By John Chuckman
Ralph Nader has defined aperfect moral dilemma for thinking Americans.
He finds himself in a situationresembling that of Dr. Stockmann in Ibsen's drama, "An Enemy of thePeople." Dr. Stockmann discovered the municipal baths werecontaminated, but good burghers worried about the destructive effectsof the truth on the town did not want the doctor revealing it.
A number of America's good burghers, fearing theeffect of Nader's candidacy on the Democratic candidate's prospects,have warned him against running for office, some are reported to havestopped supporting the many worthy public-service organizations hefounded, and some are writing nasty little pieces calling himnames.
The Democrats are, of course, part of what Naderis concerned about. Quite apart from the oily-establishment andwar-friendly Kerry, the Democratic party itself has come to stand forvery little. You might call it America's parlor-polite alternative tothe selfish stench of the Republicans. Putting up Kerry to replaceBush is like putting up Rutherford B. Hayes to replace CalvinCoolidge. It may be possible for Kerry to win, but, really, whatdifference to anything would his victory make? Bullwinkle the moosemiming John Kennedy at the next State of the Union.
Nader sees the fundamental problems of Americansociety as few other national figures do. His focus is different thanmy own, being, naturally enough, more concerned about domesticresults than international ones. Still, these things arerelated.
Nader is not likely to win, and, if he weresomehow able to win, he would quickly find himself up against themost entrenched, retrogressive legislative system in the advancedworld. Still, he represents some hope for the birth of a new dynamicin American politics, something important to Americans and to theworld.
Nader's focus is on"corporatism" having taken over civil institutions in America. Thisis true. Americans are no longer citizens, they areconsumers--language adopted even by their politicians. The reason forthis is simple: Americais well along with building a set of monster corporations intent onsupplying most of the world's goods and services. The corporationsmust be monstrously big to achieve this, because it is througheconomies of scale that they can undercut the costs of companies inother nations.Companies that dominatemarkets for nearly three-hundred million Americans are in a positionto muscle out the companies in most other countries. Size is alsoimportant as a means of gaining concessions from governments,including as it turns out, their own.
The growth of American monster-corporations doesnot threaten only international harmony, it rapidly is changingAmerican domestic life.
These corporations adopt bizarre, almost anonymousidentities. Many of them have had their names reduced to sets ofthree letters exhibiting little connection with their originalbusiness or birthplace, but they go well beyond this symbolism.
The relationships these corporations have withthose to whom they market can perhaps best be compared to therelationships you have with the people who send spam to yourcomputer. You can place an order from the spam you receive, but youcan't respond otherwise, and the mechanism for deleting your e-mailaddress often is extremely slow or defective.
The corporate marketers reach you when they pleasethrough direct mail or calling centers, and they have a lot ofpersonal information about you (much of it obtained from localgovernments without your permission) on their computers enabling themefficiently to hunt you down for their schemes. You may have noticedthe marketing letters you receive often have no return postaladdress, only a toll-free telephone number that reaches a boiler-roomorder-taker unable to deal with any other matter.
These particulars are small points, but theysuggest a sinister character. The scale of a thing always changes itsvery nature. A small cyclonic wind, a dust devil, moving harmlesslyacross a patch of earth shares fundamental structural characteristicswith a tornado, but what a difference the difference in size makes.
Bear with me if you think my next statement agreat exaggeration, butGeorge Orwell's fictitiousworld of 1984 seems to me no more sinister than what is graduallyemerging in America. What Orwellemphasized about human freedom was conditioned by his living througha period when various forms of totalitarian government darkenedEurope, but there are subtler methods of control than jack-bootedtyranny. The continued advance of technology will assure a bountifulchoice of tools to the corporations which invest in them, own them,and are best placed to fully exploit them.
America is becoming a societywhere huge, almost anonymous, corporations own virtually every scrapof your personal information and own patents on many aspects of thenatural world around you, perhaps even on some of the genes of yourbody or those of your neighbors. Theirmanufacturing and other needs effectively control the quality of theair you breathe and the water you drink. Their adventures abroadinfluence whether your son or daughter is sent to war, although I amsure this will one day be limited by automated killing machines whichwill be so much more dependable than soldiers, cause less stress overinterventions on the home front, and cost far less than maintainingall those pesky military dependents and pensions over the long term.
So perfect will be their marketing information,the companies' computers will know exactly the extent to which youare even worth bothering about in each and every aspect of theiroperations. There will be a large pool of people not worth botheringabout, the American losers in the globalization race for ever cheaperor more capable substitutes in every aspect of manufacturing,marketing, and distributing. This pool already is being created, butit likely will become much larger. For example, when those Pentagonkilling machines are perfected, the armed forces will cease providingthe jobs they have for millions of young people with marginalskills.
The emerging social structureof the United States very much resembles that of1984. There are the owners and seniormanagers of the vast corporations. Their positions and privileges arein every respect comparable to Oceania's eliteInnerParty. Then there is a large pool ofeducated, middle-class people, the types who stay at the officetwelve hours a day to complete a project and have the benefit of acorporate gym. They are sometimes exposed to very sensitive material,but there is a well-developed ethic and some severe penalties forever revealing any of it. They are Orwell'sOuterParty. Finally, there is the large andgrowing pool of unskilled workers whose prospects become increasinglydim. The "end of welfare as we know it" may well have reflectedexpected growth prospects for this group rather than simply politicaldiscontent. Orwell calls them theProles.
America's Proles have virtually no role inpolitics. They have no money and no influence. They generally do notvote, a fact which may reflect inertia more than anything else, butit is also true that many local practices, as we saw from the waypolls were run in Florida, positively discourage their votes.Ex-convicts, and this is a huge group in America, for example cannotvote. The Outer Party provides voters and campaign workers. The InnerParty endows acceptable candidates with small fortunes to assuretheir prospects.
This structure is self-reinforcing and explainsmany domestic policies and practices. One example suffices. Americais the only advanced nation not to have some form of national healthinsurance. Why? Because the existingemployer-pays-for-private-insurance system suits the political andeconomic structure so well. Inner Party members and seniorpoliticians receive the very best of everything possible, oftenhaving their own elite hospitals. All the Outer Party members receivegood, and often excellent, insurance from their employers. This keepsthe politically active group satisfied about healthcare.
Indeed, it is only when benefits start droppingaround the fringes of the Outer Party, as during economic setbacks,that healthcare becomes a national political issue. The Proles areuninsured or so poorly insured at meager jobs that they may as wellbe uninsured.
There is no way to forecast a clear picture ofwhere these trends lead, but the prospects are discouraging to saythe least. Powerful private companies possessing information andresources and working hand-in-hand with government to achieve theirgoals are capable of doing anything not specifically regulated orforbidden. The revolution in technology is quickly changing even whatis or is not a crime or abuse, but with government as a full andintimate partner, what impulse is there for new regulation and lawslimiting corporations?
Ordinary Americans have completely embraced theidea that whatever is good or necessary for large corporations issomehow good for them. This may have been true in 1949, but it iscertainly not true now. Americans are remarkably passive abouteverything from steaming toxic dumps left behind by closed factoriesto bloody interventions abroad.
Corporations already have a tight grip on nationalpolitics, but their ability to influence--with personal connections,information, financial resources, and the discretion to shiftinvestments--increases disproportionately as they grow and absorb allformer competitors. Corporations are, of course, the training groundsfor the many lawyers inhabiting Congress, and they providecomfortable repositories for retired politicians who retaininfluence.
Waris very much areflection of this influence ongovernment, as youwould expect when these companies are engaged in aggressive globalcampaigns, when they enjoysupplying thebottomless-pit needs of the DefenseDepartment, and whenthey are involved in theunbelievably-profitablerebuilding of distant places overrun by themilitary. It is truethat stock markets don't like big wars, but what Americans havelearned since Vietnam is that stock markets don't so much mind quick,dirty little wars that come mixed with new opportunities for profit.
The huge number of colonial wars the United Stateshas fought since the end of the Second World War demonstrates thisconclusively. The name, Defense Department, is outmoded. Not one warin which the U.S. has engaged since 1945 has involved defense, unlessyou are speaking of the defense of America's corporate interestsabroad.
Nader a political risk? If there is any chance ofsparking a new political movement that could even moderately alterAmerica's course, isn't it worth some political risk? If not, whatis?