Vote All You Want. The Secret Government Won't Change. - Ideas - The Boston Globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story....
Q&A
Vote all you want. The secret

government wont change.
The people we elect arent the ones calling the shots, says Tufts
Universitys Michael Glennon
ISTOCK/PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY LESLEY BECKER/GLOBE STAFF
By Jordan Michael Smith
O CTO B ER 19, 2014
THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSAs
warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a
defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his
predecessor.
1 of 22
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost
indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if
anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated.
Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for
promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing
Americas nuclear weapons.
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to
focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line.
But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer:
Obama couldnt have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though its a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by
electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer
works that way. In a new book, National Security and Double Government, he catalogs the
ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with
virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the
term double government: Theres the one we elect, and then theres the one behind it,
steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
RELATED: Coverage of the 2014 midterm elections
Glennon cites the example of Obama and his team being shocked and angry to discover upon
taking office that the military gave them only two options for the war in Afghanistan: The
United States could add more troops, or the United States could add a lot more troops.
Hemmed in, Obama added 30,000 more troops.
Glennons critique sounds like an outsiders take, even a radical one. In fact, he is the
quintessential insider: He was legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
consultant to various congressional committees, as well as to the State Department. National
Security and Double Government comes favorably blurbed by former members of the
Defense Department, State Department, White House, and even the CIA. And hes not a
conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of smart, hard-working, publicspirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentiveswithout any
meaningful oversight to rein them in.
How exactly has double government taken hold? And what can be done about it? Glennon
spoke with Ideas from his office at Tufts Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. This
interview has been condensed and edited.
2 of 22
IDEAS: Where does the term double government come from?
GLENNON:It comes from Walter Bagehots famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot
was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazinethey still have a
column named after him. Bagehot tried to explain in his book The English Constitution how
the British government worked. He suggested that there are two sets of institutions. There are
the dignified institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which people erroneously
believed ran the government. But he suggested that there was in reality a second set of
institutions, which he referred to as the efficient institutions, that actually set governmental
policy. And those were the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the British cabinet.
IDEAS: What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?
GLENNON:I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very
same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against.
Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case? I initially
wrote it based on my own experience and personal knowledge and conversations with dozens
of individuals in the military, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies of our government,
as well as, of course, officeholders on Capitol Hill and in the courts. And the documented
evidence in the book is substantialthere are 800 footnotes in the book.
IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected
officials?
GLENNON: It hasnt been a conscious decision....Members of Congress are generalists and
need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly
concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national
security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts
similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.
The presidency itself is not a top-down institution, as many people in the public believe,
headed by a president who gives orders and causes the bureaucracy to click its heels and
salute. National security policy actually bubbles up from within the bureaucracy. Many of the
more controversial policies, from the mining of Nicaraguas harbors to the NSA surveillance
program, originated within the bureaucracy. John Kerry was not exaggerating when he said
that some of those programs are on autopilot.
RELATED: Answers sought on CIA role in 78 JFK probe
IDEAS: Isnt this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?
3 of 22
GLENNON: Its much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies dont set truck
widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in
a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result
in some very dire consequences.
IDEAS: Couldnt Obamas national-security decisions just result from the difference in
vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible
for 320 million lives?
GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or
one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously
there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the
same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.
IDEAS: This isnt how were taught to think of the American political system.
GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded, as Bagehot explained about the
British population, that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American
national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of
Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now,
there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy, as Bagehot
predicted there would be. But the larger picture is still truepolicy by and large in the
national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.
IDEAS: Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?
GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the
American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not
from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the
bull by the horns. And thats a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many
ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about,
problems that you cant affect, policies that you cant change.
Related coverage:
Charlie Baker victorious as Martha Coakley concedes in governors race
Book review: National Security and Double Government by Michael J. Glennon
Meet Zelda, the unlikely Dear Abby of NSA
4 of 22
Answers sought on CIA role in 78 JFK probe
Alan M. Dershowitz: How should a democracy decide when to compromise its ideals in
pursuit of victory?
Joshua Eaton: New light on black sites
Jordan Michael Smith is a contributing writer at Salon and The Christian Science Monitor.
G e t To d a y 's H e a d l i n e s f r o m t h e G l o b e i n yo u r i n b ox :
SIGN UP
Privacy Policy
HIDE 118 COMMENTS
118 Comments
Oldest
HockeyDem
Newest
Best
10/19/14 11:36 AM
"The President's job is not to wield power; the President's job is to distract
attention away from it." - Douglass Adams
bamboobob
10/19/14 02:10 PM
OR maybe Obama ssw that W's policies were in fact the only way to go.
commgdn2
10/20/14 10:11 AM
The only way to go to "hell" that is. George W. was a lying murderous
war criminal.
Show more replies (4)
5 of 22
dougmacdonald 10/19/14 01:01 PM

I totally agree with this guy. I honestly thought that most people with any
knowledge of what goes on in government, especially Washington, knew all of
this. Regardless of whether its President Bush or President Obama, government
is pretty much going to do what it takes to go along and get along. Perhaps
Barack Obama was unaware that all his ideas would be shunted aside. George
Bush found out too late that he really wasn't in charge. And Dick Cheney abused
it. Vote for who you want, or like, etc. but as coach Bill says' it is what it is" and
will continue to be so with very few exceptions.
BRussell22
10/25/14 12:00 PM
Don't know who 'coach Bill' is but his is a defeatist attitude that
ensures the old adage that in a democracy to get what you deserve - a
simple, familiar meme to dampen public engagement in the political
sphere which is now toxically influenced by way too much money
thanks to the Citizens United ruse.
Take a closer look at the 'government' bureaucracy you portray as
'going along to get along' and you will see thousands of individuals
who have been elected or installed in decision-making positions
precisely because they've been groomed to support and implement the
interests of a very small group of wealthy power elites who have no
interest in promoting any public good except to the extent that it abets
their own agendas, not the least of which is to privatize everything in
sight, most notably education! You'll find such puppets at all levels national, state, municipal.
Herein lies the rub: As Glennon says, "The ultimate problem is the
pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And
indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed
institutions." He goes on to say, "the energy for reform has to come
from: the American people."
They are counting on coach Bill's attitude to keep that energy at bay.
I am counting on all of you to get to the voting booth on Nov 4 to vote
for Martha Coak
6 of 22
BRussell22
10/25/14 12:27 PM
to finish the above:

I am counting on all of you to get to the voting booth on Nov 4 to vote
for Martha Coakley, Steve Kerrigan, Maura Healy and Deb Goldberg.
Better this team drive public policy for the next four years than the
money baggers behind Baker and Polito.
pegnva
10/19/14 01:27 PM
Bottom line..."The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance of the

American public" - Bingo!
rwc2
10/19/14 03:07 PM
and that goes for domestic policy as well as the military/industrial

security state.
pegnva
10/19/14 03:40 PM
rwc2: Agree...the dumbing down of this nation has taken it's toll more people know who's on Dancing With the Stars than know their
Congressperson's name.
Potlemac
10/19/14 02:16 PM
JFK learned this the hard way!
7 of 22
Jo22
11/01/14 05:21 AM
Big money is in charge. The way it has always been.
jazzbluesmusic
11/06/14 08:51 AM
Jo22 you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Big money rules this
nation.
Cherez
10/19/14 02:44 PM
Per John Spritzler at PDRBoston.org This opinion piece in the Globe today is interesting on at least two counts: 1) the
fact that an article with the title, "Vote all you want, the secret government won't
change," appears in the Globe and 2) the "cover up" aspect of the actual content
of the article.
I think we're going to see more and more articles with titles like this. Why?
Because virtually everybody knows that voting doesn't enable people to have a
real say in government decisions. If the mass media keep ignoring this fact and
pretending that the government is of, by and for the people then the mass media
will lose whatever credibility it still has.
But what about the content underneath the title? Note that in the concluding
paragraph we read:
"The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the
American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these
concealed institutions."
This is a Big Lie! It's a double-headed lie. #1) People are not ignorant about the
fact that we live in a fake democracy. Practically everybody who reads that
assertion in This I Believe nods their head in agreement. One has to look far and
8 of 22
wide before one can find a person who claims that we have a genuine democracy
in which ordinary people have a real say in government laws and policy. #2)
People are not "indifference to the threat" of the secret government--the
dictatorship of the rich; they are hopeless about being able to do anything about
it, but that is NOT the same as being indifferent about it.
What this article represents is, on the one hand, an effort to get the attention of,
and influence over, people who know we live in a fake democracy and, on the
other hand, an effort to persuade them that nothing can be done to solve the
problem. In fact, as the last line of the article asserts, "There is very little profit to
be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you cant affect,
policies that you cant change."
The ruling elite know that they can never get people to love them, and that it's
become pretty hard even to persuade people that the government represents "We
the people" anymore. So what's left? Convince people that resistance is futile!
Make them feel so hopeless that they will not try to build a revolutionary
movement. That's what the Globe (and all of the mass and alternative media) is
doing.
Additionally, this article covers up the most important aspect of the secret
government, which is that it is a government of, by and for Big Money. This
article makes it seem that the secret government is just a bunch of entrenched
national security experts and that the problem is merely that elected politicians
defer to these experts because they lack the confidence to overrule them. But
when JFK tried to overrule this secret government (by ending the Cold War to
avoid thermonuclear war), the secret government (using the CIA) assassinated
him, as very persuasively argued by James Douglass in his JFK and the
Unspeakable.
The rich were never elected, and cannot be un-elected, which means we need a
revolution.
John Spritzler, editor
NewDemocracyWorld.org & PDRBoston.org
pegnva
10/19/14 03:48 PM
I beg to differ with your point #1 (above)...I work at my local election
9 of 22
polls and I can't tell you how many people I've spoke to who don't even
know we have an election coming up, let alone know who is on the
ballot and for what office. The ultimate problem IS the pervasive
ignorance of the American public - witness how easily many bought
GWB's tale of WMD in Iraq without demanding proof!
Ignatz59
10/19/14 08:51 PM
Worse than that, look how many in Congress bought it.
beachbum27
10/19/14 04:23 PM
This is true- has been for some time now BUT let's not forget that this worthless
SJC ruled in favor of citizens united - which further reduces the power of citizens
and handed it over to "corporations"....
macsmart
10/19/14 10:19 PM
And that is one area where voting really does make a difference. The
most important aspect of who you vote for for president is who that
person will appoint to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes
decisions that affect you personally.
RoyalHighness
10/20/14 09:50 AM
It's become a junk-bag of Roman Catholics, taught from an early age

not to think too critically.
WFC49
10/19/14 04:30 PM
Got to agree with the author and most comments. The titles are just that
---POTUS---SEC---Supreme Court---Congress--- They all dance for a different
master than the ones that installed them.The SEC is so useless, it should be
10 of 22
excised as wasted money. Same can be said of Congress the last decade. And
Doug , I'm with you on the Bush fiasco. I think he was a decent man who didn't
realize Cheney was in charge. Cheney was the true Paid-triot!
pegnva
10/19/14 04:37 PM
"Decent" perhaps, but not too bright...when the guy you put in charge
of the search for a VP comes back with only HIS name and you don't
catch on, I'd say that's a problem.
dougkinan
10/19/14 06:36 PM
Cheney made millions off the backs of the innocent American kids who
were murdered for oil dollars.
Halliburton made 9 billion last year.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
WFC49
10/19/14 04:35 PM
Beachbum , it was the worst thing to ever vomit forth from the court.I hope that
is one ruling that gets reversed when the Court finds it's "head" The last ruling
was a doozy too. The Texas voting restrictions being upheld. Ruth Bader
Ginsburg was the only one to bother explaining that dead cat. In a long dissent ,
she basically and rightfully called it a poll tax. So much for the Constitution.
beachbum27
10/19/14 07:07 PM
While all of the "factions" of the US populous continue to narrowly

minded fight for their little piece the powers to be are laughing at the
mis-direction and swapping out the playing field completely. Before
you know it corporations are people and have the same voting rights.
One of millions of microcosms of this "little piece" is when Religious
organizations can come out and hide behind "freedom of religion"
when the federal government simply states that if you take our
11 of 22
(taxpayer that is) money in any form (grants, research studies,
contract work, etc.) you have to comply with non discrimination hiring
practices. Instead of common sense kicking in as they are showing
their bigotry card they fight it- why you ask? Because most americans
are too busy watching dancing with the stars.
It cannot be more sad.
bigfoot2015
10/19/14 04:57 PM
President Obama was dealt a bad hand from Bush but did the best he could with
it. But the rich still get richer and we in the middle class fall farther and farther
behind. And now polls predict Republicans will take the Senate? If you do vote
Republican no more complaining just bend over and take it. What I mean to say
is if people voted their economic interests Republicans (as construed today god
bless you Ed Brooke) would only get 1 percent of the vote.
amirtllr
10/19/14 11:30 PM
Gary: in your ranting you clearly missed the point of the article. Take a
deep breath to clear your partisan head, and read the article without
the encumbrance of red-blue, right-left, donkey-elephant. Interesting
theory.
Thermopylae
10/20/14 11:35 AM
Gary, there's no place for the working/retired middle class to go. The
Democrats want to take the assets of the working/retired middle class
and give them to the lower economic class, whereas the Republicans
want to take those same assets and give them to the rich. The position
that a secret government is in real control of the country explains how
such an illogical situation can exist. Why doesn't the working/retired
middle class have its own political party?
12 of 22
MNMoore
10/19/14 05:05 PM
I suggest that everyone read the first draft of President Eisenhower's farewell
speech. He refers to the "military - industrial - congressional complex". They
have turned the Pentagon into the Commissar of industry for the US.
The classic work on this subject is "The Power Elite" by C. Wright Mills.
cheezwhiz
10/22/14 10:19 PM
"In the councils of gov't, we must guard against the acquisition of

unwarranted influence by the military - industrial complex." to be
specific.
ReasonedReply
10/27/14 10:30 PM
he said "first draft".... check it out
attaturk
10/19/14 05:24 PM
Back from a weekend trip, (no problems with Ebola), and I get to read an
excellent article to which non of our usual zealots have a thing to say. It is an
article that aptly describes what those of us who have been in government have
been saying for years. Simply two major points.
1. The government is really moved by the bureaucracy and not by the politics.
Even more than that what the bureaucracy doesn't move the Courts decide. The
actions of this President or any President for that matter are limited by what the
agencies of "expertise" really offer in terms of advice and information.
2. The public is not simply "ignorant" in terms of politics they are ignorant in
terms of how agencies work. What their own benefits are from specific agencies
and how to lift the levers of government.
When folks try to explain it to them whether it is simply social security or any
other program rather than listen to those who have maintained or work with
13 of 22
these programs they listen to their favorite "talking head" whether a TV
personality or a radio guy. Folks would rather believe a Hannity than some GS-15
or ES guy. Why? Because it simply doesn't match up with what they want to
believe.
So can it be fixed. Not as long folks. 1. Don't listen or 2. Won't take the time or
give the effort to really understand government. I don't think folks will do either.
SingleVoice
10/20/14 01:19 PM
Attaturk: Glad to seeing you weighing in on what I agree to be an

"excellent article."
The article, and what you go on to further underscore, sadly confirms
my personal nascent experience in interfacing with (even) local
government. Two cases in point: Massport and the Boston
Redevelopment Authority.
My question to you: Do you know of any individuals, agencies or
organizations - at either the state or federal level - that fully recognize
the problem described here, and are doing positive work in addressing
it?
The obvious general response is that a well-informed and educated
citizenry is the best antidote, but I was curious as to whom - or what
organizations - you might recognize as doing important work in this
arena? I'd be very interested in your advice in this regard.
attaturk
10/20/14 01:59 PM
We are talking about multiple levels here. There have been plenty of
pols over the years who have attempted to take on DOD or State and
got their butts kicked by the "public".
There have been numerous pols and organizations and study groups
that have attempted to address taxes, tax credits, loopholes etc. and
they have had their butts kicked by the "public".
14 of 22
I have known many high GS's and ES's that have written articles post
on comment threads and work with the public. But generally they get
their butts kicked by the "public". You tell them the truth and they it's
not true, because their favorite talking head who really knows nothing
about the internal workings of government says it isn't true.
Look at "WesternDad" you tell him double government exists on the
domestic level as well and he'll say nope that isn't true. The guy is only
talking about "foreign affairs". The guy is talking about government
and using foreign affairs. But it is certainly across the board. There are
plenty of folks on the left and the right who have made this argument
and continue to make it. But the "public" simply does not wish to get
in the weeds on the subject. It's simply easier to blame a party than it
is to do the work.
PL
10/19/14 05:57 PM
We voted for Barack Obama and got the Affordable Care Act. Spare me the
whining about not getting Single Payer, this is a better legacy than most
Presidents in my lifetime.
svonkie
10/19/14 10:27 PM
The one thing that the ACA does for ordinary working people is that it
prevents insurers from discriminating due to preexisting conditions.
On all other counts it is inconsequential for the vast majority of
Americans, who still face increasing healthcare costs, the world's most
expensive pharmaceuticals, and who continue to pay more than twice
as much as other advanced industrial nations for healthcare while
ranking in the lower half in terms of aggregated outcomes.
PL
10/20/14 09:05 AM
The ACA will certainly not be inconsequential for the tens of millions
of Americans who now have health insurance. Nor is it
inconsequential in controlling costs, which are now rising slower than
15 of 22
ever. Ever. This is due to our electing Barack Obama.
dougmacdonald
10/19/14 06:01 PM
Very interesting posts on this article. And turk makes a good point about the
zealots not responding to it, and with good reason. A zealot wants to pick out one
person and nail him for every mistake that's made. The zealot has no regard for
facts, and in many cases fabricates problems. Its being done to Obama now-and
to some degree it was done to Bush. History will decide in the years ahead who is
the most successful of the two presidents after most of the smoke has cleared.
iubica
10/19/14 06:07 PM
Thank you, Globe, for this book review. This is the same bureaucracy shrowded
in secrecy, not necessarily for security reasons, mind you, but to avoid being
embarrased when the light of day shines through.
One way to deal with this is to have strict transparency rules, even if delayed by a
few months after the act. We need to turn the surveillance spotlight back on the
national security bureaucracy. Andrei Radulescu-Banu
attaturk
10/19/14 06:17 PM
Transparency is of no use of the public pays little or no attention. One

person noted that anyone reading this article would nod their head in
agreement. How many people actually will read this article and vote
accordingly or act accordingly.
I've seen interviews with the public in which when asked about this
party or that party have no idea what the party stands for never mind
what the government does. Folks made jokes about the Medicare
recipient who wants the government to keep its hands off their
Medicare. That isn't the rarity that is the majority.
dougkinan
16 of 22
10/25/14 07:57 PM
Andrei:
The better way is to stop rewarding public corruption.

dougkinan@yahoo.com
dougkinan
10/19/14 06:43 PM
Public corruption will eventually take America down. Just take a look at the
dailies.
dougkinan@yahoo.com
Ignatz59
10/19/14 09:07 PM
The next period of American history will not be a pretty one. When
individuals possessed of wealth that exceeds that of most nations,
along with multi-national corporations, wield more power than
sovereign governments, democracy is reduced to an empty
propaganda campaign. The corruption is only a symptom of the power
struggle that is going on behind a curtain of political disinformation.
The Citizens United decision will, in the future, be considered a
turning point as well as the most notorious decision of the Supreme
Court since Dred Scott.
Ignatz59
10/19/14 08:55 PM
George Carlin, one of the shrewdest observers of human nature since Mark
Twain, used to talk about the "owners" of this country and how they would not
tolerate change. Many thought that he was engaging in hyperbole to make his
point and get laughs. As time goes on, it becomes clearer how wise good old
George really was.
dougmacdonald
10/19/14 09:08 PM
Many wont agree but add Bill Maher to the George Carlin list.
17 of 22
Ignatz59
10/19/14 11:13 PM
I would agree. Maher, although temperamentally a different beast

than Carlin, has a way of poking fun and deflating some of our most
bombastic conceits. And while I don't know about Twain, I know that
Maher admired Carlin greatly.
doh77
10/19/14 09:24 PM
This guy is a simpleton if he truly believes the crap he is pushing. Get some balls
voters and actually realize that Obama inherited a mess and so not able to
extricate us from the wars but he has been restrained and moderating and we
have done as well as could be expected with all of the circumstances surrounding
a middle eastern awakening. And who cares about a double government if it
exists anyway they wouldNOT be worse then the Republican crowd anyway. So
keep banging on Obama and elect The R's and you will be wishing that there truly
is a double government.
attaturk
10/19/14 10:16 PM
The author wasn't knocking Obama. He was in fact saying, "so not able
to extricate us from the wars but he has been restrained and
moderating", exactly what you said. There is a continuity and there has
been a continuity for well over 50 years. Not only in foreign affairs but
in economic terms.
attaturk
10/19/14 10:16 PM
The author wasn't knocking Obama. He was in fact saying, "so not able
to extricate us from the wars but he has been restrained and
moderating", exactly what you said. There is a continuity and there has
been a continuity for well over 50 years. Not only in foreign affairs but
in economic terms.
18 of 22

WesternSuburbDad
10/19/14 09:28 PM
Maybe to so.e extent on national security and military. But on not jailing bankers
that brought down the economy, hiring his administration from wallstreet,
blocking FOIA and attacking journalists? Not giving the administration a pass.
attaturk
10/19/14 10:13 PM
You simply don't get the article. Which is too bad. But proves the
author's point.
WesternSuburbDad
10/20/14 07:01 AM
The author only makes a case for "double government" for national
security.
svonkie
10/19/14 09:53 PM
God bless The Boston Globe for printing this. You've finally hit the nail on the
head and had the guts to do so. I commend you. Perhaps there is hope after all.
MNMoore
10/20/14 07:12 AM
Speaking of the permanent government, the death notice for former Raytheon
CEO Dyer Brainerd Holmes appeared in the Boston Globe of January 13, 2013.
He was born in New York City in 1921. After prep school in New Jersey he got a
BA in Engineering from Cornell University in 1943 and served in the Naval
Reserve. He joined the NASA space program in 1961 and became a director of
Raytheon Corporation in 1963 where he led military R&D until 1975, when he
became President of Raytheon. During Holmes 23-years at Raytheon annual
sales increased exponentially to $7.3 billion in 1986.
Holmes was concurrently Chairman of Beech Aircraft (military contractor) and a
member of the boards of Mitre Corporation (military contractor), Bank of Boston 19 of 22
(international investment banking), Wyman Gordon Company (military
contractor), and Kaman Corporation (military contractor).

Holmes belonged to four Episcopal Churches and the Metropolitan Club of
Washington, the Algonquin Club of Boston, The Country Club of Brookline,
Massachusetts, the Memphis Hunt and Polo Club, the Sankaty Head Country
Club (Nantucket Island, Massachusetts) and the Nantucket Yacht Club.
His widow had 3 dynastic names: Mary Margaret England Wilkes Holmes
MNMoore
10/20/14 07:16 AM
Another exemplar of the permanent government:

Janine Wedel reports on page 8 of her book "Shadow Elite" on the archetypical,
but low profile, NeoCon, Bruce P. Jackson. He left the Department of Defense for
a position at Lockheed as VP for strategy and planning. While there he helped
found the US Committee to Expand NATO with Perle and Wolfowitz. Jackson
was also project director of the Project for a New American Century.
In 1997 his job at Lockheed was to secure new international markets for that
military contractor. He served on the Republican national security platform
committee. He was important to winning Senate approval to expand NATO into
Eastern Europe. Jackson was also a founder of the Committee for the Liberation
of Iraq.
mike1756
10/20/14 12:38 PM
This article is perfect argument for states rights and a small central government,
just as the Constitution says and the founders wanted.
SingleVoice
10/20/14 01:25 PM
Back in the day, I might have agreed with you...

But I'm not at all sure that our Founders could have envisioned the
workings of a truly global economy, with its associated issues,
opportunities and competitors, and/or the need to formulate "global"
responses to issues like climate change and the Ebola virus.
20 of 22
Increasingly, I'm convinced that if we are to survive as a species we

will need to unite - globally.
mike1756
10/20/14 02:10 PM
"But I'm not at all sure that our Founders could have envisioned the
workings of a truly global economy, with its associated issues,
opportunities and competitors, and/or the need to formulate "global"
responses to issues like climate change and the Ebola virus."
Does your statement require the behemoth of a government we have
now? since when is more better?
WFC49
10/20/14 01:40 PM
Never mind this business of politics and common sense , what was Kim
Kardashian wearing today!! That's what real Patriots care about!! Good Grief!
Had blood taken this morning and I asked the girl drawing it what she thought
about the to-do in Keene, NH. (that's where I am now) She said , I don't know , I
can't watch the news. It's too depressing. Didn't bother asking if she'd be going to
the polls.
WFC49
10/20/14 01:46 PM
Watch George Carlin on You Tube. He was more than funny. His daughter said
he became obsessed and depressed on the State of our Union in his later life. His
comedy shows that. This " crazy, weatherman" had a handle on what's happening
and tried to draw people to the simplicity of it. He didn't have a hidden agenda in
his rants. He actually wanted to see AmeriKa righted. The sane will miss him.
Ignatz59
10/21/14 09:30 AM
"When you are born into this world, you get a ticket to the freak show.
When you are born in America you get a front row seat." --George
Carlin
21 of 22
bamboobob
11/06/14 08:36 AM
Think how dumb the average voter is, half the people are dumber than
that guy.
Next
Please log In to comment.
2015 BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC
22 of 22

Vote All You Want. The Secret Government Won't Change. - Ideas - The Boston Globe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vote All You Want. The Secret Government Won't Change. - Ideas - The Boston Globe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/10/18/vote-all-you-want-the-secret-government-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story....

Vote all you want. The secret

ISTOCK/PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY LESLEY BECKER/GLOBE STAFF

By Jordan Michael Smith

O CTO B ER 19, 2014

HIDE 118 COMMENTS

Show more replies (4)

dougmacdonald 10/19/14 01:01 PM

to finish the above:

Bottom line..."The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance of the

and that goes for domestic policy as well as the military/industrial

Show more replies (7)

JFK learned this the hard way!

Big money is in charge. The way it has always been.

I beg to differ with your point #1 (above)...I work at my local election

Worse than that, look how many in Congress bought it.

Show more replies (6)

It's become a junk-bag of Roman Catholics, taught from an early age

Show more replies (1)

While all of the "factions" of the US populous continue to narrowly

It cannot be more sad.

Show more replies (1)

"In the councils of gov't, we must guard against the acquisition of

he said "first draft".... check it out

Show more replies (1)

Attaturk: Glad to seeing you weighing in on what I agree to be an

Show more replies (1)

Show more replies (1)

Transparency is of no use of the public pays little or no attention. One

The better way is to stop rewarding public corruption.

I would agree. Maher, although temperamentally a different beast

Show more replies (1)

Show more replies (1)

contractor), and Kaman Corporation (military contractor).

Another exemplar of the permanent government:

Back in the day, I might have agreed with you...

Increasingly, I'm convinced that if we are to survive as a species we

Show more replies (8)

Please log In to comment.

2015 BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC

You might also like