Can we Create an America that can Lead the World

[DuncanK]

First, I should tell you something about the lens that I look at the world through. Most people find reading other peoples bias as boring. I’ll make it short.

I’m a Communist not a Progressive. That is, I don’t believe its even possible for the US to make significant changes that will benefit the world with the current structure of the government. Well, that should be enough for that. I’m sure I will get flamed plenty just for that.

In another thread the question came up over how to “fix” America so that America could eliminate all the dictators in the world and replace them with democracies. If we could do so some theorized that that would led to a better world.

Obviously, to come up with such a theory would mean that you believe that American doesn’t need fixing. After all, if America were to lead this revolution (from the top) and play a significant part in reshaping the world scene, the world probably would look like one big America after we were done. Now the question comes up as to how democratic America is. Those who were less than satisfied with this idea see America as not democratic enough.

Probably some of you think that America is close to perfect and we should spread our principles all over the world as we are. Also, some of you will suggest ways to make America the kind of nation that can really lead the world into utopia.

To lead people or nations they have to believe that you really have their interest at heart, or at least that you hold the interest of the group above your own self-interest. Americas history proves itself incapable of having that kind of reputation. We are a self-interested people who believe that we should have no responsibility for other nations or other people. America has historically conquered and exploited other smaller nations because of its “survival of the fittest” mentality. The thing that made America great is the thing that prevents us from leading the world. We pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, and then we stomped some heads with out regard to the people we stomped on. We told ourselves that we were superior to those people, and we justified our actions by that fact.

Do you all really believe that we are so far removed from out horrible history? Just look at America today. I don’t mean where you work or live. Go to the slums (don’t actually do this, you might get shot or robbed ). People are suffering in America. Our social system is actually killing people. People die from poverty in this country. We tell ourselves that nothing can be done, and that they are in that position by no ones fault but their own. It’s the survival of the fittest mentality. It’s our Protestant upbringing.

We have certain faults which prevent us from taking leadership in the world. The rest of the world sees us the way we are and they don’t have romantic ideas about it like we do. We need to change our mentality. First, we need to share the wealth. Second, we need to start educating ourselves (especially our children) on being more socially conscious of all the people of the world. After a few generations have passed we may be able to lead the world in the worlds interest, not just in the interest of America’s elite.

[Sava]

The problem with creating a good America is that the people don't control the government. Corporations do. Corporations control the mass media, which reports the news and tells us what to believe. Our value systems are greatly influenced by this, so much so, that public opinion can almost be dictated entirely by propaganda.

I was at a family gathering last night where my grandfather was talking about his days as a youth. He escaped a massacre at his home town in Kragujevic. He was one of 5 survivors of a massacre of 5,000. He has been more open talking about his experiences in the last few years than he has been since I was growing up. He told my family flat out that the US's propaganda, not only about Iraq, but everything, is worse than Hitler's was in 1941. He's correct.

And you are correct Duncan, America acts in the best interests of America's elite... not its people, and certainly not the people of the world.

This struggle between freedom and authoritarian conservatism, in essence, is the struggle between privatization and socialism. The only way a truly free and democratic America could exist, is by publicizing industry. Industry and commerce controls America. And a handful of people control industry and commerce. It is possible to have a system where independent enterpreneurs can own their own businesses and flourish in a Socialist economy. Most capitalists will scare you into believing that you can only have two outcomes... authoritarian Stalinism, or American capitalism. There is a gray area that can take care of the people and allow for success minded business to succeed. Today, America is too far towards the right... too far towards privatization. And it's getting worse. Bush is trying to privatize everything from education, to health care, to social security and government savings.

At this point, I think that only a revolution can effectively do away with this economic slavery. And Americans are too apathetic, too distracted with popular culture and mass media to give a damn about creating a better country for future generations.

[Velociryx]

Glad you started this thread, Duncan! And here's my thinking on it:

Part One - Background
First and most importantly, I would say that history is filled to the point of overflowing of imperfect nations leading the way to a better world.

Point to me a singular instance of a perfect, utopian European government leading the way from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance, for example. There ARE none, and yet, progress was made nonetheless.

Utopian ideals are....just that. Utopian. A fine mark to shoot for and a beautiful dream, but in the dreaming, it is always imperative to remember that we will, as humans invariably do, fall well short of our own hopes and aspirations for the future.

It is easy to *dream* the perfect future. It is impossible to engineer it.

Second, I would contend that we need not fix every last social and political problem in this country before we can look abroad. Clearly, we have been looking abroad for the greater bulk of our nation's history, and there has never been a time in American history when she had absolutely no problems at home. Thus, to say it cannot be done, flies in the face of history itself.

It is done every day.

It is ongoing even as I write this.

Would it be better if we were fully committed to fixing what ails us at home *while* striving to make the wider world safer? Absolutely yes! And we have the resources to do that very thing. What is lacking, at present, is the political will to do so.

Some have argued that in order for any real change to occur, it would require a radical change in the struture of our government.

I contend that this view is well-meant, but false, because while nations rely on their leaders to steer the ship, the nation itself is driven by individuals. Even though, it is certainly the case that "choice" in American politics in particular doesn't really amount to all that much choice, it is sufficient for our purposes, and more than enough to get us started down the path I mentioned in the "remaking" thread.

If we were to, at a grass-roots level, for example, groom a candidate for president who was fully committed to both fixing our internal problems AND leading the charge to restructure the UN (which still needs its own thread to outline the changes necessary), then we would have all the material we need to get moving in that direction.

Part Two - Setting Realistic Goals
Again, the goal should not be stated in terms of arriving at some Utopian Ideal, for we will surely fail in that effort.

Rather, the goal should be outlined in specific measured steps that will get us moving along the road toward a freer, more open, more democratic world society.

It is important to note another point of departure here, from your initial post. I am in no way advocating a "US reshapes the world" ideology. Frankly, I have no faith in such an effort, and believe it would result in a growing level of mistrust, culminating in outright hatred and violence toward this country.

Instead, I would put forth a more a more "distance-oriented" approach, which would see the USA lead the charge to bolster and change the structure of a transnational organization (UN, first choice, NATO, second choice) and see that body (with elected officials representing member states) as the mechanism by which global change is directed. In this way, it is less nationalistic, and more morally driven (see the "post cold war landscape" thread for more thoughts along these lines).

Now....on the surface of it, this may seem pure folly. No nation, it seems, would put the aims and goals of a transnational organization before its own self interests, and while I can certainly see where this line of reasoning stems from, I would contend that it is quite incorrect (again, reference the "post cold war landscape" thread for why).

So....the question becomes: what specific things need to happen in order to set the ball rolling?

* An elected leader who is committed to the ideals that the Cold War was fought (and won) to maintain

* A willingness to spend our "Diplomatic Capital" to push changes through the UN in order to make it an organization viable and strong enough to carry out its (modified) charter, AND who is committed to fully supporting that re-vamped organization

* The ability to convince US corporations (working hand-in-hand with government agencies) to focus some portion of their energies on our problems at home

Given these three things, embodied in our national leader, and we have enough to make a start.

Part Three - Making it happen
The answer to making the necessary changes happen is the same both at home, and in the world arena, and is simply this: IF you perceive that someone is acting purely for their own self interests, and you want them to do something that appears to ask them to set aside their own self interests, then you must first illustrate how, precisely, it will be beneficial for him to do so. If it can be demonstrated that it is to his benefit to do a given thing, then he will surely climb on board, and fortunately, this is very easy to do.

In the case of the international community, one need only look at the advantages pointed out in the other thread to realize the benefits (to everyone) of a freer, more democratic world. Add to that the fact that the process of GETTING there is not to be driven by the national interests of any particular nation-state, and nearly all democratic nations will see the attraction. And, given that the alternative proposed is better than the alternative from their viewpoint (ie - better a transnational, cooperative effort than a US driven one), acceptance for the plan on an international level should not be particularly difficult to gain.

At home, the answer lies along the same vein.

If, for example, the problem is one of dealing with "starvation in the land of plenty" then much can be done there with the greatest of ease, simply by providing companies with incentives and tax credits for making donations to existing social outreach structures (soup kitchens and the like....the amount of food this nation simply throws away on a daily basis would be sufficient to end hunger in the USA if it were simply re-directed, and it should be noted that it IS thrown away thanks to byzantine US laws on the matter).

So....simply by aligning policy with stated goals, many of the problems we see would simply evaporate, or improve to a considerable degree.

As with before, I am quite certain that the moment I submit this, my ideas will be attacked, and as I mentioned in the other thread, I'm ready for that, and will take comfort in the knowledge that the folks who do the most vicious attacking won't have the balls to put their own ideas here for review, so....that's cool....

More later though, too much typing is bad for the soul...

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

the ideals that fought and won the Cold War

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you... but you want us to start an arms race and try to bankrupt everyone else by using the fear of nuclear annihilation as a catalyst for their economic focus on arms production?

[Velociryx]

Ummm...no. That was hardly an ideal, but rather, a methodology used to prosecute the war.

The cold war was fought over ideological differences.....communistic vs. democratic ideals. If we believe in what we fought in, then we have the moral obligation to see those ideals flourish in the post cold-war environment we find ourselves in.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Don't you think the truly Democratic thing to do would be to allow the people to decide what ideology fits them best and then embrace the diversity rather than to destroy it and force them to conform to an imperialist system than serves the elite?

[Velociryx]

Tell me, Sava....how much say do the people in....say, Iraq have, at present, in terms of choosing their leadership?

I propose that we simply allow democratic ideals to take root.

Using Iraq as a case in point, they clearly cannot.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Ah, but you're talking about spreading "American" democracy. Where "American" corporations leave the US and take root in newly "liberated" countries exploiting the cheap labor. And don't give me this Cold War BS. The US assassinated Iran's democratically chosen leader and replace it with the Shah in the 50's.... the South Vietnamese democratically elected leader in the 60's... as well as Argentina's leader and put in place Pinochet.... and then Panama's leader which lead to 40,000 civilian deaths.

The Cold War was not about spreading democracy and liberating the world. It was about keeping America #1.

And like everyone else, you are making the mistake of thinking that people against war are for keeping Saddam as a leader in Iraq

I agree 100% that we should liberate people and allow the democratic process. But that's not what the US does. They remove leaders they don't like, democratically elected or not; and they leave in power those dictators that they like, and install their own whenever possible. BTW, Karzai wasn't elected to lead Afghanistan. But the US doesn't give a flying f8ck about the Iraqi people or else they would have finished the job during the first Gulf War. And that's why I'm against a war in Iraq. Number one, because of the 100 billion dollar price tag and the risk of the use of WMD's against American soldiers, Israel; as well as Israel's nuclear response to a chemical/biological attack. And number two, because the Bush administration doesn't give a sh1t about a post-Saddam Iraq except for who gets the oil contracts.

[Velociryx]

No....read my post. I am talking about anything BUT "American" democracy. My writing here, taken hand in hand with my writing in the "post cold war landscape" thread makes it clear that I am NOT talking about Americanizing the world.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

Well, I apologize for my misenterpretation. I got the feeling you were talking about Americanizing the world. Remember, I'm slow, dumb, and ignorant; so you have to spell things out clearly for me

[Az]

erm, communistic and democratic ideals were left behind in the 50s. Then, both sides started having all sorts of nations that weren't at all alligned ideology-wise on their sides, just to show the middle finger to the other side.

Some would say it began even earlier.


What would I do if I would become leader of the US?

First of all, it should be made clear that I don't see any sort of socialist coming to power in the US without some major economic crisis.

But that would occur, the US is actually a more fertile ground of realisation of such policies, due to it's relative de-centralization.

[Velociryx]

No problem And nope....just preaching a different way....

-=Vel=-

[Sandman]

Why don't you create an America that is willing to be led by the world?

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Sava
At this point, I think that only a revolution can effectively do away with this economic slavery.

Too bad none of you commies have enough guns and weapons to defeat us crazy libertarians. Bwa ha ha haaa.

[Az]

what do you mean by "the world"?