It would help if you would define what you mean by empire. The term in a traditional sense would refer to direct occupation of foreign lands, like the Roman, British and Ottoman empires.

But the history of intervention by the United States in world affairs doesn't really follow that pattern. Putting a military base in Korea, for instance, isn't the same as occupying Korea.

I mean, how can you say that America is expansionistic when it hasn't added any territory to its holdings in at least the last 50 years??!!!

What the hell are you talking about??!!

Posted at May 9, 2008 3:33 PM in response to Is Neoconservatism the American Mainstream?

This is a great first step in getting past old ways of thinking about this subject, although I also don't think the world can be cleanly divided into a conflict between the masses and the elites.

Even the arguments on behalf of the masses tend to be between those who are or have been members of the elite, who've had the benefit of a good education and live a fairly comfortable life.

For instance, while you may see beyond the confines of nation state borders in your view of the world, that is an elite opinion in itself born of a particular educational background that most ordinary workers don't possess and therefore one unlikely to be automatically shared by them.

Posted at May 8, 2008 10:47 AM in response to Bashing China (and the US) from the Left - and Below

To say that during the long Cold War America often took actions in support of local national elites because they were our allies in that war is not the same as blaming America first.

You misunderstand me. Of course, that would not be blaming America first. But that's not what he was saying.

He was comparing America to China and basically saying that America is an aggressive nation and China is benign when in fact China, the Soviet Union engaged in the same violent games that we did.

I don't object to criticism or even condemnation of America's foreign policy on moral grounds. I object to judging America by very high moral standard while letting every other country slide. I object to the lack of balance in the moral judgement of America throughout history that has some people saying that America is the greatest terrorist country in the world.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:42 AM in response to A Different History

Exactly what facts are wrong in my history.

China INVADED Vietnam after the defeat of the Khmer Rouge to punish the Vietnam regime. Not aggressive??!! They didn't just "recognize" the Khmer Rouge they supported it with money and guns.

Read the Wikipedia entry on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

Go to the section titled Fall of the Khmer Rouge.

This is exactly what those who complain about the Left's view of America are talking about. You downplay the sins of other nations while putting the worst possible spin on the sins of America. There's no balance in your view.

And I never said the Soviet Union invaded Central America. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I said the Soviet Union fostered revolution in Central American countries and countries all over the world, much in the same way that the US supported the Contras. This is not really a matter of dispute. And let's not forget, that after WWII, the Soviet Union didn't give up the territories of Europe that its troops had taken over. It didn't allow Hungary and Poland and all the other countries that had been independent nations before the war to be independent again. It forced them into being subservient client states. This is also not in dispute.

And yes, it does make a moral difference that America's Congress actually put a stop to its own bad behavior or at least tried to through the exercise of its laws just as it matters on the moral scale that America has also often sincerely stood for human rights in the world in the past (with the present Admin. being an exception). The refusal of the Left to acknowledge the importance of America to the advancement of the very principles the Left supports is also my great complaint.

I don't claim that America is the only nation to advance principles of human rights and individual freedom and justice. Nor would I claim that the world needs America to do so. In fact, I hate the co-option by the Right of America's positive history on this as an excuse to engage in empire building. It's a betrayal of American exceptionalism not a fulfillment of it.

One of the funny things is that the old Anti-Imperialist League that opposed the Phillipine war would have understood that America's unique founding and unique nature -- and yes even exceptional nature -- is exactly the reason that she should not be engaging in imperialism because it was always the temptation of empire and imperialism that most threatened that exceptionalism. Becoming an empire is the surest route to becoming what every country in history has ever been instead of fulfilling the promise of the American experiment.

But the Left isn't interested in fulfilling the promise of the American experiment. You're obsessed with knocking down every possible reason people might have to be proud of this country, which is why so many working class people just want to tell to STFU.

Posted at May 8, 2008 12:34 AM in response to A Different History

Clearly between 1949-1980 the communists committed terrible crimes against her own people, but in their dealings with other nations they were quite benign.

OMG, proving that there really is a blame America first crowd.

China SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge. The KR were toppled by Vietnam with direct Soviet support and indirect US support of rebel groups against the KR.

The idea that the Khmer Rouge took power because of the Cambodian bombing is debatable,but regardless that clearly wasn't the intent of the bombing.

China has supported Communistic dictatorial governments and bloody revolutions in surrounding nations and the only reason they have not done more of it is that they lack the power to do so and get away with it. Everything about the domineering history of the Middle Kingdom before it fell from power in the 19th Century tells us that they have little problem with wielding the kind of power that the US has wielded.

As for the Latin American wars and coups, I don't support those, but let's remember that there was another party involved that was interfering in those countries' internal affairs and fomenting violence and revolutions -- namely the Soviet Union.

And the overthrowing of Democractically elected governments was done by the CIA without the support or approval of the American people or even much of Congress, which was kept in the dark. Once Congress found out about it in the 70s, the stuff was banned.

Congress also banned support from the Contras in the 80s. The President just ignored it.

The real problem has been the longstanding out-of-control power of the imperial presidency not the nature of the United States as a whole.

Posted at May 7, 2008 3:01 PM in response to A Different History

To accept Michael's argument, one really has to believe that the Cold War was fundamentally an act of self-defense, and I don't think that was the case.

The problem with arguing over something like this is that it's totally unprovable one way or the other because it has to do with discerning the intent of the nation in pursuing the Cold War.

And since the nation was never all of one mind about it, you can probably find evidence of whatever intent you want to apply to it.

I prefer to assume the best of intentions because arguing the worst of intentions quickly devolves into paranoid conspiracy theory, pisses a lot of people off and doesn't advance arguments against interventionism any better than assuming the best of intentions.

Posted at May 7, 2008 12:59 PM in response to A Different History

The thing that I found disturbing about Peter's story is how he showed that the reason we would suddenly start seeing the same talking point -- like Obama's followers are cult-like -- appearing all over the place using almost the same words is that everyone was taking their cues from from Blumenthal.

And the question is why? Why do all these people want to jump on the bandwagon of repeating the same questions or talking points that are fed to them instead of thinking for themselves?

Why do they consider it acceptable to bring up these "issues" at the behest of Clinton supporter Blumenthal without reporting that it's the Clinton campaign pushing these lines of attack? Instead they make it appear that this is actually coming from reporters trying to do "objective" reporting? and allow Clinton to pretend she had nothing to do with it.

It also shows how it's not just Congressional lobbyists that are the issue. Certain people -- call them media lobbyists -- have much more influence over the fourth branch of government and are constantly lobbying it without having to disclose their activities.

Posted at May 1, 2008 11:56 PM in response to Email BFFs: Josh Marshall and Clinton Campaign Tool Sidney Blumenthal

I like Zinn's work and consider it important, but it is also skewed in its treatment of America toward the negative just as much as conservative history is skewed toward a rosy view of our country and a whitewash of its sins.

I would like to see a lot more balanced view of America from both sides.

Posted at April 29, 2008 12:48 PM in response to Different not Deficient: How Wright Self-Defense is Helping Obama

If Obama saw white people the way Wright does, why in the hell would he think he had a chance at winning the Presidency.

It seems to me that his entire candidacy is based on the idea that Wright is wrong.

Posted at April 29, 2008 12:44 PM in response to Different not Deficient: How Wright Self-Defense is Helping Obama

Why don't you invite Obama onto TPMCafe to discuss these issues once he's the official nominee.

Posted at April 28, 2008 12:22 PM in response to Gravity Puts Dent in Obama Momentum