Global Domination

The day after I posted my Electoral Politics blog the local newspaper ran a column by conservative pundit Rich Lowry, in which he tells Barack Obama he should be “insulted” by getting the Nobel Peace Prize because it means he agrees with the Nobel Committee that America needs to be put in its place as a member of the world team, not its dominating leader: “The apologies for his country, the embrace of the U.N., the ridiculous talk of global disarmament, the distance from Israel and kid gloves for Iran, the slaps at American hegemony—are all the stuff of shame-faced American weakness and retrenchment, uttered by the most powerful American on the planet.” Another conservative, this time the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said that his nomination was proof that “the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control.”

Obama wants this? Never. The “international” and domestic leftists? Yes, yes and yes! It’s hard not to read these guys with a certain amount of incredulity — do they actually believe this stuff they write — until you remember that they rule the world. George II liked to talk about invading Iraq to spread Democracy, with a capital D, to the rest of the impoverished world. Even if pundits actually use words like “hegemony,” they still cop to Bush’s excuse for this global domination: that because we’re a so-called democracy and our standard of living is the highest in the world, it’s our moral obligation to spread this largess and allow capitalism to bring everyone into the twenty-first century.

Hannah Arendt, in Imperialism, explains perfectly the real reason for our push for global domination:

"Since power is essentially only a means to an end a community based solely on power must decay in the calm of order and stability; its complete security reveals that it is built on sand. Only by acquiring more power can it guarantee the status quo; only by constantly extending its authority and only through process of power accumulation can it remain stable. Hobbes’s Commonwealth is a vacillating structure and must always provide itself with new props from outside; otherwise it would collapse overnight into the aimless, senseless chaos of the private interests from which it sprang. , , , [The] ever-present possibility of war guarantees the Commonwealth a prospect of permanence because it makes it possible for the state to increase its power at the expense of other states."

Globalization is changing the face of imperialism but not its basic function, the spread of capitalist accumulation. In his book, The New Imperialism, David Harvey talks about how imperialism has changed from nationalistic control over foreign territory (Britain in India, France in Algeria, etc.) to an economic imperialism based on production and finance (oil and Wall Street). The success of the U.S. in this new age of imperialism is what Lowry and his ilk are defending, of course. As Harvey explains it, “From the late nineteenth century onwards, the US gradually learned to mask the explicitness of territorial gains and occupations under the mask of a spaceless universalization of its own values, buried within a rhetoric that was ultimately to culminate . . . in what came to be known as ‘globalization.” Therefore, Wall Street/Treasury/IMF, all one thing, can do no wrong in opening up capital globalization, by whatever means necessary, because it is simply spreading our democratic values and standard of living to all those poor countries who resources would just be sitting there without benefit to anyone without our intervention.

What the U.S. failed to anticipate is that if financialization is the key to accumulating more power, as Arendt talks about, and if our internal and external deficits, largely held in Asia, continue to skyrocket, then we may just find our hegemony “slapped upside the head” by China. To come back to Lowry’s complaint, it makes perfect sense for us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, to threaten to invade Iran, to refuse to reduce our nuclear arsenal, and to arm Israel to the teeth when that may be all we’ve got left: our military prowess, our “exploitative domination,” as Harvey calls it. So in our fight to the finish with China to maintain global domination we’ll just keep sending those soldiers to protect the world from “terrorism” and bring those infidels into the twenty-first century. It’s reminiscent of Marie Antoinette: let our schools continue to fail our students, let our transportation systems crumble, let the global corporations drill for oil on all those offshore shelves, and let the insurance companies make a profit from our ill health. In other words, let civil society be damned as long as those in power can continue to acquire more power.

Solution: Off with their heads!