Under Siege

Author’s note: This article was first published in PSYOP Digest, Volume II, Number 1, First Quarter 1986. The Cold War still dominated the political and military landscapes and “wars of liberation” dotted the continents. My unit was part of the 1st Special Operations Command and our operations extended throughout US Southern Command’s AOR (Area of Responsibility), with emphasis in Central and South America. Since this article was first published in 1986 we have seen the end of many Marxist and Maoist styled insurgencies and the beginnings of others under the guise of democratic governments. The War on Drugs, one of very few authentic entrepreneurial enterprises in Latin America, continues unabated with no apparent end in sight. Human rights, individual liberty, representative government, and the rule of law remain important and merit extraordinary attention. I will draw on my experiences in Latin America to draw attention to important domestic issues affecting America at present. The article speaks to the ever-present contest between tyranny and liberty. While it focuses on totalitarian forces beyond our borders, there now exist uncomfortable parallels to the precarious political situation all Americans face together right now at home. As such, this article represents my starting line toward an understanding of what now divides us. Along the way in future posts I will draw attention to that which unites us as Americans and those things we must consider important to the preservation of our individual liberty and our Republic. Future posts should be much shorter and more concise. In the article below, all sections in bold type are meant only to highlight items for future discussion.

Democracy faces a struggle with a growing number of totalitarian systems. Their rise is a twentieth century phenomenon largely supported by modern technology and communications. Alone or collectively, totalitarian states threaten the very foundation of democracy. To survive, they must stamp out any threat to their established power base.

To date, no totalitarian state that has consolidated its internal political controls has been toppled from within. For that matter, none have been toppled from without. Victories create the political momentum that encourages political expansion, and this expansion can only be achieved at the expense of democracy. Coexistence, then, represents a temporary lull in the struggle – not its end.

The struggle is often overlooked or misunderstood for two reasons: How do we distinguish democracy from totalitarianism, and, why are these two forms of government irreconcilably different? The questions of elections, legitimacy, sovereignty, and people’s rights often “muddy the waters”. Additionally, we are faced with totalitarians that describe themselves as “socialists” or “democratic”. It will soon be evident that these labels are only the “sheep’s clothing” worn by the wolf before the kill.

To distinguish between democracy and totalitarianism, we only need to look at their claim to legitimacy; the authority or force exerted by their governments to maintain internal order and safety; the role of dissent; and the nature of freedom in the society of each. Because the United States Constitution is unequivocally opposed to the concept of totalitarianism, it will serve as a means to uncover the true nature of the threat that has placed the Constitution under siege.

The first time our Constitution came under serious attack was during the ratification process of 1787 to 1789. To explain the nature of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison co-authored The Federalist Papers. This collection of letters still provides us with the ability to recognize and discredit totalitarian systems as direct threats to democracy.

Totalitarians tell us that their legitimacy is rooted in the people or the proletariat. Elections are orchestrated to guarantee predetermined results or they are dispensed with altogether. Totalitarian regimes create what amounts to a partocracy. In these, the party alone determines who will run for office and win. This adds up to the combined powers of the Legislative and the Executive. James Madison echoed the warning of Montesquieu when he said, liberty could not flourish when a man or agency has both Legislative and Executive powers. These powers, when combined, only yield oppression.

In 1921, Lenin stated that communism must resort to “special maneuvers” to accelerate victory over the West. One of these was to “appease the deaf-mutes” by claiming that there existed a separation between the Soviet government and its institutions from the Party and the Politburo because the “deaf-mutes” of the West would believe it. Under these conditions, the ballot becomes meaningless. Madison believed that, without the separation of powers within a government, “tyrannical concentrations of power” were inevitable. The interior structure of government must, by its very design, force the parts to check and balance one another.

While Hamilton suggested that liberty will sometimes be sacrificed for safety and social order, this was not meant to rationalize the likes of the KGB or any other modern secret police organization. The goal of democracy is to secure the public good and individual rights while preserving the spirit and form of a popular government. Ambitions must counter ambitions where government, in effect, controls itself while controlling the governed.

Dissent is not tolerated in a totalitarian state. Unless the nature of dissent is manipulated by the state, it represents a de facto threat to the Party. The internal state organs for security work to identify and eliminate any person or group displaying “counter-revolutionary” tendencies. Totalitarian states are controlled by a minority which governs despite the will of the majority. Dissent in a totalitarian state is never allowed to grow or to be heard by the general public. While democracy recognizes that liberty inherently breeds factionalism, it allows for dissent to be freely expressed while ensuring that its effects do not limit the rights of others. This is accomplished by allowing a majority to express itself without oppressing a minority and vice versa. Representative government allows for this; totalitarians do not represent their total populations.

Freedom in a totalitarian environment is limited to participating in activities and organizations prescribed by the Party. To be free is to work for the collective whole – normally at the expense of the individual. Individuals are rewarded with long lines, unavailable commodities and a lack of housing. The US Constitution provides for a balance between the government and the people. Each individual is free to pursue his own happiness under this balance but cannot do so to the detriment of others. Society, then, is protected without oppressing the individual.

Hamilton warned us that the causes of hostility are associated with a love of power (totalitarians use any means to achieve it), a desire for domination (totalitarians foster revolutions and iron curtains), jealousy of power (totalitarians neutralize all opposition), competition of commerce among nations (totalitarians undermine the competition of other nations without competing themselves), and private passions (totalitarians encourage passion within the confines of their ideology). The US Constitution limits these causes of hostility by establishing the rule of law based upon the will of the governed. Totalitarians exploit them to achieve their final goal: the destruction of democracy as we know it. Democracy, as we know it, is embodied in the Constitution of the United States – a Constitution under siege.