What do you think?
Rate this book
National Security and Double Government
Why has U.S. security policy scarcely changed from the Bush to the Obama administration? National Security and Double Government offers a disquieting answer. Michael J. Glennon challenges the myth that U.S. security policy is still forged by America's visible, "Madisonian institutions" - the President, Congress, and the courts. Their roles, he argues, have become largely illusory. Presidential control is now nominal, congressional oversight is dysfunctional, and judicial review is negligible. The book details the dramatic shift in power that has occurred from the Madisonian institutions to a concealed "Trumanite network" - the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints. Reform efforts face daunting obstacles. Remedies within this new system of "double government" require the hollowed-out Madisonian institutions to exercise the very power that they lack. Meanwhile, reform initiatives from without confront the same pervasive political ignorance within the polity that has given rise to this duality. The book sounds a powerful warning about the need to resolve this dilemma-and the mortal threat posed to accountability, democracy, and personal freedom if double government persists. This paperback version features an Afterword that addresses the emerging danger posed by populist authoritarianism rejecting the notion that the security bureaucracy can or should be relied upon to block it.
299 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 10, 2014
53 people are currently reading
763 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
April 6, 2017
Why does Barack Obama’s performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.
Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.
The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the “Madisonian” institutions incorporated into the Constitution — and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called “Trumanites” in Glennon’s parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) “The United States has, in short,” Glennon writes, “moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America’s double government.” If Al Qaeda hadn’t existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it — and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.
The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.
Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the “Trumanites” he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.
The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I’ve learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I’ve read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, “resistance is futile.” That’s a helluva takeaway, isn’t it?
On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. “Move to Vancouver,” he said.
The mounting evidence notwithstanding, I just hope it hasn’t come to that.
Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.
The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the “Madisonian” institutions incorporated into the Constitution — and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called “Trumanites” in Glennon’s parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) “The United States has, in short,” Glennon writes, “moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America’s double government.” If Al Qaeda hadn’t existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it — and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.
The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.
Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the “Trumanites” he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.
The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I’ve learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I’ve read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, “resistance is futile.” That’s a helluva takeaway, isn’t it?
On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. “Move to Vancouver,” he said.
The mounting evidence notwithstanding, I just hope it hasn’t come to that.
March 10, 2015
The Trumanite description glosses over the enormous privatization of the government that occurred last decade. This has 70% of the budget and at least half the people are "for-profit" companies
http://www.investingdaily.com/17693/s...
also during the last decade there was rapid proliferation of the "success of failure" culture in the for-profit gov. work.
http://www.govexec.com/excellence/man...
Part of the issue is that gov agencies can't lobby; however there have been claims that 10% of appropriations for for-profit work is expected to be split between lobbyists and congress. Once the beltway starts feeding on that ... there is little way to reverse. Part of a 2008 presidential platform was to reverse all that privatization, but it has yet to happen.
http://www.investingdaily.com/17693/s...
also during the last decade there was rapid proliferation of the "success of failure" culture in the for-profit gov. work.
http://www.govexec.com/excellence/man...
Part of the issue is that gov agencies can't lobby; however there have been claims that 10% of appropriations for for-profit work is expected to be split between lobbyists and congress. Once the beltway starts feeding on that ... there is little way to reverse. Part of a 2008 presidential platform was to reverse all that privatization, but it has yet to happen.
February 19, 2015
For those of us who have been reading Glenn Greenwald for the past decade, Glennon provides an alternative theory to explain the continuity of the state surveillance and security policies; policies that are largely independent of which party happens to be in power. Glennon makes a distinction between the "Madisonian" institutions that are the public face of our government - the executive, legislative, and judicial branches - and the "Trumanite" institutions - the network of surveillance and security departments. He makes the case that the public, Madisonian, government has little effective control over the operation of the Trumanite network; that it would be nearly impossible for a President to simply give an order that would cause that network to change course; that congress members do not have the time or the expertise (or the desire) to effectively oversee that network; and that members of the judiciary are pre-vetted as adherents of the aims and autonomy of the Trumanite network. He says that the Madisonian institutions occasionally are able to rein in on rare occasions - just often enough to maintain the appearance that they are in control, without actually being so.
The Trumanite network, consisting of the military, CIA, National Security Council, NSA, and dozens of other surveillance and security organizations, operate with secret budgets, secret missions, secret interpretations of the law, and secret, captive and separate judiciary. The heads of those organizations are basically above the law, and treat their would-be overseers with contempt and derision. The network is technocratic, bureaucratic, and tactical. Advancement within the network is predicated on agreeing with, and never challenging, the decisions of its leaders past or present. Thus even failed policies, such as the nearly permanent wars of aggression in the middle east, are continued and even enhanced over time - there is simply no incentive within the Trumanite network to admit failure, and strong motivation not to.
You might think that since Glennon has found a plausible and somewhat testable theory of operation of the "double government", that he would be able to offer a remedy. But he really has none. He sees no prospect that the Madisonian institutions will be able to reassert control. In part he blames this on the lack of "civil virtue" of the populace at large: the widespread ignorance and indifference of the citizenry. He points to articles in the Federalist papers that acknowledge that the finely-tuned balance of powers relies for its effectiveness on a citizenry that is informed and engaged. Our population is neither. But he also acknowledges that the situation has developed to a condition in which it is literally impossible to be informed: virtually everything done by the Trumanite network is classified, and there are "only a handful of investigative reporters" still working in the United States; and because of the high wall of secrecy, even they are unable to shed much light.
So this is a book that is both enlightening and depressing. It leaves me hoping that there are a hundred more Edward Snowdens willing to throw open the doors of secrecy and reveal the workings of the security apparatus - perhaps that would, finally, rouse the masses from their slumber.
The Trumanite network, consisting of the military, CIA, National Security Council, NSA, and dozens of other surveillance and security organizations, operate with secret budgets, secret missions, secret interpretations of the law, and secret, captive and separate judiciary. The heads of those organizations are basically above the law, and treat their would-be overseers with contempt and derision. The network is technocratic, bureaucratic, and tactical. Advancement within the network is predicated on agreeing with, and never challenging, the decisions of its leaders past or present. Thus even failed policies, such as the nearly permanent wars of aggression in the middle east, are continued and even enhanced over time - there is simply no incentive within the Trumanite network to admit failure, and strong motivation not to.
You might think that since Glennon has found a plausible and somewhat testable theory of operation of the "double government", that he would be able to offer a remedy. But he really has none. He sees no prospect that the Madisonian institutions will be able to reassert control. In part he blames this on the lack of "civil virtue" of the populace at large: the widespread ignorance and indifference of the citizenry. He points to articles in the Federalist papers that acknowledge that the finely-tuned balance of powers relies for its effectiveness on a citizenry that is informed and engaged. Our population is neither. But he also acknowledges that the situation has developed to a condition in which it is literally impossible to be informed: virtually everything done by the Trumanite network is classified, and there are "only a handful of investigative reporters" still working in the United States; and because of the high wall of secrecy, even they are unable to shed much light.
So this is a book that is both enlightening and depressing. It leaves me hoping that there are a hundred more Edward Snowdens willing to throw open the doors of secrecy and reveal the workings of the security apparatus - perhaps that would, finally, rouse the masses from their slumber.
July 24, 2022
In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote Britain had a “double government”. You had the monarchy and the House of Lords, yet the real work seemed to be done by the House of Commons, the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister. One government for show, one government for real. This book is about the US double government.
James Madison had wanted an informed and engaged electorate; without it, he felt government equilibrium will collapse. In this book he represents the Madisonian Model. Truman was the opposite: he sets up the NSA (through a top-secret order with zero transparency) to spy on people, and starts a sham Cold War, knowing Russia wasn’t a threat, but Truman needed to get elected (Clark Clifford interview). Acheson himself acknowledged that Truman exaggerated the threats the Russians posed and that the purpose of the NSC 68 report was to “to bludgeon the mind of the top government by making its points clearer than the truth.”
In this book the author counters the Madisonian model with the Trumanite model. Trumanites only inflate threats. John Kenneth Galbraith, was told by JFK’s and Johnson’s National Security Advisor “You always advise against the use of force – do you realize that?” US citizens are supposed to stay like frogs in water on a stove, and not notice the defense budget is unexplainably 50% higher AFTER the end of the Cold War. After 911, in response, the US spent $6.6 million for each dollar al Qaeda had spent to finance the attacks. The National Security bill in 2009 was ¾ of a trillion dollars. Every dollar for this was a dollar kept from the people.
Bob Woodward wrote that Obama asked 18 top advisors whether “we ought to leave Afghanistan?” “No one said anything.” Trumanites want the “preservation of the status quo.” It’s much less embarrassing to hold one’s tongue than to speak out, or call the present path a failure.
Double government works when the average American falsely believes Madisonian institutions are in charge. Regular people prefer to trace themselves back to the Founders more than to greedy pencil pushers. Note US courts never had the balls to stop a war except one time when in 1973 Justice Douglas stopped the bombing of Cambodia for a full nine hours (but then, the full Trumanite Supreme Court overturned it). Praise right-wing morally inverted Jesus.
In 1984, CIA director Casey said, “the business of Congress is to stay out of my business.” One Congressman said of the CIA, “We are like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us a lot of manure.” Justice Douglas (a friend of JFK) said, “I slowly realized the military are so strong in this country that probably no President could stand against them.” In 2008, a Bush aide asked Bush, what was the most surprising thing about the Presidency? He answered, “How little authority I have.” The Trumanite network exists.
A Senate report noted that “the NSA had kept tabs on Vietnam War opponents, assembling a ‘watch list’ of individuals and organizations involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements.” Frank Church read the future when he said, “The [NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people.” He felt that was the path to “total tyranny.”
In response, the NSA tapped his phone calls in the 70’s. Very few senators have the clearance to know what is really going on behind the back of the American people. After the Snowden disclosures, Clapper admits he gave false testimony and Trumanite Pelosi knew it was false yet stayed silent.
When the majority of Americans think what Snowden did is a good thing, it’s hard to find enough young people eager to eschew all progressive future thoughts in order to snap up one of the 5,000,000 Trumanite positions in the US that require security clearances. As Philip Roth wrote, “The power in any society is with those who get to impose the fantasy.” In this case, it’s the fantasy that the Madisonian institutions are in control.
George Kennan (one of the biggest names in US foreign policy in the 20th century) wrote: Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” He said it would make Russia do foreign policy things not to our liking, it will hurt Russian democracy, and make Russia more nationalistic and anti-Western. George sure was a smart man on guessing where we are today in 2022.
NATO’s greatest asset is its ability to serve as a veil. Not for nothing does NATO shield member states from all “legal and political accountability.” When NATO went into Libya it did regime change, exactly what it publicly said it would not do. “NATO is a Trumanite favorite in the conduct of overt military operations.” “When British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that he had ‘problems with our lawyers’ about attacking Yugoslavia without UN Security Council approval, she responded: ‘Get new lawyers’.” Trumanite.
Fun facts (from public polls) about American education: 25% of Americans don’t know we declared independence from Great Britain. 80% don’t know who the President was during WWI. 29% didn’t know the current Vice-president during a 2011 Newsweek poll. 70% didn’t know the Constitution was the supreme law of our land. “Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of the Supreme Court”. In 2007, 33% believed “Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 911 attacks”. Let’s look at geography education in the US, shall we? In 2006, 88% of our 18-24-year-olds couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map, 75% couldn’t find Iran or Israel, and 70% couldn’t find North Korea. Studies show the more you know about another country, the less chance you will blindly support US war crimes there.
Stray facts: Death by drone increased more than 4x under Obama than during Bush. Under Obama for the “first time since the Civil War, the US government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial.” Obama was so excited by that he then ordered the killing of a 16-year-old American citizen (Abdulrahman) for future crimes, while he was eating dinner with friends in Yemen. Imagine the joy of being the parents of Abdul’s friends, or the uncompensated restaurant owner’s family scrapping body parts off the tile. This is how the Trumanite network courts blowback. Obama at every step invoked “the state-secrets privilege to prevent any judicial relief for individuals wronged by the executive branch.” “Obama did in fact overrule Gate’s objections to use of force against Libya (NASR super note 206, at 180)”. That’s it, Barack, tell your own military experts they aren’t aggressive enough. What an unrepentant Trumanite war criminal. The Trumanite rise has led to citizen trust in government figures going from 70% in 1958 to the mid-20’s 2013 (Washington Post). The CIA got the film Zero Dark Thirty to remove all scenes deemed offensive to the CIA (see Guardian article).
Let’s look at the three US branches. Each branch does it’s best to stay in sync with the hidden Trumanite branch. In England, Lord Melbourne once told his cabinet, “It is not so much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same.” Plot on a timeline the diminishing power of the Madisonian branch against the increasing power of the Trumanite branch. If this trend continues, The US Automat of the 1950’s will be replaced by the US Autocrat of the 2020’s. Gagehot called Britain a “disguised republic.” Max Weber wrote that unchecked bureaucarcies can lead to a “polar night of unchecked darkness” where humanitarian values are “sacrificed for organizational ends.”
Do not underestimate the power of the Trumanite Network: “It has the power to kill, arrest, and jail, the power to see and hear people’s every word and action, the power to instill fear and submission, the power to quash investigations and quell speech, the power to shape public debate or to curtail it, and the power to hide its deeds and evade its weak-kneed overseers. The Trumanite network holds, in short, the power of irreversibility.” Lest we wish fascism, we need to make the Trumanite network both publicly visible and accountable.
To fully appreciate the future threat of an unexamined Trumanite network, let’s listen to General Tommy Frank’s talking openly about what if there were another terrorist attack on the US in a 2003 issue of Cigar Aficianado, “The Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military government. The result would be the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes the most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years.”
The US no-fly list had 16 names in 9/11/2001; by 2012 it had 21,000 names on it. “The government doesn’t reveal listing criteria or the evidence it relies on to put people on the lists.” Further surrender power to bureaucrats or “populist authoritarianism” kills democracy. 23% of Americans born after 1970 think democracy is a bad way to run the country. Chilling. “One out of six Americans believes it would be a good thing to have Army rule.”
Terrific book. Such a critical subject that affects any Americans not wishing to live under fascist rule, and yet aside from Noam, no one is talking about Michael Glennon or Double Government. That’s a huge pity. Five stars. Bravo.
James Madison had wanted an informed and engaged electorate; without it, he felt government equilibrium will collapse. In this book he represents the Madisonian Model. Truman was the opposite: he sets up the NSA (through a top-secret order with zero transparency) to spy on people, and starts a sham Cold War, knowing Russia wasn’t a threat, but Truman needed to get elected (Clark Clifford interview). Acheson himself acknowledged that Truman exaggerated the threats the Russians posed and that the purpose of the NSC 68 report was to “to bludgeon the mind of the top government by making its points clearer than the truth.”
In this book the author counters the Madisonian model with the Trumanite model. Trumanites only inflate threats. John Kenneth Galbraith, was told by JFK’s and Johnson’s National Security Advisor “You always advise against the use of force – do you realize that?” US citizens are supposed to stay like frogs in water on a stove, and not notice the defense budget is unexplainably 50% higher AFTER the end of the Cold War. After 911, in response, the US spent $6.6 million for each dollar al Qaeda had spent to finance the attacks. The National Security bill in 2009 was ¾ of a trillion dollars. Every dollar for this was a dollar kept from the people.
Bob Woodward wrote that Obama asked 18 top advisors whether “we ought to leave Afghanistan?” “No one said anything.” Trumanites want the “preservation of the status quo.” It’s much less embarrassing to hold one’s tongue than to speak out, or call the present path a failure.
Double government works when the average American falsely believes Madisonian institutions are in charge. Regular people prefer to trace themselves back to the Founders more than to greedy pencil pushers. Note US courts never had the balls to stop a war except one time when in 1973 Justice Douglas stopped the bombing of Cambodia for a full nine hours (but then, the full Trumanite Supreme Court overturned it). Praise right-wing morally inverted Jesus.
In 1984, CIA director Casey said, “the business of Congress is to stay out of my business.” One Congressman said of the CIA, “We are like mushrooms. They keep us in the dark and feed us a lot of manure.” Justice Douglas (a friend of JFK) said, “I slowly realized the military are so strong in this country that probably no President could stand against them.” In 2008, a Bush aide asked Bush, what was the most surprising thing about the Presidency? He answered, “How little authority I have.” The Trumanite network exists.
A Senate report noted that “the NSA had kept tabs on Vietnam War opponents, assembling a ‘watch list’ of individuals and organizations involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements.” Frank Church read the future when he said, “The [NSA’s] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people.” He felt that was the path to “total tyranny.”
In response, the NSA tapped his phone calls in the 70’s. Very few senators have the clearance to know what is really going on behind the back of the American people. After the Snowden disclosures, Clapper admits he gave false testimony and Trumanite Pelosi knew it was false yet stayed silent.
When the majority of Americans think what Snowden did is a good thing, it’s hard to find enough young people eager to eschew all progressive future thoughts in order to snap up one of the 5,000,000 Trumanite positions in the US that require security clearances. As Philip Roth wrote, “The power in any society is with those who get to impose the fantasy.” In this case, it’s the fantasy that the Madisonian institutions are in control.
George Kennan (one of the biggest names in US foreign policy in the 20th century) wrote: Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-cold-war era.” He said it would make Russia do foreign policy things not to our liking, it will hurt Russian democracy, and make Russia more nationalistic and anti-Western. George sure was a smart man on guessing where we are today in 2022.
NATO’s greatest asset is its ability to serve as a veil. Not for nothing does NATO shield member states from all “legal and political accountability.” When NATO went into Libya it did regime change, exactly what it publicly said it would not do. “NATO is a Trumanite favorite in the conduct of overt military operations.” “When British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that he had ‘problems with our lawyers’ about attacking Yugoslavia without UN Security Council approval, she responded: ‘Get new lawyers’.” Trumanite.
Fun facts (from public polls) about American education: 25% of Americans don’t know we declared independence from Great Britain. 80% don’t know who the President was during WWI. 29% didn’t know the current Vice-president during a 2011 Newsweek poll. 70% didn’t know the Constitution was the supreme law of our land. “Far more Americans can name the Three Stooges than any member of the Supreme Court”. In 2007, 33% believed “Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 911 attacks”. Let’s look at geography education in the US, shall we? In 2006, 88% of our 18-24-year-olds couldn’t find Afghanistan on a map, 75% couldn’t find Iran or Israel, and 70% couldn’t find North Korea. Studies show the more you know about another country, the less chance you will blindly support US war crimes there.
Stray facts: Death by drone increased more than 4x under Obama than during Bush. Under Obama for the “first time since the Civil War, the US government had carried out the deliberate killing of an American citizen as a wartime enemy and without a trial.” Obama was so excited by that he then ordered the killing of a 16-year-old American citizen (Abdulrahman) for future crimes, while he was eating dinner with friends in Yemen. Imagine the joy of being the parents of Abdul’s friends, or the uncompensated restaurant owner’s family scrapping body parts off the tile. This is how the Trumanite network courts blowback. Obama at every step invoked “the state-secrets privilege to prevent any judicial relief for individuals wronged by the executive branch.” “Obama did in fact overrule Gate’s objections to use of force against Libya (NASR super note 206, at 180)”. That’s it, Barack, tell your own military experts they aren’t aggressive enough. What an unrepentant Trumanite war criminal. The Trumanite rise has led to citizen trust in government figures going from 70% in 1958 to the mid-20’s 2013 (Washington Post). The CIA got the film Zero Dark Thirty to remove all scenes deemed offensive to the CIA (see Guardian article).
Let’s look at the three US branches. Each branch does it’s best to stay in sync with the hidden Trumanite branch. In England, Lord Melbourne once told his cabinet, “It is not so much matter which we say, but mind, we must all say the same.” Plot on a timeline the diminishing power of the Madisonian branch against the increasing power of the Trumanite branch. If this trend continues, The US Automat of the 1950’s will be replaced by the US Autocrat of the 2020’s. Gagehot called Britain a “disguised republic.” Max Weber wrote that unchecked bureaucarcies can lead to a “polar night of unchecked darkness” where humanitarian values are “sacrificed for organizational ends.”
Do not underestimate the power of the Trumanite Network: “It has the power to kill, arrest, and jail, the power to see and hear people’s every word and action, the power to instill fear and submission, the power to quash investigations and quell speech, the power to shape public debate or to curtail it, and the power to hide its deeds and evade its weak-kneed overseers. The Trumanite network holds, in short, the power of irreversibility.” Lest we wish fascism, we need to make the Trumanite network both publicly visible and accountable.
To fully appreciate the future threat of an unexamined Trumanite network, let’s listen to General Tommy Frank’s talking openly about what if there were another terrorist attack on the US in a 2003 issue of Cigar Aficianado, “The Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military government. The result would be the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes the most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years.”
The US no-fly list had 16 names in 9/11/2001; by 2012 it had 21,000 names on it. “The government doesn’t reveal listing criteria or the evidence it relies on to put people on the lists.” Further surrender power to bureaucrats or “populist authoritarianism” kills democracy. 23% of Americans born after 1970 think democracy is a bad way to run the country. Chilling. “One out of six Americans believes it would be a good thing to have Army rule.”
Terrific book. Such a critical subject that affects any Americans not wishing to live under fascist rule, and yet aside from Noam, no one is talking about Michael Glennon or Double Government. That’s a huge pity. Five stars. Bravo.
Want to read
November 6, 2024"As Michael Glennon writes in his book, National Security and the Double Government, the United States today is comparable to how the United Kingdom or Britain was in the 19th century, and even today to some extent, when they had a royal family, a king, a queen, etc., who was supposedly running the government. But in fact, all real power had slipped away, and it had become just pageantry and spectacle, bread and circuses.
And American democracy is like that. It's just pageantry and spectacle. It's bread and circuses. The voters don't decide anything, and their votes aren't even counted properly. It's very, very important for those of us speaking in free media outlets to point out that, as Jimmy Carter, the former American president, has repeatedly stated, American elections are so corrupt that they're not even worth monitoring."
-Kevin Barrett, "Trump 'Wins' US Presidential Election" (Nov. 6, 2024)
And American democracy is like that. It's just pageantry and spectacle. It's bread and circuses. The voters don't decide anything, and their votes aren't even counted properly. It's very, very important for those of us speaking in free media outlets to point out that, as Jimmy Carter, the former American president, has repeatedly stated, American elections are so corrupt that they're not even worth monitoring."
-Kevin Barrett, "Trump 'Wins' US Presidential Election" (Nov. 6, 2024)
December 31, 2014
Fascinating, tightly argued academic book about what the author argues is the growth of a "double government" in the U.S., with respect to national security policy. He opens the book with a question: how is it that, when Sen. Obama (first in the Senate and then on the campaign trail) articulated a large number of substantive policy changes to US national security policy, upon his election nothing meaningfully changed?
Glennon starts by considering two standard answers: first, that Bush/Cheney national security policy is substantively correct and that Pres. Obama realized this upon reaching the Oval Office; and second, that Obama was never sincere in his promises to reform these policies and had no intention of using presidential power to enact any such reforms. He dismisses both and instead argues that what he calls "the Madisonian institutions" - Congress, the presidency, and the courts - actually have very little power to affect national security policy. This is because a separate government has evolved since 1948 and Truman's passage of the National Security Act, and it is this set of agencies and officials, which Glennon calls "the Trumanite network," that make US national security policy.
Glennon draws a parallel between the growth of the Trumanite network and the increasing role of the House of Commons and the British Civil Service during the 19th century. In the latter case, the new institutions came about because the old way of governing could not handle the demands of running a global empire, nor could they retain their legitimacy and place in popular mythology were they to take on democratic norms (which Britain needed). Thus, quoting Walter Bagehot, Britain's second government was "a concealed republic" - a democratic state and professional bureaucracy that was able to mask itself with the traditional, aristocratic costume so many Britons at the time regarded as the only legitimate way of doing things. But, Glennon warns, in the US since 1948, the second government has moved in the opposite direction: away from democratic accountability, although it masks itself with the legitimacy of the institutions Madison created.
This is a worthwhile read. It's also a lot shorter than it looks on your Kindle, since most of the page count is taken up by copious endnotes and citations.
Glennon starts by considering two standard answers: first, that Bush/Cheney national security policy is substantively correct and that Pres. Obama realized this upon reaching the Oval Office; and second, that Obama was never sincere in his promises to reform these policies and had no intention of using presidential power to enact any such reforms. He dismisses both and instead argues that what he calls "the Madisonian institutions" - Congress, the presidency, and the courts - actually have very little power to affect national security policy. This is because a separate government has evolved since 1948 and Truman's passage of the National Security Act, and it is this set of agencies and officials, which Glennon calls "the Trumanite network," that make US national security policy.
Glennon draws a parallel between the growth of the Trumanite network and the increasing role of the House of Commons and the British Civil Service during the 19th century. In the latter case, the new institutions came about because the old way of governing could not handle the demands of running a global empire, nor could they retain their legitimacy and place in popular mythology were they to take on democratic norms (which Britain needed). Thus, quoting Walter Bagehot, Britain's second government was "a concealed republic" - a democratic state and professional bureaucracy that was able to mask itself with the traditional, aristocratic costume so many Britons at the time regarded as the only legitimate way of doing things. But, Glennon warns, in the US since 1948, the second government has moved in the opposite direction: away from democratic accountability, although it masks itself with the legitimacy of the institutions Madison created.
This is a worthwhile read. It's also a lot shorter than it looks on your Kindle, since most of the page count is taken up by copious endnotes and citations.
April 13, 2015
For many people, US President Barack Obama's term in office has been a disappointment. Having campaigned on the theme of 'change', his foreign policy has closely resembled the second term of the Bush Administration. Why is this so?
It could be Obama never believed what he said, or perhaps he did, but was persuaded in government to stay the course. In 'National Security and Double Government', Michael J. Glennon offers a third option, that thanks to the network of national security organisations established under Harry Truman and expanded in size and power ever since (the NSA, NSC, Joint Chiefs of Staff etc), Obama was never really in charge of his government's policy.
To make clear, Glennon is not suggesting any mass conspiracy. His concern is not about nefarious individuals, but the way a relatively close knit and largely obscure mid-level range of institutions operates to drive policy, often in the face of the wishes of the visible (and publicly responsible) institutions such as the President and Congress.
Borrowing from the great English commentator Walter Bagehot's analysis of the monarchy-legislative diarchy in 19th century England, Glennon describes this as a 'double government'. In the case of the US, it is staffed by decent, intelligent and hard working people, but a group which tends to support a certain style of policy (more often military and intelligence than political or diplomatic) and operate without significant oversight, as a way to deal with the nation's threats. Foremost among them, international terrorism.
Glennon - again never implying a conspiracy - details substantial evidence of the way bureaucratic organisations in the United States, especially the military and intelligence agencies work to shape, subvert or even mislead the leaders of the government in Congress and the White House. Congress is kept in the dark, presidents battle day by day to make the smallest of changes to the course of the ship of state. In turn, the general public keeps blaming the public 'Madisonian' institutions the founders established, for a failure that is often tied to the role of largely private 'Trumanite' organisations and individuals.
This is a depressing book. It suggests that the War on Terrorism (at an estimated cost of $3.3 Trillion) is starting to feed upon the democratic structure of the US. It suggests a profound institutional failure is underway that will be extremely difficult to fix. As Glennon notes, many of the seemingly 'simple' changes, such as greater oversight by Congress or the Judiciary have been tried and continue to fail.
For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 99.9% of all warrant requests between 1979 and 2011. To repeat, 99.9%. Glennon in particular notes the co-option of the courts and congressional committees to the public servants they are supposed to monitor. Some of the quotes he provides suggest a serious dereliction of duty by key individuals who, under the honourable motive of trying to protect the country from external threats, have guaranteed harm at home by abandoning their tasks of oversight and providing checks and balances.
The only plausible way forward Glennon suggests, is a revitalisation of civic virtue. A role demanded of the public by Madison, Jefferson and Washington, but since abandoned as Republican ideals gave way to liberal notions which suggest a citizen's only duty is to abide by the law and pay (minimal) taxes. Representative government, and in turn the bureaucracy that feeds it can not run without an engaged public. Cruelly however, the more the public institutions seem to fail (Congress has an approval rate of 15%), the more the public reduce their attention.
There's much to recommend about this short book, though it often resorts to inferring and supposing the presence of the network it focuses on, rather than clearly mapping its contours. Perhaps rightly, Glennon doesn't try and single out specific individuals as the key sources of blame, but nor does he provide enough institutional analysis of what organisations and at what level the network operates at. Strangely this sense is actually deepened by the presence of an interesting chapter looking at alternative explanations for the continuity such as rational actor models, or organisational behaviour etc. This is to Glennon's academic credit, but I would have liked a little bit more of a journalistic edge, more interviews and clearer descriptions of on the ground behaviour.
I am not entirely persuaded by the final thesis, but I think this is an important read for those interested in how governments manage national security issues, as well as those seeking insight to US foreign policy and the War on Terror. It shows how many of the failures we might easily prescribe to ignorance, incompetence or malevolence, are often best explained by boring but extremely serious institutional failure. The Trumanite network that Glennon condemns are all filled with good people who are desperately trying to protect the US in this era of anywhere, anytime threats. But if this compelling book is to be believed, the state is paying an extremely high cost for their loyalty. New ways are needed, and soon.
It could be Obama never believed what he said, or perhaps he did, but was persuaded in government to stay the course. In 'National Security and Double Government', Michael J. Glennon offers a third option, that thanks to the network of national security organisations established under Harry Truman and expanded in size and power ever since (the NSA, NSC, Joint Chiefs of Staff etc), Obama was never really in charge of his government's policy.
To make clear, Glennon is not suggesting any mass conspiracy. His concern is not about nefarious individuals, but the way a relatively close knit and largely obscure mid-level range of institutions operates to drive policy, often in the face of the wishes of the visible (and publicly responsible) institutions such as the President and Congress.
Borrowing from the great English commentator Walter Bagehot's analysis of the monarchy-legislative diarchy in 19th century England, Glennon describes this as a 'double government'. In the case of the US, it is staffed by decent, intelligent and hard working people, but a group which tends to support a certain style of policy (more often military and intelligence than political or diplomatic) and operate without significant oversight, as a way to deal with the nation's threats. Foremost among them, international terrorism.
Glennon - again never implying a conspiracy - details substantial evidence of the way bureaucratic organisations in the United States, especially the military and intelligence agencies work to shape, subvert or even mislead the leaders of the government in Congress and the White House. Congress is kept in the dark, presidents battle day by day to make the smallest of changes to the course of the ship of state. In turn, the general public keeps blaming the public 'Madisonian' institutions the founders established, for a failure that is often tied to the role of largely private 'Trumanite' organisations and individuals.
This is a depressing book. It suggests that the War on Terrorism (at an estimated cost of $3.3 Trillion) is starting to feed upon the democratic structure of the US. It suggests a profound institutional failure is underway that will be extremely difficult to fix. As Glennon notes, many of the seemingly 'simple' changes, such as greater oversight by Congress or the Judiciary have been tried and continue to fail.
For example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 99.9% of all warrant requests between 1979 and 2011. To repeat, 99.9%. Glennon in particular notes the co-option of the courts and congressional committees to the public servants they are supposed to monitor. Some of the quotes he provides suggest a serious dereliction of duty by key individuals who, under the honourable motive of trying to protect the country from external threats, have guaranteed harm at home by abandoning their tasks of oversight and providing checks and balances.
The only plausible way forward Glennon suggests, is a revitalisation of civic virtue. A role demanded of the public by Madison, Jefferson and Washington, but since abandoned as Republican ideals gave way to liberal notions which suggest a citizen's only duty is to abide by the law and pay (minimal) taxes. Representative government, and in turn the bureaucracy that feeds it can not run without an engaged public. Cruelly however, the more the public institutions seem to fail (Congress has an approval rate of 15%), the more the public reduce their attention.
There's much to recommend about this short book, though it often resorts to inferring and supposing the presence of the network it focuses on, rather than clearly mapping its contours. Perhaps rightly, Glennon doesn't try and single out specific individuals as the key sources of blame, but nor does he provide enough institutional analysis of what organisations and at what level the network operates at. Strangely this sense is actually deepened by the presence of an interesting chapter looking at alternative explanations for the continuity such as rational actor models, or organisational behaviour etc. This is to Glennon's academic credit, but I would have liked a little bit more of a journalistic edge, more interviews and clearer descriptions of on the ground behaviour.
I am not entirely persuaded by the final thesis, but I think this is an important read for those interested in how governments manage national security issues, as well as those seeking insight to US foreign policy and the War on Terror. It shows how many of the failures we might easily prescribe to ignorance, incompetence or malevolence, are often best explained by boring but extremely serious institutional failure. The Trumanite network that Glennon condemns are all filled with good people who are desperately trying to protect the US in this era of anywhere, anytime threats. But if this compelling book is to be believed, the state is paying an extremely high cost for their loyalty. New ways are needed, and soon.
December 18, 2024
Brilliant description of the US national security/foreign policy network, why policy decisions are largely unaccountable, and why US foreign policy changes very little over the years despite repeated missteps and bad outcomes. Must-read for any student of US policy in international affairs.
January 2, 2016
Why has there been little appreciable difference between between George W. Bush's and Barack Obama's national security strategy? In Micheal Glennon sets about the answer that question in "National Security and Double Government".
His argument is that national security policy doesn't change because the President, Congress, and the Courts don't actually control national security policy. The institutions setup to safeguard american security, the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, DOD, et al, outlast and overpower the democratic institutions of government.
This is not a hit-job on national security policy makers or a conspiracy piece. Glennon in fact lauds the efficiency and efficacy of the national security establishment, and regards it's members as exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, individuals, driven not by pursuit of wealth or fame, but love of country. Glennon considers the this network of executive agencies as not the result of a sinister conspiracy, but an organic result of the progression of history.
The text its self stands at a remarkably short 118 pages, and a further 150 pages of footnotes and indices. Each argument is extensively researched and referenced (the main text contains over 500 footnotes). This text is thought provoking and revelationary, and should be on the bookshelf of anyone interested in national security or domestic policy.
His argument is that national security policy doesn't change because the President, Congress, and the Courts don't actually control national security policy. The institutions setup to safeguard american security, the NSA, CIA, FBI, DHS, DOD, et al, outlast and overpower the democratic institutions of government.
This is not a hit-job on national security policy makers or a conspiracy piece. Glennon in fact lauds the efficiency and efficacy of the national security establishment, and regards it's members as exceptionally intelligent, hardworking, individuals, driven not by pursuit of wealth or fame, but love of country. Glennon considers the this network of executive agencies as not the result of a sinister conspiracy, but an organic result of the progression of history.
The text its self stands at a remarkably short 118 pages, and a further 150 pages of footnotes and indices. Each argument is extensively researched and referenced (the main text contains over 500 footnotes). This text is thought provoking and revelationary, and should be on the bookshelf of anyone interested in national security or domestic policy.
November 29, 2017
Good, but it doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, Glennon is unable or unwilling to look more deeply into the problem of the vast, unaccountable National Security State. For example, the Iran-Contra gun-running/drug-running/money laundering network - which had roots going back to Vietnam and the covert war against Castro, and tentacles that spread into other areas (BCCI, Nugan Hand, Operation Condor, the Mossad, the Saudis, the Shah of Iran, heroin trafficking in Asia) - was not the product of simple bureaucrats running on autopilot, or institutional inertia. It represented a semi-private, semi-public criminal element that has been operating at high levels since at least World War II. Eisenhower called it the "military-industrial complex." Some scholars call it the "Deep State." Glennon could have educated his readers about Operation Gladio, or discussed Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird and many other subjects, but it would not have fit the relatively benign picture he is painting here.
November 22, 2014
This work is of huge importance. It explains the phenomenon that myself and many other informed voters have seen--namely--how the policies of the United States government seem impervious to change no matter the flavor of administration. I found myself baffled and chagrined that President Obama, who I cheerfully voted for twice (and still would prefer over the alternatives) failed to end many of the practices that I abhor, such as the free reign of the NSA, the continual increase in defense budgets and the willingness to keep laws that are clearly against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans, be they Progressives or otherwise.
This incredible book acts as a Rosetta Stone that explains why nothing ever changes. Highly recommended.
This incredible book acts as a Rosetta Stone that explains why nothing ever changes. Highly recommended.
June 11, 2015
An interesting if somewhat over-intellectualized depiction of the existence of both traditional structural 'government' versus the professional government organizations that grew over the last 100 years to become the true power. I appreciate the perspective that this was not a nefarious or through ill intent but simply the natural progression of the systemic buildup based on rational organizational incentives. I would have liked to have seen more fleshing out of the actual structure than the theory behind why it emerged and how it operates but that was likely not the intent of this short book.
August 18, 2017
Incredibly well-researched and sourced. If you're interested enough in this topic to have found this review, you should read this book. It's clear, efficient, and very cogent.
November 27, 2015
Absolutely every American should read this.
April 16, 2023
Frightening
Very well written and convincing portrait of present day America. I particularly like that the author does not conclude with any pat, Pollyanna solutions to the current crisis of democracy but rather clearly and convincingly articulates that we have passed the point of return towards a totalitarian security state. Sobering thought.
Very well written and convincing portrait of present day America. I particularly like that the author does not conclude with any pat, Pollyanna solutions to the current crisis of democracy but rather clearly and convincingly articulates that we have passed the point of return towards a totalitarian security state. Sobering thought.
November 15, 2022
Great description and explanation of the ruling government bureaucracy
December 25, 2023
This is a book worth reading. However, the author fails to connect the “Trumanite networks" to larger economic imperial interests.
January 22, 2017
I read this book because Dan Carlin of the Hardcore History podcast recommended it. I found the book very “tinfoil hat”-esque. It honestly reads like some Alex Jones longform piece or similar conspiracy theorist nonsense. Stylistically it’s also fairly hard to follow, and often doesn’t feel like the topics flow into each other. I didn’t have a very enjoyable experience with this book, and was confused given the legitimate CV of the author.
The central thesis of this book starts with an analogy of colonial Britain. Glennon explains that the British government of this time was split into 2 factions - the “dignified” and the “efficient”. The royal family and the House of Lords belonging to the former, while Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the House of Commons make up the latter.
In the United States, he changes the nomenclature to “Madisonian/dignified” and “Trumanite/efficient”. The President and his elected officials are the dignified, public-facing branch. They are backed by the anonymous National Security Council members, who are actually making the major international policy decisions. This Trumanite collective has grown from 14 members to over 350 members since the 90s.
Glennon attributes the overly cautious, military threat-obsessed culture within the DC political community to this group of Trumanites. Basically, the Trumanites aren’t held accountable for the failings of any exaggerated campaign promises and are allowed to make purely objective decisions independent of the civilian branches of the government. However, they are completely responsible for failing to prevent any negative military action against the US, so their objectivity is skewed towards avoiding that outcome. As such, all threats (real or imagined) are completely exaggerated and overreacted, leading to fiascos like the Iraqi invasion.
One agreeable point Glennon makes is the Trumanites’ habit of following existing policy over solving problems with the bureaucratic process. He (I think correctly) summarizes that a CYA (cover your ass) strategy dictates many of the decisions you see in government.
Now for some concerns I had with the book:
My first problem with the central dichotomy (Trumanite/Madisonian) is the immediate generalization of both camps. He rationalizes the need for Trumanites by claiming that they are true objectivists, making rational decisions. These rational decisions are otherwise unavailable to the Madisonians because of the slowness of bureaucracy, or the ineptitude of the Madisonians (again he generalizes this). I could see this being persuasive if he gave a few historical examples, but he doesn’t.
Another issue that I see unaddressed is the near total absence of political ambition to deflect blame. He claims the Trumanites have some opaque system that not only shields them from accountability, but allows them to direct blame on Congress and other “Madisonians”. Maybe anecdotal evidence is untrustworthy, but I’ve rarely seen a politician decline to point fingers. Wouldn’t the public at least see some portion of scapegoated Madisonians shed light onto the Trumanites that are selling them down the river?
He briefly addresses this with the following:
“Madisonian institutions go along [...] as long as it is popular.”
and
“It is in the interests of neither to clash publicly with the other.”
I didn’t find these convincing explanations.
Now, I absolutely understand the urgent need to reject the public opinion that the president is responsible for all government actions, good or bad. But I just can’t stomach the unsubstantiated justifications Glennon provides for believing his thesis, at least not in its entirety.
The more pernicious problem here is that it’s possible to use Glennon’s book to support the larger phenomenon of conspiracy thinking. I’d agree that the general public has this feeling of being disempowered and impotent to instantiate any change on their own behalf. It’s therefore very easy to direct this grievance into victimization by an incredibly efficient government that has some desire to subjugate its population. This book scratches the itch that people in power are always doing something malicious. It supports the incorrect view that the American government isn’t incompetent - but instead has a superhuman level of competence and ability to deceive.
The central thesis of this book starts with an analogy of colonial Britain. Glennon explains that the British government of this time was split into 2 factions - the “dignified” and the “efficient”. The royal family and the House of Lords belonging to the former, while Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the House of Commons make up the latter.
In the United States, he changes the nomenclature to “Madisonian/dignified” and “Trumanite/efficient”. The President and his elected officials are the dignified, public-facing branch. They are backed by the anonymous National Security Council members, who are actually making the major international policy decisions. This Trumanite collective has grown from 14 members to over 350 members since the 90s.
Glennon attributes the overly cautious, military threat-obsessed culture within the DC political community to this group of Trumanites. Basically, the Trumanites aren’t held accountable for the failings of any exaggerated campaign promises and are allowed to make purely objective decisions independent of the civilian branches of the government. However, they are completely responsible for failing to prevent any negative military action against the US, so their objectivity is skewed towards avoiding that outcome. As such, all threats (real or imagined) are completely exaggerated and overreacted, leading to fiascos like the Iraqi invasion.
One agreeable point Glennon makes is the Trumanites’ habit of following existing policy over solving problems with the bureaucratic process. He (I think correctly) summarizes that a CYA (cover your ass) strategy dictates many of the decisions you see in government.
Now for some concerns I had with the book:
My first problem with the central dichotomy (Trumanite/Madisonian) is the immediate generalization of both camps. He rationalizes the need for Trumanites by claiming that they are true objectivists, making rational decisions. These rational decisions are otherwise unavailable to the Madisonians because of the slowness of bureaucracy, or the ineptitude of the Madisonians (again he generalizes this). I could see this being persuasive if he gave a few historical examples, but he doesn’t.
Another issue that I see unaddressed is the near total absence of political ambition to deflect blame. He claims the Trumanites have some opaque system that not only shields them from accountability, but allows them to direct blame on Congress and other “Madisonians”. Maybe anecdotal evidence is untrustworthy, but I’ve rarely seen a politician decline to point fingers. Wouldn’t the public at least see some portion of scapegoated Madisonians shed light onto the Trumanites that are selling them down the river?
He briefly addresses this with the following:
“Madisonian institutions go along [...] as long as it is popular.”
and
“It is in the interests of neither to clash publicly with the other.”
I didn’t find these convincing explanations.
Now, I absolutely understand the urgent need to reject the public opinion that the president is responsible for all government actions, good or bad. But I just can’t stomach the unsubstantiated justifications Glennon provides for believing his thesis, at least not in its entirety.
The more pernicious problem here is that it’s possible to use Glennon’s book to support the larger phenomenon of conspiracy thinking. I’d agree that the general public has this feeling of being disempowered and impotent to instantiate any change on their own behalf. It’s therefore very easy to direct this grievance into victimization by an incredibly efficient government that has some desire to subjugate its population. This book scratches the itch that people in power are always doing something malicious. It supports the incorrect view that the American government isn’t incompetent - but instead has a superhuman level of competence and ability to deceive.
February 27, 2017
This bold, well-researched book is the most insightful discussion of American defense decision making since Graham Allison's work on the Kennedy Administration.
April 9, 2015
In a clear, flowing, and persuasive manner, Glennon compellingly transposes Walter Bagehot's 19th century theory of a second UK government, "hidden" behind the monarchy and House of Lord's, that actually ran the empire to the contemporary American context. On the level of mechanics, "National Security and Double Government" is a joy to read. Glennon's arguments are concise, logically formulated, and convincingly stated.
On a substantive level, it's hard to argue with Glennon's hypothesis, though the reader would do well to remember that Glennon limits his thesis to the US national security apparatus -- it is tempting to unwittingly extend his ideas to the US government as a whole, but Glennon limits his scope to national security matters. The ills that "Double Government" identifies should be familiar and manifest to even the casual observer of US foreign policy. Glennon's arguments have a suprisingly non-partisan ring to them -- he roots his positions and prescriptions primarily in classical republicanism, or the concept of government controlled by a populace exercising civic virtue.
Consequently, his prognosis for the country's foreign policy-making is bleak, as should be expected, seeing as how his careful deconstruction of its problems leaves little room for optimism. Essentially, he argues, the cure for malfunctioning Madisonian institutions is a reinvigoration of civic virtue, which was John Madison's prerequisite for a proper balance of powers (in Glennon's view, this balance has been upset by the rise of an unelected and unaccountable cadre of high-level technocrats that actually conducts foreign policy). However, Glennon finishes, an overly-intrusive government that tries to instill civic virtue must insist that worsening the problem (becoming more intrusive) will ultimately solve the problem (by instilling more civic virtue).
In short, "Double Government" is a critical -- and enjoyable -- read for any student of foreign policy formation.
On a substantive level, it's hard to argue with Glennon's hypothesis, though the reader would do well to remember that Glennon limits his thesis to the US national security apparatus -- it is tempting to unwittingly extend his ideas to the US government as a whole, but Glennon limits his scope to national security matters. The ills that "Double Government" identifies should be familiar and manifest to even the casual observer of US foreign policy. Glennon's arguments have a suprisingly non-partisan ring to them -- he roots his positions and prescriptions primarily in classical republicanism, or the concept of government controlled by a populace exercising civic virtue.
Consequently, his prognosis for the country's foreign policy-making is bleak, as should be expected, seeing as how his careful deconstruction of its problems leaves little room for optimism. Essentially, he argues, the cure for malfunctioning Madisonian institutions is a reinvigoration of civic virtue, which was John Madison's prerequisite for a proper balance of powers (in Glennon's view, this balance has been upset by the rise of an unelected and unaccountable cadre of high-level technocrats that actually conducts foreign policy). However, Glennon finishes, an overly-intrusive government that tries to instill civic virtue must insist that worsening the problem (becoming more intrusive) will ultimately solve the problem (by instilling more civic virtue).
In short, "Double Government" is a critical -- and enjoyable -- read for any student of foreign policy formation.
December 16, 2016
Bleak. Very very bleak. It's not about what can be done, but what will happen next because it's too late! The Founding Fathers were assholes for rejecting democracy. That's pretty clear. If they didn't have such a distain for direct democracy, we might have a more transparent and people-serving body governing us.
Read this to know that politics is over. Give up all hope and join a real revolution. Be sure it's not shit-show Trump-buckets or Tea Baggers.
Read this to know that politics is over. Give up all hope and join a real revolution. Be sure it's not shit-show Trump-buckets or Tea Baggers.
December 27, 2014
This book is a goldmine of information - it seems that every third sentence contains a cite to another source. That is, there are a million useful research rabbit holes that you may be sucked into while reading this, and you should follow as many as you can.
Excellent, well-researched, and perfect in tone. Required reading.
Excellent, well-researched, and perfect in tone. Required reading.
January 25, 2015
Very well put together. Much research was put into this book to show the bureaucracy that exists in our government an the lack of oversight that truly exists. I would like to see someone put together a book to counter the premiss that our leaders are not in control of the National Security Apparatus.
January 26, 2016
Required reading for all Americans.
If you don't agree with the notion of double government after reading this, your ability to attack his argument will be an important task for all Americans to hear on the eve of our next presidential election.
If you don't agree with the notion of double government after reading this, your ability to attack his argument will be an important task for all Americans to hear on the eve of our next presidential election.
February 5, 2016
love it, I've been saying this for some time but folks are easily dismissive and willing to play into the machine. I'm radical because I'm a "conspiracy theorist", if only more folks would be at least willing to question what their spoon fed it's a start.
December 17, 2014
not an earth-shattering book but a valuable piece of synthesis
December 29, 2016
I discovered this book after the 2016 election and it was an interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews