UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper LV: August 25, 2008, 7:00 p.m.
Sheldon S. Wolin,
Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and theSpecter of Inverted Totalitarianism
(Princeton and Oxford: PrincetonUniversity Press, April 2008).
Preface.
“[I]nverted totalitarianism . . .represents the
political
coming of age of corporate power and the
political
demobilization of the citizenry” (x, emphasisin original). Inverted totalitarianism “is notexpressly conceptualized as an ideology orobjectified in public policy. Typically it isfurthered by power-holders and citizens who[exhibit] a certain heedlessness, an inabilityto take seriously the extent to which apattern of consequences may take shapewithout having been preconceived,” anattitude linked to “the well-known Americanzest for change” and their “good fortune inhaving at their disposal a vast continent richin natural resources” (x). “Americandemocracy has never been trulyconsolidated” (xi). The failure of the 2006midterm elections to change the direction of U.S. policy is persuasive evidence that theU.S. is not democratic (xii). Terminology:“Superpower” means “the projection of power outward,” “inverted totalitarianismprojects power inwards” (xiii). Thecombination is “the political coming-of-age of corporate power” (xiii). Checked byPopulism, Progressivism, and the New Deal,corporate power revived during the ColdWar, a time also inculcating political passivityin the citizenry (xiv-xv). The concept of “inverted totalitarianism” is “tentative,hypothetical . . . [it] exists as a set of strongtendencies rather than a fully realizedactuality” (xvi).
Acknowledgments.
Among others, ArnoMayer.
Preview.
Leni Riefenstahl’s “The Triumph of the Will” (1934) compared to G.W. Bush’slanding on the USS Abraham Lincoln (2003)—both were “myth creation” spectaclesusing inherently “tyrannical” media (cinema,television) (1-3).
Ch. 1: Myth in the Making.
With 9/11, amodern myth has been created that isgoverning decision-makers: 9/11 was a“symbolic event” revelatory of “Americanpolitical life” (4-5). The media unanimityproduced by 9/11 demands explanation (5-8). That the myth, chaos-combating andpredominantly Christian in its themes, isgoverning is demonstrated by the troop“surge” that followed the 2006 midtermelections (8-12). Science, technology,media, and advertising have facilitated thecreation of a mythic credulousness (12-14).
Ch. 2: Totalitarianism’s Inversion:Beginnings of the Imaginary of aPermanent Global War.
A “politicalimaginary” is a repertoire of notions used inpolitics but not really existing (15-18). Twosorts: “power imaginary” seeking to expandcapabilities, and “constitutional imaginary”prescribing how power is legitimated andconstrained (19-20). In contrast to FDR’sNew Deal, with WW II an American imaginarycentered on the projection of unprecedentedpower began to emerge, embraced by ColdWar “vital center” liberals like Arthur J.Schlesinger Jr.; “war” with Communism wasadopted as policy—NSC-68 (1950) was a keydocument (20-33). Corporate connectionsdeveloped (34-35) and the ideological warturned inward: McCarthyism (35-38). Thenew imaginary included the notions of sacrifice, legitimation of state power over thepeople’s power, and elitism (38-40).
Ch. 3: Totalitarianism’s Inversion,Democracy’s Perversion.
In analyzing theconsequences of this project for domesticpolitics, the U.S. has developed “a new typeof political system” which Wolin calls“inverted totalitarianism” because it is“seemingly one driven by abstract totalizingpowers” and “independent of any particularleader” (44; 41-45). “For our purposes aninversion occurs when seemingly unrelated,even disparate starting points converge andreinforce each other. . . . An inversion ispresent when a system, such as ademocracy, produces a number of significantactions ordinarily associated with itsantithesis . . . The new system, invertedtotalitarianism, is one that professes to bethe opposite of what, in fact, it is” (46). It islargely the creation of the Republican Party’s“dynamic reactionary movement,” but
compared to “classic totalitarianism” it isrelatively benign (48-51). “[M]y denial thatours is a democracy . . . may be too stark”(52). But studies (Robert Paxton, ErnstNolte) suggest that democracy andtotalitarianism are not necessarilyincompatible (52-54). “Our thesis . . . is this:it is possible for a form of totalitarianism,different from the classical one, to evolvefrom a putatively ‘strong democracy’ insteadof a failed one” (54). “Invertedtotalitarianism has learned how to exploitwhat appear to be formidable political andlegal constraints, using them in ways thatdefeat their original purpose but withoutdismantling or overtly attacking them” (56).“Its genius lies in wielding total powerwithout appearing to, without establishingconcentration camps, or enforcingideological uniformity, or forcibly suppressingdissident elements so long as they remainineffectual” (57). Unlike classicaltotalitarianism, in inverted totalitarianism“economics dominates politics” (58).Citizens, splintered into groups, become“patients” rather than agents, and aredisplaced by lobbyists (59-60). Invertedtotalitarianism is Superpower’s “true face”;having devised under the Bushadministration “a totalizing technology of power and an accompanying ideology thatencourages the regime’s aspirations toglobal domination,” it continues anopposition to social democracy that can beseen in earlier periods of American history(e.g. westward expansion) (61-62). Invertedtotalitarianism is achieved by politicalinsiders and claims to defend civilization (63-65). It pursues depoliticalization of thecitizenry (65-66). Like classicaltotalitarianism it is “resolutely capitalist, nofriend of the working classes, and, of course,viscerally antisocialist,” but unlike it, itappears as “a scarcely noticeable evolution”of earlier tendencies (66-67). Rather thanconscripting existing institutions of learning,it cultivates a loyal intelligentsia of its ownthrough government contracts, foundations,donors, etc. (67-68).
Ch. 4: The New World of Terror.
Therapid, official declaration after 9/11 that a“new” condition prevailed and thepromulgation of documents like “TheNational Security Strategy of the UnitedStates of America” (2002) (NSS) show anattempt “to reshape the political system” inthe name of “fighting terror” (69-74). Thedevelopment recalls Hobbes’s political theory(74-77). Dismissing the invocation of Hobbesin the name of constitutionalism is refuted bythe fact of the expansion of the repressivepowers of the executive withoutcongressional resistance in the 2006elimination of habeas corpus (77-78). Tocqueville foresaw democratic despotismand how complicity of the citizenry could besecured (79-81).
Ch. 5: The Utopian Theory of Superpower: The Official Version.
“Superpower is . . . an attempt atreconstituting the nation’s identity” (82). The 2002 NSS is “the best evidence of theideology,” both its totalizing nature and theprimacy or “consecration of the economy”(82; 82-92). But the invasion of Iraq, meantto be a demonstration, has failed (92-94).
Ch. 6: The Dynamics of Transformation.
Observations on the often paradoxicalcharacteristics of the transformation intoinverted totalitarianism, in which the 2000election was the “crucial event” (101; 95-101). “The Florida events reveal conciselyhow inverted totalitarianism operates and,without ceasing to be totalitarian, differsfrom classic totalitarianism. . . . A corporateor economic model of governance has beensuperimposed upon a political form whoseconstitution consisted partly of republican,antipopulist elements and partly of democratic elements. . . . Congress . . . hasbeen demoted to a position of powercomparable to that of a corporate board. . . .Congress has lost its close connection withthe citizenry” (101-03). The situationcontrasts with the 1960s and early 1970s,when “democracy [came] to life” (104). Butat present “[o]ne cannot point to anynational institution(s) that can accurately bedescribed as democratic” (105). During theCold War, “warfare became normal” (106). Thanks to concentrated media ownership,which has virtually blacked out protests,since 9/11 the administration has “set aboutto manage” the citizenry (107-08). Whilewar frightens an unmobilized citizenry,cultural wars provide a simulacrum of politics(108-13).
Ch. 7: The Dynamics of the Archaic.
Whereas many regard the “dynamic” right’s
embrace of “archaic” fundamentalists asmerely tactical, Wolin argues that the two infact “need each other, desperately,” in whatamounts to “collusion” (114-30).
Ch. 8: The Politics of Superpower:Managed Democracy.
In invertedtotalitarianism, corporate power trumpsdemocracy and “managed democracy”substitutes for it (131-58).
Ch. 9: Intellectual Elites againstDemocracy.
The U.S., and in particular itsinstitutions of higher education, haveembraced an antidemocratic elitism andbegun an effort to delegitimize elections(159-67). Two groups are criticized: theStraussians (167-73) and the followers of Samuel Huntington, e.g. Fareed Zakaria (
TheFuture of Freedom
)
(173-81). But the Iraqdisaster refutes their case for elitism (182-83).
Ch. 10: Domestic Politics in the Era of Superpower and Empire.
Unlike classicaltotalitarianism, inverted totalitarianism“encourages divisiveness . . . promotespredomination—that is, rule by diversepowers which have found it in their intereststo combine while retaining their separateidentities. The key components are capital,the very rich, small business associations,large media organizations, evangelicalProtestant leaders, and the Catholichierarchy. . . . The aim is to control politics bysettling the terms of competition in the spiritof [the other party is our friend, the activecitizen is our enemy]” (185). “Thecontemporary Republican Party is bothantidemocratic and illiberal. . . . TheRepublican Party is not, as advertised,conservative but radically oligarchical” (187).While domestically the Vietnam War was“actually a democratic victory—over [thecountry’s] own imperial power,” it was“short-lived” (190). “[T]he United States isan empire of a novel kind. Unlike otherempires it rarely rules directly or occupiesforeign territories for long, although it mayretain bases . . . Its power is ‘projected’ atirregular intervals over other societies ratherthan institutionalized in them. Its rule tendsto be indirect . . . Its principal concerns aremilitary and economic . . . [D]omestic needsare subordinated to the requirements of global strategies and to the economic needsof Superpower’s corporate partners” (191).“[I]mperial politics represents the conquestof domestic politics and the latter’sconversion into a crucial element of invertedtotalitarianism. It makes no sense to askhow a the democratic citizen could‘participate’ substantively in imperial politics;hence it is not surprising that the subject of empire is taboo in electoral debates. Nomajor politician or party has so much aspublicly remarked on the existence of anAmerican empire” (192). “[E]mpires are notabout justice,” and “justice has pretty muchdisappeared from the political vocabulary of domestic politics” (193). “Under empire thesignificant actors are not citizens butcorporations” (193). For representatives,“[t]he district or constituent back ‘home’shrinks in significance” (193). Domesticpolitics are increasingly marked by “anelement of imperial ruthlessness” and, withlobbyists, “the institutionalization andnormalization of corruption” (193-94).“Deregulation . . . declares that in ademocracy the demos is to be denied theuse of state power” (195). “Instead of collectivism, inverted totalitarianism thriveson disaggregation” (196). [T]he techniciansof Superpower politics welcome voterapathy” (197). “The implicit message is thatthe citizen can do nothing except follow theinstruction of ‘authorities’ . . . Unlike classicaltotalitarianism, which boasted of theunanimity of its citizens, invertedtotalitarianism thrives on ambivalence andthe uncertainty it breeds” (198).“[C]onservatives have succeeded inpersuading the public that the military isdistinct from government,” and presentmilitarism as a form of patriotism while alsoexploiting it for corporate interests (199).Inverted totalitarianism has seen theRepublican Party transformed “from deficithawks to proponents of the largest deficit ingovernmental history; from isolationists topreemptivists; from a party renowned for itsanti-intellectualism to a party that nurturesits very own intellectual luminaries and thinktanks” (200). “The Democrats’ politics mightbe described as inauthentic opposition in theera of Superpower” (201). “The suppressedcomponent of the prevailing ideology is the
political
status of corporate power” (201).Congress is in decline and gridlock iscultivated so as to prevent majority rule, butcorporate power still gets its way throughexecutive orders, regulatory agencies,
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Wolin - Democracy Incorporated (2008) - Synopsis
Synopsis of Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, April 2008). Discussed at Digging Deeper (www.ufppc.org) on August 25, 2008.
5.5K
Reads
20
Readcasts
20
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
