Reaction is Growing
In recent months since the election of President Obama, the first black President of the United States, right-wing and racist/racialist movements have sprung up on the political stage with renewed vigor. While this is nothing new, the racial component being mixed in draws even larger crowds of so-called “closet” racists. Indeed, a great deal of the “Tea Party” movement is made up of people who are convinced that because a black man is the person selected by the bourgeoisie as their political puppet the world is coming to an end.
The simple fact of the matter is that it isn’t. The American bourgeoisie’s power is not threatened in any way, shape or form by President Obama. If it were, there would have already been coup attempts made, perhaps even assassination attempts made, by those in power. This has yet to happen. A threat from the right, not only towards revolutionaries but towards the entire bourgeois republic, arises from groups of right-wing reactionaries.
The “Tea Party” element, the fascist elements and even the Republican party at this time are very disorganized. The GOP is currently undergoing a “purge” of the moderates whereby they will be removing those Republicans sympathetic to the demands being made by the proletariat and will move even further to the right. Despite this, the APL must stress that while these Tea Parties are only a part of the ruling class now, should the rich feel a threat to their power they will not hesitate to organize along fascist lines. This has been shown many times in history in countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina, Chile and other fascist or neo-fascist states. John L. Perry’s Article as an Example of Pseudo-Fascism
It is with this in mind that a decision has been made within the leadership of the American Party of Labor to distribute to the readers of the Red Phoenix the full text of one such right-wing work calling for nothing less than a military coup within the United States.
We must stress that the views expressed in this quoted material are not the views of the Red Phoenix or the American Party of Labor, but are rather the views of the original author. We bring this to our readers to expose the actual beliefs and political agenda of these so-called Tea Parties, and their right-wing and racist allies. It is our hope that by presenting this material that we can help the American people realize that these Tea Parties and their right-wing and racialist allies are a grave threat to the interests of the people.
We will, after presenting the article, issue our own point-by-point debunking of the points laid out by the original author.
Obama Risks a Domestic Military Intervention
By John L. Perry
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.
America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:
# Officers swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to “obey the orders of the president of the United States.”
# Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
# They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
# They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
# They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
# They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America’s troop strength is allowed to sag.
# They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
# They can see the nation’s safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.
So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?
Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?
Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran’s nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?
What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, “I’m not interested in victory”) that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?
Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?
Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America’s military leadership is lost in a fool’s fog.
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.
Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”
In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.
Response from the APL
First, Mr. Perry states that officers in the US military take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He is correct on that matter, at least from a strict definition of it. However, this does make me question if Mr. Perry has ever served in the US military. I [the author] have–I was in the US Navy from 1996-2001.
While officers do swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States that also means that they must uphold any laws passed by the Congress of the United States unless such laws are ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. The particular law any US military officer would be violating should they even conspire to form a coup attempt against the government of the US headed by President Obama would be the Sedition Act of 1918.
Furthermore, Mr. Perry misrepresents the Oath of Enlistment that enlisted personnel take upon their enlistment. Which reads as follows:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
Enlisted personnel are bound by the Sedition Act of 1918, hence the inclusion of the words “according to the Regulations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice” debars any enlisted man from taking any action against the President until such time as he actually constitutes a threat to the Constitution of the United States.
While it could be argued that President Bush did indeed constitute a threat to the United States Constitution, Obama dialing down one imperialist war and greatly escalating another while attempting to tackle the problems of the Global Depression and the failing health infrastructure do not constitute such a threat.
On Mr. Perry’s second point, it is true that any military personnel can view the Constitution that they are sworn to defend—a constitution which empowers the federal government to take actions in the interests of the general welfare of the country. The Health Care Reform is in the interest of that general welfare. Indeed, how could insuring that Americans who are sick can go to a doctor so they get well not be in the interests of the general welfare? Furthermore, there is not, and never have been any plans underway in the White House or on Capital Hill to nationalize any industry or even any business. If anything, President Obama has been more than willing to pour money on top of the heads of the financial bourgeoisie who caused the Global Depression in first place. Capitalism has been unstable since the 1980’s despite the boom that World War II gave to the industrial-military complex.
On Mr. Perry’s third point—yes, there are many Americans who are alarmed that the US will no longer be sole “superpower.” This process did not begin with President Obama, but started slowly at first under President George H. W. Bush (Bush I). The institution of anti-tariff treaties such as NAFTA and GATT have eviscerated the manufacturing base of an otherwise industrial economy. This has resulted in more and more products consumed in the US being produced in China and other countries. This of course is the result of capitalists seeking to maximize their profits at the expense of the working class.
On Mr. Perry’s fourth point—yes, the US economy is wracked by unemployment, deficits, high taxes (if you are working class anyway) and impending inflation. However, none of these conditions started on Mr. Obama’s inauguration day. In fact, a great deal of the problem rests on the capitalist system which created them. Unemployment caused by the relocation of manufacturing to low-wage nations, resulting in fewer purchases by industrial workers, eventually leads to unemployment among service workers.
Deficits are the result of George W. Bush’s policy of starting two wars while cutting taxes on the very richest Americans. In short, President Bush squandered a budget surplus of some 200 billion US dollars in the first six months of his presidency (a surplus that was the result of rampant global imperialism to begin with). Inflation is the result of consistent deficit spending as it is financed in two ways, borrowing and printing money. As the dollar becomes more unstable due to the instability of the national economy, the government will have to resort to printing more money because no one will want to keep dollars as a reserve currency for international trade. While we do not support the Democrats, they cannot be blamed for the squandering of budget surplus in the first six months of the Bush presidency, as it was the Republicans who controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.
On Mr. Perry’s fifth point— this author feels the need to point out to our readers that torturing people does not provide admissible evidence in a court of law or military tribunal. It needs to be constantly stressed that the CIA-led torture not only ended whatever viable intelligence the military and FBI interrogators were getting but also increased the chances for torture to be used against any American prisoners taken by this so-called enemy.
On Mr. Perry’s sixth point—the dismantlement of the Eastern European Missile Defense program was vitally necessary. Many times Americans forget that not only do we have nuclear weapons but so do other countries, particularly Russia which has the second largest reserve of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is vital that concessions be made, particularly when the US is already fighting two imperialist wars that have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. There is even less reason to give anyone a causis belli to start World War III.
Military recruitment is not reaching its goals because the American People do not want to be involved in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Furthermore, the prospect of five and six tours of duty upon enlistment does nothing to encourage enlistment—not to mention the moral problems it causes with military personnel already in the military or reserve.
On Mr. Perry’s seventh point—yes, any person who knows anything about the military can see that. However, one must remember why the US military is at its breaking point. Not to mention Obama’s plan to deploy 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan doesn’t exactly help. Every fighting person in the US military and US Military Reserves would be on active duty and deployed and could not be re-deployed should another war break out, or a natural disaster occur at home.
On Mr. Perry’s eighth point—the reason why the US military cannot respond at this time to any further threat or natural disaster at home is because the military is already engaged in two wars. The only way for the imperialists to increase US military preparedness for such an event would be to institute a draft—a move that will make the anti-war movement we have currently grow exponentially.
On Mr. Perry’s ninth point—the military establishment is under pressure and in harm’s way because George W. Bush started wars that he had no plan on ending and Obama continued this practice. There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. It is purely in the interests of empire.
Conclusion and Summation of Perry’s Neo-Fascism
While the American Party of Labor in no way endorses the Democrats nor President Obama, we must make it clear where the blame for these problems lie – at the feet of the very right-wing bourgeois politicians which say they can now deliver us like Messiahs. Hopefully President Obama can weaken US imperialism by withdrawing from these conflicts, but I for one will not be holding my breath for an instant.
There is no way that a military coup in the US or any other country could possibly be peaceful as Mr. Perry claims. Military coups are by their nature violent, and it is their nature to destroy dissent when they occur. What this person is advocating is worse than anything the President could do.
Let it be clear: what Mr. Perry and his right-wing ilk call for is not the ending of imperialism in the same manner as the political left-wing does, but rather nothing less than the establishment of a fascist dictatorship in the US.