I assume you're joking with all of the sci-fi stuff. Either that, or you have a bizarre notion of the world, or maybe watch too much Glenn Beck, if you think that ideas Holdren discussed 30-40 years ago and Susstein's ideas about public policy are "redolent of Logan's Run."
Neo empire, you’ve really assimilated the jargon,
I haven't noticed what terminology the "Paul clan" uses. I do use "neo-empire" from time to time, though in the above comment I put the "neo-" in parentheses partly because I don't think it's critical. The contradiction between freedom/democracy and the requirements of empire may destroy either or both projects before either has been completed. In any event, it's a perfectly serviceable term for the system that the U.S. self-consciously set out to establish and defend, and for the "thing" that U.S. as "world leader" or "leader of the Free World" actually "leads," widely acknowledged as successor, with differences to the British Empire. The formulation also recognizes that political, economic, and ideological hegemony need not be exercised through the forms and customs of prior empires, but can and must instead be structured according to uniquely American and modern notions.
The Soviet Union didn't believe that it had an "empire" either. On the other hand, the Founders already thought of themselves as constructing one: The "homeland" is already an inland empire, long before you consider our 700 military bases worldwide, the role of our military, the international economic institutions, etc., all designed to propagate and defend our preferences and privileges. Whatever you call the "new world order," the problems of effectively managing a vast, in our age global system are similar.
More likely a drab grey existence like out of Soylent Green, or THX–1138.
Every alternative other than the dreams of the far right of the conservative movement does not equate with THX-1138 or Soylent Green.
It could be that the part of the American idea that has been lost never could have survived a fundamental contradiction between freedom and (neo-)empire, and was never entirely real either. Furthermore, the notion that, after all this time on the world scene and after two or three generations of world leadership, we're still a "last refuge" would imply that we've done a very poor job of things indeed. If that's the case, then what exactly is or was so "great" about us - at least for anyone other than us?
@ miguel cervantes:
Who said anything about dystopia? I don't think the choice is ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK vs. EXACTLY WHAT TOM FRIEDMAN SEZ. I don't think it's AMERICAN GREATNESS vs HELL ON EARTH either.
now doing things like a poorly designed stimulus, and health care plan, is not the best there is, and Friedman and Benen’s attempt to represent such an outcome is pitiful.
Have no idea where you got that. Each believes that something much, much better should have been done and in his own way believes that it is still doable. I don't even disagree with that .
Mortal Splendor would be just one of probably hundreds of books on American decline just since the '70s. There was another big run on declinist books last year. That's what I meant when I said the idea was familiar. It's part of having a major publishing industry in a majorly declining country. ;)
The cyclical view, incidentally, is essentially a declinist one, since the more rapid cultural cycles would occur within longer, inexorable cycles that all end in the same place.
miguel cervantes wrote:
Well, then, how can you expect to have an informed and relevant political discussion?
miguel cervantes wrote:
No, frankly the Democrats are Boskone, but Holdren is from Eddore. Obama is a cross between Tamur and The Mule.
OK, frankly Obama is Flash Gordon and Rupert Murdoch is Ming the Merciless.
miguel cervantes
I assume you're joking with all of the sci-fi stuff. Either that, or you have a bizarre notion of the world, or maybe watch too much Glenn Beck, if you think that ideas Holdren discussed 30-40 years ago and Susstein's ideas about public policy are "redolent of Logan's Run."
I haven't noticed what terminology the "Paul clan" uses. I do use "neo-empire" from time to time, though in the above comment I put the "neo-" in parentheses partly because I don't think it's critical. The contradiction between freedom/democracy and the requirements of empire may destroy either or both projects before either has been completed. In any event, it's a perfectly serviceable term for the system that the U.S. self-consciously set out to establish and defend, and for the "thing" that U.S. as "world leader" or "leader of the Free World" actually "leads," widely acknowledged as successor, with differences to the British Empire. The formulation also recognizes that political, economic, and ideological hegemony need not be exercised through the forms and customs of prior empires, but can and must instead be structured according to uniquely American and modern notions.
The Soviet Union didn't believe that it had an "empire" either. On the other hand, the Founders already thought of themselves as constructing one: The "homeland" is already an inland empire, long before you consider our 700 military bases worldwide, the role of our military, the international economic institutions, etc., all designed to propagate and defend our preferences and privileges. Whatever you call the "new world order," the problems of effectively managing a vast, in our age global system are similar.
miguel cervantes wrote:
Every alternative other than the dreams of the far right of the conservative movement does not equate with THX-1138 or Soylent Green.
It could be that the part of the American idea that has been lost never could have survived a fundamental contradiction between freedom and (neo-)empire, and was never entirely real either. Furthermore, the notion that, after all this time on the world scene and after two or three generations of world leadership, we're still a "last refuge" would imply that we've done a very poor job of things indeed. If that's the case, then what exactly is or was so "great" about us - at least for anyone other than us?
@ miguel cervantes:
Who said anything about dystopia? I don't think the choice is ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK vs. EXACTLY WHAT TOM FRIEDMAN SEZ. I don't think it's AMERICAN GREATNESS vs HELL ON EARTH either.
miguel cervantes wrote:
Have no idea where you got that. Each believes that something much, much better should have been done and in his own way believes that it is still doable. I don't even disagree with that .
Mortal Splendor would be just one of probably hundreds of books on American decline just since the '70s. There was another big run on declinist books last year. That's what I meant when I said the idea was familiar. It's part of having a major publishing industry in a majorly declining country. ;)
The cyclical view, incidentally, is essentially a declinist one, since the more rapid cultural cycles would occur within longer, inexorable cycles that all end in the same place.