Understanding Power summary

In an era when so much power is wielded by the very few, it’s easy for the individual to become disillusioned. If you’re not a politician or a lawyer, you might wonder what you can do to fight for the causes you believe in. You see people protesting on the news – you might even attend rallies yourself – but you’re yet to see the change you want. The status quo never significantly shifts.

Well, it might feel that way, but let’s lay two examples of US military action side by side and play “spot the difference.”

In the 1960s, there was certainly public outcry against the Vietnam War. But its voice had limited access to the media. US president Kennedy could essentially run the show how he wanted to, by taking aggressive military action.

In the 1980s, President Reagan had to try a different tactic when it came to his agenda in Central America. He needed to establish a propaganda office to indoctrinate the public, who weren’t prepared simply to accept that military action was necessary. And that’s because the new generation of adults in the 1980s had been children during the Vietnam War. They’d lost loved ones because of a war beyond their homeland. And they’d interrogated the validity of that loss.

Reagan knew he couldn’t take direct military action in Guatemala, as Kennedy had done in Vietnam. There’d be widespread pushback from the population if he did. So, the operation became a covert one, acted out on the president’s behalf by foreign advisors and counter-insurgency agents, who carried out genocide in Guatemala.

Around 100,000 people were killed during these military operations – a significant number. But this figure would’ve been much higher if Reagan had dispatched troops directly, as Kennedy had done. The impact in Guatemala would have been far worse since Central America is much closer to home than Vietnam. It also has much greater economic benefit for the US in the form of cheap labor. But the power of public dissonance kept Reagan in check. The government feared the public voice because it knew it could put them out of their job.

This fear is still very much present in every democratically elected government. As a result, governments have developed a habit of secrecy – and not just for security reasons. Typically, when classified documents are made public after 30 years in the US, they’re rarely about security matters. Rather, they contain information that the government didn’t want the public to know in case it caused backlash.

In fact, creating the illusion that secrecy is necessary for safety is a technique that’s been used for centuries to subdue populations. A population frightened by a perceived fearful enemy will loyally obey its leader. This technique can be traced all the way back to Ancient Greece. Historian Herodotus wrote of how creating the institution of royalty was a way to shroud power in mystery. By presenting power as only for the elite and ordained, it becomes beyond the comprehension of everyday people, and therefore something best left to the select few.

So, the level of secrecy a government feels it needs actually reflects the strength of activism in that country. You may never know how many lives public dissonance has saved but you can guarantee that it’s more than if a government took direct military action. And that means everything to those whose lives were spared.