« Politics is Political | Main | Iraq/Recession »

McCain's Empire

25 Feb 2008 05:28 pm

I'm not sure the point can be made forcefully enough that John McCain is, among practical politicians, perhaps the single most committed advocate of an imperial vision of American foreign policy out there. This case can (and will!) be made at great length, but one quick way of getting at the point is through Teddy Roosevelt. It's well known that McCain is a huge Roosevelt admirer, and sees himself as a kind of TR for the 21st century. At the same time, TR is a complicated, multi-faceted figure. Among other things, however, he was an arch-imperialist at a time when imperialism was undertaken with much less of a velvet glove. Things like McCain's March 25, 2002 speech at USC make it clear that he doesn't see Roosevelt's imperialism as somehow incidental to his hero's vision:

Theodore Roosevelt is one of my greatest political heroes. The “strenuous life” was T.R.’s definition of Americanism, a celebration of America’s pioneer ethos, the virtues that had won the West and inspired our belief in ourselves as the New Jerusalem, bound by sacred duty to suffer hardship and risk danger to protect the values of our civilization and impart them to humanity. “We cannot sit huddled within our borders,” he warned, “and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond.”

His Americanism was not fidelity to a tribal identity. Nor was it limited to a sentimental attachment to our “amber waves of grain” or “purple mountains majesty.” Roosevelt’s Americanism exalted the political values of a nation where the people were sovereign, recognizing not only the inherent justice of self-determination, not only that freedom empowered individuals to decide their destiny for themselves, but that it empowered them to choose a common destiny. And for Roosevelt that common destiny surpassed material gain and self-interest. Our freedom and our industry must aspire to more than acquisition and luxury. We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept “that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither.”

Some critics, in his day and ours, saw in Roosevelt’s patriotism only flag-waving chauvinism, not all that dissimilar to Old World ancestral allegiances that incited one people to subjugate another and plunged whole continents into war. But they did not see the universality of the ideals that formed his creed.

There are a couple of things to note about this. The sentiment that American patriotism is a higher calling than some tawdry blood-and-soil nationalism is a fairly banal one in the US and serves as an umbrella under which different kinds of ideas can hide. But McCain brings it up and specifically ascribes this view to Roosevelt, apostle of empire. To McCain, a commitment to universalism requires American expansionism. Indeed, to McCain it is precisely commitment to this imperial vision that makes American patriotism superior to other brands of nationalism. Our own patriotism would become compromised by stinginess and selfishness were we to show more restraint in world affairs.

Share This

Comments (49)

He is, of course, insane, but really his insanity is merely a purer and distilled version of the same insanity shared by our entire political class, and the vast majority of our fellow citezens. It will eventually, and inevitably, lead to our down fall, though there is no telling how much damage we will do in our madness till that fall comes.

May that down fall be swift and complete, to spare the rest of the world from the horrors that we continue to visit upon it.

So the specific kind of crazy that applies to McCain is utopian fantasist imperialist. It's one thing to view your own patriotism in these terms, but to expect the whole country to accept this as some kind of national creed is just nuts.

Great post. This is exactly right.

He is, of course, insane, but really his insanity is merely a purer and distilled version of the same insanity shared by our entire political class, and the vast majority of our fellow citezens.

I don't buy it. Polls do not show support for wide-ranging imperial projects, and they show overwhelming antagonism to the particular imperial project in Iraq.

I believe that this sort of imperialism is one of the places where the opinions of the people diverge clearly from the interests of capital... I mean, the opinions of our elite political and corporate class.

Has anyone else here actually read The Strenous Life? (Has McCain, for that matter???)

There's a lot of partly quite dated (although one must insist that TR was the least racist president between 1876 and 1932, maybe 1945) expansionist white man's burden stuff (that's burden, not shooting 'em out of a plane), but what I like about it is the second through fifth paragraphs which contain the best attacks on the lifestyles of Dubya and Cheney, and the lobbyist heavy John McCain, I have ever read. The real TR (who, by the way went out of his way to get government jobs, in one case a total sinecure, for a leading modernist poet and the leading black songwriter of his day) urged men born to privilege to do things like history and science and not trade on their connections for a buck. (By the way, he seems to have hated the incipient commerical sports of his own day.)

McCain hardly lived a life that was "clean, vigorous, and healthy;" when my father came back from his war (in which his ship was blown up by a suicide bomber) his standard line on the kind of guy who came back and screwed everything in sight was "He's a bum." This one's for you, John

I know a conservative who's always going on about how much money he pays in federal taxes and how he doesn't get anything from it. And also goes on and on about how stupid all this "national security theatre" and DHS are. And he's not too keen on the war in Iraq.

He's one of those people who would vote for an unnamed Democrat over an unnamed Republican, yet as soon as you'd name a Democrat, he'll repeat GOP talking points about how said Democrat is teh most evil left-wing commie ever (which shows you that we can't get optimistic based on political party preference polls).

He used to repeat all the standard McCain is teh crazy rhetoric you'd hear from the right, but now that McCain is the standard bearer, McCain is, as far as he's concerned, a moderate about all things and would be a reasonable choice (over that extremist cult-leader Obama).

In particular, he somehow thinks McCain is moderate vis-a-vis his position in Iraq (where Obama wants to put a timeline on our continued presence in Iraq which is somehow teh wrongheaded).

By all rights (but for Obama supports the right of gays to get married and have abortions or some such), he should support Obama first and foremost, because Obama would be the most likely to not waste his money on a war he opposed in the first place.

Yet he supports McCain, and doesn't realize that McCain just lurves himself some imperialism (which my conservative examplar hates).

So why does he support McCain? How does he somehow manage to repeat GOP talking points even though he ain't particularly a GOoPer?

I dunno ...

The fact of the matter is we'll never get his vote, but if Dems could even take positions such that someone like my examplar could be used as GOoPers currently use the New Republic and NPR: "even the conservative [Examplar] thinks Obama is right about imperialism and TSA", it'd help us a lot.

I think we Dems. need to think about how "even the liberal New Republic thinks [X]" helps the GOP and make sure we get out that certain classes of conservatives really oughta like Obama's stances on certain issues better than McCain's stances. Even if reactionaries won't switch votes, it'd still help us politically in the way that nominally liberal media muttonheads help the GOP politically.

But first we need to break through the disinformation campaign about what McCain stands for: how is it that even people who are quite educated and really not movement conservatives (and who do not trust the media) manage to absorb the latest GOP talking points and have such a distorted view of McCain's record (including based on GOP talking points and media memes that McCain is a "maverick")? And how do we show people what McCain really stands for and convince people that their views really do match Obama's more than McCain's.

You can't just direct them to a website -- they'll see that Obama likes the idea of gay married people having abortions and decide they oppose what Obama is saying about the war even though their opposition is based on talking points in which they don't believe in the first place.

Do ya think maybe we should fight fire with fire and push-poll? Under the guise of polling these people about what they really think (which could be useful in and of itself) manage to point out what the candidates think? "So you support [X] over [Y]? did you know that Obama supports [X] and McCain supports [Y]?"

Polls may not show support for such wide-ranging imperial projects, but polls don't really show any strenuous opposition to it, either.

Going even further, I'd suspect that polls would show support for the candidate who ran against opposition to such imperial projects.

It's not that voters are pro-imperialism. It's that, I think, they tend to be anti-anti-imperialism. Occupying the Philipines may have been stupid and costly, but no politicians suffered any electoral consequences for continuing it, and certainly any national candidate who ran on leaving the Philipines in the 20s and 30s would have been pilloried.

Well, TR DID take the Canal, and McCain WAS born in the Panama Canal Zone, so there you are....

Great post. At the same time, it should be noted, McCain's Rooseveltian worldview at least seems more coherent than that of many on the right, although hardly any more sane.

Re "saw in Roosevelt’s patriotism only flag-waving chauvinism, not all that dissimilar to Old World ancestral allegiances that incited one people to subjugate another and plunged whole continents into war. But they did not see the universality of the ideals that formed his creed "
-----------
Ah, yes. I had forgotten.

We nuked Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to save them.

There was definitely very much to admire about Roosevelt but his brand of rugged imperialism was shameful. One need look no further than the Moro massacre and Roosevelt's reaction to it to understand that this was he and his colleagues had a blind spot with regard to the suffering of their action.

If McCain wished to emulate other parts of Roosevelt's policies, i.e. conservation and trust-busting, I could brook McCain's admiration. Unfortunately, he's chosen the most despicable parts to admire.

And when we napalmed 60+ Japanese cities and burned children in their own body fat, that wasn't war or "terrorism" -- that was an effort to spread our idealistic creed.

Where in the quotation does McCain say that the universal validity of American ideals demands that Americans coercively enforce them?

Certainly the first paragraph is anti-isolationist, but not necessarily imperialist. I have little doubt that McCain is an imperialist, but certainly the claim that there are universal moral values is not per se imperialism.

I mean, advocating intervention to stop massive human rights violations is not imperialism. Or, at the very least, no argument in the post has been presented to show it.

This is pretty sloppy.

Going even further, I'd suspect that polls would show support for the candidate who ran against opposition to such imperial projects. - Tyro

Indeed. Many voters who really are even getting into anti-imperialist territory would simply find an actual anti-imperialist to be "too weak". They'd rather vote for someone whom they find to be disagreeable than someone who they feel is weak.

Dunno the significance of that, but that's what I've seen.

But McCain brings it up and specifically ascribes this view to Roosevelt, apostle of empire. To McCain, a commitment to universalism requires American expansionism. Indeed, to McCain it is precisely commitment to this imperial vision that makes American patriotism superior to other brands of nationalism.

And yet there's nothing about empire or expansionism in the McCain speech you quote. If all of the claims you make, above, are true -- and I'm perfectly willing to believe they are -- how about quoting or linking to speeches in which McCain actually expresses them?

As it is, your post constructs an incredibly weak argument for an incredibly strong point.

In a remarkable moment of candor, McCain admits that he's got a tough sales job ahead of him:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080225/ap_on_el_pr/mccain;_ylt=AmI7W0Qdjqyb832YErwuqSp34T0D
ROCKY RIVER, Ohio - John McCain said Monday that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't, "then I lose. I lose," the Republican said.

He quickly backed off that remark.

"Let me not put it that stark," the likely GOP nominee told reporters on his campaign bus. "Let me just put it this way: Americans will judge my candidacy first and foremost on how they believe I can lead the country both from our economy and for national security. Obviously, Iraq will play a role in their judgment of my ability to handle national security."

I think he got it right the first time. He's in the very unfavorable position of having to run on a national security record that is, as Matt points out, more imperialist and more militaristic than Bush. With Bush widely perceived among the electorate as a complete failure, running on not just 'more of the same' but 'A LOT more of the same!' just ain't gonna fly. Any GOP nominee would have had a tough time, but McCain's foreign policy stances are going to make him kind of toxic.

And when gave Suharto a list of about 100,000 Commies to exterminate, I suppose we were spreading our ideals. Same when we supported the benevolent Marcos for several decades. Or when we overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the benevolent Shah on the Peacock Throne for decades.

Face it people, Pax Americana has always been about our superrich stealing from the wogs and annilating them if they objected.

It hasn't been in the national interest -- usually the common US citizen has had to pay the cost -- in blood and taxes -- for these military adventures.

Find me some asshole waving the US flag and encouraging aggression abroad and I will show you a whore for a rich man , promoting that rich man's agenda and betraying this country.

Can we acknowledge we'd be much better off if Richard Nixon was running?

"To McCain, a commitment to universalism requires American expansionism. Indeed, to McCain it is precisely commitment to this imperial vision that makes American patriotism superior to other brands of nationalism."

This may be true, especially if you've managed to ask him about this or read his mind, but I don't see this in the lines you quoted. He's arguing in that speech for a commitment to America, sure, and he's more comfortable with open patriotism than you are, but "expansionism"? Because he likes Roosevelt and TR liked empire? I read the line about 'subjugation of one people by another' as being anti-'soopby'.

He also referenced Shackleton. Do I have to go to Antarctica?

This is from further in the same speech:

"National honor, no less than personal honor, has only the worth it derives from its defense of human dignity. Then, and only then, are they virtues in themselves. Many a patriotic German sought honor in doing one’s duty to the Furher and Fatherland. History and humanity, not to mention a just God, scorn them for it. Prosperity, military power, a well-educated society are the attainments of a great nation, but they are not its essence. If they are used only in pursuit of self-interest or to serve unjust ends they degrade national greatness. Nazi Germany was temporarily a powerful nation. It was never a great one."

Anyway, interesting post, but I think you've read your opinions of McCain into his words (these specific words, anyway). I hope you come through with your promised future posts on this, though.

LarryM has to be a right wing troll. I hope.

[our critics see us like] Old World ancestral allegiances that incited one people to subjugate another and plunged whole continents into war. But they did not see the universality of the ideals...

Ha! And this is supposed to be new? Universality of ideas? I guess that Hammurabi was propagating the idea of Justice as his legions were conquering cities throughout the Country Between The Rivers and other civilized regions. Or take the idea that the entire humanity deserves peace, good roads, free trade and modern entertainment: ever popular gladiator fights. Morituri te salutant!

Ashioka was spreading Peace and Harmony. Montezuma's Aztecs were preserving the entire humanity by nourishing the Fifth Sun, thus averting the (fifth) end of the world. Their idea of Sacred Ball Game is still with us.

Seb, great post.

I'd go a bit further though. McCain is a sympathetic figure because, while he is a true believer in our national greatness, both real and potential, he has an equally strong understanding of how the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. He has even admitted to taking the occasional step down that road.

Now, his vision for our foreign policy is (to put it mildly) not my cup of tea, but this is an error of judgement on his part, not a symptom of deeper flaws of character (which is, I think, what Matt is trying to argue). I won't (barring a miraculous Edwards rehabilitation at the Democratic convention) be voting for the man, but I do believe he is worthy of respect.

"I think you've read your opinions of McCain into his words (these specific words, anyway)."

Yup.

Matthew, as Ben Bradlee once said: "You haven't got it."

Re: It hasn't been in the national interest -- usually the common US citizen has had to pay the cost -- in blood and taxes -- for these military adventures.

The common citizens did the pay the price (though taxes on the rich were sky-high too, and many of them served under arms) but I do think WWII was in the national interest. Can you think of an alternate history (beginning in 1941, that is) where the results for both the world and the US came out better with the US sitting out that war?

Re: Ashioka was spreading Peace and Harmony.

To be a bit fair here, Ashoka converted to Buddhism after his wars of conquest, and he thereupon resolved to rule in peace and justice. By all accounts he was one of the ancient world's most just and enlightened rulers.

"May that down fall be swift and complete, to spare the rest of the world from the horrors that we continue to visit upon it."

Oh, sweet Jesus LarryM, I have to read that kind of crap from the loony fringe among Hawaiian nationalists in the letters section of my local paper, and now in what I'd consider a thinking person's blog?

Keep in mind, if the US goes down hard and fast, it won't be pretty. You'll be grubbing for sustenance with the rest of us in some fetid refuge camp, brother. If that gives you solace, let me know now so that I can safely pigeon hole you in the future.

This TR fascination is one of the many reasons George Will hates McCain. But Will is under this delusion that the concentration of power in the executive is somehow unconservative. Will may wish it were otherwise, but Madisonian deliberative, interest-based politics centered in the legislatures is not what modern conservatism is about. McCain is a lot closer to it than Will is.

I thought it was clear when McCain took on Max Boot and Niall Ferguson as advisers that he would pursue a policy entirely unapologetic about imperialism.

I think that McCain's policies are sufficiently stupid that you don't need to pull out the meaningless term "imperialism" to take McCain out to the woodshed.

"Imperialism" has, for the Left (of which I consider myself a happy member) has come to be what Orwell said of "democracy" during the Cold War: good foreign policy actions are "unimperalistic" and bad policy actions are "imperialistic."

The word has an entirely performative purpose. It is used simply to announce one's opposition to the policy being considered.

cmholm,

This nation is wealthy enough, and otherwise blessed, that, in the event of our much hoped for decline, I doubt very much that anybody from the U.S. will be "in some fetid refuge camp." And as much as such a result WOULD be a sort of karmic justice, I don't wish THAT much pain on the citezens of this nation (least of all myself), as much blood as we have on our hands. Well, okay, I wish that and worse on the people most responsible for the horrors we have perpetrated, but that's a seperate issue.

But, you know, if there REALLY were just two stark choices - refuge camps for the guilty (us) or refugee camps and worse for the innocent (our many victims) - well, I think it's pretty clear which would be more just.

But I want to leave you with one thought - I fervently hope that you will lay at wake at night thinking about the many innocent Iraqi children whose murder you are directly complicit in, by your continued support of this evil, sick, twisted, nation (through the payment of taxes if nothing else, but most likely also by your continued support of the imperial project).

Teddy sold Korea out to the Japanese...even though we have a treaty with them.

Does HRC=McCain in this regard, or am I being unfair to HRC?

I believe Obama is trying to strike a more conciliatory and perhaps more post-hegemonic note, this is one of the reasons he has my vote.

Am I deluded?

This country is responsible annually, over 50% of the world's military expenditures. (In 2003 it spent over $600 billion of $1.1 trillion).

For conservatives, notoriously poor at arithmetical computation, this means that the U.S. spends more than everyone else combined.

Duh, as my teen-agers would say.

This means, a priori, that we are not primarily interested in defense, but in projecting Imperial power.

Is this a good idea? I don't think so. But there seems to be general support for it, as long as it is paid for by IOUs our kids have to pay.

Not very admirable --but right in line with McCain's schtick.

A sacred duty to Impart our universal values to humanity? That differs from "the white man's burden" how, exactly?

Now that we know McCain is one of the two major party candidates, anyone interested in this Presidential election should read First Great Triumph, by Ambassador Warren Zimmermann, particularly the passages about Teddy Roosevelt.

It contains not a word about John McCain, yet it sums up his candidacy and the delusions and prejudices that will propel it better than any contemporary account.

A sacred duty to Impart our universal values to humanity? That differs from "the white man's burden" how, exactly?

If you want to be charitable, I suppose it's closer to what we'd consider guaranteeing universal human rights and universal human liberty . . . rather than civilizing the savages under the white umbrella of British hegemony and mercantilism.

John McCain's Grand Strategy:

Invade the World
Invite the World
In Hock to the World

Of course, that is also GWB's Grand Strategy.

Anybody who thinks McCain is some kind of "great man" because his speech writer wrote some flowery phrases about "universal ideals" (there are no such in human history, as de Sade pointed out in detail) is a complete idiot.

There are NO circumstances where the US military is appropriately employed in the pursuit of "universal ideals" - except the defense of the continental US and its possessions from actual threat of physical attack.

Iraq does not qualify. Afghanistan does not qualify. Korea did not qualify. Vietnam did not qualify. Grenada did not qualify. Panama did not qualify. Iran will not qualify. Pakistan will not qualify. Syria will not qualify.

McCain is a militarist and someone who has zero comprehension of both the current state of military affairs vis-a-vis 4th Gen War, and appropriate foreign policy for the US.

If he is elected President, it is quite possible that this country's military and economy will be completely collapsed within the next four to eight years or so.

If William Lind is right about the situation in Iraq, McCain could be responsible for the LOSS - not the defeat, the LOSS - of 140,000 or more US troops in Iraq - the worst military defeat in US history.

McCain could also, if the estimates are correct, be responsible for the deaths of up to three million people if nuclear bunker busters are used against Iranian nuclear facilities.

I'm reasonably sure that if Obama is elected President - maybe even Clinton - that it is less likely that nuclear weapons will be used by the US against non-nuclear states, even if I think both of them may start wars. I can't say the same about McCain.

This guy has NO - repeat NO - comprehension of what he's talking about. I suspect that he will be an even worse President than Bush - something that seems impossible now, but is indeed quite possible. Bush is a criminal, and a stupid criminal. But he's a front man for smart criminals. McCain is just a deluded old man with dreams of military glory. That makes him far more dangerous even than Bush.

RSH, I agree with some of your sentiments about why McCain would likely be a bad President, and I agree that he is likely to be a bad one. I also agree that, because of the dynamics of the Republican Party and the people he would owe favors, he is likely to continue down a dangerously naive path in foreign policy, largely on the advice and encouragement of people who really do have no idea what they are doing. Pretty ironic, considering his (and Hillary's) knocks on Obama.

I disagree, however, with your characterization of the appropriate scope of US military power. We have to be prepared to go offensive (though ideally never occupational) to counter threats to world security, which really is our security these days. That is definitely not to say we should necessarily intervene in foreign conflicts. And we certainly should not cause them, as we clearly did in Iraq.

Great post Matt. It was your diavlog with Jon Chait turned me from a McCain skeptic to a McCain uberfoe.

"We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept “that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither.” That's a pretty Orwellian, not to mention illiberal, construction. I don't particularly disagree with it in its atomized parts, but together it is pure dissonance. My conception of freedom is something like the pursuit of pleasure and individuality in the context of peace and basic material well-being. Maybe one could artfully square my idea with McCain's, but given his attachment to the "strenuous life", I highly doubt it.

His is a medieval world, of honor, courage, chivalry--the ethics of Walter Scott. These were big in the ante-bellum South, and I think Mark Twain, jokingly, blamed Walter Scott for the American Civil War. Anyway, Oscar Wilde--in his great essay, The Soul of Man under Socialism--defined the medieval ethos as the pursuit of individuality through pain. The exemplar of medievalism, sensibly enough, was Jesus Christ. I don't give much wait to the cheap rhetoric of the "New Jerusalem" here--an idea, by the way, that we imported from England, which had imported it from many other Christian countries--but there is an obvious masochism to John McCain, a masochism I doubt holds much appeals at all to people in a materialist society dedicated to the pursuit of happiness.

Great post Matt. It was your diavlog with Jon Chait turned me from a McCain skeptic to a McCain uberfoe.

"We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept “that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither.” That's a pretty Orwellian, not to mention illiberal, construction. I don't particularly disagree with it in its atomized parts, but together it is pure dissonance. My conception of freedom is something like the pursuit of pleasure and individuality in the context of peace and basic material well-being. Maybe one could artfully square my idea with McCain's, but given his attachment to the "strenuous life", I highly doubt it.

His is a medieval world, of honor, courage, chivalry--the ethics of Walter Scott. These were big in the ante-bellum South, and I think Mark Twain, jokingly, blamed Walter Scott for the American Civil War. Anyway, Oscar Wilde--in his great essay, The Soul of Man under Socialism--defined the medieval ethos as the pursuit of individuality through pain. The exemplar of medievalism, sensibly enough, was Jesus Christ. I don't give much wait to the cheap rhetoric of the "New Jerusalem" here--an idea, by the way, that we imported from England, which had imported it from many other Christian countries--but there is an obvious masochism to John McCain, a masochism I doubt holds much appeals at all to people in a materialist society dedicated to the pursuit of happiness.

Yeah, the guy is a dangerous maniac, no question about that. He's also quite old, at this age one is not likely to change his mind no matter what; he is what he is. Trouble.

Immigrants in Europe, grow up to be angry and despondent.
Immgrants in America, grow upto to be presidents and billionaires.
Europeans can't comprehend the world is changing and they are being left behind, irrevalent. What a FANTASTIC country we live in.
Viva America and well done Sen. Barack Obama.

well, according to Mr. Nader, there is no difference between his vision and Clinton-Obama's. Why not choose McCain? ( I'm kidding, here)

Well actually I'm thinking about voting for McCain to help accelerate the nation's decline. But I'll probably vote for Obama because, while he really ISN'T that much different from McCain on foreign policy (he shares the same fundamental vision of our role in the world,; he just seems to marginally favor soft power versus hard power solutions), he probably would kill marginally fewer people than would McCain.

Good Lord, please somebody convince me that Kelly Pierce isn't a representative sample of Obama supporters.

novakant, as Adlai Stevenson pointed out, getting thinking people to vote for him wasn't enough. He needed a majority. If Obama wants to win, he needs to peel off some members of the dunderhead coalition that the Republicans have had a tight hold on from 2000 until today.

Good Lord, please somebody convince me that Kelly Pierce isn't a representative sample of Obama supporters.

It's patently obvious, but okay: Kelly Pierce isn't a representative sample of Obama supporters.

Kelly Pierce, have you been to Europe? Have you lived there? Is your knowledge of the continent's various and varying countries all that deep? I suspect your American triumphalism is due almost entirely to the rather random event that you were born in America. I could be wrong, and if so, apologies.

"We must live out the true meaning of freedom, and accept “that we have duties to others and duties to ourselves; and we can shirk neither.” That's a pretty Orwellian,

I would be less harsh. The question is: what they guy really means? Two examples:

In the spirit of sacrifice for the sake of freedom and common good we accept carbon tax and a separate hydrocarbon tax. We will double the price of coal-produced electicity and of gasoline, we will suffer but with common sacrifice we will change our behavior and make energy saving investments.

In the spirit of sacrifice for the sake of freedom and common good we will snoop on phone conversation of several millions and we will torture several thousands. Ah, and we will hire some young folks to kill and risk their lives.

His is a medieval world, of honor, courage, chivalry--the ethics of Walter Scott.

I would say it's more of an ancient Greco-Roman view, where the citizens' duty to the state is paramount. The Middle Ages had little of that, and thatage was informed too by the mysticism and cosmopolitanism of the Christian Church, which McCain shows little trace of.

T. K.: "to counter threats to world security, which really is our security these days."

There ARE NO "threats to world security". Even the nukes in the hands of the US and Russia and China are only sufficient to knock the US and Russia for a loop - and they aren't targeted everywhere else in the world.

There are NO forces in the world capable of threatening "the world."

None. Nada.

The only regional power capable of threatening even a region would be Israel's couple hundred nukes.

There are a bunch of terrorists, who threaten small pockets of various countries. You don't need ANY of this expensive military crap hardware to deal with them. All you need are some competent guys armed with light to medium weapons. You don't need bombers, you don't need jets, you don't need subs, you don't need aircraft carriers, you don't need cruise missiles, you don't need unmanned drones firing Hellfire missiles to deal with these guys.

That's bullshit.


Comments closed March 10, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.