Some Controversial Political Thoughts

What I'm about to say isn't really about my novel, but because the novel is set in the future, the questions I've been asking myself in writing the backstory have a basis in the burning political questions of today.

In the backstory of my novel, I mentioned that Earth is under a single world government, and that as such the military serves primarily a law enforcement function, because there is no external enemy, only "internal dissidents." What I suppose I really mean to say is that terrorists are all that's left. How else would a world government characterize them? How else would America characterize them today?

I can think of three things that distinguish a terrorist from a "legitimate" soldier: 1) The terrorist does not enjoy the public protection or support of a nation-state (although secret support does go on, the terrorist must act on his own initiative and assumes all the risk, so essentially he acts alone); 2) The terrorist attacks noncombatants; and 3) The terrorist seeks to undermine, sabotage, or overthrow some or all aspects of an "established order."

States are considered equals more or less, so when one state attacks another, it is called war, not terrorism. But when individuals attack a state -- specifically a democratic one ---- that is terrorism. In non-democratic states, terrorism is called revolution --- which in itself presents an interesting question.

In non-democratic states we (and the revolutionaries) call it revolution, a word with less stigma (unless you're Communist) because it is considered noble and just for a people to liberate itself from an unjust or corrupt government. In democratic states, however, the same behavior is called terrorism, a hard and unyielding word, one that suggests that rogues are attacking the nation's "freedoms" (which may not be true), and which assumes that the democratic government in question is just and uncorrupted (which it may not be), and that its citizens are indeed free (which they may not practically be, as you'll see me argue).

As I look at the political and social changes that have been happening in America over the last few decades, I am not convinced that our government is uncorrupted and that our people are free. What I see over time is a very subtle and alarming trend: the fact that individuals have been progressively gaining rights but losing power.

Globalization today is transforming the entire social, political, economic and legal landscape. Examples abound:

• Many corporations today generate more revenue than entire countries, and some of these companies are buying back their own stock, which means that they are essentially owned by no one and cannot be dissolved.
• The inexorably increasing demands on our daily time and productivity weigh us down, stress us out, and worsen; with each technological innovation that promises to lighten our load, we are given more to manage and the demands to do more with less, faster, increase. (Do you remember those relaxed times before, say, fax machines? Yes, before we had those little sheet-feeders that promised to make our lives so much easier?)
• Small business owners, especially in retail, struggle for their lives as large corporations move in and beat them right out of business.
• Dissatisfied customers are trapped in voice-menu hell, and when they do get a hold of a customer service rep, that person is not only financially incentivized to get you off the phone as quickly as possible, but in some cases to turn you away if your account is not profitable for the company. (First Union Bank ("F-You" Bank?) is a trail-blazer here; see Ralph Nader's Congressional testimony (search for Wall Street Journal to jump right to it), or this AICPA article).
• Health insurers, utilities, and other companies fleece customers of millions of dollars by routinely overbilling them and leaving it up to them to catch the "error" and spend more time in voice-menu hell getting it corrected.
• People are highly leveraged into consumer debt in this country, and our credit-worthiness is measured by three major companies that have virtually no accountability or obligations regarding the accuracy of that data. Perhaps more importantly, our own influence over this data is razor-thin, and our influence over the system that manages it is nonexistent.
• A company called ChexSystems keeps a database of all the customers that banks have reported to it due to disputes or unpaid charges. Those who are listed in this database are stuck there for five years and during that time cannot obtain a checking account from the vast majority of the nation's banks; it is very difficult for a ChexSystems victim to get a bank account. Did I mention that there is no appeal process should this happen to you, that setting the matter straight with your bank will not clear your name from the database, and that many people are reported to ChexSystems every year due to the banks' own errors? ChexSystems has no external accountability; it works because the banks collectively agree to use the ChexSystems service to screen out potentially undesirable customers, to surrender control of your "bank-worthiness" to an unaccountable third party, and (it is alleged) to not grant accounts to those reported in ChexSystems even if the bank is amenable to it, so as not undermine the legitimacy of ChexSystems.
• The 2000 presidential election was decided by judges, not by the people. (An aside: People say that the 2000 Presidential Election --- and the ballot mess in Florida --- proved that every vote counts. I've never understood this. The incident proved that thousands of votes didn't count. Oh, I suppose it proves that every vote counts in the sense that you never know when thousands of other ballots will be thrown out, making yours suddenly very important, but is that what the pundits mean? And forget about election snafus. One look at the Electoral College map will tell you that millions of votes are thrown out every single election, because the winner of each state takes all the votes. My vote for John Kerry in California does not help his overall cause; it only helps him in California. And if he doesn't win the popular vote in California, my vote doesn't help him at all. What do you mean, my vote counts?! Maybe it will. This is why, in America, a candidate can become President without a popular vote. I think it is important to vote, and I know that millions of votes do not count. For example, I live in California, which is a strongly pro-Kerry state. It won't make any difference to the presidential election whether I vote or not, unless either of the following conditions are met: 1) I vote for Nader and skew the results --- and by the way, I won't be skewing them towards Nader; see Electoral College above; or 2) an election snafu causes thousands of other people's ballots to be thrown out, making mine potentially more important.)

All of this brings me back to my original contention: that over time we have been gaining rights and losing power. Have you read When Corporations Rule The World by David C. Corten? That's an interesting book. There are many others. I don't believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in trends, and some of the trends I have observed disturb me.

The backstory in my novel allows this alarming trend to continue to its logical conclusion at the point the novel takes place.

But here are some questions for thought:

• As globalization gradually extends to every corner of the world, and as the number of democratic and capitalistic states inexorably grows, and if Immanuel Kant's claim that democratic states do not war with each other is true, is it conceivable that we will reach a point where we indeed have no external enemies, but only internal dissidents? Are we already entering that phase?
• How will we classify these internal dissidents? Is it true that only "terrorists" would attack the "freedoms" of a democratic state (no matter how corrupt its government or powerless its citizens)? Can a democratic state even have a revolution, or are there only terrorists in a republic? You say it's semantics. I say it goes to the very heart of what civil liberties you and I will or will not be enjoying 10 or 20 years from now.
• How will a growing democratic world, led by an America pursuing a preemptive strike policy, transition to this new reality of democratic/capitalist hegemony? Will all people who actively oppose the system be treated -- and preempted -- as terrorists?
• If so, doesn't that mean that all revolutions will end soon?
• Europe and the Middle East have been plagued by terrorism for decades. What does it mean that after being the victim of only 3 terrorist attacks in 6 years (USS Cole, Oklahoma City, 9/11), America has declared a multibillion-dollar Global War on Terrorism, and is the only country to do so?

Although terrorism is not new, I think that when you combine the 9/11 terrorist attack with America's status as the world's only military superpower, what we have is America's first step into this new world in my novel, that is, one of no state enemies, only internal dissidents, and this raises some interesting questions.

By the way, I have Thomas P.M. Barnett, and his excellent book, The Pentagon's New Map, to thank for what little understanding I do have of the geostrategic implications of 9/11. Actually, he does comment on why the U.S. responds to terrorism with military power rather than law enforcement or other means; it has to do with us stumbling about, trying to find our footing and our way in this new world. To him, 9/11 was no surprise but a profound shift that was decades in the making. A highly recommended work.

Ok, enough spewing for now.

I'm ready to be flamed. Fire away!