No Hope for Change: The Bush-Obama Continuum
Much is made, in the U.S. right-wing media, of the alleged socialist tendencies of the current administration. According to this view Barack Obama is an avowed Marxist hell-bent on turning the Republic into a European-style socialist state.
The current occupant of the White House certainly has some leftist leanings, as do many members of the Democratic Party. But it might be more accurate to see his agenda less as a pursuit of socialism than as an extension of policies already initiated under his predecessor.
Let us review these policies, starting with foreign affairs.
As far as the Bush-initiated military conflicts are concerned, little has changed. The withdrawal from Iraq has not been accelerated and proceeds as the previous administration left it. A repeat of the Bush surge policy is being attempted in Afghanistan.
Operations in Pakistan and Somalia are being pursued along previous lines.
China remains the predominant partner, with the Sino-American relationship now being extended beyond the economic realm to the strategic one. North Korea is allowed to fester so long as Beijing allows it, while Russia is being treated as a quasi-pariah, just as before.
The Bush policy of globalization remains in force. The remedy to the economic meltdown is, as previously, seen in government spending and various bail-outs rather than in investment in job-producing activity.
The primary emphasis remains on the financial sector, seen as the foundation and heart of economic activity, as opposed to the real economy. The provision of liquidity to the financial industry, at enormous cost to the taxpayer, remains the primary priority. At the same time domestic investment, which provides employment and income to the taxpayer, remains neglected.
It can certainly be argued that long-established policies cannot be changed within the space of a few months, or even a year. But the continuity between the two administrations reaches further then the above.
In domestic politics the main priority common to both is the continued increase and reach of the power of the executive branch.
Under the previous administration the doctrine of the unitary state was used to enlarge executive power in all areas relating to national security. In parallel the independence of the executive from legislative control was fostered by the generalized use of signing statements, through which the president took exception from many provisions of the bills he signed.
While the previous president used the War on Terror as the justification for increasing executive reach, the current one has relied primary on the economic crisis.
The financial meltdown has not only allowed to extract huge budget increases from a willing congress, but to extend executive reach into many sectors of the national economy. This extension has been accompanied by the creation of various offices and functions, collectively referred to under the term tsar, under exclusive White House supervision.
These offices, and the individuals who occupy them, are outside the regular cabinet structure as well as outside congressional supervision.
The development of such an extra-constitutional governing structure, erected hastily under the cover of economic urgency, potentially leads to the creation of a parallel government hierarchy, free from constitutional checks and balances, and loyal only to the chief executive and his immediate circle.
Such a parallel hierarchy would be similar to the one erected in the Soviet Union by the Communist Party, with cells supervising government departments at all levels. The Communist Party, of course, was loyal only to the Party General Secretary, the de facto sole ruler of the USSR.
A development along similar lines in the U.S. does not necessarily signify the rising of a Marxist conspiracy, as some commentators have suggested. But it does signal a drift away from the principle of separation of powers supported by constitutional checks and balances. As such, it raises two red flags.
First we need to remember that the increased reach of the central government will further lower its efficiency. A bigger government with more extensive powers will not give us a better economy or a more efficient administration, but drifts instead towards the discredited Soviet model, which collapsed not because it was Communist, but because it was massively inefficient.
The second and more important point is that the U.S. constitution is not a quaint, antiquated document. It is one of the towering achievements of human political thought. This nation has been, through the kindness of fate and the wisdom and heroism of its early citizens, been blessed with this extraordinary code of political conduct. It behooves us not to discard it lightly for the sake of ill-guided expediency.
About the author
Jacek Popiel's career spanned military service and international business development. His new book outlines how energy, economics and politics converge on the current world scene. For more articles and information: http://www.viableenergynow.comTags: executive power extension., parallel hierarchy, Unitary state