Making the US Economy ‘Scream’
Exclusive: Over the past several decades, Republican methods for
winning national power have come to resemble CIA techniques for
destabilizing an enemy country — through the use of black propaganda,
political skullduggery and economic disruptions. Now, heading toward
Election 2012, the Republicans appear poised to make the U.S. economy
“scream,” observes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
June 3, 2011
Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are
not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by
using almost any means available, from challenging the legitimacy of
opponents to spreading lies and disinformation to sabotaging the
economy.
Over the past four decades or so, the Republicans have simply not
played by the old give-and-take rules of politics. Indeed, if one
were to step back and assess this Republican approach, what you would
see is something akin to how the CIA has destabilized target
countries, especially those that seek to organize themselves in
defiance of capitalist orthodoxy.
To stop this spread of “socialism,” nearly anything goes. Take, for
example, Chile in the early 1970s when socialist President Salvador
Allende won an election and took steps aimed at improving the
conditions of the country’s poor.
Under the direction of President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger, the CIA was dispatched to engage in psychological
warfare against Allende’s government and to make the Chilean economy
“scream.”
U.S. intelligence agencies secretly sponsored Chilean news outlets,
like the influential newspaper El Mercurio, and supported “populist”
uprisings of truckers and housewives. On the economic front, the CIA
coordinated efforts to starve the Chilean government of funds and to
drive unemployment higher.
Worsening joblessness could then be spun by the CIA-financed news
outlets as proof that Allende’s policies didn’t work and that the
only choice for Chile was to scrap its social programs. When Allende
compromised with the Right, that had the additional benefit of
causing friction between him and some of his supporters who wanted
even more radical change.
As Chile became increasingly ungovernable, the stage was set for the
violent overthrow of Allende, the installation of a rightist
dictatorship, and the imposition of “free-market” economics that
directed more wealth and power to Chile’s rich and their American
corporate backers.
Though the Allende case in Chile is perhaps the best known example of
this intelligence strategy (because it was investigated by a Senate
committee in the mid-1970s), the CIA has employed this approach
frequently around the world. Sometimes the target government is
removed without violence, although other times a bloody coup d’etat
has been part of the mix.
Home to Roost
So, it is perhaps fitting that a comparable approach to politics
would eventually come home to roost in the United States, even to the
point that some of the propaganda funding comes from outside sources
(think of Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times and Australian media
mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.)
Obviously, given the wealth of the American elites, the relative
proportion of the propaganda funding is derived more domestically in
the United States than it would be in a place like Chile (or some
other unfortunate Third World country that has gotten on Washington’s
bad side).
But the concept remains the same: Control as much as possible what
the population gets to see and hear; create chaos for your opponent’s
government, economically and politically; blame if for the mess; and
establish in the minds of the voters that their only way out is to
submit, that the pain will stop once your side is back in power.
Today’s Republicans have fully embraced this concept of political
warfare, whereas the Democrats generally have tried to play by the
old rules, acquiescing when Republicans are in office with the goal
of “making government work,” even if the Republicans are setting the
agenda.
Unlike the Democrats and the Left, the Republicans and the Right have
prepared themselves for this battle, almost as if they are following
a CIA training manual. They have invested tens of billions of dollars
in a propaganda infrastructure that operates 24/7, year-round, to
spot and exploit missteps by political enemies.
This vertically integrated media machine allows useful information to
move quickly from a right-wing blog to talk radio to Fox News to the
Wall Street Journal to conservative magazines and book publishing.
Right-wing propagandists are well-trained and well-funded so they can
be deployed to all manner of public outlets to hammer home the
talking points.
When a Democrat somehow does manage to get into the White House,
Republicans in Congress (and even in the Courts) are ready to do
their part in the destabilization campaign. Rather than grant
traditional “honeymoon” periods of cooperation with the president’s
early policies, the battle lines are drawn immediately.
In late 1992, for instance, Bill Clinton complained that his
“honeymoon” didn’t even last through the transition, the two-plus
months before a new president takes office. He found himself facing
especially harsh hazing from the Washington press corps, as the
mainstream media – seeking to shed its “liberal” label and goaded by
the right-wing media – tried to demonstrate that it would be tougher
on a Democrat than any Republican.
The mainstream press hyped minor “scandals” about Clinton’s
Whitewater real estate investment and Travel-gate, a flap about some
routine firings at the White House travel office. Meanwhile, the
Right’s rapidly growing media was spreading false stories implicating
Clinton in the death of White House aide Vince Foster and other
“mysterious deaths.”
Republicans in Congress did all they could to feed the press
hysteria, holding hearings and demanding that special prosecutors be
appointed. When the Clinton administration relented, the choice of
prosecutors was handed over to right-wing Republican Appeals Court
Judge David Sentelle, who consciously picked political enemies of
Clinton to oversee zealous investigations.
Finally Winning
The use of scandal-mongering to destabilize the Clinton
administration finally peaked in late 1998 and early 1999 when the
Republican-controlled House voted impeachment and Clinton had to
endure (but survive) a humiliating trial in the Senate.
The Republican strategy, however, continued into Campaign 2000 with
Vice President Al Gore facing attacks on his character and integrity.
Gore was falsely painted as a delusional braggart, as both right-wing
and mainstream media outlets freely misquoted him and subjected him
to ridicule (while simultaneously bowing and scraping before
Republican candidate George W. Bush).
When Gore managed to win the national popular vote anyway – and would
have carried the key state of Florida if all legally cast ballots
were counted – the Republicans and the Right rose up in fury
demanding that the Florida count be stopped before Bush’s tiny lead
completely disappeared. Starting a minor riot in Miami, the
Republicans showed how far they would go to claim the White House again.
Five Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court – wanting to
ensure that the new president would keep their side in control of the
courts and recognizing that their party was prepared to spread
disorder if Gore prevailed – stopped the counting of votes and made
Bush the “winner.” [For details, see the book, Neck Deep.]
Despite this partisan ruling, Gore and the Democrats stepped back
from the political confrontation. The right-wing press cheered and
gloated, while the mainstream news media urged the people to accept
Bush as “legitimate” for the good of the country.
For most of Bush’s disastrous presidency, this dynamic remained the
same. Though barely able to complete a coherent sentence, Bush was
treated with great deference, even when he failed to protect the
country from the 9/11 attacks and led the nation into an unprovoked
war with Iraq. There were no combative investigations of Bush like
those that surrounded Clinton.
Even at the end of Bush’s presidency – when his policies of
deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and massive budget deficits
combined to create the biggest financial crisis since the Great
Depression – the prevailing message from the Establishment was that
it was unfair to lay too much blame on Bush.
Shortly after Barack Obama took office in 2009, a Republican/right-
wing talking point was to complain when anyone took note of the mess
that Bush had left behind: “There you go again, blaming Bush.”
Getting Obama
Immediately, too, the Republicans and the Right set to work
demonizing and destroying Obama’s presidency. Instead of allowing the
Democrats to enact legislation aimed at addressing the financial and
economic crisis, the Senate Republicans launched filibuster after
filibuster.
When Obama and the Democrats did push through emergency legislation,
such as the $787 billion stimulus package, they had to water it down
to reach the 60-vote super-majority. The Republicans and the Right
then quickly laid the blame for high unemployment on the “failed”
stimulus.
There also were waves of propaganda pounding Obama’s legitimacy. The
Right’s news media pressed bogus accusations that Obama had been born
in Kenya and thus was not constitutionally eligible to be president.
He was denounced as a socialist, a Muslim, a fascist, an enemy of
Israel, and pretty much any other charge that might hit some American
hot button.
When Obama welcomed American students back to school in 2009, the
Right organized against his simple message – urging young people to
work hard – as if it were some form of totalitarian mind control. His
attempt to address the growing crisis in American health care was
denounced as taking away freedoms and imposing “death panels.”
Soon, billionaires like oil man David Koch and media mogul Murdoch,
were promoting a “grassroots” rebellion against Obama called the Tea
Party. Activists were showing up at presidential speeches with guns
and brandishing weapons at rallies near Washington.
The high-decibel disruptions and the “screaming” economy created the
impression of political chaos. Largely ignoring the role of the
Republicans, the press faulted Obama for failing to live up to his
campaign promise to bring greater bipartisanship to Washington.
Hearing the discord framed that way, many average Americans also
blamed Obama; many of the President’s supporters grew demoralized;
and, as happened with Allende in Chile, some on the Left turned
against Obama for not doing more, faster.
By November 2010, the stage was set for a big Republican comeback.
The party swept to victory in the House and fell just short in the
Senate. But Congress was not the Republicans’ true goal. What they
really want is the White House with all its executive powers.
However, following Obama’s success in killing Osama bin Laden on May
2 and with what is widely regarded as a weak Republican presidential
field, the Right’s best hope for regaining complete control of the
U.S. government in 2012 is to sink the U.S. economy.
Already, the Republican success in limiting the scope of the stimulus
package and then labeling it a failure – combined with deep cuts in
local, state and federal government spending – have helped push the
economy back to the brink where a double-dip recession is now a
serious concern.
Despite these worries – and a warning from Moody’s about a possible
downgrade on U.S. debt if Congress delays action on raising the debt
limit – the Republicans are vowing more brinksmanship over the debt-
limit vote. Before acting, they are demanding major reductions in
government spending (while refusing to raise taxes on the rich).
A Conundrum
So, Obama and the Democrats face another conundrum. If they slash
spending too much, they will further stall the recovery. However, if
they refuse to submit to this latest round of Republican blackmail,
they risk a debt crisis that could have devastating consequences for
the U.S. economy for years – even decades – to come.
Either way, the right-wing media and much of the mainstream press
will put the blame on Obama and the Democrats. They will be held
accountable for failing to govern.
The Republican propaganda machine will tell the American people that
they must throw Obama and the Democrats out of office for stability
to return. There will be assurances about how the “magic of the
market” will bring back the bright days of prosperity.
Of course, the reality of a new Republican administration, especially
with a GOP Congress, would be the return of the old right-wing
nostrums: more tax cuts for the rich, less regulation of
corporations, more military spending, and more privatization of
social programs.
Any budget balancing will come at the expense of labor rights for
union employees and shifting the costs for health care onto the backs
of the elderly. Yet, all this will be surrounded by intense
propaganda explaining the public pain as a hangover from misguided
government “social engineering.”
There is, of course, the possibility that the American people will
see through today’s Republican CIA-style strategy of “making the
economy scream.” Americans might come to recognize the role of the
pseudo-populist propagandists on Fox News and talk radio.
Or Republicans might have second thoughts about playing chicken on
the debt limit and running the risk of a global depression. Such a
gamble could redound against them. And, it’s hard to believe that
even their most ardent billionaire-backers would find destruction of
their stock portfolios that appealing.
But there can be a momentum to madness. We have seen throughout
history that events can get out of hand, that thoroughly
propagandized true believers can truly believe. Sometimes, they don’t
understand they are simply being manipulated for a lesser goal. Once
the chaos starts, it is hard to restore order.
That has been another bloody lesson from the CIA’s operations in
countries around the world. These covert actions can have excessive
or unintended consequences.
Ousting Allende turned Chile into a fascist dictatorship that sent
assassins far and wide, including Washington, D.C. Ousting Mossadegh
in Iran led to the tyranny of the Shah and ultimately to an extreme
Islamist backlash. Ousting Arbenz in Guatemala led to the butchery of
some 200,000 people and the rise of a narco-state. Such examples can
go on and on.
However, these CIA-type techniques can be very seductive, both to
U.S. presidents looking for a quick fix to some international problem
and to a political party trying to gain a decisive edge for winning.
These methods can be especially dangerous when the other side doesn’t
organize effectively to counter them.
The hard reality in the United States today is that the Republicans
and the Right are now fully organized, armed with a potent propaganda
machine and possessing an extraordinary political will. They are well-
positioned to roll the U.S. economy off the cliff and blame the
catastrophe on Obama.
Indeed, that may be their best hope for winning Election 2012.
[For more on these topics, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege and
Neck Deep, now available in a two-book set for the discount price of
only $19. For details, click here.]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for
the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his
sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two
previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty
from Watergate to Iraq and Lost