (5) the Democratic party (6) the democratic system (7) the general Security Council, part 1 (8) the small regional players (9) a large regional player (10) the general Security Council, part 2 (11) the permanent Security Council (12) world opinion who were in the wake of the fall of the Taliban all opposed or at least not in favor of the war that is about to happen, who are supposed to represent the world, have been pressured, cajoled, coerced, or subverted, one by one, into towing the line, and then in turn used to pressure, cajole, coerce, or subvert the next line of dominoes (or pay the price).

As is obvious from the facts, the world power strucutre has now been revealed: we live in an globally interdependent world feudal system. At the top, the ‘king’, or president, (or his advisors in the case of a weak or conflicted president) can, if he/they does/do it skillfully wield soverignty over a bunch of ‘nobles’, or semi-independent entities: the powers of the domestic republic, world bodies, opinion, and nation-states large and small.

But it is the last domino that is most interesting, for it represents a competing current in this explosive chain of events. 20 years ago or even 10 years ago, before ‘globalization’, before al Jazeera and CNN and the Internet and cheap long distance, “world opinion” did not exist, or if it did it would certainly not have mattered nearly as much as it has. This is a major revolution that has been going on not-so-quietly and yet, it has never, to my knowledge, been pinpointed precisely. After all, since when did Americans or people of other countries closely follow a survey asking what people in countries ranging from Brazil to Nigeria to Russia to the Philipinnes think? Since when were protests so well coordinated and people so well united in a common understanding, and a common struggle (not only against the war in Iraq, but FOR the war… against terrorism)?

As power in the upper echelons and traditional corridors solidifies in this post-Cold War, post-Sept. 11 world, into a truly undemocratic conglomeration of coporate and military-industrial special interests, there is a gilmmer of hope: The people are also coming together as never before, something crystalized in the past 7 months, in what is evolving into a global civil society. Let us just hope that in the 21st century, as in the 20th, technology remains a double-sided phenomenon, checking centralization as well as increasing it, and the terrifying promise of George Orwell’s prophecy can be deferred yet again.

While I don’t agree completely with your domino worldview, I do agree with the above statement. I’ve felt for a long time that Democracy has yet to be practiced in away that does its ideals justice. Though the biggest problem facing pure democracy is what’s called “tyranny of the masses”. Basically stated it’s where 51% oppress the 49%. An example close to home for me is in Northern Ireland, where the Catholics had little to no power, because they were in the minority, while Protestants had complete control. Fundamentally what was happening was racism, based upon religion and nationality. This could be said to be inline with Democracy, it wasn’t fair on the minority. Hence why Human Rights are so important. Only with the correct mix of Human Rights and Democracy will there be a fair governmental system. This also must apply to any form of World Government, which is an inevitability.

While this is true we’ve been a part of a ‘Globalized’ world for longer then is commonly accepted or realised. As far back as history goes it tells us of all the different tribes and empires that have conquered distant parts of the world. All these conquers have setup trade roots with these remote places. The Silk and Spices from Asia. Portugal’s and the Spanish trade with the “New World”. England and Her Majesties many Colonises of the empire. All of these are a form of Globalisation.

The “global civil society” has been a reality for almost as long as trade roots. I can’t remember the exact article I read, but it was a review of the world economy from today going back almost to the beginning of recorded time. It showed just how much of a united world we have always been, despite the long distances that may have separated us.

There has always been world opinion, but back then information took longer to travel. Now information about any world event can be sent in milliseconds. When it used to take days or weeks. All that has changed is the speed with which information can be transmitted around the world.

Impressive article, Beet Juice.

A couple of comments:

I’ve never thought that proportional democracies like those that exist in Europe are very desirable (relatively speaking). Most of the western European states were designed to eliminate the possibility of a fascist dictator coming to power. Before WWII, Germany, Italy, and those they dragged along were a totalitarian system where everything got done regardless of what anyone but the leader thought, no matter how stupid or evil those things often were. After the war, they reacted by setting up systems where everyone has a voice no matter how marginal they are, and, consequently, nothing gets done unless it is so watered down and checked by labrythine bureacracies that it threatens no one and affects nothing. Understand that this is a hasty charicature and necessarily somewhat unfair. There is much to appreciate in the legacy of the modern European democracies, etc. They are without a doubt an order of magnitude better that what they replaced or than what most of the rest of the world gets for a government.

That said, I think the American system of representation is superior for retaining a strong executive who must operate within legal limits. I still have problems with parts of it, specifically with the two-party system (though this has no legal necessity). I would rather see political parties eliminated entirely and have candidates stand by their own ideas. The caliber of the average politician would increase greatly in that event, as the party system selects for “electibility” and not substance.

The party system also makes it easier for those who want to bribe legislation and policy into being. And certainly, you are right about interest groups and financial pressures on the decisions of presidents, but I think “oligarchy” is overstated. The money, after all, is used to finance the elections–it’s votes they are really after, and that’s why everyone’s voice does matter (straight face) if you actually use it. Had the protest movement materialized earlier and been aggressive about contacting their representatives’ offices, Bush woud probably not have gotten the authorization. Regime change has been in the air since Clinton, and since 9-11-2001 it’s been on the policy agenda. It’s no excuse to say they rushed it through.

As for the domino-model, each domino does reveal the truth of the thesis. However, you should realize that each domino paradoxically makes the thesis less true. The more dominos have to fall, the less power the US has left for future situations. Each of the dominos you list has taken a tremendous expenditure of energy in the form of time, economic aid (bribes), diplomatic goodwill, etc. George Bush and the USA do not have unlimited resources to do this whenever they want. They can’t pull off another 3 Iraqs in this generation. I think that’s why they are so hands-off in the North Korean situation–they can’t deal with it right now and they’re trying to make that look like a principled policy decision, though I don’t criticize them for that. It would be worse to negotiate when the US’ hand is weakest.

As for your last point, we’ll see about the global civil society; I doubt it. This situation has a recent precedent: the hippie/post-68 peace movement. All these poses are so very rehearsed; this is why so many people talk of “another Vietnam.” It’s like all the old paraphenalia got dragged out of the thousand closets where it had been stored for the last 30 years. I suppose everyone has an opinion of the value and achievements of that generation. Mine is low, though of course Vietnam was a catastrophe and civil rights are good. As far as civil rights, the important and great gains were from an earlier period. The hippies just co-opted those powerful feelings of justice and unity you can hear in Dr. King’s speeches and proceeded to make them into adolescent arrogance and a veneral disease vector. Maybe this time it’s different. I sure hope so.

i think your patriotisim shrouds your judgement. Firstly beliving the us political system is better then its european counterparts and secondly accepting poor american excuses/propaganda that excuse war, on both accounts i personaly disagree but i guess its all personal opinion and seeing as i dont have time to put up a argument at the moment this counts for little but when i have a good half an hour ill be back to prove my point

I’m interested to hear your criticisms, though this thread and my post on it are not arguing for or against the war (though we betray our opinions, I’m sure). About that topic, you can scrap with me on the War for Oil, Tony Blair, and UN Suffers threads.

I respect that people will prefer different systems; there is wiggle room here. We’re comparing shades of blue, not black with white. You have to keep in mind too, that the American system is better suited to a strong military power, where you need a ‘commander-in-chief.’ Other than a little in France, the only real military power on continental western europe is the USA from the old cold war security arrangements.

Anyway, my point was that I don’t agree that the United States is “less democratic” because it doesn’t follow the continental model. If we were going to discuss this further, we’d have to clarify exactly what we mean by democracy, representation, etc. Suffice it to say, I don’t think government-by-opinion-poll is democracy, or, if it is, I’m not a democrat. People sentimentalize this a bit too much. I think it comes from Rousseau, who had no influence on the formation of the US, but quite a bit in Europe. The idea that democracy is supposed to embody the “General Will”; it’s not my thing. I don’t think there is such a thing as aggregate will, or collective morality, or the like.

There is a certain paradigm right now. As if someone out there has the most correct answer and expresses himself through media. It is related to the paradigm established after the cold war. That there is no alternative to letting those “benefitted” by a “free” market have controll. As if we weren’t allowed to think ourselves or at least not think of acting any other way than this paradigm designates. As all untrue paradigms, this won’t last forever. Sooner or later the lack of complexity incorporated in the “free” market - thought will make alternatives visible. Sovietism isn’t the only alternative to “free” market, as is visible for all who want to see the complex reality of the world. Neither is communism or socialism. The capitalist, communist or socialist system are all remnants of an old way of seeing things lacking touch with the reality of human essence. Thus, they are only different paradigms that can be advertised for in the search for control of people and keeping them from being independent of such false “descriptions” of reality.

In the end, there is a need for something that unifies people. And that is only to find within. There is need for a movement that incorporates the human essence, which we may easily find to be something far beyond what is designated as the human race and other categorisations and concepts “humans” have come up with in their search for control and simplification (falsification) of reality.

The importance of independence is nothing new in philosophy. However, certain ways of defining independence exclude the essence of being. It is as if humans try to avoid being what they are in the name of “independence”. In such cases, one is always partial to what is established and that is always a false “representation” of reality. What is established are paradigms that just happen to be supported at the moment. So, independence is often defined as the independence of these paradigms in the evaluation of them!

A less paradigm-like or more true form of independence, is when one actually goes beyond all established paradigms and seeks within. Because what is should not be ignored. Paradigms, on the other hand, are misrepresentations of what is. And since we all share this situation of living, of being beyond our bodies, this is what should be focused on in the search for a system closer to reality and thus more flexible than the post-coldwar-paradigm. It is only through understanding of each other, of being, that we can see the true meaning of freedom and not through bombastic, unflexible paradigms, whether they are objects of promoting capitalist, communist or socialist systems. There is a need to move away from the materialist, unhuman way of thinking. This will also make humans to less of products and people will recognise that there is no one-dimensional way of regarding human beings.