Those critically engaged in understanding and debating the future of Australian defence and national security strategies should pass two votes of thanks: the first is to former President Donald Trump; the second to the recent political-strategic proclamations of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The former deserves it because, for many not paying sufficient attention, he catalysed the knowledge and understanding of the United States as fiction: it is not united, and neither can it be truthfully described as a functioning democracy.
ASPI’s outpourings in the area of political-strategic analysis relating to China and the alliance with the United States (and I emphasise in these areas mainly) have the benefit of confirming that what was once a suspicion – that the Institute has long suffered from a constipated imagination and arrested intellectual development – is actually the case.
In two recent publications (by Peter Jennings and Rory Medcalf) based on the declassification and release of a banal and patronising framework document on the Indo-Pacific strategy of the US, it has demonstrated only wilful blindness – what Thomas Aquinas dubbed ‘ignorantia affectata’ – to the deep and chronic crisis that Australia’s dominant alliance partner is undergoing.
It has, moreover, not only applauded every initiative which integrates, but in reality, subordinates Australian security interests to those of the United States, but surrendered to hubris by exhorting the Prime Minister – seen ridiculously as “better placed” than any other “global leader” – to take advantage of Australia’s favoured standing by visiting Washington in order “to help shape Biden’s thinking about America’s role in Indo-Pacific and beyond.”
Ridiculous, because Scott Morrison’s demonstrated affinity for Trump and significant planks of Trumpism is somehow thought not to be a disqualification.
The rationale reflects two of ASPI’s immutable articles of faith: the one, that short of capitulation to Western, effectively US demands, China is a pariah state and enemy of all things that the West hold dear; the other, that with only minor or temporary blemishes, the US is the ultimate guarantor of Australian security.
As with all such ASPI documents, they are liberally sprinkled with the use of an unspecified “we” in the assumption that readers will not take exception to be conscripted into the service of a flawed and dangerous US containment-of-China strategy.
Reading it, there is a sense that these ASPI authors have been subjected to a form of strategic anaesthesia. Momentous political developments and significant events seem to have passed them by. Biden is undoubtedly a new President, but the United States is insistently and obstinately the country, it was his election, not the country of his (and many others’) nostalgic imagination.
One strand of the foregone reality concerns the political configurations of the US that Biden has inherited: contrary to all self-congratulatory claims it is, depending on the immediate focus, an oligarchy, or plutocracy, or an authoritarian state which exhibits the specific character of homegrown American fascism – phenomena which will not depart with Donald Trump’s exit from the White House and which, by all available evidence, should seriously inhibit, even disqualify propositions that the US is a desirable, let alone a necessary ally.
As regards the first two pathologies analysis undertaken in 2015 by the Center for Responsive Politics found that it would take the combined wealth of more than 18 average American households to equal the value of a single federal lawmaker’s household.
In the light of the above indicators, and many other bodies of evidence, it is not surprising that repeated and robust research on the US political system concludes is dominated by economic elites and organised groups representing business interests where government policy is concerned, or expressed differently and depending on the definition used, the US functions now, as it has for quite some time, as either an oligarchy or a plutocracy.
This ends the good news. The bad news is that equally robust research, published in reputable and highly regarded, peer-reviewed journals, indicates that oligarchy and plutocracy exist alongside, or are embedded in the substantial transformational brew which, initially was seen as “creeping fascism” but is now evolving into a highly developed “citizen-driven fascism” among a sizeable section of the US population.
In general orientation, this is fascism which is not over-determined by the 1930s and World War II, predates 9/11, but has been increasingly evident since then, not least during the Trump Administration. It was elaborated conceptually by the renowned Italian semiotician, Umberto Eco, and described as, “Ur-Fascism” – original, or eternal fascism – fascism not beholden to only the more familiar versions which were popularly thought to have receded and are receding further in the West.
In a reduced form it is identified by the following axioms:
- Parliamentary democracy is by definition rotten because it doesn’t represent the voice of the people, which is that of the sublime leader.
- Doctrine outpoints reason, and science is always suspect.
- Critical thought is the province of degenerate intellectuals, who betray the culture and subvert traditional values.
- The national identity is provided by the nation’s enemies.
- Argument is tantamount to treason.
- Perpetually at war, the state must govern with the instruments of fear.
- Citizens do not act; they play the supporting role of “the people” in the grand opera that is the state.
So much for an overlay. But, when coupled with recent, specific research on the United States, there is an imperative case for Australia to distance itself from what is now a dangerous and reckless relationship. (For a summary of this research, and its sources in what follows, see this essay by Anthony DiMaggio).
Again, and all too briefly, research reveals the hard numbers of Americans who embrace authoritarian and fascistic politics based on an American population of 250 million adults: of these, 25 per cent self-identify as Republican, with half of those registering support for attacks on elections and the press. Translation: approximately 30 million Americans endorse the Republican Party and Trump’s brand of authoritarian politics.
Taking another cut across the data, 40 per cent approved of Trump in national surveys, and 20%-25% of Trump supporters embrace fascistic politics in some form, indicating 20 to 25 million American fascists.
This is broadly consistent with a 2017 poll which found 22 million Americans who were supporters of the ‘alt-right’ movement and claimed it is ‘acceptable’ to hold neo-Nazi white supremacist views.
This is the political constellation that Trump refers to repeatedly as our/his “movement,” an amorphous collection of Confederate supporters, QAnon conspiracists, Christian nationalist and fascists, Boogaloo, white supremacists and other cohorts of those who see themselves as dispossessed and disenfranchised. They constitute a stinging reproach to any claim that the US is united.
To say that these findings are disturbing Is an understatement. Trump has left the White House but it’s bracing to hear him talk of these true believers who follow him as a “movement.” The evidence to date is that these groups are easily mobilised, form shifting alliances with the more respectable conservative organisations as circumstances dictate, and are organised and well resourced.
Above all, two factors make them extremely threatening: dialogue with them is impossible except on their own terms; and the root causes of their grievances will only increase over time because they have to do with the racial, ethnic, social, economic and political evolution of the US which is not in their favour.
Specifically, the US is a country in social and political deficit. The political system is rotten – witness the filibuster, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the influence of both legitimate and “dark: money, the electoral college, and the irrelevance of parties to the great majority of the population. American unity is a fantasy.
The Republicans, now a minority party, have learned how to work (“game”) the system so that they maintain power; the Dems have disconnected from their traditional constituencies to the extent that, in the November elections, nine of the ten richest states went for Biden; fourteen of the poorest went for Trump.
American decline is the current spectacle and long-term prospect. The indices of this are manifest across every area – suicide, rates of incarceration, violence and the threat of violence, inequality, declining life expectancy, child mortality, prescription and non-prescription drug abuse, denial of education, and a health system (even before Covid-19 pandemic) that was an embarrassment among western developed nations.
And then there’s the question of the post-democratic military which has become a world and a law unto itself.
Reform is essential if the republic is to recover, but the paradox of reform is that the vey instruments essential to reform are in the hands of those who most benefit from the status quo.
Questions have to be asked. If reformation is out of the question, how is it that a failing and declining dominant alliance partner, an oligarchy and plutocracy at the best of times, can exert such a magnetic attraction for a policy institute which congratulates itself on its “gift” of independence from the traditional alliance consensus of Australian governments and main political parties? More importantly, how is this advocacy responsible? Are they all blind to the costs (because costs there will be)?
Perhaps it might even be the case that those responsible for ASPI’s advocacy as outlined above are not bothered by the evolving drift of the alliance? If so, should they not be honest enough to admit it?
Michael McKinley is a member of the Emeritus Faculty, the Australian National University; he taught Strategy, Diplomacy and International Conflict at the University of Western Australia and the ANU.
Comments
22 responses to “Sleepwalking into a fascist alliance”
If Trumpism is the fascist drift of the US is not Biden the Wiemar Republic decline? A fraying republic held together by rhetoric and sleepwalking into a financial and economic depression? Is a 24 trillion debt sustainable and viable with even centrist economic and social programs. Does anyone seriously believe Biden will cure structural unemployment and rusting industrial heartlands?
Skilts, this is good point and worthy of a much deeper examination than we undertake here. I have seen articles which suggest the Weimar precedent is what the US is facing now and they are compelling. My view, which I began to investigate more than 10 yers ago, is that there is an earlier precedent which is just as compelling: the period of the established Church leading up to the Reformation and the Council of Trent. I pushed this because the US, a Reformation project in so many ways, is extremely close in so many characteristics to the Latin Church of the Western Rite. The problem the US faces is that although it is in a pre-Tridentine moment, it lacks the will and imagination to proceed to its own Council of Trent. This may seem a long way from strategic analysis – and yet it is, and it isn’t. Thanks again for your observation.
Jai Ram Reddy, former Fiji Opposition Leader during the Rabuka era, referring to the “multicultural success” of Malaysia and Singapore, told me 30 years ago that the structure only holds when the pie is getting bigger and everyone feels they are getting a share.
BB, thanks: I take it that you are suggesting that the decline of the US into its own variant of fascistic politics might be alleviated if wealth was more evenly spread. It’s a tempting thought but, for me, it founders on the fact that, even before the US economy started to decline, politics in the country still had the complexion it does to day – except that they were camouflaged and ignored. American Blacks knew that, for example, but their plight was never given the prominence it deserved.
Thank you Dr. McKinley for your trenchant summary of our “great and powerful friend” and, by implication, the sacred cow known as the “Alliance”.
Like yourself and others, I believe it can no longer be said that the US is “united” in any meaningful sense; the cracks have been apparent for a long time – certainly from the mid 1960’s, but perhaps all the way back to the Civil War, which some argue has yet to finish.
A particularly dangerous aspect, to which you refer is “…the post-democratic military which has become a world and a law unto itself.” The US military/industrial/intelligence juggernaught is not just a law unto itself, it has over time become a malign force whose sole object is growth, which feeds off conflict and unrest. It is essential that profits be maintained, but it takes little imagination to see that the collapse of this enterprise would totally devastate the US economy.
Along with this malignancy has been the steadily increasing public ignorance in the US about the world and the role of the US. Consider the following:
“…Americans have reached a point where ignorance—at least regarding what is generally considered established knowledge in public policy—is seen as an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to demonstrate their independence from nefarious elites—and insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong.” [Professor Tom Nicholls: “How America lost its faith in expertise, and why that matters.” P&I Guest Archive. 9 January 2018].
I recommend posters read this essay, for two reasons: it is uncommonly well put together and has clear and urgent resonance for Australia.
An associated matter is the primacy of US corporations. It was said of the American essayist and novelist Gore Vidal that: “For over half a century Vidal has been a factory of polemic and prose raging against Pax Americana: how its democracy is a sham for it is the big corporations that really run the country; how corruption and hypocrisy has killed the ideals of the founding fathers through disastrous postwar imperialism.” [The Guardian. 06 December, 2001. “’We don’t know where we’re going’”]. Of course Vidal was not the only one deeply concerned about the role of the corporation in the US, but he was more scathing about the destructive effects of unbridled corporate power and influence.
Do these matters make me wary of blindly accepting US advice on any subject? Yes.
Julian, once again my thanks for bringing serious issues and important and knowledgable voices to the understanding of what’s happening in the US. Your references to these are very much appreciated. What is frightening is the fact that, in an unraveling society (which was never truly united except in declarations) the post-democratic military are are at lest organised enough to take advantage of the situation for its own benefit. That said, I will concede that the US military can, and does act professionally and constitutionally, but overall, any close examination of its deep pathologies reveals that it needs reform as much as the rest of the country it ostensibly protects and defends.
I think that it is advisable to follow the money with ASPI and from all accounts I have read the arms dealers and manufacturers have a significant input into ASPI’s finances. Can’t bite the hand that feeds, now can we?
Robin, the input is quite explicit and ASPI regards it as an endorsement of its status and publications. It is not, however, a straight-out payola arrangement in my view: organisations like ASPI share essentially the same mindset about the world of national security threats and their management as the government and the defence-industrial complex. What the contributors to ASPI buy is a central presence in the national security debates (to the extent that there are any) and the illusion of an independent think tank confirming all along what the others “knew” to be the case. It’s a dynamic feedback loop and it benefits the “stakeholders” if not the national interest.
Michael, would you agree that our LNP government is a kakistocracy and if so, isn’t the advocacy of a so-called Australian [American] Strategic Policy Institute essential to our war effort?
John, thanks for your comments and questions. Yes I certainly agree with you characterisation of the LNP Government as a kakistocracy; if I understand your second suggestion correctly, then ASPI, in so many of its political-strategic analyses, has aligned itself accordingly- something I have argued for a while. Essential? Just about: it provides the veneer of independent thinking which, on closer examination, are the songs of a Green chorus.
Thanks Michael. Essential? I was being my typical cynical self – ASPI being essential to a self-serving kakistocracy.
regards
john
👍
“But, when coupled with recent, specific research on the United States, there is an imperative case for Australia to distance itself from what is now a dangerous and reckless relationship.”
When you rely on someone else for security, you pay for it in terms of sovereignty. This is the problem even for Europe.
Australia is just way too small to have an effective army, the only way to do it is to go nuclear but the US will not want to see that. So Australia is effectively hostage to US policies until such time it can establish it’s own security apparatus. In the mean time, back to being stuck between rock and hard place.
Some fantastic turns of phrase here: “the Institute has long suffered from a constipated imagination and arrested intellectual development” and “strategic anaesthesia”.
Any serious analysis of the US must recognise that it is not a functioning democracy. This can be proven empirically as Michael has done here.
Fundamental reform is essential, I would argue that it is also impossible given its political system. At what point does the decline of the US become a collapse? I suspect within the term of the Biden administration we might have the answer.
And where will that leave Australia…
Cameron, thanks once again for your contribution. I agree with your proposition that the Biden Administration will reveal that the US has, in so many ways, reached its elastic limit – and that will necessitate it having to confront a future stripped of hegemonic power and prerogatives. It will be all too much for one president and one administration and more likely a work of decades. But the US is impatient and shows many signs of cognitive dissonance – and therein lie the dangers to its allies.