![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
anfalicious.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhat is America's role in the world? I'm the first to jump on the America bashing bandwagon, so one could expect me to come up with a suitably cynical snark response to this. But I won't.
America's role in the world is to be a leader.
In most ways, America is the most powerful nation in the world. Militarily, it's not hard to think that America could fight off every other nation in the world if we all tried to invade at once. They have used this military to become the unquestioned economic and political power in the world as well. Colonial wars have been fought in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America, not to rule directly, but to install governments that will allow for a favourable economic environment for US corporations. Why the hell would you want to run a country when you could just be extracting their natural resources and abuse their labour?
America has actively worked to become the leader in the world. It has been an act of conscious free will. It has been the stated aim of generations of political leaders and the desire of the electorate that votes them in. "We're #1" they cry after singing the national anthem at a "World Series" to find a the "World Champion" in a sport in which pretty much only they play in which only teams from America compete.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
Because the creation of US world supremacy has been a conscious act of free will, then the responsibilities that come along with that power are non-negotiable and must be entered into with a sense of duty, not obligation. The President of the United States has been called the "Leader Of The Free World" (and I've noticed, is still called, which I find a bit of an anachronism). The Constitution is, rightly, held up as one of the grand achievements of humanity. Americans like to believe that the ethics and values of their nation, that all men are created equal, that we have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this is so, then their act of conscious free will to become the world leaders and the responsibilities that are the duty of the power that comes with such power, then they must lead with these values in mind as well as in practice.
Acts like unilateral military action and avoiding international treaties that are in the global interest, but may be questionable for the national interest, is failing these values.
America's role in the world is to be a leader.
In most ways, America is the most powerful nation in the world. Militarily, it's not hard to think that America could fight off every other nation in the world if we all tried to invade at once. They have used this military to become the unquestioned economic and political power in the world as well. Colonial wars have been fought in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America, not to rule directly, but to install governments that will allow for a favourable economic environment for US corporations. Why the hell would you want to run a country when you could just be extracting their natural resources and abuse their labour?
America has actively worked to become the leader in the world. It has been an act of conscious free will. It has been the stated aim of generations of political leaders and the desire of the electorate that votes them in. "We're #1" they cry after singing the national anthem at a "World Series" to find a the "World Champion" in a sport in which pretty much only they play in which only teams from America compete.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
Because the creation of US world supremacy has been a conscious act of free will, then the responsibilities that come along with that power are non-negotiable and must be entered into with a sense of duty, not obligation. The President of the United States has been called the "Leader Of The Free World" (and I've noticed, is still called, which I find a bit of an anachronism). The Constitution is, rightly, held up as one of the grand achievements of humanity. Americans like to believe that the ethics and values of their nation, that all men are created equal, that we have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If this is so, then their act of conscious free will to become the world leaders and the responsibilities that are the duty of the power that comes with such power, then they must lead with these values in mind as well as in practice.
Acts like unilateral military action and avoiding international treaties that are in the global interest, but may be questionable for the national interest, is failing these values.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 09:37 (UTC)When I swear an oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, I am taking on a voluntary duty, legally obligating me to take action in the case of some threat to the Constitution.
You take a duty and an obligation. It really is important to understand the distinction I'm making here.
But that doesn't always mean consideration for those individuals always wins out, depending on the situation.
I don't want to sound inflammatory with you, but I can't see how saying "our values matter, depending on the situation" is anything other than an act of bad faith. And considering the point I'm making here is essentially a moral one, then this is a vital point. The only alternative is to concede that the USA is an immoral nation, and that opens up a whole other hornets nest.
That aside, I disagree with you. The U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens. The sovereignty of their own government, and their own Constitutions, covers non-U.S. citizens.
Yes, I tried to make that point clear. I'm absolutely not saying that the US Constitution should apply to non-U.S. citizens. I'm saying that the values espoused in the constitution should guide how the US behaves when it interacts with non-US citizens. This is not about the relationship between any state and its citizens, but the relationship between the US state and non-US citizens.
And I say the rest of the world "likes to have its cake... and eat it too" at our expense.
I direct you to my "who voted you world police" section of my OP. The most significant military conflicts in the world right now are either unilaterally declared by the US (Iraq), multilaterally declared to fight for US interests (AfPak). The exception is Somalia, where the US's behaviour seems to me to be quite exemplary. From my understanding the US's role there is to assist the African Union in peacekeeping. This I can get on board with. I think it is perfectly within the values of the US to assist, along with other nations, to maintain peace whilst helping the two sides of a civil war work out how things are going to operate (I've got issues with telling people how things should operate). But I think we may be in agreement on this point.
Those interests use the military for their own gain, not mine, and not yours.
You dirty Marxist you! :P
Also, I want to note that I am well aware of how idealistic all of this is, and how so much of what you're saying is coming from a point of pragmatism, but the point of this post was one of ideals. That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with your pragmatism.
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 11:36 (UTC)If by "distinction" you mean "synonymous" then we are on the same page. ;)
The only alternative is to concede that the USA is an immoral nation, and that opens up a whole other hornets nest.
I don't know that it's conceding anything, but government of the U.S. is neither really moral or immoral. It is "the state." And the overriding concern of "the State", more than anything else, is primarily in perpetuating itself. In any nation.
Outside the realm of a Deity or religion, issues of "morality" are really a non issue. Unless we are dealing with a Theocracy. Which I think both you and I can agree the U.S. is most certainly not. Now, individuals within that government and the nation itself act with varying degrees of morality according to their own moral codes.
I'm saying that the values espoused in the constitution should guide how the US behaves when it interacts with non-US citizens.
What values espoused in the Constitution do you feel the U.S. is not being guided by with respect to non US citizens?
I direct you to my "who voted you world police" section of my OP.
Whoever they are, they need to knock it off.
Seriously though, I think it was more an appointment than a vote. And I think it was partly by enough of the world who saw value in the security we could provide. Now much of that world seems to blithely revel in criticism of that security while not even acknowledging how dearly it is costing us. The other part was/is likely elements within the U.S. itself who said "never again" at another Pearl Harbor or march through Europe.
You dirty Marxist you!
I am about as far away from being a Marxist as it is possible to be. I'm also certain you recognize that, however. ;P
ideals
The ideal is the U.S. should refrain from involvement in foreign entanglements. Unless foreigners decide to involve the U.S.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 03:04 (UTC)Ugh. Fucking Americans (sorry, but this is a common trait with you guys, it comes from your intellectual history). I've used the word correctly, clarified what I'm intending, and yet you still want to stick by your definition. Fine, if you want to argue about semantics rather than discussing the actual content at hand (hello 20th Century US philosophy) then I'll go elsewhere...
You're also willing to grant that a state has no morality. OK, so Hitler was a bad guy, but NAZI Germany was A-OK! Stalin may have killed tens of millions of people but Soviet style authoritarian communism has nothing to answer for! It's a ridiculous cop out to suggest that a state should not have morality.
What values espoused in the Constitution do you feel the U.S. is not being guided by with respect to non US citizens?
The ones I've quoted about half a dozen times now.
Seriously though, I think it was more an appointment than a vote. And I think it was partly by enough of the world who saw value in the security we could provide. Now much of that world seems to blithely revel in criticism of that security while not even acknowledging how dearly it is costing us. The other part was/is likely elements within the U.S. itself who said "never again" at another Pearl Harbor or march through Europe.
Typical US arrogance. Keep believing we all want you to do whatever the hell you damn well want.
I am about as far away from being a Marxist as it is possible to be. I'm also certain you recognize that, however. ;P
This was a meta comment, I got accused of being a marxist above for suggesting that the US uses its army to further its commercial interests.
The ideal is the U.S. should refrain from involvement in foreign entanglements. Unless foreigners decide to involve the U.S.
I agree. So how about you stop defending US expansionism by saying "people are implying they want us to do it".
(no subject)
Date: 18/11/10 11:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/10 02:59 (UTC)