4 ms·
> If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy... Don't be stupid. The cost of maintaining "that power" is not hypocrisy, even though the article im
by D_Alex 13y ago
> If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy...
Don't be stupid. The cost of maintaining "that power" is not hypocrisy, even though the article implies that it is. The cost is better represented by $700 billion per year in military spending (plus the $50 billion in foreign aid), and the only reason why this is sufficient is that the system is indeed "legitimated by liberal ideas" (if it was say Islamic law that had to be maintained, the costs would be much higher). Hypocrisy detracts from the acceptance of these ideas, and increases the cost of maintaining the system.
> then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.
Well at least you are not hypocritical.
- rayiner 13y agoThe article directly addresses your point: "This system needs the lubricating oil of hypocrisy to keep its gears turning. To ensure that the world order continues to be seen as legitimate, U.S. officials must regularly promote and claim fealty to its core liberal principles; the United States cannot impose its hegemony through force alone." The U.S. "claim[ing] fealty to its core liberal principles" is a necessary part of keeping the world order running smoothly. Thus hypocrisy decreases the cost of maintaining the world order, because the alternative would be to give up on espousing those liberal principles.