Part V.
Part V completes the study (and substantial inclusion) of materials from Wolin’s Democracy Inc., started in Part IV. (“Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” by Sheldon Wolin. Princeton University Press. 8/29/17. Kindle edition.)
“Democracy Incorporated” for managing mobilization. Wolin’s main terms for the present US.
The author’s terms describe the US political system and its primary institutions, considered (largely) as a response to the conditions after WWII. These terms are briefly explained. Their inclusion also serves separate purposes for this essay. As noted, these focus on primary US institutions, especially government, and potential influence on secondary types. (These matters are addressed in part VI.) This is a study of context and influence. Wolin’s material is especially valuable, both for its political/interpretive strengths, and as a source of central features for understanding primary US institutions.
- Democracy Incorporated.
The central term for Wolin’s interpretive project is democracy incorporated. The full title provides two more central ideas, and shows interrelatedness: “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” Each is discussed, but their relatedness is central; this is especially true for the next term, superpower, which informs the others in noteworthy ways.
“Wolin captured the political mutations caused by neoliberalism and coined the term ‘inverted totalitarianism’ for the novel political and economic system it had spawned.” — Christopher Hedges, in his introduction to the 2017 Edition of Democracy Inc.
The main term must be understood as socially broad, but one cannot lose sight of the kind of generality involved: we are discussing “political mutations”: “Democracy Incorporated describes the paradigmatic change represented by the amalgamation of state and corporate power.”* Yet these “political mutations” involve more than the rise of neoliberalism. In the narrative view above [Part IV] we noted social and political forces extending beyond those “caused by neoliberalism”. Mobilizing the post WWII US involved more than one political strand, no matter how dominant this is now.
*(Wolin, Preface to the paperback edition.)
If we consider neoliberalism as the victory of “economics over politics”, however, Hedges struck an essential truth, and we find this exact phrase in Wolin’s interpretation. In contrast to this victory, there is a pervasive element in Wolin’s text: reclaiming political theory (and practice) as independent – not profoundly subject to, reduced to, and even ruined by economic factors. But in the neoliberal context there are no real competitors left. One should not confuse the chatter on the sidelines with the rules of the game on the field. “Democracy Incorporated describes the paradigmatic change”; thus “running the nation like a business” [not from Wolin], although vague, no longer has a discordant quality; on the contrary, when the market becomes a social “absolute”, using a “business management model for everything” appears obvious, uncontested. This is the given context. Yet as Wolin insists, there is nothing neutral about this change of political paradigms. The nature of political discussion in the US has changed.
2. Superpower.
In this commerce-dominated political context we raise the issue of scale, especially large scale. In the context of political theory and power, the central idea is superpower. The author stresses the term. It pervades his analysis and the other main terms.
Superpower represents the scale and dynamism of “imperial democracy”. For this overview, we note two features: one is the actual system, the institutions and characteristic ideas or ethos; the other, the resulting power or potential for influence/activity from this system. The two features are separated to stress that the character of the ethos and sheer institutional scale are not neutral or benign. On the contrary, the ethos, especially aspects from capitalism, is highly competitive and control seeking. The quality of dynamism thus reflects forms and capacities of capitalism, the “harnessing” of the economy (or mobilization) for a combination of global-scale ambitions: corporate and political/military. The institutional complexity of this system can hardly be addressed here. The superpower scale refers to the immense science, technology, and productive capacities, and the required management system for this – with characteristic strengths and weaknesses. The dynamism has a price.
In the HBR article above [Part IV], there was the issue (“price”) of “runaways” — excessive attention to competition and ROE, or a problem of limits. We can note the strength of mass production, of an immense and varied productive capacity; yet there are clearly tradeoffs in this (i.e., waste). Capitalism promotes forms of considerable social disruption, as with Schumpeter’s “creative destruction”. The strongly hierarchical (elite) management system, even quasi-military, is both effective but problematic. At issue here, however, is to note that the US global ambitions, corporate and military, reflect this economic dynamism, in its gains and more questionable aspects. The large-scale superpower dynamic gives the Democracy Inc. concept a convincing and characteristic feature. This (superpower) dynamism and its results are open to praise and criticism, with the latter in particular for its extremes. In this dual benefit/negative results assessment, the connection to market capitalism is direct.
With noting the dual character of this superpower dynamic, it is important to emphasize a recurrent issue. This touches on the core of Wolin’s argument against Democracy Incorporated. The productive capacity of this system, its effectiveness — by its own terms or goals — roughly put, generating immense economic/political power and control — is not doubted. The issue, rather, is whether this form of democracy is legitimate, a point previously raised. This refers also, of course, to the previous theme of comparison: without a comparison to strong alternative democratic ideas (reference points) there is no discussion. Totalitarian governments of the recent past, too, insisted on their own terms of legitimacy. We must have external ideas of political and ethical discussion; an external frame of reference to evaluate the legitimacy of a government.
<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[…] “American special operations troops deployed to 138 nations last year or 70 percent of the world’s countries according to official Special Operations Command data published by TomDispatch. 55.29 percent of deployments were in the Middle East, a 35 percent decrease since 2006. In Africa, deployments of elite U.S. forces skyrocketed 1,600 percent during the same timeframe.” [Emphasis added.] U.S. Special Forces Deployed To 70% Of The World In 2016, by Niall McCarthy, Feb 8, 2017.
(https://www.statista.com/chart/7984/us-special-forces-deployed-to-70-of-the-world-in-2016/)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“We are not just any hegemon. We run a uniquely benign imperialism . . . it is a fact manifest in the way that others welcome our power.” —Charles Krauthammer. Quoted by Wolin (p. 41). (One only needs to consider the example of the NSA, Snowden, and the reaction in Europe and elsewhere to see the emptiness of this “welcome”. Clearly many other examples are available.)
<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>
3. Inverted Totalitarianism.
For a partial but external frame of reference for political legitimacy, we continue our overview of Wolin’s main terms. In his term group, inverted totalitarianism refers to both historical precedents and the extreme or totalizing tendencies of Democracy Inc. Inversion indicates the system is not what it is routinely claimed to be.* As managed democracy describes the current system, inverted totalitarianism gives interpretive context for understanding key problems. The anti-democratic features of this political enterprise are notable. Again, the superpower dynamic is pervasive.
To start, it is important to note Wolin’s use of the term totalitarian is not to imply a direct relation to Nazi Germany. The intention is to underline tendencies and certain actions by means of “benchmarks”:
“… References to Hitler’s Germany are introduced to remind the reader of the benchmarks in a system of power that was invasive abroad, justified preemptive war as a matter of official doctrine, and repressed all opposition at home—a system that was cruel and racist in principle and practice, deeply ideological, and openly bent on world domination. Those benchmarks are introduced to illuminate tendencies in our own system of power that are opposed to the fundamental principles of constitutional democracy. Those tendencies are, I believe, totalizing in the sense that they are obsessed with control, expansion, superiority, and supremacy.” (Preface, Democracy Incorporated.)
These benchmarks show a disturbing similarity: preemptive war, repression of home opposition; strong tendencies of (global) control, expansion, etc. The author is careful to outline what is actually comparable between historical examples and the US present. The following excerpts suggest this pattern.
“What is typically meant by “totalitarianism”? First and foremost, it is the attempt to realize an ideological, idealized conception of a society as a systematically ordered whole, where the “parts” (family, churches, education, intellectual and cultural life, economy, recreation, politics, state bureaucracy) are premeditatedly, even forcibly if necessary, coordinated to support and further the purposes of the regime. The formulation of those purposes is monopolized by the leadership.
In classical totalitarian regimes it was assumed that total power demanded that the entirety of society’s institutions, practices, and beliefs had to be dictated from above and coordinated (gleichgeschaltet), that total power was achievable only through the control of everything from the top. […]
Inverted totalitarianism works differently. It reflects the belief that the world can be changed to accord with a limited range of objectives, such as ensuring that its own energy needs will be met, that “free markets” will be established, that military supremacy will be maintained, and that “friendly regimes” will be in place in those parts of the world considered vital to its own security and economic needs. Inverted totalitarianism also trumpets the cause of democracy worldwide…
… As we shall point out in later chapters, “democracy” is understood as “managed democracy,” a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that they have learned to control…” (p.46-48)
*For explaining the inverted aspect of inverted totalitarianism:
“An inversion is conventionally defined as an instance of something’s being turned upside down. Unlike the classic totalitarian regimes which lost no opportunity for dramatizing and insisting upon a radical transformation that virtually eradicated all traces of the previous system, inverted totalitarianism has emerged imperceptibly, unpremeditatedly, and in seeming unbroken continuity with the nation’s political traditions. … For our purposes an inversion occurs when seemingly unrelated, even disparate starting points converge and reinforce each other. A giant corporation includes prayer sessions for its executives, while evangelicals meet in “franchised” congregations and millionaire preachers extol the virtues of capitalism.8 Each is a reliable component in a system of which the administration is the public face. An inversion is present when a system, such as a democracy, produces a number of significant actions ordinarily associated with its antithesis: for example, when the elected chief executive may imprison an accused without due process and sanction the use of torture while instructing the nation about the sanctity of the rule of law. The new system, inverted totalitarianism, is one that professes to be the opposite of what, in fact, it is. It disclaims its real identity, trusting that its deviations will become normalized as “change.” Again exactly the opposite of the classic totalitarians, who, far from disguising their break with the constitutional system of the past, celebrated it.” (pp. 45-46). [Emphasis added.]
The more gradual emergence of inverted totalitarianism is distinctive as well. It has not appeared as a sudden, revolutionary movement led by a cult figure. The system is more abstract, with replaceable leaders or managers. Citizens are not politically mobilized, but rather removed; their role is far more passive. Propaganda often comes from private media. This suggests exerting power through corporate forms and influence, rather than overt political means.
“… Rather, in coining the term “inverted totalitarianism” I tried to find a name for a new type of political system, seemingly one driven by abstract totalizing powers, not by personal rule, one that succeeds by encouraging political disengagement rather than mass mobilization, that relies more on “private” media than on public agencies to disseminate propaganda reinforcing the official version of events. In classic totalitarianism the conquest of total power did not result from a coalescence of unintended consequences; it was the conscious aim of those who led a political movement.” (p.43-45.)
“The Nazi and Fascist regimes were powered by revolutionary movements whose aim was not only to capture, reconstitute, and monopolize state power but also to gain control over the economy. By controlling the state and the economy, the revolutionaries gained the leverage necessary to reconstruct, then mobilize society.
In contrast, inverted totalitarianism is only in part a state-centered phenomenon. Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry. Unlike the classic forms of totalitarianism, which openly boasted of their intentions to force their societies into a preconceived totality, inverted totalitarianism is not expressly conceptualized as an ideology or objectified in public policy. Typically it is furthered by power-holders and citizens who often seem unaware of the deeper consequences of their actions or inactions.” (Preface) [Emphasis added.]
We find a managing elite, overseeing a long-term process. The dynamic is not overtly political as with classic totalizing systems, but far more rooted in economics – harnessing the productive and managerial structures of capitalism. The final results are still strongly political. Even in outline, a rather different power structure is suggested.
Yet the similarity of key objectives between the classic and inverted forms is strong. In particular, a totalizing dynamic directed toward immense power and its global use. The US military presence reflects this more obviously. The NSA surveillance systems are “vaguely immense”. Globalizing corporations project power and influence abroad in other ways. Such a minimal list is yet highly suggestive of the interlocking scale of the US enterprise and its direction. The concept of US Empire alone, used by critics and US power advocates, is in its way definitive — if accepted. Wolin’s term describes the unique abstract version of totalizing power tendencies in current US politics; those tendencies or benchmarks “obsessed with control, expansion, superiority, and supremacy.” (Preface) The historical references lend weight to the term. The idea has its use and limits. The interpretive effect, of course, increases when considered in tandem with managed democracy.
4. Managed Democracy. The superpower dynamic made political.
The term “superpower politics” is nearly equal to managed democracy. We are reminded of the pervasive meaning of the superpower dynamic, and the interrelated aspect of Wolin’s terms. Interpreting the US political system after WWII is a vast project. The author’s main summary abstractions emphasize different aspects of this political system. The terms overlap and interrelate.
In this interrelation of terms, the superpower dynamic has pride of place. It is pervasive. This dynamic is not just part of a group of lofty abstractions, however. It is also more human and direct. Perhaps not very noble, but offers a personal level of understanding. The superpower dynamic has many interpretive uses, on different levels of abstraction.
One aspect of this term’s direct value: ask a corporate executive – is your pay too high this year? Is your market share too strong? For a general: is your control over a potential battle zone – almost excessive? How long might you rest easy with your level of weaponry? (We are not referring to a base instinct of controlling others; or to common greed.)
Raising these questions has a special, more direct value for the term managed democracy. There is a narrow system logic to identify in capitalism. A very similar feature appears in the sphere of military power. Originality is not our claim. It is simply stressing the internal logic or imperative of growth, increase, or maximization. This dynamic or internal logic applies to executive compensation or battle zone equipment – with obvious qualifications. But in touching on the direct personal level or role – executive or commander – it is notable that the connection to the great, abstract “superpower dynamic” is not that remote.
US corporations have their own imperatives. Generals have their tasks. In short form, we identified a strand of internal logic – the drive for growth or maximization – frequently applicable to both. This impulse or dynamic relates to power and control; but again, in these economic and military areas. What happens when these ideas, institutional features, and their dynamic are transposed to politics? Not as partial, but given a commanding role?
Managed democracy or superpower politics are abstract labels for this situation. The superpower dynamic derived mainly from (capitalistic) economics is made political – decisively so. The “specter of inverted totalitarianism” indicates a severe problem of direction and limits for such a system. A political system of checks and balances takes on a rather different meaning when a central imperative is to overcome any limits.
The “dynamic made political” identifies a central part of what managed democracy means. It is a characteristic political system. What is given here is not an elaborate structural description as such, but a functional type; although leading institutions are identified: larger corporations and higher government/military centers. What makes these leading institutions in our outline is their strong role in stabilizing and controlling (managing) a powerful dynamic heavily derived from capitalism. This characteristic dynamic both generated the large scale system, and is taken as one of its most characteristic features. Wolin relates this also as “economics over politics”. A corporate/bureaucratic elite manages a subservient larger US population.
Thus our overview gives limited structural features of this system, but greater attention is given to its function. Two main purposes of managed democracy are underlined: elite control of empire, and systemized control of domestic politics – keeping popular sovereignty to a minimum. Wolin devotes considerable space to describing this elite and its function or activities. We limit ourselves to a selective review, starting with a central idea: a shared private/corporate ethos, and the interchange of political and business leaders:
“State power not only relies upon corporate power for the conversion of scientific advances into technological achievements but depends heavily on corporate personnel for policy advice and managerial skills. Consider this postmodern potpourri. Politicians resign in order to accept lucrative corporate positions; corporate executives take leave (typically with “delayed compensation”) to run government departments and set policies;8 and high-ranking military officers are hired by corporations, become TV commentators, join faculties, and run for presidential nominations.
One consequence is that the political has been managerialized. Politics and elections as well as the operation of governmental departments and agencies now are routinely considered a managerial rather than a political skill. Management is not a neutral notion, however. Its roots are in the business culture, its values shaped by the pressures of a competitive economy that persistently push the limits of legality and ethical norms.” (p. 135)
There is a general understanding or shared ethos concerning the function of the elite system. Wolin highlights the attention to stability and control. The superpower dynamic several times noted, and its key element of capitalism, are agents for creating great power and instability of various forms. A “managed democracy”-style system addresses the dynamic, its instabilities – even in the larger social and political areas – with economic tools or ideas, such as privatization and the markets. As Wolin notes, such practices transfer power into the private sector where they are better managed or controlled. This transfer of power is highly characteristic – and illustrates economics over politics.
The following notes stability through institutional reform, and instability from capitalism.
“That managed democracy should be promoted by an administration steeped in corporate culture reflects a primal concern of globalizing capitalism, indeed, of capital generally: the concern for stable conditions. Typically the principal means of establishing stability include a reliable legal system, effective governance, and an orderly citizenry: in other words, the conditions for assuring that expectations—those accompanying an investment or a contract, for example—will not be upset by destabilizing developments, such as erratic fiscal policies, widespread social unrest, or popular demands for the nationalization of oil.
The attempt to eliminate or radically reduce such contingencies is a tacit admission that a principal source of social instability is capitalism itself. Ever since its inception capitalism has produced not only goods, services, and jobs but also severe social dislocation. The dynamic of capitalism disrupts established practices, beliefs, even whole communities, rendering traditional skills obsolete, and generally emptying “the old ways” or traditions of any practical significance. A vigorous capitalism always carries the potential for producing social unrest that occasionally culminates in demands for anticapitalist, egalitarian policies and governmental intervention.” (P. 142-143) [Emphasis added.]
Part of the drive for stability and control is the previously noted transfer of power into the private sector:
“To the extent that corporation and state are now indissolubly connected, “privatization” becomes normal and state action in defiance of corporate wishes the aberration. Privatization supplies a major component of managed democracy. By ceding substantive functions once celebrated as populist victories, it diminishes the political and its democratic content. The strategy followed by privatization’s advocates is, first, to discredit welfare functions as “socialism” and then either to sell those functions to a private bidder or to privatize a particular program. A traditional governmental function, such as education, is in process of being redefined, from a promise to make education accessible to all to an investment opportunity for venture capital.12 …” (p. 136-137)
“… The so-called free market is not simply about buyers and sellers, or producers and owners, but about power relationships that are fundamental to the management of democracy. Financial markets are not just about securities but about useful insecurities. These constitute methods of discipline, of reinforcing certain behaviors and discouraging others, of accustoming people to submitting to hierarchies of power, of exploiting the tentative nature of employment—the uncertainty of rewards, pension systems, and health benefits. The union of corporate and state power means that, instead of the illusion of a leaner system of governance, we have the reality of a more extensive, more invasive system than ever before, one removed from democratic influences and hence better able to manage democracy.” (pp. 136-137). [Emphasis added.]
The transfer of power into the private sector is hardly politically neutral. New systems of control emerge.
Again, controlling the dynamism of the imperial democracy comes with a price; or better, many tradeoffs. The forces of immense growth and (even) maximization require institutional forms for their management. The central ideas involved, largely from the business world, suggest a balance between productive forces and stability or control. Part of the function of managed democracy, then — understood as a comprehensive political system — applies to the stability and control of the institutions of democratic participation. Elections too are aspects to manage.
“Managed democracy is centered on containing electoral politics; it is cool, even hostile toward social democracy beyond promoting literacy, job training, and other essentials for a society struggling to survive in the global economy. Managed democracy is democracy systematized. The United States has become the showcase of how democracy can be managed without appearing to be suppressed. This has come about, not through a Leader’s imposing his will or the state’s forcibly eliminating opposition, but through certain developments, notably in the economy, that promoted integration, rationalization, concentrated wealth, and a faith that virtually any problem—from health care to political crises, even faith itself—could be managed, that is, subjected to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product. Voters are made as predictable as consumers; a university is nearly as rationalized in its structure as a corporation;9 a corporate structure is as hierarchical in its chain of command as the military. The regime ideology is capitalism, which is virtually as undisputed as Nazi doctrine was in 1930s Germany.” (pp. 46-48). [Emphasis added.]
Thus central political activities like elections are matters for an adapted corporate management form: “subjected to control, predictability, and cost-effectiveness in the delivery of the product.” The “integration” and “rationalization” reflect efforts to homogenize, as possible, a wide range of institutions. Political activities are no exception.
The following excerpts from Gehl/Porter show that Wolin’s idea of US politics as a business – and by outcomes, a doubtful business as well – is not unusual. The main point for this inclusion, however, is not to integrate this text into Wolin’s interpretive pattern. The point is the matter of fact quality of a “politics industry” in the current US, and the utility of business school theorists offering their expertise: “Competition thinking sheds new light on the failure of politics in America, which has become a major business in its own right.”* [Emphasis added.]
*“Why competition in the politics industry is failing America. A strategy for reinvigorating our democracy.” By Katherine M. Gehl and Michael E. Porter. (A publication from the Harvard Business School. Opinions represent the authors.) (All excerpts p.5)
“Key Findings” [from this document]: “The political system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it is designed to do.” “The starting point for understanding the problem is to recognize that our political system isn’t broken. Washington is delivering exactly what it is currently designed to deliver. The real problem is that our political system is no longer designed to serve the public interest, and has been slowly reconfigured to benefit the private interests of gain-seeking organizations: our major political parties and their industry allies.” [Emphasis added.]
Parts 1-4 (of 6) of their paper’s plan:
“PART I sets the stage by assessing the outcomes that politics is delivering, revealing a broken system that has become the major barrier to progress in America. PART II shows how the political system is not a public institution but a private industry that sets its own rules. In the process, it has fundamentally diminished our democracy. PART III describes the essential outcomes we should expect from a well-functioning political system, but are not achieving. PART IV uses the Five Forces framework to analyze how the evolving structure of the politics industry has led to the failure of political competition to serve the average citizen…” […] [Emphasis added.] (A publication from the Harvard Business School. September, 2017. https://www.hbs.edu/competitiveness/Documents/why-competition-in-the-politics-industry-is-failing-america.pdf)
Although their purposes are clearly quite different from Wolin’s, the commonality is plain: “… the political system is not a public institution but a private industry …”
Wolin’s purpose is a larger scale of interpretation: managed democracy reflects a larger (national) project of standardized institutional control, with central concepts and techniques of modern corporate management. The term describes the US political system in a broad social sense, emphasizing certain features: an elite corporate/bureaucratic management system, on the scale of the US as empire; a subservient populace, with little substantive political involvement; a powerful dynamic rooted in capitalism, pervasive, disruptive, and matched with institutions for its stability and control. This dynamic and its control system were extended over time, made increasingly political; and have successfully swept away the competition. In its own terms of growth and power, the managed democracy system achieved many of its goals. Thus the author’s recurring question: the doubtful legitimacy of a political system where economic ideas have this level of influence:
“Shareholder democracy” belongs on the same list of oxymorons as “Superpower democracy.” At stake are the conditions that serve forms of power antithetical to democracy. The citizenry is reduced to an electorate whose potency consists of choosing among congressional candidates who, prior to campaigning, have demonstrated their “seriousness” by successfully soliciting a million dollars or more from wealthy donors. This rite of passage ensures that the candidate is beholden to corporate power before taking office. Not surprisingly, the candidate who raises the most money will likely be the winner. The vote count becomes the expression of the contributor.”
“The broad question is whether democracy is possible when the dominant ethos in the economy fosters antipolitical and antidemocratic behavior and values; when the corporate world is both the principal supplier of political leadership and the main source of political corruption; and when small investors occupy a position of powerlessness comparable to that of the average voter.” (p.139-140) [Emphasis edded.]
In moving toward the conclusion of discussing Wolin’s terms, we pair his recurring question of legitimacy with his description of the US political context, with greater insistence. The managed democracy system and its superpower dynamic represent overwhelming power and success. Yet with the rise of the Democracy Inc. system, social democracy declines. The superpower practices and ethos, over time, appear increasingly detached from popular sovereignty:
“If Superpower signifies form-free power, sophisticated and “advanced,” at the disposal of those who govern in the name of constitutional democracy, it cannot mean, practically or theoretically, “government by the people.” Not practically because the global “responsibilities” of Superpower are incompatible with participatory governance; not theoretically, because the powers that make Superpower formidable do not derive either from constitutional authority or from “the people.” Stated more strongly, the condition for the ascendance of Superpower is the weakening or irrelevance of democracy and constitutionalism—except as mystifications enabling Superpower to fake a lineage that gives it legitimacy.” (p.101) [Emphasis added.]
With this, additional direct material for Wolin’s idea of democracy, and its legitimacy:
“Democracy proposes a radically different conception of power. Democracy is first and foremost about equality: equality of power and equality of sharing in the benefits and values made possible by social cooperation. Democracy is no more compatible with world domination than is ‘the political,’ which is first and foremost about preserving commonality while legitimating and reconciling differences. Both democracy and the political become distorted when the scales are continually expanded.” (pp. 60-61).
Looking to the previous structure of reference points and extremes [Part IV], this quote serves as a reference point, although brief, for social democracy. This is one of the author’s central concepts. It functions repeatedly as a comparison with the description of the present US (with his main critical terms). World domination, the US imperial ambitions, are clearly presented as excessive or extreme, and hardly compatible with an equality-centered view of democracy. The values associated with social democracy have been overtaken by Democracy Inc.
5. Wolin’s main terms. Conclusion.
The triumph of Democracy Inc. over ideals of social democracy reflects a long-term institutional transformation. The presentation of this complex process in this overview followed Wolin’s text. By his example, we directed special attention to the US response to post WWII conditions. Against this large historical scene – certainly with many important pre-existing features hardly noted here – our review focused on selected essential features from the author’s more extensive treatment. His main terms represent these features. Summary of these terms and stress on certain themes from them completes this essay section.
Democracy Inc. figures as the highest-level term, roughly equal to the neoliberal state. Two terms outline critical aspects of the higher idea: managed democracy, and a totalizing economic/political impulse or direction: inverted totalitarianism. We emphasized the interrelatedness of these interpretive labels, with superpower (and its dynamic) given a special place. Superpower informs and amplifies the others. The particular quality of drive toward the accumulation of power is hardly understood without this; and among the other concepts this quality is only directly expressed in inverted totalitarianism. Democracy incorporated relates (by combined words) the amalgamation of state and corporation, but does not itself note the critical superpower impulse, often toward excess or extremes.
Wolin treats superpower as a term of scale, similar to the concept imperial democracy, and the often noted dynamic aspect behind empire construction and management. This view is reflected here. The connection of this dynamic with capitalism is essential. The superpower dynamic and its main (economic) source aids explanation of its complex character, especially for evaluating benefits and negative results; and just as critically, the way these ideas are made political: Wolin’s “superpower politics”.
Inverted Totalitarianism is a particularly rich concept in the author’s group, in part by its historical connotations. Wolin presents an interesting interplay of features comparing Democracy Inc. and preceding historical examples. A few of these features were presented as characteristic.
For similarities: the totalizing aspect, and political intentions or effects; and the (Nazi) “benchmarks” of “control, expansion, superiority, and supremacy.” In contrast: a less overt, more abstract, detached style of control or management; an evolutionary grasp of power, not attached to a single cult leader. The single largest separation is the role of economic thought (capitalism) as the “regime ideology”, rather than simply exploiting productive, industrial capacity for other political ends.
With these features, an important idea to repeat: inversion in inverted totalitarianism underlines a duplicity concerning democratic ideas. While clearly exhibiting an elite, largely non-democratic (totalizing) control/management system, the rhetoric of fulfilling and spreading democracy is yet characteristic. The legitimacy of this democratic form relies on disregarding strong alternative ideas.
The “superpower dynamic made political” captures the essential character of managed democracy. Wolin relates two main functions: manage the US Empire, and control the US political process: ensure a minimal level of popular influence. With the functions we note main structures: managed democracy as an entirety, a system; the elite administrative group with its characteristic (corporate) ideas or ethos; and a subservient populace. That a companion ideology of accepting elite control is strong in this citizen group – in effect, agreeing to their political powerlessness – shows how key ideas keep a hierarchy in place. Against ideas of greater equality and popular sovereignty, with power residing and expressed in citizenship, a standardized, rationalized corporate/bureaucratic hierarchy is in firm control. Running the empire is (a) serious business. The main structures must not be threatened by egalitarian alternatives.
Before discussing selected themes from Democracy Inc., some additional points about managed democracy first. Wolin stresses the rise of corporate power, especially in the post WWII period. An important aspect of this rise in power is a transfer of power: free markets and privatization, for example, reflect moving social resources to (direct) private sector control. The implications of this power shift are immense – especially as political gestures.
This power shift can also be more conceptual, as with New Public Management (NPM). Even agencies and services that remain public are yet subject, in various forms, to conceptual privatization. Despite individual differences for how ideas are applied, these areas reinforce Wolin’s concept of the amalgamation of corporation and government.
The last main point concerns managed democracy as a stability and control system. Capitalism of the present US is generally recognized as a complex mixture of benefits and related problems. This bland statement, however, contains the combined thought of (a) capitalism, (b) our idea here of superpower dynamic, and (c) social disruption – which is sometimes severe. We can refer to the social drama of the industrial revolution. There are long-term issues with this theme of disruption and benefit in our commitment to this basic system. In our limited remarks here, these larger social processes are mentioned, not treated at length.
The more direct issue: the complex and disruptive dynamism comes with a matching management system. The ongoing developments of business, science, and technology – civilian, military, or hybrids thereof – reflect intimate development with administrative forms for their stability and control. Despite the great scale and variety, we can recognize the basic idea: the managerial and productive systems go together.
These systems have characteristic ideas: i.e., standardization, calculation, efficiency, maximization, productivity – treated at times under umbrella terms like “rationalization” – which represent, as varied yet related, a general mode of (system) thought. Again, these are matched with economic management or control.*(see the rationalization excerpt below.)
Yet the larger question, in a social or philosophical sense, is whether these characteristic (economic) ideas are legitimate for a commanding position in a democratic government. This is Wolin’s insistent question and a central theme. Managed democracy emerged as the form for broad social stability and control – of “economics over politics”. Democracy systematized, a system for treating all possible national areas as industries or businesses – even political life. (The matter of fact quality of a “politics industry”, noted above with excerpts from Gehl and Porter, indicates this view in blunt terms.) Such a strongly hierarchical system, however, requires as said a different vision of democracy – this is the paradigm shift reflected in the present.
Democracy Inc. and the paradigm shift.
In moving from a summary of Wolin’s terms to remarks on themes, his idea of a paradigm shift is primary. Democracy Inc. – all the main terms — reflect the theme of economics over politics. The (varied) concept neoliberalism too reflects this interpretive stance. A distinction is needed, however.
There is an important distinction between market capitalism as a prominent feature of the US, and the larger paradigm shift of economics over politics; of viewing the markets as practically “absolute”. Central factors like capitalism are obviously not recent, nor is its strong political influence. The point is not newness but degree. The shift represents a greatly heightened if not complete takeover of the political area by economic forms and ideas. The idea of a “politics industry” suggests this clearly. It is a critical distinction.
“Market dominance” and political control.
The next theme is directly tied to the paradigm shift. As the rise of corporate power reflects the superpower dynamic, this totalizing and competitive direction allows no real rivals, once its power – market dominance – is achieved. (Wolin, again, describes this as amalgamation.) This theme of dominance, inherent to the control system, has an exclusive character. In the private sector this is common.
The application of exclusion is rather different as a public, political idea; at least, as democratic theory. Democracy Inc. as related here creates its own frame of reference, controls the terms of political legitimacy. Primary US institutions are not just transformed in the managerial image. Political life in the US is revised to fit a new set of imposed norms. These norms are furnished by a managerial elite. (We recall: Rove and statements of “creating reality”. [Part IV])
With these new norms: imperial democracy is not open to serious questions about its legitimacy, or considering alternatives, or comparing (moderate) reference points against its extremes. Despite strong arguments in favor of social democracy and popular sovereignty, partially advanced here from Wolin, one expects that managed democracy will continue to marginalize or exclude competing ideas. Exclusion is built in to the system. As noted, this is reflected in the shift of power into the private sector, or adopting key ideas (NPM). The flow of power is frequently into these areas and forms, not toward citizens as political agents. A framework of discussion, or terms of debate dominated by economic factors, conceptually privatized, is clearly not political (or public) in the same sense as the suggested alternatives.
This is the second theme, presented as central: the current system is intellectually exclusive, effectively regulating political discussion. The control system extends to the control of ideas. This represents a serious dilemma for citizens or institutions intending to hold or promote ideas of social democracy.
<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>
With repeating the themes of a paradigm shift, then political control as market dominance in this paradigm, this section for considering Wolin’s ideas directly is completed. Yet the influence will continue in various forms for this essay.
As stated, this is a study of context and influence. In particular the context of the current US, and its primary institutions; and the potential for influence on secondary types, such as public libraries. Education is an area of special attention as well.
It is apparent in the material considered thus far, especially from Harvey and Wolin, that the potential for influence from primary to secondary institutions in the US is considerable. Discussion of this regarding public libraries is the main topic of section VI.
(To be continued.)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*rationalization. (Oxford Reference, Dictionary of the Social Sciences.)
“In most social science usage, the process by which systematic thought, instrumental reason, measurement, and calculation came to dominate the life of modern societies. Although rationalization has been recognized as a central feature of modern social development since the early Enlightenment—indeed Enlightenment social thinkers were powerful contributors to this process—the concept was most strongly marked by Max Weber’s treatment in the early twentieth century. For Weber, rationalization was a total social process that affected all areas of social life—the economy, politics, bureaucracy, law, religion, and science. These developments were interrelated, and progress in one generally spilled over into others…” […]
“At its core, then, rationalization is a worldview as much as a social process. It is not only the ability to master problems by measurement and calculation, but also an inclination to see problems as subject to this kind of solution….” […]
Rationalization. Oxford Reference. Publisher: Oxford University Press Print Publication Date: 2002. Print ISBN-13: 9780195123715 Published online: 2002.Current Online Version: 2002 eISBN: 9780199891184. Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Edited by Craig Calhoun.)
