Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the post plus comments. What started as a Clinton/liberal "we are so powerful that we should save everybody from all those little wars." was doubled down by the Bush/Chenny "we are so powerful we can remove bad men and make the world right" has basically and predictably failed. Our problem is …
Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the post plus comments. What started as a Clinton/liberal "we are so powerful that we should save everybody from all those little wars." was doubled down by the Bush/Chenny "we are so powerful we can remove bad men and make the world right" has basically and predictably failed. Our problem is nothing has taken it's place. So we seem to be arguing between this failed policy and an equally failed policy of isolationism.
So where are the big picture thinkers in this administration, it maybe its biggest failing so far.
The problem is that they are caught between a certain American political reality and a certain geopolitical reality. Namely, that right now America has no appetite for involvement in foreign conflict, even though, in the grand scheme of things, America's leadership of the international global democratic order is crucial.
This is what happens when you mismanage our role in the world like the Bush administration did. Prior to Gulf War II, America was the undisputed leader of the free world. Bush's cowboy foreign policy, mishandling of Afghanistan, and opportunistic overreach in Iraq eroded our credibility in that regard, and led to years of America shrinking from its role in the world - because it was what its people wanted. What we're seeing now is the kind of careful management and steady leadership that we've needed all along (Afghanistan notwithstanding). This is how we maintain our status within the free world, and the free world realizes it; the remarkably unity we're seeing from our allies is inspiring. It is likely the result of realizing how badly the world missed American leadership during the Trump era, and a desire to invest in making sure that doesn't happen again.
The problem is teaching our people at home this lesson. Most Americans think of WWII as the war in which we heroically defeated the evil Nazis and saved the Jews, rather than the war which established a global international order led by the United States. Americans care little about foreign policy if it doesn't directly affect them, but when it does people will tend toward isolationism if they don't see the big picture. That's why we're so stuck right now; our ability to rally the nation is limited by our partisanship, by the bad faith arguments made by people who profit from our disunion. The left has always rolled its eyes at the pretense of U.S. leadership, and now the right has completely surrendered to the narrow-minded provincialism that festered within its ranks for years. What we have here is a golden opportunity to re-assert ourselves and give Americans a reason to take pride in their country's role on the world stage - *if* we can cut through the propaganda and disinformation.
That is because the elites are searching for some narrative that will get people to get behind what they want to do (foreign policy-wise).
Most Americans, for some reason, find actually serving American interests in foreign policy something of a non-starter. We are supposed to be this exceptional country that does things for ethical reasons to improve the world (despite the huge mass of evidence to the contrary).
The Cold War was awesome for these people because it excused a lot of really bad behavior that was supposedly done for good reasons. They tried to do the same sort of thing with the clash of civilizations and Islamic terrorism but, in the end, people didn't really buy it. You are trying to tell me that these guys hiding in caves are an existential threat? That's a hard sell even to the terminally stupid.
Been trying to do the same thing with the Chinese (for better reasons) and now, again, the Russians.
Ya, these people are our enemies--isn't THAT enough to actually oppose them?
Ya got to love the term "elites" it is such a marvelous "strawman". The beauty of it is we each get to draw our favorite face on the strawman and whack away in unison with others,
It refers to a couple of different groups of people:
1) Professional policy makers, especially in foreign policy;
2) Long term professional politicians, especially those from political families (the Bush family, for example or the Cheneys);
3) Holders of extreme amounts of capital (from the hundreds of millions upwards)
4) Certain media personalities--like Hannity.
These are basically the people who either make the decisions or have a very strong influence in the making of decisions--they represent a strata of society that possesses the wealth, power, or connections to materially and substantively shape policy. They went to the same schools. Belong to the same organizations. Live in the same types of places. They are the reason why things tend to be the way they are.
The group varies with who is in power (and who has their ear), but the holders of extreme capital are almost always numbered in the group.
As a rule they are very self-serving (which accounts for them being in the position they are in, ITFP) and they work to shape policy to their benefit and the benefit of their fellows--which is why most programs that are supposed to help people don't actually help people all that much (and why programs of that type always seem to be underfunded and have a lot of small rules and limitations).
Just a thought that occurred to me as I read the post plus comments. What started as a Clinton/liberal "we are so powerful that we should save everybody from all those little wars." was doubled down by the Bush/Chenny "we are so powerful we can remove bad men and make the world right" has basically and predictably failed. Our problem is nothing has taken it's place. So we seem to be arguing between this failed policy and an equally failed policy of isolationism.
So where are the big picture thinkers in this administration, it maybe its biggest failing so far.
The problem is that they are caught between a certain American political reality and a certain geopolitical reality. Namely, that right now America has no appetite for involvement in foreign conflict, even though, in the grand scheme of things, America's leadership of the international global democratic order is crucial.
This is what happens when you mismanage our role in the world like the Bush administration did. Prior to Gulf War II, America was the undisputed leader of the free world. Bush's cowboy foreign policy, mishandling of Afghanistan, and opportunistic overreach in Iraq eroded our credibility in that regard, and led to years of America shrinking from its role in the world - because it was what its people wanted. What we're seeing now is the kind of careful management and steady leadership that we've needed all along (Afghanistan notwithstanding). This is how we maintain our status within the free world, and the free world realizes it; the remarkably unity we're seeing from our allies is inspiring. It is likely the result of realizing how badly the world missed American leadership during the Trump era, and a desire to invest in making sure that doesn't happen again.
The problem is teaching our people at home this lesson. Most Americans think of WWII as the war in which we heroically defeated the evil Nazis and saved the Jews, rather than the war which established a global international order led by the United States. Americans care little about foreign policy if it doesn't directly affect them, but when it does people will tend toward isolationism if they don't see the big picture. That's why we're so stuck right now; our ability to rally the nation is limited by our partisanship, by the bad faith arguments made by people who profit from our disunion. The left has always rolled its eyes at the pretense of U.S. leadership, and now the right has completely surrendered to the narrow-minded provincialism that festered within its ranks for years. What we have here is a golden opportunity to re-assert ourselves and give Americans a reason to take pride in their country's role on the world stage - *if* we can cut through the propaganda and disinformation.
That is because the elites are searching for some narrative that will get people to get behind what they want to do (foreign policy-wise).
Most Americans, for some reason, find actually serving American interests in foreign policy something of a non-starter. We are supposed to be this exceptional country that does things for ethical reasons to improve the world (despite the huge mass of evidence to the contrary).
The Cold War was awesome for these people because it excused a lot of really bad behavior that was supposedly done for good reasons. They tried to do the same sort of thing with the clash of civilizations and Islamic terrorism but, in the end, people didn't really buy it. You are trying to tell me that these guys hiding in caves are an existential threat? That's a hard sell even to the terminally stupid.
Been trying to do the same thing with the Chinese (for better reasons) and now, again, the Russians.
Ya, these people are our enemies--isn't THAT enough to actually oppose them?
Ya got to love the term "elites" it is such a marvelous "strawman". The beauty of it is we each get to draw our favorite face on the strawman and whack away in unison with others,
It is a lazy shorthand--here is what it means...
It refers to a couple of different groups of people:
1) Professional policy makers, especially in foreign policy;
2) Long term professional politicians, especially those from political families (the Bush family, for example or the Cheneys);
3) Holders of extreme amounts of capital (from the hundreds of millions upwards)
4) Certain media personalities--like Hannity.
These are basically the people who either make the decisions or have a very strong influence in the making of decisions--they represent a strata of society that possesses the wealth, power, or connections to materially and substantively shape policy. They went to the same schools. Belong to the same organizations. Live in the same types of places. They are the reason why things tend to be the way they are.
The group varies with who is in power (and who has their ear), but the holders of extreme capital are almost always numbered in the group.
As a rule they are very self-serving (which accounts for them being in the position they are in, ITFP) and they work to shape policy to their benefit and the benefit of their fellows--which is why most programs that are supposed to help people don't actually help people all that much (and why programs of that type always seem to be underfunded and have a lot of small rules and limitations).