Trust Husbandry

On December 7, 1941, Japan awoke a sleeping giant. That giant awoke in a rage, fought a two front war, and secured its place in the world as the most powerful, most sustainable entity in existence. Unfortunately, that same giant remained angry throughout the cold war and grew scared and paranoid as the decades marched by. In 1989 the giant finally conquered its major rival and had an amazing opportunity to return to its original purpose, the betterment of all humanity. The giant is of course the United States, and it squandered that unique opportunity succinctly. The United States suffered from the absence of Napoleon’s Glance, and continued on its path as usual. At that moment in time, that singular point in history, the greatest nation on earth had a chance to display its greatness and lead the world into an epoch of prosperity, but it failed.

Mistrust was bred throughout the Cold War and old wounds created by actions during that period finally had the possibility of being mended. Once powerful states and great adversaries were ready to repair relations, economies, and move the world forward with a promise of future harmony. Instead, however, short term policies created to fight and win the Cold War perpetuated. Instead of converting efforts toward generating good will for the United States from the world, or investing in domestic growth and production, the US opted for continued military actions and consistent military spending. From the perspective of the world, the great and angry giant maintained its paranoia and became a bully instead of a partner.

Late in the 1990's, Bill Clinton tried to change the world’s perception of the United States by reducing defense spending, creating a fiscal surplus, and attempting to return to a policy of domestic development over world dominance. George W. Bush even ran a campaign in 2000 with a similar promise and the hope of becoming a president focused on education and domestic development. The change came too late; the damage had already been done. The stage for a new era of fear and military investment was already set and George W. Bush was destined to become a wartime president. The short-term policies designed to fight the Cold War came back to haunt the country when on September 11th, 2001, terror shook the country to its core.

The American people demanded action, and shortly after those attacks the United States began the first of two wars overseas. The cost of those wars, when all costs are factored in, are estimated to be between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. For the next few weeks Modern Sense will explore alternative reactions to that war spending and the effects of those alternatives. Modern Sense will explore the new mistrust created by US reactions to those attacks and what could have been a better way forward from that terrible day. Certainly Americans deserve to be safe from terror, domestic and foreign, but how successful can any action be when authorities are attempting to protect citizens from the actions of madmen or enemies they themselves have inspired?

One definition of lunacy is extreme folly or eccentricity. Lunatics are unpredictable by nature and measured safety from them is random at best. The actions of organized enemies, however, is calculated and reasoned. If the statements above are true, then there are only two options to consider — both of which lead to the same conclusion.

1. Attacks are completed by madmen and protection from them is successful only randomly.
2. Attacks are completed by organized enemies who dislike or hate the United States because of US policy abroad, the signals the US sends to the world, and its prioritization of military spending over other productive investments has driven increased mistrust.

If the conclusion is number one above, then expanded defense spending will be fruitless and inefficient at the expense of other, more productive investment. If the conclusion is number two above, then expanded defense spending will create new enemies, inspire enlistment into groups fighting against the United States, and — counter to conventional wisdom — increase risk to Americans instead of improving their safety.

There are many alternatives to the huge levels of defense spending the United States has adopted, and some will even generate more friends than enemies — thus generating safety for Americans. Perhaps the Department of Homeland Security can point to many thwarted attacks since its creation, but what if those attacks could have been stopped with actions of good-will instead of bullets, tanks, missiles, and American soldiers’ lives? The question is whether those who would organize and attack the United States would do so if they had reasons to like the country, trust US intentions, and could potentially consider them a friend instead of an enemy.

Would you like updates on what I’m writing, reading, learning, or doing? Follow me on Twitter, @memarf1, and like me on Facebook, www.Facebook.com/ProfessorMarkFlowers.

Mark Flowers is the author of, “Modern Sense and Economics,” a bi-weekly blog on current events and economics. He also recently released his first major book, “Three Handed Economist: Interior Solutions in an Ideologically Cornered World.” — Click here to order the book now.