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. It is a recognition that when America believes itself to be under atack it adopts programs that support the elites (both American and foreign) and which often act against the needs of the general society in both the U.S. and in our allied nations.

A nation under threat invariably coalesces around a leader in order to defeat the enemy or deal with the threat. It is a short-term tactic to survive, but invariably calls for a great deal of sacrifice from those members of the society who do not belong to the elites. In the long term it makes those being forced to sacrifice oppose the elites for their insensitive actions.

A strong example of a nation running to the protection of a leader is Castro of Cuba. Without the active and clear opposition of the US he would not have lasted this long. America in many ways created Castro by supporting the much worse dictator Batista and his Mafia co-Lords of Cuba. (The CIA had close ties to Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky and in effect gave them Cuba as a reward for their efforts during WW II.)

The elites who run the nations see this opposition by those who are being asked for more sacrifice (generally by attributing more value to leaders than to cannon fodder) as more threat, and the elites frequently work to repress those who oppose them. In Latin America such leaders literally drove many of their opponents into the arms of the Communists, sometimes blaming them for being Communists before they had chosen such an allegiance themselves.

Generally America has been the better Empire for outsiders to ally with, but the habit of our elites to protect the foreign elites with whom they made their agreements has led to some nasty results. Castro's revolution in Cuba was one of the really necessary revolts. But the American CIA was allied to the Mafia leaders and America's Wall Street leaders feared the threat to the American concept of private property, while both totally disregarded the concerns and needs of the average oppressed Cubans under Batista. (Here is the role of elitism in American policy-making. Every elite since time began believes that it is better than the plebeians they use as sacrifices.)

It would be difficult for Cubans to see the Bay-of-Pigs invasion as anything other than an effort to remove Castro and return the Mafia-dominated gambling and hotel owners along with Batista's henchmen to power. Castro, of course, had to ally himself with the USSR in order to survive.

Where was American morality in all this? We'll never know because the decisions were made behind a wall of security classifications. Those classifications exist primarily so that American leaders can make decisions Americans would not approve of and yet suffer no political consequences. Leaders in a more or less democratic nation have always used security classifications to permit them to make unpopular decisions, often in the hope that the results will be good enough that no one ever questions the decision. (See the Iraq invasion.)

America has traditionally been an open democratic nation in which the needs of the people are considered important, and our attempt to spread this in other nations has been the major reason why the rest of the world generally looked favorably on America. Bush and the conservatives don't believe that anyone but them has the right to determine how America is run, so they have run the most secretive administration in history. They also push ideas like Creationism in order to destroy the openness with which opposing ideas are discussed and taught.

This is not to blame America first. It is, instead, a recognition that America is not perfect and has recently been taken over by a very flawed group of elitists who want everything done their way with no discussion. They have no respect for their opponents and don't think discussion is anything but an effort to prevent them from doing what they think is right. Large inherited family fortunes encourage people to adopt this elitist position, since that is what is required to defend the family fortune and their personal power. These people exist everywhere, and there is always a danger they will get control of a government. When that happens they try to be self-perpetuating.

America has generally avoided long term control by these people, because a nation that encourages all of its population is much stronger than one that exists to support an elite class by the sacrifices of the many. Two generations of military government during the Cold War may have caused a lot of the cultural traditions of democracy to wither and shift too much power to the President, but this election may be a beginning of the shift back to the traditional America.

If it is, we will look back at the recent period as simply a dark spot in the otherwise great history of our great nation, much as we do the relocation of the Southeastern Indians to the Indian territory that we call the "Trail of Tears."

Posted at May 7, 2008 8:31 PM in response to A Different History

I'd like to see that list also.

In the last decade the easiest way to make big money has been to get a government contract, particularly when government jobs were outsourced, or to get the government to award you a monopoly on some product or service. Prison construction and education have both been big beneficiaries of government hand-outs.

Look at Ashcroft's no-bid contract.

Bush is ready for the change in regime here, though. Remember his land purchase in Paraguay? 98,840 acres that were accompanied by a bill through the Paraguayan Senate that

“grant[s] U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction.”

It'll be interesting to see if any Congressmen or Senators join hem there.

Posted at May 4, 2008 6:22 PM in response to Blackwater: Looking for A Few Good Hundred Million

Is it really a Race chasm as Sirota described? Or is it the states in which the history of slavery, the civil War, segregation and continued racism is still a powerful influence?

History and culture count for a lot, and the entwined histories of slavery, the civil war and it's aftermath of segregation are still a powerful influence east of the Mississippi and through the Eastern half of Texas. It's been my impression that California governor Pete Wilson pretty much ruined racism and ethnicity as a political issue in California, but he had a better history there.

While California had it's anti-Asian efforts, the Chinese and Japanese were never slaves and never had to be militarily oppressed in the way African slaves were, so the society was less imbued with the cultural beliefs of racial inferiority that was required to justify slavery and which carried over into segregation.

I can't prove this is true, but it seems reasonable and would in part explain why Obama is finding it easier to get votes in the west.

There is also the fact that the Clinton - Obama race has a large "identity politics" element. Blacks for Obama and older White women for Clinton. That seems to be a factor that splits Democratic voters in the Primaries, but once a nominee is selected, neither of those groups is likely to vote Republican. The general election is going to be run on a very different dynamic, and I expect that both Clinton and Obama will be working hard to get their constituencies out supporting the nominee in the general election regardless of who wins the nomination.

Posted at May 4, 2008 8:53 AM in response to Big Conservative Attack Ad Proves A Bust

Don't see how Feith and Eichman are similar?

Both conducted great evil, yet both are quite banal. Neither has recognized the evil they were responsible for, and neither ever expressed regret for the deaths for which they were responsible.

Eichman was no great evil man. He was simply a bureaucrat who did his job as directed as well as he could, with no consideration for the evil he did.

Feith seems to have greater purpose for what he has done, but similarly has no expressed no recognition of the evil he is responsible for nor regret for those who have died because of his actions.

They are not the same, but they are both quite commonplace and trite. Neither was in any way unusual in the manner that both Hitler and Dick Cheney are. Still, Feith and Eichman belong to the same (trite) cesspool. They are merely bureaucratic hangers' on to those who are themselves truly evil.

Posted at April 25, 2008 2:42 PM in response to The Banality of Evil: What Would Hannah Arendt Say About Doug Feith?

Hillary is going to be informed by the party elders that the race is over. She is going to congratulate Obama for a great race and urge her supporters to vote for him. She is then going to campaign for him, if she wants any national politics future at all.

Should there be a surprise reversal between now and the convention, Obama will do exactly the same.

In either case, the supporters of the loser will inform the press - shrilly - of their displeasure and then sink into oblivion. The Press will respond with ponderous questions of how badly the Democratic nominee has been hurt, and it will have disappeared within two weeks.

The Republicans are the enemy of every Democrat living. That very obvious fact is being concealed behind the obsessive media coverage of the only game in town, the Democratic nomination race.

The fact that the Republicans are also the enemies of every American who is not super wealthy is going to quickly become apparent to the independents. Recession, Iraq, and health-care are the drivers of this election.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:57 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards

So Obama isn't the second coming. Doesn't matter.

He is head and shoulders above Hillary who is mired in her half-conservative DLC past, and he is so superior to McCain that there is no way they belong in the same universe. And like FDR, Obama is educable. Neither of the other two are.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:46 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards

Hillary has no way of making up the number of delegates she is behind by June. Only a winner-takes-all system would allow her to get the nomination.

The superdelegates are not going to go against the wisdom of the primaries and caucuses that have already occurred. That would destroy the Democratic Party for this election.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:40 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards

So?

Pennsylvania and North Carolina are going to break pretty close to even, just as the earlier states have. That means Obama is headed into the convention about 100 delegates shy of the 2025. There is NO WAY Hillary can overcome that lead. The remaining superdelegates will not overturn that lead if they have any consideration for the Party, and their function is to put the consideration of the Party topmost.

The definition of "liar" as used by one's political opponents is something that isn't even close to what normal people mean with that term. Now when applied to conservatives, it is simply a description of their normal practice, but it doesn't fit either Obama or Clinton.

Posted at April 19, 2008 7:45 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards

Salon may give Clinton an excuse, but he still let it pass without a veto.

Posted at April 19, 2008 7:32 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards

With the possible exception of the "Monster" comment, which of the above statements was not accurate?

She is extremely driven to be elected President this time, and like all DLCers, she's have Republican in attitude. Those are the tools she brings to the table.

She probably more driven that Obama because she is age 60 and if Obama gets elected she can't run again until she is age 68. Time is against her. This is her shot. Barack, at age 48, has three, maybe four more eight year presidencies to have a shot at.(Hey - McCain at 72 already? I'm age 65. He's too damned old. But that will not be true in 32 years for the wealthy elites and Senators.)

Posted at April 19, 2008 7:24 PM in response to Hillary Gets It Backwards