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

ISTOCK/PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY LESLEY BECKER/GLOBE STAFF

Q&A

Vote all you want. The secretgovernment won’t change.The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says TuftsUniversity’s Michael Glennon

By Jordan Michael Smith OCTOBER 19, 2014

THE VOTERS WHO put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s

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.

But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost

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

1 of 22

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

America’s 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 couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.

Though it’s 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”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s 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.

Glennon’s critique sounds like an outsider’s 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 he’s not a

conspiracy theorist: Rather, he sees the problem as one of “smart, hard-working, public-

spirited people acting in good faith who are responding to systemic incentives”—without 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 Bagehot’s famous theory, unveiled in the 1860s. Bagehot

was the scholar who presided over the birth of the Economist magazine—they 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 substantial—there are 800 footnotes in the book.

IDEAS: Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected

officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t 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 Nicaragua’s 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: Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?


3 of 22

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t 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: Couldn’t Obama’s 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 isn’t how we’re 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 true—policy 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 that’s 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 can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.

Related coverage:

• Charlie Baker victorious as Martha Coakley concedes in governor’s race

• Book review: ‘National Security and Double Government’ by Michael J. Glennon

• Meet Zelda, the unlikely ‘Dear Abby’ of NSA


4 of 22

Oldest Newest Best

HockeyDem 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.

• 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.

GGeett TTooddaayy''ss HHeeaaddlliinneess ffrroomm tthhee GGlloobbee iinn yyoouurr iinnbbooxx::

SIGN UP

Privacy Policy

HIDE 118 COMMENTS

118 Comments

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 can’t affect,

policies that you can’t 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.

[email protected]

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.


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.




16 of 22

Andrei:

The better way is to stop rewarding public corruption.

[email protected]


Public corruption will eventually take America down. Just take a look at the

dailies.

[email protected]

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.


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.

Please log In to comment.

© 2015 BOSTON GLOBE MEDIA PARTNERS, LLC

1 2 Next »


22 of 22

Documents

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