Americans Need To Change

[Jexiel]

I discovered this gem recently. It's Bill Moyers interviewing former US Army Colonel Andrew J. Bacevich, a writer and historian, about what Col. Bacevich calls the "Imperial Presidency" and asks for a redefinition of the "American way of life." The interview took place on August 15th 2008.

Col. Bacevich's argues that real, effective change would not come from whom is elected to the White House but from the American people themselves.

It's a two-part interview of roughly 30mins each. Enjoy!
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

An excerpt from the interview:

BILL MOYERS: You, in fact, say that, instead of a bigger army, we need a smaller more modest foreign policy. One that assigns soldiers missions that are consistent with their capability. "Modesty," I'm quoting you, "requires giving up on the illusions of grandeur to which the end of the Cold War and then 9/11 gave rise. It also means reining in the imperial presidents who expect the army to make good on those illusions." Do you expect either John McCain or Barack Obama to rein in the "imperial presidency?"

ANDREW BACEVICH: No. I mean, people run for the presidency in order to become imperial presidents. The people who are advising these candidates, the people who aspire to be the next national security advisor, the next secretary of defense, these are people who yearn to exercise those kind of great powers. They're not running to see if they can make the Pentagon smaller. They're not. So when I - as a distant observer of politics - one of the things that both puzzles me and I think troubles me is the 24/7 coverage of the campaign. Parsing every word, every phrase, that either Senator Obama or Senator McCain utters, as if what they say is going to reveal some profound and important change that was going to come about if they happened to be elected. It's not going to happen.

BILL MOYERS: It's not going to happen because?

ANDREW BACEVICH: Not going to happen - it's not going to happen because the elements of continuity outweigh the elements of change. And it's not going to happen because, ultimately, we the American people, refuse to look in that mirror. And to see the extent to which the problems that we face really lie within. We refuse to live within our means. We continue to think that the problems that beset the country are out there beyond our borders. And that if we deploy sufficient amount of American power we can fix those problems, and therefore things back here will continue as they have for decades.

[Kjertesvein]

So instead of electing just the precident, the populations ellect each seat of department before too? Or am I way out in the field on this one?

[Amry]

Frankly, I think the traditional, pseudo-isolationistic "free trade with all, entangling alliances with none"-type foreign policy will be the best option for the US right now.

[Thanatos]

It would definitely free up a lot of money for us.

[crazyj]

@ Amry & Thanatos

Except when it doesn't. At certain times you will still need to fight abroad, to defend that trade, to name but the most obvious reason. History bears this truth out.

[Amry]

Except when it doesn't. At certain times you will still need to fight abroad, to defend that trade

No, you do not go to war for "trade". If someone doesn't want to trade with you, take your money elsewhere. The military is there to defend the country, not to act as a monetary enforcer.

[Disaray]

No, you do not go to war for "trade". If someone doesn't want to trade with you, take your money elsewhere. The military is there to defend the country, not to act as a monetary enforcer.

You missunderstood him. He isn't sugesting that people go to war to secure trade with new partners. He is sugesting, accuratly by the way, that nations have, will and at times need to, go to war to defend traid lanes that they have established with other nations. Several wars have been fought for this reason already and as certan resources become more scarse these kind of wars will probly become more common.

What would you have to government do Devil? Are you pissed that we take cair of old people or that we have an army?

[crazyj]

No, you do not go to war for "trade". If someone doesn't want to trade with you, take your money elsewhere. The military is there to defend the country, not to act as a monetary enforcer.

No.

That's a little harsh, no?.. Where does it end then?
AS in how far do you go to "protect that trade"?

No.

You missunderstood him. He isn't sugesting that people go to war to secure trade with new partners. He is sugesting, accuratly by the way, that nations have, will and at times need to, go to war to defend traid lanes that they have established with other nations. Several wars have been fought for this reason already and as certan resources become more scarse these kind of wars will probly become more common.

What would you have to government do Devil? Are you pissed that we take cair of old people or that we have an army?

Yes.

1 out 3 ain't bad. Good job Disaray! You get an A+!

[Central Asian Qaghan]

You missunderstood him. He isn't sugesting that people go to war to secure trade with new partners. He is sugesting, accuratly by the way, that nations have, will and at times need to, go to war to defend traid lanes that they have established with other nations. Several wars have been fought for this reason already and as certan resources become more scarse these kind of wars will probly become more common.

Aww, boo hoo American won't get oil, oh boo hoo.

You know what they say, evolve or die out. If America is willing to anger a large part of the world and then expect it to give them resources, you've got another thing coming.

Once American puppets Saud's are out, you can kill all that free middle eastern oil goodbye. Evolve or die.

[Plan C]

@ Amry & Thanatos

Except when it doesn't. At certain times you will still need to fight abroad, to defend that trade, to name but the most obvious reason. History bears this truth out.

That's a little harsh, no?.. Where does it end then?
AS in how far do you go to "protect that trade"?

[cfmonkey45]

[The Devil's Sergeant]

That makes me want to puke. Our "government" is an army and a pension plan.

[Saturn]

Imagine how awesome our military would be if we made that brown the same color as Defense....

[OneArmedScissor]

[lordoftheT]

Didn't realize just how awesome our navy was compared to the rest of the world. +rep

[Disaray]

Yes it is a large and powerful navy. I wonder who we are anticipating to use that on... As it stands now no one will with us beacouse they don't stand a chance in a stand up fight. Due to that we don't ever get any use out of much of these awsome macheens of death and destruction. I think that is one of the problems of having such a large and powerful military force, we are basicaly all dressed up but don't have a party to go to.

Army, you are again mistaken. The US dose go to war to defend our traid routs even today. Of that yellow slice of the budjet pie about 1/3 of it is used to maintain traide lanes, mostly in the Middle East and the Indian Ocian as those are some of the most dangerous areas for trade ships and have heavy US trafic pass thru them. It makes good sence, from a stratigic point of view, to do so as much of our resources in use today come from or pass thru those areas. There can also be a solid argument made that the entier Iraq war, both of them as a matter of fact, were fought for the sole reason of keeping the traid routs out of the reagon open. Now weather or not this is good from a moral stand point is an entierly diferant matter, esspecialy considering both of those wars were fought under diferant pretences.

All in all I think we need to make some changes here in this country though. We are far too afraid, in my opinion, and that fear tends to cause us to lash out violently twards ourselves and others at times. As a people we need to start looking at things as a socity and less as individuals. I also think we need to revaluate our opinions on greed as they have goten us in a heep of trubble and haven't exactly given us much for all of that trubble.

[Bleda]

The US president has had way too much authority since FDR. Too much authority in the hands of the executive. The huddled masses, forever indebted to the government by the radical left will chant "Hail Ceasar!" before this century is out.

[justicar5]

The US president has had way too much authority since FDR. Too much authority in the hands of the executive. The huddled masses, forever indebted to the government by the radical left will chant "Hail Ceasar!" before this century is out.

wait what? The anti-war lobby will crown a god emperor? In fact the very concept of a Ceaser is laughable, the societies that spawned that kind of leader no longer excist. It is impossible to catergorise in modern political philosphy what exactly the goverments of the ceasers where.

[Disaray]

wait what? The anti-war lobby will crown a god emperor? In fact the very concept of a Ceaser is laughable, the societies that spawned that kind of leader no longer excist. It is impossible to catergorise in modern political philosphy what exactly the goverments of the ceasers where.

It is quite possible. We have a word for it and evrey thing. We call it "Totalitarinaisum" If there is not a better way of describing the Ceaser than Totalitarianisum I don't know what it is. On the bright side the rebelion of the House and Senet prove beyond the shadow of a dout that Obama is far from a Totalitarian. Add on top of that the fact that detractors of the Obama plan havn't been rounded up and shot or iducted into reducation capms and the argument aganst his Totalitarinaisum becomes all the more strong.

Marrow, I never said what we are doing is the moraly just thing to do, all I am geting at is that it is the best intrest of America at this pint in time is if the oil flows freely to us, if I could change it that would be one thing, but as it stand I am rather powerless in this regaurd. Being self proclamed liberal and pragmatist my slef I find that the forgin polocy of the USA has much room for improvment and certanly has room for a dose of honesty.

[justicar5]

It is quite possible. We have a word for it and evrey thing. We call it "Totalitarinaisum" If there is not a better way of describing the Ceaser than Totalitarianisum I don't know what it is. On the bright side the rebelion of the House and Senet prove beyond the shadow of a dout that Obama is far from a Totalitarian. Add on top of that the fact that detractors of the Obama plan havn't been rounded up and shot or iducted into reducation capms and the argument aganst his Totalitarinaisum becomes all the more strong.

Marrow, I never said what we are doing is the moraly just thing to do, all I am geting at is that it is the best intrest of America at this pint in time is if the oil flows freely to us, if I could change it that would be one thing, but as it stand I am rather powerless in this regaurd. Being self proclamed liberal and pragmatist my slef I find that the forgin polocy of the USA has much room for improvment and certanly has room for a dose of honesty.

the point I was making is that the chances of health care reform bringing about a dictactorship are nill, hell the bible belt has more chance of bringing about a theocracy. Every western democracy has UHC, except america, what about america is different? Where is the weakness that would cause society to collapse if you did as well?