Comments on: More Than 2.4 Million Hold Security Clearances http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/07/security_clearances.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Thu, 24 May 2012 10:04:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Leo Lovelace http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/07/security_clearances.html/comment-page-1#comment-4106 Leo Lovelace Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:36:19 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2750#comment-4106 These data -even if incomplete- are very relevant in terms of the political sociology analysis of the American system. While they can be assessed in a non-contextual functional perspective, they should also be examined in a contextual, power-structure dimension, most likely worth sharing with and brought up to for debate by our students, certainly in political science -American politics especially-, sociology, political history. When considered from the perspective of the power structure of the American political system, I would propose three specific control variables for analysis: ONE The extent to which the 'national security establishment' has evolved in the U.S. to become the equivalent of the Soviet nomenklatura -perhaps even in ideological terms-* TWO The correlation between membership in the 'national security establishment' -i.e., through the 'clearance' indicator- and membership in the economic and social contexts of power. THREE The political and ideological configuration of the 'establishment' and the recruitment regime mechanisms, and thus the 'openness' of the 'establishment'*** * There is substantial agreement with the concept of the Soviet nomenklatura as "a small, elite subset of the general population in the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries' activity, analogous to a system ruling class". In the case of the Soviet Bloc nomenklatura, it was composed without exception of communist party members, though membership in the party did not guarantee at all nomenklatura status. In the U.S. case, the equivalent 'national security establishment' is 'bipartisan' and may have also 'independents', though it'd be interesting to have reliable data on party composition of the 'establishment'. Obviously W. Mills' study of the 'power elite' is a pioneer insight into the matter, though Mills does not address the specific centrality of the 'security establishment', as a cross-dimensional social/political variable. *** A well-established variable in political sociology terms: the relationship between the configurative dimensions of the ruling elite and the mass public -the 'people'; there is also considerable agreement on a) the relevance of this relationship for purposes of 'system stability', and b) that the growing gap between them holds strong explanatory variables re the collapse of the Soviet system. **** Thank you, Steve, for the constant excellent work of the Project. These data -even if incomplete- are very relevant in terms of the political sociology analysis of the American system. While they can be assessed in a non-contextual functional perspective, they should also be examined in a contextual, power-structure dimension, most likely worth sharing with and brought up to for debate by our students, certainly in political science -American politics especially-, sociology, political history.

When considered from the perspective of the power structure of the American political system, I would propose three specific control variables for analysis:

ONE The extent to which the ‘national security establishment’ has evolved in the U.S. to become the equivalent of the Soviet nomenklatura -perhaps even in ideological terms-*
TWO The correlation between membership in the ‘national security establishment’ -i.e., through the ‘clearance’ indicator- and membership in the economic and social contexts of power.
THREE The political and ideological configuration of the ‘establishment’ and the recruitment regime mechanisms, and thus the ‘openness’ of the ‘establishment’***

* There is substantial agreement with the concept of the Soviet nomenklatura as “a small, elite subset of the general population in the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries who held various key administrative positions in all spheres of those countries’ activity, analogous to a system ruling class”. In the case of the Soviet Bloc nomenklatura, it was composed without exception of communist party members, though membership in the party did not guarantee at all nomenklatura status. In the U.S. case, the equivalent ‘national security establishment’ is ‘bipartisan’ and may have also ‘independents’, though it’d be interesting to have reliable data on party composition of the ‘establishment’. Obviously W. Mills’ study of the ‘power elite’ is a pioneer insight into the matter, though Mills does not address the specific centrality of the ‘security establishment’, as a cross-dimensional social/political variable.

*** A well-established variable in political sociology terms: the relationship between the configurative dimensions of the ruling elite and the mass public -the ‘people’; there is also considerable agreement on a) the relevance of this relationship for purposes of ‘system stability’, and b) that the growing gap between them holds strong explanatory variables re the collapse of the Soviet system.

**** Thank you, Steve, for the constant excellent work of the Project.

]]>