Just a tangential thought:

A major consideration that prevents all the nations from holding hands and singing kumbaya is that pesky problem of scarcity of resources and then who should get what.

Given that, it is every nation for herself.

The point is not that militaristic subjugation of the planet is unethical (that too but in a Hobsean world of every nation against every other nation ethics is irrelevant), but that in a multipolar world where others offer ( for strictly selfish reasons) a more attractive deal, the purely militaristic strategy is losing its effectiveness.

But, you will say, we offer more than the stick, we offer the carrot. What is the carrot?
The chance that everyone on the globe can live the "American Dream". That brings us back to resource scarcity. But besides that the version of "The American Dream" that prevails now is unregulated unfettered capitalism which is kind of bringing the Hobsean world that prevails internationally to the Res Publica at home. It is a harsh docrine. Ronald Reagan was the soothsayer who told us that go-go capitlaism would benefit all Americans. Obama thinks that was "transformational". Obama has since backtracked and claims (implausibly) that he was merely pointing out that it was transformational not that he was endorsing it.

In any case, the people of the world are more attracted to the European version of the social contract than the Hayek version.

Posted at January 28, 2008 3:58 PM in response to America Diminished

If you say that Hillary is smarter than Obama you risk being called a racist

If you say Obama is smarter than Hillary, you risk being called a sexist

Asume one has to be smarter than the other then if follows logically that
You are either a racist or a sexist

It's all childish "gotcha" crap

Posted at January 27, 2008 10:16 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

Well, pretty good analysis even though I don't agree with many parts of it. I don't think that the punditocracy's highlighting any "race issues" is a clever way to make Obama the black candidate nor that they simply want to see a horserace. I think they want McCain to be president and fear that Hillary can beat him.

I gave you a 5 not so much as a sympathy rating but I admire your analytical skills.

Posted at January 27, 2008 10:11 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

you make a good point. But attributing black support for Obama to any Politics of Identity is anathema in this website. Why?

I'm not a psychiatrist Davai

Posted at January 27, 2008 9:54 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

Who would not be sincere about hope? It is like saying you sincerely love mom and apple pie.

We are facing extremely difficult times ahead both internationally and domestically. This is not the time for Obama Happy Talk.

Sure we are all for unity, but many interests are irreconcilable, sure we want to have hope, but hope and 6 dollars buys you a latte at Starbucks, and Change, which seems to be the magic word, what is he talking about? Is he saying that he is going to change Washington and politics as usual forever or even for his tenure? That is not credible. Politics is always confrontational and will always remain so.

Obama is laying it on thick on the rhetoric, very thin on the substance. Sure he makes me feel good, but as I said, the next president is going to face very difficult problems.

At least Johyn McCain is right out front with it. He says we will be there in the Middle East for At least another 100 years and there will be more wars to come.

McCain has to be stopped, but if in the general Obama offers more of the kumbaya happy talk, there will be many people who will think he has no clue as to the problems we are facing and reluctantly vote for McCain

Posted at January 27, 2008 9:45 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

she has little personal record of fighting for a cause

need I mention Universal Health Care under her husband's administration?

Posted at January 27, 2008 9:44 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

Between the three paradigmatic concepts of hegemony (respect for other cultures and business deals (China), Transnationalism , European Union, and My Way or the Highway, Oceania (USA)) the last seems the least attractive and the least likely to gain partners around the world.

The essential point of that article is that relying on militaristic coercion, leads to opposition not submission, especially since there are other power centers to align oneself with.

We need to change our view of things, but I'm afraid that that it is too deeply engrained in our elites to be a likely thing to happen. All you have to do is look at McCain's saber rattling, 100 year war and more wars to come rhetoric, to despair.

Posted at January 27, 2008 9:38 PM in response to America Diminished

In my view they are setting it up to be a McCain v Obama race in the general with McCain favored to win and continue the Bush foreign policy.

Posted at January 20, 2008 10:15 PM in response to A Pause for a Meta Moment

So true
Not to veer too far from your excellent point, the question becomes how or why is it that the media condenses around a quasi "conventional wisdom" at any given time. They run in packs across the different outlets (the various print and television outlets).
One suggestion is since they have no real clue as to what is really going on they need to re-enforce each other to make "the story" plausible to the consumers of their product. And sure enough the so called inside-knowledge they peddle more often than not becomes the conventional wisdom across America.

Also, they are not above having their own political agenda.
For example: any fair minded person would question the incessant criticism (implied or outright) by the media of certain politicians. They had it in for Al Gore, that's for sure and they have it in for Hillary Clinton.

Now ask yourself this: why would they run in packs against this or that candidate if not that they are acting as the adjuncts to the powers that be.

I just happened to run across the following little article that appeared in the National Review Online on May 25, 2005 by Rachel Zabarkes Friedman on Hillary's supposed (in)fidelity to the AIPAC line.
Read it for yourself:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/friedman200505251257.asp

Apparently at AIPAC they are not at all certain how reliable Hillary is going to be for carrying out the wishes of the Likud/AIPAC crowd.

I'm not saying that the anti Hillary bias in the media is directly orchestrated by these folks, but--besides my previous idea that they run in packs because it makes them more credible--they most likely also pick on politicians ( or boost others) due to the pressures exerted on them by the Corporate Media itself.

Posted at January 20, 2008 10:06 PM in response to A Pause for a Meta Moment

You might want to focus on the title "meta Moment". We are doing meta thinking. All the bread and circuses stuff is a given. Point is why do they run in packs and what makes them trash one candidate and boost another?

It is not merely an academic question because it determines who gets elected and that determines what happens to our country.

Posted at January 20, 2008 9:53 PM in response to A Pause for a Meta Moment