Who said this?

 

Who said the following -   President Trump,  a friend of President Trump or  an opponent of President Trump ?

Our government has been for the past few years under the control of the heads of great allied corporations with special interests. It has not controlled these interests and assigned them their  proper place in the whole system of business; it has submitted  itself to their control. As a result there have grown up vicious systems and schemes of governmental favouritism  far reaching in effect upon the whole fabric of life, touching every inhabitant of the land , laying unfair and impossible handicaps upon competitors, imposing taxes in every direction, stifling everywhere the free spirit of American enterprise.

This tyranny, this  control of the law, of legislation and adjudication by organisations which do not represent the people, by means which are private and selfish, specifically the conduct of our affairs and the shaping of our legislation in the interest of special bodies of capital and those who organise their use --  this  alliance  of political machines with selfish business to do is exploitation of the people by legal and political means.

We have seen many of our governments under these influences cease to be representative governments, cease to be governments representative of the people, and become governments representative of special interests controlled by machines which in their turn are not controlled by the people. The gentlemen whose ideas have been sought are the big manufacturers, bankers and heads of the great railroad companies. The masters of the government of the United States are the combined manufacturers and capitalists of the United States...........................

It was not a friend or opponent of President Trump but a President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson, who was saying such things  a few years before the financial collapse that climaxed in 1929 and brought the United States commercial civilisation to its knees and frightened the whole world of business and politics.

Now President Trump is promising America prosperity by reducing curbs on capital, bringing industrialists even closer  to the centre of government, making  companies that have fled to foreign countries come back home where eventually they may  bring their lower pay regimes with them, thus facing the possibility of American companies being overtaken by cheaper economies abroad  or producing cheaply at home goods the world is willing or able  to buy now from abroad  - while their  customers in the USA  will pay taxes for imported goods that may get in, meanwhile  strengthening the military in America and Europe so as to make America great again, with industrialists and bankers still as powerful as before but, in theory anyway, more under Presidential control.

US personal Presidential power is being built up through arguments  with those already powerful  in America (while there is still time for it), with  the press, the spying services, vulnerable industrialists, and by contradicting policies which have helped political parties to flourish until they think they cannot do without them, enmity towards Russia for example. Opposition to  Russia  has been  fostered in Europe and America  since WW2  and  governmental policies, military, economic, and European union policies, have been  built on it. Maybe President Trump hopes to  create stability - not peace, but stability - by agreement and manoevering within the United States rather than by military threat abroad.

But the Presidential determination  to build up the military --  does it mean that if he doesn't  need  the military  for foreign wars, it may be  needed  for service on,  as it were,  the Home Front?

Surely not for that kind of Homeland security !

The ideas of  Woodrow Wilson at the start of this blog were quoted  in 1920 to a New York State law court by the Irish trades union organiser James Larkin - who died 70 years ago this year - possibly  Larkin knew more about the realities of American government than the court  knew - or wanted to know.

Russia with Love?

President Donald Trump has caused anger by  suggesting that the USA should have a friendly relationship with Russia. We Oldies  know one important reason why.

We remember 1952. By that year, a mere few years after what we thought was the end of World War Two, the USA , Britain, France and allies had made a plan for Germany:

It was to  re-finance Germany whom they just defeated , re- arm it and make it  into  the financially and militarily strongest nation in a new European Union . As quickly as possible - "No time to lose", said Winston Churchill. And this new Germany would be the strongest unit in the heart of a European bulwark against Russia.  It  would be paid for by, among others, the USA paying "aid", for example Marshall Aid,  and Germans paying  reparations which would take many years  to pay off.

This  plan of the Allies was conceived  only months after  a disastrous war - perhaps even during it -  in which Russia had been  described by Churchill as "our gallant ally " and millions of their people had been killed and made homeless  winning it.  Most people in Europe  were trying to survive day by day and there was little public concern  about  the  Allies' plan in 1952.  

Before,  and perhaps during, the war  Adolf Hitler wanted a treaty with England. He made his intentions clear in his autobiography Mein Kampf, not a treaty with Italy, certainly not  one with France but with England.  Russia was his greatest international  enemy and such a treaty would be a help.   The  Russian communist system made Russia a  target for many other  interests  in  the world as well . After Hitler tried in vain to get a treaty with London or to defeat Russia  the Allies opened their  'second Front' ;  Russian troops drove westwards  and the Allies stopped them  from getting too far west.

The plan to re-finance and re-arm Germany took shape. By the early 1950s it was in good shape  but instead of a shooting war there was a Cold War against Russia. From that time until now Russia has been treated  by  "Western" governments  as an enemy  even when communism ceased to be  a power in their land.

NATO was set up "to defend the free world" ,  spending on nuclear and other arms  races increased . Although this planning for what led eventually to our European Union was not clear to  our troubled world at the time when we  believed we had more important things to think about, some people did notice and did think and did write about it. One was Stephen King-Hall, one time commander in the British Navy, sometime Labour or Independent Labour MP, commentator on international affairs, writer of plays and children's books.

We Oldies remember him well, not personally of course but through his writing and broadcasting. In the January 10th 1952 edition of his  National Newsletter, while the  post WW2 planning and plotting was going  on he wrote about what had  happened after the war "ended"  :  

" The months went by and the Western politicians had finally to admit that Western rearmament without Germany was almost a  joke. The  American General Staff had emphasised this from an early date.  Chancellor Adenauer, both on moral and political grounds decided to throw in Germany's lot with the West and to some extent overcame the ohne mich ( 'count me out ') mentality in Germany. Pleven and Schuman in France, opposed by the communists and de Gaullists, cooked up the idea of a European Army as a device to make it easier for French public opinion to swallow the spectacle of Germans in uniform. . ..... Mr Churchill called for this Army in a passionate speech at Strasbourg...."

The European Army did not materialise. What we  got instead though was integration of European armies through training, similar weaponry and other devices. And of course a European Union. And of course a strong Germany leading some bits of the Union to power and wealth.

Difficulties  therefore arise from  Mr Trump's present attitude to Russia . Without Russia as an enemy NATO is in  danger of reduction or disappearance; the arms industries which  play so large a part in the USA and other economies  could be seriously  reduced and the foreign policies of the USA and other countries  could become a shambles. Without an enemy economies like these tend to  collapse.

However,not to worry,  in the meantime new enemies are being  found, Middle East countries,  China, Mexico.......   President Obama's  cultivation of The Middle East as Enemy doctrine proved  disastrous though and  may have to be discarded.

There is of course the building up , by Mr Trump and others, of a literally deadly fear of Islam.  Is that   Mr Trump's  substitute  for Russia as a stimulus to good government?  Is  all that  post WW2 planning  and manipulation   going to go to waste then ?  If so,  it is no wonder the European Union is also annoyed at Mr Trump's  nice attitude to Russia. 

Torture - Again?

The Washington government not only admits torturing prisoners, it praises itself for it.

After the Second World War we Oldies thought we had won some victories for human reason. We thought public opinion was veering away from torturing helpless prisoners.  At that time you could easily mention between sixty and eighty countries in which torture was a normal means of trying to get information.  But we thought  most  governments were becoming ashamed to admit it.  That,  we thought,  was some little progress.  Now we see we were optimistically wrong.

There was plenty of propaganda in favour of torture in our day,  mostly from America.  Torture by physical abuse and  torture by water were legal for so long  in the United States,  appalling death by electrocution was legal and  frequent.  These tortures and giving a prisoner "the Third Degree",  that is,  torturing him or her,  was not only done but was part of the normal narrative  of normal American crime films in normal cinemas where we used to go for our delights.  Torture in American society was normal and known about  by people all over the world who learned about the cruel and inhumane electric chair and the water torture and the Third Degree from people paid to entertain us with those mirrors  of American society.   

What is surprising then is not that any Washington government  favours torture,  or even praises itself for  doing it,  but that people anywhere are surprised at it.  

Whatever the differences may be between  churches and other ethical bodies  they have been, as far as declarations against torture are concerned,  at one in condemning it.  They know as well as anyone  that torture is used with particular malignancy against people who are struggling against or even appear to be struggling against injustice and denial of human and civil rights.  Yet they still,  it seems, have to embrace heads of state who have torture as part of their programme.  So Christians and other ethical bodies  will  have to calculate now what it is going to  cost them if they  refuse to meet or  favour or deal with pro-torture politicians.   Will they be too afraid  of them to refuse them their cloak of respectability?

In the nineteen fifties the French government used torture in its war against the Algerians - but there was a startling sequel  that time.  Two  French   army Generals  Massu and Bollardiere later engaged in a fierce public dispute for and against it.  That dispute awakened many consciences in France and  other parts of the world.   Nothing with  the same significance  occurred in Britain  or the USA, both torturing countries.

Some  universities  are  helping the cause of sophisticated torture.  Universities which  rely  less on their prowess in teaching and intellectual debate and more on money paid by corporations to do research for them are researching just how far human endurance can go without visible and permanent evidence showing  on human body and mind  and,  less important to some governments, how far human endurance can go without publicly damaging  intellect or body so  obviously  as to  disgrace  governments who do it.   A notable help for  vicious governments by institutions  who betray their more honourable colleagues  upon whom we rely to promote  and not hinder the intellectual  evolution  of the human race!

One would like to think that in  high places,  in cabinet rooms,  in church headquarters,  places where decisions  are made about  whether to meet and honour  government leaders who favour  torture the answer will be No.  The great No of responsible people  is a great hope.  A great fear though  is that it may not even be discussed.  They may talk about  our special relationship,  about  our many jobs,  about   international trade,  about   the bottom line.  We can understand their problem:  If you defy the  Emperors the Emperors may close your worship and counting houses and even forbid your Faithful to migrate;  that after all is what ghettos are for and it has happened before.

This is not a bland world we live in.  And reality is not bland.  

So will Morality have  the  courage to  say , "Well, let them. We outlived the Borgias didn't we?".