Page 6 RAIN Aug.-Sept. 1982 American Empire? Williams: TTie American Empire is not like a 19th Century empire in the formal sense. You can't color parts of the world American. You have to look at a global map from the point of view of military bases and meaningful treaty structure. You have to look at areas where the United States owns a lot of real estate, whether it's the military or private corporations. You have to look at who owns natural resources. You have to think finally of which nations in one way or another face limits imposed by the United States. They are not satellites in a formal sense, but it is understood that if they do not want trouble with America, certain options are considered off limits. El Salvador is a good example. A map of the empire, to use your imagery, would have a bunch of celluloid overlays showing different things. I think of the empire mostly in terms of the Western Hemisphere, Southeast Asia, Japan, Western Europe and parts of the Mideast. ''The educated working class and the middle class know they are being had most of the time — an awareness they have not had in any serious sense since the mid-1930s." Japan is within our military sphere of influence, and we use a lot of Japanese technology. Most people think of it as an invasion, but actually it allows the United States to use its resources in other ways. The relationship has evolved from one of occupahon and major dependency into kind of an equal one, pretty much like with Western Germany and France. But we still exercise enormous influence in all those countries. RAIN: In your 1969 book. The Roots of the Modem American Empire, you wrote, "It is essential for radicals to devise workable plans and procedures for decentralization that will enable us to realize a richer and more creative conception of freedom. We need models of autonomous yet interacting regional political economies that will function as communities." You have also called for a continental confederation to replace the current centralized federal system. Williams: I use the confederation metaphor because it is part of American history. It actually did exist. It was the first choice of Americans of the revolutionary generation, and had a great deal of support even after the federal constitution was ratified. The old image of the confederation as weak and almost non-functional has been fundamentally revised over the last 25 years. It did, in fact, work. The original proposal of those who opposed the constitution was to give the confederation control of basic economic activities like foreign trade. I think this would have worked. Whether the resulting government would have served as an instrument of imperial expansion across the continent is debatable. It might not have been able to prevent the regionalization of North America. You have to re-think what a modem American confederation would be, because much has changed since then. There has not been much work on this by serious polihcal theorists. There has been more work by economists and sociologists in terms of identifying regions. The left has misplaced a lot of its energy and great intelligence in thinking what an American kind of classic socialism would look like, concentrating on the federal government doing different things rather than on structural alternatives. But highly centralized socialism in the late 20th Century is neither desirable nor necessary because technology and communications could be used to realize more decentralized operation. Centralized economic planning on a continental scale is almost a contradiction. You can do it, but it is inefficient and stultifying. I find it interesting that most successful, big corporations have decentralized their operaHons in the past 15 years. Certain things the federal government is obviously going to have to do. Tm not tall^g about a balkanization of North America. Tm talking about an honest confeder- aton of the United States and, ideally, Canada. RAIN: Decentralization raises fears of abuse of rights by local and regional governments. You were a civil rights worker in the South, so you know firsthand there were some real abuses by local powers. Williams: That's quite tme. Many abuses have been perpetrated by the federal government too. The assumption that the central government, run by White Northern liberals, gave freedom to the Blacks in the South is bullshit. Nothing would have happened if the Blacks had not organized and become militant at the local level. They are the ones who generated the movement that forced the federal government to come to terms with these issues. Local, state and regional militance, self-consciousness and organization generates the demand for general acceptance of values and standards. Such standards should become part of any alternative confederation. Certain rights and responsibilities apply to everybody. RAIN: What about interregional conflicts in a confederation? Williams: The central government would have to be the court of last resort for visceral conflicts that could not be negotiated by the regions. RAIN: Where would you vest that central power? Williams: I think a parliamentary system is much more immediately responsive than a presidential system. A parliamentary system is much more capable of throwing the ruling government out of power, but you would have to develop a more responsible political party tradition. RAIN: The potential for major structural change in the American government in the 1980s is greater than most people realize. Thirty states have called for a new constitutional convention to write a balanced budget amendment. If several more states ratify the call, the constitution requires that a convention be held. Many people believe that it could not legally be held to the balanced budget issue. Do we embrace the concept of a convention or do we consider it a very scary and risky thing?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz