BlackRock Inc. executives have been joining the Biden administration in prominent roles, adding to the close ties between the Wall Street heavyweight and the seat of power in Washington.
These include Adewale “Wally” Adeyemo, a former chief of staff to BlackRock CEO and longtime Democrat Larry Fink who now occupies the No. 2 spot on the U.S. Treasury. Biden chose Adeyemo to serve in a top Treasury position. Michael Pyle, an Obama administration member who became BlackRock’s global chief investment strategist, now works as Vice President Kamala Harris’ chief economic advisor.
Amongst other infiltrators, Eric Van Nostrand, a BlackRock managing director who was head of research for sustainable investments and multi-asset strategies, exited in August 2022 to join the Treasury Department. He became a senior adviser on economic issues tied to Russia and Ukraine and was supposed to report to Ben Harris, assistant Secretary of Treasury for economic policy. At BlackRock Van Nostrand led a global team focused on developing sustainable investment strategies and also was responsible for a team coordinating research and portfolio strategy across the multi-asset investment platform -- including global economics, asset allocation and portfolio construction.
The moves are a reversal of the flow in recent years - demonstrating the "revolving door" when BlackRock tapped more than a dozen alumni of former President Barack Obama’s administration, including his national security adviser, senior adviser for climate policy, a former Federal Reserve vice chairman he appointed, and numerous other economists from the White House, Treasury and Fed.
Larry Fink’s $8.5 trillion investing giant has been gaining clout in Washington as the Biden administration has stocked its ranks with ex-BlackRock executives. That means the company is now seen as one of Wall Street’s key conduits to the power center in Washington -- a tag that was more closely associated with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. through prior administrations.
That growing clout has invited criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, with the firm frequently targeted for its investing policies tied to climate, its business in China and its role as one of the largest stock owners of most major public companies, including the "big five" military contractors (Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman).
By way of background note that over the last two election cycles, the arms business as a whole has given more than $83 million to political candidates. The largest donation has come from Lockheed Martin ($9.1 million), then from Raytheon ($8 million), and Northrop Grumman ($7.7 million).
Even more money has been spent on lobbying by everyone in the military industrial complex ("MIC")— more than $247 million in the last two election cycles. It takes 820 lobbyists to work with these funds, which is more than one for each member of Congress. And keep in mind that more than two-thirds of those lobbyists had worked at the Pentagon or in Congress before coming to work for the arms business through Washington’s famous “revolving door.” They know people in government and how to get things done in a complicated way, which helps keep the money coming in for more guns, tanks, ships, and weapons. In the past month, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s office said that nearly 700 former high-level government officials, such as generals and admirals, now work for defense companies. The report says that 91% of them became Pentagon lobbyists. Some of them are now on company boards or are highly-paid executives.
In the MIC, the rapidly spinning revolving door gives present members of Congress, their staff, and Pentagon workers a strong reason to get along with those big contractors while they are still working for the government. After all, they will be able to make a lot of money lobbying after they leave government service.
One of the MIC’s most powerful tools is its ability to control how the most powerful people in society talk about national security problems. It does this by funding foreign policy think tanks and the analysts who work for them. These analysts are often the ones the media turns to for information about war and peace. More than 75% of the best foreign policy think tanks in the US get at least some of their money from defense companies.
Unfortunately, a lot of what the mass media say comes from experts at these kinds of think tanks. They were more than four times more likely to be mentioned in New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal stories about the Ukraine War. This is in contrast to those who did not receive MIC funding. If you see a think tank expert talking about war and peace, it’s likely that the group that employs them gets money from the war machine.
Also, these kinds of think tanks have their own version of a fast-spinning door, which is why people call them “holding tanks” for future government leaders. The Center for a New American Security, for example, gets millions of dollars every year from defense contractors and the Pentagon. It has also said that some of its experts and alumni have joined the Biden administration, including high-level political appointees at the CIA and the Department of Defense.
The action movie Top Gun: Maverick was such a hit with viewers that it earned an amazing 99% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Its widespread popularity helped it get nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon worked closely with the filmmakers and gave "equipment—including jets and aircraft carriers,” “personnel and technical expertise,” and even the chance to make changes to the script. In the same way, defense companies were very important to the success of that movie. In fact, Lockheed Martin’s CEO was proud that his company “worked with Top Gun’s producers to bring cutting-edge, future-forward technology to the big screen.”
Even though Top Gun: Maverick may have been the most popular military-themed movie in recent years, it’s just the most recent example of Hollywood spreading military lies. Professor Roger Stahl at the University of Georgia studies propaganda and state violence and says, “The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have had direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and TV shows.”
“The result is an entertainment culture set up to make a few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that praise the military,” journalist David Sirota, who has written many times about the dangers of the military-entertainment complex, said.
“And save for filmmakers’ obligatory thank you to the Pentagon in the credits,” said Sirota, “audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.”
Comments
Post a Comment