I had never really stopped to consider before this reading how intensely reassuring the concept of shadow conspiracies can be.

Seriously. A vague belief that the world is controlled by a small elite of intensely competent (though morally subjective) individuals organized to execute specific goals helps to reaffirm the concept of historical narrative that Mills explores and eventually dismisses on page 22. It permits people who have no feeling of agency to either be reassured by a sense of historical destiny or to bestow the blind faith/anger that one holds for a higher power on a group of people (whether you agree with the direction or not). It also becomes very convenient for people in power themselves to have this distraction available. “Internationally, the image of the omnipotent elite tends to prevail. All good events and pleasing happenings are quickly imputed by the opinion-makers to the leaders of their own nation; all bad events and unpleasant experiences are imputed to the enemy abroad. In both cases, the omnipotence of evil rulers or of virtuous leaders is assumed. Within the nation, the use of such rhetoric is rather more complicated; when men speak of the power of their own party or circle; they and their leaders are, of course, impotent; only ‘the people’ are omnipotent. But when they speak of the power of their opponent’s party or circle, they impute to them omnipotence; ‘the people’ are now powerlessly taken in.” (p. 17)

This public abdication of authority to appease a mass of people and put on an air of public service and humility serves many purposes. People become more trusting of leaders who are 'just like them' and don't appear to want power overtly. It also allows blame for unpopular decisions to be quickly shifted off the individual in power and preferably onto a political opponent while the people with economic and military authority continue to comfortably make policy choices that affect the lives of millions without ever having been elected. This isn't to say that issues of decision making and election are paramount here (again, something Mills covers quite handily on pg. 21), but merely to continue to highlight the distinctions between appearances of authority and accountability and actual exertion of authority without accountability.

This was, of course, a very detailed and quite fascinating reading that I would like to pick apart more. One wonders what Mills might say now that the links between the political, the military and the economic elite have grown even more complicated. One thing I did find particularly problematic (and this could just be the fact that I only have a post-military-industrial complex framework to work from) is the concept that the blurring of the political, private economic and military establishments is a relatively recent idea. How are these things not inherently related? "The decisions of the military establishment rest upon and greviously affect political life as well as the very level of economic activity. The decisions made within the political domain determine economic activities and military programs. There is no longer, on the one hand, an economy and, on the other hand, a political order containing a military establishment unimportant to politics and to money-making. There is a political economy linked, in a thousand ways with military institutions and decisions.” (p. 7-8)

When were these three things ever separate? Most definitely now when working with an international stage, super-powers and mega-corporations, the stakes are higher, but look at ancient Rome, as just one example. One cannot meaningfully separate decisions made for political expediency or gain, military supremacy or economic power (simply consider the First Triumvirate) if one is acting in the interests of a state. And if it is true that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States, and vice-versa, it logically follows that corporate influence is an inevitable outgrowth of the economic considerations of a state. Again, this is not a modern invention. The East India Company exerted enormous influence over English politics (particularly, obviously, in India, where it effectively ruled the country for a century). So what is Mills saying is the new development here? Breadth of control and involvement?