Jean-Luc L. Baslé has written a very interesting book, Inverted Democracy in America, which examines the subversion of American democracy from its once noble path to becoming a tool for the billionaire-class and their agendas. We give below an excerpt which describes this unequal struggle between the elite and the people over the distribution of power and wealth. You may also wish to read a review.
Please support the work of Mr. Baslé by buying a copy of this book.
The American Constitution and the Test of Time
American democracy was based on a double balance: between the states and the federal government, on the one hand, and the three branches of government, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary, on the other. It received its first blow during the American Civil War. Once the war was over, the federal state soon began a colonial policy in response to a dual need arising from industrialization: access to natural resources and to new markets. Foreign policy became imperialist after World War II, and hegemonic after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Colonial and imperial policies upset the balance between the states and the federal government. The hegemonic policy broke the equilibrium between the three branches in favor of the executive branch. Overtime, the American democracy has been weakened in an unequal struggle between the elite and the people over the distribution of power and wealth.
A Legendary Birth
According to legend, the first settlers landed on Cape Cod in September 1620 in Massachusetts. They were the Mayflower pilgrims in search of religious freedom. The legend is false. The first settlers landed on the James River in Virginia. They were mostly penniless aristocrats in search of gold. The pilgrims were a minority on the Mayflower, 41 out of 102 passengers. Most passengers, like their Virginian predecessors, were in search of gold. They signed the Mayflower Compact which states there is no class difference in the community which is the basis of the Constitution.
An Exceptional Document
Once the Treaty of Paris was signed in September 1783, the thirteen states had to decide how to live together. Will they remain quasi-independent, as they were under the Articles of Confederation or will they join in a closer union? It quickly became apparent that to face future challenges, both external and internal, a closer association was desirable. Very quickly, the debate focused on the distribution of power between the federal government and the federated states. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were in favor of a strong federal government while limiting its power by dividing it into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial while granting the Senate the power to declare war and ratify international treaties.
It was agreed that the Constitution would be ratified if nine of the thirteen federated states made it the supreme law of the nation, but five states opposed it in the absence of articles guaranteeing fundamental freedoms. Many of George Washington’s soldiers wanted the fundamental freedoms for which they had fought, to be included in the document. They proposed fourteen amendments. James Madison took up his pen again, and wrote the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The first amendment guarantees freedom of expression and assembly. The fourth prohibits the government from seizing persons and property without a search warrant issued on reasonable grounds. The fifth declares that “no person shall be held responsible for a capital or infamous crime, unless indicted or committed for trial… no person shall be compelled to be a witness in any criminal trial, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall any taking in the public interest be possible, without just compensation.” Its clarity, balance, and moderation make the American Constitution an exceptional document, but it is the Bill of Rights that endears it to men and women around the world.
While the Constitution may be regarded as a model, the day-to-day political life is another matter. The two-party system which is viewed as a stability factor, does not meet the citizenry’s wishes: 29% of the voters declared themselves to be Republicans, 27% Democrats, and 38% Independents, which led Michael Douglas to say that the system has been diverted from its initial objective: give the people a voice.
Is the United States still a Democracy?
The balance between the three branches of federal power worked reasonably well during the first hundred and fifty years of the Republic. Things took a turn for the worse after the Second World War, when, under the pressure of events, but also in the name of a presidentialization of the Constitution, the Executive sought to free itself from the grip of Congress. In the early 1950s, Harry Truman sent 38,000 Americans to their deaths in Korea without congressional approval. Kennedy ordered the blockade of Cuba without congressional approval, and Johnson used the Tonkin Gulf Resolution to wage a war in Vietnam that Congress wished to limit. Nixon extended the war in a way that no one had imagined. He bombed Laos and Cambodia without authorization, and allowed the surveillance of opponents of the war on American soil illegally. Previously, Dwight Eisenhower had defined a new concept: “Continuity of Government” whose object was to replace the official government during a nuclear war. This initiative evolved over time. It was formalized under Richard Nixon with a new agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, with broad power allowing it to suspend the constitution and impose martial law, if necessary.
The Media
The media, described as the fourth estate, hardly exercises the power of control and investigation granted by the Constitution. Fifteen billionaires own the largest, most preeminent media, and five major media groups whose capital is owned by corporations or billionaires who control the television channels. An unofficial censorship is creeping up. A report from the House Judiciary Committee revealed that Facebook, Google, and Amazon were pressured by Joe Biden and his government to censor certain information. Mark Zuckerberg, president of Facebook, acknowledged the fact before the committee.
On September 30, 2024, John Kerry made this astonishing statement at the World Economic Forum:
“I think the aversion and anxiety toward certain media outlets just keeps growing and growing and growing, and that’s part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in building consensus on any given issue. It’s really hard to govern today… People are now choosing for themselves where to go for news and information… There is much discussion today about how to curb these information channels (parallel or alternative sites) in order to ensure some responsibility in the exposure of facts, etc. Our First Amendment constitutes a major obstacle to the ability to eradicate these sources of information…”
John Kerry speaks out for the abolition of the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of expression! Thomas Jefferson once wrote to a friend: “If I had to choose between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate for a single moment, I would choose newspapers.”
An inverted Democracy
In 2010, Sheldon Wolin published a book entitled, Democracy Inc., “The United States is the showcase of a democracy that has lost its attributes… An inverted totalitarianism: a political system… which encourages political disengagement… relies on the media to spread propaganda in the service of the government… The president is free to incarcerate a defendant without trial, to punish the use of torture while recalling the sanctity of the law… and while deceiving the cause of democracy in the world…” Sheldon Wolin writes. The United States is an inverted democracy in the hands of plutocrats and oligarchs which is self-destructing in its hegemonic illusion. The problem, says Alastair Crooke, is that not only the elite “clings to an ideology that is the opposite of how ordinary people perceive the world”, it also adheres to “a technocratic conception of politics… fundamentally nihilistic and devoid of moral considerations.”
