Questions from a Reader

On the United States as an imperial power in the world

A reader wrote to me these questions, which I will answer below:

I’ve been reading your recent newsletters about the political scene in the United States. I can’t help but wonder how you feel about the bigger context of the United States as an imperial power in the world, with 750 military bases around the world and a very long history of funding and causing wars & genocides that allowed for the unchecked exploitation of almost 70 countries (I believe is the count at this point). In any case, honestly surprised someone with your degree of historical literacy would believe that either major party has done better or worse across the last 120 years or so than the other party — on balance.  And what do you make of Dick and Lynn Cheney along with other staple neocons joining sides with Kamala? Does that not concern you? Or Bill Gates donating 50 million in dark money to the Harris campaign? And the Harris campaign having raised almost $1 billion — which is more than twice that of the Trump campaign… And that Kamala is being backed by many more oligarchs and billionaires than even Trump. Why are these items missing from your newsletters? Both parties are mired in the political status quo. Both are content to continue funding the massacre / genocide of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Why is anyone who’s even remotely informed investing any measure of hope into either party at this point? They are both absolute dumpster fires. 

My two cents. Thanks for reading.

Thanks for writing. I am going to take the time to answer at length because I really would like to change your mind as I do think it is essential, in this upcoming election, that we support the Democrats wholeheartedly. After this election, I think it would be great to build a new kind of social movement that can transform our system and the ideology behind it (as I tried to do years ago with the Evolver social movement). But sometimes you have to make uncomfortable or unpalatable choices for many good reasons, and this is one of those times.

As a mystical anarchist, I would like nothing better than to see a massive shift in US policy leading to a significant decrease in our global military presence, reducing our massive force around the world and shrinking the military industrial complex. I agree, almost entirely, with Bernie Sanders’ ideas around what to do to transform the US military-industrial complex, as he expressed in this 2017 speech at Westminster College. He said:

Some in Washington continue to argue that “benevolent global hegemony” should be the goal of our foreign policy, that the US, by virtue of its extraordinary military power, should stand astride the world and reshape it to its liking. I would argue that the events of the past two decades — particularly the disastrous Iraq war and the instability and destruction it has brought to the region — have utterly discredited that vision.

The goal is not for the United States to dominate the world. Nor, on the other hand, is our goal to withdraw from the international community and shirk our responsibilities under the banner of “America First.” Our goal should be global engagement based on partnership, rather than dominance. This is better for our security, better for global stability, and better for facilitating the international cooperation necessary to meet shared challenges.

Sanders also speaks truthfully about the disastrous effects of many past interventions and the long-term blowback we are experiencing because of them: For example, in 1953, the U.S. and England supported the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh because he wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil companies, reinstating the Shah. The Shah’s authoritarian rule ultimately led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. Basically, our short-sighted actions made Islamic fundamentalism more powerful and turned it into the radical, destructive force it is today.

In Chile in 1973, we supported a coup against the elected president Salvador Allende, a Leftist and innovator. This led to General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal military dictatorship, causing nearly two decades of repression and a deep resentment of American influence in Latin America. This may come back to haunt us if Trump/Vance win this election, as they have expressed admiration for Pinochet’s style of dictatorship, which includes ruthless repression of dissent and use of imprisonment, torture, and murder against political foes, as I explore here.

In El Salvador and Guatemala, we supported violent regimes, triggering civil wars that took hundreds of thousands of innocent lives and wrecked those countries. In Vietnam, due to the flawed “domino theory,” the U.S. took over from France in a civil war, resulting in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and over 58,000 Americans, all to prop up a corrupt South Vietnamese regime. More recently, the U.S. invasion of Iraq, justified by false intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s threat, destabilized the Middle East, and led to a million Iraqi casualties. These interventions, Sanders argues, illustrate the tragic pattern of American foreign policy: misguided actions leading to long-term instability and blowback that harm both the nations involved and America’s own standing in the world.

I agree with Sanders that the US should redirect much of its military might, R&D budget, and global influence toward dealing with the ecological emergency which threatens us with societal collapse and possible extinction, sooner than most people realize. This would require unprecedented global coordination, which is much harder to organize now than twenty years ago:

The threat of climate change is a very clear example of where American leadership can make a difference. Europe can’t do it alone, China can’t do it alone, and the United States can’t do it alone. This is a crisis that calls out for strong international cooperation if we are to leave our children and grandchildren a planet that is healthy and habitable. American leadership — the economic and scientific advantages and incentives that only America can offer — is hugely important for facilitating this cooperation.

I proposed radical ideas about how we might use our global military infrastructure to support this in How Soon Is Now. But this would require a consciousness change that, unfortunately, we don’t seem to be having on a large scale right now.

In the current election, we are not being offered a choice between a positive transformation of the US military industrial complex and a continuation of current practices. Both sides will continue to support US military hegemony. During Trump’s first term, the military budget grew from $640 to $778 billion. Under Biden, it grew to over $800 billion.

I find the Biden/Harris approach significantly better and less dangerous than Trump’s approach. The world is definitely getting increasingly dangerous right now. We need the most sane leadership we can get at the moment.

One of Trump’s actions while in office last time was to pull out of the nuclear treaty Obama had negotiated with Iran. Sanders warned about the consequences of doing this in his 2017 speech: “Not only would this potentially free Iran from the limits placed on its nuclear program, it would irreparably harm America’s ability to negotiate future nonproliferation agreements. Why would any country in the world sign such an agreement with the United States if they knew that a reckless president and an irresponsible Congress might simply discard that agreement a few years later?” But of course, Trump did it anyway.

Trump is a sociopathic narcissist with decreasing impulse control who intends to surround himself with abject followers who will do whatever he says. Personally, I do not want this person near any form of military power, domestically or internationally. I do not think Trump was a “peace President” and I consider his policies much more dangerous for global stability and far more likely to lead to nuclear war.

I also agree with Simon Ostrovsky, who I interviewed here, and Tim Snyder, among others, that the Ukraine war is one that we need to support. We cannot let Putin take over that country, after his conquests of Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea. I do believe that we have a historical deep alliance with Europe, and we can’t abandon our historical commitments, or allow dictators to win wars of territorial conquest in Europe.

I am also very concerned with the influence of powerful Christian extremists on Trump’s policies. For instance, I assume those Christian extremists told him to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which had the effect of recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, creating a series of reactions that culminated in the Gaza attack by Hamas. These Christian extremists seek to accelerate Apocalypse or Rapture in ways that endanger all of our future. Trump is deeply connected to them, while Harris is not.

If you have not seen it yet, please take a few minutes to watch this hidden camera interview with Russell Vought from the Heritage Foundation, author of Project 25, about what Christian extremists plan to do if Trump wins. This includes recreating the government as a Christian nationalist government and a nationwide abortion ban in all circumstances including rape or medical emergency.

On balance over the last decades at least, I would definitely say the Democrats have done better in terms of foreign policy and military policy (for instance, it was Bush who launched the Iraq War), while also making many terrible mistakes and supporting the continuation of our vast military apparatus. I already wrote, here, about why I believe Harris is a much better choice than Trump to handle the Israel / Palestine war, if we want to see it resolved and the genocide ended. Sanders has expressed the same view:

I agree with the assessment of Trump’s former Chief of Staff John Kelly and many of the generals who worked for him that he is a Fascist who is unfit to serve. I believe he has used Fascist communication strategies that feed on human prejudice, frustration, and rage. The problem is that once you exacerbate those tendencies you unleash demonic forces that become very difficult, if not impossible, to contain. This is why Fascism almost inevitably leads to genocides, wars of conquest, and so on.

You write:

And what do you make of Dick and Lynn Cheney along with other staple neocons joining sides with Kamala? Does that not concern you? Or Bill Gates donating 50 million in dark money to the Harris campaign? And the Harris campaign having raised almost $1 billion — which is more than twice that of the Trump campaign… And that Kamala is being backed by many more oligarchs and billionaires than even Trump. Why are these items missing from your newsletters?

Your figures are wrong here. Harris has not raised twice what Trump raised. Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign has slightly outpaced former President Donald Trump's in fundraising. Harris's campaign, along with associated committees and PACs, has raised approximately $1.39 billion, while Trump's campaign raised about $1.09 billion. Harris's campaign has seen significant grassroots support, with substantial small-dollar contributions (4.9 million donors) which — luckily — outweighs the Trump campaign's reliance on billionaire donors with only about a third of the number of donors.

I simply do not care that Dick and Lynn Cheney are supporting Harris. Harris has clearly made the political decision to alienate certain parts of the Democrats’ more progressive base (like you and me) to appeal to Republicans who do not want to support Trump. I hope it is the right decision. I do think if Trump/Vance wins, with the support of the Supreme Court, we may see actual Fascism in the US, including mass deportations, the end of any kind of free press, the criminalization of dissent, and the imprisonment of Trump’s political enemies. Those are very big stakes for me and, I hope, for you as well.

Similarly, considering Elon Musk is putting in over $100 million, I am happy to hear Gates is giving $50 million. I don’t think Gates is the “dark lord” boogeyman, standing over the gates of hell, as he has been made out to be by the Right, just as they have demonized George Soros who has supported liberalization of the drug laws and democratic movements around the world. I feel this Right wing propaganda / PsyOp / disinformation has become so all pervasive that we are all influenced by it, unknowingly. I do have lots of problems with many things that Gates does, but in this case, I accept him happily as an imperfect ally in the fight against a Fascist / extremist Christian / racist takeover of the US.

As for your statement, “Kamala is being backed by many more oligarchs and billionaires than even Trump,” you would have to provide more evidence or information. I believe, if I was wealthy, I would definitely support Harris seriously, even though she intends to raise taxes on the top 5% of the wealthy:  She intends to maintain the (imperfect, flawed, partly corrupt) rule of law and establishment norms that allow for business as usual to continue.

We do not know what we will get with an unleashed Trump backed by Musk and Heritage/Opus Dei: To me, it sounds very dangerous and potentially destabilizing. For instance, the possibility they will default on the debt to crash the dollar and introduce some kind of cryptocurrency solution or Bitcoin as the reserve currency, as I explored yesterday.

I hope this helps? Feel free to ask anything else that occurs to you.

Kind regards,

Daniel