{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar Marty March 12, 2010 at 8:01 am

“Americans are not pacifists. The vast majority are not even close to the quasi-pacifism of a William Jennings Bryan. We live in a country that glorifies the military. Still, it must be said that most Americans are also not as callous and martial as those who rule in Washington; after all, it is their loved ones who are personally experiencing the brutality and bloodletting.”

Very true ! I resemble the above. It does seem at times that those of us who are not at home in the imperialistic, spread democracy conservative tent also don’t find a home with the hate America pacifists in the other tent. We love our military, our flag. Some of localist, have strong national pride.

avatar Casey Khan March 12, 2010 at 9:04 am

“We love our military, our flag. Some of localist, have strong national pride.”

The problem is that we love our military to the point of deification and in doing so we undermine their humanity and personhood. Let us be clear and not forget that to criticise, and even chastise, is not necessarily to hate. And as such, we can have strong national pride, for America, in rebuking our nation to be a better instance of its kind by not behaving with brutality toward the world.

avatar Big Bill Martin March 12, 2010 at 9:13 am

Casey — amen, and amen.

Here’s another take on the topic — http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/boyack2.1.1.html — noted that it Lew Rockwell and not some “demmie commie.”

avatar darrelplant March 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

George McGovern was hardly a johnny-come-lately in his opposition to the Vietnam War. He wrote years ago that the vote he made for the Tonkin Gulf resolution in August 1964 was done only at the urging of party leaders who wanted to bolster LBJ’s anti-Communist position (against the charges of people like Welch, I might add) prior to the November election, and that when Johnson began ramping up the war the next year, it put McGovern off any inclination to vote on the basis of political expediency.

McGovern had firmly established his credentials as an anti-war candidate by the time of the 1968 election — when he was asked to step into the campaign shoes of Robert Kennedy after his assassination — by doing things like telling LBJ to his face in 1965 that the war was a stupid idea, something that got him disinvited from the White House until the Ford administration, since Nixon didn’t much like him either.

avatar John Médaille March 12, 2010 at 11:25 am

“Divisive issues briefly raised their heads at the conference in DC. Things like campaign finance reform, same-sex marriage, abortion, and tea partiers.”

The most significant event in American Political history of the last 50 years was the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Since then, “social issues” have become a wedge to divide us on all other issues. War is placed off to the side because abortion is more “foundational,” which it is, but a foundational issue has to found something. The anti-abortion movement ought to be what it claims to be, a pro-life movement, but it usually isn’t. A true pro-life movement would tend to be anti-war, and certainly anti-”war of choice.” As it is, the anti-abortion movement tends to end up supporting imperialism as a political expediency.

Abortion is the devil’s finest victory. On the one hand, it allows him to kill infants in the womb, an activity proper to demons; on the other, it mutes opposition to war and imperialism, the favorite leisure-time activity of the demons. And, because the “progressives” don’t wish to be identified with support of war, etc., it mutes or negates their opposition to abortion, which leaves them with no foundational respect for life. Give the devil his due: he is one hell of a strategist!

An excellent history, by the way, especially of Mr. Taft.

avatar D.W. Sabin March 12, 2010 at 11:33 am

I’m not convinced that the so called “average American” is really against the U. S. as global policeman. It seems to reinforce our presumptions of exceptionalism. There is a lot of rhetoric to the effect of the reluctant enforcer but the reality of it is we are on multiple bases around the world and it is easier to drum up jingoism than virtually any other force in the public. We have been given a world class lesson in the hazards of imperial over-reach …and make no mistake, the current economic imbroglio is part of this , and the public remains essentially silent about the corrosive effects of our military projection.

Still, getting left and right together on this issue is a great thing.

avatar Bob Cheeks March 12, 2010 at 2:06 pm

Well, let me ask my “non-interventionist” interlocutors here at FPR, What exactly, would you have done, as president of the United States immediately following the Mujahadeen attacks of 9/11 in Western Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington?

avatar D.W. Sabin March 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm

Well Cheeks, inasmuch as there are apparently a lot of Arabs in Detroit, I would have considered declaring war on Detroit or maybe the Turkish Restaurants of Second Avenue. But then, like Afghanistan and Sec. Def. Rumsfeld’s assertion, , there are not a lot of “targets of Opportunity” in Detroit any more ..

Come-on Cheeks, get off it, this is a much bigger issue than 9/11. Obviously, on that day, we were attacked and the proper response is a strong counter-measure….the term iis “defense” as I recall. If that Appalachian War Bonnet of yours had not lobotomized you like a strand of barbwire through a Hickory, you might also understand that 9/11 is part of the issue of “Blowback” from our mis-guided international posture.

Funny enough, there were no Mujahadeen in Iraq on 9/11.

Think harder Cheeks, …harder.

avatar Bob Cheeks March 12, 2010 at 2:54 pm

DW, calm down, it’s a simple question and not even an argumentative one at that. Now if you don’t know what you’d have done as pres, fine. But, please hold up on the bs and anal smoke!
And, I see you’re falling back on the old Chalmers “blow back” scenario. Fine, what “blow back” would that be?

avatar John Willson March 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Guess where the 9/11 attackers were from? (Hint: they were not from Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.) What would I have done, Cheeks? Hell, I don’t know. I guess it would depend on which persuasive spook got to me when I was really pissed.

Taylor does way overestimate the isolationist tendencies of Americans, and he underestimates what 40 guys and gals gathered together can do. Less than forty neo-cons changed our foreign policy. And have you ever counted the number of signatures on the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution?

avatar Albert March 12, 2010 at 5:25 pm

Jeff, I admire what you and the others at the conference are trying to do.

It would be harder but better to argue how anti-imperialism coheres with the secondary issues important to many instead of asking folks to simply “set those concerns aside,” which probably isn’t going to happen.

avatar Moonman March 12, 2010 at 5:45 pm

This has been an excellent, informative post. My father served in Vietnam, and while he never had much good to say about Army life, he despised the free love/anti-war contingent. And so that 1960′s era culture clash shaped his world view and mine. I’ve never had much familiarity with the concept of an anti-war Right.

I live in Texas, where evangelical Christianity, a pro-big business ideology, and aggressive foreign policy go together like Sodom and Gomorrah. While I enjoyed the political history in this piece, I’d be even more interested in an intellectual history of how this combination came about. Anyone know any good resources?

avatar Alan MacDonald March 12, 2010 at 8:13 pm

You correctly note, “In the early 1900s, elitists who represented corporate wealth were conservatives. In the parlance of the Progressive Era, they were reactionaries, standpatters, or plutocrats. Just about everyone else went by various names indicating support for a democratic republic, a non-entangling foreign policy, individual rights, the common good, and fidelity to the Constitution: populists, progressives, insurgents, or liberals. The latter camp was spread throughout the Democratic and Republican parties, and, to a lesser extent, various third parties. They were the heirs of Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor, and Samuel Adams.”

An excellent analysis, Jeff.

Only the tiny minority of elitists were infected with what I would call, ‘Empire-thinking’ — all the rest, of the principled right and left, were jointly committed to ‘democracy-thinking’!

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

avatar Cecelia March 12, 2010 at 11:50 pm

I commend you for engaging in this effort and your essay was greatly apprenticed. I would add to this very fine effort – that we cannot overlook the role oil/natural gas play in our stance towards the rest of the world. I watch with some trepidation the moves made by other countries – especially China, India – to secure access to oil and ng.
The Chinese are on a spending spree for this resource, the Russians increase their influence in Europe with the promise of oil and natural gas, the Saudi’s sign contracts with India and China to provide them with these resources while also using their money to build solar in their own country (what are they telling us with that?). Consider too that one of our major suppliers – Mexico – is suffering from serious decline in their oil fields and the ensuing political instability. I could easily see that jingoistic trend in the American psyche supporting wars for resources in the future. Oil is a very important yet often overlooked part of the equation.

avatar Vic Anderson March 13, 2010 at 9:06 am

And ordinary Americans need to think and vote for themselves!

avatar D.W. Sabin March 13, 2010 at 11:57 am

Cheeks,
A new tertiary definition of “Irony” is afloat, Cheeks advising Sabin to “calm down” …or, vice versa. Neither of us have red and white blood cells, we only got spit and vinegar in a binary kind of smoke bomb form.

I get a little testy when certain “laptop bombardiers” in the Beltway Hobgoblin Brigades use the old pacifism and patriotism saw on those who question their invidious aims. So when you use it, I get more than testy, I get dyspeptic…or more dyspeptic than I already is.

But as to your wisecrack on Chalmers Johnson, We do not have enough space on this site, let alone all them thar tubes of these here internets themselves to begin a listing of all the areas of “Blowback”, military, economic, diplomatic, commercial etc etc…that this nation has set in motion as a result of thinking Armed Mercantile Totalitarianism was a fine improvement on a Democratic Republic. The Chickens are coming home to roost and they are of the undead. There is a certain farcical quality to vampire chickens but they are still deadly.

Much, though not all of the various Blowback is the final chapter of the Cold War…or maybe an interregnum of it. The End of History Boys thought we won the Cold War….Ho Ho Ho. One does not win against schizophrenia, one only learns how to deal effectively with dysfunctional behavior and take the best medicine known to man: LIBERTY.

Attempts at imposing Democracy at Gunpoint on others is one of the surrenders to schizophrenia I’m talking about. Not to mention, $675 toilet seats and $125 pliers.

avatar Bruce Smith March 13, 2010 at 3:05 pm

It’s true vampire chickens and anaerobic bacteria party bosses can be deadly!

avatar Rob G March 13, 2010 at 11:38 pm

“I live in Texas, where evangelical Christianity, a pro-big business ideology, and aggressive foreign policy go together like Sodom and Gomorrah. While I enjoyed the political history in this piece, I’d be even more interested in an intellectual history of how this combination came about. Anyone know any good resources?”

From my perspective, these things all really began to coalesce during the Civil War and its aftermath. Thomas DiLorenzo’s two books on Lincoln, while rather shrill and hyperbolic, provide a lot of information (and good bibliographies and references) relating to alternative views of the war you won’t otherwise hear about. Mark Noll’s “The Civil War as Theological Crisis” is a good look at the religious dimension, and James Moorhead’s “American Apocalypse” examines the religious underpinnings of the North’s sense of America’s mission of bringing in the kingdom of God, which eventually spread to the nation as a whole (see Richard Gamble’s “The War for Righteousness” concerning this same mentality related to our entrance into WWI.)

avatar ProudlyProgressive March 14, 2010 at 11:49 am

I think that there is a world-wide movement wanting to curb the 1%ers all over the world. To some, it’s called anti-American, to the Reich, it is propagandized as ‘traitors’, or that funny little mime, ‘Terrorists’ which are always the Reich. The Reich always tries to shift the propaganda against the left, which only helps the 1%ers in their drive for World Domination and ‘Ownership’ of every living thing, people, but esp. the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It is boringly repetive and predictable as is death, and taxes (Tex-asses)??? hahahahahaha. Soon, Anarchy the real thing, not the boggy-man of the Reich, but the real thing, like in Mexico, where the opposing Mafias can’t even figure out who is who, and will distract the propaganda mafia from churring out anything at all. I wish, I wish, I wish. England did their colonies no favor in deporting the so-called Religious Reich from their homeland way, way, way, back in King (the real one) George’s time who had black piss, Good ol’ England.

avatar High Hopes March 14, 2010 at 6:35 pm

Jeff,

Very much enjoyed the piece and the comments above. When Pat Bucannan interviewed Ralph Nader for The American Conservative magazine, it sent shockwaves through the so-called (neo)conservative movement and the neo-liberals as well. However, among paleo’s on bothsides and a mixture of indepenedents and non-beltway libertarians, this interview was more widely recieved if as interesting if nothing else. Then in 2008′ Ron Paul shocked the establishment by endorsing Nader along with several others not often seen in the same plane as Paul but the endorsement was to a few criteria, mainly global empire, foreign policy and investigating/auditing the Federal Reserve Bank. Ron had in effect become the political Neo and taken the red pill and then told everyone to leave the matrix if you will. It was a cruise missle salvo over the heads of the 2 party state that is ripping this country apart. Over the last year Ron has worked with democrat Alan Grayson and independent Bernie Sanders on auditing the Federal Reserve and this last week or so Ron has stood with Kucinich against war as you pointed out.

I applaud you and all the others who had the courage to sitdown and look for areas of common interests that we can work on that can slow the leviathan down that consumes us. In December 08′, Anthony Gregory for LewRockwell.com wrote an article asking should the libertatians be reaching out to the left? http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory175.html It was a question asked long ago and answered (yes) by Karl Hess and before that by Murray Rothbard and it still holds true today IMO. Thanks again for a great article and coo-dos to Front Porch Republic for a platform where shared ideas across the spectrum can help bridge divides.

avatar Roger Tucker March 14, 2010 at 6:51 pm

I am encouraged by hearing about this conference from your blog. It has been apparent to me for the last few years that the only hope for positive political change in America would have to come from a third party committed to overthrowing the Republicrat oligarchy. It is also clear that such a party would have to be an alliance (let’s call it the Alliance Party) of virtually all of those outside of the current political establishment. This is actually quite workable, as virtually all such elements are in agreement about the most fundamental issues: freedom from subservience to Israel and involvement in its wars; the need to drastically downsize the extent and power of the military-industrial-congressional-media complex; renunciation of predatory Empire; restoration of the Constitution and dismantling of the internal security apparatus; serious efforts to protect the environment; and last but not least, containment of the corporatocracy.

It shouldn’t take much for such a party to coalesce and gain the backing of a majority of Americans who are sick to death of the Establishment’s crimes against the Republic, humanity and the Earth. What’s needed is leadership. Where’s it going to come from?

avatar Jeff Taylor March 14, 2010 at 9:43 pm

darrelplant, My reference to McCarthy, Kennedy, and McGovern being johnnies-come-lately was partly tongue-in-cheek. I was highlighting the irony that a right winger was against the war from the beginning, while the eventual heroes of liberal Democrats were not. I used Welch as an example, but I could also have used another Taft Republican: Representative Eugene Siler (R-KY), who was the only member of the House to oppose the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. (He was absent at the time of the vote, but was paired against it–i.e., announced on the floor as being opposed). The resolution passed the House 416-0. The needling of MK&M was gratuitous and should have been left out, but in a long essay I’m bound to make some mistakes. It’s an interesting subject, though, and deserves to be examined less flippantly. I find your defense of McGovern unconvincing because it’s too one-sided in the other direction. McGovern was ambivalent. He was a delegate to the 1948 Progressive Party convention, yet he reportedly declined to vote for Henry Wallace or anyone else in November. Just his association with Wallace would have been enough to send shudders through the LBJ-HHH wing of the party two decades later. He would never have had their trust after such a radical dalliance, from a Cold War liberalism perspective. On the other hand, McGovern was a pretty conventional Kennedy Democrat for most of the 1960s. He voted FOR the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Years later, he could try to explain why, but the fact is he supported the war in 1964 when a blank-check endorsement came up for a vote. That’s to his discredit. He could have voted against or abstained. It would not have hurt him among most South Dakotans, who are “isolationist” to the core–in fact, they later elected an even more anti-imperialist Democrat: the great Jim Abourezk.

Welch criticized Johnson and others–including Republicans like Eisenhower–for being soft on communism, but it had nothing to do with a lack of aggression toward Vietnam. Maybe you’re thinking of the new nationalists like Goldwater. The old nationalists were critical of both the Cold War and of trade with our reputed enemies (early form of detente). Trade with the Reds showed the phoniness of our government’s stated reasons for the Cold War. It never rang true.

McGovern was an Adlai Stevenson admirer in the 1950s and a JFK man in 1960. Not exactly outside the mainstream Cold War-Wall Street consensus. By 1967, McGovern was clearly anti-war, but his stance on foreign policy has always been muddied by a social-gospel, humanitarian interventionist impulse that wasn’t much different from Hubert Humphrey in his more idealistic moments. He was clearly seen as a threat by elements of the establishment in 1972, yet Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and John Kenneth Galbraith were among his pre-nomination supporters, so he wasn’t as radical as many of his New Left and Countercultural supporters. You don’t get the endorsement of Mr. Vital Center without being somewhat in the center (left fringe, probably). Bill Kauffman and Dan McCarthy have written nice articles about McGovern: (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jan/30/00012/) and (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/12/00016/). I have a soft spot for GSM. He was one of my first political heroes and I supported him as a sixth grader in 1972. He has come out strongly against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Yet, he supported Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. What kind of peace candidate, or anti-plutocracy candidate, is Clinton? She’s no Kucinich or Gravel. So McGovern’s record remains mixed, in my view. As does Eugene McCarthy’s. A maverick in some ways, yet also a Humphrey protege and LBJ backer in 1960 and 1964. I shouldn’t have been so snide about George and Gene because they do deserve some plaudits, but let’s be honest and admit that they weren’t at the forefront of opposition to Vietnam during the critical 1962-1965 period. Unlike Macdonald, Chomsky, Muste, Day, Merton, the Berrigans, Dellinger, Spock, Malcolm X, Gruening, Morse, and Welch.

In my view, RFK was an opportunist in 1968. I don’t think his opposition to the war was principled at all. If it had been, he wouldn’t have split the anti-war vote by running against McCarthy. Read the transcript of Kennedy’s May 1967 televised debate with Governor Reagan. A young person named Anna Ford asked, “I believe the war in Vietnam is illegal, immoral, politically unjustifiable and economically motivated. Could either of you agree with this?” Kennedy responded, “I don’t agree with that. I have some reservations as I’ve stated them before about some aspects of the war, but I think that the United States is making every effort to try to make it possible for the people of South Vietnam to determine their own destiny. I think that’s all we want – no matter how – how we – what reservations we have about the conduct of the war. I think that we’re all agreed in the United States that if the war can be settled and the people of South Vietnam can determine their own destiny and determine their own future, that we want to leave South Vietnam. That’s the stated governmental policy, certainly what I would like to see, and I think that’s backed by the vast majority of American people.” Yes, that was his actual pro-war yet mealy-mouthed response! Later on, Kennedy refers to some who favored “pulling out unilaterally,” and he commented, “I happen to disagree with that.” (http://reagan2020.us/speeches/reagan_kennedy_debate.asp) Once the

John, I didn’t mean to “underestimate what 40 guys and gals gathered together can do.” You observe that “Less than forty neo-cons changed our foreign policy. And have you ever counted the number of signatures on the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution?” Keep in mind, though, that these were small groups of people with POWER. Not just intellect, good intentions, and some influence. These were politicians or bureaucrats who had their hands on the levers of power. We need to eventually include such individuals in the coalition, in addition to putting pressure on the political opportunists in DC from below (by mobilizing millions of grassroots Americans).

Moonman, You’re wondering about an intellectual history of how “evangelical Christianity, a pro-big business ideology, and aggressive foreign policy” have come together in Texas and elsewhere. I agree with Rob G. that the Civil War was one turning point, but the culture-transforming, Constantinian, Calvinist nature of the Puritans and their less-orthodox heirs also played a role. It helped lead to American civil religion and a sanctification of the sociopolitical status quo. The Protestant mainstream has been nothing if not trendy. The Episcopal Church is the example of examples. Whatever the upper-class elite wants at any given moment–be it slavery, war, capitalism, abortion, or homosexuality–then that’s where you’ll find the Episcopal hierarchy trailing closely behind bestowing its blessings. Donald Dayton’s book _Rediscovering an Evangelical Heritage_ details how 20th century evangelicalism was much more socially conservative than 19th century evangelicalism (in terms of the poor, women’s rights, racial equality–not abortion, homosexuality, and other 1960s+ issues). I could also refer you to my Front Porch Republic essay on American evangelicals and war (http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/12/christmas-wish-%E2%80%9909-repelling-the-martian-invasion/) and my book about William Jennings Bryan (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/jul/31/00029/).

Readers who expressed appreciation for the essay: Thank you for your comments. I’m glad you like it.

avatar Jeff Taylor March 14, 2010 at 10:33 pm

My criticism of McGovern shouldn’t be overstated. After all, I chose his 1972 campaign slogan to be the title of my essay. I’ve recently read that McGovern borrowed the phrase from Martin Luther King. Although it’s a natural fit re: support for republic and opposition to empire, it has application beyond foreign policy. “Come Home, America” is also the title of William Greider’s latest book. Traditional conservative Tom Pauken, former Texas GOP chairman, has just released a similarly-entitled book: “Bringing America Home.” While there are undoubtedly some differences between the Greider and Pauken definitions of “home,” I’m willing to bet the similarities are greater.

avatar Bruce Smith March 16, 2010 at 12:03 pm

The United States made a rod for its own back by allowing the private banks to set up and control the Federal Reserve System in December 1913. Since then there has been an acceleration in the amount of public debt through the “Ponzi debt scheme” which this handover of the credit creation process brought into being. The use of compound interest is a major factor in this acceleration but the main understanding has to be that the debts incurred do not contain the interest to repay the debt so an ever-increasing amount of debt is required to repay the “principal plus interest” debt hence the Ponzi nature.

A trade policy that has collapsed American volume manufacturing also exacerbates the ability to repay this public debt as well as finance the trade debt, or deficit. Foreign governments and investors now hold over 50% of the public debt mainly in the form of Treasury securities and, therefore, maintaining the value of the dollar is crucial given the astronomical quantity of debt. It was the agreement Henry Kissinger managed to make with the House of Saudi in June 1974 which has been a primary driver of American imperialism in the Middle East. In this deal the United States agreed to provide military protection to the House of Saudi and certain other OPEC countries if OPEC would agree that payment for oil should only be made in American dollars. This agreement was achieved and helped to maintain the value of the American dollar as its debt has continued to increase.

The threat by Saddam Hussein to seek payment in currencies other than the American dollar can be regarded as one of the strong incentives to invade Iraq. The threat of Iran to do the same can also be seen as a similar incentive to also invade that country. Al Queda’s general threat to topple American friendly countries in the Middle-East with the ultimate goal of taking over Saudi Arabia would help explain one of the major reasons for the continuing war against Al Queda by America since again the American petrodollar would be threatened.

American imperialism can, therefore, be judged to be driven by a failure to stand up against elite capitalism. It is the growing recognition amongst other countries that American’s seem incapable of diagnosing the root cause of their debt problems that is leading to anxiety about the value of the dollar and particularly by the Chinese who have linked their economic fortunes so tightly to the United States. This does not imply that people in other countries understand the cause simply that they are extremely worried about the ability of Americans to resolve their economic problems. What they fail to grasp, as do Americans, is that there is no choice. Debt will reach a point where it cannot be repaid. Credit creation will then have to be taken back by government from the financial elites and government credit issued to pay down the debt. Americans and people throughout the world may then learn to encompass a more nuanced version of capitalism and human nature which involves making the continuous effort to follow and understand the financial happenings of the system they rely on for survival.

avatar Wessexman March 17, 2010 at 6:01 am

I’m very much split on this topic. My natural sympathies are that of an old Tory or tertium quid against standing armies and foreign wars but then I look at Russia and China(not to mention India, Brazil and other sources of trouble.) and I sometimes find myself thankful we have you yanks with the power and influence you do have and wish my nation, Britain, to support you.

avatar KC March 18, 2010 at 1:36 am

Dennis Kucinich is not what he seems or appears to be. He a very good grandstander and attention seeker. At the end of the day, Kucinich is useless to any cause. When push comes to shove and under pressure, Kucinich will always cave in to the Democratic Party establishment. It is easy to be against something when the disparity is so large.

If the vote tally was much closer and one needed to depend on Kucinich to take a dissenting position, this fraud would bend over to the political presssure applied by the likes of Rahm Emanuel and President Obama.

Kucinich seems strong and principled but you would be better off to write him now already. Don’t take my advice and you will see the results for yourselves later on. Kucinich is one the biggest hot air people in Washington today.

Kucinich is all smoke and nothing else.

avatar James O'Meara March 18, 2010 at 10:46 pm

“Americans are not pacifists. The vast majority are not even close to the quasi-pacifism of a William Jennings Bryan. We live in a country that glorifies the military. Still, it must be said that most Americans are also not as callous and martial as those who rule in Washington; after all, it is their loved ones who are personally experiencing the brutality and bloodletting.”

True and useful. The “war” party in DC has nothing to do with real military men and women. They are chicken hawks one and all, eager to send others to do the dirty work. There’s quite a difference between keeping Prince William out of combat [because he, and thus his comrades, would be targeted] and the Bush daughters drinking tequila shot throughout the War on Terror. But God forbid a rich, smart Democrat like Clinton or Obama would let their kids join the military.

America has a War State but not a Military State. Attempts to blame “the generals” are leftover 60s rhetoric worthy of those who take their politics from movies like Animal House.

In Traditional terms, while society would be better off ruled by a spiritual Elite, we would likely be better off with rule by the military [cf. Starship Troopers] than bourgeois shopkeepers who send the poor off to die for their phony swagger in the world.

avatar ProudlyProgressive March 19, 2010 at 9:40 am

This should be an international, aggressive, campaign but probably will not last because to publically oppose the MIC kills. (Princess Dianna) It takes a whole lot of courage, currently unavailable because FASCISM RULES the world! It also take a whole ton of $$$$$$$, and Cheney will probably ‘suicide’ you like Dr. David Kelley in UK. You’d have to have a multi, multi, multi money person who can’t be threatened, manipulated, bullied, pressured, connected with other Mafias. Look at what they are still doing to Al Gore. Great Idea, but……………………

avatar Robert April 1, 2010 at 11:34 am

“Ain’t My Realism” – The author contends that US policy makers and politicians are motivated by ‘political realism,’ but in fact, the leading international relations scholars and founders of the Structural Realism school are consistently opposed to intervention abroad. Theirs is an almost purely positivist, material calculation of national interest, but opposition nonetheless. I think what the author is referring to is an older Classical Realism (Machiavellian) that few contemporary IR theorists hold to.

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: