The end of the end
Is it possible that the U.S. government is more of a hindrance than it is a help in most aspects of modern life? It is because of the policies of the government that we are in danger of terrorist attack. It is the official policy of the government to thwart every effort to combat global warming and environmental destruction. The irresponsible fiscal policies of the government are costing not only the poor, but future citizens dearly.
If anything is to be done about global warming, it will be DESPITE rather than BECAUSE of the federal government. They are not responsive to the will of the American people, they are obstructionist and obfuscatory. Are they perhaps, now, also irrelevant?
The nations of the world, following the G8 meeting at Gleneagles, Scotland, are working around and basically ignoring the U.S. government when it comes to the environment. I think that as the U.S. dollar loses value, the last vestiges of American power will disappear. Then, rather than being the “city on a hill” that Johnathon Winthrop envisioned, the U.S. will be a defacto lame duck—powerful only in the the minds of the deluded few in office. A history of power and innovation is not enough to sustain this country. It takes leadership, which leads to results. We’re short on both, right now.
As every stage performer or author knows, the opposite of fame is not infamy—it is to be ignored. To be ignored it worse than to be hated, because you simply cease to matter. When the nations of the world, and the wise people of the world, ignore the U.S. they are consigning us to the dustbin of history. A potentially great people, ruined by lack of foresight and petty self-interest. With all of our missteps and immorality, we seem never to have learned our lesson. Perhaps we deserve to fade into the footnotes of history.
Irrelevance: an ignominious end for such a promising people. Why can’t we lead the charge on sustainability? Why can’t we innovate ourselves out of a looming global crisis? In two words and a letter, George W. Bush.
posted by schloctor at
12:25 AM
1 Comments:
this is one of your students i will let you guess who
"The US is and will remain the global Hegemon – China, who would be the only threat, does not want to challenge this position
The Statesman, February 2, 2005. (p lexis)"
Beijing has opted for cooperation rather than confrontation with the United States, regarding it as a strategic necessity. It hopes that it will bear political dividends on Taiwan by diluting US commitment to defend the island. Beijing doesn't want the world to think that China is an expansionist power in the old colonial tradition. It is, therefore, keen to send a benign message. According to a senior Chinese diplomat, 'There is a fear about the future orientation of Chinese foreign policy. It is not surprising because in world history many big powers rose and caused earthquakes. But...China is going to be different because the world has changed. It's not like in the past when powers had to expand territorially in order to get markets'. Japanese skepticism This is no longer necessary in a globalised world, she said. In any case, 'China is going to primarily engage with its own (internal) problems for a long time to come'. In other words it doesn't have a 'hegemonic ' agenda, and is not competing with the United States for global supremacy
AND
The US can guarantee a stable regime now . Hard power Is the ability to beat the living crap out of a state. Soft power helps prevent counter balancing. Soft power can also damage hard power, even though we are being ignored no one gives a hoot
weather or not we intervene only to screw the environment up. Maybe it is a good things that nations with a grip on things are taking control.
And lastly
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the
indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world
in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S.leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
By
Patrick Klida, at 5:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home