The Case for the Empire

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually they believe that democracy promotion IS in Americas interests.

Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. Neo-conservatives do not care about 'interests'. That is realist talk. Neo-cons are liberals in the IR scheme.

I see no evidence that they dont care about interests, rather than identifying US interests with the spread of democracy. And who made "The IR scheme" Some poli sci professor? I understand that lots of poli sci and IR professors think that "realism" means treating states as units, and ignoring their internal politics. Suffice it to say that the neo-cons disagree.

[Pax]

Status qou, is that america is on top. Keeping countries who would challenge or threaten this in a state of disorder unable to organize in a certain arena that could cause problems for american dominance.

I agree that that's not what's stated on their website. It's what is accomplished by their actions.

Saying on your website that you support democracy is quite different from actually supporting it. I do not take the Neo-cons at their word. Both sides of every argument will state that their cause is just and right. Go past the words and look at the acts.

[Pax]

[url]http://www.independent-media.tv/
Look up Project for a new american century

I think that insults directed at a posters character or intelligence are cheap, unnecessary and do not add anything to the discussion so please refrain from using them towards me.

Here are various articles on the PNAC. Gather your own opinion.
We're getting far away from the more trivial topic of Star Wars and Empire.

[Myrddin]

Surely that's

.... long ago and far, far away

[Imran Siddiqui]

I see no evidence that they dont care about interests, rather than identifying US interests with the spread of democracy. And who made "The IR scheme" Some poli sci professor? I understand that lots of poli sci and IR professors think that "realism" means treating states as units, and ignoring their internal politics. Suffice it to say that the neo-cons disagree.

Neo-conservatism is a foriegn policy theory which makes it fall under the rubric of International Relations theories. Neo-conservatism is drastically opposed to realism which is based on interest based politicals. Realpolitik is a subset of realism. Balance of Power also falls in that field.

The other main IR philosophy is liberalism which believes that internal politics matter and we should move away from interest based IR and do things which are best not just for the US but for all parties invovled (ie, don't settle a dispute based on what would be best for us, but for what would be best for the states). Liberals tend to like international organizations in order to promote what is best for everyone. One of their main points is to spread democracy.

Neoconservatism also wants to spread democracy but believes the international organizations don't do the job that well and thinks that we should topple dictators who brutalize their people. They have been refered to as liberals who want to use force. To the neoconservative it isn't about American values but democracy and free trade is best for the individuals in that state. A true neoconservative would oppose a policy where the US supported a dictator who simply backed the US (like Saddam or Pinochet).

If Neo-cons advocate acting on interest, it is, as William Kristol says, "ideological interest" (ie, spreading democracy and freedom) rather than "geographical interest" (what is traditionally considered interest based IR).

Saying on your website that you support democracy is quite different from actually supporting it. I do not take the Neo-cons at their word. Both sides of every argument will state that their cause is just and right. Go past the words and look at the acts.

So then I should say Stalin is what true communism is? After all, I'm going past the words of democracy in Communism and looking at their acts .

There hasn't been a neoconservative President, thus their 'acts' aren't observable.

Though perhaps you do have a negative view on Communism. But the founders of neo-conservatism were all former TROTSKYISTS. That's right. They were communists before they became neo-conservatives. So if you paint them with a brush, you don't just leave the paint upon them.

[DinoDoc]

Interesting factoid. I hadn't heard that before. I wonder what che would say.

[Ned]

Star wars is a metaphor based on Roman history. The transition from "Republic" to absolute dictatorship where not even the forms of the Republic are preserved occurs much more rapidly in Star Wars than it did in the Roman Empire. However, most historians have said that the transitions to the Imperator form of government was a necessary step for Rome. The major defect in the Roman Imperatorship was not the fact of the Emperor, but the Emperor's independence from the Senate and from elections.

We never saw even one Imperial transition in the Star Wars empire. Not one. But I think the transition there would have been along the lines of adoption or "designation" that served Rome so well for so long. All the "good" emperors were "designated." The Roman Imperial system eventually failed when it became an inherited throne where blood and incompetence substituted for merit. But I think there was very little hint that the transition in the Star Wars Empire would be based on anything but merit.

So, it is true that the step to Imperial form of government with a strong chief executive was clearly "good" for the Star Wars Empire just as it was good for the Roman Empire.

[Kuciwalker]

nm