> M. Junaid Alam wrote:
>
> > Everything has to be shaped
> > around Israeli interests.
>
And Doug H replied:
> I agree with lots of your analysis, but I think you underestimate the
> degree to which much of the American ruling class sees Israel as a
> bulwark of "civilization" against the Arab hordes. Israelis are
> people like us, struggling to subdue an enemy whose irrationality and
> violence is almost hardwired into their mysterious heads. Israel is
> like a besieged outcropping of Europe - only with big balls and heavy
> weaponry - fighting our fight.
And a very 'biblical' outcropping. Many American mythologists for America have tended to see the US in such terms, as the chosen people, the shining city on the hill, etc. But the Zionists have gone out of their way to link their settler outcropping with the very 'holy' land they have taken over, even though the myths about racial, linguistic and even religious continuity are largely that, myths.
Next:
> John Bizwas wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, though, it is the case that there is no real economic
> > decline (YET) but that the ruling class perceives that it is
> > over-seeing a decline and loss of power, or at least the
> > potential for it, or the imminence of it.
And Doug H responded:
>
> Perhaps, but there's little evidence for this in the places you
> usually look for it - think pieces in the quality press, journal
> articles, panels at the Council on Foreign Relations. The last CFR
> economics panel I went to, on the Fed after Greenspan (featuring
> Frederic Mishkin, Lawrence Meyer, Susan Phillips, and Benjamin
> Friedman) was awash in complacency. That provoked some anxious
> questioning from the "working bourgeoisie" in the audience, worried
> about the dollar, a credit bubble, etc., but the "thinking
> bourgeoisie" was largely unmoved. And if the Bush admin were
> seriously worried about decline, they'd be more anxious about the c/a
> deficit
When has a Bush ever been worried about a c/a deficit? I mean, look at the ones the first Bush gave us. You can't really be that much of a spendthrift for federal contractor parasites and your own family interests and be a fiscal conservative. Also, prior to the advent of Bush the younger, Greenspan was rather worried about deflation and the way the oil glut was likely to cause it to happen in the US, even with a rather cheap dollar. So if we are talking about a loss of power relative to oil, it would be about the ability to control its price. And then throw in the dollar (and why the US basically needs a cheap dollar relative to most OECD countries), even though it leads to a worldwide perception that the US can't or won't back up its own currency.
Still, I'd say look more at the things that worked on the popular mind to bring Bush to power. Clinton had a largely dysfunctional first administration that only seemed to come to life when it was time to run for re-election. And then a second presidency that started off with some energy (I believe the man was even working up for a two-pronged attack on 'terrorism' by going after OBL and Saddam Hussein in a major way), but just bogged down into dysfunctionality with Ken Starr, Monica Lewinsky, and a concerted Repug effort out of Congress to impeach him no matter how inane the charges. His presidency is associated in collective memory with the first attacks on the WTC, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the lack of 'moral authority' to be in charge of the hallowed US military (because of the lack of service in the military, because of the charges of 'draft dodging'), and then with the loss of 'moral authority' because Monica gave him repeated oral service and he denied it. This latter charge about the loss of moral authority (which according to the military, Clinton never had) was even echoed by tha droopy dawg Sen in his own party, Joe Lieberman, who whined in a speech on the Senate floor about the ramifications for the whole country, no the whole world.
So Bush is a resurgence of the 'imperial presidency' that Reagan was supposed to have given us back. He makes decisions on his emotions and intuition, which is what most people do. And his administration has the 'moral authority' to run the US military and security apparatuses because it gives freer reign to the sick, sick psychos who run the parts that like to kill and incarcerate (hence the colorful Abu Graib and Gitmo abuses against the backdrop of an unjust, illegal war that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis). The only way the US could use its smaller force to invade and occupy Iraq was to give them rules of engagement that let them bomb into oblivion anything they wanted--and they did. No more holding back, no more fear of the unknowns (like Arab popular opinion on the street), no world court charging them atrocities, 'cause America is the world's reluctant avenging angel.
And what is the selling point of 'pre-emptive imperialism' if not to RE-ASSERT some sort of control that Americans feel they have lost? Isn't that its appeal? The reasoning seems to be like: No more Mr. and Ms. Niceguy. It made us victims. Everyone's pincushion. Sitting targets. We tried it the multilateral way and all it got us was dragged into a world court, unfair, advantageous trade deals for Europeans and Asians, a UN that is socialist and corrupt, etc. Remember, you fuck with one of us and you fuck with ALL of us. No more 9-11s. Look out world, here we come, you fuck with us, we all are going to fuck you up. An imperium with a victimhood fixation and, like its tutor-client state, one with a Masada complex.
Fugazy
-- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com