New Book Compliments The Works of Peter Dale Scott

[Peter Lemkin]

RUSS BAKER

THE "DOUBLE GOVERNMENT" SECRET GETS OUT

You know something is going on when the cautious Boston Globe publishes not one, but two, pieces dealing with the "double government."
This cryptic phrase encapsulates a serious claim about the American body politic: That a permanent and largely unaccountable bureaucracy keeps on doing what it wants to do, no matter who the voters elect to the White House.
Both of the Globe articles refer to "National Security and Double Government," a book by Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law at Tufts University. From the descriptions of its contents (we haven't read the book yet, but we willand perhaps excerpt), the author is talking, with due academic caution, about an out-of-control security/military apparatus.
The fact that the Globe thinks this book is important enough to warrant not one but two analytical pieces is significant, because Boston was the scene of the mysterious Boston Marathon Bombing.
In the aftermath of that tragedy, the national security apparatus and its allies in the media, academia and corporate America (including, significantly, the Globe itself) rushed to discourage us from looking deeper at what happenedwhile at the same time the nat-sec folks used the event to further expand their influence at the expense of civil liberties.
The Secret Government
One of the Globe's pieces was a highly favorable review of Dr. Glennon's book by former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. Edwards, a co-founder of the staunchly conservative Heritage Foundation, has over the years become more and more of a maverickand more outspokenly alarmed by the path America has taken.
The other piece, which appeared in the Globe the same day,was a Q&A with Glennon. The astonishing headline was:
Vote all you want. The secret government won't change.
The sub-headline wasn't much tamer:
The people we elect aren't the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University's Michael Glennon
The genesis of the book was a question that confounded Glennon about President Obama: How did a man who won election pledging to change the national security policies of his predecessor effect so little of that? Here's what Edwards wrote in his review:
The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: "a bifurcated system a structure of double governmentin which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy." The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved "toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy."
The paradox, Glennon says, is that this barely accountable government machinery actually arose from President Harry S. Truman's attempts to reduce the military's growing and unchecked power. The unforeseen outcome was the growth of an unaccountable civilian power center.
No Secret Conspiracy (Or Theory)
Glennon's was hardly the first well-reviewed book to deal with this topic. In 2009Janine Wedel, an anthropology professor at George Mason University, published Shadow Elite, which received lavish praise from Arianna Huffington and the endorsement of her "book club," despite the fact that the Huffington Post itself has a strong aversion to publishing "conspiracy" stories.
Perhaps Wedel avoided being tarred with the hackneyed "conspiracy theorist" because she argues that the shadowy networks she describes are not necessarily criminal or in cahoots with multinational corporations, but merely the outgrowth of powerful and self-replenishing (if often incompetent) elites.
Glennon will likely avoid the damaging label as well, with extensive research and more than 800 footnotes in his book to back up his thesis. The author "is hardly the sort to engage in such fantasies," Edwards wrote:
This is no secret conspiracy nor a plot to deprive Americans of their civil liberties. It is the unintended consequence of a thoughtful attempt to head off the very threats that those attempts have inadvertently created. But if Glennon's book is enlightening it is also scary. And it's not fiction.
Glennon turns to a familiar explanationthat every nation gets the government it deservesto bolster his argument as to why the double government has been able to flourish:
"The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions," he told the Globe.
***
Of course, the notion that the American political process and a largely compliant and docile media keep focusing attention on the wrong people and institutions is one ofWhoWhatWhy's central themes. This heretical insight is typically pooh-poohed in the corporate media and even in the so-called alternative media. Any attempt to raise the lid on what's been called Deep Politics is routinely disparaged and condemned as the droolings of the deranged.
Well, everyone has his or her own comfort level with uncomfortable material. Some may need a credentialed professor or two to start the conversation, and a major newspaper to weigh in favorably, before they dare open their minds.
We won't complain. We're just glad to know that we were sane all along.
Next (though we aren't holding our breath for this) we hope to see the Boston Globepublish an in-depth investigation of that sub rosa "Double Government" and its peculiar handling of the Boston Marathon Bombingwhich to our eyes has, at best, the hallmarks of a security-fail cover-up. And an incident that considerably expanded the rationale for, and power of, the same NatSec establishment that has belatedly so alarmed the Globe.

[Peter Lemkin]

While none of this should be news to anyone who reads this Forum, I just read a 114 page article by the author [haven't yet gotten the book] that was in the Harvard Security Journal Vol. 5 - and while not news is very good at further documenting all this [the rise of the Deep Political State]. He names names, and follows it through time as it transfers from England to the U.S. and then develops - its seeds planted before the ink was dry on the Constitution. All of this was outlined before in another great book called Tragedy and Hope. Glennon, a professor at Tufts, even goes into why he believes those that run the Double/Secret/Deep State do so - and do so secretly. In short they do not believe in Democracy at all and think the average person to be too naive, ill-informed, un-involved, and lacking in interest of the big issues to be allowed to have control of their country. There is a class issue, as well. Again, nothing startling new here, but nice to see it spelled out, with quotes from those in control over time and those trying to get back democratic control [Hint: those fighting for a real or even greater democracy lost the battle]. It is heavily footnoted, and I think a must-read along with all of Peter Dale Scott's books.

Sixty years later, sitting atop its national security institutions, an
intra-governmental network that has descended from what Truman created
now manages the real work of preventing the country from, in Acheson's
phrase, "go[ing] wrong." The Washington Post's landmark 2011 study of
Truman's modern handiwork, "Top Secret America," identified forty-six
federal departments and agencies engaged in classified national security
work. Their missions range from intelligence gathering and analysis to
war-fighting, cyber-operations, and weapons development. Almost 2,000
private companies support this work, which occurs at over 10,000 locations
across America. The size of their budgets and workforces are mostly
classified, but it is clear that those numbers are enormousa total annual
outlay of around $1 trillion and millions of employees.

...but he goes beyond the above description of the machinery into who, how and why the few [hundred he thinks] that really run any country, or often multiple countries at one time, are and act the way they do. And above the machinery of the Deep State are those who 'own' the majority of the wealth of the State....just as the first Head of the Supreme Court, John Jay put it centuries ago, "Those who own American are the ones who ought to rule it."

[Lauren Johnson]

I went to Amazon and quickly read through the Index. PDS does not appear nor does Carroll Quigley. There's lot's of references to organizational behavior and "rational action theory." It sounds like it will serve to set the boundary beyond which opinion must not wander. It certainly has a lot of reviews. David Talbot's books, for example, have not. They are beyond the pale. Don't get me wrong; it sounds worth reading, but it will be ultimately very disappointing.

Peter, I will be looking forward to your review.

[Peter Lemkin]

I went to Amazon and quickly read through the Index. PDS does not appear nor does Carroll Quigley. There's lot's of references to organizational behavior and "rational action theory." It sounds like it will serve to set the boundary beyond which opinion must not wander. It certainly has a lot of reviews. David Talbot's books, for example, have not. They are beyond the pale. Don't get me wrong; it sounds worth reading, but it will be ultimately very disappointing.

Peter, I will be looking forward to your review.

It is true that Glennon stops well before where Peter Dale Scott ventures; however, I think this still strengthens, especially to the Deep Politically uninformed, the better and 'deeper' arguments of Scott. Most of the public will never read Scott, while this book may be read...and that may pave the way for some to then go on to reading Scott who wouldn't have touched his books otherwise.

The question whether the President could institute a
complete about-face supposes a top-down policy-making model. The
illusion that presidents issue orders and that subordinates simply carry them
out is nurtured in the public imagination by media reports of "Obama's"
policies or decisions or initiatives, by the President's own frequent
references to "my" directives or personnel, and by the Trumanites own
reports that the President himself has "ordered" them to do something. But
true top-down decisions that order fundamental policy shifts are rare.369 The
reality is that when the President issues an "order" to the Trumanites, the
Trumanites themselves normally formulate the order.370 The Trumanites
"cannot be thought of as men who are merely doing their duty. They are the
ones who determine their duty, as well as the duties of those beneath them.
They are not merely following orders: they give the orders."371 They do that
by "entangling"372 the President. This dynamic is an aspect of what one
scholar has called the "deep structure" of the presidency.373 As Theodore
Sorensen put it, "Presidents rarely, if ever, make decisionsparticularly in
foreign affairsin the sense of writing their conclusions on a clean
slate . . . . [T]he basic decisions, which confine their choices, have all too
often been previously made."374

This book is midway between how most people view the US polity and how Peter Dale Scott describes it. It has a lot of interesting information and references and can be used by those of us who can see further and deeper. It also may open the eyes of some others. Agreed, it is not the be all and end all on the subject - and not up to the standards and probing works of Scott. It is complementary, not a replacement. I found it very enlightening, for example, where he detailed the backgrounds of most of the Supreme Court Justices - and just how many were involved in the Deep State decision making before they were selected...all well referenced. And many other things like that.

It is mostly about the Military-Intelligence-National Security apparatus, and leaves out who they work for....something that Scott goes into on a much deeper level. However, I think it has its merits, even if it is somewhat limited in its scope.

He ends the Harvard piece with this sentence:

What form of government
ultimately will emerge from the United States' experiment with double
government is uncertain. The risk is considerable, however, that it will not
be a democracy.

[David Guyatt]

While none of this should be news to anyone who reads this Forum, I just read a 114 page article by the author [haven't yet gotten the book] that was in the Harvard Security Journal Vol. 5 - and while not news is very good at further documenting all this [the rise of the Deep Political State]. He names names, and follows it through time as it transfers from England to the U.S. and then develops - its seeds planted before the ink was dry on the Constitution. All of this was outlined before in another great book called Tragedy and Hope. Glennon, a professor at Tufts, even goes into why he believes those that run the Double/Secret/Deep State do so - and do so secretly. In short they do not believe in Democracy at all and think the average person to be too naive, ill-informed, un-involved, and lacking in interest of the big issues to be allowed to have control of their country. There is a class issue, as well. Again, nothing startling new here, but nice to see it spelled out, with quotes from those in control over time and those trying to get back democratic control [Hint: those fighting for a real or even greater democracy lost the battle]. It is heavily footnoted, and I think a must-read along with all of Peter Dale Scott's books.

Sixty years later, sitting atop its national security institutions, an
intra-governmental network that has descended from what Truman created
now manages the real work of preventing the country from, in Acheson's
phrase, "go[ing] wrong." The Washington Post's landmark 2011 study of
Truman's modern handiwork, "Top Secret America," identified forty-six
federal departments and agencies engaged in classified national security
work. Their missions range from intelligence gathering and analysis to
war-fighting, cyber-operations, and weapons development. Almost 2,000
private companies support this work, which occurs at over 10,000 locations
across America. The size of their budgets and workforces are mostly
classified, but it is clear that those numbers are enormousa total annual
outlay of around $1 trillion and millions of employees.

...but he goes beyond the above description of the machinery into who, how and why the few [hundred he thinks] that really run any country, or often multiple countries at one time, are and act the way they do. And above the machinery of the Deep State are those who 'own' the majority of the wealth of the State....just as the first Head of the Supreme Court, John Jay put it centuries ago, "Those who own American are the ones who ought to rule it."

Do you have a link to that article, Pete?

PS, belay that, I just found it: Harvard National Security Journal ---- my reading for today ::laughingdog::

[Drew Phipps]

If I like the article I'll put the book on my Christmas list.

[David Guyatt]

Having now partly read the extended essay, I have to say that I regard it as very significant and also very important. It's extremely well footnoted and clearly and concisely written and a pleasure to read too.

[Lauren Johnson]

Having now partly read the extended essay, I have to say that I regard it as very significant and also very important. It's extremely well footnoted and clearly and concisely written and a pleasure to read too.

Second that. The article is outstanding. ::

No more snotty comments from me.

[Peter Lemkin]

Having now partly read the extended essay, I have to say that I regard it as very significant and also very important. It's extremely well footnoted and clearly and concisely written and a pleasure to read too.

Second that. The article is outstanding. ::

No more snotty comments from me.

Thanks. I try not to suggest detritus. He has a different perspective than Scott, but I think the footnotes and information in it, when combined with Scott's work, really is a powerful mix. Glennon sees this as anti-democratic and evil; but as some 'natural' outcome of a certain kind of bureaucratic thinking and organization. If I can read between the lines on Scott, he is more inclined to think this is a well thought out conspiracy to create an anti-democratic plutocracy/oligarchy/fascist state. However, on the details and personalities they have great overlap.

I just loved the backgrounds of some of the Supremes....and that was dirt I didn't know about! He has a book out which appears to be about 3-4 times the size of the Harvard article. It seems from the TOC to go through the American political system branch by branch, also going into his 'Double Government' [as he likes to call it] and how they pull the strings on most of what we see in the Visible/First Government.

Both are in their own ways telling us we have lost our democracy and showing where the cancer is and has been - how it has grown. The ways to get rid of this cancer and win our democracy back are pretty straight forward, as they are difficult - but still possible if we don't delay and wake up enough people. Not many are ready for reading Scott - yet.

I hope this primes the pump for more to read Scott and others like him.