The New America - the Imperialist Republic

[ParanoiA]

I was watching the latest republican debates from Thursday night on Youtube, and became more disturbed than usual about the rhetoric coming out of these salesmen.

 

(Not to mention the priceless moment I haven't seen anyone write about yet - Huckabee said, to paraphrase, 'We can not only win the White House, but we can keep the country safe too' - as if keeping the country safe is second in priority to winning the White House - did anyone else catch that? Yeah, keep telling me how Ron Paul is the nutcase...)

 

Romney, particularly, but also Huckabee and Guiliani all seem to be running for president of the world, not America. All of their comments concerning international politics sounded like a game of Risk being played on TV. Romney talking about how we need to "get them" evolved into democratic nations and so forth. They all have their little 'plan' for the middle east and how we need to continue our military presence and augment it with a non-military presence.

 

And no one in the audience seemed the least bit concerned about this kind of talk. It just gets worse, debate after debate, election after election, we have rationalized becoming an imperial republic.

 

We have thousands of years of history to review and realize how power corrupts, and we demonize the imperialist heavy hitters in our history books - yet we never seem to realize the dynamics that empowered these leaders. We still seem to think that these people were straight up "evil", easy to pick out - as if their hatred and illegitimacy was as obvious to their people as it is to us now.

 

Now we have an entire panel of republican imposters using 'promotion of democracy', or 'bringing peace to the region' or appeals to supposed moral obligations to restore liberty throughout the world - all with that televangelist, car salesman smile.

 

Why do we not see how we're romancing ourselves into the notion of our world police obligation? Why have we allowed ourselves to rationalize american military expansion and control all over the globe? Why have we let our superpower status corrupt us into following the footsteps of empires past - dead empires?

[iNow]

Each of your why questions can be addressed by one response. "Because the rest of us have allowed the electorate to become dominated by these mindsets."

 

 

More people must vote... must speak their minds... must educate themselves before doing so... and must do so now.

 

 

You're not alone in these questions and concerns, ParanoiA. I promise you that.

[Severian]

I think if I were an American, I would be voting for Ron Paul. Or a better phraseology is, I would want to vote for Ron Paul, since I would not be a registered Republican and I doubt he will gain their nomination.

 

This is rather surprising to me, since I would have regarded myself as more of a Democrat. I think this is mainly because I would like to see what a true libertarian can do in the White House.

[Reaper]

 

We have thousands of years of history to review and realize how power corrupts, and we demonize the imperialist heavy hitters in our history books - yet we never seem to realize the dynamics that empowered these leaders. We still seem to think that these people were straight up "evil", easy to pick out - as if their hatred and illegitimacy was as obvious to their people as it is to us now.

 

 

................................................

 

 

Why do we not see how we're romancing ourselves into the notion of our world police obligation? Why have we allowed ourselves to rationalize american military expansion and control all over the globe? Why have we let our superpower status corrupt us into following the footsteps of empires past - dead empires?

 

Well, if you really look at the history books, that's pretty much always been the case with any empire you came across, not just Americans. The Romans, for example, thought of everyone else as barbarians and, when they took their military in and stamped out all the other smaller kingdoms and their various resistance, they would celebrate and claim to bring "enlightenment" and of course, "freedom". Hell, you look can still see state published propaganda of this kind inscribed on roman ruins. And then, you all probably know what the British did to justify going in and conquering vast pieces of land (e.g. the White Man's Burden).

 

All that has really changed is that now, Americans are doing this, and of course we have even better technology.

 

 

Of course, if we really did care about democracy and freedom, then why are we still supporting those despots all over the Middle East and Latin America? one only wonders why....

[DrDNA]

Each of your why questions can be addressed by one response. "Because the rest of us have allowed the electorate to become dominated by these mindsets."

 

 

More people must vote... must speak their minds... must educate themselves before doing so... and must do so now.

 

 

I used to agree with you....not long ago I believed that more people should vote, but now that I've grown more cynical (more wise perhaps....perhaps less so), I've come to believe that more voters is not the answer.

 

Increasing voter turnout is just an attempt to tip the scales in a mindless manner.

 

We need more concerned, informed people that will make thoughtful choices. An increase in the brainless masses, worried about celebrities, whether Paris has herpes or not, or the tone of Brittany's tummy (have you seen it, it is very flabby), is not what the world needs.

 

I would argue that part of the problem that we are currently experiencing is caused in no small part by the electorate responding to those shallow 30 second (or less) sound bites, carefully crafted simple imagry, and low hanging fruit propoganda (eg, he or she is going to raise your taxes! or will they will permit the leftists to burn your flag!) from both sides of the fence...but little else. We are the problem.

 

They feed us that garbage because, like amoebae, we respond to simple stimuli. It is what works.

 

PS: I got so emotionally involved with the first part of your statement that I just skipped right over the second part: "must educate themselves before doing so". So to sum it up, I agree with you.

 

Well, if you really look at the history books, that's pretty much always been the case with any empire you came across, not just Americans. .

 

Yep. We have had good teachers. The Romans, the Spaniards, the British......

Too bad we didn't learn the negative consequences.

 

 

Of course, if we really did care about democracy and freedom, then why are we still supporting those despots all over the Middle East and Latin America? one only wonders why....

 

1. oil

2. strategic geography and/or covert sources of revenue (drugs)

[Mr Skeptic]

We need to change our voting system so that it doesn't by near-necessity result in two major parties. Or we could go the hard way, and educate people so that they actually care and can work around the problems caused by "first past the post" voting.

[Phi for All]

We need to change our voting system so that it doesn't by near-necessity result in two major parties.

Exactly, and we should stop calling our voting process a "race". Americans love sports and like to back the winner. Voting should not be about choosing the winner. It should be about electing the person who will represent you best.

[Pangloss]

Exactly, and we should stop calling our voting process a "race". Americans love sports and like to back the winner. Voting should not be about choosing the winner. It should be about electing the person who will represent you best.

 

As much as I admire the sentiment there, I can't agree. I think the long, tiring race and the conflict between candidates is valuable, showing us how they behave under stress. As stressful as the campaign is, actually holding the office (any office) is even worse, and we don't get a whole lot of insight through any other means.

 

And it can be extremely informative. I feel like I've learned a lot about Rudy Giuliani from his campaign (and all of it bad). I've learned practically everything I know about Barrack Obama from watching his campaign (almost all of it good). Ditto Fred Thompson -- what a joke that campaign has turned out to be -- but if you'd asked me a few months ago I'd have said he seemed like a promising candidate!

 

Also I think you're right about chosing a candidate to represent me best, but what does that actually mean? Does that mean I should choose a candidate who agrees with me on the issues? I'm not sure that's a really great idea, for two reasons: (1) My opinions on the issues CHANGE, and (2) I would much rather vote for a good person who doesn't agree with me on everything (or anything!), than a corrupt, dangerous person who technically shares all of my stances on the issues. So the issues themselves aren't really adequate for me to make my choice.

 

(shrug) My two bits, for what it's worth.

[iNow]

Also I think you're right about chosing a candidate to represent me best, but what does that actually mean? Does that mean I should choose a candidate who agrees with me on the issues?

 

I don't think so, myself. I see it more akin to selecting a good lawyer to represent you. You have a specific outcome you want to see achieved, and you select the candidate most likely to achieve that outcome on your behalf.

[Skye]

Except that lawyer may being paid by the other party in the legal dispute.

[Pangloss]

I don't think so, myself. I see it more akin to selecting a good lawyer to represent you. You have a specific outcome you want to see achieved, and you select the candidate most likely to achieve that outcome on your behalf.

 

So you would never pick a candidate who disagrees with you on any issue? Is that even possible?

 

And does that mean you would pick a candidate you know to be corrupt because they agree with you ideologically?

 

People may laugh at that last question, but bear in mind that this happens all the time. William Jefferson of Louisiana was re-elected even after $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer. Alcee Hastings, who represents the district right next door to mine, was impeached for bribery by a *Democratically-controlled* congress (his own party), 413-3, and then convicted in the Senate (later overturned on a technicality), but went on to be elected NINE TIMES in spite of the fact that he was never cleared of wrongdoing! People I work with actually suggested recently that we have him come and speak at our commencement ceremony -- AGAIN!!!!!! (AUGH!)

 

So poor has people's trust of government become that this sort of thing isn't even rare anymore. Often corruption indictments don't even make the headlines. And yet here we are, deciding who is going to run this country, and saying it's best to just focus on the issues.

[ecoli]

 

Why do we not see how we're romancing ourselves into the notion of our world police obligation? Why have we allowed ourselves to rationalize american military expansion and control all over the globe? Why have we let our superpower status corrupt us into following the footsteps of empires past - dead empires?

 

Because there are people out there who are making a lot of profits by taking their businesses overseas. And it just so happens that some of these business are making money off of war.

 

while these business are in pulling the strings of the political puppets, there will be incentive for government to be at war. And, as long as their in control of the media, there remains a vehicle to form public opinion.

 

I put it down to corporate influences in government that is causing all these problems. Politicians can tell the voters that they represent the people, and be believable... but that doesn't mean it's true.

[ParanoiA]

So poor has people's trust of government become that this sort of thing isn't even rare anymore. Often corruption indictments don't even make the headlines. And yet here we are, deciding who is going to run this country, and saying it's best to just focus on the issues.

 

This is why I have a hard time participating in politics in general. I have nothing to really relate to, since it's so far out of whack.

 

Consider the fact that after every political speech, the first thing we see is experts "interpreting" the speech. They're going on and on about what this politician really thinks, what his intentions really are and so forth.

 

Is this not proof that we think the politician is lying? Why would you ask about what a politician really thinks when he just told you? Unless, of course, you didn't believe him.

 

So, to me, it appears we all think or know they're lying and we're past that - we're moving on to "how much" they're lying and other things, presumably having given up on honesty altogether. (Part of which I blame on unrealistic "superman" expectations we place on politicians which creates an atmosphere that only a great liar and cheat can prevail in)

 

I can't relate with that. I can't have a conversation about which front runner is hot and which is not, when none of them remotely come close to my expectation of a legislative expert.

 

while these business are in pulling the strings of the political puppets, there will be incentive for government to be at war. And, as long as their in control of the media, there remains a vehicle to form public opinion.

 

And aren't we, the people, to blame for this? Shouldn't we be smarter than the brainwashing exercises by corporate TV news?

 

Some days I wake up almost militant about it. I think, 'why in the hell don't you people go to some trouble and learn something about your damn government' - aimed at the blissfully ignorant, of course.

 

I hear people glorify their refusal to watch or read about current events "because it's depressing...life is too short", or some politically contemptuous argument that supposedly justifies their ignorance.

 

This is a cop out. You don't have that luxury in a republic. Well, actually, I guess you do...and we all have the luxury of being relieved of our precious union because of it.

[iNow]

So you would never pick a candidate who disagrees with you on any issue? Is that even possible?

 

And does that mean you would pick a candidate you know to be corrupt because they agree with you ideologically?

That would not be an accurate interpretation of my post. It was a simplified example to make a point about what it means to select a candidate who will "best represent me."

[ecoli]

That would not be an accurate interpretation of my post. It was a simplified example to make a point about what it means to select a candidate who will "best represent me."

hopefully, a candidate that is not corrupt would represent you the best. Clearly, professed ideology (AKA rhetoric) is not enough.

[DrDNA]

I for one would be happier with a candidate with a high degree of integrity but that I disagree with ideologically over one with lesser integrity that I mostly agree with ideologically. I should say apparent ideology...you often can't be sure about someone's true ideology in politics....so I agree with Ecoli's statement re rhetoric.

 

I think I went through the later scenario in the first Clinton administration and do not wish to go through it again.

 

Of course I absolutely do not wish to disagree ideologically with my candidate/president AND have no confidence in his/her integrity either........a la the current administration and certain of the 08 candidate(s) whose name(s) I will not mention because it always upsets someone( people) when I trash this(ese) candidate(s)