Replies

Your first sentence makes me ill. I am not being wise. The whole Wilsonian, collective security and ‘make the world safe for democracy’ mindset is toxic to real US national interests. Ronald Reagan did effectively marshal this sort of propagandistic smoke screen, But the Cold War was fought against communism, not to spread what certain Americans believe is ‘the Democratic way’ around the world. Iraq and Afghanistan are both great examples of what comes from attempting to be a global nanny and hall monitor in what amounts to Bedford-Stuy. The hall monitor gets mugged, at the least. Throughout the world there are cultures that have developed over millennia in very idiosyncratic ways. Trying to turn Baghdad or Kabul or Lima or Cairo, for that matter into Des Moines is both the height of hubris and grossly offensive to the ‘others’ no matter what we think about their social orders. In other words , unless there is a real threat to vital US interests let the foreigners settle their differences in their way. Homo Sapient have been screwed up in different ways since we were running about on the Savannah. They always will be. Leave the foreigners to their own devices , unless they live within what is our sphere of interest. Then let them be as screwed up as they choose as long as they do what we want.

The logical consequence of American universalism is what we have today. The Marine Corps and Army have become the tools of foreign policy in places we have no on going interests and the US southern border continues to be porous and only if DJT gets another term will we be kept from becoming North Mexico. Normal Americans who join the military to defend our country get to go to some sewer such as Iraq to engage in ‘nation building’ while the locals devote themselves to fanaticism and trying to kill as many Americans as possible while the political elites connive at letting hordes of illegals into help them subvert what America was supposed to be. A country where if you obeyed the law you were pretty much free to pursue your life , well sort of anyway. People such as the Bush family constantly intones this sanctimonious BS (read GWB’s Second Inaugural Address for a pitch perfect rendition of this poisonous nonsense).

Finally the rhetorical device of the ‘shining city on a hill’ trope meant exactly the opposite from what the Puritans such as John Winthrop meant by it. The Puritans saw themselves as the ‘elect’ who strove for ‘purity’. They came from England to get away from all the ‘impure’ people . They looked upon their towns as little shining centers of righteousness and wanted no part of the ‘impure’ rabble to pollute their holy presences. In other words the Puritans wanted nothing to do with anyone else. They proved to their own satisfaction that the Indians, who certainly were there first, were Satan's imps. I really wish American political tub thumpers would cease using that platitude. But it is great sucker bait, so they never will.