OPINION
Page 7 Friday, May 15, 1987 The Michigan Daily
Some lessons from Propaganda 101 and the U.S. press

By Brian Leiter
"Much of American foreign
policy is driven by the engine of
economic necessity. To maintain
its technological prowess, its
advanced military machine, and its
high standard of living, the United
States requires dependable sources
of raw materials throughout the
world, and that economic interest
seems to create a steadier foundation
for policy than issues of morality
or diplomacy."
This paragraph did not come
from Pravda. It came from one of
Pravda's many American
counterparts, the New York Times.
At first glance, I was quite sur -
prised. Here in the pages of the bas -
tion of apologists for welfare-state
capitalism, was what appeared to be
a simple statement of the only
plausible explanation American for -
eign policy initiatives which have,
without fail, flaunted every human -
itarian norm in pursuit of strategic
Leiter is a graduate student in law
and philosophy.

economic (and military) benefits.
But then I took another look.
If I were teaching Propaganda
101 (a course that would likely.
usurp the subject matter of many
courses now masquerading under
other names), I might begin with
the article from which I quoted
above. It begins with a proposition
which seems to comport with the
basic fact about American foreign
policy - that all conceivable forms
of fascism, murder, and torture is
perfectly acceptable, and to be en -
couraged - as long as it advances,
protects, or at least, does not hinder
American economic interests.
On second look, the Times is
not ready to give quite so much
away. You see, the engine of fore -
ign policy is economic "necessity,"
and the necessity involves protect -
ion of our advanced military mac -
hine, and our high standard of
living. Even more curious, how -
ever, is the fact that although the
first paragraph suggests that "econ-
omic interest" so defined may con -
flict with morality, the article never
goes on to give any detailed ex -
ample of just what sort of conflict
with morality might happen to be
involved.

Already we have discovered two
key techniques that account for the
success of American propaganda.
First, one must only suggest, but
never actually illustrate, just how it
is that a "bad" motive (like
economic interest) might conflict
with morality. Second, one must
identify the "economic interest"
with the interest of all Americans.
If economic interest conflicts with
morality, it is a challenge to all our
interests. It is asking all of us to
give up our high standard of living.
Let us consider the first
technique. It is truly a shame then
that the Times didn't follow up its
proposition that "economic interest
seems to create a steadier foundation
for policy than morality" with a
more apt example. For example, in
1965, the people of the Dominican
Republic democratically elected a
left-leaning president. Democracy is
very nice, but electing leftists is
very bad. Twenty-three thousand
U.S. Marines invaded and a new
election was held in which a
"proper" candidate won. Coinciding
with this event, Gulf & Western
moved in to take control of the food
industry. "Our economic interests"
required exporting to the United

States the majority of domestic
food products while starvation and
malnutrition soared in the
Dominican Republic. In the years
immediately following the re-
entrenchment of U.S. economic
interests, 400,000 people fled the
starvation in the Dominican
Republic. This was not a popular
topic with U.S. media. After all,
articles on Cuban refugees are so
much more agreeable.
Of course, 1965 was a big year
for our economic interests. A U.S.-
instigated coup in Indonesia put in
power a regime that, not surpris -
ingly, was very hospitable to U.S.
'investment. It was also a regime
that slaughtered (conservatively)
500,000 of its citizens during the
late 60s. It was also a regime that
undertook (with U.S. aid) the
genocidal invasions of East Timor
in the late 70s, murdering one out
of every six citizens in that
country. These were not especially
popular topics with the U.S. media
either. But after all, our economic
interests were at stake, and Indones -
ia is also a major supplier of tin.
Let us consider the second
technique. The Times implies that
it is "our" economic interests, "our"

high standard of living, that is at
stake. This regretably, is total
mystification. As it turns out,
"our"' technological prowess is not
ours. It belongs to that infin -
itesimal segment of the population
which owns and controls the major
productive and technological forces.
Similarly, "our" high standard of
living may not require the rape and
exploitation of half the globe,
because "our" standard of living is
not so high. Thirty five million
people live under the Federal
poverty line, seventeen million
families have fallen out of the mid -
dle class since Reagan took office.
The majority (conservatively, 60
percent of the population), live in
the modest but eternally insecure
middle class. But for the 1 percent
of the population that controls 26
percent of the nation's wealth, for
the 5 percent that own over two-
thirds of all stock, for that
collection of investment bankers,
stockbrokers, corporate lawyers, and
executives, that function as U.S.
policy-makers, it may indeed be an
"economic necessity" that 400,000
Dominicans flee starvation, and that
500,000 Indonesians and 100,000
East Timorians be murdered.

A lot of bang but little bread for your trillion bucks

By Mark Williams
In early January, President
Reagan made history by proposing
that the United States spend over
one trillion dollars in a single fiscal
year. What is incredible about the
Reagan budget is not just the
amount, but the spending priorities
it advocates, and the irony that
Ronald Reagan, the staunch fiscal
conservative (?) was its originator.
Let us examine this last point
first. Reagan campaigned for pres -
ident as a steadfast fiscal conser -
vative, and during the 1980
campaign, he continually berated
Federal budget deficits under
President Carter (whose combined
four year deficits totaled $195
billion). It may be difficult for
some today to recall the rhetoric of
the 1980 Republican presidential
candidate, but yes, Ronald Reagan
did ridicule President Carter's fiscal
policies and promised the American
people that if they gave him their
vote and confidence, he would
deliver a balanced budget by 1984.
In 1980, Reagan accused the
Democratic party of pushing "tax,
tax, spend, spend" policies. By
Williams is a member of the Daily
Opinion page staff.


1982, it was plain that President
Reagan was himself commited to a
policy of "spend, spend, borrow,
borrow, etc." During Reagan's
tenure, the Federal deficit has in -
creased over 500 percent , from
$195 billion, to well over $1
trillion. Reagan's response to
these deficits was to continue to
blast the "failures" of past
administrations and Congress. He
continued his attempt to portray
Congress and Jimmy Carter as the
culprits despite the fact that not
once in six years has he submitted a
balanced budget for consideration.
That the current proposed expen -
ditures of over a trillion dollars -
at least $108 billion more than
projected revenues - should come
from such a "fiscal conservative" is
surprising only to those who swal -
lowed the president's previous
rhetoric. Remember how the United
States would simply "grow" out of
its deficits via increased product -
ivity? Such fantasies formed the
basis of Reagan's economic vision
for the country during the 1984
campaign, and now serve merely to
highlight the dismal results of his
policies.
Reagan's six-year spending spree
dwarfs the combined totals amassed


by the previous 39 administrations
over 197 years! What do we, the
people, get for our trillion dollars?
An easier question to answer is
"What don't we get?" With a
trillion dollar expenditure, you
would think American students
would get a little tuition relief, but
such is not the case. Reagan's
proposed expenditures for education
are 12 percent less than last year
(which of course, were less than the
year before, etc.), and envision the
total elimination of all Work Study
programs and Supplemental Educa -
tion Opportunity Grants, as well as
a 33 percent reduction in PELL
Grants. The White House anti -
cipates saving $2.1 billion by
cutting such "wasteful, unneces -
sary" social spending.
In addition, changes in the GSL
program restrict eligibility for
loans, and increase the interest rates
students must pay on loans
received. According to the Ann
Arbor News, one in five U of M
students will, under these new re -
gulations, lose some or all of their
GSL eligibility. But for those who
still qualify, the president proposes
good news - a provision that
removes the ceiling on loans to
allow increased borrowing. The idea


of greater debt and more borrowing
is strangely reminiscent to current
Reagan fiscal policy, and is not at
all attractive to the vast majority of
students.
While farmers are losing their
farms, homes, vocations, and their
way of life, Reagan proposes a $4
billion decrease in farm subsidies.
This out is not to be phased in over
time, but rather, abruptly carved out
in one year. Little imagination is
needed to feel the economic shock
waves that will engulf family-
operated farms if this proposal
becomes law.
For a trillion dollars, one would
expect the new budget to address the
concerns-of America's underpriv -
ileged, and in a sense, this budget
does address the plight of the poor,
the hungry, and the unemployed.
The prescription for these ills is
alas all too familiar - a $1.5
billion decrease in programs to
benefit the disadvantaged (Food and
Nutrition, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, and Vocational
Rehabilitation). This, on top of the
billions cut since 1981! It is of
more than passing interest to note
that the unenviable job of promot -
ing and justifying the president's
ridiculous spending priorities before


a skeptical Congress falls to the
director of Office of Management
and Budget, James Miller III.
Miller, having had practice with
such problematic economics in the
past, is not likely to flinch. Some
astute readers will recall that Miller
is the same genius who proposed
classifying ketchup as a vegetable
during Reagan's first term in order
to "save" millions from the School
Lunch program.
However, the proposed budget is
not all cuts or eliminations. No,
there are some actual increases. Can
you guess where? The surprise is
that Medicaid funding would rise a
whole 3/4 of one percent.. But
don't get excited, the 3.7 percent
cut in food and nutrition programs
more than make up for that
~increase. What is not surprising is
the hefty increase Reagan proposes
for his Strategic Defense Initiative
- a 44 percent increase in 1987.
Defense spending itself would only
jump a "modest" 7.7 percent. The
White House is quick to point out
that this is only a 3 percent rise
after inflation. However, inflation
is not to be considered a factor
when slashing funding for
agriculture, education, food, nutri -
tion, or vocational training.