May 29, 2007
Kamloops Daily News


The prime minister of Canada has more power over government
than the president of the United States but that is
changing.

The president may be the Commander in Chief of the armed
forces but he can only nominate high-ranking government
positions; the Congress must finally approve them.

In comparison, the prime minister can single-handedly
appoint Senators, Supreme Court justices and other federal
justices, all members of the Cabinet, the entire board of
the Bank of Canada, the heads of the military, the RCMP, and
heads of crown corporations such as CBC.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to prevent the president
from having too much power. The authors of the U.S.
Constitution created government so that power was shared by
a system of checks and balances.

To the dismay of some Americans, that balance of power has
recently shifted towards the president. The bedrock of
democracy has been eroded primarily because of the
president's power to declare a state of war or national
emergency.

In peaceful times the president is just one of the players
in government but in times of war or national emergency the
president can be given broader powers to manage the national
economy and protect the security of the United States.
Congress has been increasingly willing to grant those
additional powers.

Chalmers Johnson is one of those Americans who are alarmed
by the growth of presidential powers.

"The people, the press, and the military, too, seem anxious
to cede power to a 'wartime' president, leaving Bush, or
those who follow him, almost entirely unobstructed in
pursuing the imperial project," worries Johnson, former
consultant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and author
of The Sorrows of Empire.

The grab for presidential power has been assisted by the
U.S. economy which is geared to manufacturing weapons. The
arms industry is an integral part of the American way of
life and a distortion of the theories of John Maynard
Keynes.

Keynes was a liberal capitalist who proposed a form of
governance that would smooth the boom and bust cycles
inherent in capitalist economies. During recessions, the
government would initiate projects that get people back to
work. This would ensure that workers and their families
were sustained through hard times.

Keynesian policies helped prime the pump of failing
economies through public works: roads, bridges, dams and
flood control, power generation plants, and through social
programs; minimum wages, unemployment insurance, health
insurance, government pensions and old age security.

Of course, this shift of control was seen as a threat to the
capitalist class. The conservative ruling class resented
the use of their tax dollars for government spending. In
their opinion, spending on public works represented a shift
of power to the working class and to unions. This upset the
natural order of things in which the ruling class holds
power because of their innate superiority. Also, they
worried that a well-fed, fairly-paid workforce would not be
as compliant.

The onset of World War II expanded Keynesian policies to
include the publicly funded manufacture of armaments.
Military industrialism was heralded by economists as the
"German economic miracle." World capitalists suddenly
became true believers in the teachings of Keynes when they
saw Hitler's successful arms industry. German
industrialists may have disapproved of public projects for
peaceful purposes but they could whole-heartedly support the
growth of the government-sponsored arms industry. After
all, they would be the chief beneficiaries of those
projects.

German industrialists could even overlook Hitler's
destabilizing expansionist policies when government spending
for military made them all very wealthy. This new system is
called "military Keynesianism."

The German model was imported to the United States. Former
President Eisenhower noticed the shift with some alarm.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience. Yet
we must not fail to comprehend its grave consequences."

The growth of presidential power and military Keynesianism
feed on each other. "This creates a feedback loop: American
presidents know that military Keynesianism tends to
concentrate power in the executive branch, and so presidents
who seek greater power have a natural inducement to
encourage further growth in the military-industrial
complex," says Johnson.

Prime Minister Harper's commitment to increased military
spending by Canada is troubling. Does he want to increase
his already substantial hold on government? Does Harper
want more Canadians employed in weapons manufacture at the
expense of public works?
 

David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca

go back to my Columns in the