History suggests that no matter the scenario, every nation will fall eventually. Who knows the reasons but nothing lasts forever. I believe the best scenario is to establish a grand strategy which leads us into the future with the assumption that eventually the United States will no longer be the powerhouse it is now. The best thing would be to establish lasting relationships with other great powers, starting with the EU, to insure just causes prevail long after America’s power begins to decline.
The EU is already rising. The economic power of the EU is impressive, and its political clout is quickly developing. Although the EU isn’t quite there yet militarily and the organization is relatively youthful, the EU is in a good position to “challenge” American primacy in the not-too-distant future. The EU and the US have a great deal of common ground between them and the EU shouldn’t be perceived as a threat, but more as a strong and healthy partner in accomplishing the future stability and security of the international community.
With an American/European partnership, the power to do good would expand exponentially. The EU must get on its feet before anything impressive can happen and the two entities must get on the same page in short order. It will help things along if America would begin a draw-down of US forces in Europe so the Europeans can begin to stand up in that regard. As they do so, the combined might of the two would be insurmountable, even by the rising China.
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label America. Show all posts
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
American Sense of Divine Destiny
America's style of national security policy is founded in the long entrenched philosophy that America itself is morally superior to its compatriot states. The style of American national security policy is one of assumed moral clarity and justification. It is understood that America's national security is a matter vital importance to the whole of the human race, not only to Americans, because the fundamental principles upon which the democracy operates will ultimately benefit the whole of the human family. The national security interests of the United States are defined in terms of good and evil, right and wrong. The fundamental assumption underlying American national security policy is that America's interests are inherently good, and any who would oppose those interests are inherently evil.(Hook 2008, 9)
The style is not confined to national security interests alone, but permeates American society as a whole. Its very foundation, as explained by Hook and Spanier, is defined in terms of the good people of the new world in conflict with the evil nature of the political old world (Hook 2008, 9). In this supposition, the people are believed to be peaceful in nature and will naturally go about minding their own business, making a living, raising families, and enjoying life, if only left alone by the state to do as they deem appropriate. It is the people who are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It is the people with whom the ultimate authority resides to determine appropriate courses of action. It is the people who will select leaders, make laws, define justice, declare and wage war.
The power ultimately resides with the people because the belief is that the people are inherently good. The state on the other hand, is inherently in need of “checks and balances” in order to counter its inherent tendency toward abuse of power. In this supposition, the state is inherently evil, hungry for ever more power, lustful of control, inhuman, uncaring, unempathetic, immoral, and untrustworthy. Indeed, far from being trustworthy, it takes the people's constant and careful watchful eye to ensure that the state serves the people, rather than the opposite. Again, it is the people who must ensure the continued righteousness of the government and stewardship of power.
This being the case in the new world, the American style of approaching national security policy assumes the consumption of the old world by inherently evil state entities. As such, the conflicts of the old world presuppose inherently evil origins; evil leaders with evil designs and evil objectives. With this in mind, it is easy to assume that the American democracy governed by inherently good people of the new world would have only the best and most moral of intentions, the least of which would be beneficial for all the human race; and any who would oppose those universally beneficial intentions can only have universally harmful intentions themselves.
The American style of national security policy is a symptom of a deeply rooted American sense of divine destiny. This destiny is the result of 400 years of Judeo-Christian permeation through the fabric of American society. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but just the way it is. It is what has made America America. Without it, America would likely have been much more like the world from whence it came.
Hook, Steven W. & John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since World War II. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. 2008.
The style is not confined to national security interests alone, but permeates American society as a whole. Its very foundation, as explained by Hook and Spanier, is defined in terms of the good people of the new world in conflict with the evil nature of the political old world (Hook 2008, 9). In this supposition, the people are believed to be peaceful in nature and will naturally go about minding their own business, making a living, raising families, and enjoying life, if only left alone by the state to do as they deem appropriate. It is the people who are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. It is the people with whom the ultimate authority resides to determine appropriate courses of action. It is the people who will select leaders, make laws, define justice, declare and wage war.
The power ultimately resides with the people because the belief is that the people are inherently good. The state on the other hand, is inherently in need of “checks and balances” in order to counter its inherent tendency toward abuse of power. In this supposition, the state is inherently evil, hungry for ever more power, lustful of control, inhuman, uncaring, unempathetic, immoral, and untrustworthy. Indeed, far from being trustworthy, it takes the people's constant and careful watchful eye to ensure that the state serves the people, rather than the opposite. Again, it is the people who must ensure the continued righteousness of the government and stewardship of power.
This being the case in the new world, the American style of approaching national security policy assumes the consumption of the old world by inherently evil state entities. As such, the conflicts of the old world presuppose inherently evil origins; evil leaders with evil designs and evil objectives. With this in mind, it is easy to assume that the American democracy governed by inherently good people of the new world would have only the best and most moral of intentions, the least of which would be beneficial for all the human race; and any who would oppose those universally beneficial intentions can only have universally harmful intentions themselves.
The American style of national security policy is a symptom of a deeply rooted American sense of divine destiny. This destiny is the result of 400 years of Judeo-Christian permeation through the fabric of American society. It is neither a good thing nor a bad thing, but just the way it is. It is what has made America America. Without it, America would likely have been much more like the world from whence it came.
Hook, Steven W. & John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since World War II. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. 2008.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Chavez Again
I had a talk with a good friend about my thinking concerning what I wrote on my last post, “Hugo Chavez?”. I thought I ought to clarify some of my thoughts lest I appear to be a REAL WACKO. No, I don’t endorse or condone Chavez’s behavior toward the United States. My most crucial point was that IF the United States were in the condition of economic and political distress that Venezuela has been in for the last century and a guy like Chavez came along, he would be viewed as a hero in many respects. He seems, however, to be groping for a totalitarian regime, not anything similar to the democracy I endorse.
Chavez snubs his nose at the symbol of world economic and political might and his reasons are his own. However, once again, the American media paints him with a very black brush and so the American public views him in that light. The media has become accustomed to contorting the facts and adding their own political slant in order to accomplish their own political ends, rather than just reporting the facts. The media these days is not interested in reporting the news, it is interested in shaping the way the public views local and international events, the public thinking in general. The media is a tool used by certain power brokers to shape the thinking of the democratic public.
Our democracy is founded on the ability of the public to critically evaluate a set of circumstances and make an educated choice from a set of options. Increasingly, this fundamental of American democracy is being eliminated by Big Media’s control of the information being put out. When I want my child to make a certain choice, I may put forth two virtually identical options, i.e. “do you want to have green beans or green beans with carrots for dinner?”. She then chooses exactly what I wanted her to choose, without necessarily realizing she didn’t have a choice. Some select individuals, perhaps a great many, have taken upon themselves the role of the good parent, supposing the American public to be ignorant and simple-minded enough to just go along with the single option that is put out. They don’t believe the majority of Americans to be intelligent enough to actually govern themselves. The disturbing thing is that the American public is proving them right.
The Nazis, prior to World War II, used propaganda quite extensively to grip the support of the German public. Their propaganda campaign was quite successful and it is clear what the result was. My great fear on this subject is with the grip the media has on the minds of the people, what could an ill-intentioned individual or individuals, with some degree of sway in the media, do with that kind of control over information.
A good example of this is George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. My economics professor in college (I’ve mentioned him before) said that a democracy would never choose to go to war preemptively. George Bush and his goons had sufficient control over what information was put out that there was very little question in the public mind as to whether or not it was the correct course of action. Even now, with all the evidence contradicting those initial claims much of the public still believes, due to media involvement, that it was the correct thing to do. When will the American public begin to realize it is being duped?
Chavez snubs his nose at the symbol of world economic and political might and his reasons are his own. However, once again, the American media paints him with a very black brush and so the American public views him in that light. The media has become accustomed to contorting the facts and adding their own political slant in order to accomplish their own political ends, rather than just reporting the facts. The media these days is not interested in reporting the news, it is interested in shaping the way the public views local and international events, the public thinking in general. The media is a tool used by certain power brokers to shape the thinking of the democratic public.
Our democracy is founded on the ability of the public to critically evaluate a set of circumstances and make an educated choice from a set of options. Increasingly, this fundamental of American democracy is being eliminated by Big Media’s control of the information being put out. When I want my child to make a certain choice, I may put forth two virtually identical options, i.e. “do you want to have green beans or green beans with carrots for dinner?”. She then chooses exactly what I wanted her to choose, without necessarily realizing she didn’t have a choice. Some select individuals, perhaps a great many, have taken upon themselves the role of the good parent, supposing the American public to be ignorant and simple-minded enough to just go along with the single option that is put out. They don’t believe the majority of Americans to be intelligent enough to actually govern themselves. The disturbing thing is that the American public is proving them right.
The Nazis, prior to World War II, used propaganda quite extensively to grip the support of the German public. Their propaganda campaign was quite successful and it is clear what the result was. My great fear on this subject is with the grip the media has on the minds of the people, what could an ill-intentioned individual or individuals, with some degree of sway in the media, do with that kind of control over information.
A good example of this is George W. Bush in the lead up to the Iraq war. My economics professor in college (I’ve mentioned him before) said that a democracy would never choose to go to war preemptively. George Bush and his goons had sufficient control over what information was put out that there was very little question in the public mind as to whether or not it was the correct course of action. Even now, with all the evidence contradicting those initial claims much of the public still believes, due to media involvement, that it was the correct thing to do. When will the American public begin to realize it is being duped?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
