I will break this down into three myths, whose realities are actually their inversions. I will further argue they are especially relevant because all three myths are again propagandised to prepare for a cold, and possibly hot war with China.

1. America is not a liberal democracy, its supposed “soft power”, but a “managed” democracy or what has been called a system of inverted totalitarianism.

2. The “hard power” of US military presence around the world doesn’t deter enemies, reassure allies, and enable rapid response during crises but rather provokes global animosity and encourages disastrous US intervention.

3. The humongous US military budget is not needed to counter an existentially threatening enemy but rather such a manufactured enemy is needed to justify a humongous budget that defies common sense and understanding.

Myth No 1

Today, we are told the world is in a mortal confrontation between forces of democracy and authoritarianism. The one is led by the US, the other represented by China. But what if the US is not what it says it is. Is the average urbanite in Beijing or Shenzhen more politically repressed and economically deprived than his or her counterpart in Washington or Chicago today? And if so, in what ways? I prefer to think of this question more as an empirical than an ideological question, and that to answer it adequately, with a modicum of objectivity, you really need to visit both sets of cities to draw any useful conclusions.

What of American liberty, you say? In Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Spectre of Inverted Totalitarianism, the late political theorist Sheldon Wolin argues that unlike classical 20th century totalitarianism, in its inverted version, ideological conviction is instilled in citizens not through mass mobilisation but through the modern methods of advertising, public relations, and public opinion manipulation. That applies to disseminating the official version of events and even to inculcating deeper political convictions and beliefs among ordinary citizens.

Thucydides’ real moral is about democratic self-harm

In place of personal or one-man rule, an elite of interchangeable “managers” equally at home in the public and private sector monopolise the levers of power and position. Voters are “managed” by manipulating and anticipating their behaviours, but that’s only necessary periodically, that is, when election times arrive.

“Voters are made as predictable as consumers,” Wolin wrote. “The regime ideology is capitalism, which is virtually as undisputed as Nazi doctrine in 1930s Germany.”

During the rest of the time, ordinary citizens have virtually zero policy or political input. This is especially so when foreign policy and military strategy take precedence at the highest level of government over domestic policy.

Such a “managed democracy” is no longer guided by the goals “of promoting the well-being of its citizens or involving them in political processes”. The redefined goals now “stand for sheer power, economic and military, that is measured by a global standard rather than the nation’s constitution; freed not only from constitutional democracy but from any truly political character”.

Constant fear and intimidation are induced in citizens not through physical or political violence, but through the economic model of unquestioned capitalism.

“In contrast to the Nazis, the ever-changing economy of Superpower, despite its affluence, makes fear the constant companion of most workers,” Wolin wrote. “Downsizing, reorganisation, bubbles bursting, unions busted, quickly outdated skills, and transfer of jobs abroad create not just fear but an economy of fear, a system of control whose power feeds on uncertainty, yet a system that, according to its analysts, is eminently rational.”

And in a political masterstroke, the systematic, decades-long emasculation of the middle and working classes make such voters angry and desperate, so they end up being co-opted by the very forces that mortgage their children’s future and make their lives miserable.

Myth No 2

The US controls about 750 military bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined. But those are permanent sites that are declared by the Pentagon. There are presumably other temporary and mobile operational sites that are kept secret. This is called “forward-deployed posture”. But it looks more like intimidation of friends and foes alike, around the world: try stepping out of line, and you will find out how Uncle Sam reacts.

The actual military doctrine is, of course, put in nicer and more diplomatic terms. But, as a new article, “Why the US Should Close Its Overseas Military Bases”, argues in Foreign Policy, even some US critics and Pentagon generals are recognising that the bases, which take up a big chunk of the military budget, may be counterproductive.

“Despite being one of the most well-entrenched orthodoxies of US national security strategy, it may well be time for change,” it argued.

“A growing movement argues that rather than keeping the barbarians at the gate, the gates themselves have drawn the United States into reckless and unpopular conflicts, tempting policymakers into knee-jerk military responses rather than diplomatic ones, and provoking enemies rather than deter them.

“After decades of consensus, activists, scholars, and veterans are now pushing back against what they see as a geopolitical misstep, arguing that it’s time to abandon these long-held outposts and bring the troops home.”

The bloody past of the last 2 centuries has never ended

Far from being a peacenik, the Foreign Policy author is writing more as a business consultant, only in a more imperial role. If the Pentagon were a business, it must be one of extreme inefficiency and wastefulness. The “forward base posture” doctrine is not being questioned, only being asked to be more efficient in terms of redeployment.

According to the paper, “a modest drawback could allow for the realignment of the US force posture to better match the nature and location of current threats – a priority called for by both the Trump and Biden administrations’ National Defence Strategies”.

In a word, fewer bases in the Middle East, more in the Indo-Pacific – to surround China, of course!

Myth No 3

China today is considered a “near peer” and a “pacing threat” by Washington and more specifically, by the Pentagon, which now annually has more than a trillion at its disposal despite a lower notional budget. The country has just one overseas naval base. Is China Goliath or David?

To justify such a military-industrial economy, which crowds out domestic and otherwise productive sectors as well as funding for social welfare and healthcare for citizens, you need to create an existentially threatening enemy.

In my May 15 column, I referred to the groundbreaking longitudinal studies of Pentagon budgeting since the Korean war by two military budget analysts, Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey. What they found was that the Pentagon’s budget grew at a steady 5 per cent annual growth rate, over many decades. But whenever it fell below 5 per cent, an imminent foreign threat was identified. China is just the latest monster of the night.

A modest conclusion

What do all these inversions of reality mean? A little Roman history will help. Under Augustus, Rome still pretended, for a long time, to be a republic rather than an empire.

Of course, none of these myths make sense if America were a real democratic republic. As an empire, though, and an unprecedented global one at that, they make perfect sense.