Why American Exceptionalism Leads to Oppression

It is fashionable among the conservative elite to overplay, commend, and acquiesce America’s greatness. Their political correctness insists that America is “embraced” by people around the world who share their will to defend “freedom.”

In his book, A Nation Like No Other,   Newt Gingrich points out that the perceived decline of American primacy has its roots in downright unsound policies and bureaucracies back home. To him, even to deny America’s “Exceptionalism” is to run against the very principles to which the “Founders of Independence” held on to in the past. He finds utter distaste in Obama’s belief that other nations, especially those who held power in the past, have the right to believe in their own exceptionalism. Indeed, Gingrich joins his fellow egotistical citizens who condemn Obama’s statement “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

His book presents the most insipid experience yet on American braggadocio; it offers a peak into how virtues are undermined by political agenda. Allow me to guide you to his unfortunate thoughts.

In the book, Gingrich expresses his derision of the concept of what he calls “Big Government.” Quoting Professor John Wallis at the University of Maryland, Gingrich points out that the creation of “groups within the government…to the power profit, or protection they acquire by the favour of these persons, (are) but enemies to the constitution.” He concludes that “the biggest threat to civil society today is the growth of Big Government.” Has he forgotten that the transfer of immense wealth to the “one percent” was actually the brainchild of Ronald Reagan himself by enacting wanton deregulation? Is he even aware that it was during those times when the elite started dismantling the industries and relocated them offshore? It seems Gingrich is not aware that the 2008 recession was the cause of unsound republican policies and military posturing around the world. He seemed to forget that the strict regulation of the private sector was what’s needed to solve this unprecedented economic apocalypse.

If he is truly concerned with “people’s liberties and security through hard work”, then how come did he and his fellow republicans allow labor and all that work be transferred overseas? To be responsible for the dismantling of factories and production ironically backfires against securing private property rights, which he hypocritically and deceivingly defended in his book.

He also maintains that “the Founders sought to diffuse governmental power so that no single person, group, or governing branch could accumulate enough to encroach on the people’s unalienable rights.” Then again, how come did he and his fellow republicans ignore the voices of its people who argued against waging an ostracized war against Iraq? Didn’t George W. Bush went ahead and snubbed them in their faces? Indeed this ignoring traces its justification in his belief that “the Founders were adamantly opposed to direct democracy” which ironically goes against the same’s assertion that it “would fail to protect true liberty and would allow for the “tyranny of the majority.”” He further quotes John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

And yet he has the nerve to share that “subsequent presidents heeded Washington’s caution to prepare for war while seeking to avoid it…America showed the world that, though it did not seek war, it would defend itself from foreign attack.” But the opposite is what Gingrich prescribes his country to do. He encourages maintaining peace and safety which “is best maintained through a robust military capacity”. And here again, he goes on a hypocritical assertion that “America leads the world in spending on the military and on national security precisely to ensure that our wars are as rare and as swift as possible.” Do we need to mention America’s yearning to destroy another country accused of aspiring for nuclear parity with Israel? As such, it is undeniable that he and his fellow republicans endorse, focus, and thrive on and heed to the economic juggernaut that is the military industrial complex run by their elites.

He also focuses on America’s flawed foreign policy in the 1970s when the US scaled down (at least the overt ones) on its military commitments and disengaged with its allies elsewhere, especially in Vietnam. He was deeply concerned with the policy of détente adopted during that time as well as with the signing of the second SALT II with the Soviet Union because “the treaty…erode(d) U.S. strategic advantages” and that Carter adopted “policies that accepted declining power in the interests of “peace.””

Gingrich eulogized Ronald Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” where America once again started building up its military might in the 1980s. Reagan added that “we’re not a warlike people…We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance.” He encouraged Americans to take sides and take action by warning to “label both sides equally at fault” and caution “to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

The former House Speaker also exaggerates what role, if any, the US has played in the dissolution of the other superpower. This is often overlooked by the West. It is often cited that Reagan, together with Thatcher and John Paul II where the tidal forces that pushed their rival to its demise and eventual collapse. Gingrich believed that “the disappearance of the Soviet Union was the end result of a comprehensive and morality-based strategy to promote freedom around the world.” Isn’t this aggrandizing and self-serving — credit grabber as they call it?

Indeed, Mr. Gingrich’s assertions belong to the unpopular. He is among the American leaders who fall trap to dealing with everything through military might. He is opposed to “Big Government” at home while backing America’s “Big Government” treatment of the world. He is utterly opposed to Obama’s “reset with Russia” policy, with Obama’s engaging in “dialogue” with problematic states, and accuses his president of “elevating the tool of multilateralism into an end in itself…categorically rejects the very idea of American dominance.” He finds delight in fear mongering, where he accuses Obama of being a “socialist” and that America is headed in a more Europe direction.

Gingrich even rejects the promotion of sustainable energy in his homeland. He categorically opposes Obama’s moratorium on drilling, saying that it increases the United States dependence on foreign oil. Instead, he calls for “an all-out effort to increase domestic oil and gas drilling” and allow “producers to do what they do best: creating affordable and reliable energy.” He further adds that encouraging energy production, including domestic drilling, will create jobs and grow the economy.” It is thus tempting to deduce that Mr. Gingrich is not aware of the merits of pursuing renewable energy, not to mention the catastrophic effects of climate change.

In the end, it is he and his republican partners who are guilty of protecting and advancing the interests of the privileged few while also discounting the welfare and liberties of the majority.   And to think that like-minded people rule Washington all the more confirms the menace of America’s supposed exceptionalism.  Indeed, they are exceptional, but in a bad way.

Capitalism: Tired as the Environment it Plundered (PART II)

PART II: A Briefer on Poverty and Hunger

One of the World Bank's objectives include the statement "the encouragement of the development of productive facilities and resources in less developing countries". One of its focus involve developing countries in the fields such as human development, which include education and health. Quite sardonically, in 2010, it reported that "Almost half the world — over 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day."

Such figures clearly point to inquiries on the hows and whys these came to be despite the promise of a better life (under Capitalism) and the promises of unprecedented economic integration (under Globalization). Is it really overpopulation that caused hunger or is it poverty to blame? As was learned in Part I of this discussion, since the elite (Capitalists) used education as a tool to undermine the real workings of this world, it is thus hidden from the majority of humanity that the real cause of poverty is overpopulation. This is the accepted reasoning since they controlled what and how we learn. In this way, the rich where always absolved from the responsibility of acting on the issue of poverty, and hence, hunger.

How common lands where distributed among the elite play an undeniable role in discussing the roots of poverty and hunger. In Africa, for instance, it is estimated that 80% of the population depend on arable land. But what if, as a result of privatization, these lands where taken away? Decades of liberalization (patterned after the West but not applicable to the Third World) have greatly decreased self-sufficiency among farmers, while at the same time doing nothing on how food can be economically available for them.

But are these lands acquired to produce more food per unit area and make them cheaper to acquire? History had it that there will always be a shortage of everything to keep costs high and profits going (growth - the universal word of Capitalism). Still, the primary reason for the shortage in arable land is their usage: for industrial production, mega-dam projects, beef production that benefit only the countries of the investors, for appropriation to golf courses, production of tobacco, and even the conversion offood to fuel (corn-to-ethanol and bio-fuel revolution in the early 2000s) as reported by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Just in the case of tobacco production, the situation seems to suggest a discouraging picture. Tobacco production degrades the land while also requiring more wood to cure it. Outside of soil degradation, this industry puts stress on water resources by requiring fast-growing but water-hungry trees, such as eucalyptus. In addition, their production encourages more smoking which degrade people's health and increase medical expenses.

The same situation applies for coffee production. Although the production of coffee has had economic benefits such as employment, their production increased after the 1960s, but coffee price also fell more than 50% since. As such, its production is not sustaining itself well. Coffee plantation necessitates millions of hectares of land, not to mention pesticides that degrade the soil (which contribute to irreversible erosion), as well as waste pulp which pollute the water ways.

Another major contributor to land misuse is the textile/garments industry. As if the reallocation of arable land is not enough, the textile industry is known to put a real strain on water resources. The production of garments require a very large quantity of water: the textile industry is the third largest consumer in the world after the paper and oil industries. In its production, textiles require more chemicals as well (dyeing process) and also more energy to heat it. Even bigger than consumption, waste water from the process pollute river systems on a grand scale (taking into account their rank in the worst polluting industries).

In the case of bio-fuels, a little bit of political blaming has dominated the discussion, especially on the issue of whether bio-fuels such as ethanol do significantly affect the price of food. Proponents of the fuel, particularly the United States and some Western countries report that their production contribute to less than 3% on the price of food. However, in a leaked World Bank report (The Guardian, July 2008), the World Bank reported that "Bio fuels have forced global food prices up by 75%". In fact, in official statements, the United States has placed the blame on rising demand from developing countries, particularly India and China.

Decades of liberalization policies (which are export- and self-serving oriented) have also contributed to poverty and hunger. Under the guise of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs), for-export crops (mostly to Northern Hemisphere destinations) have replaced staple crops, which in turn hurt local food supplies and where available, make them expensive. Encouraged by free-trade agreements and Globalization, liberalization also contributed to the removal of subsidies allocated for smaller-scale agriculture and farming. The removal of subsidies in turn make local players vulnerable which puts them at a disadvantaged position against gargantuan multinational corporations. In this way, this closed-cycle loop is complete; to quote Richard H. Robbins, "To understand why people go hungry you must stop thinking about food as something farmers grow for others to eat, and begin thinking about it as something companies produce for other people to buy." And yet, as the West views subsidies as the main barrier against 'free-trade' which must be abolished, their agriculture are the most heavily subsidized in the world, especially in Europe. This double-standard does not only contribute to the problem of poverty and hunger, but also to trade practices, otherwise known as protectionist policies.