the interests of most americans in the world beyond their job and family mostly involve watching sports on television, or listening to other people talk about sports on television. Ordinarily this would not be a problem, except we live in a nation where where most adults are allowed to vote. politicians must compete with each other to gain these peoples votes. professional pundits must compete with each other to gain these peoples attention. The television or cable news must compete with each other to gain these peoples attention.
We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.
I think Wendell Fitzgerald that you have identified that which is most important of all: how, as a collective, do we define morality. And along with it, 'freedom'.
Another source of critically important wisdom who sells lots of great books and has spoken to congress, but whose ideas and observations are ultimately ignored by our elected representatives. It is incredible that we just keep making the same mistakes, listening neither to this man nor the history he chronicles; we just keep blundering on.
It’s always interesting to see the term “elected representatives”, which is true as people do cast votes and completely untrue as people have no choice on the pool of whom to be voted for. More importantly, I never was able to figure out why people think it’s a smart idea to let those, most of whom cannot even point out where they live on a damn map, decide whose hands the power will be placed in…
there is beauty in brevity- your definition of AE was expanded on, missed, nor focused on the joy of the dream. Academics view America is rotten to the core and totally avoid Exceptionalism. It's taboo, a myth and often wrapped up in globalism and war- and the fog leaves an odd title,The End of AE..No way.
Well said remarks, but alas Bacevich's lament that Jimmy Carter's malaise speech holds the key to a sustainable future ensures perpetual war for the United States.
The problem with the idea that the US remained and remains unchallenged, even the 90s is a pervasive one, but really is a myth. There is no way the US would attack a nuclear state, if it wanted to, other states could attack back on US soil and abroad. Nuclear weapons and its delivery systems, make the island US, massively vulnerable to attack. much like it did for the UK. Both countries in a sense are true island nations. Of course the US is land locked but with a weak mexico to the south and a week neighbour to the north. However if either one of them nations joined another power in a political and military union other than the US, the latter would not be safer in the island scenario. For example if Mexico should join the EU, or Canada then the US would have massively powerful state (if it became one) on its door step. The lease likely to be threat directly because of language and culture, is a union between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If this was to happen it would be a form of briitsh empire mark 3.0 and would present a substantial threat the US, if it chose to do so. People sneer at the two possibilities as impossible, well it is not and both are extremely likely. Just because nations are small -nothing can stop them from joining with other smaller nations to make a bigger one. We have seen it with empires, the US and of course the EU. Also the other argument - is that a nation is considered not a great power by either some elements of its citizenry and other nations people. This does not and i repeat does not stop them from trying to achieve great power status. Just because idiots say they should not does not preclude the possibility. Americans like to throw their threats around, and i have seen poss by them saying the US could take on any other great power. What they do not realise or want to think about is the cost if they did so. The five powers that come mind are Russia, China, North Korea, France and the UK. The latter two would not want to do that because of cultural and political reasons, though the french less than the UK. However both countries have considerable power projection and sophisticated air defence systems and very modern nuclear weapons and their ability to deliver them. Russia also has a cable air defence system and lots of nukes. France and the UK have the potential to cause the US great amount of damage in the event both should go to war with the US. The US in turn could destroy the said countries, because of their size. The US would lose all major cities and suffer massive damage to its infrastructure if there was a war. Please do not assume a country going to war with a major power will sit there and not rearm, and not increase their forces. I know people like to think people are stupid. We see this in war movies and pc games where the enemy leaves perfectly good cover, to stand there to be shot and killed by Americans et al forces. This was a problem with a Turkish movie were the Turks were fighting an entrench enemy who controlled the high ground and had brilliant cover. Of course the movie had the enemy as idiots who came out of their cover and high ground to fight the Turks below. This stuff never happens in real life, the enemy is not stupid and people who think so are idiots. I am not saying the UK or any other European nation would ever use nukes against the US. However it is not impossible should the US be stupid to go nuts and leave all senses behind. The US would not attack north Korea, because it fears their nukes, Iran and other nations have realised if you do not have nukes your going to get attacked by the US. This is proven by US attacking, Iran, Syria, Libya and Yemen, now they want to attack Iran. If any of these countries had nukes the US would not go to war with them, much like they tread very carefully with Pakistan, China and India. So the exaggerated claim the US have massive power, is just that an exaggeration.
