Ensuring A New American Century

Remove all ads!

Now, now Tal.

The US economy is dependant on a large military -- it is the largest employer in the US and largest purchaser. A huge persentage of the US population is dependent on military spending; that's exactly why it's nearly impossible to cut. Every congressman and senator has literally thousands of voters who would quickly cast an opposing vote if they lost their job due to a shift by congress.

It is the buildup to war that keeps us in the black -- actually going to war breaks the bank (look at the deficit over the past 12 years).

On the other hand the US imports nearly 70% of what we need to continue our industrial base -- 99% of that comes from the sea. It is critical we have a strong navy to keep the sea lanes open (or at least have strong allies to help).

 

Yes T2 but you can't give a kid a massive, shiny toy that is way cooler than all the other kids' toys and not expect him to show it off once in a while.

 

A few years back I read an article on the amount that a nation spends on a per capita basis. I believe the two nations at the top of the list were Qatar and the UAE. Neither of them come close to the US in terms of total dollars spent on the military, but since their populations are so much smaller than the US, they don't have to spend nearly as much to be at the top of the list.

I'm one of those people. In fact, just considering the impact that talk of the sequester and the talk of the debt ceiling has caused, I don't think you're overstating the importance of military to the economy.

 

Yep. If you asked someone around here who were the liberals in the US they'd probably nominate the Tea Party .

Following the link above North American defence spending only really outpaced Europe once the Afghanistan and Iraq wars started. An EU army probably wouldn't be too far off the power of the US if the money wasn't massively wasted maintaining all these separate armies.

It's worth pointing out that many countries consistently outrank the US in studies of quality of living. And many more would outrank the US on at least certain factors. Trying to export American values wholesale would lead to these countries becoming worse off.

As I said before I do like that the US is the dominant power. While they do enjoy the perks of their position I could name heaps of countries who'd behave much worse in such a position. It's difficult to imagine how our lives would be if, say, shipping routes were to be blocked off. But I don't believe it's feasible for the US to maintain its position in the long term.

 

This is going back to the 1st post that started this thread.

While I disagree on much of what he said I do think AD has some worthwhile ideas.

Public funding would be a major reform for US politics and one that I would suspect would benefit the integrity of government at multiple levels.

While I disagree with the characterization of global warming as "false flag" because I would argue that most of the scientists studying it these days take it seriously and honestly as a problem, I can agree that a nuclear is part of a solution-I would like to include other alternative energy efforts as well but I'm under the impression the French do nuclear power quite well and with little waste.

Maintaining at least some power would help the rest of the world restrain China. I don't know if the US can maintain sole superpower status or not because the rest of the world can try to catch up but at least some relatively high level of power would provide other nations, many of which are next door to a rising China, with some reassurance. And it would likely be a good thing for many if they thought there is an alternative model to China's current one.

And let me thank everyone else who said that while the US has taken advantage of the perks it hasn't been the worst with such great power.

In terms of who could complain about treatment by the USA I would also say Haiti has more to complain about both history and living conditions wise than Canada.

I don't expect other nations to sign on to gun ownership as a requirement for alliance and wouldn't require it. I think there are some statistics that show greater gun control, in the long run, can help reduce (not eliminate but reduce) crime.

Apologies if I missed it but I see the idea of colonizing other planets as a step forward for humanity. The sun is still on schedule to cook the Earth and, besides the potential resource benefits of colonizing the rest of the solar system, it could be a handy thing for humanity to have developed a space transit system by the time the closest planets (including Earth) would be in need of evacuation.

I think the Socialist International or whatever is largely old news so I don't see the need for a rightwing mirror.

Now there are some things AD said that I take issue with (I pointed some out and am holding back on others plus I think we often vote differently) but there are some worthwhile points here. And I wanted to add some emphasis to them lest some (not all but some) be missed.

 

I'm sorry that I haven't really been replying to this too much lately, in this thread or on the boards in general. I seem to have found myself in an odd situation, I'm not even really advocating for many of the policies I proposed in my original post. I was thinking more in the abstract and thinking in terms of political philosophy, as opposed to practical application. I also merely threw a few ideas out there, ideas that I hadn't actually given much thought too, because I didn't think of them as policies that would be practically applied.

For instance, in an ideal society, every citizen would serve the state (i.e. compulsory military service). I believe this would be important for a number of reasons, as I believe it would instill important values and teach skills to the populace. Of course, it would also prepare them for normal civilian/militia life and more importantly, I firmly believe that only those who are willing to sacrifice their lives for society, should be making decisions for society.

Compulsory military service in the United States wouldn't work for a number of reasons. Such a large military would be rather expensive, not to mention politically unpopular. Alternatives could be a system where (in before obligatory Heinlein reference) only those who serve in the military can vote or run for public office. And yet another alternative would be what the Founding Fathers intended, which is for every citizen to have the right and responsibility to keep and bear arms; the people are a militia and thus every citizen is perpetually standing up for a free state and a free people.

Unfortunately a few problems arise with these two alternatives. With the first alternative (you can only vote if you serve), there is the possibility that the non-citizens might try to subvert the government and "dumb-down" the population through the media and/or education system. Though this could perhaps be countered by only allowing veterans to take on the roles of educators and journalists. A major problem with the second option (the Second Amendment) is that some people may refuse to exercise their responsibility of bearing arms. Those who "individuals" who refuse to perform their civic responsibilities may even go so far as to openly attack those who do [perform their civic responsibilities] through the media and/or public education system; similar to what some liberals are trying to do today.

As for public higher education, I think that is very much an idea we need to consider. There are a number of ways to go about doing this and I haven't done much research on the topic of higher education reform and so I haven't come to a conclusion as to what might be the best way of doing this so far, however. One of the more interesting proposals I have been considering is to have a set of standards and offering "free" (at point of use) government scholarships to students who meet these standards. However, one could argue that such a system would hurt low-income or "inner city" children, so perhaps "free" (at point of use) community colleges would be a better option.

As for nationalized healthcare and/or health insurance, that's a bit out there. I have been going back and forth on this. I know that any form of "National Health Service" in the United States (such as in the UK) would be a dismal failure (in terms of quality of care). Yet if such a system could somehow work in the United States, it might not be such a bad idea, but the fact remains that it would fail miserably. I think that relatively low access to preventative healthcare is a serious problem in this country, but I'm not entirely sure what we can do about it yet. I don't think we should make hasty decisions, such as nationalizing hospitals or insurance companies, without first fully weighing the risks.

As for the "internationalism" non-sense... I admit I got rather carried away here. I do support creating a 'Conservative International' to serve as a global alliance of right-wing parties. I think these right-wing parties should work together and share ideas with each other.

I also believe we support replacing the United Nations with a real world government that is democratic and actually respects civil liberties and human rights. We would only allow countries to join this new world government if they completely supported the global bill of rights (which would be modeled after the American Bill of Rights). In addition, any country found to have violated this global bill of rights would be suspended from the new world government.

Truth be told, I had somewhat lost my sense of direction when it comes to politics lately, but I believe I have more or less regained it now; or at least, am in the process of regaining it.

 

Good ideas can (and do) come from anywhere, why limit ideas to only those who share parallel political leanings?

 

There are already international organizations for left-wing parties to promote socialism, social liberalism and other leftist ideologies. These aren't governmental institutions, they are private organizations that member parties agree to join.

 

Wait a minute. Are you saying that this “Conservative International” would be formed by the actual governments of individual nations? The only way that would work is if the members come from non-democratic counties. Otherwise, what happens when governments change, and a more left-leaning party takes power? I’ll tell you what happens – that country withdraws from Conservative International. And that potentially includes the US when Democrats are in power (although that is less likely since it's American ideals that are being pushed). So you would have an organization with an unstable membership base, and that instability will ultimately result in the organization falling apart.

On a related aside, in post #11 you mentioned Canada as a possible candidate for this organization. While the current government might be tempted to join, I absolutely guarantee you that the Canadian public wouldn’t stand for it – we don’t want anything to do with the ideals that the US right wing is trying to sell (well, the more extreme ones at least, and in particular your gun fetish), and there is no way the Conservatives would want to have to deal with the backlash if they proposed becoming a member of CI.

 

There already is a conservative international called international democratic union or something like that and it's every bit as useless as the socialist or liberal internationals.

I think the crux of the problem is that rest of the world is not awfully interested in maintaining the American hegemony since it's not in our national interests to do so. Europe lacks any credible military threats these days so it's not really necessary for us to rely on american protection. NATO has become a more or less useless relic since the American military policy has shifted to the middle east and pacific and Europeans have managed to co exist more or less peacefully.

I think your thoughts are very much in line with neoconservatism, which has never been popular outside the United States and therefore it's not surprising that the response is quite negative. For those living in democratic countries outside the USA the concept of American exceptionalism is understandably a bit difficult to accept.

Oh and the mandatory correction. Finland is not a Scandinavian country.

 

Powers shift and powers change. Once, 'The Sun Never Set On The British Empire' but nowadays we're just a nation that does moderately well at sport.

USA is fast becoming small fry. Don't worry lads, it's comfy down here. We have cake.

 

Yeah, that’s the main problem of AD's notion of a "Conservative International", and is what I was getting at with my somewhat (!) over-the-top remarks in the second half of post #55. I highly doubt other nations are interested in promoting American ideals, let alone the ideals of American conservatives. My comments in post #70 were more describing the problems such an organization would have even if it could get off the ground in the first place.

LOL. Have you been playin Portal?

 

I'm an unabashed patriot and yet I find it hard to find reasons why we deserve a so-called "New American Century," let alone how we would conceivably ensure one. If anything, neoconservatives – the architects of the very concept – have screwed things up so badly that it seems all but guaranteed that we won't have one. A fact so rich in irony it almost certainly is lost on the neoconservatives themselves – Dick Cheney being the most obvious example.

 

The 'neoconservatives' were not the original group to promote the idea that America should lead the world....

 

Certainly, and I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But they were the ones behind "The Project for a New American Century," or PNAC, the group whose views and manifesto almost certainly inspired the OP's opening salvo, and who dominated much of our foreign policy decision-making during the previous administration. You can't really have a serious discussion about a potential "New American Century" without discussing that group and the course they'd put us on. Kind of like discussing the demise of the record industry and leaving out Napster. Even though they didn't quite achieve their goals, the next several administrations will still be dealing with the consequences of the attempt.

 

The Conservative International would be a non-governmental organization consisting of various centre-right and right-wing political parties around the world, not the actual governments themselves. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear.

You do realize that Canada has a pretty strong gun culture, right? There are several gun shows every year in Canada. In addition Canadian gun laws are much less strict than those being proposed by the leftists in the United States. Your current Conservative government came to power on a platform of weakening Canada's draconian gun laws and after coming to power, they repealed laws requiring the forced registration of long guns and laws that placed heavy restrictions on gun shows. Canada is also one of only a handful of countries that has concealed carry (the others being the United States, Czech Republic and Israel). Also, head on over to Free Dominion, where you will find not one, but two forums dedicated to guns; one is for discussing gun rights and the other is for non-political discussions regarding firearms. In contrast with your original assessment, it seems that your fellow Canadians don't hate freedom as much as you seem to think they do.

 

http://www.idu.org/

You might want to check it out. It's more or less the conservative equivalent to the socialist international but as I said earlier, it is also every bit as useless.

Europe already has the ECC and while it's certainly a bit flawed it's a lot more comprehensive and modernized than the sadly outdated American bill of rights. The ECC also is signed by a lot more countries even outside the European Union so it's not directly bound to the union either. Each member country is also free to ratify only parts of the convention if they so wish. Breaches of the convention can be taken to the European Court of Human Rights which unfortunately is completely bogged down with cases at the moment and therefore quite inefficient. The ECC has taken heavy influences from the American bill of rights though so they are not completely incompatible.

EDIT: Well, except for the gun rights of course, which are not included int the ECC.

 

Are you sure about that? I thought Canada was rather prohibitive that way, requiring gun locks, disassembly, etc. on the few private citizen-owned firearms they consider legal, let alone allowing citizens to carry them around. I don't have any hard data at hand however. Seems more likely that if they did have it, it would be curbed and regulated very severely, as in possible allowances made for private bank guards and/or armored vehicle transport guards while on duty.

I'm moderately familiar with Canadian culture and laws, having several Canadian relatives and living near Canada, and I know of absolutely no Canadian private citizens who are allowed to carry firearms.

 

Actually, I just re-read your original post, and this is what you said:

So contrary to what you just said, you are (or were, at least) saying that it would be the governments that are the members. Not only that, but you were saying that those nations that join CI would leave the UN. Ain’t gonna happen – the UN, as imperfect as it is, still brings together the most number of nations, and I highly doubt anyone would leave it just to join CI. Now if they could join CI in addition to belonging to the UN, that would be a different matter. Of course, if you are now changing your overall position on who the members actually are, then that’s fine.

As far as your comments on Canada go, you really need to stop believing what the American gun lobby tells you. Yes, we had a gun registry that was repealed because it was pointless – it was for long guns and shotguns, neither of which are widely used in crimes because they're not easily concealed. Yes, we have a gun culture of sorts, but that is more in rural areas rather than urban areas, and “pretty strong” is really quite subjective – it is probably more prevalent than in, say, France, but it is nowhere near what it is in the US. And I live in Canada, so I should know. I've never heard of Free Dominion, so that should give you some indication on how much public influence they have (although that's not to say they don't have behind-the-scenes political clout). Hell, just compare sporting goods stores in the US vs. Canada – in the US, based on the stores I’ve visited, I wouldn’t be surprised if 25% or more of the floor space was dedicated to weaponry; in Canada, it’s usually a small counter in a back corner. Our concealed carry laws are a lot more restrictive than in the US. Whenever guns become a hot topic in the US (such as after Newtown), we can never understand why the reluctance to put some reasonable limits on what people can buy. Perhaps most importantly, gun lobbyists in Canada don’t have a clause in the Constitution they can use as a crutch – our Constitution doesn’t have the equivalent of a Second Amendment; gun debates in Canada tend to focus more on what is reasonable, rather than considering sacred a law written over 200 years ago when times and weaponry were much different from what they are today. So yes, we don't hate guns completely, but we don't love them like you do, and promoting gun rights is not something that would draw Canada in Conservative International.

With regards to your last sentence where you equate gun restrictions with hating freedom, let’s just say that you and I have vastly different opinions on that.