Open Letter to President Obama from a Chilean Political Scientist and a U.S. Sociologist

Open Letter to President Obama from a

Chilean Political Scientist and a U.S. Sociologist

Fernando Duque Ph.D.

Professor of Political Science

Universidad de Los Lagos,

Puerto Montt, Chile

fduque@ulagos.cl

Ricardo B. Duque Ph.D.

Visiting Professor of Sociology

Tulane University,

New Orleans, Louisiana, USA

rduque@tulane.edu

3^rd Draft March 14, 2009

Dear Mr. President, popular media and specialized journals are replete with articles and letters offering advice on how you should manage the first year of your administration. There is little doubt you understand the pressing challenges ahead. With good reason you will ignore most of these well-intentioned recommendations since many will be fatally tainted by personal preferences and natural subjectivity. The following humble and respectful proposal is subjective too and perhaps has little chance of penetrating your communication filters. Nevertheless, we will state it for the sake of the historical record. First, we offer some recommendation from political theory that best frame the Herculean challenge before you. We then summarize the Hegemonic Myth and how the last decade of U.S. policy ignored political history and alienated the majority of the world’s population. We then remind you of sage advice bequeathed by the U.S. Founding Fathers and conclude by pointing to ominous clouds amassing along the international horizon.

POLITICAL THEORY ON RAPID SOCIAL CHANGE

Our first recommendation is that you and your cabinet review classical political theory. You should acquaint yourselves with the development of western political thought through the last three thousand years. One recent overview we recommend to students of foreign relations is Norberto Bobio’s “The forms of government”. [1] If you allow us, we will summarize key points from this text. Most great western thinkers agree on one very important aspect of political history: change from a corrupt form of government to a benign form of government is usually extremely traumatic and always follows an enormous economic crisis. Unless the process of change in this case is carefully institutionalized and backed by overwhelming military and political force, it often climaxes in revolution or civil war. Furthermore, the transition from “bad” to “good” government is only successful when the reformist rulers clearly understand, and are prepared to follow, the lessons of history. If these new rulers ignore the fundamental wisdom of history, the forces that sustain the corrupt status quo often regain power.

Even though your speeches to date never employ these words and arguments exactly, it is apparent your vision for the United States includes a dramatic shift from an oligarchic status quo to a dynamic democratic form of government. Your campaign indirectly criticized the ruling elite, suggesting that multinational corporations unfairly employ their political access to direct key branches of government. It is generally held that this is accomplished through a sophisticated network of powerful lobbies that help elect public officials, who in turn create public agencies and/or appoint directors, who then often regulate important sectors of the economy on behalf of these same corporations. This is commonly referred to in the literature as regulative capture. [2] Put in a more vulgar way, this moral hazard [3] is tantamount to putting the foxes in charge of the hencoop.

Given the present state of government-corporate collusion at the national level, one could argue that De Tocqueville’s ideal Jacksonian democracy only precariously survives at the local and municipal level. [4] Here, William Domhoff’s life work offers some important insights. [5] Domhoff suggest that the plutocratic oligarchy has been successful over the last half century in reducing the wealth of the working and middle classes, while increasing their wealth exponentially. Magnified by recent oil corporation profits and the credit crisis/bail out, this extreme income distribution has produced a fundamental imbalance between two crucial economic factors, global supply and demand. The first victim of this dialectical contradiction is the U.S. housing market. Recently the economic contagion has penetrated the rest of the U.S. economy and now the world economy. Not surprising, this unequal income distribution among rich and poor is magnified as this contagion unfolds throughout the Third World.

One obvious proscription to this global imbalance is your initiative of income redistribution through massive “New Deal” style public works, alternative energy technologies and state control of credit and finance. President Franklin D. Roosevelt executed a similar plan in 1933, arguably saving the country from total economic collapse. However, you face a fundamental difference. Roosevelt was a member of the U.S. aristocratic elite. He managed to maintain enough support of the ruling class, even as he campaigned on a populist platform. Consequently, the aristocratic republic was saved and had the opportunity to consolidate their oligarchic republic over the next forty years. Today you, an African-American president of immigrant and working-class parents, resides in the White House. Although professionalized in the Ivy League, you obviously do not belong to the oligarchic ruling class. Consequently, your plans, programs and policies will most likely be considered unwanted, unsolicited and an intrusion on “their turf.” Furthermore, they will consider most of your ideas a mortal blow to their class interests, a government of the rich, by the rich and only for the rich.

If your crucial programs are successfully implemented, they will represent a radical paradigmatic shift from oligarchy to democracy. The added risk to this inherent kind of rapid change, as mentioned earlier, is that a growing minority of the country has fallen under the spell of the “corrupted” elite and their incubuses. They will be persuaded to strongly reject these needed changes. The elite will use all means at their disposal to (1) co-opt you and your assistants. And failing this, they will (2) try to destroy you and your government. History is thick with cases in which well-intentioned reformers ignored this political reality to tragic consequences. An international example is the case of Chile, the homeland of one of the authors of this present essay. This is exactly what befell President Salvador Allende in 1973.[6] He misunderstood the political reality of the times and as a result he and the nation paid a very heavy price. Examples from your country’s recent history include the foreshortened Presidencies of John F. Kennedy [7] and Richard M. Nixon. [8] According to some insiders, both leaders dared to buck the military-industrial complex status quo and were summarily dismissed by the oligarchic elite.

Given the lessons of history, you may have to reconsider your well-intentioned desire for a bipartisan political approach. If you insist on this “across the isle” strategy, you could be sadly disappointed. Your presidential tenure may well mirror the populist failures of the Carter and Clinton administrations, both of which succumb to neo-liberal revolutions. If you truly want to implement your electoral mandate, you may have no choice but to rely on the full extent of federal and state institutions, as well as the brilliant Internet-driven communication system to which your presidential win owes its gratitude. The American people must be fully informed and socialized to the urgent necessity of your proposed reforms. A sustained institutionalization of change is central here. Even if all goes well initially, there may be attempts by the political right to disrupt or even halt your reforms. To face these imminent challenges, you must devote one hundred per cent of your time to the implementation of this delicate and complex paradigm shift strategy.

Simultaneous to the internal processes of change, your administration will benefit from the prompt return of military troops overseas, particularly the National Guard. With a strategic and responsible withdrawal, you will achieve two crucial and necessary objectives. First, these returning resource will insure that the forces of the reactionary right are properly neutralized, allowing a successful and peaceful process of socioeconomic change within the United States. Second, withdrawal will diffuse and perhaps help resolve many anti-American “hot spots” around the world. There are fundamental differences of interest between the United States and emerging world cultures. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. oligarchy assumed that bipolarity has been replaced by unipolarity under U.S. direction and control. The neo conservative branch of the ruling elite mistakenly believed that the new American Empire had finally replaced the hegemonic rule mythically achieved by the British Empire at the end of the 18^th and early 19^th centuries. This hegemonic myth, though, embodies a unique profile that the United States fails to mirror. The following section treats this in more detail.

THE HEGEMONIC MYTH

According to Hans Morgenthau [9] and other “balance of power” theorists [10], a successful hegemon has four essential components: (1) first, the hegemon controls at least half of the global economy, particularly more than 50 percent of the world’s industrial production; (2) second, the superpower enjoys territorial rule over at least half of the earth; (3) third, its armed forces can successful police the entire world population—one soldier for every 500 global inhabitants; (4) finally, the superpower counts on the loyalty and admiration of at least half of the world’s population. Obviously, the United States does not embody the four requirements mentioned above. Even with the Unites State’s superior economic engine, the rise of the European Union, China and India suggest that point one is tentatively fulfilled at best. Furthermore, although enjoying technological superiority in logistics and firepower, the ongoing challenges experienced by the U.S. military in the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations confirms that criteria two and three are not fulfilled. Most telling though is the failure of U.S. policy to achieve requirement four, the loyalty and admiration of half the world’s population.

The neo-conservative misinterpretation of political, economic and military supremacy has pitted the United States against over 80 percent of the world’s population. This is in large part a byproduct of the U.S. plutocratic elite’s proclivity to ally itself with corrupt counterparts in third world countries. Consequently, a tiny Eurocentric minority in developing countries admires U.S. rulers, while the vast majority of the poor within these same nations despises them. This political and economic short cut to global domination has also resulted, not surprisingly, in a variety of domestic and international “blow back” incidents including the most tragic, the terrorist attacks on the twin towers, September 11^th 2001. [11] Moreover, U.S. political, economic and cultural policies over the last four decades have offended a majority of inhabitants in the largest civilizations outside of the West, particularly those in Islamic, Orthodox, Sinic and Latin American regions. Below is a brief review of how U.S. policy has alienated the populations in each of these key regions.

Within the Islamic civilization, the bone of contention is centered on U.S. attempts to create, develop and support a western neo-colonial enclave in the Middle East. Furthermore, it is seen as pursuing monopoly influence over the oil and gas resources of this region and attempting to impose American cultural values across a vast Islamic region from Morocco to Indonesia. Naturally, the Muslim World has reacted with extreme prejudice. The real and proxy wars against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrian, Iraqis, Afghans, Iranians and Pakistanis are a product of this “clash of civilization” predicted by Samuel Huntington (1993).

Regarding the Russian or orthodox civilization, the bones of contention revolve around U.S. attempts to strategically encircle Russia and its allies, perceived designs on the oil and gas reserves of central Asia and open calls for regime change in the Kremlin. However, the largest threat to Russian security has been NATO overtures to Georgia and the Ukraine, functionally transforming allies into enemies of the former Soviet. With the war in Georgia and drastic political changes in Ukraine, the Russian civilization has finally reacted to two decades of U.S.-led economic, military and political aggression. The former Soviets are reacting in the same way as Americans might react if they woke up to discover that Russia had opened military bases in Havana and Caracas.

With the Sinic or Chinese civilization, the conflict is equally as acute. The Chinese civilization is the oldest in the planet. It has for centuries administered control over Taiwan, Mongolia, Tibet and Korea. Furthermore, Sinic civilization during the dark ages in Europe was the industrial powerhouse of the world. Since 1949, they have been working to regain a prominent global position. But the U.S. elite opposes China’s rise at every turn. Once again western elites promote a regime change in Beijing, pressuring the new Chinese leadership to behave accordingly to Anglo Saxons values. Naturally, these attempts are strongly rejected by the communist party. This clash could easily escalate if not attended to with care. A conflict over Taiwan or Tibet might well be the catalyst for a catastrophic clash among a new generation of super powers.

The clash with the Latin American civilization has long been festering and has historical roots. Practically all of Latin America became U.S. economic and political satellites after the collapse of the British Empire. The Monroe doctrine was the initial north-centric policy that impacted the region. Masked in overtures of protection and mutual support, the United States functionally “conquered” part of Latin America in the early 19^th century. The first victim was Mexico, which lost half of its territory. By the commencement of the 20^th century, Central America, the Caribbean and Colombia also suffered the brunt of U.S. expansionist policies. Cuba and Puerto Rico were transformed outright into U.S. colonies. Since mid-century, every Latin America country has in some way been impacted negatively by U.S. interventionism. Recent NAFTA and CAFTA agreements have magnified already stressed relations among the people’s of the region. At the dawn of 21^st century though, more than a few Latin-American nations have regrouped and are resisting the north, reminding some of the defiant nationalist convictions embodied by revolutionary Cuba, 1959. Today, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil are all actively working for economic independence from the north and its proxies, the IMF and World Bank. Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and even Costa Rica are closely monitoring these ongoing developments and may soon join this anti-north trend.

The U.S. Oligarchy behaves as if the United States is the only hegemonic super power, above international laws and resolutions. This elite sincerely believes that theirs is the only interests that matter. Further, these interests are constructed as benign and congruent with the interest of all. Hence, what is good for the elite is good for the United States, thus ultimately good for the whole world. U.S. plutocratic leaders are incapable of understanding and much less sympathizing with the legitimate interest of other countries. This mixture of ignorance, pride and self-righteousness imploded many great empires of the past like Spain, Portugal, Holland, France, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Russia and Great Britain. According to Paul Kennedy of Harvard, [12] this misinterpretation of political reality, combined with an incongruence of goals and means led to disastrous wars and to inevitable destruction of once seemingly invincible empires. Unfortunately, these historical foibles are now being replicated by the U.S. plutocratic elite, as witnessed by the myriad of international conflicts they support. A deliberate and orderly withdrawal of U.S. military forces around the world will create the conditions for a sustainable solution to many of the world geo-political woes and perhaps circumvent the inevitable fall of the United States. Further, there is intellectual precedence for this type of policy and it is suggested by your own Founding Fathers.

ADVICE FROM U.S. FOUNDING FATHERS

President Obama, if your administration follows the historic recommendations of your Founding Fathers, a respect for diverse opinions and minding one’s own cultural business, most global problems might resolve themselves. To insist on a foreign policy that ignores the legitimate interests of other civilizations, while overestimating the United State’s military power is a sure recipe for decline and eventual collapse. According to Professor Niall Ferguson [13] at Harvard, the most recent example of misguided policies on this scale can be attributed to the British Empire and its decline through the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. To avoid this fate, it is of the outmost importance and necessity that your administration wisely adopts a “Fortress America Strategy”. Please review the sage writings of Founding Fathers George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Institutional change, as well as modern nation building, instigated from abroad works best only in regions with a history of solid and well functioning indigenous institutions. Also important is that the values of the host nation are congruent with those of the donor nation. [14] Failing these two vital conditions, regime interventions are bound for failure. That is why the U.S. elite is losing the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your challenge is much more difficult than the one Lincoln faced in 1860. Lincoln had sufficient troops to win the war and the peace and he did not have foreign wars to win. The present economic task at home is so great that you cannot afford to be distracted by foreign conflicts. You need to put your house in order first. And then if you decide it is in your nation’s interests to influence others, do so with the most persuasive argument available: let your nation lead by example. The blunders of the last half-century are monumental and the United States has lost its moral high ground as a result. You must explain to your populous that over the last 40 years, the ruling elite have been corrupted and has ignored the values that made your country great. By trying to achieve the impossible elite dream of world domination, the vast majority of the world is adamantly calling for a U.S. retreat back within its own borders. While there is great benefit to promoting freedom and democracy abroad, unnecessary U.S. meddling over the past 50 years is the primary reason why your country is so unpopular today.

Fortunately, you demonstrate a fantastic power for reason and persuasion. But your admirable intellectual capacity will be limited by the information you are privy to. We commend your insistence on surrounding yourself with a variety of viewpoints to access to the broadest knowledge pool. The information you receive should be analyzed transparently, critically and with the highest scientific integrity and accountability in order to avoid the intelligence blunders of the recent past. Once they are drawn from critically assessed sources, and the unintended consequences thoroughly identified, your policies should be presented to the American people in the most objective and non-ideological way possible. On the whole, American citizens are intelligent, rational and highly pragmatic. Properly informed, they will support rational policies that are realistic and well thought out. The era of wrapping half-witted U.S. initiatives in moral and patriotic ribbons is worn and withered.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Mr. President, we studied carefully your book entitled the “Audacity of hope”. [15] You suggest that America should build a new international consensus in order to confront the dangers emerging in the new Millennium. You also contend the world of great power rivalries no longer exists. Unfortunately Mr. President, we regret to inform that perhaps this is not supported by present realities. Due to the imperial and expansionist behavior of the nation you now lead, particularly during the last four decades, the old “balance of power” practices and behaviors are back. As a result, the world’s present geopolitical balance resembles the one at the start of the 20^th century.

The acute competition for resources and influence among great powers has returned with vengeance. We are reliving our historical past and perhaps hammering the last death nail in the coffin of Fukuyama’s dream. [16] The end of history means the end in the evolution of political and economic thought. The democratic – liberal ideology will eventually shape all governments and modern capitalism will guide economic policies in the planet. The events of the last couple of years offer substantial support to the predictions of Samuel Huntington, Niall Ferguson, and Paul Kennedy. Like our past, our present is the predicted world of expedient alliances among, and clashing interests between, great powers. But this time there are important differences. Before, competition existed among states that more or less belonged to the same civilization. The west reined supreme on the planet. Today the conflict is between different civilizations. The Anglo Saxon civilization represents a minority of the world’s population. Soon a rival civilization, the Chinese or Sinic, as Samuel Huntington refers to it, will grow more powerful. If your civilization hopes to share the distribution of world power in the future, it is imperative you accept and adapt to this emerging reality before your chickens come home to roost.

REFERENCES

---

[1] La Teoria delle Forme di Governo nella storia del Pensiero politico anno académico 1975 – 1977. Giappichelli Editore Turín. 1976

[2] Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J., “The politics of government decision making. A theory of regulatory capture.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1089-112. 1991.

[3] Hellmann, Thomas F., Kevin C. Murdock and Joseph E. Stiglit, Liberalization, Moral Hazard in Banking, and Prudential Regulation: Are Capital Requirements Enough? The American Economic Review. 90(1): 147-165. 2000.

[4] De Toqueville, A. Democracy in America (Free Press 2000).

[5] Domhoff, W. The Powers that be. Processes of ruling class domination in America (Vintage Books 1978); Domhoff, W.. Who rules America? How “The Power elite” dominates business, governments and society (Simon and Shuster 1983); Domehoff, W. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the year 2000 (Mayfield Publishing 2000).

[6] Davis, Nathanial, The last two years of Salvador Allende (Cornell Univ Press 1985).

[7] Prouty, L. Fletcher, JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy (Citadel 2004).

[8] Colodny, Len and Robert Gettlin, Silent Coup: The Removal of Richard Nixon (St. Martins Press 1992).

[9] Morgenthau, H., Politics among Nations, 3^rd. Edition (New York: Knoff 1960).

[10] Hinsley, F.H., Power and the Pursuit of peace. Cambridge University Press, 1963; Carr, E.H., The twenty years’ crisis (London MacMillan and Co., 1939); Claude Jr., Inis L., Power and International Relations. Random House, New York, 1964; Gulick, Edward V., Europe’s classical Balance of Power. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1955); Haas, E.B., “The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda? World politics, Vol. 5, July, 1953; Toynbee, A.B., A Study of History. Oxford University Press, New York, 1947; Lasswell, Harold D. and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press 1950); Taylor, A.J.P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848 – 1918 (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1954); Morton A. Kaplan, Balance of Power, Bipolarity and the other models of International Systems “American Political Science Review, Sept. 1957; Hume, David “On the balance of Power”, The Philosophical works of David Hume (Boston, 1854); Churchill, Winston, The Second World War: The gathering storm (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1948); Bacon, Francis, “The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral” in Wolfers and Martin (eds.); The Anglo-American Tradition in Foreign Affairs (New Haven: Yale University Press 1956); Kissinger, Henry A., A World Restored (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957); Liska, George. The International Equilibrium (Cambridge Harvard University Press 1957).

[11] Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: the costs and consequences of American empire. 2nd Edition (Macmillan. 2004).

[12] Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. (Vintage Books 1989).

[13] Ferguson, Niall, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power, Basic Books, New York, 2003; Ferguson, Niall, “Sinking Globalization in Foreign Affairs 84(2) 2005.

[14] Eckstein, Harry, Division and Cohesion in Democracy. A study of Norway. Princeton University Press 1966 (appendix B).

[15] Obama, Barack, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. (Vintage Books 2008).

[16] Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and The Last Man (Penguin books, New York 1992).

Carta a Bachelet

Puerto Montt, 14 de Diciembre de 2008

Señora Michel Bachelet
Presidenta de la
República de Chile

Respetada señora presidenta:

Estamos en un periodo paradigmático de verdaderos y enormes cambios históricos. Mucho más importante que los cambios que ocurrieron con la caída de los socialismos reales y particularmente con la desaparición de la Unión Soviética a comienzos de década de los años 90 del siglo pasado.

La caída de los socialismos reales produjo un enorme y devastador impacto en la psiquis planetaria. El movimiento socialista mundial cayó en un profundo estupor. Gran parte de sus filósofos e ideólogos denegaron de sus ideas y de sus libros. No pocos adoptaron la única ideología que aún sobrevivía con éxito a nivel planetario es decir, el liberalismo.

Cientistas políticos de gran prestigio anunciaban un nuevo amanecer en la humanidad. Huntington predijo la nueva ola democratizadora y Fukuyama anunció el fin de la historia. Ahora, el liberalismo democrático dominaría todos los sistemas políticos, y el capitalismo anglosajón dominaría todas las economías del planeta.

En Chile, el impacto de este gran fenómeno histórico fue igualmente avasallador. La ideología neo liberal entró como un gigantesco tsunami en todos los rincones de la vida política y económica nacional. La Democracia Cristiana abandonó varios siglos de pensamiento humanista cristiano y su comunitarismo socioeconómico. Los partidos marxistas se avergonzaron de Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao y Fidel Castro. Casi todos, sin excepción, aceptaron el gigantesco triunfo ideológico del liberalismo. Los libros de Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mills, Buchanan, Freedman y tantos otros dominaron el pensamiento político chileno. Muy pronto nació el consenso de Washington, las privatizaciones, la reducción del tamaño y función del Estado
y naturalmente, toda la teoría y metodología del ajuste estructural.

No obstante Chile, al igual como lo hizo entre 1810 y 1829 y particularmente entre 1891 y 1920 (la primera y segunda ola liberal que ha experimentado el país), ignoró totalmente un importantísimo componente del modelo económico liberal. Este componente fundamental se le denomina el resorte, el espíritu, el alma, la pasión, o los valores culturales y éticos esenciales para el buen funcionamiento de dicha ideología. Cuando la sociedad posee en su subsistema cultural una gran abundancia de los valores éticos que sustentan el modelo capitalista moderno, este modelo enriquece a las naciones y crea en la tierra el paraíso soñado por los autores bíblicos. Pero cuando este espíritu o resorte no existe o existe muy débilmente se crea un infierno que termina por incendiarse en llamas irremediables. Esto ha sido analizado extensivamente por los filósofos liberales modernos empezando con Adam Smith y luego siguiendo con Weber, Parson, Schumpeter, McClelland, Winter, Pye, Almond, Coleman, Powell, Huntington y Landes. En América Latina los pensadores más destacados en este tema han sido Claudio Veliz, Carlos Alberto Montaner y Mario Vargas Llosa.

El capitalismo moderno no funciona adecuadamente con lo que vulgarmente se conoce como “la ética de mercado” es decir, la búsqueda de lucro. El capitalismo moderno funciona sólo con la ética protestante en occidente y con la ética confusionista en el Oriente. Las características más importantes de esta ética en occidente son el trabajo constante y productivo, el ahorro sostenido, la inversión razonable y juiciosa, el mandato divino por expandir los negocios y las empresas a fin de dar trabajo masivo, el respeto a la naturaleza y el medio ambiente, el salario y la jubilación digna para los trabajadores, la filantropía, el rol social de la empresa, la represión del consumo superfluo y finalmente la entrega de la riqueza personal acumulada mediante fundaciones destinadas a ayudar a los pobres y a los menos favorecidos. La salvación, el tema central de los calvinistas (o sea la entrada al paraíso después de la muerte en la tierra), sólo se obtiene si el individuo ha llevado una vida ejemplar, similar a la de los santos de la Biblia. Al acercarse a la vejez, el calvinista debe desprenderse de sus riquezas materiales ya que cree fervientemente en el precepto de que “es más fácil que un camello pase por el ojo de una aguja que un rico entre en el reino de los cielos”.

Sin este poderoso componente ético fundamental, el modelo capitalista se corrompe hasta sus bases esenciales, muere y se pudre irremediablemente; entonces se produce lo que Montesquieu denominaba “la pérdida de la virtud republicana” o sea, la pérdida del resorte que legitima la forma de gobierno denominada república aristocrática. Marx denominó a este sistema corrupto el infierno en la tierra. Los burgueses representados por los empresarios grandes, medianos y pequeños, se corrompen hasta los huesos, e inventan esquemas fraudulentos a fin de ganar cada vez más dinero con el objetivo de darse la gran vida aquí en la tierra. Ya no hay diferencias entre capitalistas y vulgares piratas, bandoleros o mafiosos. Estos esquemas fraudulentos y corruptos se desploman como un castillo de naipes. Como resultado de esta corrupción ética, primero se produce la inflación desenfrenada, luego la recesión y finalmente la deflación paralizante. Toda esta cadena de causa y efecto termina por crear la miseria de cientos de millones de seres humanos que pierden sus empleos. El planeta entra así en un ciclo económico depresivo que arruina a naciones y civilizaciones. Esta catástrofe económica termina con guerras civiles y finalmente en guerras que involucran a muchos países.

Esta triste anaciclosis (o teoría de los ciclos históricos) ha ocurrido de esta manera en forma regular durante los últimos 500 años. Esta teleología histórica es la que Marx utilizó para explicar las contradicciones dialécticas del capitalismo corrupto. En esencia, este sistema crea dialécticamente las semillas de su propia destrucción. El afán o espíritu de lucro desbordado produce inversiones especulativas. Esto porque los capitalistas corruptos no se conforman con un 5 ó 10% de ganancia anual y aspiran a retornos superiores al 20 ó 30% del capital invertido. Para lograr estas ganancias excesivas los capitalistas deben lograr una mayor plusvalía de sus trabajadores. Esta práctica determina que grandes sectores del planeta se empobrezcan relativamente, al mismo tiempo que insignificantes minorías se enriquecen a niveles jamás experimentados por la historia humana. La extremada concentración de la riqueza en pocas manos lleva al inicio del ciclo económico depresivo. Éste es un círculo vicioso que se inicia con un fundamental desequilibrio sistémico entre oferta y demanda. La oferta de productos y servicios es enorme y esto por la expansión especulativa de las inversiones, pero al mismo tiempo, debido a la plusvalía la demanda real es cada vez menor. La plusvalía impide el crecimiento del poder adquisitivo de las grandes mayorías y estas gradualmente dejan de comprar y consumir. El capitalismo corrupto por un tiempo logra solucionar este desequilibrio con el crédito fácil, pero este instrumento al cabo de algunos años también colapsa y pronto el círculo vicioso se inicia nuevamente. Los escaparates de las grandes tiendas están llenos de productos no vendidos, lo mismo ocurre con las bodegas de los productores. Naturalmente, siguiendo la ley de la oferta y la demanda, los precios gradualmente comienzan a bajar al comienzo del ciclo para luego desplomarse en una deflación generalizada. Por supuesto que con la bajada de los precios de bienes y servicios las utilidades también disminuyen y pronto dejan de existir. Las empresas fracasan y las quiebras se expanden por todos lados. Las quiebras producen un ejército de desempleados que gradualmente se van sumando a la enorme muchedumbre de ciudadanos incapacitados para gastar y consumir. Es así como se desata la depresión donde los precios y las utilidades caen en picada porque son muy pocos (los muy ricos) los que pueden preservar su poder de consumo anterior; la economía se paraliza y termina por colapsar irremediablemente.

En la primera mitad del siglo 20 esto fue lo que ocurrió en Chile entre 1911 y 1914, y luego entre 1918 y 1920 y finalmente, entre 1929 y 1938. El Estado social demócrata o también llamado Estado de bienestar que fue la respuesta a esta crisis, se extendió entre 1940 y 1973. A pesar de sus imperfecciones, el control de la economía por parte del Estado durante este período, impidió la repetición del catastrófico círculo vicioso depresivo.

No obstante, la vuelta al liberalismo a partir de 1973 produjo las crisis de 1974 a 1976, posteriormente las crisis de 1982 a 1984 y finalmente, la crisis de 1997 a 1998.

La crisis actual iniciada en diciembre de 2007, también al igual que las anteriores, se ha producido por un profundo desequilibrio entre oferta y demanda. Una vez más la teoría marxista de la plusvalía sirve para entender este fenómeno. En los países centrales o con capitalismo desarrollado, en los últimos 30 años los ricos se han hecho inmensamente más ricos, mientras las enormes mayorías han perdido los niveles de ingreso propios del Estado de bienestar. Este desequilibrio se solucionó por algunos años con el crédito fácil, particularmente con las tarjetas de crédito. Pero es precisamente este invento genial y maquiavélico el que ahora no funciona.

El despreocupado consumidor armado con docenas de tarjetas de crédito ahora se ha quemado y está gravemente herido. Tiene profundo miedo y está empezando a recordar y entender el gran temor que sufrieron sus abuelos con la gran depresión del año 29. Ante la catástrofe de perder su casa y también perder el empleo, los ciudadanos de aquella época, recurrieron a prácticas tradicionales y ancestrales como la drástica reducción del consumo y el cuidadoso ahorro de todo dinero sobrante. Eso es precisamente lo que está empezando a ocurrir ahora. El Estado podría cubrir todas las pérdidas de los bancos y estos podrían empezar a prestar alocadamente como antes. Pero el ciudadano promedio está herido y con mucho miedo y ninguna de estas medidas resultará tal como lo esperan las autoridades. La única manera en que el mundo se recupere es procurando un trabajo seguro y bien remunerado para las grandes mayorías. Esto sólo lo puede otorgar el Estado. Naturalmente esto es precisamente lo que el presidente electo Obama piensa hacer en los Estados Unidos y los líderes de Europa, Japón y China piensan hacer en sus respectivas regiones. Pero esto es un cambio trascendental de larga y difícil duración. Las empresas estatales necesitan ser creadas y financiadas y el personal necesita ser reclutado y entrenado. Por lo tanto, los resultados de todo este gigantesco cambio sólo podrían tener un efecto significativo después de algunos años de implementación.

Debido a todo esto es que la crisis planetaria no será de una rápida caída seguida de una rápida recuperación. En otras palabras, el mundo no verá un gráfico tipo V así como ocurrió en las crisis de la segunda mitad del siglo 20. Esta vez el problema es muchísimo más profundo y el gráfico que se debe esperar es parecido a una L es decir, una drástica caída en el producto bruto mundial seguida de una muy lenta y duradera recuperación. En esta situación, la recuperación sería después de varios años tal como ocurrió en la gran crisis del año 29, o como la crisis que ha tenido el Japón en los últimos 12 años.

Chile tiene fondos de reserva para sobrevivir una brutal caída de sus exportaciones. Sin embargo, estos fondos con suerte durarán unos tres o cuatro años. Pero si la crisis es en L tal como la actual crisis japonesa después del cuarto año no habrá divisas para importar petróleo, maquinarias, medicinas y comida. En otras palabras, el país se hundirá en un caos económico similar al que Chile vivió en los primeros 30 años del siglo 20. Posteriormente a esta catástrofe económica, surgirá la crisis social y esto se rematará con una enorme crisis política.

Es preciso recordar que la mal llamada “cuestión social” fue la terrible lacra de pobreza extrema que afectó a la inmensa mayoría de los chilenos entre 1900 y 1938. El pueblo empezó a morirse de hambre y en desesperación, se organizaron ollas comunes para dar un plato caliente a los millones de desempleados que invadían el valle central huyendo de la miseria de la minería paralizada en el norte y de los fundos paralizados en el sur. Se llegó a un punto tan extremo en que compañías multinacionales de seguros dejaron de vender pólizas a sectores medios y aún a sectores de la burguesía. El crecimiento demográfico como consecuencia de todo esto cayó brutalmente.

La catástrofe social provocó a su vez un profundo cambio político. La oligarquía antipatriótica que gobernó Chile después de la muerte del presidente Balmaceda fue reemplazada por la clase media en 1920. Fue esta nueva clase dirigente la que en desesperación, dio los primeros pasos para crear el Estado Social Demócrata o también llamado Estado de Bienestar, y el cual se consolidó después de 1939 con la elección de presidentes radicales y la creación y desarrollo de la Corporación de Fomento a la Producción y las decenas de empresas estatales que dependían de ella.

Ahora, a mediados de diciembre de 2008, parece ser evidente que nuevamente tenemos un inmenso cambio paradigmático. El presidente electo Obama acaba de anunciar que revivirá toda la estructura estatal que soportó el Nuevo Trato del presidente Roosevelt. Es decir, sacará al país del abismo al cual lo empujó el presidente Bush, a través de la acción estatal, principalmente de la creación de instituciones y empresas públicas.

De esta misma forma, Chile debería archivar toda la literatura relacionada con la ideología económica y la política liberal. Ella no podrá aplicarse por muchos años pues el mundo definitivamente cambió a mediados del 2008, cuando el Estado se hizo cargo del sistema financiero estadounidense. Este es un cambio mucho más drástico y fundamental que el cambio que provocó la caída del muro de Berlín y posteriormente, la caída de los socialismos reales a partir de los años 90 del siglo 20 y que sepultó al socialismo totalitario.

Es preciso volver al pragmatismo no ideológico y rescatar algunas prácticas social demócratas. Chile no podrá ofrecer tasas de retorno al capital suficientemente atractivas por los próximos 5 a 10 años. Por lo tanto, no podrá contar ni con el capital nacional ni el extranjero para salir del hoyo económico al cual probablemente se caerá en los próximos 2 años.

La solución de emergencia radica en la creación y desarrollo de instituciones estatales y de empresas públicas muy bien equipadas y muy bien administradas para producir los bienes públicos y de consumo que no se podrán importar. Pero más importante a fin de reducir la cesantía a niveles manejables, los bienes públicos tales como el agua, la electricidad, el gas, las telecomunicaciones, el transporte, alcantarillado, industria pesada, salud, educación, obras públicas, vivienda, minería, bancos, etc., deberán ser manejadas por el Estado.

En las crisis agudas de la primera mitad del siglo pasado, el producto nacional de Chile, bajó de entre un 20 y un 30% y la cesantía real subió a un 20 y un 30% de la masa laboral. Esto fue precisamente lo que ocurrió en tres ocasiones en la primera mitad del siglo 20 (crisis 1911 – 1914, 1918 – 1920 y 1929 – 1938). El sector privado internacional abandonó rápidamente el país y el sector privado nacional se desplomó en forma inoperante y vergonzosa. Por lo tanto, la única alternativa posible fue recurrir a la acción estatal y ello evitó una catástrofe social y política de una magnitud muchísimo mayor. Otros países fueron menos afortunados, cayeron en el caos absoluto y luego en dictaduras totalitarias interminables, ya fuera de corte fascista o de corte comunista.

Ahora en cambio, las condiciones internacionales son adecuadas para una solución social demócrata en Chile. Los Estados Unidos, aún cuando quisieran, no podrían intervenir en Chile. El país puede con tranquilidad, re-nacionalizar las minas privadas de cobre y de otros minerales estratégicos. Las tropas del policía mundial están ocupadas en el medio oriente y esa es la zona que será de vital importancia para la super potencia en los próximos 5 a 10 años. Además, los ciudadanos estadounidenses acaban de elegir a un presidente, que además de prometer políticas no intervencionistas ni imperialistas, no tendrá más remedio que aplicar medidas económicas similares a las que aplicó el presidente Roosevelt en la década de los años 30 del siglo pasado. Es decir, un acentuado keynesianismo que se traducirá en revivir una vez más el Nuevo Trato, donde el Estado se hace directamente cargo de crear empleo a millones de ciudadanos mediante la reparación y reconstrucción de gigantescos proyectos de obras públicas. Para ello se fortalecerán empresas públicas tradicionales tales como la Administración del Valle del Tenesee (TVA), la NASA, las Autoridades Portuarias y la Autoridad encargada de la construcción de carreteras, puentes, viaductos y represas.

Europa, China, la India, los tigres asiáticos y Japón, pronto tomarán el mismo camino intervencionista. Gran parte de América Latina ya está adoptando esta nueva política social demócrata. La derecha europea ve con desesperación las nuevas políticas del primer ministro británico Brown y del presidente francés Sarkozy. A ambos los está acusando de ser socialistas encubiertos ya que ambos han declarado que el neoliberalismo es un cadáver y que debe ser enterrado lo antes posible.

Fuera de crear rápidamente empresas públicas de calidad (existe el conocimiento teórico y práctico necesario para alcanzar alta productividad y evitar la corrupción en el funcionamiento de estas organizaciones estatales), Chile debe integrarse y colaborar con los esfuerzos que el continente latinoamericano está haciendo para formar un mercado común en la región. Es sólo cuestión de tiempo para que México, Centro América, Colombia y Perú se integren a este creciente movimiento independentista del sur. Chile no puede ni debe quedar aislado en la región. Ello sería insensatamente peligroso para la seguridad nacional y sobrevivencia del país.

Señora presidenta, acuérdese de sus hermosos sueños de juventud. Ellos naturalmente no pudieron realizarse porque en esos años el mundo era distinto y las fuerzas opuestas al progreso económico y social de las grandes mayorías eran enormemente poderosas y aplastantes. Ahora la situación es totalmente distinta. Por favor levántese y mire hacia las estrellas y deshágase de los Velascos que la rodean. Atrévase a liderar la salida de la obscura caverna donde todo es sombra en blanco y negro. Ya una pequeña y brillante luz se ve al fondo y arriba de esta gruta. Afuera hay un sol radiante que da un brillo especial a los fabulosos colores de un gigantesco arco iris que ya se diseña en el horizonte.

La situación de Chile a comienzos del 2009 será como el dilema que podría tener el capitán de un hermoso y grande barco a vela. Este es un velero de tres palos pero al mismo tiempo esta dotado de poderos y sofisticados motores diesel algo así como la Esmeralda. Debido a una desafortunada colisión se ha averiado su tanque de combustible y como consecuencia de ello se ha quedado sin petróleo. El hermoso barco está a la deriva a la entrada del golfo de México, justo en la trayectoria de un huracán grado 6. Esta es la tormenta perfecta que irremediablemente hundirá a todos los navíos que encuentre a su paso.

Los ingenieros y mecánicos encargados de la sala de máquinas se han vuelto locos e insisten en que el daño se puede reparar y que un buque tanque pronto podrá entregar petróleo. La enorme presión de los acontecimientos ha alterado el juicio y el uso de la razón del personal de la sala de máquinas. Al paso de las horas y de los días, algunos de los maquinistas definitivamente han enloquecido y son incapaces de apreciar la realidad y se afincan a sus creencias dogmáticas. Algunos de los más desquiciados están proponiendo usar el agua de mar como combustible.

Afortunadamente usted es el capitán y naturalmente tiene otras alternativas. Puede usar el viejo pero probado velamen a su disposición para así alejarse de la zona de máximo peligro y así, con relativo éxito, lograr capear a tiempo el temporal. Las técnicas de la navegación a vela, por supuesto, no son el último grito de la moda, pero la tripulación que maneja las velas son viejos expertos en la materia. Las metodologías de la navegación a vela son efectivas y se han practicado con éxito por miles de años. Dentro de su tripulación afortunadamente usted aún tiene expertos conocedores de esta técnica.

Usted, como capitán razonable y visionario, dicide delegar toda la autoridad necesaria en los especialistas de la navegación a vela. Afortunadamente sus decisiones son las correctas y así el barco con su tripulación intacta derrotan los peligros y eventualmente llegan a puerto seguro con daños menores.

Empresas públicas como la ENAP, CODELCO, la CORFO y otras pocas que aún subsisten, son los restos del velamen de Chile. Es preciso expandir exponencialmente esta valiosísima alternativa. Si lo hace, usted pasará a la historia, no como la primera mujer presidenta, sino como el líder legendario (así como Portales lo hizo a comienzos del siglo diecinueve) que salvó a Chile a comienzos del siglo veintiuno. Portales (aún cuando tenía ideas liberales) utilizó al Estado como el principal motor del desarrollo nacional y gracias a ello, el país pudo salir de la crisis económica producto de las guerras de independencia y del subsiguiente período anárquico. Chile tuvo así 50 años de desarrollo acelerado y sostenido (el país creció 8% por año entre 1830 y 1880) y estuvo a punto de alcanzar el estándar de sociedad industrialmente desarrollada.

Desgraciadamente, de nuevo el incongruente dogma liberal (incongruente pues el país ya no tenía los valores y la clase empresarial necesaria), arruinó estas brillantes expectativas y gradualmente, el país inició su largo proceso de subdesarrollo. El primer presidente corrupto fue el liberal José Joaquín Pérez, que en los años 60, inició la catastrófica transición de la republica portaliana al liberalismo. El presidente Balmaceda (otro brillante liberal) trató de revivir el modelo portaliano, pero desafortunadamente fue derrotado por el imperio británico con la humillante colaboración de la corrupta oligarquía criolla.

Después del catastrófico periodo que va de 1891 a 1938, una vez más, un legendario presidente, don Pedro Aguirre Cerda, decidió utilizar la vieja idea portaliana, y con ayuda de otros iluminados y la cooperación de los Estados Unidos, creó la Corporación de Fomento a la Producción. Afortunadamente, el país logró salir de la profunda crisis socioeconómica, producto de la segunda época liberal y así, pudo retomar con éxito la vía del desarrollo sustentable.

Desgraciadamente este proceso fue violentamente interrumpido por Nixon, Kissinger y la dictadura militar de 1973. Una vez más, las incongruentes ideas liberales se adueñaron de Chile (incongruentes porque los valores culturales de Chile, o sea su espíritu o resorte, son de tipo colectivista, estatista y autoritario, y se tienen muy poco de los valores calvinistas o confusionistas). Ya llevamos más de 35 años utilizando este incongruente y fracasado modelo. Este fue impuesto por los ideólogos de Chicago con la cooperación gustosa de la corrupta y antipatriota oligarquía nacional. No obstante, después de todo este tiempo el país sigue subdesarrollado y tercer mundista.

Ahora, a finales del 2008, estamos en un verdadero punto de inflexión histórico. Hay un camino que va directo al precipicio, esa es la ruta liberal. Pero hay otro camino que podría transformarse en el tercer período intervencionista y estatista de Chile. Y como dice el dicho popular, puede que esta vez, la tercera sea la vencida. Esta vez si se hacen las cosas bien, por fin podría convertirse en realidad el sueño de Portales, Balmaceda, Aguirre Cerda y Allende. El destino del país está en sus manos de cirujana, ojala que las pueda usar bien.

Me suscribo de usted con mis mejores deseos para usted y su gobierno, respetuosamente,









Fernando Duque Ph.D.
Profesor titular en Ciencia Política
Universidad de Los Lagos
Campus Chinquihue, Puerto Montt.




Ps. Me permito adjuntarle copia de un artículo que escribí a los pocos meses de su elección como presidenta. Este artículo fue publicado en abril de 2006. También le incluyo una entrevista del diario “El Llanquihue” y realizada hace pocos días atrás donde se discute el artículo en referencia.

A PROBABLE PARADIGMATIC CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATE

F. Duque Ph.D.
Political Science Professor
Universidad de Los Lagos
Puerto Montt, Chile
October 2008


In late October 2008, the world looks on with astonishment at “the beginning of the end” of an historical epoch: the government of the rich, by the rich, and only for the rich. Initiated in the late 1970's, this process seems to be eclipsing in the United States, just as the great nation had seemingly achieved Empire status. For over 40 years, the national income and wealth of the country has gradually concentrated in the hands of the super rich to the detriment of the majority: the working class and poor. And with the initial State plan to save the nation’s beleaguered banking sector, we almost witnessed this concentration accelerate exponentially. During this recent financial crisis, the State put forth policies aimed at “bailing out” Wall Street capitalists, while at first ignoring the millions of working class and poor who are losing their homes and jobs. The US Congress rejected the initial 700 billion dollar “golden parachute” attempt on a national scale, which in essence would have formalized a system that privatizes profits and socialize losses. This is far from the romantic image conjured up by Adam Smith’s “invisible hand of the free market”, upon which capitalism, accurately or not, is founded. Eventually, an incremental deal between the Congress, Senate and Treasury was worked out that would re-introduce transparent “smart” regulation, limit CEO compensation packages and protect “some” homeowners from foreclosure. Most importantly, the government “bail out” would act more as a taxpayer stock investment of the hardest hit financial institutions, with a possible gain on taxpayer investment when these financial institutions got back on their feet.
These recent interventionist measures employed on the nation’s financial sector combined with a probable presidential victory of Democratic Senator Barack Obama early next month could signal an historical transformation for the country and the world. This shift could return the Commanding Heights of the economy back under the watchful control of the State. It also suggests a radical return to democracy at the federal and state level after close to three decades of oligarchic influence. That is, a United States government friendly to everyone, or the government of the people, by the people and for the people.
In this new interventionist regime, Wall Street investment banks no longer have sole dominion over the economic future of the United States. The control of credit and finance has transferred from a small but powerful group of private investors to the US Congress and Senate. Consequently elected representatives now determine whether the financial crisis evolves into a global economic crisis of catastrophic consequences or if the system is nationalized sufficiently enough and in time to save the US economy and the world. Already European governments have implemented similar bail out policies to protect their economies and trading partners. Although experiencing the crisis first, the United States is now playing catch up by comparison. This harkens back to the global contagion of the Asian financial crisis in the mid 1990s. Initiated in tiny Thailand, it soon infected neighboring countries and regions and eventually the West. The great world economies had a chance to address the problem when it first emerged. But at that time, two decades of neo-liberal rhetoric had created an intellectual atmosphere adverse to interventionist solutions and the world’s working class suffered as a result.
How does the greatest economy in the history of civilization find itself in this present crisis? Many observers suggest that for 40 years the US plutocratic elite has unfairly distributed wealth in its favor. Through unchecked political influence, elites and their lobbyists have successfully liberated capital reach beyond national borders. As capital has dutifully sought the highest return, the vast majority of its own consumer constituency has been impoverished with the dismantling of pro-labor wage and benefit structures and outsourcing of high paying job. These regressive policies were responsible in part for the lack of real demand that created the crisis of stagnation and inflation in the 1970's and 1980's. To solve the problem of consumer demand, the plutocratic elite invented with Machiavellian acumen massive and easy credit facilitated by the deregulation of mortgage and credit banking. Credit cards became a daily medium of the consumption, often without sufficient liquid backing, for the purchase of houses, cars and consumer durables. Aside from pseudo-rationalist acumen, these operations made possible a great deal of borderline unethical usury practice: credit cards with hidden fees and usurious large loans to buy houses. They required small monthly payments in the first three or four years, and then these payments increased dramatically after this initial period.
Predictably, the housing bubble exploded in 2007. The result has befallen misery upon millions of homeowners who have had or are in the process of having their houses foreclosed. Banks in turn were unable to cover the huge losses from these toxic mortgages and soon many were on the verge of bankruptcy. Some banks were bought up by other institutions, while others, like a row of dominoes, collapsed. To prevent the financial crisis transforming into a national and global economic crisis, the State has intervened. It has tried to restore liquidity and, more importantly, confidence in national financial institutions to avoid contraction of credit and consumption. However, efforts to date have not yielded the expected results. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been introduced into the market. First, President Bush’s stimulus package directly returned three to six hundred dollars per taxpayer. Unfortunately this did not jump start the economy has hoped. As a result the State eased credit lines for banks, encouraged healthy institutions to buy up banks in bankruptcy, and finally, it has chosen to buy vital institutions with acute problems. In other words, it has nationalized an important part of the banking system.
But even with robust state intervention, the results are not those as expected. The US economy is paralyzed and threatens to descend into a deep recession. Last August, before the massive layoffs in the financial system and related sectors, unemployment was at 6.1% or almost at the level experienced during the last recession spurred on by the dot com bubble. It is now widely accepted that it takes dual income earners to maintain the purchasing power enjoyed by a single earner family of the 1960's. Couple this with even higher reductions in disposable income and a contraction of popular credit and it is not difficult to understand why a peaceful, if uncomfortable, economic revolution is unfolding throughout the United States. As a result, it is highly likely that the African-American candidate will win the presidency in November. The average American is very pragmatic. And faced with a future collapse of his family economy, voters may be willing to put aside ancestral racism. Senator Obama is a genuine representative of the majority. He is trying to defend the interests of the American middle class and proletariat. Meanwhile, Republican John McCain makes thinly veiled “tax-holiday” overtures to the very rich, dressed in middle class phrases like “I’ll fight for Joe the plumber”. One reading of recent polls suggests that cynical campaign rhetoric like this amounts to nothing more than the proverbial exercise of “putting lipstick on a pig.”
Obama’s government program includes measures to transform the federal and state politics from oligarchic plutocracy to a genuine participatory democracy. The Democratic candidate seeks to lower taxes for the middle class and proletariat and raise taxes for the very rich, those who earn two hundred and fifty thousand dollars or more per year. In addition, he promises to save huge resources being spent on arms production and on the Iraq war. He also plans to eliminate tax loopholes for the very rich, eliminate subsidies to big business and review the voluminous foreign aid to countries such as Egypt, Pakistan and other third world allies. With new funds extracted from the wealthy and savings from budget cuts, Obama will attempt to re-invest in health, education, basic welfare, job training and affordable housing for the working and middle classes. At the same time, his plan includes substantial investments in infrastructure and alternative energy resources to replace the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Furthermore, he seeks to reverse job loss from the corporate outsourcing of well-paid manufacturing and technology jobs, while creating new positions for millions in the emerging energy independent green economy.
Recent polls indicate that a large percentage of the US electorate is unconvinced that the Republican presidential candidate can adequately address the looming financial crisis. Perhaps the collective memory of the US electorate still recalls economic downturns of the past such as the great crisis of 1912 and 1913, the crisis that followed the end of the First World War, and finally the worst of all the 1929 stock market crash. Common to all these historical financial disruptions is the classical contradiction of capitalism, an imbalance between excess supply and weak demand. The pre 1929 social catastrophes were eventually resolved, but with extreme hardship wrought upon many of America’s working poor. In other words, policy-makers relied on the “invisible hand of the free market” to resolve this economic incongruence, ruthlessly punishing those at the lower rungs of society. In contrast, after the market crash of 1929 Republican president Herbert C. Hoover’s failure to adequately address the economic depression paved the way for an interventionist solution that placed the Commanding Heights of the economy under State control. Democratic Franklin D. Roosevelt won the presidency in 1932 and directly by-passed the private financial system, creating well-paid jobs for millions of unemployed and under-employed American workers. Huge public works programs, particularly the construction of major roads and the massive electrification of rural areas, were the levers that allowed the country to rise out from the abyss of depression. Apparently, it is these same Keynesian policies that Obama will try to implement if elected. And this turn of events comes at a pivotal moment in US history. For if left to its own devises, the oligarchic elite might completely destroy any promise of the American dream for future generations. A brief review of Niccolo Machiavelli’s political theory may offer us reasons why.
The historical evolution of US politics can be analyzed using Machiavelli’s theory of “anaciclosis” developed several centuries ago. This is a teleological approach that describes, explains and tries to predict the march of history. It is generally argued that all human societies are moving from traditional authoritarian forms of government towards more participatory or democratic ones. That is, the government of one transforms overtime to the government of a few, which eventually evolves into a government for all.
The evolutionary process begins with the government of one, the philosopher king, who governs for the benefit of all or, better put, for the common good. This form is benignly referred to as a Monarchy. Its sustainable legitimacy through dynastic succession often insures stable ethical standards society wide. When this form of government is corrupted, though, society often falls into the clutches of a ruthless leader. This illegitimate sovereign rules in an unsustainable manner that benefits himself, his family and/or his elite social class, while forsaking the common good. This form of governance is often referred to as a tyranny and can produce great suffering and injustice in society, creating a self reifying series of corrupt or unjust practice in order to maintain power. When the tyranny reaches extreme levels of corruption that can no longer be supported even by those social elites that once benefited from its largess, a revolution is eminent. From the ashes of this political turmoil, a government of a select few is born. This is the rule by the rich, but for the benefit of all social classes. The ruling class is often inspired by great ethical values and patriotism. Like a Monarchy, this form is also considered a sustainable and benign form of government. This political form is referred to as an aristocracy. The essence of the aristocratic Republic is a government of the well educated, most talented, and the wealthiest that works for the benefit and defense of all.
When the aristocracy falls into process of acute corruption, and the rich begin to govern only for their own benefit, and decide to unfairly exploit society, an oligarchic government is born. This form is also referred to as a "malignant plutocracy." After decades or centuries of suffering extreme exploitation and injustice under this cadre of wealthy elites, the working poor rebel, and another benign form of government, democracy, is born. This is a government of all for all. The essence of the democratic Republic is the rule of the majority (the working poor) that governs in the interests of all social classes and the common good.
Democracy can be corrupted when certain interest groups are allowed to circumvent legitimate and ethical process and avenues for their own betterment at the expense of the common good. This parasitical form of democracy is referred to as the oclocracia. This is the government of the greedy with the greedy and only for the greedy. These parasitical interests fall into hedonistic practices and customs, no longer work productively, waste the national wealth and ruin the State. As a result of acute corruption and decadence, the oclocracia destroys the political system. A free society ceases to exist and falls into extreme dependence. The government becomes a “failed State”, which due to systemic weakness, is easily conquered and colonized by a neighboring country with a superior organization. It is at the conclusion of this pessimistic evolutionary process (moving from good to bad) that the original free society suffers great social divisiveness and transform into a vulgar dependent colony of a foreign parasitical State.
Is it possible to apply the theory of “anaciclosis” to a better understanding of the teleological political development of the American society? In the case of this great country, its history begins in Britain with the benign sixteenth century monarchy of Elizabeth I. This queen and hers successors administered a series of relatively benign monarchies that ruled England until the seventeenth century. These monarchs facilitated the colonization of the east coast of the North American continent, while managing with relative wisdom. However, conditions for the American colonists changed drastically in the mid-eighteenth century when the British monarchy gradually transformed into a tyranny. Fortunately this tyranny ended with the American Revolution in 1776. The United States broke with the British Empire and created a benign aristocratic republic. This form of government progressed through the rest of the eighteenth century and most of the nineteenth century. However, in the late nineteenth century, the American elite slipped into an accelerated deterioration of core cultural values. The aristocratic descendants of the American colonists of yesteryear were now super rich and with absolute control over society. Consequently, absolute power corrupted absolutely a large proportion of the aristocracy. The ruling class had lost much of its earlier puritan ethic that Max Weber would argue facilitated the great American success story. Calvinist stoicism was replaced by consumerist hedonism.
This huge cultural change gave birth to a large number of financial and economic crises. The unbridled individual desire for profit was much more important than the public good. Fortunately, by the early twentieth century Theodore Roosevelt and other leaders of the progressive movement substantially challenged this ethical descent. As the leader of the aristocratic elite, Roosevelt was successful in reversing corrupt trends and preventing the transformation of the political system into oligarchy, thus ensuring the survival of the aristocratic republic.
But the elite cancer was never eradicated and when the opportunity presented itself, the elite propelled the political system back into crisis in 1929. Again, another representative of the aristocratic elite, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, managed to save the country yet again. Thanks to President Roosevelt’s New Deal, the country recovered from the dark years by the end of the 1930’s. With the close of the Second World War half a decade later, the historical economic incongruence between supply and demand was finally resolved with the destruction of millions of commercial, agricultural and industrial enterprises in Europe and Asia. By mid century, the reconstruction of post-war Europe coupled with an opportunistic entrepreneurial enterprise that filled the global vacuum left vacant by the former colonial powers, transformed the United States into the most powerful nation on earth. Managing a successful mixed economy with key interventionist regulation and control over the Commanding Heights of the economy, the period from 1940 – 1970 became known as golden age of the American dream, and the aristocratic republic was robustly legitimized.
However, by the end of the 1970’s, the desire for unbridled profit reared its ugly head once again. The US aristocratic elite underwent a process of decadence and excess. As a result of this cultural depravity, the 1980’s saw the Commanding Heights of the economy privatized and key business sectors deregulated under Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. What followed was the accelerated enrichment of the elite, simultaneous with the gradual impoverishment of the middle class and proletariat. The social cancer of greed increased exponentially through the mid 1990's with the neo-con global policies of the Clinton administration. This corruption was consolidated under President Bush Jr. and Vice President Cheney during the first seven years of the new millennia, an era that will henceforth be referred to by history books as the American Empire of the 21st Century. The political system achieved full plutocracy, while democracy survived only at the level of local and municipal governments.
Now we stand at the threshold of a paradigmatic shift. It is likely that the tertiary corruption of the oligarchic elite could be the beginning of the end of its plutocratic rule. Even after spending close to a trillion dollars on the current financial crisis, it will likely not be enough to prevent the onset of a serious economic depression. With the State bailout, banks could try to lend money and temporarily stimulate consumption. But the proposed measures do not include a meaningful redistribution of income or an increase in real wages, the only stimuli that can insure sustainable consumer demand. It is possible that in this climate of financial uncertainty without real increases in disposable income, the average citizen will drastically reduce their spending. Consumer fear could be the tipping point over which the US economy descends into an economic and social depression.
These historical trends have converged at an opportunistic moment for Senator Obama. Given recent economic events, his Election Day win early next month is quite likely. Moreover by riding Obama’s coat tails, the Democratic Party might deepen its hold in the House and Senate. Once in power, the new leadership could initiate a paradigmatic shift. That is, a change from a government favorable to a few extremely wealthy interests, to a government favorable to the majority: the working class and poor citizens of the country. The government would thus revert back from oligarchy to democracy or the rule of the majority for the benefit of all.
The next president and his successors would be well advised to implement a radical shift placing the Commanding Heights of the economy back under State control. The neo-liberal experiment of deregulation has simply failed within the complexity of global economy. Even one of its celebrated architects, Alan Greenspan, now admits in front of Congress to a great “flaw” inherent to the ideological underpinnings of neo-liberalism.
The new political leadership should also take the necessary steps to revive the stoic values that are the foundation of the America’s Weberian success story: individual initiative, honest entrepreneurship, basic decencies, and a culture of saving and judicious re-investment into one’s community. Oclocaracia must be avoided at all costs. Great and powerful nations once affected by the oclocratic cancer produces divided societies that risk transforming into weak satellites of more powerful and organized nations. The painful experience of the former Soviet bloc nations forebodes a dark future for America if it does not heed the wisdom of history. And that, as they might start saying, is a pig who can no longer afford a new shade of lipstick.