Daniel Boyle’s “Technology Against Constitution” can be best described as one of the more insightful articles on the philosophical underpinnings of The American Post-Liberal. Its basic premise, drawing from the experiences of Ancient Greece, is based on the familiar notion that Technology tends to upend older orders, allowing newer ones to be installed by their proponents. Although I am convinced that war is not the only instance where Technology is capable of introducing such wanton destruction of the old ways, I must concede to the fact that it is a very common one. The Peloponnesian War, a conceptual model in International Relations analysis, between Ancient Athens and Ancient Sparta is a notable example, as evidenced by the invocations of the writings of Aristotle and the more relevant ones from Pericles.
What is being posited here is that the realities of war tend to encourage further technological developments on the participants involved. The desire to gain a tactical, operational and/or strategic advantage over the enemy has led to Civilizations devising newer “instruments” of destruction. The author of the article attempts to draw their reader’s attention toward the fact that the very etymological essence of Technology as a concept is derived from its ability to accomplish specific tasks. It is there that Technology’s destructive tendencies is revealed in a purely military context: to bring about the maiming or killing of a designated enemy.
However, what becomes of these wartime technologies once the fighting stops? When does the sword become a ploughshare, where “wartime conditions” must give rise to the return of “peacetime conditions?” Could a Civilization “demobilize” itself in the same manner that it had been mobilized for war? Or will the Civilization start searching for new enemies in order to justify further militarization as an end in itself? Would constant searches for newer enemies and more wars lead to the destruction of that Civilization in its perpetual militarization?
Boyle did not intend to posit these questions for Ancient Athens but for these United States throughout the 20th century. The Jeffersonian Empire of Liberty, which defines so much of the Neoliberal world order that emerged out of the two World Wars, could not have been achieved without military force. Once the German Reich, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and the old European colonial empires were no longer potential adversaries after 1945, Boyle alluded to the flawed expectation among Americans at the time that the Democratic-Republican Party would demobilize like in 1918. That the New Deal reforms and technological advancements of the period would ensure that America could transition to peacetime conditions without causing unwanted economic downturns (which did happen after 1918).
In actuality, the rise of the Empire of Liberty brought America into a position where it must constantly be militarized to the extent that it is economically and technologically capable of defending the Empire of Liberty. It meant establishing an entire “national security” apparatus designed not just to prevent the next surprise attack (9/11 notwithstanding, of course) but to impose and maintain a Liberal Capitalist world hegemony. The Soviet Union (and the People’s Republic of China to a lesser extent) was merely an obstacle that needed to be overcome within the context of the Cold War. The Empire of Liberty was what led to the expansion of the US Military-Industrial Complex that has since a crucial part of the US Market Economy, which bore the fruits of the Cold War’s technological advancements.
Certain civilian technologies taken for granted nowadays were made possible by Federal funding of research initiatives. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy development grew up together throughout the late 20th century. The World Wide Web (WWW) originated as part of a plan to establish a telecommunications network that could survive nuclear war. These advancements were realized by significant investments in a national educational system as part of an initiative to ensure a larger pool of scientists, engineers, technicians, and software developers. It is also significant that the notable developments in the US Military-Industrial Complex coincided with developments in computer hardware and software in California.
Where Boyle took this knowledge was to entertain the idea that the constant militarization of the US during the Cold War did not truly end. Once the Soviet Union was out of the picture, the next logical steps for the US Military-Industrial Complex were to contend with the rise of international terrorism, followed by Mainland China’s ascendance into an economic and military powerhouse. It is worth mentioning that both Factions of the Democratic-Republican Party, the Democrats and Republicans, have been trying to frame China as the new Soviet Union for years now. It was not until the Trump and Biden Presidencies that the image is gradually being cemented in the American National Consciousness.
Furthermore, Boyle also believed that the same technological advancements that emerged to defend the Empire of Liberty is going to become more corrosive to American values. Technology is not a politically neutral entity insofar as it is beholden to whoever controls it. If not by anyone in particular, then by the technocrats who ultimately designed and built it. This recent desire among some Americans to have the latest technological wonders can be compared to a concurring desire in the US Military-Industrial Complex to create weapons whose purpose is to maintain Jeffersonian world hegemony. It is not enough for a weapon to maim or kill an enemy; the enemy cannot even be allowed to be on equal footing.
It was at this juncture that Boyle’s article fails to make a convincing argument beyond philosophical meanderings about Ancient Athens. The determination of the US Military-Industrial Complex to create weapons far surpassing anything fielded by the likes of even Russia or China is going to be increasingly expensive to design, build, and maintain. The trillions of US Dollars spent on those endeavors are trillions of US Dollars not being spent on other priorities. Are there any roads, bridges, railways, airports, electrical substations and power plants, and so forth in need of repairs? Are there any places in America where the infrastructure has gotten so old that simply repairing them is too expensive, thereby necessitating replacements? There are countless different ways to address the implications of the US Military-Industrial Complex and I honestly wished that Boyle delved into those matters further.
Categories: Philosophy
The Fourth Estate 
Leave a comment