Originally Posted by catfishncod

Of course, you're right. How silly of me. And of course we were the first, last, and only country in that war to attack civilians, and clearly we were committing the worst war crimes. Only a thousand years of isolationism or exile will ever absolve Americans of those two bombs.

You joke. But it's a very serious fucking thing.

In fact, the fact that most americans take it so lightly is part of the problem. You don't find any mainstream germans, for example, sarcastically saying "oh we were so horrible, the first country ever to try killing civilians largescale.. oh whip us and beat us and never trust us again..."
And in large part because of the fact that they don't try to take their historical misdeeds lightly, their neighbors -- even other countries with which they may be less-than-friendly -- are comforted that they aren't inclined to go and do something like that again. I defy you to find any other serious country besides the US that attempts to defend its acts of mass murder -- to uphold them as the right and proper course of action.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Thank you for the excellent example of magical thinking.

Look at the field, for goodness' sake. Eighteen months from now, America is going to give the world another chance to see just how f-cked up it is. How do you think it looks when the country where the people have ostensibly the most direction over their leadership continues to put warmongering psychos in charge?

So what do you suggest - I should give in to despair about my country?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

So what do you suggest - I should give in to despair about my country?

I'm not sure what you mean.

My suggestion is as it long has been -- make every effort to see things for what they truly are.

That way you can act accordingly. Try to help the people around you be less fucked-up, to pick one hypothetical course of action. Try to find a group of less fucked-up people with which to surround yourself would be another. Try to integrate into your own perspective the insanities of the people you associate with so as to reduce your level of discomfort is yet another.

But to get anywhere at all, you need to start with honest observation. Magical thinking never helped anyone.

So Kennedy and Johnson acted for the same reasons as Bush -- to prove their capabilities via the sideshow stage of Asian land war management?

No. Kennedy and Johnson acted to prove they were strong on Communism. This was especially true after Kennedy displayed weakness at the bay of Pigs. As Republicans, Eisenhower and Nixon were already strong on Communism and so had the option of doing nothing about Vietnam.

Bush did NOT act as a Democrat would. After 911, a Democrat would have to act strongly against al Qaeda or be annihilated at the polls in 2004. Thus a president Gore would have had to make war on Afghanistan is a bigger way than Bush did.

President Bush did not have to mount a major campaign in Afghanistan, and did not. The Iraq war was purely a matter of choice, it was something that Republicans wanted so he did it.

I'm just confused on how much actual analysis went into determining Cold War policy, and whether states are always basing their foreign policies on picayune provincial delusions like "Democrats are wimps and Republicans are responsible on national defense".

Powerful states can afford to do this. Weak ones cannot. Also America is special as it was the only country that was a democracy at the time it became a great power. Hence US foreign policy since then has reflected domestic politics. The other powers were still ruled by autocrats when they became great powers. In this case their policies reflected the vanities of their monarchs. France fought a whole series of bloodly wars between 1660 and 1714 because Louis XIV sought to "round out France's borders". These wars made no sense for the French people. The made sense to Louie, (recall that he said "I am the state") and that was enough.

The various nations build up bureacracies arround their monarch's proclivities to wage wars. Eventually a theoertical framework was built by these bureacracies that provides rationales and rules for the "game" that war was for the rulers. This structure continued on after the various nations became republics. After the development of nuclear weapons and a new generation born under theihr shadow had come to power, this structure sort of fell apart. It simply did not make sense to go to war at all. And so the military establishments of the former great powers have eroded away. The US remains very strong militarily, because we didn't have this structure. For us, war-making is about domestic politics and so is still relevant.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

No. Kennedy and Johnson acted to prove they were strong on Communism. As Republicans, Eisenhower and Nixon were already strong on Communism and so had the option of doing nothing about Vietnam.

Bush did NOT act as a Democrat would. After 911, a Democrat would have to act strongly against al Qaeda or be annihilated at the polls in 2004. Thus a president Gore would have had to make war on Afghanistan is a bigger way than Bush did.

President Bush did not have to mount a major campaign in Afghanistan, and did not. The Iraq war was purely a matter of choice, it was something that Republicans wanted so he did it.

Lemmee see if I can follow the logic here: Democrat pols start really big wars, they don't want to fight, because the Republicans want them to, and Republican pols start wars "of choice" because Republicans want them to.

Boy, those Republicans are pretty powerful warmongers, man!

p.s. Kinda makes one feel sorry for those Commander in Chiefs who had to figure out what 51% on their party wanted them to do before the advent of "scientific" polling in 1936.

p.p.s And what's up with this Dubya fella continuing to fight a war most Republicans want to end? Or his insistence on amnesty for illegal aliens, when most Republicans want 'em deported? I guess the boy's just too dumb to read the obvious tea leaves anymore, eh?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I'm just confused on how much actual analysis went into determining Cold War policy, and whether states are always basing their foreign policies on picayune provincial delusions like "Democrats are wimps and Republicans are responsible on national defense".

Powerful states can afford to do this. Weak ones cannot. Also America is special as it was the only country that was a democracy at the time it became a great power. Hence US foreign policy since then has reflected domestic politics. The other powers were still ruled by autocrats when they became great powers. In this case their policies reflected the vanities of their monarchs. France fought a whole series of bloody wars between 1660 and 1714 because Louis XIV sought to "round out France's borders". These wars made no sense for the French people. The made sense to Louie, (recall that he said "I am the state") and that was enough.

The various nations build up bureaucracies around their monarch's proclivities to wage wars. Eventually a theoretical framework was built by these bureaucracies that provides rationales and rules for the "game" that war was for the rulers. This structure continued on after the various nations became republics. After the development of nuclear weapons and a new generation born under their shadow had come to power, this structure sort of fell apart. It simply did not make sense to go to war at all. And so the military establishments of the former great powers have eroded away. The US remains very strong militarily, because we didn't have this structure. For us, war-making is about domestic politics and so is still relevant.

I'd also watch the lessons learned from World War II. Europe suffered a lot. The battle was on top of them, and they got pounded. The lesson that war is no longer cost effective is much more real to them. Thus, they are very reluctant go go adventuring.

Our lesson was the opposite. Our tradition was isolationism. Our wisdom was to avoid getting entangled in Europe's constant wars. Roosevelt and Churchill reversed this, saying that World War II had been preventable. The correct path would have been to have used force early, to have crushed Hitler before he was able to fully rearm. Thus, the US developed a policy of containment, that it was proper to prevent aggressors from making even a few minor conquests. It was believed we could not allow the communist powers to accumulate more territory and capability. We had to fight for every domino.

LBJ knew he was committing to a losing war, and knew it would destroy his presidency, but he believed enough in the domino theory to commit to Vietnam regardless. His presidency was in that sense tragic. His duty over rode his political sense. From that perspective, I might quibble with Mikebert. Not every president is acting out of popular political calculation. Some will sacrifice power and popularity on the alter of duty. LBJ did not go into Vietnam to improve his chances of winning in '68.

The Soviet Union also carried a militaristic lesson out of World War II. They had been invaded too many times. They were not going to be invaded again. They kept up a military presence that meant Europe was not going to invade Asia again. In many respects, the Cold War was a stare down between two major powers who were both afraid of Hitler. Neither power had a tradition of attacking powers or alliances of near equal strength. Both preferred 'short victorious war,' to expand open frontiers or seek imperial colonial zones of influence.

Of course, imperial wars are hard to win as well, in this day and age. Insurgent locals are armed and supported well enough to make a real fight of it.

I agree the old Kings built cultures of military aggression that in some cases survived to cause wars even after democracy came into fashion. I agree that such cultures of aggression are now very much out of favor in Europe. Unfortunately, the Greatest Generation left the US with the delusion that we are the world's policemen. Playing that role has allowed some of our corporations opportunities abroad. It worked during the Cold War. I doubt it will work now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/...PE.AolDHis0NUE

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That way you can act accordingly. Try to help the people around you be less fucked-up, to pick one hypothetical course of action. Try to find a group of less fucked-up people with which to surround yourself would be another. Try to integrate into your own perspective the insanities of the people you associate with so as to reduce your level of discomfort is yet another.

But to get anywhere at all, you need to start with honest observation. Magical thinking never helped anyone.

I try to do exactly that, but I'm having trouble seeing whether your definition of 'magical thinking' allows for something generally called 'hope'. Now I'll quite readily admit that my hopes have been disappointed so far. I really thought we would be on the verge of regeneracy by now. Nonetheless, do you really see no difference in the candidates, and no change in the American public's attitude towards aggression and subversion in policymaking? Do you really believe this will go on indefinitely?

My problem is not with your observations that the situation is f-cked up. We both know it is. And my problem is not with others being sensitive about our domestic discussions of foreign policy. Our recent actions have not encouraged trust or calm. My problem is with your implication that improvement is unlikely. This is probably another one of those Xer-Millie barriers of understanding.

As to American views on history: your choice of Germany is very apt; it's the one country I know of that takes their history even more seriously than America does. We don't do public confession and penance the way they do, but neither do we try and pretend that our history is unblemished, as most countries do (and [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2163481.ece"
as Russia is trying to do now[/url]). I was taught that Truman's decision was difficult, and seemed reasonable at the time, but was questionable over the broad sweep of history. I was taught that Columbus, while a fine sailor and a bold adventurer, was also a cruel and incompetent administrator. I was taught that the western expansion of America included both honorable agreements and terribly dishonorable (and occasionally genocidal) acts. Likewise, the Cold War involved some duplicity and invasion of others' rights, for which we should be ashamed despite the justice of the overall cause. This wasn't some special class I had to take, or some eye-opening revelation; it was the standard history I was taught in an American public school.

You can't accuse us of taking our history lightly just because we come to a different conclusion than you do.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which makes me wonder how Mike really knows which one to believe.

It's not a matter of believing what they say. It's a question of what they will do when in office. The GOP serve the dominant pro-war political faction. They will come right out and say they will stay in Iraq indefinitely. And that is what they will do.

The Democrats do not serve this faction. They serve no single faction in this issue, because none of them is large enough to elected them. So they will try to please two factions at once by pretending that there is a possibility that the war could be ended without America losing.

If they win the election big, they will serve the antiwar faction and end the war forthwith. If they win by the skin of their teeth, they will serve the "leave but don't lose faction" by continuing the conflict with the goal of achieving a brief period when the US can withdraw without it looking like utter defeat.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

I try to do exactly that, but I'm having trouble seeing whether your definition of 'magical thinking' allows for something generally called 'hope'.

Hope isn't what you were displaying.
Hope is, first of all, at least marginally based in reality (one doesn't, for example, 'hope' that gravity will pause for a bit while you step off a balcony if you pray hard enough. There's a completely different word for that kind of thinking...). Looking at your words:
Only for the next eighteen months will America be this dangerous. There's no way we're going to elect another damned bunch of ignorant cowboys. And if we do, well, maybe we deserve to be everyone's enemy, because our government will clearly be dysfunctional.
In fact, far from hoping, you are defining 'normal' as 'what you wish would happen'. And doing so in direct opposition to not only the accumulated evidence of the actions of your countrymen over even just the scope of your lifetime, but in fact in defiance of the more specific parameters surrounding the particular 'contest' upon which you are hinging so much'.
You could be starting from the observation that Americans, so much as it matters to setting the course of the country, are at best criminally apathetic to ills done upon other thinking beings in their names (and with the sweat of their labor!) -- and at worst simply thirsty for blood and moderated only by their need to paper over their hypocrisy. But instead, you start off from the assumption that the majority subjects of the most responsive political system ever seen are in fact fundamentally opposed to the actions of those who exercise power at their behest -- and have been for the past three choice-cycles at least. And that this time it will make a difference to do the exact same thing.
It's magical thinking to start off from the assumption that many are on your side when it seems they've made it pretty clear that they're not. Probably the ability to recognize when the people around you are not on your side is something that comes and goes based on generations. Nomads've got it. You guys might not.

(But then again, if Heroes were any good at recognizing their own interests, they wouldn't make nearly such good cannon-fodder, so I guess it balances out )

As to American views on history: your choice of Germany is very apt; it's the one country I know of that takes their history even more seriously than America does.

Umm. Like every country takes its history more seriously than America does. America doesn't even take its geography seriously (ever seen the results of how many results of the American school system can't find the Atlantic Ocean on a map?) I don't know the African countries, granted, but you can rest assured that most any place you go, pick a random local off the street and the odds are much, much better that they will be able to answer a question about their country's history correctly than will the random american about the history of the USA. And the US has a lot less history, too...

We don't do public confession and penance the way they do, but neither do we try and pretend that our history is unblemished, as most countries do (and
as Russia is trying to do now).

Oh, those horrible Russian politicians, trying to color by emphasis the way orthodox history is presented. Good thing that never happens in America.
And of course, the fact that the Russian revisions are recognized by the public at large as government distortion, while the US revisions are ... well, why don't you just keep in mind the fact that the controversy I referenced above was driven in large part by public demand. The State's story in the USA is the People's story. America might grant that their past is blemished (as do most all serious countries, as I mentioned; or need I mention the yearly massive days of mourning that just passed by to commemorate the victims of GULag? The pictures from Solovki were particularly moving...), but then they turn right around and argue that what they did was right anyway. That is, there is no actual critical reflection whatsoever. The 'recognition' America holds of her misdeeds is as shallow and meaningless as a Paris Hilton reality show.
And whether you think that public self-flagellation is necessary or not (I personally fall firmly on the 'not' side myself), you should certainly be able to see how the American people's approach towards the blacker parts of their history -- particularly in the context of the US making threatening noises and aggressive moves towards potentially pretty much anyone that breathes -- makes them a concern for the residents of the RoTW...

Never mind. We are not going to agree here, because we can't agree on what 'facts' are. You present the assertion

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Americans... at best criminally apathetic... at worst simply thirsty for blood

as an observation? As a fact? And then you expect to draw further conclusions from this 'unbiased' 'fact'?? That's an opinion, comrade. At least I didn't claim my biases as facts.

I don't even get your point on the Enola Gay. It just shows how divisive the topic is. Talk about Hiroshima too much and people worry you overdid it. Talk about it too little, and people zap you for ignoring the very real issue. And yet you argue this shows people aren't analyzing the problem?

As for "Dumb America", the evidence I've seen contradicts your assertion. Other countries have picked up the US late-night-show habit of spotting people in the street, asking questions, airing dumb responses, and presenting statistics that show undereducation - and then asserting that they are 'shocked -- shocked!' In most places, people are very knowledgeable about things that have happened in living memory, and about things that one or another group find it useful to point out, and woefully ignorant about most everything else. To take an example I know about: how many British know that it was the Prussian, Bluecher, and not the Brit, Wellington, that broke the back of Napoleon's resurrected Imperials at Waterloo? Or that it was primarily weather patterns, not the valiant Navy, that defeated the Spanish Armada? How about the fact that the Anglo-Saxons were originally converted to Christianity by the Irish -- who were, at the time, the most learned and scholarly people in Europe? They generally do know about the various duplicities and cruelties involved in the running of the Second Empire, but that's because the current 'lesson to be learned' is the evils of imperalism. I would present cognate examples for Russia if I knew them, but I confess I don't know them. After all, it's just a fact that I'm only an ignorant, cruel, callous, and bloodthirsty American.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'd also watch the lessons learned from World War II. Europe suffered a lot... Our lesson was the opposite. Our tradition was isolationism... Roosevelt and Churchill reversed this... Thus, the US developed a policy of containment. LBJ knew he was committing to a losing war, and knew it would destroy his presidency, but he believed enough in the domino theory to commit to Vietnam regardless... LBJ did not go into Vietnam to improve his chances of winning in '68.

The Soviet Union also carried a militaristic lesson out of World War II... In many respects, the Cold War was a stare down between two major powers who were both afraid of Hitler... Both preferred 'short victorious war'...Of course, imperial wars are hard to win as well.

This tacks a lot closer to my understanding of the situation. I've heard clips of LBJ's internal White House recordings. There was no way he thought escalation was a good idea politically, and as the war ground on he despaired of the military and strategic positions too. Yet he believed. Maybe the 'domino theory' started and/or ended as a political sham, but it wasn't one at that moment.

I hate the corrupting influence that being "The World's Policeman" is having on America, but I don't see how we could just go back to isolationism. If we just dropped our commitments, someone else -- at the moment, probably China -- would step in and do the same thing... and probably do a worse job. This is why there's some mumbles in the diplomatic community about trying to build an activist alliance of democracies, a third attempt (after the League and the UN) to build a lasting international alliance that could do the 'policeman' job instead of shoving it on a single country as we have for centuries. (The 'world's policeman' is an older job than most realize. Ten centuries ago, the Pope had it.)

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Never mind. We are not going to agree here, because we can't agree on what 'facts' are. You present the assertion

as an observation? As a fact? And then you expect to draw further conclusions from this 'unbiased' 'fact'?? That's an opinion, comrade.

No. An opinion would be that such a state is one I would prefer not to inhabit myself.

When something is based off evidence, it is an observation; after a certain level of hypothesis-testing it can be called a fact. I don't claim the status of fact-determiner; merely of observer.
You, on the other hand, seem to wish for fact, and in doing so blinder your observations when they break with whatever fact-framework you have decided to work within.
You may note, I offered two possible explanations -- actually, I offered bounds of a continuum of possible explanations, along with my opinion as to which side would be 'better' or 'worse' -- for the observation of what the American people, in the person of and in their relations with those who wield power in their names, have actually been doing.

Interestingly, this observation dischords somewhat with many of the american people I know personally. Though this is perhaps an understandable result of self-sampling -- I tend to socialize with, and therefore get to know better, the people whose views I find less abhorrent.

I don't even get your point on the Enola Gay.

The point is that America, too, has a cultivated Official History -- within the bounds of which discussion is permitted. You made a claim that America possessed a uniquely unmanipulated window on the past.

Bullshit.

As for "Dumb America", the evidence I've seen contradicts your assertion.

See, there's that self-selection bias showing up; now on your side. The evidence you can see comes in two types: the behavior of the self-selected groups whom you can directly observe; and the behavior of the critical mass of the American People. My self-selected sampling comes off pretty with-it, too. But more truly random samplings give a much bleaker picture. One need turn to statistics to see that, of course.
Let's give an example: in 2003 it was determined that 14% of American adults have 'below basic' literacy, and another 29% have only 'basic' literacy.
Below Basic means unable to:
• find in a pamphlet for prospective jurors an explanation of how people were selected for the jury pool
• use a television guide to find out what programs are on at a specific time
• compare the ticket prices for two events

Basic means unable to:
• consult reference materials to determine which foods contain a particular vitamin
• identify a specific location on a map
• calculate the total cost of ordering specific office supplies from a catalog

So think to yourself, how many adult members of your evidence-sample fit those two descriptions? You're looking at almost half the population of America being largely unrepresented in your anecdotal evidence.

Recognition of self-selection bias. Another step on the road to seeing things for what they truly are.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No. An opinion would be that such a state is one I would prefer not to inhabit myself.

I would not want to live in your hypothetical America, where everyone was a bigoted and ignorant ass, either. I do avoid spending large amounts of time in those areas of America where such attitudes prevail.

You may note, I offered two possible explanations -- actually, I offered bounds of a continuum of possible explanations, along with my opinion as to which side would be 'better' or 'worse' -- for the observation of what the American people, in the person of and in their relations with those who wield power in their names, have actually been doing.

You made observations about the American government. Regarding the government, I have to agree with you; they are undeniably a bunch of unresponsive bloodthirsty bastards. I observe, however, that this fact has raised some small manner of consternation in America, contradicting your assertion that we are all collectively of like mind. I don't think we are apathetic, but rather bewildered. Our government has been so responsive for so long that we were at a collective loss as to correct it when it suddenly went completely off the rails. (Yeah, so had we, but the American people recovered faster than the American government.) It took us years to admit to ourselves that it had. We literally Could. Not. Believe. It. Was. Happening. A dwindling minority still can't believe it, but they are increasingly recognized as delusional.

It seems bizarre to say this, but we had too good of a government. We got out of the habit of keeping a tight leash on it. Now we are paying the price... and not America alone.

Interestingly, this observation dischords somewhat with many of the american people I know personally. Though this is perhaps an understandable result of self-sampling -- I tend to socialize with, and therefore get to know better, the people whose views I find less abhorrent.

But this potential source of bias doesn't deserve a caveat in your observations, I see.

The point is that America, too, has a cultivated Official History -- within the bounds of which discussion is permitted. You made a claim that America possessed a uniquely unmanipulated window on the past.

Bullshit.

Of course that's bullshit. I didn't say the 'window of discussion' was umanipulated. I didn't say it was nonexistent. I said it was wider, and set at a different angle from others'. Moreover, and more to the point, it is being constantly widened further... and that's generally viewed as a positive development.

The evidence you can see comes in two types: the behavior of the self-selected groups whom you can directly observe; and the behavior of the critical mass of the American People.

I make observations about the behaviors of non-Americans, and you attempt to refute them with observations about Americans. Show me statistics showing that other countries have far better literacy and I'll start believing you. As for which Americans I do and don't know about or interact with: you know nothing and have no room to speak.

Perhaps idly, I wonder what those literacy statistics would have been in, say, the year 1850 for America and other nations, and whether your assertions about American inferiority would have been equally valid then.

American inferiority?

All I did was illustrate via a set of well-accepted statistics the fact of self-selection bias. This was done to refute your implication that the anecdotal "your evidence" somehow holds weight when talking about the critical mass of Americans (which is what I have been doing). And that therefore, your anecdotal-evidence based assumptions of change right around the corner -- in fact, even of widespread consternation (at least to the extent that it motivates action towards change) -- are unfounded.

Magical Thinking, that is. In your case, "What I see all around me is what really is, extending outside the bounds of my perception." This is a particularly egregious fallacy when the evidence that does manage to trickle into the bounds of your perception points the other way.


-----

I suppose I'm not really surprised at your raising the flag of 'American inferiority', given your position amounts to 'American exceptionalism'. It verges on strawmanning, though.

-------

PPS

If it matters, my anecdotal evidence is probably a whole lot like yours. Two-level self-selection bias; comparing surveys of the self-selected acquaintance-groups of two people who both somehow found ourselves on the forum at the T4T site. We're hardly representative of anything at all...

Originally Posted by Mr. Daniel Larison

Non-interventionists do not assume that natural human goodwill and peace would spring up in the absence of U.S. intervention; we are not the foreign policy equivalent of utopians or idealists (it is strange that this needs saying). Non-interventionists do not imagine that states do not act in their interest, and many of us do not think that they ought to act any other way. We have this funny idea that it is not in the national interest of our country to start fruitless and aggressive wars. To use an economic comparison, non-interventionists are like those who think that there ought to be a free exchange of goods, but who still hold that murder, assault, theft and arson should still be illegal. We are like those who assume that the security of persons and property is vital to the functioning of a market economy (or, indeed, of society in general). The serious “realists” of the Foreign Policy Community believe that there is at least one actor in the world that is allowed to ransack the other “shops” to secure what it ”needs” and indeed takes this as an essential part of the foreign policy consensus. We oppose foreign policy criminality, whereas they find it acceptable, at least when it comes to our government. We regard wanton aggression as something that destroys the proper working of the international system (this is something that internationalists themselves used to believe before our government got into the habit of attacking smaller states), just as we might argue that criminality undermines trust and the effective working of the market.

Most non-interventionist critiques of those “serious” people trying to push anti-Russian, anti-Iranian or other aggressive lines around the world focus on the understandable and legitimate interests of other states that a sane, responsible foreign policy (i.e., something the Foreign Policy Community would not be interested in) would have to take into account. The “realists” take it for granted that those states’ interests are not only to some degree illegitimate, but that any pursuit of their interests must necessarily be damaging to America, because maintenance of hegemony is their overarching concern.

If you break in, and then break it, do you 'own' it?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

All I did was illustrate via a set of well-accepted statistics the fact of self-selection bias. This was done to refute your implication that the anecdotal "your evidence" somehow holds weight when talking about the critical mass of Americans (which is what I have been doing).

Ah, so now you speak of 'critical mass', as if America fails when only a portion of its population is incapable of participating effectively in political life. Come on! If the system were that fragile it would already have collapsed. In fact, if the system were that fragile, it would never have even been attempted.

The marginally literate are those who either don't vote at all, or vote party line every time. They are background. As long as we are not ruled by literal mobs -- the original form of democracy, that Greek philosophers abhorred and the Founders went to some trouble to avoid -- they are not the effective deciding force in America.

Nor, generally, are their counterparts in other countries, which is why I wonder why you are bringing up valid, accepted, and completely irrelevant statistics.

Maybe you should start by stating what you think my "self-selection bias" is, and which portion of American society you think I'm ignoring.

I suppose I'm not really surprised at your raising the flag of 'American inferiority', given your position amounts to 'American exceptionalism'. It verges on strawmanning, though.

Those are two sides of the same coin. If you think America is unique and no other country is unique in the same way, then you can either have American exceptionalism ("America is always right") or American inferiority ("America is always wrong").

I would like to posit a completely different paradigm: that every country is unique. The question isn't whether we are exceptional but how we are exceptional. And I think America's future-orientation, optimism, and Enlightenment-scientific foundation are our particular cultural contributions. Russia has different contributions to make... starting with a relentless call to historical perspective and realism that stays constant no matter the historical context.

What I have gathered from your statements, however, is a different perspective. It says that "America is no different from the rest of the world, except for one thing: they do not act as if their history limits their future. This makes them more dangerous than anyone else." Please correct this view as you see fit.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Ah, so now you speak of 'critical mass', as if America fails when only a portion of its population is incapable of participating effectively in political life.

Um:

• I spoke of 'critical mass' in my very first post on this thread on the subject. the "now" is you just starting to pay attention, apparently
• and what possibly justifies your continued magic thinking that this critical mass (by which I mean 'the proportion of size sufficient that the path of a representative government more or less follows the path of their wills) is ineffective? In fact, the critical mass is -- for all practical purposes -- the most effective; arguably, the only effective political actor in a democratic-based system.
• And the assessment of failure or success as applied to a political entity in the broad (saying it has failed[period] as opposed to simply saying that it has 'failed at [something]') is also fallacious. The only place it really could ever be objectively applied would be at the end of that political entity's existence; though even then, depending on the way it ended, it might not be able to judge it a 'failure'. All things pass, eventually.

The marginally literate are those who either don't vote at all, or vote party line every time. They are background.

This is where magical thinking gets you. "The critical mass either don't vote or are largely majority voters, but unreachable." So it turns out that wishing really hard and waiting for the right alignment of the planets (or whatever equivalent in party politics) is the only way to make the change that Americans* really want.


*that is, Americans, except for that critical mass, who doesn't count (even though they are the ones that set America's course).

Maybe you should start by stating what you think my "self-selection bias" is, and which portion of American society you think I'm ignoring.

You made that perfectly clear above. When you talk about 'what American wants', you are basing it on anecdotals -- the self-selection bias -- and ignoring the fact that the critical mass has made no moves whatsoever indicating accord with what you are claiming 'America wants'. Your Magic Thinking is when you claim that the ignored critical mass simply isn't America. As if it matters what you call a group of people.

Those are two sides of the same coin. If you think America is unique and no other country is unique in the same way, then you can either have American exceptionalism ("America is always right") or American inferiority ("America is always wrong").

Not strictly speaking true. One can see that America has a unique history, which in some way is unique in ways that other countries are not. And then you can see that qualities of the American character (which are not unique), when overlain on that history make the overall American Package a truly unique -- in the sense of no one is unique in the same way -- thing.
Of course, history isn't a matter for exceptionalism or inferiority. You're continuing to apply emotional value to a simple statement of fact. America is a particular way.

What I have gathered from your statements, however, is a different perspective. It says that "America is no different from the rest of the world, except for one thing: they do not act as if their history limits their future. This makes them more dangerous than anyone else." Please correct this view as you see fit.

Plenty of places act like America -- as if their history is irrelevant to their future (or as if whatever evils they may have committed were all 'for the greater good'). The uniqueness of America is that none of the countries who act that way have massive acts of genocide and mass murder among their 'greater good' acts as well as the capacity to commit even more massive evils. The nuclear club is a small one; the club of actual users of WMD is even smaller. The subset of 'openly willing to initiate a WMD attack' is very small indeed. And the subset of 'having a historically belligerent disposition' is smaller still. Cap it off with 'believes that its past acts of murder were justified' and you really have eliminated all but the one member.

If you can bring yourself to recognize this (not, mind, that America is some sort of fundamental force for ill; simply that there is good justification to view it as a uniquely dangerous/irrational co-resident), then the reactions of peoples around the world to America will move from 'confusing' to 'understandable'

It's called 'empathy'. I've found it to be helpful in most everything.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If you really believe this, then you must be disregarding everything that they are saying in their campaigns right now.

I have no idea what they are saying right now. I don't pay much attention to what they say. For example, Clinton promised a middle class tax cut and 100,000 cops in 1992. I figured the tax cut was a non-starter (its a Republican issue, why go there?), but he might do the cops thing (its a law and order thing that the GOP won't do because it's domestic spending). I was more or less on board with this.

Bush would continue to run huge deficits and ignore domestic issues, which was not particularly my cup of tea. (In those days I was still an independent).

I paid attention to what candidates said in the 1980's, but what did it matter? It's not like there was going to be a choice. Whoever the GOP elevated to the throne was going to be president until Perot came along and when he left it reverted to the old pattern.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/23/nie/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...0070823?rpc=92

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh, yeah, that's kinda my point.

Hey wait. That was my point. And now you're using it as your own? Plagiarist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/wo...hp&oref=slogin

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Um:

• and what possibly justifies your continued magic thinking that this critical mass (by which I mean 'the proportion of size sufficient that the path of a representative government more or less follows the path of their wills) is ineffective? In fact, the critical mass is -- for all practical purposes -- the most effective; arguably, the only effective political actor in a democratic-based system.

Only if they are unified. If they are balanced, divided in half, they cancel each other out. And that's assuming they participate. The barely literate are usually either employed in low-level jobs that make it difficult to vote, or on welfare and can't be bothered to vote. When they do, they contribute to the sort of machine politics you reference.

There are mindless machines here and there in America, but they had not been dominant for many years until recently. (Unions are machines, but they are not mindless, as they are dependent on the industry or industries that support them.) When two generations (GI and X) tuned out of politics simultaneously, the Silent tried to maintain the old genteel system and the Boomers eagerly built machines. So now we have mindless machines again, which the Lost, GI, and Silent went to a lot of trouble to get rid of.

Your Magic Thinking is when you claim that the ignored critical mass simply isn't America. As if it matters what you call a group of people.

If they don't participate in American political life, they don't affect American government policy. A = A. You are making the unsupported assumptions that:

• A large proportion of the undereducated in America are politically active.
• They act in concert.
• They are supporters of current government policy.
• The political system is more sensitive to the political positions of the undereducated than the rest of society.

That's quite a lot to swallow in one go. Clearly, though, it's possible -- because you've done it.

An undereducated person in the People's Republic of Cambridge, and a similar undereducated person in the Heart of the Red States, is likely to believe very different things politically -- if they give a damn in the first place. They will vote in opposite directions, despite their similar socioeconomic desires. I've seen it happen. Now if you want more than "anecdotal" evidence, cross-correlate party voting by education level. Don't look at what proportion of each party is poorly educated; that's not the point here. (By your argument, they'll control the party no matter their proportion.) Look at what proportion of poorly educated voters vote each way.

In fact, I'll save you the time. Exit poll results, 2004 presidential election, by education level:

No High School (4%) 49% 50%
H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% 47%
Some College (32%) 54% 46%
College Graduate (26%) 52% 46%
Postgrad Study (16%) 44% 55%

So unless you are arguing that the entire political system is controlled by the undereducated, your hypothesis is falsified. And if it is so controlled, I fail to see what form of government would do better. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

The uniqueness of America is that none of the countries who act that way have massive acts of genocide and mass murder among their 'greater good' acts as well as the capacity to commit even more massive evils.

Really? Have you read the Bible lately? How about Macauley's History of England? I suppose the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and Tiananmen Square don't count as either 'mass murder' or were not considered to be 'for the greater good'.

The subset of 'openly willing to initiate a WMD attack' is very small indeed.

You know perfectly well that the United States held a second-strike policy from the day the issue came up -- i.e., right after the first Russian test -- until Cheney's insane ramblings. In fact, that is STILL the American position; Cheney may have influence but he is not the President. You still have not justified your belief that this belligerence is more than a momentary problem.

As far as I know, the only other country making even semi-official mumbles about a first-strike policy is Iran.

And the subset of 'having a historically belligerent disposition' is smaller still.

We had a historically expansionist disposition, but this is hardly the same thing, especially on a continent as sparsely populated as North America was. One could make the same comment about Russia's acquisition of Siberian and Caucasian territories, which were also sparsely settled when Russia acquired them. (Well, Siberia is still sparsely settled...)

Our policies for most of our history were biased in the direction of isolationism regarding matters outside the designated sphere of North America. This only changed during WWII.

If you can bring yourself to recognize this (not, mind, that America is some sort of fundamental force for ill; simply that there is good justification to view it as a uniquely dangerous/irrational co-resident), then the reactions of peoples around the world to America will move from 'confusing' to 'understandable'. It's called 'empathy'. I've found it to be helpful in most everything.

First: we are most definitely dangerous until Cheney and the neocons are removed, and protections put in place against their return or the advance of anyone similar to them. I cannot disagree at all on that point, nor have I previously. We have a friggin' problem. I simply dispute your assertion that we are incapable of fixing our problem.

America has historically been culturally invasive. That's not the same thing at all. I understand people being annoyed at us for our truly meddlesome invasions (particularly those in Central America in the early twentieth) and for our Cold War manipulations (Iran, Argentina, et cetera). The former were flat wrong; the latter were understandable, regrettable, and in hindsight not the best idea in the world. I would even support reconciliation commissions regarding crappy Cold War behavior, although I would fear an attempt to bleed us to death if it went too far. It's the desire to answer our soft power with hard power that I dislike... just as I dislike the idea of blowing up entire Arab countries because a few of them are fundamentalist Muslims.

If we Americans have an 'empathic hole', it's in the idea that an indigenous culture deserves an extreme degree of protection. This is another odd thing about America: we don't really have a long cultural history, and it consists overwhelmingly of cultural invasion. We built it ourselves. You demonstrate how little you understand this when you claim that 'the State' built our national narrative. No, it didn't. A State-constructed history and nationalism is a European idea that only came to America with the Cold War; within twenty years there was a massive autoimmune rejection to it. Americans find parochialism bizarre. When we go into other countries, we really don't understand why people don't want to listen to us. We don't have much experience in the reasons they want us to go away.

To return to the original point of discussion: I concur with your idea that regimes with WMD and unstable policies should be opposed. I just don't see how Putin's bomber flights dissuade anyone from anything. Not even Cheney is crazy enough to attack Russia or Russian interests. IIRC, the standing deal for Iran to stand down includes a contract for Russian supply of the Iranian nuclear power plant -- a plant Russia built. It's in Russia's interest to get that contract, which means getting Iran to agree to make a deal. So the bomber flights have nothing to do with Iran, and they have little to do with dissuading Cheney. What do they have to do with? As far as I can tell, they have to do solely with boosting Russian nationalism. And I am not in favor of anyone - America included - boosting nationalism with pointless military exercises. End of argument.