Shadows of Government: Top Secret America, A Leftist Cabal, and Corporate Deception (Part 2 of 2)
“Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Looking back at all the great leaders of America, Dwight D. Eisenhower is a past president whose wisdom is often neglected, but sorely needed in our present time. As previewed in the last post, the current expansion of state power by means of three shadow branches of government has been eerily predicted by Eisenhower and others. The key difference between his time and now is not the character of the American people, the fierceness of political ideologies, or the scope of problems facing our nation. What has changed is that we are out of the industrial age and into the information age. Information is power and now the eruption of digital technology has increased the means of subversion available to the power-hungry ruling class enormously in terms of efficacy and stealthiness.
The multinational corporation is the first and most obvious shadow branch of government working to consolidate the power of the ruling class. Once antagonists, corporations and centralized state government have now joined forces to co-opt power from the individual citizen through economic means. Rampant, addictive consumerism has been sold to the American people as the main source of economic wealth propped up by outsourcing, big business-friendly government policies and the growing spoils of globalized capitalism.
Take the continued persistence of fossil fuels in our culture as an example. The Obama Administration allowed British Petroleum to mismanage the Gulf Oil Spill, leaving the company basically on its own even after the eighty plus days of gushing oil. This strategy exempted the Obama administration from any of the blowback that came from the several botched efforts to seal the leak. Then to buy off the voters, President Obama privately negotiated with BP's CEO Tony Hayward to create a $20 billion victim compensation program. This program, known as a “slush fund” in Washington where political favors are bought and sold, further proves that the current Administration is in bed with Big Oil just as much as the previous one, if not more. Of course the media defended the administration, making the argument that BP has a financial obligation to pay for the disaster, but neglects to consider that under the law, the amounts of damage settlements should be decided in public court proceedings, not in the privacy of the Oval Office.
The average citizen can only guess at the true extent of the state's complicity in BP's deception about their handling of the worst ecological disaster in US history. Last week's revelations that BP doctored photos of their crisis center to make it look busier is just more evidence that the public is continually the victim of corporate misinformation. Thankfully a blogger noticed the inconsistencies in the pictures and made it public. This new media journalistic success should teach BP that the power of information can work both ways, this time in favor of the private citizen and not the rich corporation. One can assume that BP won't use the same amateur Photoshop artist again, but the corporation would do well to heed the advice of Eisenhower when he said, “Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.”
Since control of information is key to the consolidation of state power, it is no surprise that the media has been a target for power grabs by both the Left and the Right sides of our ruling class. Just as the Conservative news outlets have coordinated talking points, last week's report of the existence of an email listserv exclusively for Left leaning journalists and academics shows a coordinated campaign of informational sabotage. The listserv, known as Journolist, is not so much shocking, as it is a confirmation of longterm accusation that a Liberal bias has corrupted the mainstream media's objectivity and journalistic integrity. Leaks from the 400 plus member Journolist reveal that reporters discussed a strategy to bury the Reverend Wright story that threatened to end then-Senator Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign. Comments on the Journolist condemned ABC's debate moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulis, for asking Obama tough questions about his views on the minister's notorious racially charged rhetoric and anti-American comments. Taking the mainstream media strategy a step towards the truly despicable, one Journolister suggested that picking a right wing commentator like Karl Rove or Fred Barnes and calling them a racist was a way to put an end to the story.
Underhanded comments made in private by a cabal of Leftist journalists are neither unexpected or alarming in and of themselves, but the surprising aspect of this story is how effective their agenda of information control actually proved to be. Recall the months leading up to November 2008 and how little we heard from the mainstream media about Rev. Wright or any other radical associates of Obama. Again, the speed and secrecy by which information can be transmitted in today's America should be a call to the average citizen to be even more cognizant about where we get our news. Furthermore, it signals that, if there's any of us left who have not yet done so, the American public should abandon the false notion that our most trusted journalists are non-biased and adhere to the old-fashioned ideal of providing the public service of objective reporting.
The last and most famous of Eisenhower's warnings come from his farewell speech in which he mentions the military-industrial complex. Ike said, "in the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." if one were to change the term "military-industrial" to "military-intelligence", Eisenhower's words would ring even more eerily true. The Washington Post's expose, "Top Secret America" details the staggering growth of America's intelligence community since 9/11. The American government now funds no less than 263 organizations that collect information as part of our country's nebulous and highly classified mission to stop international extremists, a very different, much more difficult to manage, national security imperative than combating a traditional military foe like the Soviet Union.
The Washington Post's website is worth checking out just for the sheer amount and interesting presentation of data it contains, but here are some of the more staggering statistics. The U. S. intelligence community now occupies 1300 different facilities spread across the country. Over 2000 private companies have contracts with the government for this purpose and 850,000 Americans have Top Secret clearances. An argument can be made for the necessity of such a large secret intelligence gathering apparatus, but built into the intelligence community must be the mechanisms of control and public accountability. The recent leak of 75,000 secret US military reports on the Afghan War highlights the dangerous potential of a complex, unchecked network of national security agencies. Suspiciously, the White House made no attempt to block the release of these documents. Perhaps this lax attitude is an intimation that the President and the ruling class will use the leak as an excuse to push through legislation that gives centralized state government more control over the intelligence community. Such a move, which is not so far-fetched considering the Patriot Act's swift passage, would unfairly exploit the private citizen's willingness to trust the state for national security, and would clearly echo Eisenhower's warning that we shouldn't accept this security at the costs of "unwarranted influence" and "the disastrous rise of misplaced power."
If the connections between the growing power of the ruling class and the manipulation of information by the shadow branches of government as described above isn't clear yet, consider one more real life scenario. Think like a conspiracy theorist, and connect the dots between the most recent scandal involving the Obama Administration's control of top secret information, BP's corporate deception, and the mainstream media's reporting of it. Australian and British papers are reporting that the White House secretly backed the 2009 release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber that killed 259 people on Pan Am Flight 103, a plane that contained mainly American citizens. Allegedly, the Obama Administration is blocking the release of a letter they sent to the Scottish government expressing the White House's preference that al-Megrahi be released on compassionate grounds. Similarly, BP has been accused of lobbying for the prisoner's release in order to secure a multi-billion dollar oil contract with Libya, al-Megrahi's home country.
While this mass murderer walks free, BP plans more deep-water drilling off the Libyan coast and rumors suggest that Tony Hayward will be “fired”, given a £1million salary pay-off, share options worth £2.7 million, a £10.8 million pension, and then a new position at BP's joint venture in Russia. So far, the recent developments surrounding the topic of al-Megrahi's release has been largely absent from the American mainstream media, except for CBS's coverage of a letter from a Scottish elected official to Sen. John Kerry in which he denies BP's involvement in the decision. In more positive press for BP and the White House, ABC News is reporting that crews in the gulf are having trouble finding crude to clean up. And true to Journolist strategy, prominent Liberal Howard Dean has captured some media attention by calling Glenn Beck a racist. So, with the Obama Administration safely sheltered from criticism for blocking top secret documents, with Tony Hayward's financial and career needs attended to, and with the mainstream media's confidence in the knowledge that their political agenda will continue garnering political favor, think on one more question from Dwight D. Eisenhower, “how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?”
BP, blogging, government, gulf oil spill, journolist, lockerbie bomber, media, obama, politics 
Reader Comments (8)
Well for all the ranting against the left, you were right about Hayward being fired. A well written piece with the clear thread of Eisenhower quotes to connect your original thesis.
The BP money does not release the company from law suits. BP has been operating in the Gulf for over thirty years. They are the ones operating in Alaska and staunch defenders of the importance of the North pipe line.
I do not buy your idea of left leaning journalists. Why would the right and all their money need to defend or inform people of their actions? Of course if writers expose corruption from the wealthy who are often republican, then they must be lefty socialists. Media companies can be influenced by the amount of stocks and investments, no doubt. People who seek truth like journalists often find the conglomeration of power and wealth abusing the working and poorer classes. If they report this than they are left.
This left and right thing is useless. You are branded into categories. So your conspiracy is that the oil explosion was set up to release a terrorist so that BP can drill in Libya, and behind that Russia is acting out again. Interesting ideas but too much for me.
Either Obama is with the power or an outsider. You can not blame Obama fror all these things and then on the other hand say organizations are behind him.
Very well developed argument. I too like the Eisenhower quotes. Have you recently read a bio on him?
While I don't subscribe the intentional nefarious nature of all of your theory, it is indisputable that these three elements: corporations, media, and the state, are in bed together and for Dugan to doubt otherwise reflects a certain naivety or faulty idealism, especially of these journalists seeking the truth. But I will concede that this piece could have just as easily been written during the Bush administration. However, one need to look no further than the Shirley Sherrod story and see the despicable failings of today's media and government. Newspapers either picked up the story right away and misreported it or chose to ignore it until all the information came out. Either way, it's a failure. And yet again, an issue of race/racism, has conveniently distracted the country from more serious troubles. This is not the first time this has occurred for the new administration. However, I don't believe that necessarily means Obama is intentionally encouraging stories to be exaggerated or fabricated for his sake.
My thought is simply that things are too large, larger than they've ever been, and therefore, they are harder to control. Those numbers of secret intelligence companies are extremely scary to me. There are so many institutions working directly for or indirectly with the government that when one of them screws up or breaks off on their own, they become a major liability, and then the cover up begins to prevent any connection directly back to the government. People are paid to shut up who usually don't anything.
However, I truly believe that these cover ups and seemingly duplicitous efforts are being done in what the government believes is in the best interest of the American people. Right now the Obama administration is losing just as many supporters through the moratorium it placed on off-shore drilling. Obviously many working class Americans are being harmed by this, but Obama believes he needs to appease the environmentalists first because they're more likely to vote maybe.
If you look at the wikileaks situation, the main criticism of the release of this information is that it could endanger American lives overseas. I think this is the same logic the government applies to other issues of the economy, education, and environment. If the Obama administration seeks to disclose all of the underhanded interaction with BP or completely oust them from anymore drilling off the coast of America and close down all operations then stocks will drop, people will lose money and jobs and outrage and panic will ensue. The government honestly believes it is working in the best interest of the American people because it believes the American people don't know or want to know what they want or need, which is true.
So while your conspiracy has some credence to it, I think your original point that this corruption is not an excuse for apathy is the most valid. Never before have the American people been provided such access to information as you proved. Again, the Shirley Sherrod story started with a blog and the uncovering of the whole video and subsequent end of the story came from a blogger. This is our chance to do something and we'll only have ourselves to blame if we don't.
The great documentary "Why We Fight" details this imbedded relationship between the military-industrial compex and our national economy perfectly. And it begins with the now famous Ike farewell speech where he warns this nation about becoming too entangled with this complex...this coming from a career military man, no less! Highly recommended based upon this essay.
The media sold Obama as an outsider, as a beacon of hope to bring much needed change. He is proven to be another puppet who has his strings controlled by others behind the scenes to serve their causes. This new American century has failed us greatly by giving us two inept Presidents that are driving this nation into the ground.
I agree heavily with one of Nick's main points in that the ONLY GOAL FOR ANY POLITICIAN IS TO KEEP BEING ELECTED!!!!!!!! You are nothing but a naive fool if you think any of them have any other aspirations for a better nation for their constituency. I think it will require a strong grassroots push from the citizens of this nation to force these complacent crooks to pass legistature enforce term limits and make them actually have to work instead of getting a cushy lifetime gig.
First, on the media. I can't believe that on the heels of the Shirley Sherrod affair you don't feel self-conscious talking about (let me take a deep breath here) a liberal "cabal." Have you forgotten James Dale Guckert, aka Jeff Gannon, formerly of the White House Press Corps? Or about how certain journalists during the Bush years actually received payoffs from Federal agencies?
EVERY President in some way shape or form has used the media to manipulate the political discussion in order to promote his policies. Roosevelt did it, Kennedy did it, Nixon tried, Reagan did it beautifully, and now Obama is no different. It remains to be seen whether or not this has any long-term effects on the relationship we have to the truth. The mere mention of the recent leaks in the Afghan struggle (which pertain to Bush and Obama years of the conflict) shows that this apparently new and terrifying conspiracy against truth about which you speak is rather ineffective. And that’s a very good thing. The fact that it exists should not shock you.
I contend that our greatest enemy to finding truth is our own public's disinterest in the world's news. In your previous post you asked, “But who has time to worry about the theory and practice of politics when our lives seem more stressful than ever before?” You immediately follow it up with “consider the possibility that all this stress and anxiety has been purposefully imposed upon us.” That’s not a constructive answer. It’s our responsibility. Our inability to be curious is our own fault. Our disinterest in what has been going on in the Afghan War has enabled people to mismanage it for the past decade.
You also leave out a key ingredient in the larger interrelationship, one that Eisenhower actually feared: the military-industrial complex and its stranglehold on the American economy. Look through your arguments again, and you will find every part of this discussion pertains to the manner in which the Pentagon consistently benefits from a relationship with corporate influence and government power. This plays a huge role in helping to convince a barely self-informed American public of what is and is not truthful in our war against terror.
You discuss this development in the interrelationships of media, but you don't persuasively show how this is effectively (or even characteristically) a "left" characteristic of power. Unless you want to go down the route of Glenn Beck, who can't decide whether Obama is a Stalinist or a Nazi. (Glenn Beck is not a racist; he is a demagogue). I myself had half-faith in Obama's desire for transparency, but I long ago despaired of it after he has abandoned every opportunity to begin due process with inmates in Guantanamo. Sadly, he has about as much faith in facts made available to candid world as his predecessor. This is the essence of how politics is performed in a nation where people are more interested in where LeBron will play, how long Lindsay will be in jail than they are in war fought by our fellow citizens. We are all to blame for that.
Unfortunately, what I hear in this piece, filled as it is with necessary and good information, is the rather regrettable instinct to locate one side to blame. If only it were that easy. We'd be able to vote out one incompetent fool and replace him with someone far more worthy, which is what I thought I was doing by voting for Obama.
"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."
Nah, that's not Obama talking, that's FDR's first inaugural address. And, according to the 2010 MetLife Survey of the American Dream, the majority of our country may finally have reached the point where we, out of necessity, redefine the American Dream as being about something other than financial status. As cited on last Sunday's McLaughlin Group (http://www.livedash.com/transcript/mclaughlin_group/9/KQED/Sunday_July_25_2010/261622)
, 77% of people in this country say quality of life is defined by improved relationships, 87% claim to have reevaluated priorities to put emphasis on personal relationships, and 58% define the American Dream as having a family and raising children.
Neat study, but how does it fit as a response to the previous posts, right? I find it fascinating that some of the preceding responders took Carraway to task for attacking the left. Aside from a few gratuitous lines against the "liberal media", Carraway’s post read to me like standard left wing academia. I recently finished Howard Zinn's "A People's History of American Empire" which by and large focused on- wait for it- how the military-industrial complex, yellow journalism, and international corporations (including BP many, many months before the oil spill) are responsible for almost all of the wrongs across America and its territories. Maybe it is just the synchronicity of my readings, but Carraway's post sounded almost Zinn-like.
We are a nation at war. We have been a nation at war for almost all of my life, excepting a few brief periods during the Clinton administration. (Yes, I'm counting the Cold War in my argument). We are not going to be at peace any time in the foreseeable future; if anything, we'll probably be at war with another country at some point in the next 2 or 3 years (Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea- go ahead, spin the wheel.) That the military-industrial complex and international business interests are driving forces behind these "threats" should surprise no one who reads thelunchbreakblog.com.
My question is, is there anything truly surprising at this point about "Shadows of Government"? Is it surprising that our politicians are not forthright, and that our country’s military and business alliance is thirsty for power/blood/profit? The only thing that separates the "Shadows of Government" of today from yesterday's versions is how many of us understand what their motivations are. While it may be wishful thinking, I believe that we as a country either “get it” or are in extreme denial about how things really are.
So where does this leave us? If you are reading this blog right now, you will probably never be very rich or powerful. Your thoughts and decisions will affect you, your family and friends, and maybe, if you choose to write about your decisions, a few dozen online readers. In addition, you will probably read this response on your own, relatively new computer, in your own house, right before or after eating a filling dinner with or without your family. While you’ve probably had some tense times economically, you will still be all right tomorrow. Also, chances are, you will not be going out after your dinner to dress in costume and pour tea into a nearby body of water; nor will you be bringing a loaded gun to your local Starbucks just to prove a point about “freedom”.
Fascinating how for all the knowledge we have, for all the supposed indignation, the only people really having a go at creating change are with the Tea Parties, and they are a mostly conservative (or Libertarian) group. Maybe today’s left wing fringe is afraid to cause a stink during a rare moment of supposed power for the Democrats. Maybe 10-11% unemployment is still not enough to stir real, tangible panic. Maybe we are preoccupied with trivial matters like the Sherrod firing, Michael Vick’s eligibility, or the hot weather. Maybe we’re just ignorant, and incapable of making connections between politics and our own lives. Or maybe, the 60’s countercultural icon Ken Kesey’s exhortation to the Vietnam Day Committee’s 1965 march is still being heard:
“There’s only one thing to do… there’s only one thing’s gonna do any good at all… And that’s everybody just look at it, look at the war, and turn your backs and say…**** it…”
Tonight, after eating a hearty dinner, going for a walk, and reading a story to my son about sharing with others or looking both ways before crossing the street, I’m going to watch The Daily Show or the local news, feel angry for about a minute, and probably think to myself-
“**** it.”
Martin, one point I would contend with: Glenn Beck is the exact same person as a Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann...entertainers who found a passionate audience. Demagogue to me is too complementary of a term for a media type that found a gimmick to a core audience and is playing it out for as much money as humanly possible.
Jimmy: 10-11% Unemployment is based on Uneplyment claims for those still eligible. The actual figure is closer to 18%. An absolute frightening number.
Great responses, but to blame an apathetic audience is ridiculous. Neutron said that the Tea Party are the only ones that are active, but we are trying to reign in business interest that has ruined the credit based economy over the past thirty years.
OK you started, but Reagan allowed businesses to allow credit to flow and now Obama, with the new financial oversight, will make sure that banks, the largest land owners in America for the first time in history, will not maipulate the prices with mortgages and inflation to strap the American worker who has been abandoned for cheaper labor and even cheaper products. We were duked, maybe, just maybe, you could feel some kind of sympathy for Americans who do not know whom to trust.
And that is my point, Americans, educated and uneducated, do not know who to trust. We trusted Obama who came out of nowhere because he was new and different and thought, hey, maybe he will be on our side. But as Martin said and the Afghan war persists, he is as trustworthy as Clinton and Dean. We can not trust our newspapers because they all seem to be owned by corporations. We can not trust businesses and banks because they seem to rely on polticians to ease requirements that would protect our investments.
Anger and conspiracy -- I want to know where 40,000 dollars wents of my money when the stock market dropped and the AIG etc. failed. I want to know if my pension will be there when I put in 8% of my pay each week. I want to know if I lose my job because some politician makes a deal with a business who made a deal with another country to build a plant on foreign soil to make nails, that I will still have a house.
America is not sure if they are in it for America or theirselves, and right now, it is pretty clear with no one to trust, we are alone, and that more than any other conspiracy, is frightening.
Seems kind of strange to me. Every time I go to vote, I never see anybody on the ballot running for a postion in the 3" shadow branches" of government. They all appear to want a postion in the executive, legislative, or judicial branch. And while it might appear that the multi-national corporations are in bed with the government , might it not just be that they(the people) would like to have some say in the the agencies of government that regulate them almost to the point of forcing them out of business?
I just love the term "rampant addictive consumerism" being sold to the public. Hey, maybe you can convince the psychologists to include that in their next volume of approved disorders. Nobody is responsible, of course not. It is always somebodey else's fault. Why, the government just made me buy that 52" flat screen TV. Actually, there still is a place for individual responsibility. I know it's hard, but let's all try to say this word together: NO. That wasn't so bad was it?
And now to end on a note of encouragement. The "cabal of Leftist Journalists" notwithstanding, help is on the way. November is coming, the Tea Party is rising and Americans are going to take their country back.