This new Executive Order (E.O.) issued on March 16th (ironically the birth-date of the father of our Constitution) is frightening and is yet another reminder that the America of today is not the America I knew. I do not agree with the ‘Anonymous’ message insofar as I did not read an explicit element of compulsion in the E.O. in forcing people to work for the government (unless Selective Service were expanded to include the National Defense Executive Reserve).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs1ZIMovelY&sns=fb
Nevertheless, the broad authorities given could conceivably (and applying little imagination) lead to that. What concerns me is that these authorities are appropriated by a supposedly peacetime government and not during a formally declared state of war. Instead these powers are placed in the Presidency in anticipation of some future yet undefined 'national emergency'. On a pragmatic level, there is a telling difference between this E.O. and the National Defense Authorization Act (N.D.A.A.), which allowed for interning U.S. citizens as potential terrorists without explicit recourse to due-process.
In the N.D.A.A., President Obama signed a repugnant bill out of the necessityof supporting our younger brothers and sisters in uniform serving in nasty places, with the verbal proviso that he would not enforce the provisions so contrary to our national mission as a republic. This E.O., however, was drafted under the authority of, and issued by, President Obama himself.
Being the bored crank that I am, I have read the language of this E.O. thoughtfully. By not drilling down into referenced documents, I may be missing context here. In trying to fathom how such a usurpation of power by a fine man and liberally predisposed President, I came up with four guesses to which I assigned entirely subjective percentage probabilities to identify relative possibilities, writhing in my mind only.
- President Obama signed this order under threat to his life, limb or loved ones (1%).
- President Obama signed this order under influence; i.e., he was bamboozled (2%).
- The United States is, or will soon be, in a state of war (30%). Finally,
- This E.O. is an indirect justification for a massive intervention into the economy similar to the New Deal or the economy during World War II (67%).
The first two possibilities are largely theoretical since I do not subscribe to conspiracies nor do I sense that the President is either stupid or weak-willed. On the one hand, too many people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy for it not to migrate into the public discourse. On the other, President Obama survived Chicago politics and has demonstrated an ability to say or do something that is unpopular.
For the third possibility, this E.O. reads more like a war mobilization order to implement a Congressional resolution declaring a state of war. Since, Afghanistan is the only military conflict in which the U.S. is currently involved, and one that hardly poses an existential threat, a reasonably bored crank would infer that this mobilization order pertains to an imminent state of war (likely not to be declared as it should be), perhaps with Iran, North Korea or Syria, none of which appear to be existential threats. Of course the anti-nation of Pakistan, with its low-hanging nuke-fruit dangling in front of IslaMaoists, is the wayward wild-card on our existential radar.
The only two conceivable existential adversaries are Russia and China. Yet, while one power has been aggressive in trying to recapture or at least reintegrate old fiefdoms, Russi'a aggressiveness may be limitless but her ambitions limited. The U.S. and Europe are dealing with that threat. The other power, Red China, appears to be on an inexorable rise to the top, set to overtake the U.S. economically in the next few years. Yet China’s policies have been less overtly aggressive; the threat from the People’s Republic is more towards intellectual property and cyber-security, both material but not enough to warrant this E.O.
Finally, the last alternative appears the most likely. If so, I suspect that President Obama has lost patience with, and faith in, the market system for allocating resources efficiently (patience) and effectively (faith). The Secretary of the Navy testified last week that the military will continue to buy massive amounts of bio jet-fuels, though they cost seven times the cost of fossil fuels and that doing so will create the pathway to a sustainable market eventually.
This sounds like command economics to me. At the very least, this sounds like the activist economic planning of France in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. What did all of that technocratic meddling actually accomplish? You make the call. On the side of irony (if not history) arises the question of wondering if the Pentagon is taking a page right out of the playbook of the People’s Army in spearheading social change.
This program of ‘contemplating our naval’ is continuing because, potential adversaries hold a lot of the oil we consume. That sobering fact has been true for a long time and yells out loud for building the Keystone pipeline and, if necessary, figuring out how to satisfy legitimate environmental needs. The Pickens plan for a reasonably paced switch-over to natural gas over time, with gradual maturation into economically viable bio-fuels in a generation’s time makes more sense than this “moral equivalent of war”.
The last alternative makes sense also because of the implied ability of the President to support trade unionism, which I support – but through transparent appeal of the unions to the work-force without coercion (i.e., right-to-work). Indeed, about 20-25% of the work-force needs to be unionized to keep corporations honest. Corruption, not capitalism, wrecked the trade unions. The E.O. also spells out a preference from small businesses, the traditional engine of job creation.
Laudable as all the goals are of what I view as the most likely alternative, they undercut the good side of capitalism and they erode people’s civil liberties in favor of a paternalist corporativism. Now President Obama seems like a decent man with high character; I mean that sincerely. What if we are not so fortunate with future presidents?
