The Civilian Economy Suffers in America while the MICC Thrives

Failing to get a free-trade agreement with the host nation South Korea and only able to muster lackluster international support for America’s get-tough policy with China on trade and currency disputes, the declining economic power status of the United States could not be more evident. Although most of the media in America will echo the rhetoric espoused by Washington D.C. political leaders and try to blame the poor performance of the U.S. economy on the developing nation of China, a more sensible analysis and discussion would instead focus on an issue the press is unwilling or powerless to address, the growing contradiction between the needs of America’s civilian economy and the demands of America’s military industrial congressional complex.

Instead of echoing the message of Washington politicians, who are beholden to the interests of people associated with the status quo, it is time the main stream media in America begin to act more independent and talk frankly about the real issues undermining the U.S. economy. Perhaps one of the most important issues that is not receiving enough attention of the mainstream press is the financial pressure caused by America’s massive indebtedness due to the decision by President Bush and a republican controlled Congress to start two wars, while at the same time cutting taxes to the wealthiest people in America. While Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives as a result of the current federal deficit, the republican controlled House of Representatives between 2001 and 2006 increased the national debt over six trillion dollars.

A significant portion of that six trillion dollars of public debt is directly attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon’s ever growing budget. As Chalmers Johnson writes in Dismantling the Empire,

the growing contradiction between the needs of America’s civilian economy and its military industrial complex, and America’s dependence on a volunteer army and innumerable private contractors strongly indicate an empire built on fragile foundations.

A good example of the growing contradiction between the needs of America’s civilian economy and its military industrial complex that Chalmers Johnson speaks about is reflected in the amount of money the government spends on transportation and other related infrastructure projects for the civilian economy compared to the amount of money the government spends on the military.

One of the last great patriots in American history, Dwight D. Eisenhower, tried to warn the American people as far back as 1953 during his first 100 days in office to the dangers associated with diverting national resources and other priorities disproportionately towards national security.

In a speech known as the “Chance for Peace” given to The American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 16, 1953, he asserted that the Soviet Union was spending vast amounts of on military weapons and it was causing the United States to follow suit. Eisenhower declared that for whatever the reasons behind the arms race, it was diverting national resources and other priorities disproportionately towards military weapons. In the “Chance for Peace” speech Eisenhower declared,

“Every gun is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genesis of its scientists, the hopes of its children”.

In a similar speech to the one he gave during his first 100 days as President, Dwight D. Eisenhower continued to warn the American people about the growing power of a military industrial complex all the way to his final days in office. In his Farewell Address to Congress, Eisenhower declared:

“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brink schoolhouse in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with the homes that could have housed 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

In addition to undermining American democracy at home, the power of the military industrial congressional complex and the national security state apparatus also undermines America’s long-term economic interests. The recent failure of the United States to get a free-trade agreement with South Korea for the American auto industry may reflect a government who has not forgiven the United States for supporting previous South Korean military dictators like General Park Chung Hee and Major General Chun Doo Hwan. On the other hand, the refusal to open up its auto market to the American auto industry may only represent a government unwilling to change its macroeconomic policy of mercantilism.

Although, it is well known that South Korean President Lee Mung-bak is pro-American and a tentative trade deal was signed by the Bush Administration , the trade deal has languished in Washington as lawmakers complained about Korean barriers to exports of U.S. autos and beef. Ford Motor Co. and the United Auto Workers opposed the agreement and sought changes.

As noted by some analysts,

Without a Korea deal, other nations “won’t believe the United States has the political will to complete and pass an agreement,” Ernest Bower, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Southeast Asia Program, wrote in a note yesterday. It’s “the acid test for whether the United States can return to a leadership position on trade.”

The failure of the United States to gain a free trade agreement with South Korea is perhaps the most convincing example of the demise of American power in the region.

In a time when America is facing trillion dollar deficits and senior citizens are told there will be no cost of living adjustments in their social security payments, it is disquieting to note that there is no political discussion to close any of the military bases in South Korea. The failure of the Obama administration to threaten to close any of the military bases in South Korea, which contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the South Korean economy each year and stokes geo-political tensions in the region, is proving that the needs of the needs of the military industrial congressional complex, out weigh the needs of America’s civilian economy and its workforce.