>Doug wrote:
>
>>I think the best thing the U.S. left could do for the rest of the world
>>would be somehow, magically, to weaken the imperial might of the United
>>States.
>
>Would that be such a hot idea, really? We got (and
>get) all the murderous wars when some regional warlord
>decides to try it on because, who knows, he might win
>and besides, it's other people doing the dying. With
>a single hegemon around, he can't win (tho this still
>isn't obvious to many) and possibly might have to do
>some dying himself. That seems no bad thing to me,
>even though it's not being applied very well because of
>who's running the US.
>
>I'd think the best thing the US Left could do for the
>rest of the world would be to catalyse a change in
>who's running the US.
I'm not sure what you mean by "who's running the US." If you mean the particular set of snouts at the trough, just changing the lineup isn't going to change that much. If you're mean displacing an entire ruling class, then maybe we have something to talk about, though the actual task might take a year or two. If you're talking about the U.S. sitting atop the world like some benevolent dictator, than that's a pretty horrible idea - a prettified kind of global hierarchy and exploitation with some sort of humanitarian cover. It's really not all that different from the propaganda of the liberal branch of the U.S. ruling class, from Wilson through Clinton, in which "democracy" and "peace" are used as cynical codewords for "capitalism" and "imperial conquest." At leastGeorge Kennan was honest enough in his famous (though originally secret) 1948 memo, which can't be quoted often enough, to drop the rhetoric and make it all perfectly clear:
"... we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction ... We should cease to talk about vague and - for the Far East - unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."
He was right about the intent, but wrong about the propaganda approach, since the idealistic slogans have been quite successful at seducing people who should know better.
Doug