In 1991, in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse, President George H. W. Bush was in a unique position that few in history have been. As leader of a global superpower, he had the opportunity to initiate a paradigm shift —a departure from selfish and aggressive nationalism — a world where national interest supersede human without mercy — toward greater a world of greater compassion and cooperation for the sake of building a more just and sustainable way of life on Earth. He said:
I come back to the world of the prudent — managing of what we do and what we say — and resist flamboyant actions. Things are moving our way… Democracy? Freedom? They are moving our way. And so, we don’t need to be out there trying to micromanage the desire for change (Engle, 2017).
“The world of the prudent” has such a soothing and secure ring to it, yet it hides an agenda to build a “new world order” that Bush and his class have defined and defended since 1945. The new world order was not exactly a monolithic concept. Some wanted all nations to be democratic and based their economies on free market capitalism. They envisioned a strong international organization, the United Nations, that would collectively and justly resolve conflicts and hold nations accountable to high standards of human rights. Others wanted a new world order wherein wealthier, more industrially developed, and skilled at administering democratic governance would have greater say in global problem-solving and economic development. They saw the United Nations as a humanitarian organization that did not meddle in matters of global policy-setting. This was the “prudent” vision of new world order. It did not threaten the interests of “superior” nations that believed they held the world together.
The U.S. had been “micromanaging change” since 1945. It orchestrated propaganda campaigns, rigged foreign elections, supplied friendly dictators with weapons, and orchestrated assassinations of “uncooperative” foreign and domestic leaders. In the end, the “prudent world” is managed — if not governed — by a global plutocracy of millionaires and billionaires who may not share a common national origin or language, but certainly share an interest in amassing as much wealth and power as possible. The plutocracy does not trust the general public to behave rationally or responsibly, so they must control it. The plutocracy has eclipsed the sovereignty of nations-states abroad by way of debt, and weakened democracy at home by way of corporate lobbying, juridical regard for corporations as people, detaining people without due process, policies that deny federal funding for public services and resources, and by ending federal support for universities whose faculty criticizes the president.
Debt by way of loans reveals a predatory element in the new world order. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed in 1945 under the auspices of helping non-industrial nations develop. It is essentially a bank that is governed by member countries who hold shares of votes that correspond to the amount of capital that they make available for loans. The U.S. holds over 17% of votes and so exercises considerable influence over decisions about which country to fund. IMF officials know that they will reap higher profits if they loan money for industry, like mining precious metals, rather than loaning money for social improvement, like schools. The IMF has imposed loans terms that obligate nations to follow IMF directives on domestic policy (Stone, 2002), such as reducing wages (Larok, 2024, and for structuring repayment in ways that force nations to reduce spending on health care and education, which in some countries has increased child mortality (Berg, 2025).
To increase their consolidation of wealth and power, plutocrats and their servile elected officials have created trade agreements that promise foreign nations upward mobility and stability that is not always delivered. The North American Treaty Agreement (NAFTA, 1994) is an example, and what it did to Mexico is not unique. Mexicans and Americans were told that NAFTA would generate economic growth and reduce the incentive for Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S. In 2014, about 20 years after NAFTA was introduced, real wages in Mexico were almost exactly what they were in 1994 and the poverty was higher than it was in 1994. The failure of NAFTA to foster prosperity has greatly contributed to the immigration crisis the U.S. faces at present (Weisbrot, 2018).
On May 8, 1992, I attended the State of the World Forum in San Francisco, a Foreign Affairs Council event that hosted George H. W Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Mikhail Gorbachev. The discussion turned to the role of the United Nations in the post-Cold War world and Bush stated, “We [the U.S.] have a disproportionate responsibility to lead — to deal with Russia, to deal with China — to work closely in the special relationship we have with the U.K.” (State of the World, 1992). His remarks were largely concerned with the balance of power. Moments later, Thatcher said emphatically:
Do not use the United Nations for something for which it was not founded. You have 170 nations — they don’t all agree that democracy is the best way to conduct affairs; they don’t all have the same view of human rights as we have. You can’t put executive decisions in to their hands about war and peace. What you can use them for — and they are excellent at — is famine relief for help to people who need it, and they’re marvelous at that and they’ve done wonderful work in Africa, and we should enhance their capability to do that — and they’re very brave and courageous people who do it. (State of the World, 1992)
What has the new world order achieved? Outsourcing, corporate bailouts, the monetizing of debt and its use to float loans and investments, anti-union policies, decreases in taxes for the rich, deregulation of banking and industrial practices, and massive insurance coverage for banks and industries that lost money in reckless speculation have created a new world order, but it is not made of the democracy and economic prosperity for all that was promised (Reich, 2012). In 1994, about 11.9% of Americans (29.6 million) lived in poverty and in 2024 about 9.6% (32.6 million) lived in poverty. Trade agreements expanded some industries, but development was often at the expense of environmental protection and public exposure to toxins (Sierra Club, 2014). Economic reforms propelled by corporate lobbying during the 1970s and beyond widened the wealth gap between the super-rich and everyone else. Since 1979 worker productivity in the U.S. increased by 87% while wages have increased by just 32%, and in 1970, the wealthiest ten percent of Americans had 20% of the nation’s wealth and by 2012, they held 35%. The distribution of wealth (savings, investments, property, inheritance) finds that women have .32₵ for every dollar men have, and for every dollar owned by White families, Black families own .13₵ (Reich, 2021).
In the prudent world of Bush, plutocrats conserve wealth and privilege and resist liberal appeals for justice and equity. The severity of this conservation interrupts reason and good will, and corrals us toward a fearful self-preservation, which is not so prudent.
References.
Berg, Zach. “Crippling Conditions: The IMF and Global Equality.” Harvard International Review, January 9, 2025. https://hir.harvard.edu/crippling-conditions-an-exploration-of-imf-loans-in-latin-america.
Bush George H. W. Bush. Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, January 28, 1992. American Presidency Project. Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union | The American Presidency Project.
Reich, Robert. Beyond Outrage. New York: Vintage. 2012.
Reich, Robert. How Wealth Inequality Spiraled Out of Control.” 2021. How Wealth Inequality Spiraled Out of Control | Robert Reich.
Sierra Club. NAFTA: 20 years of Costs to Communities and Environment. 2014. 201403-nafta-20-years-of-costs-report.pdf.
Stone, Randall W. Credibility: The International Monetary Fund and the Poat-Communist Transition. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. 2002.
State of the World Forum. World Affairs Council. San Francisco, May 8, 1992. Bing Videos.
Weisbrot, Mark, et al. “Did NAFTA help Mexico? An Update After 30 years.” Mexican Law Review, 11(1). 2018.
