The government which is, and the one which only appears to be...

Hi ATS,

First thread in this forum, not really a huge follower of American politics, being a Brit, but this caught my eye this afternoon. I spotted the following story in a linked article I followed from Facebook (I don't use it much, but I have an activist friend who posts a lot of interesting stories, so I tend to enjoy those). It's about the author of a new book, and the subject of the book, which is the 'government behind the government' - which many of us have long suspected (known) to exist. This was interesting to me as it's not really being done from a conspiracy angle - it's more a matter of observing the 'autopilot bureacracy', the machinations of the US gov which are largely unaccountable, no oversights, no checks & balances, implementing & enforcing policy almost by the sheer weight of the momentum generated by a heavily national security-oriented political apparatik over the past fifteen years (or more).

Here's the link:

Boston Globe - the Secret Government

Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.

The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.

Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy

Interesting book by the look of things - the author's name is Michael J. Glennon, he's a Tufts University political scientist. So this guy is pretty much mainstream - the article explains that he's a full-on 'insider', and apparently a number of ranking officials have voiced support for his theory..

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department.

Strikes me that this sort of work could well change the conversation, in terms of what Americans can expect from their elected officials - more insiders need to come out & voice their affirmations of Mr Glennon's assessment, and then perhaps the American people can then go about unravelling & neutering the more dangerous elements within the bureaucratic machinery of the nation.

Discuss & enjoy! I look forward to hearing about your views on the matter...


FITO.

the machinations of the US gov which are largely unaccountable, no oversights, no checks & balances, implementing & enforcing policy almost by the sheer weight of the momentum generated by a heavily national security-oriented political apparatus over the past fifteen years (or more).

Its 'more'. Way more.

The corporate oligarchs own the media and pay off the politicians who pass the legislation to guarantee payment of, by and for the peoples tax to pay the interest on the borrowed money from industrial banks that grease the wheels of arms factories which produce the weapons the militaries are only to happy to employ.

Now, get to work, earn, consume.

Its a bit like saying that the big arm and the little arm and the second indicator are the main factors of the clock, in a way they are but they are not what makes it tick in that particular way. The face value of things and the covers of books. a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Well if you find that mainstream just listen to this guy.

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
January 17 1961


He warned of the very creation of that shadow government.

K~

a reply to: aethertek

It's amazing that it's taken so long to get someone within the very inner workings of the government to come out in support of the actualisation of the theory which was put forward so long ago, by such a well-placed individual.

I wonder whether we will start to see the first glimmers of dawn following the revelations of this rather mainstream book, with more & more insiders coming forward with testimony regarding the hidden 'big beast' of government - which everyone has been feeding for decades, and which has now grown totally out of control... (or should that be 'into control'..?)

Is it too late to stop the workings of the hidden government? And how do we feel that either Hillary or Trump will respond to the situation? I get the feeling Trump might like to flex his bravado and try to deal with some of it, whereas Hillary would just keep on feeding it. But I'm no expert, just a bystander.

Even attacking this beast head-on would probably have little effect, unless a large movement developed in mainstream political science calling for its head.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

You are preaching to the choir, but we have heard it too many times.

The Lobbyists are sweet talking politicians and now they are in quid a pro quo situation and these shifty lobbyists know (or always knew) that they would get their way like the spoiled brats they are and always have been.

When did 'by the people for the people' become 'take the money and run?'

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

The book you speak of is not the first time this has been brought forward.
Web search "The MIC" or "Shadow Government", be forewarned, filter the results with common sense as there's a lot of cray cray out there.

Check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Disaster Capitalism

Eh those will get you started.

Always "Follow the Money"
K~

Well you don't need a "secret" book to come out to prove the mechanics behind governments and I mean all governments. You being a Brit should know this though it's played down by the media. Have you ever seen the comedy "Yes Minister" then you would have had a glimpse at the government behind the government.
Yes, yes they make a joke about them but the power remains and will always remain with the unelected people behind the throne. They're called civil servants.
The incoming politicians rely on them and the power they wield is phenomenal. Not the power to openly affect policy but a word here or a word there makes the world of difference. The killer blow is there is no-one that oversees them.
They like to tell you that the politicians control them but it's the other way round as without these faceless pen pushers government would grind to a halt.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: aethertek
Is it too late to stop the workings of the hidden government? And how do we feel that either Hillary or Trump will respond to the situation? I get the feeling Trump might like to flex his bravado and try to deal with some of it, whereas Hillary would just keep on feeding it. But I'm no expert, just a bystander.

Even attacking this beast head-on would probably have little effect, unless a large movement developed in mainstream political science calling for its head.

Hillary already knows about, and works with, that beast. She has since Bill was in office. Her insider information is why her private/classified speeches to the banksters are worth so much.
that beast is the hand that feeds her- and she will do what she can to give it more of what it hungers for.

Trump hasn't ever worked with it- and might fight it, but in the end he'd wind up subservient to it, doing its will. Just like all the rest of us do.
Once the money stops working, it will be a scared, desperate, and very well armed beast.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

the thing about secrets is they dont tell you they are secrets.. For someoine to come out they have to have pieced things together in their own minds..

like ever got hired for a company for this thing, that contracts with another company that contracts with DHS.. You can think you are doing this thing for this purpose it makes sense, but 4 months down the line you start piecing it together... Oh I was tracing this data for a different reason than I thought..



Like this article about the CIA.

Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

To pursue its underground interest in America's lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn't be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn't have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA.

so even if you're not in the government you might be working for the secret government..

notice they have these people at 3 times removed..
I was twice removed from DHS..
thats how you don't know what is you are doing and so you can't come out about it becase you literally don't know about it.

anyway I gotta run..