If not the USA, then who?
One of the most annoying characteristics about left-wingers is their short-sightedness when it comes to global affairs. If you ask any random socialist what their number one hope is, in terms of international relations, they'll almost always say something about ending US imperialistic/colonialistic dominance in the world. Well, that's cool guys, but if the US isn't dominating, someone will probably step up in their place, right?
I'm taking a class right now, its called the History of International Relations in the twentieth century. In order to understand twentieth century international relations, the professor has to often revert back to history from previous centuries. During one lecture, the professor introduced us to "Worlds Systems Theory" or something like that, and it was essentially a theory which stated that at least one hegemonic power had to dominate the world at any given time in history... He started off with the Spanish... then the Dutch... then the British... and the professor stated that obviously, the United States were now the world's number one hegemonic power. He also spent a lot of time discussing hegemonic decline, including economic factors, military factors, and general issues related to overextension... he concluded by saying that all hegemonies had to end... which obviously got me thinking.
As I see it now, its completely 100% in the interests of the world for the USA to perpetuate their global dominance for the rest of time. If the USA isn't dominating global affairs, who will? Wacko Jihadists from the Middle East? Not likely, but maybe. The increasingly fascist and oppressive Red China? Maybe. The deteriorating societies of Europe, with their low birth rates, their unsustainable economies, and extreme (although often mainstream) right wing political parties? I don't get it. Who's the alternative?
Most left-wingers will agree that "terrorism is bad" and that they hope that innocent US civilians aren't attacked by a nuke or some other form of WMD, and I believe them. They're stupid, but they're (usually) not evil. However, underneath their genuine belief that terrorism is bad, they also hope for certain consequences to come about if the US is attacked, i.e. the US will be so devastated and economically broken that they will retreat into complete isolationism after they realize the sins and the wrongs that brought upon their tragedy.
If the US retreats, that'll knock out the world's number one giver of humanitarian aid and the number one liberator of oppressed societies (Afghanistan now, and Iraq will be listed as one indisputably within a few years). Other nations will begin to flex their muscle. The Korean peninsula would likely fall to the North. God only knows what China will have in store for its region. And on and on and on.
The US has its faults. It has a history of not acting 100% righteously. Most people agree now that during the Cold War, the US made a lot of shortsighted mistakes when it came to stopping the flow of communism, but how could the US possibly be worse than China? Or Mainland Europe? Or Arabs from the Middle East? Can anyone possibly foresee a more peaceful world with some non-US entity dominating global affairs?
Some left-wingers get this. They realize that for all of the US' problems, the US is still better than any possible hegemonic alternative. Most people don't realize that if almost any other nation had the resources and the manpower of the United States, this world would be in total chaos. We'd be at World War Ten by now. Christopher Hitchens is one of the only left-wingers who understands this... why can't there be more?
And maybe, one day, god forbid, left-wingers will get what they've always hoped for... would they still be too stubborn to admit that the US was never really that bad? The USA will begin to look far more "liberal" than most people now think... Liberal in relation to any possible alternative, at least.
I'm taking a class right now, its called the History of International Relations in the twentieth century. In order to understand twentieth century international relations, the professor has to often revert back to history from previous centuries. During one lecture, the professor introduced us to "Worlds Systems Theory" or something like that, and it was essentially a theory which stated that at least one hegemonic power had to dominate the world at any given time in history... He started off with the Spanish... then the Dutch... then the British... and the professor stated that obviously, the United States were now the world's number one hegemonic power. He also spent a lot of time discussing hegemonic decline, including economic factors, military factors, and general issues related to overextension... he concluded by saying that all hegemonies had to end... which obviously got me thinking.
As I see it now, its completely 100% in the interests of the world for the USA to perpetuate their global dominance for the rest of time. If the USA isn't dominating global affairs, who will? Wacko Jihadists from the Middle East? Not likely, but maybe. The increasingly fascist and oppressive Red China? Maybe. The deteriorating societies of Europe, with their low birth rates, their unsustainable economies, and extreme (although often mainstream) right wing political parties? I don't get it. Who's the alternative?
Most left-wingers will agree that "terrorism is bad" and that they hope that innocent US civilians aren't attacked by a nuke or some other form of WMD, and I believe them. They're stupid, but they're (usually) not evil. However, underneath their genuine belief that terrorism is bad, they also hope for certain consequences to come about if the US is attacked, i.e. the US will be so devastated and economically broken that they will retreat into complete isolationism after they realize the sins and the wrongs that brought upon their tragedy.
If the US retreats, that'll knock out the world's number one giver of humanitarian aid and the number one liberator of oppressed societies (Afghanistan now, and Iraq will be listed as one indisputably within a few years). Other nations will begin to flex their muscle. The Korean peninsula would likely fall to the North. God only knows what China will have in store for its region. And on and on and on.
The US has its faults. It has a history of not acting 100% righteously. Most people agree now that during the Cold War, the US made a lot of shortsighted mistakes when it came to stopping the flow of communism, but how could the US possibly be worse than China? Or Mainland Europe? Or Arabs from the Middle East? Can anyone possibly foresee a more peaceful world with some non-US entity dominating global affairs?
Some left-wingers get this. They realize that for all of the US' problems, the US is still better than any possible hegemonic alternative. Most people don't realize that if almost any other nation had the resources and the manpower of the United States, this world would be in total chaos. We'd be at World War Ten by now. Christopher Hitchens is one of the only left-wingers who understands this... why can't there be more?
And maybe, one day, god forbid, left-wingers will get what they've always hoped for... would they still be too stubborn to admit that the US was never really that bad? The USA will begin to look far more "liberal" than most people now think... Liberal in relation to any possible alternative, at least.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
8:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home