Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yeah, no question that military solutions, and this ideology of "American exceptionalism" behind 'em are way past their prime. The cost of Afghanistan and Iraq is over a trillion bucks (so far). And for example just my own state's share of the wars for this year alone also just happens to aproximate Cali's current budget shortfall of $26 billion.
But good luck with fighting ideology with facts & reason! A slightly different explanation might be that "exceptionalism" is just another way of saying "we're special", and we're "entitled" to re-make the world in our image (aka "American-style democracy"). Which are attitudes that also happen to match the symptoms of Narcissism, perhaps the most prevalent personality disorder of our times. And appealing to our collective narcissism and "specialness" has always been a successful strategy, whether it's being used to sell us "personal" widgets, a "personal" relationship with God, or just "personal" politics (aka, emotional identification with candidates who "are just like me").
And for what it's worth, narcissists are notoriously difficult for psychologists to treat, because they are always so relentlessly in denial and believers in "magical thinking". Although supposedly they do improve somewhat as they age, and become more in touch with themselves and are faced with their own limitations.... which would seem to be a pretty good metaphor for our current state of affairs.
I agree with your riff on narcissism. Seems to describe our president quite accurately.
I agree with your riff on narcissism. Seems to describe our president quite accurately.
You mean like when one of the main points of the OP's article is the dangers of ideology and partisanship, and a poster doesn't comprehend this and feels compelled to interject partisanship into the discussion?
I sometimes think that the primary objection to international integration of law, finance and manufacturing is that the world will become so dependent on each other that WAR will be way too expensive for the winners as well as the losers. Another War between the British, French and Germans is effectively impossible because they are so dependent on each other.
This really scares the world's warmongers and their financial masters. No more war to feed the noncombatants need for false glory or no more war debt. Lack of War would be boring as well as put them out of business. They cannot let that happen.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
You mean like when one of the main points of the OP's article is the dangers of ideology and partisanship, and a poster doesn't comprehend this and feels compelled to interject partisanship into the discussion?
What our friend's "cheap shot" also seems to illustrate, is that it's not just the battlefield and our military illusions that have failed, it's also the political battlefield as well, where personal attacks, dirty politics and the rough-and-tumble style of "southern politics" have now become the new "normal". And new technologies like cable tv and the internet have also been used just as quickly to enable all that, as they have been put to "better" uses. In fact one could argue that both these changes have helped contribute to the modern (and growing) phenomenon of "politics as religion" (aka "ideology").
What our friend's "cheap shot" also seems to illustrate, is that it's not just the battlefield and our military illusions that have failed, it's also the political battlefield as well, where personal attacks, dirty politics and the rough-and-tumble style of "southern politics" have now become the new "normal". And new technologies like cable tv and the internet have also been used just as quickly to enable all that, as they have been put to "better" uses. In fact one could argue that both these changes have helped contribute to the modern (and growing) phenomenon of "politics as religion" (aka "ideology").
I think politics is the primary forum for illusions. Much more so than the military. And I think there needs to be a distinction between "politics as religion", and the growing interest in politics. "Politics as religion" has always been with us, it's part of the strange dichotomy between American democracy and the American republic.
Religious beliefs are often equated by the religious with morality. Morality is part of the foundation for government, because it's part of the foundation for laws. So the devout, with the perspective that religion equals morality, try to instill religion in government. The non-devout distinguish between religion and morality and so resist the devout, sometimes resisting with fervor.
I personally welcome the internet and the new forums that have sparked more interest in politics and our government. For one thing, it draws attention to the shortfalls of our educational system and how ignorant some people are of how our government really works. But, most importantly to me, is that our system of government is dependent on participation. We need people to be interested, and to be vocal, opinionated, and even outraged about the process. Yes, it makes some of us more deeply entrenched in our own personal perspectives, because that's a human reaction to being challenged, to become defensive and entrenched. But we need other voices, too, we need to be challenged, because it's those unfamiliar ideas, those challenges which enable us to be flexible, to grow and to learn. I'd rather be engaged in a stormy and sometimes bitter political environment than a stagnant, dying one. To me, the Tea Party, the liberals, the moderates, the libertarians are all part of a thriving system. While the extreme partisanship can be disheartening, the passion it denotes is thrilling.
Welcome Back, Hilltopper! You've been much missed. I hope life is being kind to you.
I read Bacevich's article with interest. I agree with his assessment of ideologues. To a degree, we're all ideologues, aren't we? Seeing the world from our unique perspective, we often cannot get to a truly objective viewpoint. I think Bacevich is guilty of this, too, which is why several posters have said that his statements can also apply to other periods in American history. That's not to question the wisdom of what he's saying, about the need for objectivity and clarity and pragmatism, it's just an observation that we all, all of us, are taken in by the fog that is our particular, dare I say peculiar, perspectives. None of us have unobstructed vision.
What I find most pointed about Bacevich's article is his comment about Obama, and his falling into the same pattern as his contemporaries. I think it's more than ideology that makes that pattern so seductive. As you know, one of my pet peeves is the pervasiveness of bureaucracy. I think the American government is eaten up by bureaucracy, and that the bureaucracy is like peer pressure, only it's peer pressure aligned with official policy, and that bureaucracy in itself is a continuous, compelling force that makes Presidents and other leaders conform to this diplomatic pattern.
I don't think that this is something anyone elected President can break away from. Even Ron Paul, who is interesting in his independence, but some of his ideas I cannot agree with, I think would be compelled to conform to this pattern. In part, because I believe the bureaucracy controls the flow of information, as well as the presentation of that information. That control means the bureaucracy, a mindless creature of habit (and not some vast conspiracy), creates a false reality.
Which of course, brings us back to Bacevich, who is saying that if we, or our leaders, can't find ways to break this cycle, we'll continue along this very problematic path. I think, though, that while Bacevich addressed globalism, that's this is where he got myopic. Internally, we may not be able to break the cycle, but we're not alone on the problematic path, either. We're dragging along a host, what we do impacts the world. So it's reasonable, no, to think that those outside of the United States, with perhaps a clearer perspective on the United States and it's influence, might find ways to introduce their perspective into our system. I'm not talking about terrorism, though I think that at some level terrorism is an attempt to communicate to a larger power a different perspective, but I am talking about the myriad changes in the world around us. The Arab spring, our diminished influence at the United Nations, the evolving relationship with China. I think these are all messages, and if we continue on our troubled path, the messages will become louder and louder, more and more difficult to ignore.
Thank you kindly, and there are some posts here I wish to reply to but after pulling a double and a hours ride to work each way, I'm rather dull in mind at the moment, not to mention dead dog tired.
I am going to post an excerpt that I have posted on several occasions in the past, simply to show that many of the themes we encounter today are nothing new at all. To the credit of Plato, he seemed to have a very profound understanding of human nature to go along with his political philosophy, and I feel it is important that we take into account simple human nature.
Where I may disagree or perhaps just view differently some of the reasoning of both Andrew Bacevich and yourself, is that where Bacevich points to ideology and you point to bureaucracy, I tend to see human nature, both at an individual level and at a larger societal level.
I am of the opinion that the people of the United States view themselves as a nation as exceptional, and in many respects, I feel this is a true statement. However, when an individual or a group sees themselves as exceptional, they of course differentiate themselves from all others by placing themselves in the superior position and others as 'lesser'. We point to our economic system of capitalism, our liberal democracy in the form of a Republic, and the fact that at this moment we are the pinnacle of global power, a sole super power if you wish.
Where you point to bureaucracy, I tend to see the effects of inevitable design based upon basic human tendencies, one of the most powerful being greed of wealth and power. Our social system is far far different today than at its formation, some of it far better and in my opinion, some of it worse. In both cases, there is a slow alteration of our system, just as there has likely been a slow evolution among previous societal systems, just like Rome for instance. A reoccurring theme is that empires rise to power, get fat, then fall, and while in the midst of its crescendo, the people are consumed with bread and circuses, while the empire begins to rot from within. While external forces are certainly at play, I see them more often used as a tool to guide the gullible circus goer by way of distraction or in our case, fear. Please note the great amount of consumption of time Americans spend engaged in diversions like sports, television, video games, whatever, etc...
I find myself pondering, why is it that the Romans didn't learn from previous empires, or the Spanish empire of the 16th century, or the British empire learn from the Romans, and why do we seem to so readily dismiss the fact that each and every empire before has followed a very similar cycle? In nearly ever example, each empire scoffed that empires before them fell, because they saw themselves as exceptional, and removed from such folly as all those before them. I can only conclude that it isn't ideology or bureaucracy but human nature, both in terms of individuals and groups.
I do not see Obama as having to struggle with bureaucracy or ideology, I see him as just another cog in our current state of political and social evolution, just like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc... A figurehead to focus upon while the machine grinds on, benefiting the few more than the greater, with greater frequency and depth. The inevitability of our conclusion has been written time and time again, so again, I find myself coming back to simple basic human nature and tendency.
My suggestions for breaking or at least stalling this would probably be rejected with great animus and even angst. So I'll leave this rather verbose post by citing the following, which I often come back to due to its simple and yet profound impartiality.
Justice would be a simple matter, says Plato, if men were simple; an anarchist communism would suffice...why is it that these Utopias never arrive upon the map?
He answers, because of greed and luxury. Men are not content with a simple life: they are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another, the rivalry of groups for the resources of the soil, and then war. Trade and finance develop, and bring new class-divisions. "Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller ones–you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states." A mercantile bourgeoisie arises, whose members seek social position through wealth and conspicuous consumption: "they will spend large sums of money on their wives." These changes in the distribution of wealth produce political changes: as the wealth of the merchant over-reaches that of the land-owner, aristocracy gives way to a plutocratic oligarchy–wealthy traders and bankers rule the state. Then statesmanship, which is the coordination of social forces and the adjustment of policy to growth, is replace by politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution. When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease. "Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power".
But even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" (Protagoras, 317); to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a poplar play (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea[or on CNN,MSNBC,FOX]). Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. (Consider the history of Rome.)
The more Plato thinks of it, the more astounded he is at the folly of leaving to mob caprice and gullibility the selection of political officials–not to speak of leaving it to those shady and wealth-serving strategists who pull the oligarchic wires behind the democratic stage. Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters–like shoe-making–we think only a specially-trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that every one who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence–we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best? To devise a method of barring incompetence and knavery from public office, and of selecting and preparing the best to rule for the common good–that is the problem of political philosophy.
Obviously Plato did not have a crystal ball, but he did understand people, so looking around at even this forum today, are not some of these very themes as relevant now as they were then? If so, then what is the possible commonality between then and now?
Thank you kindly, and there are some posts here I wish to reply to but after pulling a double and a hours ride to work each way, I'm rather dull in mind at the moment, not to mention dead dog tired.
I am going to post an excerpt that I have posted on several occasions in the past, simply to show that many of the themes we encounter today are nothing new at all. To the credit of Plato, he seemed to have a very profound understanding of human nature to go along with his political philosophy, and I feel it is important that we take into account simple human nature.
Where I may disagree or perhaps just view differently some of the reasoning of both Andrew Bacevich and yourself, is that where Bacevich points to ideology and you point to bureaucracy, I tend to see human nature, both at an individual level and at a larger societal level.
I am of the opinion that the people of the United States view themselves as a nation as exceptional, and in many respects, I feel this is a true statement. However, when an individual or a group sees themselves as exceptional, they of course differentiate themselves from all others by placing themselves in the superior position and others as 'lesser'. We point to our economic system of capitalism, our liberal democracy in the form of a Republic, and the fact that at this moment we are the pinnacle of global power, a sole super power if you wish.
Where you point to bureaucracy, I tend to see the effects of inevitable design based upon basic human tendencies, one of the most powerful being greed of wealth and power. Our social system is far far different today than at its formation, some of it far better and in my opinion, some of it worse. In both cases, there is a slow alteration of our system, just as there has likely been a slow evolution among previous societal systems, just like Rome for instance. A reoccurring theme is that empires rise to power, get fat, then fall, and while in the midst of its crescendo, the people are consumed with bread and circuses, while the empire begins to rot from within. While external forces are certainly at play, I see them more often used as a tool to guide the gullible circus goer by way of distraction or in our case, fear. Please note the great amount of consumption of time Americans spend engaged in diversions like sports, television, video games, whatever, etc...
I find myself pondering, why is it that the Romans didn't learn from previous empires, or the Spanish empire of the 16th century, or the British empire learn from the Romans, and why do we seem to so readily dismiss the fact that each and every empire before has followed a very similar cycle? In nearly ever example, each empire scoffed that empires before them fell, because they saw themselves as exceptional, and removed from such folly as all those before them. I can only conclude that it isn't ideology or bureaucracy but human nature, both in terms of individuals and groups.
I do not see Obama as having to struggle with bureaucracy or ideology, I see him as just another cog in our current state of political and social evolution, just like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc... A figurehead to focus upon while the machine grinds on, benefiting the few more than the greater, with greater frequency and depth. The inevitability of our conclusion has been written time and time again, so again, I find myself coming back to simple basic human nature and tendency.
My suggestions for breaking or at least stalling this would probably be rejected with great animus and even angst. So I'll leave this rather verbose post by citing the following, which I often come back to due to its simple and yet profound impartiality.
Justice would be a simple matter, says Plato, if men were simple; an anarchist communism would suffice...why is it that these Utopias never arrive upon the map?
He answers, because of greed and luxury. Men are not content with a simple life: they are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive, and jealous; they soon tire of what they have, and pine for what they have not; and they seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another, the rivalry of groups for the resources of the soil, and then war. Trade and finance develop, and bring new class-divisions. "Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller ones–you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states." A mercantile bourgeoisie arises, whose members seek social position through wealth and conspicuous consumption: "they will spend large sums of money on their wives." These changes in the distribution of wealth produce political changes: as the wealth of the merchant over-reaches that of the land-owner, aristocracy gives way to a plutocratic oligarchy–wealthy traders and bankers rule the state. Then statesmanship, which is the coordination of social forces and the adjustment of policy to growth, is replace by politics, which is the strategy of party and the lust for the spoils of office.
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution. When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease. "Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power".
But even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" (Protagoras, 317); to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in a poplar play (a hit, no doubt, at Aristophanes, whose comedies attacked almost every new idea[or on CNN,MSNBC,FOX]). Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power. (Consider the history of Rome.)
The more Plato thinks of it, the more astounded he is at the folly of leaving to mob caprice and gullibility the selection of political officials–not to speak of leaving it to those shady and wealth-serving strategists who pull the oligarchic wires behind the democratic stage. Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters–like shoe-making–we think only a specially-trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that every one who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence–we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best? To devise a method of barring incompetence and knavery from public office, and of selecting and preparing the best to rule for the common good–that is the problem of political philosophy.
Obviously Plato did not have a crystal ball, but he did understand people, so looking around at even this forum today, are not some of these very themes as relevant now as they were then? If so, then what is the possible commonality between then and now?
The relevance of Plato to our times is the simplicity of the message, isn't it? Moderation in all things. Moderation in politics, not exceptionalism. Avoid divisiveness, because cracks become breaks and some breaks cannot be repaired. Be open to the possibilities, rather than choosing a course and then, come hell or high water, sticking to that course rather than rationally evaluating if that course continues to be the best one. Remembering that doing nothing can be a rational choice, because no situation is static, doing nothing is a course of action. Listen, not just to yourself and your supporters, but listen to everyone. The best ideas often come from unexpected sources. Be wary of all political systems, because all coins are two-sided, and everything has a cost. But understand that all political systems have their advantages as well. Perhaps the best advice is simply to stay light on your feet. Isn't that Bacevich's counsel, being pragmatic and flexible.
I agree with your riff on narcissism. Seems to describe our president quite accurately.
Exhibit A of the Dumbing Down of America. To people like this, all of this country's problems are started by "the other guy", even if its long been proven the problem of American Imperialism has no political affiliation, and more importantly, the power that drives this quest for empire doesn't care what politicians think. The M.I.C. operates like a fourth branch of govt. that answers to no one.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
And perhaps abetting this "dumbing down" is the fact that from computer networks and data tracking, to sophisticated "market research", global culture, and arcane financial instruments that nobody understands... the modern world is also becoming a much harder place to understand (let alone manage). In a way, it's not surprising that so many folks are seeking "simplistic" answers now.
The relevance of Plato to our times is the simplicity of the message, isn't it? Moderation in all things. Moderation in politics, not exceptionalism. Avoid divisiveness, because cracks become breaks and some breaks cannot be repaired. Be open to the possibilities, rather than choosing a course and then, come hell or high water, sticking to that course rather than rationally evaluating if that course continues to be the best one. Remembering that doing nothing can be a rational choice, because no situation is static, doing nothing is a course of action. Listen, not just to yourself and your supporters, but listen to everyone. The best ideas often come from unexpected sources. Be wary of all political systems, because all coins are two-sided, and everything has a cost. But understand that all political systems have their advantages as well. Perhaps the best advice is simply to stay light on your feet. Isn't that Bacevich's counsel, being pragmatic and flexible.
Bacevich certainly advocates a healthy pragmatism, and for us to remain fleet of foot so as to be able to better adapt to changing circumstances and geopolitical climates. I think this in part stems from his career as a military officer and having to be adaptable as a matter of survival in a very intimate manner. However, I don't think Bacevich includes as much emphasis on basic human nature when he talks about breaking the cycle of empire.
My current level of cynicism is to view the entirety of politics both here in this country and abroad as, "A nation of sheep, ruled by wolves, owned by pigs", and I truly wish my opinions on the subject were a bit brighter. In this statement, I see many of the human characteristics and tendencies which lead to repeating cycles in history, to which Plato eludes to, and every nation empire dismisses to their folly.
There has always been, is, and will forever be a certain segment of every society that follows, does not wish to engage politically or civilly, and would much rather watch football, dancing with the stars, ice road truckers, gladiators slaying slaves and lions in the Circus Maximus. There has always been, is and seems there always will be a segment of societies that are a tier up from this, guardians of the system in place, whatever system that may be. A class of people, soldier, media (playwright), lobbyist, and even political figures that are intermediates between those who wish to remain distracted and disengaged and those smaller numbers of people, like the Forbes 400 who own half this nations wealth.
As often as cycles of empire repeat, so does this similar stratification of society seem to occur as well, and history is replete with examples of this. As Plato points this out in the example above, I note that while each cycle of ascension and declination have differences and are not identical, (the reasons for differentiation each cycle points to as being different or exceptional) I see enough similarities to point to what is so far perpetuation of the same cycle. Again, while our society is far more complex than those of the past, does human limitations of our mental abilities predispose us to these repeating cycles and why we never seem to learn from history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
And perhaps abetting this "dumbing down" is the fact that from computer networks and data tracking, to sophisticated "market research", global culture, and arcane financial instruments that nobody understands... the modern world is also becoming a much harder place to understand (let alone manage). In a way, it's not surprising that so many folks are seeking "simplistic" answers now.
The world is more and more complex, but what if human beings, while growing in complexity are still subject to certain predispositions? At our level of, dare I say, enlightenment and complexity, should we as a species not be beyond concepts such as war, lust for power, savage butchery of our fellow man, and instead being working as a species to greater goals? While our society may be more complex, we still spend as much time and effort as we did in Medieval times with our various crusades of ideology, religions, or simple need for various resources.
Was it not Oppenheimer who once said our technology has exceeded our humanity? We can devise a million new ways to slaughter each other, but yet we cannot seem to learn how to co-exist as a single species for a greater goal, thus I can only conclude that there are limits to the human mind which our evolution simply hasn't managed to allow us to get past yet.
The world is far more complex but human nature is today what is was a thousand years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
