The New Dark Age

Brian Berletic

From the ongoing US involvement in Ukraine, to an enduring US military presence in the Middle East, and growing US-Chinese tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, regardless of who controls the US Congress and regardless of who sits in the White House, these conflicts continue forward – often with a Democratic president setting the stage for his Republican successor, and vice versa.

Why, no matter who Americans vote into power, US foreign policy, and even domestic policy, seems to steamroll forward regardless?

Contrary to popular belief, US foreign and domestic policy is not determined by the US Congress or even by the White House, but instead by a powerful combine of unelected corporate-financier interests who fund a vast network of policy institutions known as “think tanks.”

These think tanks create a consensus among the various corporate-financier interests funding their activities as well as sitting upon their boards of directors, boards of trustees, or serving as advisors to these institutions.

This consensus manifests itself in the various policy papers these think tanks publish every year, which are then crafted into bills by teams of lawyers and legislative specialists. The bills are proposed to Congress and the White House by lobbyists, who then vote on or sign off on these bills, often without even reading their contents.

Because the center of American power rests with these interests rather than either Congress or the White House, efforts to influence, challenge, or change US policy must focus on these interests based primarily on Wall Street rather than on politicians in Washington D.C.

What Are Think Tanks? 

Far from a “conspiracy theory,” the central role corporate-financier funded think tanks play in driving US foreign and domestic policy was explained by none other than US government-funded media outlet Voice of America in a 2018 article titled, “What’s Behind the ‘Think Tanks’ That Influence US Policy?”

The article would note:

Out of more than 1800 think tanks in the United States, nearly 400 are based in Washington. Previous administrations have relied on the research and ideas generated by such organizations to formulate policy. Such institutions have been criticized in the past for their outsized influence on U.S. policy formulation.

The article would also admit that many of those in American media and politics began within the halls of these corporate-financier funded institutions.

The article says:

In addition to influencing public policy, such institutions are often a training ground for those wishing to gain a foothold in media or the corridors of power.

The same article admitted, “think tanks are also a revolving door for talent,” pointing out that,

“in the George W. Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, all came from Washington think tanks.” 

Only toward the very bottom of the article was any mention made of the corporate-financier interests actually funding such think tanks.

The article claims:

But policies and ideas are often developed through the prism of political bias so knowing who’s paying for those ideas is important.

“I think the important thing for the public to know is that, when think tanks issue a report, it is important for those who are reading the report to try to understand if it was influenced by the funder or not,” says Rom of Georgetown University. “And good think tanks are open and transparent in the kind of research they do so that those who read that research can judge its independence.”

Few Americans are even aware of, let alone understand the central role of think tanks in US policymaking. Fewer still are aware of the monumental conflict of interest that exists between the corporations and financial institutions funding these think tanks, the policies these think tanks propose, and the bills and policies that are eventually passed and implemented by Washington.

Because of this lack of understanding, many Americans believe the future of US policy is determined in Washington through elections. In reality, the future of US policy is determined by unelected corporate-financier interests who advance their desired policies regardless of who controls Congress or who currently sits in the White House.

How Bills are (Really) Made 

CBS News, in a 2017 article titled, “Who Actually Writes The Bills In Congress?,” would admit that “attorneys” who are knowledgeable about the subjects of the bills often write them. The same article admits that bills may originate, “directly from a member, who might receive input from constituents, lobbyists or staff on a particular issue.”

As Voice of America admitted in its article, such “lobbyists” and “attorneys” and even “members” of Congress, are drawn from corporate-financier funded think tanks.

Thus, while many Americans mistakenly believe their elected representatives “represent” them and their interests, it is clear that unelected interests monopolize policymaking, enjoy unwarranted influence over those who sign off on new policies, with Americans only hearing about such policies from the media often long after any practical chance of protesting against or reversing the policy.

As Voice of America also admitted, many in the media informing the American people about new policies, began their careers in the halls of these policy think tanks funded by the same unelected corporate-financier interests proposing these policies in the first place.

USA Today in a 2019 investigative report titled, “You elected them to write new laws. They’re letting corporations do it instead,” spells it out more explicitly:

Each year, state lawmakers across the U.S. introduce thousands of bills dreamed up and written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks. Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called “model” bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them.

The investigative report also noted how manipulative the titles of bills often are, done to deliberately mislead the public:

The Asbestos Transparency Act didn’t help people exposed to asbestos. It was written by corporations who wanted to make it harder for victims to recoup money. The “HOPE Act,” introduced in nine states, was written by a conservative advocacy group to make it more difficult for people to get food stamps.

The report would lament, “bills promise to protect the public,” but “they actually bolster the corporate bottom line.”

This should come as no surprise, considering these bills originate from think tanks funded by these very corporations.

Congress Rubber Stamps Bills They Don’t Even Read 

US News, in an opinion piece titled, “Not So Dirty Little Secret,” would attempt to excuse Congress from having to read the bills they sign off on.

It would admit:

The not-so-dirty little secret of Congress (and, I suspect, most legislative bodies) is that members often vote on legislation without having sat down and literally read it. 

The article explains that, instead, “legislative specialists who work in Congress and, in some cases, think tank denizens outside it,” interpret the bills and explain them to legislators who then vote on them.

According to the US White House website, “anyone can write” a bill to be introduced to Congress. In theory, bills should represent the best interests of the people within a Western-style democracy. Legislators who vote on these bills should do so in the interests of the very public who voted them into office in the first place.

In reality, many bills are either written by corporate-financier funded interests themselves or by legislators and their teams who these interests are lobbying. These are bills which Congress admittedly doesn’t understand, and instead depends on specialists working for these same interests to explain to them.

What emerges is policy-driven by unelected interests, simply laundered through elected representatives, creating the illusion of a public mandate. Because politicians can be voted in and out of office, when the public is unsatisfied with US policy, the empty hope of new elections and the prospect of “change” prevents them from ever addressing the underlying factors that prevent that change from ever actually occurring.

Who is Funding These Think Tanks? 

Think tanks often list on their websites either who sponsors their work or who sits on their board of directors, board of trustees, or who serves as advisors. Regardless of what information is made publicly available, the same circle of corporate-financier interests are represented.

For example, the American Enterprise Institute does not readily disclose its list of donors, but does publish its list of trustees which includes representatives from private equity firm Carlyle Group, the insurance industry including State Farm, big tech including Dell, and big-finance like UBS.

RAND Corporation, infamous for its 2019 paper, “Extending Russia” formulating a number of military and economic measures meant to draw Russia into protracted war with its neighbors including Ukraine, lists its major clients including IBM, MITRE Corporation, and PhRMA Foundation (which in turn is made up of various pharmaceutical giants).

The Brookings Institution responsible for drawing up policy for war around the globe, including its 2009 paper “Which Path to Persia?” aimed at Iran, lists its corporate and institutional sponsors which include not only the US government, but multiple foreign governments, as well as corporate-financier interests like big-tech including Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, big-finance like Blackrock, Mastercard, and UBS, arms manufacturers like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, big-oil like BP and Chevron, as well as consumer goods and services like PepsiCo, Amazon, and Walmart.

How to Check Unelected, Unwarranted Power 

As Voice of America pointed out, there are over 1,800 think tanks in the US alone, many of which share the same handful of Fortune 500 corporate-financier sponsors, directors, trustees, and advisors. While Americans can vote in and out of office the many members of Congress who rubber stamp bills handed to them, what can Americans do about the unelected interests handing Congress these bills in the first place?

Often referred to as “voting with one’s wallet,” Americans can compile lists of large corporate-financier interests exercising unwarranted influence over their government, and redirect their monthly income away from them, and instead to local or foreign alternatives.

These special interests did not appear “overnight,” but instead built themselves up over years, sometimes decades, accumulating money, time, attention, and energy from millions of Americans at home and hundreds of millions of people abroad.

By raising awareness of the unwarranted power and abuse exercised by these interests and diverting money, time, attention, and energy away from them and toward a wider variety of alternatives at home and abroad, a better balance of power can be created.

In many ways, the rise of multipolarism represents a successful example of this. The West had maintained a global monopoly over many goods, services, and industries for generations granting the West hegemony worldwide.

With the rise of China, the reemergence of Russia, and newly industrialized nations creating alternatives to what were once Western monopolies, people around the world are now dividing their money, time, attention, and energy among these many options creating a better balance of power. While this process is unfolding globally, Americans can begin a similar process within the United States.

If a better balance of power can be created within the US, redistributing wealth and the power it creates across a wider number of businesses and interests across America, there stands a much better chance of those in Washington representing this wider balance of power rather than the concentrated wealth and power that currently exists on Wall Street.