Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 23:30:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Norman Solomon <mediabeat@igc.org>
Subject: Media Hype: Another American Century
?
Article: 85775
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-ID: <bulk.14971.19991231091529@chumbly.math.missouri.edu>
In the nation's biggest news weekly, the final headline of 1999
posed a question that preoccupies many journalists these days: A
Second American Century?
Providing some answers on the last page of Time's Dec. 27 issue,
pundit Charles Krauthammer was upbeat. The world at the turn of the
21st century is not multipolar but unipolar,
he wrote. America
bestrides the world like a colossus.
We are supposed to see this
as a very good situation.
The main reason for the absence of a serious challenge to American
hegemony is that it is so benign,
Krauthammer went on. It does
not extract tribute. It does not seek military occupation. It is not
interested in acquiring territory.
With such declarations, Time
magazine echoes its founder, Henry Luce, who coined the American
Century
maxim six decades ago.
Like his colleagues in the punditocracy, Krauthammer recognizes that
foreign rivals are restless. (The world is stirring.
) Yet the
outlook is favorable: None have the power to challenge America
now. The unipolar moment will surely last for at least a
generation.
Many other media outlets are also buoyant. There's every reason
to think the upcoming 100 years will prove to be yet another American
century,
according to the Dec. 20 issue of Fortune magazine.
On 1999's last telecast of the CBS program Sunday Morning,
a confident pronouncement came from Harold Evans, editor of U.S. News
& World Report as well as the New York Daily News: I would be
prepared to say it will be another American century.
When prospects for the next century seem murky, the media fixations usually revolve around whether the United States can overpower the world—not whether it should.
Three days before 2000 began, a front-page Christian Science Monitor
story appeared under the heading Where America Stands Among World
Empires.
The newspaper emphasized that questions persist: How
long will U.S. dominance last and how does it compare with past
civilizations?
Circumscribed questions yielded narrow answers: The
lengthy article could spare only fleeting references to downsides of
American power in recent decades, such as massive carnage in Vietnam
and deadly U.S. aid to the Nicaraguan contras.
In sync with the prevalent media assumption that Uncle Sam's
global reach is overwhelmingly benign, the Monitor reported: Some
observers remain optimistic that the 21st century could be
'American' as well, particularly if the development of markets
is seen as more important than armaments in a nation's future
arsenal.
There is some truth to the claim by Time's Krauthammer that the
present-day U.S. government does not seek military occupation
and is not interested in acquiring territory.
Rather than
sending in the army and marines, policymakers prefer to assist with
the deployment of Citibank, Microsoft and the like. While military
prowess remains crucial, today's cutting edge for global
domination is relentless economic leverage—what the Christian
Science Monitor discreetly calls the development of markets.
To those holding sway in Washington, foreign policy should aim to
secure all economic beachheads. In the process, as college history
instructor Paul Street wrote in the November issue of Z Magazine,
the United States must therefore monitor and police the planet with
more diligence than ever.
Despite all the talk about a world
transformed, he contends, globalization still depends on American
militarism.
The prevailing idea is to use military power to
create a favorable global milieu for international investors.
Common journalistic euphemisms make a lot more sense when held up to the light of such analysis. While the interests of international investors are routinely equated with the interests of humanity, the economic power structure means fabulous wealth for a few and untold poverty for many. In medialand, key owners and advertisers continue to gain enormous profits.
For the record, the last Time magazine of the 20th century included 27 full-page advertisements for products from the computer industry—along with 17 pages of ads from car makers, 16 from financial-services firms, 14 from pharmaceutical giants, four from oil companies and four from cigarette makers.
It's no surprise that media conglomerates like Time Warner are
extolling the last American Century
and encouraging us to hope
for another one. But history is not destiny.