5 ms·

One of my ideas over the last decade has been to create a website of resources to demonstrate to the world that USA should be an example of a country no one els

One of my ideas over the last decade has been to create a website of resources to demonstrate to the world that USA should be an example of a country no one else should aspire to be. Unfortunately, I never got the time or patience to create it. Seeing this is motivating - I need to find that time after all.

mc32 5y ago
Do you think aspirational countries would rethink their vision or see it as a recipe to follow? (I think almost any country with our resources would project their vision vigorously to maintain stability) That’s to say were China to emerge as the world power, I don’t think they would take pause and just let things be.
- ewmiller 5y ago
  > That’s to say were China to emerge as the world power, I don’t think they would take pause and just let things be. I've heard that a lot, but I actually wonder if that's true or if it's just American paranoia projected onto a different ascendant power.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Just look at smaller players: Iran, Turkey, etc. Look at China's activities in SE Asia via a vis their neighbors. Look at their activities in international waters. They all project at least regional power. You're saying given a larger playing field, they would forgo it. Let someone else project?
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      They will never have such a playing field. China will never achieve global hegemony. Only the US can for geographic and economic reasons.
    - radmuzom 5y ago
      I looked - could not find any examples remotely comparable to those mentioned in the article.
    - ewmiller 5y ago
      Not sure Iran is the best example - it is effectively surrounded by nations who want nothing more than to topple its leadership in favor of another West-friendly regime. Look at all the confirmed CIA activities listed in OP's article that have gone on in Iran. I chalk anything they do up to existential self-defense at this point. Turkey isn't a great example either due to its NATO membership; their geopolitical motivations aren't that easy to pin down. And yes, China acts very territorial towards Taiwan and the regional oceans. Taiwan and the surrounding ocean is the one exception to my statement; given the opportunity they'd take it without hesitation. But for all those countries you listed, I really believe they would remain strong regional powers and not try to dominate the world the way the US does. Shocking as it may be to some of us in the British/American sphere of influence, most countries do not have imperial ambitions, and our opinions of places like China are heavily influenced by the military-industrial-media complex seeking to gin up resentment against foreign powers who don't bow to Western economic influence. (Much criticism of China is valid; that's beside this discussion specifically about imperialism).
      - mc32 5y ago
        I think you kind of missed what I said upthread. Specifically if they had our resources (size, location, resources). So, if they had the resources the US has, I very strongly suspect they would be more muscularly assertive than we are when it comes to world affairs --as I pointed, out, even at their reduced size and power, they desire quite a bit. Also, correction, China is not only rattling sabers with Taiwan, but Philippines, Vietnam, Japan too.
        ewmiller 5y ago
        I suppose what I'm saying is that in order for a country to have the resources the US has and the political motivation to pursue empire, they'd have to have been on the path to empire for the last 200 years and come from the same sociopolitical history that has fueled the United States. So it's pretty steep conjecture. In other words, yes, if China had the resources of the US it would be a global empire... because in order to have the resources the US has, you need to be a global empire. This is just a pet theory at this point, I'm not an actual historian.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  China simply won't ever acceed to the US's role as a Hegemon, no matter what. The only country in the world that can even remotely do so is the US because of its geographical position that allows purely offensive military positioning and solid economic control of a whole continent as well as access over all the oceans. It's even less likely that China could even surpass the US in relative terms without relying very heavily on other powers such as Russia, some African powers and so on, because of their geography and lack of resources. So even then they wouldn't be able to project their mode of governance or impose social overhaul on other countries in the way the US did.
ravenstine 5y ago
Interesting idea, but I don't see why you should single the USA out, other than by the fact that it's the most powerful nation that declassifies a certain amount of information about itself. Every powerful nation has had some involvement in election interference, propaganda, wars, slavery, torture, and so on.
- WaxProlix 5y ago
  Totally, but not all of them brand themselves as Arbiters of Freedom and such. There's a strong current of nationalist exceptionalism that could use a counter-narrative (or a reality check).
  - ameister14 5y ago
    >There's a strong current of nationalist exceptionalism that could use a counter-narrative (or a reality check). To what purpose? Do you believe that it would result in a happier and more successful populace/world? If so, what is the foundation for that belief? If not, again, why? I'd argue these counter-narratives already exist, so why do we need a new one/more of them/them to be stronger?
    - WaxProlix 5y ago
      > To what purpose? ? Do you believe that it would result in a happier and more successful populace/world? No, just in the interest of promoting a varied selection of ideological opinions and in support of the search for truth. > I'd argue these counter-narratives already exist, so why do we need a new one/more of them/them to be stronger? My contention is exactly that they are insufficiently represented in the current cultural zeitgeist! You're free to disagree, but the context here is that the parent post expressed an interest in 'signal boosting' this narrative, and I was agreeing. Sounds like you disagree.
      - ameister14 5y ago
        >No, just in the interest of promoting a varied selection of ideological opinions and in support of the search for truth. I get that, makes sense. I don't think what the gp said was consistent with that, though. I think that if your goal is to boost the viewpoint that the USA should be an example of a country no one else should aspire to be while also attempting to support the search for truth, hypocrisy shouldn't really play into it much, unless of course that is the sole reason you find the actions of the US distasteful. For me, whether you killed people and then pretended it was for the greater good or just killed them, the chief crime is murder, not lying about it. The reasons not to aspire to be like the US are the same as the reasons not to aspire to be like the UK, France, Spain, Russia etc. Highlighting them as unique to the US wouldn't appear to improve the varied selection of ideological opinions (a lot of people already don't like the US) and certainly doesn't improve the level of truth present. I'd also argue that doing so would be playing into a different type of the same exceptionalism. Nationalist exceptionalism created a foundation for the US to do things nobody had done before. Unfortunately, the US also did things a lot of countries had done before and it should definitely be noted that those things are not exceptional nor are they particularly good for the idealized nation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith 5y ago
The awkward thing is that there is always a dissenting or misaimed fandom who sees an action no matter how horrific as a good thing. "They oppressed everyone don't do it." is read as some as "They have power over all if you do it nobody could stop you."
throwaway6734 5y ago
Which countries are aspirational then? Most of Europe has shown that it can't be trusted with power. Same with most of Asia. The past 80 years under pax americana have seen the greatest reduction in global poverty in history.
ccsnags 5y ago
The US spent the first 100 years not living up to it’s own ideals. When we started figuring that out, we stopped caring about them altogether. It’s as if things like constitutions and conventions exist to provide the illusion of legitimacy to systems that ignore them.
- sneak 5y ago
  > The US spent the first 100 years not living up to it’s own ideals. https://www.insider.com/inside-forced-sterilizations-california-womens-prisons-documentary-2020-11 https://www.insider.com/inside-forced-sterilizations-califor... It still isn't.
refurb 5y ago
Do you think you actually possess information others don’t and such a website would make difference at all?

mc32 5y ago

Do you think aspirational countries would rethink their vision or see it as a recipe to follow? (I think almost any country with our resources would project their vision vigorously to maintain stability) That’s to say were China to emerge as the world power, I don’t think they would take pause and just let things be.

ewmiller 5y ago
> That’s to say were China to emerge as the world power, I don’t think they would take pause and just let things be. I've heard that a lot, but I actually wonder if that's true or if it's just American paranoia projected onto a different ascendant power.
- mc32 5y ago
  Just look at smaller players: Iran, Turkey, etc. Look at China's activities in SE Asia via a vis their neighbors. Look at their activities in international waters. They all project at least regional power. You're saying given a larger playing field, they would forgo it. Let someone else project?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    They will never have such a playing field. China will never achieve global hegemony. Only the US can for geographic and economic reasons.
  - radmuzom 5y ago
    I looked - could not find any examples remotely comparable to those mentioned in the article.
  - ewmiller 5y ago
    Not sure Iran is the best example - it is effectively surrounded by nations who want nothing more than to topple its leadership in favor of another West-friendly regime. Look at all the confirmed CIA activities listed in OP's article that have gone on in Iran. I chalk anything they do up to existential self-defense at this point. Turkey isn't a great example either due to its NATO membership; their geopolitical motivations aren't that easy to pin down. And yes, China acts very territorial towards Taiwan and the regional oceans. Taiwan and the surrounding ocean is the one exception to my statement; given the opportunity they'd take it without hesitation. But for all those countries you listed, I really believe they would remain strong regional powers and not try to dominate the world the way the US does. Shocking as it may be to some of us in the British/American sphere of influence, most countries do not have imperial ambitions, and our opinions of places like China are heavily influenced by the military-industrial-media complex seeking to gin up resentment against foreign powers who don't bow to Western economic influence. (Much criticism of China is valid; that's beside this discussion specifically about imperialism).
    - mc32 5y ago
      I think you kind of missed what I said upthread. Specifically if they had our resources (size, location, resources). So, if they had the resources the US has, I very strongly suspect they would be more muscularly assertive than we are when it comes to world affairs --as I pointed, out, even at their reduced size and power, they desire quite a bit. Also, correction, China is not only rattling sabers with Taiwan, but Philippines, Vietnam, Japan too.
      - ewmiller 5y ago
        I suppose what I'm saying is that in order for a country to have the resources the US has and the political motivation to pursue empire, they'd have to have been on the path to empire for the last 200 years and come from the same sociopolitical history that has fueled the United States. So it's pretty steep conjecture. In other words, yes, if China had the resources of the US it would be a global empire... because in order to have the resources the US has, you need to be a global empire. This is just a pet theory at this point, I'm not an actual historian.
sudosysgen 5y ago
China simply won't ever acceed to the US's role as a Hegemon, no matter what. The only country in the world that can even remotely do so is the US because of its geographical position that allows purely offensive military positioning and solid economic control of a whole continent as well as access over all the oceans. It's even less likely that China could even surpass the US in relative terms without relying very heavily on other powers such as Russia, some African powers and so on, because of their geography and lack of resources. So even then they wouldn't be able to project their mode of governance or impose social overhaul on other countries in the way the US did.

ravenstine 5y ago

Interesting idea, but I don't see why you should single the USA out, other than by the fact that it's the most powerful nation that declassifies a certain amount of information about itself. Every powerful nation has had some involvement in election interference, propaganda, wars, slavery, torture, and so on.

WaxProlix 5y ago
Totally, but not all of them brand themselves as Arbiters of Freedom and such. There's a strong current of nationalist exceptionalism that could use a counter-narrative (or a reality check).
- ameister14 5y ago
  >There's a strong current of nationalist exceptionalism that could use a counter-narrative (or a reality check). To what purpose? Do you believe that it would result in a happier and more successful populace/world? If so, what is the foundation for that belief? If not, again, why? I'd argue these counter-narratives already exist, so why do we need a new one/more of them/them to be stronger?
  - WaxProlix 5y ago
    > To what purpose? ? Do you believe that it would result in a happier and more successful populace/world? No, just in the interest of promoting a varied selection of ideological opinions and in support of the search for truth. > I'd argue these counter-narratives already exist, so why do we need a new one/more of them/them to be stronger? My contention is exactly that they are insufficiently represented in the current cultural zeitgeist! You're free to disagree, but the context here is that the parent post expressed an interest in 'signal boosting' this narrative, and I was agreeing. Sounds like you disagree.
    - ameister14 5y ago
      >No, just in the interest of promoting a varied selection of ideological opinions and in support of the search for truth. I get that, makes sense. I don't think what the gp said was consistent with that, though. I think that if your goal is to boost the viewpoint that the USA should be an example of a country no one else should aspire to be while also attempting to support the search for truth, hypocrisy shouldn't really play into it much, unless of course that is the sole reason you find the actions of the US distasteful. For me, whether you killed people and then pretended it was for the greater good or just killed them, the chief crime is murder, not lying about it. The reasons not to aspire to be like the US are the same as the reasons not to aspire to be like the UK, France, Spain, Russia etc. Highlighting them as unique to the US wouldn't appear to improve the varied selection of ideological opinions (a lot of people already don't like the US) and certainly doesn't improve the level of truth present. I'd also argue that doing so would be playing into a different type of the same exceptionalism. Nationalist exceptionalism created a foundation for the US to do things nobody had done before. Unfortunately, the US also did things a lot of countries had done before and it should definitely be noted that those things are not exceptional nor are they particularly good for the idealized nation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Nasrudith 5y ago

The awkward thing is that there is always a dissenting or misaimed fandom who sees an action no matter how horrific as a good thing. "They oppressed everyone don't do it." is read as some as "They have power over all if you do it nobody could stop you."

throwaway6734 5y ago

Which countries are aspirational then? Most of Europe has shown that it can't be trusted with power. Same with most of Asia. The past 80 years under pax americana have seen the greatest reduction in global poverty in history.

ccsnags 5y ago

The US spent the first 100 years not living up to it’s own ideals. When we started figuring that out, we stopped caring about them altogether. It’s as if things like constitutions and conventions exist to provide the illusion of legitimacy to systems that ignore them.

sneak 5y ago
> The US spent the first 100 years not living up to it’s own ideals. https://www.insider.com/inside-forced-sterilizations-california-womens-prisons-documentary-2020-11 https://www.insider.com/inside-forced-sterilizations-califor... It still isn't.

refurb 5y ago

Do you think you actually possess information others don’t and such a website would make difference at all?