Recent remarks by US Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) highlight what’s wrong with our campaign finance system, our conceptions of security, and our media.
In February, the Pentagon released the Nuclear Posture Review, which called for $1.2 trillion dollars for developing new nuclear weapons and missiles. Despite the long history of campaigns for non-proliferation and nuclear arms control, Thornberry said that those who advocate for those causes are a part of a foreign plot involving the Russians.
“While there are well-meaning, very sincere opponents to all of the things we talked about today,” Thornberry said. “After what we’ve seen the past year or two, we better look under the hood and make sure that the Russians are not fueling our controversies in the way that we have seen them do in recent months. I suspect we’re going to see much more sophisticated methods coming from Russia to try and influence the decisions that are required to implement this Nuclear Posture Review. So, it’s a big deal.”
Why would Congressman Thornberry say such a thing? Ideology? That might provide part of the answer, but it must be noted that in 2016 he received more money from weapons manufactures than any other congressman. There’s no doubt that money has corrupted our politics and animates what comes out of the mouths of elected officials.
We as voters shouldn’t take money-motivated remarks like Thornberry’s as passive consumers. The money that pours into our political system allows those who have money to create their own reality, far more than those individuals and groups that don’t have the money to purchase legislators to serve as their mouthpieces. The cash that enters our political system can be used as a weapon against those who might take a stand for what the money men might want out of the system.
More nuclear arms control would mean less money for those who benefit financially from nuclear weapons production. Are there any groups that fight for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation that can match the contributions to this congressman? Heavyweights like Defense Aerospace, Misc Defense, Northrop Grumman and Boeing have all given to his campaigns.
If you want to demonize your opponents, like Thornberry, it’s very easy to connect them with a geopolitical competitor. This is despicable, but is there another path we can take on this issue besides exposing the congressman’s funding? We need to push for campaign finance reform, as addressed by Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential campaign. If we remove money from politics, we would have more actual dialog and opposing viewpoints and fewer strummed up facts coming from the money power.
The other avenue to change is to create a strong alternative dialog to the dialog being spewed by Thornberry and his ilk. There’s already a vision of security that revolves around the establishment of international law, multilateralism and diplomacy. However, such a vision is rarely talked about, as it doesn’t create profits for corporations. This vision would make our country less profitable for arms dealers, but it would deliver more bang for the buck and more security for your average citizen. The media in our country is controlled by the same money power that controls elections, as the media often bows to advertisers.
An alternative media, easy in our digital age, that advocates a different conception of security than what we’ve been hearing. This would create a vision for a new type of foreign policy for the American people. From here, we could pressure elected officials for a change in the way we interact with the rest of the world.
Jason Sibert worked for the Suburban Journals in the St. Louis area for over a decade and is currently executive director of the Peace Economy Project in St. Louis, Mo. Email jasonsibert@hotmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, May 1, 2018
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us
PO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652