By its military and economic weight on the international stage, the U.S. rightly fits the definition of an empire. To stand, it needs to deny ordinary Americans a genuine democracy.
| This post is part of a reading series on Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon S. Wolin. To quickly access all chapters, open the book title tab on the Authors & Books page. Disclaimer: This chapter summary is personal work and an invitation to read the book itself for a detailed view of all the author’s ideas. |
By definition, an empire dominates, and the United States effectively imposes a militarily and economically superior-inferior relationship on the international stage. However, unlike other historical empires, it did not need to rule or occupy foreign territories for several generations. Its imperial concern is primarily economic, and the military is, in this regard, just one of the means to use. Consequently, says Sheldon Wolin, the United States’ power is “‘projected, at irregular intervals over other societies rather than institutionalized in them. Its rule tends to be indirect, to take the form of ‘influence,’ bribes, or ‘pressure.'”
Domestically, this imperial logic of power can only have detrimental effects on political life. Its antics against American democracy are well-known: “Halliburton’s power begins in Texas, extends to Washington, and then connects with projects (often without competitive bidding) in Afghanistan and Iraq; it returns to the ‘homeland’ enriched and eager to invest its profits in politicians. Politicians, in turn, become responsive to the new sources of pressure, contributions, and lavish favors. The district or constituent back ‘home’ shrinks in significance. The politician’s postponed gratifications: the higher rewards of lobbyist or corporate executive.” This is undoubtedly why “no major politician or party has so much as publicly remarked on the existence of an American empire.”
Even though the American empire’s reality is evident by its military expenditures and subsidies to globalizing corporations, policymakers will be the least likely ones to acknowledge it. At a time when corporations are people and money is speech, most of them hold their office thanks to corporate money. Why, therefore, would they denounce the momentous anti-democratic shift operated in the exercise of power by money in politics?
It would nevertheless be a mistake to believe that it all started with some big bad CEOs conjuring together the corruption of politicians. The beginnings of inverted totalitarianism—or corporate empire—were unpremeditated, even innocent. They must be traced back to suggestions within the world of politics itself about the best way to go.