For those who remembered the times of the collapse of the USSR, the “brezhnievism” was clearly associated with the failure of the sterilism of the largest land empire.
No 1 had doubts that the dementia of the elders ruling successively in the Kremlin – Leonida Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, Konstantina Czernienka – was 1 of the crucial factors for the degeneration of the russian state.
This phenomenon was called gerontocracy. Regress and political leadership resulted in incorrect decisions or deficiency of them, and in the eyes of the planet opinion a deterioration of the image and degradation of the position of power. What should we call the analogous phenomenon that has affected another major powers, for at least a fewer decades, which has attributed itself to a unique and acting function in global relations? possibly the “strategic culture” of the West, based on camouflage and hypocrisy, forbids it to be called “baydenism”, but it is not possible to escape the nonsubjective fact of failure of intellectual and physical fitness at the head of the American administration of a senile gerontocrat.
By the time of Biden-Trump's first tv debate, any message about the Western leader's "falling" into infirmity was treated as inexcusable and malicious attacks, inspired by enemies, headed by Putin. Suddenly, the members of the politician camp themselves had a revelation. Intoxicated by the fatal reception of their candidate, they make fast overestimation, seeing the surge of the electorate towards the opponent after the polls. The disaster on the horizon is becoming clearer.
The question is, first of all, why has America reached specified an unfortunate utmost that among many candidates for managerial positions, proven in terms of competence in national and state offices, which besides meet age and fitness conditions, it is not able to choice leaders to meet the needs of its leadership, and so besides to bind the full West? Why, on both sides of political divisions, is there specified a strong dependence on characters that have long been politically fulfilled, with no chance of creating anything, apart from creating confusion and ruining their image?
The first answer stems from the processes of concentrating power in the hands of an increasingly closed group, called oligarchy. Basing the recruitment of ruling elites on the hermetic unions and plutacratic links has led to complete degeneration of democratic mechanisms. Simple people are constantly subject to illusions and myths about opportunities for promotion, open to all citizen of America. However, this country has been highly anti-democratic since its early 18th century. This is confirmed by the past of slavery, racial segregation, and racism, as well as any of the world's largest disparities in the division of social wealth.
The second answer is that political leaders are actually just pawns on chessboard, modeled from hiding by the oligarchic circles of power, centered in the hand of a large financier, business, troops and peculiar services. It is convenient for them to dominate the state erstwhile the head of all the offices is 1 who is uninitiated and outside. This phenomenon is called “deep state”, which in America itself has become the subject of many political analyses. In Poland, it is inactive a taboo subject, as is the practice of political lobbying by various forces without public control.
Politicians on a leash
The creation of political leaders in the top power is simply a derivative of the imperiality of servitude vis-à-vis tremendous capital and the most powerful arms manufacture and army. Republican candidate and erstwhile president Donald Trump, which proclaims anti-establishment slogans and allegedly seeks to disassemble these dependencies, in fact it is only a variation of the same phenomenon of state ownership.
Looking at the concentration of power in the hands of degenerate elites requires taking into account mechanisms for the spread of individual and group rationality in the decision-making circles of the state, which he paid large attention to in his work "Logic of Collective Action" (Warsaw 2012) 1 of the outstanding American researchers Mancur Olson.
The issue of sensitized candidates for top positions in the state is not only opposed to common sense but besides ethical sensitivity. After all, an election run requires an iron condition. average fatigue, let alone disease, caused by exhausting “marathons” of rallies, reduce even young people’s cognitive abilities and physical endurance. Not until age politicians participate in intense debates and campaigns. fewer commentators draw attention to the aspect of the inhuman and instrumental usage of specified individuals, sustained and cynically in their determination to gain and keep power by household camarels and political caters.
It is worth remembering that this phenomenon is frequently seen in history, but fewer people learn from it. 1 specified case afraid Andreas Papandreu, who married a female half his age at 70. erstwhile he fell ill, he refused to step down as Prime Minister of Greece despite the strong organization pressures of his colleagues. His young wife supported him in the resistance, publically making assurances that his husband was doing the right thing. He died of a heart attack in 1996, after 3 years of re-release, reaching the age of 75.
Perhaps the persistent adherence to leadership positions in the case of Biden and Trump is the consequence of missionary convictions that they are the chosen ones of Providence. Overestimating your roles and exaggerating your merit has always been the origin of misery. Faith in its omnipotence and infallibility proved to be harmful and devastating to American political elites. Their pride and their shoe, as a consequence of their conviction of the permanent depolarisation of the global strategy and the attainment of the position of hegemony, resulted in mistaken decisions on abroad interventions, the demolition of political opponents and the demolition of their states, the undermining of the rules of the game, established after planet War II with the participation of the United States itself, whether in the UN strategy or in regional arrangements.
It was thanks to respective fresh American presidents that America believed in its omnipotence, building various ad hoc coalitions and bringing around weaker states under the slogan of the supposedly first strategy of bandwagoning (force concentration), in fact a cover for far-reaching penetration and submission to others. The ambition to regulation the planet led America astray, and the socio-economic crisis leads to interior conflict.
Interestingly, specified an “imperialisation” strategy of the global system, in weaker and submissive countries of America, specified as Poland, no politician is critically deconstructed in terms of losing his own subjectivity and independency to the hegemonic power. Single voices of opposition to the state's policy of dependence on external influence are treated in terms of national treason. Yet no 1 gave the next ruling squad a monopoly on the fact and only the right solutions!
Let us look over the years at where specified governments will lead us. Who will be liable for the consequences of incorrect deeds? Politicians change in power, and the Polish state with negative effects of their decisions and actions must continue, with remorse of individual people for stupidity and mistakes of incompetent authorities. And even worse, in fear and shame that a arrogant nation of a 1000 years of past was so easy enslaved by a fistful of manipulators and believed in the only way of improvement in the "Atlantic cage".
Subjecting all areas of collective life to alleged securitisation, i.e. treating them in the context of threats to the safety of the state, leads to many cognitive errors, and so fatal decisions, even in matters of war logic and gigantic armaments at the expense of another areas of social life. It condemns rulers to adopt a abroad strategical culture, that is, to submit their own interests to abroad powers, even erstwhile they falsely name themselves the top allies and protectors.
Appendix to America
Poland has become the victim of the enslavement of the minds of politicians of post-communist and post-communist origin, due to the belief that it is incapable to cope with global problems without the "protective umbrella" of Western powers. In this way, she is trapped in permanent structural dependence. In demonstrating its deep attachment to the US, Poland has thus placed an unlimited defence of the supremacy of this power in the global system. All activities were subject to the interests of America. For better or worse, without estimating the risks of this non-alternative choice.
It is only possible to get out of this trap by changing the ‘field structure’ of its action (Kenneth Waltz). Remaining a loyal associate in the hierarchical western strategy erstwhile the "geopolitics wave" bounces the another way, Poland can inactive make it to the weakening American hegemony to build a complementary Eurasian strategy, minimising the hazard of being active in the large war between the West and the East. The problem is who and erstwhile will take up this task in a situation of dramatic deficit of people who are realistically reasoning and whose national interest is above all concerned.
The worst consequence of America's emergence after the “cold war” was the negation of an global safety strategy based on balance of power. Since ancient times, the practice of correlating forces and capabilities of states (Greece), which in modern times (about the 15th century) began to be associated with the logic of geopolitical dynamics, which started in danger situations (Arnold J. Toynbee). In time, balancing forces took on the nature of the law of strategy self-regulation, to prevent the excessive increase in power of any state that could impose its will on others.
The master of this strategy was England, who, from the 16th century in the wars between the countries of the European continent, helped the weaker side, following King Henry VIII's motto: "He will overcome the 1 I join" (cui adhereo – praeest). Historical correctness has so become the prevention of a geopolitical advantage from a stronger power by countering it with a correspondingly equal or even greater force, or the creation of "defensive leagues", composed of respective states.
Henry Kissinger, the classical of American diplomacy and political thought thought that maintaining a balance of power was a task that had to be worked on permanently and an action that could not be seen ending. Meanwhile, in the last decades of his life, the United States has given up reasoning like this. A immense advantage in the power factors allowed the United States to keep disproportionately advanced systemic advantages over others. This was supported by the global situation.
Anyone who now tries to appeal to this sanctified by prudence and by the wisdom of the mechanics began to be judged as an enemy of the position quo. Thus China and Russia were placed on the first line of confrontation, as the revisionist powers. Although they do not preach aggressive doctrines toward the United States and the West, they are credited with the worst intentions. They endanger objectively the reign of America.
Last Mohicanin
The last president of the United States, who and his administration understood the logic of balancing forces was George H.W. Bush (senior). He seems to have been well aware of the tragic limitations of power policy, even due to his own experience in planet War II. He was able to keep distance and restraint with respect to China after the massacre at Tienanmen Square in June 1989, as well as after the break-up of the east bloc. He did not interfere straight in countries dropping communism, not wanting to provoke russian "hardhead" to retaliate. Similarly, after the Gulf War for the Liberation of Kuwait, he did not search to defeat and humiliate Saddam Hussein. Even before proclaiming Ukrainian independence, he warned in Kiev against "suicide nationalism". He was aware of the importance of Ukraine in Russian geopolitics and that if the West wants to include it with its "protective umbrella", it would inevitably become a victim of conflict. From today's perspective, it's hard to have wiser predictions.
The crisis of American leadership on a global scale is now expressed in the increasing tendency to delegate the position of an global hegemon. Many Asian, Latin American and African states reject the illusion of a unchangeable and equitable global order, dictated by a centralised power, centered in the hands of America and its powerful allies. Maintaining US leadership in the hands of stetric politicians will only accelerate the process of degradation of their function and as a consequence will lead to revitalization of the balancing strategy in the multipolar world.
The false sacralization of American leadership stems from the belief in the invariability of the power-imperial position quo. In Washington's political and media circles, it was believed that American hegemony was of a mild and peaceful nature, hence no 1 in the planet would think in a predictable position to question the existing state of affairs. Meanwhile, nothing is given erstwhile and for all. The dynamics of the global strategy shows that more and more supporters are emerging to reconstruct balancing mechanisms.
The tragedy of leadership...
The United States is that they face the task of resolving 3 deep crises, caused by conflicts in Ukraine, the Gaza Strip and around Taiwan. Each has to go back to multilateral solutions, involving the top protagonists. Meanwhile, the persuasional-diplomatic effectiveness of the U.S. ends, as do the revalued functions that deter this power utilizing force. The course of the conflict in Ukraine shows that US military support has its many limitations, and Russia's determination to accomplish its goals is beyond the will to win the American elite.
The United States is presently in the top interior threat phase. In the face of increasing social discontent, no leader will be able to effectively solve interior problems through wars that usually allowed citizens to unite with the establishment. This gives hope to revise the American global strategy.
Such a case had already occurred against the background of the Vietnam War in the 1960 ’ s and 1970 ’ s. For the first time, the establishment failed to build national unity and patriotic zeal on the foundation of war. America has undergone a wave of cultural changes that the state has never experienced before. Nor has there previously been specified a widespread failure of assurance in so many elements of the political and economical system.
The current US presidential run shows that political events can bring dangerous confusion and struggle, but besides inspiration. American citizens are increasingly aware that money and information control, which are the weapons of the elite, can prove useless in confronting a determined society. Although it is impossible to guess what forms the fresh rebellion will take and erstwhile it will take place, it is certain that before our eyes the neoliberal "great illusion" – awakening from the illusion of Hegemonism America needs fresh leadership for large transformation both internally and internationally.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
photo of wikipedia
Think Poland, No. 29-30 (14-21.07.2024)