I suppose the truly adept politicians and parties are those
which can run against their own records, and win. And while
the Republicans may have dumb programs, policies and candidates,
their political operations seem to be of the greatest
sophistication.

Consider: they got Bush reelected -- an
apparent dumb boy on whose watch the greatest security
failure in the history of the nation occurred, and who
subsequently got the nation mired in a useless war while
running up huge deficits. I think the crueller historians
will look back upon this era, this regime, as profoundly
comical.

G*rd*n:

The U.S. ruling class (or elite or leadership class if
you prefer) believes that its interests are best served by
trying to control the world, which necessitates a series of
imperial wars.

Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com>:

Oh *****. US definitely tries to "police the world"
for the national interest of USA, but that isn't building
an empire. Empires tend to grow in territory, you know.

There are all kinds of empires.

It has been the preference
of the United States, once continental Manifest Destiny was
fulfilled, to exert influence and control whenever possible
through satellites, proxies, client regimes, protectorates
and so forth -- to let the natives police themselves. This
is usually the more rational policy. Still, sometimes the
central power has to intervene directly, as in Iraq 1991-92
or in Thucydides. And then there are cases where considera-
tions of domestic policy seem to overcome a rational approach
to the governance of the world. I believe this is the case
with the present intervention in Iraq.

Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com>:

Re foreign politics: and which country in the world
is not trying to use the power at its disposal to influence
the world matters?! If USA is visible in using such
power, it is only because it has a lot of it, not
because everybody is not using the power they have.

If USA is "imperialist and militarist", Gordon, so
are all the other countries in the world.

But you do not show that, you do not analyze
this supposed worldwide imperialism and militarism
of just about every country in the world, and
what place in this puzzle USA has.

Are India and Pakistan doing test nuclear explosions
"imperialism and militarism", Gordon?

Because if building nuclear aircraft carrier like USA
is "militarism and imperialism", so should Britain
and France count as "militarist and imperialist",
because both of those countries have aircraft carriers,
even if not as capable as American Nimitz class?

The logic of the State leads inevitably to war and imperialism
because, in a very practical sense, the State fundamentally
_is_ war and imperialism.

So it is correct to say that India
and Pakistan, among others, are attempting to practice war
and imperialism, to the extent they can pay for it and get
away with it.

I prefer to focus on the U.S., however, for several good
reasons: It is the big dog among states; it pretends to be
pacific and benevolent when it is not;

I am a resident and
citizen, and therefore am better-informed about it than
about other states; and as a constituent, I may have some
self-interest or even a moral duty to attempt to improve
its behavior.

G*rd*n:

Whichever party is in power has to prosecute
these wars and justify them with the public, and thus becomes
associated with what it is in fact doing, to wit, war and
imperialism.

Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com>:

*****. There are ruthless interests at work, but
they aren't "militarism and imperialism". That is
grand, nonsensical posturing.

Certainly for many people war and imperalism are no more than
a means to an end, but I think in many other cases they are
loved for themselves.

I have seen the enormous crowds lined
up to visit the _Intrepid_ in New York City, which is no more
than a large death machine,

and I've been caught in an enormous
traffic jam in Ft. Lauderdale because the folk were streaming
into the city to watch some figher pilots do silly airplane
stunts in _their_ death machines. Humans love evil and death,
and press forward to worship them. The wiser among them know
that these are potent spirits best taken in careful moderation,
but the wiser seem to be in the minority these days.

G*rd*n:

Now, as long as the wars are small, cheap and
quick the people actually like them -- they're sort of
entertaining, like a football game, and people get to wave
the flag and feel patriotic. However, big, long, expensive
wars are definitely not popular. So the time of the next
screw-up and change of party may be at hand. Then again, as
I said above, the Republicans may be able to pull a switch
and suddenly drop the war and imperialism line, and drive the
fundies back into the woodwork. It would require some fancy
footwork, but it's not impossible. So then the Democrats
would have to wait around for another decade or two.

Bulba! <bulba@bulba.com>:

That's complete rubbish.

In other words, you can't refute what I say. Well, maybe
someone else can come up with an argument.