I finished reading C. Wright Mills's Power Elite over the past couple of weeks. Published in 1956, the book offers more insight into current events than most contemporary commentary. Mills says that there are three levels of power--lower, middle, and upper--and that the pluralism upon which most political science focuses is characteristic of the local (lower) and Congressional (middle) levels. Although interest groups function on the lower and middle levels, there is little diversity at the upper level. The upper elite does, of course, contain advocates of different social orientations and degrees of socialism, but the underlying viewpoint is stable. The upper elite that runs America is comprised of presidential appointees selected from the broader power elite, which Mills depicts as coming from multiple sources: the Metropolitan 400 or social register types, the corporate rich, and the senior officers in the military.
When Mills wrote the book, the military and the military budget were more important than now. Mills was unaware of the Fed's role (hence the centrality of banking interests) in the subsidization of the power elite and the US governmental system. As a result, he understates the importance of banking interests, which Murray Rothbard and Ronald Radosh tease out in their New History of Leviathan and that James Perloff illustrates in his Shadows of Power.
Mills briefly describes the central role of the white-shoe law firms and investment banks, but these were more central in the 1950s than Mills describes them; they have become more so since Nixon's ending of the gold standard in 1971.
According to Mills, the president and his advisers select the highest-level elite from the various groups within the power elite. During the Kennedy years social and intellectual elites, represented by the Bundys, Dean Rusk, and Robert McNamara (recommended by fellow Skull-and-Bonesman and partner of Prescott Bush at Brown Brothers Harriman, Robert Lovett ) were dominant. More recently, much as in the days of George Washington, bankers like Henry Paulson (who parallels but is not the intellectual equivalent of Hamilton) have been dominant.
The upper elite interacts within itself, and typically there are one or two degrees of separation between any two members. Mills does not claim that there is any sort of conspiracy, for that would be foolish. Rather, each takes cues from the other. Conformity derived from educational-and-university experiences obviates the need for overt conspiracy.
The last few chapters move from analysis to broadside as Mills criticizes what he calls the crackpot realism of America's narrow-minded upper elite.
Mills's depiction of America as having moved from a public liberal to a mass society is on point. His emphasis on the mass media as transforming Americans from a free, imaginative people to a nation of cowed serfs (my word, not his) is also on point. Mills is not that far from writers like James Perloff, who writes about the Council on Foreign Relations. No president since Hoover has been independent of the CFR. That does not imply conspiracy any more than the leadership of a modern corporation's interacting with each other is a conspiracy. The elite interacts and forms opinions. Its mindset, like that of leading university professors, is conformist, lockstep, cowardly, and lacking in vision.
Mills offers little hope for those who care about America or hope to see a change from the current trend. It occurred to me that his book was the inspiration for Eisenhower's 1961 speech about the military-industrial complex. If Mills is right, then a useful long-term strategy in politics is to support third parties. Another is simply to jump ship and move to a smaller country in which a mass culture and an elite bred to narrow-minded arrogance and the subjugation of a foolish mass of TV-news-viewing idiots won't exist because of the smaller scale.
In the Federalist 10 Madison argued that America's large scale was an impediment to the formation of faction. As transportation and communication modernized, universities began to serve as the proving ground for elite conformity and groupthink. The power of America's elite is made possible by large scale combined with modern communication methods. The Internet and other postmodern developments, such as community activism, pose a challenge to America's mass culture. Nevertheless, as long as Americans continue to support the two mass parties and as long as at least a plurality of Americans derive their news from mass-market newspapers and television, the trends that Mills observed will continue to escalate.
Showing posts with label madison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label madison. Show all posts
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Monday, June 30, 2008
The Federalist 14 and Decentralizaton
In the Federalist 14, Madison argues that while direct democracy is possible only in a small country, a republic can cover a larger geographic area. Based on the transportation available in the 1780s, he shows that a federal republican form of government is possible since the delegates can travel the distance required. He adds that:
"It is to be remembered that the federal government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other objects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled by the principle of self-preservation to reinstate them in their proposed jurisdiction."
Madison's recognition of the principle of decentralization anticipated the evolution of large scale corporate enterprise in the twentieth century. In his classic book Strategy and Structure, Alfred Chandler argues that big business evolved from the functional into the decentralized form in the twentieth century in response to strategic shifts, notably the concentration of industry and the formation of conglomerates. The reason the decentralized form was necessary was that the informational demands and transactions costs of a large organization inhibit intelligent processing. Madison anticipated this development in the 18th century.
The information demands of government are greater than the informational demands of private industry. The flexibility required is greater and the scope of the market is greater, which implies the need for greater diversity of strategy. Yet, the modernist or progressive approach to organizing government has been to centralize decision making authority. This runs counter to the insight not only of Madison but of practical business strategists who have learned that efficiency as well as responsive, flexible strategy depend on integration of small scale with large scale and the loose coupling of federal and local units.
"It is to be remembered that the federal government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other objects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled by the principle of self-preservation to reinstate them in their proposed jurisdiction."
Madison's recognition of the principle of decentralization anticipated the evolution of large scale corporate enterprise in the twentieth century. In his classic book Strategy and Structure, Alfred Chandler argues that big business evolved from the functional into the decentralized form in the twentieth century in response to strategic shifts, notably the concentration of industry and the formation of conglomerates. The reason the decentralized form was necessary was that the informational demands and transactions costs of a large organization inhibit intelligent processing. Madison anticipated this development in the 18th century.
The information demands of government are greater than the informational demands of private industry. The flexibility required is greater and the scope of the market is greater, which implies the need for greater diversity of strategy. Yet, the modernist or progressive approach to organizing government has been to centralize decision making authority. This runs counter to the insight not only of Madison but of practical business strategists who have learned that efficiency as well as responsive, flexible strategy depend on integration of small scale with large scale and the loose coupling of federal and local units.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Federalism and Elitism
The evolution of Hamiltonian Federalism and the American Constitution preceded the centralization of power that occurred in the 20th century. In order to understand why Americans have been ready to accede bureaucratic and money-creating power to the federal government, it is helpful to look at the country's earliest establishment. In that light, progressivism and post-World War II liberalism can be viewed as extensions of the Constitutional convention in 1787. The Constitutional convention reflected the federalist ideas of Hamilton and Madison and emphasized the importance of a central bank, federal support for business, and raising federal taxes. But this federalist impulse was rejected in 1800 by the election of Thomas Jefferson, and the America of the 19th century was not so much a Hamiltonian creation, was not so much federalist, as it was anti-federalist. Jefferson and then Jackson limited the federalist reforms. Thus, the Hamiltonian vision was very much a 20th century vision with respect to government and economics.
Hamilton was a close intellectual follower of the economic ideas of David Hume. Hume advocated a system that anticipated Keynesian monetary policy. Hume believed that a central bank should have the power to create money via credit and that allocation of the credit should be to a business elite. He believed that merchants, by which he meant bankers as well as manufacturers and traders, were more rational than the general public and could determine the best uses for created money. Hume, as well as James Madison, who wrote about the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War, did not believe in that expanding the money supply would be inflationary. Rather, Hume argued that if the productivity of assets in which the business elite invested exceeded their borrowing cost, then expansion of the money supply would not be inflationary and credit expansion would result in an expanding economy. Madison's argument followed Hume's. He argued that the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War occurred because of the public's expecations about the "redeemability" of the money. This is linked to the argument put forward today that inflationary "expectations" cause inflation.
In England in the 1690s, King William III of England was waging war against Louis XIV of France and needed financing. William Paterson and a group of merchants lent 1.2 million pounds to the king, and in exchange received a charter to found the Bank of England, which gave them the power to issue notes. As the British government borrowed money, it grew and established a bureaucracy. In the early 18th century, Sir Robert Walpole developed a system of allocation of patronage to provide incentives for those in power to cooperate with the king. As Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick point out in The Age of Federalism* Walpole's allocation of patronage assured "government of dependable majorities for its policies". English aristocrats in the country opposed the increasing power of the king's court. As Elkins and McKitrick point out, a similar process occurred in America. The Federalists, especially Hamilton, advocated centralized government power, the establishment of a central bank and the use of credit to create a strong economy. The country aristocrats were the Virginians who disliked speculation and finance and did not trust a strong central state.
*Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic 1788-1800.
Hamilton was a close intellectual follower of the economic ideas of David Hume. Hume advocated a system that anticipated Keynesian monetary policy. Hume believed that a central bank should have the power to create money via credit and that allocation of the credit should be to a business elite. He believed that merchants, by which he meant bankers as well as manufacturers and traders, were more rational than the general public and could determine the best uses for created money. Hume, as well as James Madison, who wrote about the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War, did not believe in that expanding the money supply would be inflationary. Rather, Hume argued that if the productivity of assets in which the business elite invested exceeded their borrowing cost, then expansion of the money supply would not be inflationary and credit expansion would result in an expanding economy. Madison's argument followed Hume's. He argued that the inflation that followed the Revolutionary War occurred because of the public's expecations about the "redeemability" of the money. This is linked to the argument put forward today that inflationary "expectations" cause inflation.
In England in the 1690s, King William III of England was waging war against Louis XIV of France and needed financing. William Paterson and a group of merchants lent 1.2 million pounds to the king, and in exchange received a charter to found the Bank of England, which gave them the power to issue notes. As the British government borrowed money, it grew and established a bureaucracy. In the early 18th century, Sir Robert Walpole developed a system of allocation of patronage to provide incentives for those in power to cooperate with the king. As Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick point out in The Age of Federalism* Walpole's allocation of patronage assured "government of dependable majorities for its policies". English aristocrats in the country opposed the increasing power of the king's court. As Elkins and McKitrick point out, a similar process occurred in America. The Federalists, especially Hamilton, advocated centralized government power, the establishment of a central bank and the use of credit to create a strong economy. The country aristocrats were the Virginians who disliked speculation and finance and did not trust a strong central state.
*Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick, The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic 1788-1800.
Friday, May 9, 2008
David Horowitz's Legal Response to U Wisconsin Anti-semitism
We have sent the following attorney's letter to the University of Wisconsin in connection with the anti-Semitic attacks on me and the obstruction of my speech.
The Becker Law Firm
23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1015
Calabasas, CA 91302
May 9, 2008
BY FACSIMILE AND BY REGULAR MAIL
Dr. Carlos E. Santiago, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413
Re: David Horowitz
Dear Dr. Santiago:
This firm represents David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Mr. Horowitz was invited by The Conservative Union, a student organization, to speak on your campus on April 30, 2008. His visit met with an unusually malicious campaign orchestrated by students aligned with the Muslim Students Association (“MSA”) to disrupt it and to prevent his message from reaching its audience.
Colleges and universities have a duty to protect free speech on campus and to take reasonable steps to protect on-campus speakers and organizations from conduct intended to obstruct and undermine peaceful expressions of viewpoints that may be unpopular. In all candor, the tactics employed by the agitators, as detailed below, distinguish your institution as particularly hostile and indifferent to civil liberties and First Amendment protections. The purpose of this letter is to request UWM’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to visiting speakers and hate speech, and specifically instructions for handling demonstrators, including investigation and arrest policies and procedures. As set forth below, we also request additional information about the University's relationship with MSA.
A search of UMW’s web site does not yield the university’s policies but does generate a revealing statement of university policy contained in a report from the late 1960s:[1]
“The University of Wisconsin has a long-standing and consistent record of support for civil liberties, particularly the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
“The University’s commitment to civil liberties is not only a commitment to popular causes, but involves (1) freedom for controversial persons invited to the campus to speak, and to communicate, and (2) the freedom of those who would join together with them to talk, listen, and engage in dialogue.
“Such freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are violated when unpopular speakers are banned from campus [and] when controversial speakers invited to campus are not permitted to be heard. . . .
“University policy permits peaceful, non-disruptive, protest – even peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the University’s orderly conduct of its affairs. However, University policy does not – and cannot – condone those actions undertaken either by a tiny minority of students, or by an overwhelming majority, which would violate the rights of other students (or faculty) to assemble, speak,, and exchange ideas and information. . . .”
The report observed that the American Civil Liberties Union “considers it important to emphasize that it does not approve of demonstrators who deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard, or physically obstruct movement, or otherwise improperly disrupt … legitimate educational or institutional processes.”
The report also noted that a proposed draft of a student bill of rights of AAUP “takes precisely the same position” and that “this position has been endorsed by many other groups in higher education.”
Is this the university’s current policy, and if it is, where can it be found and how is it enforced?
These questions bear on the rights of Mr. Horowitz, the Conservative Union, who sponsored the event, the students who were deprived of attending the event due to obstructive activities, and those who peacefully attended the lecture, whether their rights were violated and whether university policy was ignored or selectively enforced.
According to Mr. Horowitz and to officers of the Conservative Union, the following disruptive activities occurred in connection with the event:
A flyer titled “Getting to Know David Horowitz,” and featuring a section headed “Who is David Whorowitz?” at the top of the page was posted on a bulletin board outside the office of the Muslim Students’ Association. The flyer additionally featured a cartoon depicting Mr. Horowitz as an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew in the classic style familiar from the Nazi posters of the 1930s, which have become ubiquitous in the Arab world. The Jew in the cartoon was standing in a garbage can with the cover on his head, dressed in a Nazi uniform, with an armband marked “H” for “Horowitz.” The caption read “Horowitz Awareness Week.” On the side of the garbage can one could read a series of false statements concerning Mr. Horowitz that have been given currency by radical professors and the secular left on college campuses: “Muzzling Academics, Blacklisting, Hate Mongering, Race Baiting, Spying…” The flyer describes Mr. Horowitz as an “Israeli apologist” and “Judeofascist”, and incorrectly claims that he ran an ad in the university newspaper “alleging that a UWM student group, the Muslim Students’ Association, is an extremist organization engaged in violent jihad.”The character depicting Mr. Horowitz states in the cartoon: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most fascist of them all?” The flyer goes beyond legitimate parody or editorial comment and purports to imitate the views Mr. Horowitz develops through rigorous research and scholarship. However, while purporting to mock Mr. Horowitz’ claims concerning Islamofascism, it offers no evidence of legitimacy and, instead, maligns Jews while casting Mr. Horowitz in a false light. (The flyer is attached to this letter.)
Prior to Mr. Horowitz’s appearance, members of the MSA had torn down approximately 2,000 flyers that had been posted to advertise the event.
Members of the MSA surrounded students distributing the Conservative Union’s pamphlet at a table. They shouted,“cancel the speech.” Because of these tactics, a threat of violent behavior at Mr. Horowitz’s lecture was taken seriously, and campus security ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen officers and staffers for the event.
Numerous individuals interrupted Mr. Horowitz’s remarks with the goal of silencing him. More than a dozen individuals associated with the MSA tried to drown out Mr. Horowitz’s comments, were warned to stop, and had to be ejectedfrom the Student Union auditorium.
It is our understanding that the university funds MSA, whose activities involving Mr. Horowitz’s appearance clearly transgressed the rights of students, Jews, Mr. Horowitz and others. We request information concerning the university’s financial relationship with and support of the MSA chapter, which, by virtue of the cartoon and comments described herein, appears to promote, endorse and engage in hate speech as well as other activities that violate the constitutional rights of speech and assembly.
We are advised that although campus security took some steps to avoid violence and disruption, it failed to gather the names of individuals who disrupted the lecture or to otherwise discipline them. We would also like to know why university policy appears not to have been enforced in connection with this event, or why the individuals who disrupted a peaceful assembly evidently have not been investigated.
In the interest of promoting robust First Amendment protections on the UWM campus, we thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
The Becker Law Firm
William J. Becker, Jr.
cc: David Horowitz, David Horowitz Freedom Center
Manny Klausner, Individual Rights Foundation
wjb/gm
Attachment
The Becker Law Firm
23801 Calabasas Road, Suite 1015
Calabasas, CA 91302
May 9, 2008
BY FACSIMILE AND BY REGULAR MAIL
Dr. Carlos E. Santiago, Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
P.O. Box 413, 2200 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee, WI 53201-0413
Re: David Horowitz
Dear Dr. Santiago:
This firm represents David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Mr. Horowitz was invited by The Conservative Union, a student organization, to speak on your campus on April 30, 2008. His visit met with an unusually malicious campaign orchestrated by students aligned with the Muslim Students Association (“MSA”) to disrupt it and to prevent his message from reaching its audience.
Colleges and universities have a duty to protect free speech on campus and to take reasonable steps to protect on-campus speakers and organizations from conduct intended to obstruct and undermine peaceful expressions of viewpoints that may be unpopular. In all candor, the tactics employed by the agitators, as detailed below, distinguish your institution as particularly hostile and indifferent to civil liberties and First Amendment protections. The purpose of this letter is to request UWM’s rules, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to visiting speakers and hate speech, and specifically instructions for handling demonstrators, including investigation and arrest policies and procedures. As set forth below, we also request additional information about the University's relationship with MSA.
A search of UMW’s web site does not yield the university’s policies but does generate a revealing statement of university policy contained in a report from the late 1960s:[1]
“The University of Wisconsin has a long-standing and consistent record of support for civil liberties, particularly the First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, and assembly.
“The University’s commitment to civil liberties is not only a commitment to popular causes, but involves (1) freedom for controversial persons invited to the campus to speak, and to communicate, and (2) the freedom of those who would join together with them to talk, listen, and engage in dialogue.
“Such freedoms of assembly, speech, and press are violated when unpopular speakers are banned from campus [and] when controversial speakers invited to campus are not permitted to be heard. . . .
“University policy permits peaceful, non-disruptive, protest – even peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the University’s orderly conduct of its affairs. However, University policy does not – and cannot – condone those actions undertaken either by a tiny minority of students, or by an overwhelming majority, which would violate the rights of other students (or faculty) to assemble, speak,, and exchange ideas and information. . . .”
The report observed that the American Civil Liberties Union “considers it important to emphasize that it does not approve of demonstrators who deprive others of the opportunity to speak or be heard, or physically obstruct movement, or otherwise improperly disrupt … legitimate educational or institutional processes.”
The report also noted that a proposed draft of a student bill of rights of AAUP “takes precisely the same position” and that “this position has been endorsed by many other groups in higher education.”
Is this the university’s current policy, and if it is, where can it be found and how is it enforced?
These questions bear on the rights of Mr. Horowitz, the Conservative Union, who sponsored the event, the students who were deprived of attending the event due to obstructive activities, and those who peacefully attended the lecture, whether their rights were violated and whether university policy was ignored or selectively enforced.
According to Mr. Horowitz and to officers of the Conservative Union, the following disruptive activities occurred in connection with the event:
A flyer titled “Getting to Know David Horowitz,” and featuring a section headed “Who is David Whorowitz?” at the top of the page was posted on a bulletin board outside the office of the Muslim Students’ Association. The flyer additionally featured a cartoon depicting Mr. Horowitz as an anti-Semitic caricature of a Jew in the classic style familiar from the Nazi posters of the 1930s, which have become ubiquitous in the Arab world. The Jew in the cartoon was standing in a garbage can with the cover on his head, dressed in a Nazi uniform, with an armband marked “H” for “Horowitz.” The caption read “Horowitz Awareness Week.” On the side of the garbage can one could read a series of false statements concerning Mr. Horowitz that have been given currency by radical professors and the secular left on college campuses: “Muzzling Academics, Blacklisting, Hate Mongering, Race Baiting, Spying…” The flyer describes Mr. Horowitz as an “Israeli apologist” and “Judeofascist”, and incorrectly claims that he ran an ad in the university newspaper “alleging that a UWM student group, the Muslim Students’ Association, is an extremist organization engaged in violent jihad.”The character depicting Mr. Horowitz states in the cartoon: “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the most fascist of them all?” The flyer goes beyond legitimate parody or editorial comment and purports to imitate the views Mr. Horowitz develops through rigorous research and scholarship. However, while purporting to mock Mr. Horowitz’ claims concerning Islamofascism, it offers no evidence of legitimacy and, instead, maligns Jews while casting Mr. Horowitz in a false light. (The flyer is attached to this letter.)
Prior to Mr. Horowitz’s appearance, members of the MSA had torn down approximately 2,000 flyers that had been posted to advertise the event.
Members of the MSA surrounded students distributing the Conservative Union’s pamphlet at a table. They shouted,“cancel the speech.” Because of these tactics, a threat of violent behavior at Mr. Horowitz’s lecture was taken seriously, and campus security ordered metal detectors and a security force of a more than dozen officers and staffers for the event.
Numerous individuals interrupted Mr. Horowitz’s remarks with the goal of silencing him. More than a dozen individuals associated with the MSA tried to drown out Mr. Horowitz’s comments, were warned to stop, and had to be ejectedfrom the Student Union auditorium.
It is our understanding that the university funds MSA, whose activities involving Mr. Horowitz’s appearance clearly transgressed the rights of students, Jews, Mr. Horowitz and others. We request information concerning the university’s financial relationship with and support of the MSA chapter, which, by virtue of the cartoon and comments described herein, appears to promote, endorse and engage in hate speech as well as other activities that violate the constitutional rights of speech and assembly.
We are advised that although campus security took some steps to avoid violence and disruption, it failed to gather the names of individuals who disrupted the lecture or to otherwise discipline them. We would also like to know why university policy appears not to have been enforced in connection with this event, or why the individuals who disrupted a peaceful assembly evidently have not been investigated.
In the interest of promoting robust First Amendment protections on the UWM campus, we thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
The Becker Law Firm
William J. Becker, Jr.
cc: David Horowitz, David Horowitz Freedom Center
Manny Klausner, Individual Rights Foundation
wjb/gm
Attachment
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
