Connect with us

Americas

New Paradigm of US Foreign Policy and Relations with Russia

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: kremlin.ru

US foreign policy is undergoing an important transition. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan drew a final and symbolic line under the period of its foreign policy, which began not on September 11, 2001, but in the early 1990s — what’s commonly called the “post-Cold War” period. In the early 1990s, intoxicated by the “victory in the Cold War” declared by George Bush Sr., the United States, being confident of the “end of history” and not meeting any resistance from outside in the context of the emerging “moment of unipolarity”, embarked on a course to transform everything else in the world in accordance with its values. These included the universalisation of the collective West and the spread of the American-centric “New World Order”. It was then that the goal of American policy towards Russia and China became their liberal-democratic transformation in accordance with Western patterns and integration into the American-centric world as junior players. US policy objectives regarding so-called “Rogue countries” (that is, those who stubbornly did not want to go over to the “right side of history”) became regime change.

That policy reached an impasse in the second half of the 2000s; since then the United States has been mired in a deep foreign policy crisis, due to the fact that the world had “suddenly” stopped developing in line with the American ideological guidelines. Russia and China refused to be transformed in accordance with Western patterns and integrate into the American world order as junior players, and attempts to democratise Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East generally failed. It was obviously not possible to extend the American-centric world order to the entire international system, and this order itself gradually began to burst at the seams.

Barack Obama tried to find a way out of this crisis by changing the instruments of American foreign policy, but maintaining the paradigm of spreading the American-centric world order to the rest of the world. The “reset” of relations with Russia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Washington hoped that China would eventually be forced to join the TPP) were, in fact, the latest attempts to “draw” Moscow and Beijing into the American-centric world order. Supporting the Arab Spring and fighting Arab dictators was the latest attempt to transform the Middle East. Both attempts failed again.

The first president of the United States to abandon the paradigm of transforming the rest of the world in accordance with American values was Donald Trump. Under his administration, for the first time since the Cold War, the US didn’t initiate any new military interventions, openly declared its refusal to spread democracy by military means, and made a fundamental decision to leave Afghanistan by signing an agreement with the Taliban (banned in Russia). It announced that henceforth, US foreign and defence policy would be focused primarily on the confrontation with Washington’s global rivals and adversaries, namely China and Russia. However, both the American elite and the establishment of most of the US allies mistakenly perceived Trump and his policies as a temporary aberration, after which a “return to normal” US policy (as it was after the end of the Cold War) should occur. Trump’s turnaround did not seem real or final to many. However, their projections were all in vain.

Biden’s historical significance lies in the fact that, despite being flesh and blood part of the traditional American establishment, having removed Trump from the White House, and receiving the support of elites and the “deep state”, he not only did not abandon the foreign policy of Trump, but also saw it to its conclusion. In doing so, he gave it a much more systemic and complete character. The main ways in which Biden’s foreign policy differs from that of Trump are that the United States has increased the importance of combating transnational threats (primarily climate change), and also changed its rhetoric towards its European allies, making it more sympathetic. On most fundamental issues, however, continuity prevails.

The abandonment of the paradigm of universalisation of the American-centric world order is in no way a signal of the readiness of the United States to form a joint multipolar world order with non-Western centres of power, primarily with China and Russia. The fundamentals of American foreign policy — the commitment to primacy and ideological messianism — remain unchanged: they are the result of the nature of the American state as an ideological project and its position as the most powerful player in its environment. The history of US foreign policy does not know the joint formation of a multipolar world order and participation in it; the American ideology simply excludes this.

As a result, a new paradigm of American foreign policy is already being shaped. Its defining priority is the fight against global rivals, this time China and Russia, and attempts to build a new bipolarity, where one pole would be the “world of democracies” led by the United States, and the other pole would be the “world of authoritarians” with the leading roles played by China and Russia. From attempts to universalise the American-centric world order, the United States has moved to its consolidation and defence, and from the “post-Cold War” era to the era of a new global confrontation.

US foreign policy is by no means becoming less ideological. Liberal ideology in its newest left-liberal form is turning from a means of expansion into an instrument for consolidating the “collective West”, defining “us and them” and splitting the international community into opposing blocs.

By rejecting the old, failed foreign policy paradigm and adopting a new one, Biden has been able to lead America out of the foreign policy crisis of the past decade and a half. The fiasco in Afghanistan was associated with an incorrect assessment of how long the Ghani government would hold out after the withdrawal of American troops. However, this dramatic narrative should not be misleading: Washington was well aware that this government would fall and that the Taliban would inevitably come to power (within between several months and two years), but nevertheless decided to leave.

The new global confrontation is intended to restore meaning, order and self-confidence to American foreign policy. With its help, the United States seeks to rally allies and partners around itself, consolidate the “collective West” and strengthen its leadership, and, perhaps, even mitigate its internal problems — to try and glue back together a divided American society, albeit partially, and reduce the polarisation of the political elite.

Of course, the practice of American foreign policy is more complex and multidimensional than the rhetoric about a new global confrontation between democracies and autocracies.

First, the world does not fit into the Procrustean bed of a new ideological confrontation. As in the previous Cold War, in the fight against global adversaries, the United States needs to partner with a number of non-democratic countries (for example, Vietnam). Many of the official US allies are authoritarian (including most allies in the Middle East, including Turkey), and Washington is unlikely to abandon these alliances, even though relations with some of them have deteriorated. Loyal NATO allies such as Poland also face serious problems with democracy. However, most importantly, an increasing number of countries, including democracies, do not want to join the US-China or US-Russia confrontation on the side of one of the powers, and are striving to pursue an increasingly independent foreign policy. An illustrative example is South Korea, which, being an ally of the United States and a democracy, in every possible way avoids being drawn into anti-Chinese policies.

Therefore, it is already reasonable to raise the question of how soon the United States will enter a new foreign policy crisis associated with its inability to achieve a new global demarcation along ideological lines and rally around itself most of the “free world” in opposition to China and Russia. Where, in this case, will the American foreign policy strategy develop? But these are questions of a more distant future.

Second, an important priority of the Biden administration is the fight against transnational challenges, primarily climate change, which requires cooperation with global opponents of the United States and non-democratic countries in general. So far, the Biden administration has been trying to combine its geopolitical rivalry with Moscow and Beijing with cooperation with them regarding climate change and other global challenges. It is difficult to say whether such a combination works. Moreover, Russia and China are invited to cooperate on the basis of the Western agenda, not a joint agenda, and at the same time the United States is using the same climate agenda to discredit Moscow and Beijing, exposing them as “climate spoilers” that refuse to reduce carbon emissions on a larger scale.

Third, the Biden administration makes it clear that China, perceived as the only rival capable of undermining American global primacy today, is a much more important and strategic adversary than Russia, and the Pacific region is a much higher priority region than Europe.

It is precisely at the containment of China and the consolidation of the anti-Chinese coalition that the United States is trying to throw its main forces, sometimes to the detriment of its policy of consolidating the Atlantic community and containing Russia. The history of the creation of AUKUS and NATO’s decision to designate China in its future strategic concept (planned to be adopted in 2022) as a threat to the security of the alliance, along with Russia, speak of the same thing: Europe is interesting for the Biden administration not only as a springboard and an ally for containment Russia, but also as an assistant in the fight against China.

Equally, it is the desire of the United States to focus maximum resources and attention on the fight against China, as well as to weaken the tendency towards further rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing, which has led to their mutual strengthening, including the military strengthening of China. That is the main reason why the Biden administration is now aiming to stabilise the confrontation with Russia, and to prevent its further escalation. While maintaining the existing deterrent tools (sanctions, information war, support for the current governments in Ukraine and Georgia and their Euro-Atlantic orientation, etc.), Washington, nevertheless, has not provided a qualitative increase in support for Kiev and Tbilisi and seeks to prevent what could lead to a new escalation of the military conflict in the Donbass or in the South Caucasus.

However, while confrontation with Russia is not an equal priority of US foreign policy versus confrontation with China, it remains and will remain an important issue. The United States has neither the desire nor the ability to overcome or at least significantly reduce the confrontation with Russia at the cost of its own concessions, and will strive to make it more passive.

There is no possibility of reducing confrontation on the part of the United States, primarily due to its domestic political restrictions:

In recent years, a strong anti-Russian consensus has developed there. US policymakers perceive Russia as both a geopolitical and an ideological adversary that seeks to undermine the position of the United States around the world, strengthen its main strategic rival (China), as well as undermine the American political system, and undermine America’s faith in democracy and liberal values. This perception and the need to combat it is one of the few issues on which there is almost complete agreement in the polarised political system of the United States.

In the context of this polarisation, which has turned many foreign policy topics into instruments of domestic political struggle, any positive step towards Russia becomes a pretext for accusations of treason, and anyone who takes this step pays a high price. This limitation has been observed since the time of Barack Obama, but since then, its scale has increased many times over.

Since the adoption of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) in 2017, no administration has been able to significantly reduce the scale of anti-Russia sanctions.

In addition, NATO will try to maintain the Russian-American confrontation; the anti-Russian focus has sharply increased since the failure in Afghanistan. Finally, in the wake of the Afghanistan fiasco, the United States simply cannot afford to diminish support for countries directly involved in the conflict with Russia, such as Ukraine and Georgia. In order to reduce reparation damage and convince allies and partners of the reliability of American commitments, the Biden administration must show in every possible way that, although it is ready to turn away from “unnecessary” satellites, by no means will it abandon those that play an important role in the fight against global adversaries. The visits of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Georgia and Ukraine in October 2021 confirmed this very task.

The lack of any desire to improve relations with Russia is primarily due to the perception of Russia as a weakening power, which, in the opinion of the US, will in the foreseeable future be forced to seek cooperation with the West from the position of a vassal due to either a large-scale internal crisis or a geopolitical clash with China as a result of the growing asymmetry between Russia and the PRC (something the majority in the American mainstream stubbornly believe in).

As a result, the Biden administration’s policy towards Russia is essentially to wait and see as Russia returns to the western orbit while continuing the confrontation, but minimising the damage associated with this confrontation, that is, preventing it from creating an immediate threat to American security.

Thus, given the impossibility and unwillingness of the United States to reduce the intensity of the confrontation with Russia, let alone to overcome it, it is quite possible to conclude that the global confrontation with China and Russia has indeed become, and will remain in the near future, a new core and organising principle of US foreign policy. It will serve as the basis for the development of their national interests, determining the scale of their presence and the nature of their obligations in different regions of the world. One reservation: containing China and consolidating allies and partners against it will remain a higher priority than containing Russia.

In practical terms, this means that the United States will strive to increase its presence, range of partners and military-political commitments in Asia and strengthen relations with those countries it considers important in containing China (the creation of AUKUS and Biden’s statement that Washington will provide military assistance to Taiwan in the event of a military invasion by the PRC is a direct confirmation). It also intends to maintain its presence in Europe and support for Ukraine and Georgia as countries playing a central role in the geopolitical struggle with Russia at the current level. Additionally, it will seek to weaken the US presence and commitments in countries and regions that Washington does not consider central or important to the fight against China and Russia.

The latter include, for example, the Middle East. Washington does not see this region as an arena for fighting global opponents and therefore can afford to reduce its military presence and political role there. The US was guided by the same logic toward Afghanistan: they knew that the “vacuum” left there by their departure would not be filled by either Beijing or Moscow.

So, for Russian-American relations, the new paradigm of US foreign policy creates the preconditions for the formation of a model resembling a controlled or stable confrontation, when the parties are not interested in further escalation or in overcoming it through their own concessions.

From our partner RIAC

Deputy Director of the Centre for comprehensive European and international studies, Deputy Director of research programs at the Council on foreign and defense policy. Member of the RIAC.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Should there be any censorship? (NO -NONE!)

Avatar photo

Published

on

Conservatives say yes, there should be censorship, because otherwise what they feel is repulsive can become spread: they fear its spread and are convinced that censorship (by people who believe as they do) must be imposed. That’s NOT democracy.

Liberals agree with conservatives on this question, though they want different people to be doing the censoring, because some of their beliefs are different from conservatives’ beliefs. (Anyone who thinks that liberals — Democrats in the U.S. — aren’t ardent for censoring, should explain how that can be so, since overwhelmingly the political money donated by executives and other employees of the gossip-grapevine, Twitter, has gone to Democrats, and those employees decided to censor-out from their site the damning evidence against the Biden family — Joe, Hunter, and James — that the Republican Party’s N.Y. Post had published on 15 October 2020 under the headline “Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm”. (Maybe Trump would have won that election if this report of the Biden family’s corruptness had been spread and discussed instead of squelched as ‘Russian disinformation’, as was done.) Then, the Democratic Party’s Politico ‘news’-site headlined on 19 October 2020, “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say” and buried two-thirds of the way down the key passage (which had been in the top third of the document), in these Deep-State operatives’ letter, the passage which included the fact “that we do not know if the emails [from Hunter Biden’s laptop computer], provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.” The signers said there that they were signing ONLY to having “suspicions” that this had happened — but Politico suppressed that most crucial of all the allegations in the document. Also: Glenn Greenwald was forced out of the Democratic Party billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s “The Intercept” ‘news’-site on 29 October 2020 for submitting a news-report titled “THE REAL SCANDAL: U.S. MEDIA USES FALSEHOODS TO DEFEND JOE BIDEN FROM HUNTER’S EMAILS”. And, furthermore, the Democratic Party’s Washington Post headlined on 1 November 2020 the lie that “For Russia, Biden is the foe they know. The Kremlin is studying old playbooks.” As Greenwald subsequently pointed out, “Twitter’s ‘foreign govt hacking’ pretext for censoring was a lie, and they knew it.”) So, regarding censorship, conservatives and liberals are effectively the same but protect different lies and liars. The two groups believe and protect two different, competing, myths. That’s NOT a democracy. It’s rule by billionaires (who control those politicians and media), NOT by the public.

Libertarians say no, because anything that limits a person’s freedom is condemned by them on principle — they even are sometimes called “anarchists” because no principled line (no clear distinction) exists separating libertarians from anarchists (persons who oppose ALL government). HOWEVER, libertarians (even self-declared anarchists) disagree with one-another about whether the private sector, including corporations (such as Twitter), have a right to censor: some say yes, it’s part of their (the private sector’s) freedom; but some say no, no entity has a right to censor, because that limits another person’s freedom. Some say that ONLY parents have a right to censor what their children receive. CONSEQUENTLY: Libertarians don’t ACTUALLY have any clear and principle-based position, for or against censorship. Libertarianism provides no answer to this question — other than the myth that they are committed to everyone’s “freedom.” Libertarianism is a nullity, a nothing, on censorship: neither for it nor against it. It allows rule by billionaires (whose agents fool the public), and no democracy would.

Progressives say no: Nothing can possibly justify censorship of anything, except of demonstrable (provable) falsehoods. This means that, if a court of law cannot reasonably disprove an allegation, then the public must be able to consider the evidence both for and against it. Neither the Government nor any other entity has a right to prevent the public from considering and debating any allegation. A progressive is devoted to science, and science is based upon this same principle — ANY possible truth must be considered by the public. (A provably false statement cannot possibly be true.) Progressives can differ with one-another in allocating criminal versus civil liability for the spreading of allegations that are provably false; but, they are united in opposing ANY liability for the spreading of truths. The ONLY exception to this is that if the nation is legally at war and under “martial law,” then its Government has a right to censor, (or “classify”) allegations in order to protect the nation’s sovereignty against the legally declared “enemy.” That is the ONLY exception to the progressives’ principle that NO possibly true statement should EVER be censored by ANYONE. Progressivism — the ideology of science — advocates clearly for democracy, NOT for any aristocracy.

Here’s how the ideology of science functions — and why it needs to be applied in order for Government to serve the public’s interest instead of merely some fake ‘national interest’: On 2 August 2022, the pro-science magazine Current Affairs headlined “Why the Chair of the Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission Thinks The US Government Is Preventing a Real Investigation Into the Pandemic” and interviewed Jeffrey Sachs, who explained:

So you saw a narrative being created. And the scientists are not acting like scientists. Because when you’re acting like a scientist, you’re pursuing alternative hypotheses. And the scientists just wrote recently an op-ed saying the only evidence that this came out of a lab that’s been put forward is that it came in a city, Wuhan, where an institute was located. Well, that’s a lie. That is not the only coincidence that leads to this theory [He should have said “hypothesis” there]. What leads to this alternative hypothesis is the detailed research program the NIH funded that was underway in the years leading up to the outbreak. So I see the scientists absolutely trying to create a narrative and take our eyes off of another issue.

That’s the politicization of science, the corruption of science. Sachs documented their obfuscations and evasions — the censorship that has been occurring, which has been preventing the necessary research to identify how the covid-19 virus was created.

That’s a typical scientific example.

Glenn Greenwald is a progressive, and his position regarding the twitter censorship scandal that the billionaire Elon Musk released to the public on December 3rd after buying twitter corporation and firing its censors, said that “The sleazy, pro-censorship pack of liberal employees of media corporations united last night to attack @mtaibbi — as they do to any journalist who breaks a real story about real power centers — and, because they were so desperate to discredit it, showed what they are.” What they are, in America, is NOT democrats: The “Democrats” aren’t any more democratic than America’s Republicans (conservatives) are.

On 8 May 2022, I headlined and called public attention to “A crushingly powerful legal case against censorship has now been presented.” Linking to and quoting from the court-ducument, it seems to me to be an open-and-shut case for a decision against “the Biden Administration’s open and explicit censorship programs. Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left [referring obliquely there to the Democratic Party], senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms.”

On 3 December 2022, former President Trump disqualified himself from any further political consideration by patriotic Americans, by his advocating to terminate the U.S. Constitution if necessary in order to declare himself to have won the 2020 election. CNN and other mainstream ‘news’-sources that don’t link to their primary sources, because they don’t want their readers to be able easily to see and inspect for themselves what they actually say — what the actual evidence is — refused to link to Trump’s actual statement, but instead linked to anything else. For example, the Washington Post headlined about Trump’s statement, “White House rebukes Trump’s suggestion to suspend Constitution over 2020 election” (an intentionally indirect headline, which refused even to call attention to the fact that the former President was now urging cancellation of the U.S. Constitution, such as would a headline like “Trump Urges Termination of U.S. Constitution”). Their ‘news-report’ provided no link to Trump’s statement, which it supposedly was about. Lots of people pay subscriptions to read such trashy ‘news’-reporting. Anyway, here was Trump’s full and actual statement:

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864

https://archive.ph/G8lqx

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

Dec 03, 2022, 12:44 PM

He thinks that his being declared the 2020 winner is more important to America than America’s Constitution is.

Without the Constitution to serve as a basis for the nation’s laws, the ONLY available basis for the Government is dictatorship: even the possibility of a democracy no longer then exists. Trump is so petty that, in his view, restoring him to the White House is more important than his country having even a possibility of becoming a democracy. Unless the American people are complete idiots, Trump has now lost any possibility he might have had to return to the White House — or to any other political post. His statement there is the most outrageous and anti-democratic that any former U.S. Government official has ever publicly made. It should not be censored (including refusing to link to it); it should be widely debated in America’s public square. Perhaps America’s billionaires feel nervous about making the public aware of just how deepseated dictatorship now is in this country. It’s merely their banana republic, now. In fact, it not only is NOT now a democracy but instead a dictatorship — an aristocracy instead of a democracy — but it is even a police state.

America’s billionaires control their Government, and if they terminated their censorship instead of perverting or eliminating the U.S. Constitution as their agents have been and are doing, then it would no longer be their country — it would become, again, ours. That would terrify them, all the more so as we have been along this global-imperialist path, the MIC (military-industrial complex), now, ever since it became imposed, on 25 July 1945. And the farther that goes, the closer a second American revolution will become, but this time to remove from power not Britain’s aristocracy, but America’s own.

That’s why we have censorship in America. There is no other reason. There is no actual national-security reason, nor any other. It’s all a fraud. They need to protect and spread their lies (especially against ‘enemy nations’). It is now so deep that it cannot be exposed as it actually is, without producing a revolution — not Constitution-change, but regime-change, back to what (prior to 1945) was a Constitutional democratic republic. Ending the empire is the only way back to becoming, again, the Constitutional democracy that preceded 25 July 1945 in America. It is the only way to end the censorship, and the dictatorship, by and on behalf of the aristocracy — the Deep State.

Continue Reading

Americas

John D. and Henry: A Marriage of Convenience

Avatar photo

Published

on

After oil had been discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859, a canny businessman realized its potential and began buying up the oil fields.  John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil eventually owned almost all until trust busters broke up his Standard Oil Trust.

Meanwhile a clever inventor was interested in bringing the automobile, heretofore a rich man’s toy, to the common man.  So it was that Henry Ford’s production line showed the world how it could be done.  Of course, the automobile of the day, coughing and sputtering, might have had a similar effect on the people but it brought independent transportation and its convenience to the middle class.  And John D. Rockefeller’s oil fueled it.

Between John D. and Henry and others like them in Europe and elsewhere, our poor planet became a warming greenhouse as the gases generated by these cars, and industrialization in general, rose to the atmosphere — the effects of which few if any had foreseen then.     

People in the early days were to invent steam cars and electric cars also but the convenience of refueling at John D.’s gasoline stations left them trailing in the dust of Henry Ford’s now lovingly named Tin Lizzie.

The Second World War saw the use of oil and its derivatives in cars, trucks, airplanes, ships and just about anything that could move.  Oil became a strategic commodity defended and fought for — without oil, armies came to a standstill.  Romania fueled the axis powers and thus became a target for the allies.  The war in North Africa became a struggle for control of the Suez Canal and access to oil from the Middle East.  The British controlled it; the Germans failed to wrest it. 

If John D. (1939) and Henry (1947) had passed away, their companies were thriving, enriched further by the demands of war.  Europe might be in shreds but America was whole and ready to supply its needs.

It was a time of peace, and America to Europeans was a land of milk and honey.  Hard work was behind it though, and nothing displayed the rewards of this toil than an automobile in the driveway — the flashier the better.  As Americans became richer, the cars became more luxurious and more convenient to drive:  automatic transmission, power-assisted brakes and steering, windows moving up and down at the touch of a button, as could the soft top on convertibles and so on. 

The huge cars birthed a new name:  gas guzzler.  Both Detroit producing the cars and the oil companies supplying the fuel became richer.  Greenhouse gases increased and could only go one way … up … coining new expressions like global warming.  Greenhouse is apt, for the sun’s rays come through but the heat generated cannot escape as easily as it would without the gas shield.      

Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, focusing on the use of pesticides and the subsequent harm to the environment, brought environmental damage to the attention of the world.  It did not take long to draw scrutiny also to vehicles blowing greenhouse gases out of the exhaust pipe.  The love affair with the automobile was coming to an end. 

But in a society built around it, reducing usage will take a while for the auto has become a necessity. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Who Rules America: How Money Dominates Politics

Avatar photo

Published

on

According to the available data, the United States Chamber of Commerce spent approximately 831 million dollars on lobbying between the years 1998 and 2012, while the American Medical Association spent 269 million dollars, General Electric spent 268 million dollars, and pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America spent 219 million dollars. They make financial investments and provide support to their candidates, the majority of whom are elected to represent them in the United States Congress and vote by their agenda.

In Washington, power is technically distributed among three branches: the executive branch, which includes the White House; the judicial branch, which includes the Supreme Court; and the legislative branch, which includes Congress (senate and house of Representatives). The formal system of checks and balances that are designed to keep the democratic process moving in the right direction is described here. It is the political appointees that serve as judges, and there are nine of them on the Supreme Court, which is the court that has the authority. A hundred people make up the Senate, while 435 people serve in the House of Representatives.

Members of watchdog organizations who specialize in researching and analyzing hidden forces at work behind the scenes conclude that the role of the corporates of industry, which ranges from bringing legislative pieces into the house to get the law passed to implementing it, must be investigated. There is a corporate presence throughout the whole process of passing the law. Congressmen did not challenge it because they too are a product of the system, and as a result, they have an innate bias that favors a certain aesthetic. They have achieved success inside the system, and those who question them must engage in intense conflict to consolidate their authority.

Sheila Krunholtz, the director of the center for responsive politics, dispels the common misconception that the members of congress and policymakers control the levers of power. In reality, the donor and patrons of these people are controlling the strings of these politicians and the policymakers, as Krunholtz explains.

Financial institution is the most significant investor in the political parties, followed by the real estate giants as the second most significant investor. Politicians who want to run for the position need to swear that they would pursue policies that are favorable to the banking and real estate industries before they will be allowed to do so. The money that is spent in politics is not simply used to support candidates; it is also used to pay for lobbying. In 2011, 12,654 lobbyists spent a total of 3.32 billion dollars trying to influence politicians, agencies, and regulators. This includes pro-Israel and pro-military sentiments, which have a significant amount of influence. The informal network of those who control America is also a major influence on the formation of its foreign policy.

One kind of material power in the country is political, and the other is economic. The country has both sorts of material power. The power of the people and the power of the economy are always at odds with one another. If we ask the people of the United States how their government is doing its job, they will tell us that it is not doing its job, and they will also say that the voters are not in control. When asked who controls the United States of America, one of the country’s senators said, “An elite group of individuals who operate in a stratosphere worldwide and are beyond the constitution and reach of the government.” They have a vast number of available resources.

This is another danger to democracy since it makes it more difficult for average people to get their concerns heard. The donor of the funds desires a policy that is favorable to their company rather than the general public, and it is expected that politicians and congressmen would vote in their favor. The people and the political system are becoming more and more subject to the dominance of the strong hand of the economic system.

American politics are hijacked and it is being dominated by individuals who are ready to pay millions of dollars to elect or reject particular politicians. There is corporate plutocracy and the rules in Washington are established by the corporate lobbyist working on objectives to safeguard the greatest business interests in the nation. Money and special interest take control the American politics. Tiny elites of 100 contributors have contributed the 77% of the money that’s simply 1% of donors contribute 64% of the money. People who are donating most of their money to the political campaign. They are very powerful persons and expect something in exchange for their funding. They are incredibly astute business individuals who have earned a lot of money and they do not make investments without desiring an investment.

One America is a democracy where leaders are elected by the people per the Constitution, but the other is dominated by a secret society that influences the media, the economy, the government, and major companies. They had control of the investigative apparatus and the press. They may serve as a template for how the public perceives politicians in the United States. G. William Demoff’s “Who Rules America” is a well-researched book that explains how the government today is controlled by strong elite forces outside of the government.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Middle East32 mins ago

Why Israel should support the establishment of the Middle Corridor

The governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and Kazakhstan earlier in the year signed a declaration on improving the transportation potential...

Middle East5 hours ago

Qatar punctures FIFA’s political fantasy

If the Qatar World Cup proved anything, it’s that sports and politics are inseparable Siamese twins joined at the hip....

World News7 hours ago

Uzbekistan’s Artel joins UN’s ‘Orange The World’ campaign against gender-based violence

Artel Electronics LLC (Artel), Central Asia’s largest home appliance and electronics manufacturer, has teamed up with the UN Population Fund...

Finance9 hours ago

US Anti-Inflation Law threatens Europe

Europe and the US are heading towards a serious trade and economic conflict, writes “Berliner Morgenpost”. In the European Union...

Energy News11 hours ago

OPEC+ agrees to stick to its existing policy of reducing oil production

Led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, OPEC+ agreed in early October to reduce production by 2 million barrels per day...

Africa12 hours ago

U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit: Matters Arising and Way Forward

On the eve of the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit planned for December 13-15 in Washington, the Corporate Council in partnership with...

Terrorism Terrorism
Terrorism14 hours ago

Weapons from Ukraine’s war now coming to Africa

Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari said that weapons from the raging war between Russia and Ukraine are now slipping into the...

Trending