<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Gerry Gras wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:47BFE092.8020204@earthlink.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I really like this article:
"Love, American Style"
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/22/7220/">http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/22/7220/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
Gerry, <br>
That article makes a pretty valid point, considering the events of this
century, but I find it shallow. However, it leaves out one
consideration that, to me, is perhaps the most important influences on
Americas attitude towards the rest of the world for the past century
and a half or so. This is the idea that America has a Manifest Destiny
and that destiny is to bring Democracy to the rest of the world Just
listen to the rhetoric of the current president Bush and it is purely
that of Manifest Destiny. The cynical left thinks this is a smoke
screen for evil corporatism. It is not, rather evil corporatism has
taken advantage of what, for W is a deeply held, 19th Century world
view uninformed by life in the 21st Century. <br>
<br>
This idea grew out of the mythology of our founding, as a new
experiment in Democracy. Perhaps the best understanding of that came
from a Frenchman, de Tocqueville. His book, On Democracy in America is
still considered the best critical assessment of the beginnings of our
current ethos. <br>
<br>
The term, Manifest Destiny, actually was created by editor (Democratic
Review) John L. O'Sullivan in 1845.
<blockquote type="cite"><em>".... the right of our manifest destiny to
over spread and to possess the whole
of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of
the great experiment of
liberty and federaltive development of self government entrusted to us.
It is right such as that
of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full
expansion of its principle and
destiny of growth."</em></blockquote>
Historian <a href="http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/E/manifest/manif1.htm#int">Michael
T. Lubragge</a> wrote...(bold emphasis is mine.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Few Americans had ever assumed that the
boundaries of the United
States would stand forever unchanged. <b>Manifest Destiny was the
driving force responsible for
changing the face of American history</b>. It was the philosophy that
created a nation.</blockquote>
In many ways, it still is. The jingoistic references to American Power
that come from the likes of Rush Limbaugh are the current day
expression of that idea. So was the war in Iraq. <br>
<br>
As we look at the way things are changing in the 21st Century, there is
a realignment of thinking. If you asked Rush Limbaugh what American
should do about our own nuclear capabilities, you would probably get
some answer like "use them carefully." However there is a change going
in the policy think tanks that says America should move toward the
dismantling of our own nuclear capability. There was a very important
paper on the subject of "Ending the Threat of Nuclear Weapons"
published (Jan. 2007 by the Wall Street Journal) under the auspices of
the <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/6731276.html">Hoover
Institute at Stanford</a>. I quote from its conclusions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> Reassertion of the vision of a world free of
nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would
be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with
America’s moral heritage.</blockquote>
The authors were Geoge Schulz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam
Nunn. Even the much maligned Schulz and Kissinger are closer to what
we advocate than the Madeline Albright Democrats. A fundamental change
is taking place in that many leaders believe America should project not
its military power but rather a moral power that can not be defeated.
Where we do this, in any way, the results are positive. It is not
without reason that the one area of the world were our current
president can at least find a not overtly hostile reception is Africa,
where our use of funds for medical assistance (AIDS and malaria) is
such an expression of America. <br>
<br>
One way to really grasp what might happen in the coming four years is
to listen to Charlie Rose's show from this past Thursday. It is a <a
href="http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/02/21/2/a-conversation-with-samantha-power">Conversation
with Samantha Power</a>: Power is, among many things, the author of a
new book... <i>Chasing the Flame: </i><span class="sans"><span
id="btAsinTitle"><i>Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the
World.</i> Vieira de Mello was the leader of the UN presence in
Baghdad who was killed by a truck bomb and whose death, along with some
20 others on his staff, forced the UN to pull out in the early days of
the occupation of Iraq when Paul Bremer still thought he could do
something useful. The study of Sergio Vieira de Mello is the study of
the development of a 21st Century view of political power and how it
must be used internationally. Vieira de Mello had the knack to always
be at the crisis points of the modern world, from Beirut when the US
Marine barracks was destroyed to Koscovo to East Timor as it was
building a new nation to Baghdad in the days immediately after the US
invasion. He tried to pass on all that had learned to a Bremer who was
not listening. <br>
<br>
I call attention to this because Samantha Power is a senior foreign
policy adviser to Obama and seems to have a good feeling for what an
Obama foreign policy would be like. If she is right, a good number of
think tanks insider the beltway will be very, very busy. <br>
<br>
If you have 30 minutes and a link fast enough for video, do yourself a
favor and watch this. It is mostly about Sergio but the comments about
a possible Obama foreign policy near the end are hopeful. The first
commenter at the Charlie Rose feedback said...
<blockquote type="cite">Thank you so much for the interview! I have
read Samantha Power's
articles, and look forward to reading her book. It is obvious that her
analysis is the product of impressive knowledge and original insight.
Our country's foreign policy is in critical need of scholars of her
caliber and intellectual integrity.</blockquote>
This is an area where the Green Party lacks anyone who has near the
"impressive knowledge and original insight" of a Samantha Power. Until
we gain this capability, we will always be major losers in national
elections, as we have proven again and again. We have, in it's place a
belief in the power of the grassroots to create change, a grassroots
that is under informed or completely un-informed, who gathers their
information about world affairs from television's significant news
stories (average length < 2 min.) or political campaign sound bites
that carry even less meaning. <br>
</span></span>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
Wes Rolley
17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.refpub.com/">http://www.refpub.com/</a> -- Tel: 408.778.3024</pre>
</body>
</html>