Karl Hess

The United States may not be as homogeneous as it was a quarter of century ago, but its dominance of the world scene remains undisputed: its GNP was US$ 7,690 billion in 1998; most of the multinationals with the largest markets and profits are US-based; Washington pulls the strings of many multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank; US technology and culture are omnipresent.

The rest of the world is reacting to this dominance with increasing hostility. A British diplomat was quoted by Academic Samuel P Huntington as observing that "It's only in the United States that you talk about the whole world aspiring to American leadership. Elsewhere, the talk is about American arrogance and unilateralism". * And Analyst Herbet I Schiller asks: "Are the citizens of this territory which imposes its law on the rest of the world aware, in their everyday life, of the burden they place on others, and frequently on themselves? Does it bother them? Do they fight it in any way?" The answer is, probably not. For the US to maintain its status of overlord, it must rely on the active or passive support of some 270 million Americans. This support is the product of many practices: a form of brainwashing from the earliest age, a selection or retention of the kind of information that reinforces belief in American dominance, a series of persuasive techniques, from the subliminal to the obvious, the exclusion of potential sources of dissidence, and a range of coercive measures, from admonition to incarceration (1.8 million people are behind bars in the United States, a world record).

These techniques have produced, if not enthusiastic belief in the goodness of American control over the affairs of the world, at least a general acceptance of it. US leaders routinely remind their citizens and the rest of the planet that the United States are a blessing to the world. The theme of US greatness recurs in every presidential speech since the end of the Second World War. In his State of the Union address of February 4, 1997, President Clinton called the US "the indispensable nation". How then can anyone not recognize his or her good fortune of living in the US? Curiously, some Americans are still resisting this notion. It is therefore of great importance to US leaders to introduce new, more global techniques in order to both widen and strengthen popular support.

One of these techniques is to control the definition of the various terms used, so ideas can be formulated and realities described in support of American interests, locally and globally. The education system as well as the media, the entertainment industry and the various political mechanisms are all elements of this infrastructure and contribute to the shaping of the consensus. These ideas and messages are effortlessly absorbed and are part of the American consciousness.

1. Let's take a concrete example, that of the use of the word "terrorism". Terrorism is of great concern to the governments of the world and they all spend a great part of their budget to combat it. Whenever acts of resistance to oppressive circumstances occur in the world, eventually leading to violence and death, in particular when these circumstances originate from circles friendly to Washington, these acts are defined as "terrorism". In previous decades, Malaysian, Kenyan, Angolan, Argentine and even Jewish activists (opposed to the British mandate in Palestine) have been described as "terrorists". The US Armed Forces have intervened in Korea, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq… In the 90s, Iranians, Libyans, Palestinians and Kurds, to name a few, have all seen their struggle disqualified in similar terms.

2. The policing of ideas can be likened to the art of lying by omission. Witness the deliberately insufficient information available in the media on the activities of several American multinationals such as General Motors, Coca Cola, Exxon, Microsoft… Information about the establishment of these multinationals, how they make decisions regarding their investments, their workforce, etc., and how these decisions affect Americans and the rest of the world, would help understand the distribution of power in the US and elsewhere. This type of information is precisely what the policing of ideas is seeking to block. An army of analysts and producers of information contribute to this misinformation by diverting public attention from those in power. Scores of research institutes and other think tanks churn out studies on judicial, social and economic topics in support of the business community from which they get most of their funding. These studies are channeled through local and national networks which confer them their credibility. Right wing "think tankers" have access to a plethora of radio and television networks and are often seen in the company of local and federal elected officials.

The Manhattan Institute in New York, the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute are several of these information producers. They channel the "voice of business" through to the media. The very source of the information is corrupted.

3. Less visible, but even more effective than these structures of production and dissemination are market dynamics which contribute to the policing of ideas, especially culturally. Market forces have sealed this "indispensable nation" from the rest of the world. While 90% of the movies in Canada are foreign-made (most come from Hollywood), and four out of five of the magazines read by Canadians are produced outside Canada (a matter of great concern at the Conference on Culture in Ottawa in July 1997), between 1-2% of movies and video-tapes consumed by the US population come from abroad. The main, although not the only reason is that, thanks to its internal market and impressive financial clout, Hollywood has access to production and publicity budgets that leave its competitors in the dust. The public moreover is conditioned to yearn for Hollywood fare. In the final analysis, it is the public that is the great loser.
4. What is true about cinema can also be applied to television and publishing. Only about 200 to 250 books are translated into English in the United States every year (compared with 1,636 translation rights in France in 1998). The American public is thus isolated from the great currents of thought of the rest of the world. Television reports only focus on other countries in times of crisis. The narrow focus of most media (with the exception -perhaps temporary? - of the Internet) explain the limited knowledge Americans have of the world and its problems. The information presented to the public is selected in function of its commercial appeal. Norwegian political analyst Johann Galtung calls this phenomenon "television idiotization". The American public pays a heavy price for the homogeneity of the business.

This ignorance cannot be explained merely by the trivialization and retention of the information. Its roots go deep. The financing of the quasi-totality of the media by those who can afford to buy time and space lead to cultural impoverishment. A small number of talented individuals have, for decades, tried to promote a non-commercial culture, but they fight a losing battle against a publicity budget of US$ 40 billion.

The American is subjected to this relentless publicity from an early age, with little regard for the consequences. Business Week, which is not exactly known for its hostility to market economy, gives the following description in its June 30, 1997 edition: "At 01.55 this Wednesday, May 5, a consumer was born. Three days later, when she was taken home, some of the largest mail-order companies in the US were already hounding her with samples, coupons and promotional material… Like no other generation before, she has entered, virtually at birth, into a culture of consumption surrounded by logos, badges and publicity… At 20 months of age, she will recognize several of thousands of brands flickering on the television screen. At 7, if she is typical of kids her age, she will see 20,000 commercials a year. At 12, her name will feature in the database of mail-order companies."

The cumulative effects of this unbridled merchandising are difficult to assess but are key to the understanding of life at the heart of a commercial system. People in the system are in no way prepared to understand the outside world, nor do they care. It's on this fertile ground that conservative right wing groups develop their rhetoric, channeling it through their many foundations, invading radio and, increasingly, television space.*

The government is one of these groups' favorite targets, in spite of the fact that it loyally serves the ruling class and the leading corporations.

Another prime target is the United Nations Organization, routinely criticized locally, nationally and internationally, even by media which are not normally known for their extremism. For decades now, attacks on the UN, UNESCO and the World Health Organization have continued unabated, focusing not just on the way they operate but on their very mandate, based as it is on principles of international solidarity.

With the exception of some pockets of resistance, global acceptance of the American model of consumption and privatization has reinforced this spirit of dominance which reigns in the US. These beliefs and values which rule the consciousness of the American public can only be shaken by major challenges to the national and international economy.

For many people, economic globalization means the United States and the capitalist system it embodies. Many strongly believe that economic development based on free exchange will bring about prosperity and democracy. That is being a bit hasty. According to the latest report of the United Nations Development Program,1.3 billion people - a quarter of the world population - subsist on less than one dollar a day. In 1960, before globalization, 20% of the richest people in the world were 30 times richer than the poorest 20%. In 1997, at the height of globalization, they are 74 times richer. This gap is getting larger every day. Today, the sum of the GNPs of all the developing countries (600 million people) still does not equal the wealth of the three richest countries in the world. In the last fifteen years, per capita income has decreased in 80 countries, more than half the nations on this planet. In Russia, 150 million people (out of 200 million) are poor. A mere 1% of the total wealth on earth could, in a period of just 20 years, eradicate extreme poverty,

Ignacio Ramonet, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique, observes that globalization is an end-of-cycle symptom. We are not only at the end of an industrial era (with the new technology) and of the first capitalist revolution (with the financial revolution) but also at the end of an intellectual cycle - the Age of Reason as defined by 18^th Century philosophers. This Age gave birth to modern politics, and the French and American Revolutions. The question today is: will the triumph of free economy and increasing globalization lead to a new totalitarianism? Is a conflict between capitalism and democracy avoidable?**

Capitalism has concentrated wealth and economic power within the hands of a minority. And this is posing a fundamental problem: how much to redistribute to make this domination of the rich minority acceptable to the rest of the world? The market itself cannot offer a solution to this problem. All over the world, globalization is killing the welfare state.

How to turn half of the world away from revolt and the choice of violence? In 1879, when she heard that the people of Paris had risen and clamored for bread, Queen Marie-Antoinette said: "Let them eat cake." False promises will not appease the people's hunger.

* Samuel Huntington, "The Lonely Superpower", Foreign Affairs, NY March/ April 1999 – Hubert I. Schiller, " La Fabrique des Maitres", Le Monde Diplomatique, August 1999

** Serge Halimi, "The think tanks of the American Right", Le Monde Diplomatique, May 2995.

*** Debate on globalization between Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times and Ignacio

Ramonet, editor of Le Monde Diplomatique: Globalization - A debate between T. Friedman

and I. Ramonet, Foreign Policy, Fall 1999, pages 110-127