By ADM
Comment on SlantRight.com
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:00:31 AM
John,
I was reading your comment on Barack Obama and appeasement and I found them particularly intriguing. I actually found your article while looking for modern takes on plebian politics. I have a special love for the Roman Res Publica, as did the founders of our country. I hope you will take a few minutes to read this email and respond, because I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts. From your comments, I think I can safely say that you, like me, are more or less Republican Imperialist in favor of responsible use of American power. I should also tell you that I don’t entirely agree with the thrust of your argument, even though it’s compelling and clearly worth contemplating.
In the history of the world, empires have had two real paths before them: withdraw the empire, at a cost of the standard of living which even the poorest segments of society had begun to expect; or press power abroad, at the cost of alienating the entire world and creating an empire-toppling backlash. We seem to be at that horrifying decision-nexus, where we must choose a path that, ideally, leads to centuries of imperial power rather than decades. Internationally, we find ourselves hated; domestically, we find our standard of living eroded; ecologically, we find ourselves beset by natural disasters.
To your mind, what is the role of responsible imperial power? McCain has commented briefly on this, but his comments actually worried me as being too much akin to the ancient Greek run-up to the Peloponnesian War twenty-four hundred years ago. The alternative doesn’t seem really compelling either. I really am interested, even though I think we come at the same problem from concurrent but dissimilar perspectives. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
ADM
***********************
Response to Intrigued
John R. Houk
© May 18, 2008
I do view that America must use its power for two purposes: 1) To maintain the National Interests of America and Americans however the chips may fall and 2) To maintain the National Security of America and Americans wherever the chips may fall.
I believe both are interrelated and thus inseparable. I also believe the National Interests and National Security may bring us into conflict with our allies and especially America's overt enemies.
I believe an imposed nation building should be initiated based on American Democratic principles and if that fails then use military force to subdue a nation or region and place an oligarchy with a strongman that has a mutual interest in their people and supporting American National Interests. Unfortunately the latter more than likely will lead to despotism. Hopefully it would be an enlightened despotism rather than an oppressive despotism.
Incidentally, I am aware many on the Left and the recipients of the good intentions of American global power maintenance would be perceived as imperialism. That word is an image I don't agree with. Imperialism brings up the picture of empire building by acquiring and adding land and people under the direct rule of law of the conquered. That would be un-American.
If number one or number two are attainable, then I am all for America leaving the nation invaded or at least limiting its physical presence from a massive force to an aiding force. I view this much in the sense that Americans are in Germany, Japan or South Korea. Europeans have been chosen the path of the welfare state because they depended on American money for protection after WWII; thus European money went to social and welfare programs. I believe that history is going to demonstrate that was a bad choice for them or at least to the extent it has gone and the maintenance of the democratic socialist State of the future.
Anyway I digressed. I view myself more as a Neoconservative than an imperialist. The goal is not to conquer, rather it is to establish an infrastructure that can maintain itself and not go all belligerent against the USA. Of course diplomatic disagreements will occur; however with a Democratic infrastructure disagreements can be worked out politically rather than with terrorism or brutality.
JRH
_____________________
I believe the inquiry was based on the recent post, “Obama Not an Appeaser?” I believe ADM’s reference to the “Roman Res Publica” is a reference to the Roman Republic epoch which was between the Roman Kingdom and Roman Empire. Briefly the legend goes that Roman Patricians grew weary of the abuses of the Etruscan King of Rome. The Patricians revolted and threw the King off the throne (who tried many times to re-capture the throne) and eventually established the Roman Republic. As legends go, the Roman ruling elites looked upon the history of a king ruling with disdain; thus it became political blasphemy to think of one strong man to impose his rule on the Roman polity as a monarchy.
In Revolutionary War days, the Founding Fathers often used the symbolism of the Roman Republic throwing off the despotism of monarchy (old King George) and replacing it with the noble American experiment of Republican Federalism that embraced the concepts of Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Comment on SlantRight.com
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:00:31 AM
John,
I was reading your comment on Barack Obama and appeasement and I found them particularly intriguing. I actually found your article while looking for modern takes on plebian politics. I have a special love for the Roman Res Publica, as did the founders of our country. I hope you will take a few minutes to read this email and respond, because I’m genuinely curious about your thoughts. From your comments, I think I can safely say that you, like me, are more or less Republican Imperialist in favor of responsible use of American power. I should also tell you that I don’t entirely agree with the thrust of your argument, even though it’s compelling and clearly worth contemplating.
In the history of the world, empires have had two real paths before them: withdraw the empire, at a cost of the standard of living which even the poorest segments of society had begun to expect; or press power abroad, at the cost of alienating the entire world and creating an empire-toppling backlash. We seem to be at that horrifying decision-nexus, where we must choose a path that, ideally, leads to centuries of imperial power rather than decades. Internationally, we find ourselves hated; domestically, we find our standard of living eroded; ecologically, we find ourselves beset by natural disasters.
To your mind, what is the role of responsible imperial power? McCain has commented briefly on this, but his comments actually worried me as being too much akin to the ancient Greek run-up to the Peloponnesian War twenty-four hundred years ago. The alternative doesn’t seem really compelling either. I really am interested, even though I think we come at the same problem from concurrent but dissimilar perspectives. Please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks,
ADM
***********************
Response to Intrigued
John R. Houk
© May 18, 2008
I do view that America must use its power for two purposes: 1) To maintain the National Interests of America and Americans however the chips may fall and 2) To maintain the National Security of America and Americans wherever the chips may fall.
I believe both are interrelated and thus inseparable. I also believe the National Interests and National Security may bring us into conflict with our allies and especially America's overt enemies.
I believe an imposed nation building should be initiated based on American Democratic principles and if that fails then use military force to subdue a nation or region and place an oligarchy with a strongman that has a mutual interest in their people and supporting American National Interests. Unfortunately the latter more than likely will lead to despotism. Hopefully it would be an enlightened despotism rather than an oppressive despotism.
Incidentally, I am aware many on the Left and the recipients of the good intentions of American global power maintenance would be perceived as imperialism. That word is an image I don't agree with. Imperialism brings up the picture of empire building by acquiring and adding land and people under the direct rule of law of the conquered. That would be un-American.
If number one or number two are attainable, then I am all for America leaving the nation invaded or at least limiting its physical presence from a massive force to an aiding force. I view this much in the sense that Americans are in Germany, Japan or South Korea. Europeans have been chosen the path of the welfare state because they depended on American money for protection after WWII; thus European money went to social and welfare programs. I believe that history is going to demonstrate that was a bad choice for them or at least to the extent it has gone and the maintenance of the democratic socialist State of the future.
Anyway I digressed. I view myself more as a Neoconservative than an imperialist. The goal is not to conquer, rather it is to establish an infrastructure that can maintain itself and not go all belligerent against the USA. Of course diplomatic disagreements will occur; however with a Democratic infrastructure disagreements can be worked out politically rather than with terrorism or brutality.
JRH
_____________________
I believe the inquiry was based on the recent post, “Obama Not an Appeaser?” I believe ADM’s reference to the “Roman Res Publica” is a reference to the Roman Republic epoch which was between the Roman Kingdom and Roman Empire. Briefly the legend goes that Roman Patricians grew weary of the abuses of the Etruscan King of Rome. The Patricians revolted and threw the King off the throne (who tried many times to re-capture the throne) and eventually established the Roman Republic. As legends go, the Roman ruling elites looked upon the history of a king ruling with disdain; thus it became political blasphemy to think of one strong man to impose his rule on the Roman polity as a monarchy.
In Revolutionary War days, the Founding Fathers often used the symbolism of the Roman Republic throwing off the despotism of monarchy (old King George) and replacing it with the noble American experiment of Republican Federalism that embraced the concepts of Freedom, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment