3 ms·

For the same reason the US considers its self the "leader" of the world. You can't have it both ways, if you want to "lead", you've gotta pay for it.

• ryao 2y ago
  Has the U.S. ever claimed to be the leader of the world? I do not think any country has ever claimed that title. The closest to it would be some of the remarks that are supposedly made to each Pope upon becoming Pope. That said, there is the similar sounding title called “the leader of the free world” applied to the U.S. president since the end of WWII. I always thought that was the result of military alliances, not the CVE program, which post dates it. Edit: To the downvoters, I take issue with the assertion that the U.S. has claimed the title “leader of the world”. That is applied to the Pope during papal inaugurations and as far as I know, has never been formally applied to the United States. It seems to have been invented this year as part of claims that the U.S. has an obligation to spend money on programs that benefit others, given that the current political situation has made a number of them appear to be in jeopardy, but that appears to be a rewrite of history, rather than any historical truth. My sole interest here is the historical truth, and not politics.
  • noelwelsh 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_World
    • ryao 2y ago
      Leader of the world and leader of the free world are two different things. As far as I know, no country in the past century has called itself either of them. I would not be surprised if the title was applied to countries such as the Imperium Romanum and 中國 in the distant past. Even more distant would be possibly Greece given that it’s leader was called the King of Kings around the time of Troy. However, I believe both titles are applied to specific office holders in the modern day. The U.S. president is called the leader of the free world by many. I believe the title leader of the world is bestowed upon the Pope during Papal inaugurations.
      • locopati 2y ago
        With all due respect, you're being pedantic. No, we're not talking about official titles bestowed from on high. The US has been considered the world leader from WW2 until sometime in the 21st century, partly because nobody else wanted to claim it, partly because American foreign policy is aggressive, partly because the American economy was the most robust on in the aftermath of WW2.
        • ryao 2y ago
          The U.S. has never been the world leader. The U.S. has been a military leader for other democracies since the end of WWII. That is why the title, leader of the free world has been applied to the U.S. president, who is the leader of the various military alliances between various major democracies. If you claim the U.S. considered itself to be the world leader, then you are claiming the U.S. considered itself to be the leader of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw pact, North Korea, etcetera. That is absurd. The U.S. likely did consider itself the leader of Vietnam and Cuba before the democracies in those countries fell, although that was in a military capacity. That is why the U.S. intervened militarily in both, although both interventions failed. Saying that the U.S. got its leadership position because no one else wanted it is historically incorrect. Following WWII, every other major democratic power was in ruins while the U.S. was the sole major power left in tact. Without any military attacks on U.S. soil, U.S. military strength had skyrocketed during the war. As the war progressed, the U.S. attained the status of a great power and by the war’s end had become a nascent super power. U.S. strength continued to grow after the war due to the threat of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the other great powers never fully recovered militarily since they focused on their economies while relying on the U.S. for security. The U.S. gained its leadership position because no one else existed that could claim it.
          • fooList 2y ago
            If I say, “I like to lead by example”, that can mean leadership in the moral sense of progressive politics. Americans view America that way, as the leader of liberalism and social justice. Even Americans who don’t see America or American history that way, tend to see themselves (ironically?) that way. But that’s a different meaning of leader. We lead by things like protests, humanitarian aid and having enlightened celebrities.
  • tokai 2y ago
    Provide a source on the Pope thing please.
  • K0balt 2y ago
    The USA has, by any measure, a veritable monopoly of coercive force on the world stage. Their military expenditure is more than the next 15 countries combined. This means they have the capability to enforce their will globally to a significant extent. In an arena such as geopolitics, justice is the will of the stronger, no holds barred. This makes the USA arguably the primary concern in geopolitics, the ring you need to kiss to do anything on that stage. Keep in mind that “claimed” may be referring to the sense of “won” rather than “stated”. From that perspective it’s not too much of a stretch to call them the world leader, but that does ignore the fact that leadership implies the will to lead and to a significant extent the requisite wisdom and skills.
  • emptyfile 2y ago
    [dead]
• yieldcrv 2y ago
  then you might be pleased to know that I don't want to have it either way let's fix our own cities and domestic infrastructure projects while pulling back the federal government, just like we are doing
  • mrguyorama 2y ago
    The pittance we pay to support things that benefit all humanity have never prevented us from investing in the US. You don't need to put the federal government in a wood chipper to make the US better, and in fact you often need the federal government to make the US better, like with social security, food stamps, medicaid, the interstate, railroads, most of our infrastructure, the internet, microchips, etc. In fact, if you want the best infrastructure, why wouldn't you end up importing that? Most of humanity is not a US citizen. "The best" human at something will only rarely be american. Meanwhile this admin has done nothing to improve things for americans, so stop carrying water for their horse shit. People love the meme of a runway full of F35s and saying "We are about to demonstrate why the US doesn't have socialized medicine" and it has always been a lie. We can EASILY afford 3k F35s, 13 aircraft carriers, AND healthcare. We've been paying more for healthcare than countries with socialized medicine this whole time.
    • yieldcrv 2y ago
      > We can EASILY afford 3k F35s, 13 aircraft carriers, AND healthcare I'm aware but there is no consensus for that, or addressing the budget, all while our infrastructure crumbles at the same time. Now there is at least an attempt to address our budget. Regarding foreign policy, other leading nations are not giving aid, they are investing. We could just as easily do our "soft power" stuff in a more equitable way. Every controversial budget change, that's even mocked by leaders of G-7 nations, are things those G-7 nations are already doing. Aid for repayment? yeah they're doing that. Not a controversial concept in reality. And yes, I still want the federal government to do the things you mentioned regarding federal highways, railroads... infrastructure projects we both agree on.
      • mrguyorama 2y ago