Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Then I don't know what MfM's point is, unless it is that if we're going to have an illiberal hegemon, it's best if it is white and English-speaking.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think his point would be that a Chinese hegemon would be worse than an American one.  I don't think either is desirable.

But, no, there's nothing liberal about American hegemony right now; there was little that was liberal about it, as BooMan has pointed out, under Bill Clinton (who gets a pass because of the sickeningly low bar set by Junior); and there'll be nothing liberal about it when St McCain or Her Majesty win the White House in November.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 07:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No.

I'm saying that US hegemony while highly imperfect is at least cloaked in the capitalist system rather than naked imperialism.

I doubt that the Chinese will be so obliging.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 08:21:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, it's naked imperialism.  The Bush administration trying to whip us into a frenzy over a country with all the economic might of Connecticut is psychotic.  And while I could entertain the argument that Americans at least get to hold their government accountable (unlike the Chinese), it seems to me that they...don't.

Neither form of hegemony is good.  We need a multi-polar world.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 08:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, really it's not.

And anyone with an inkling of understanding of what European imperialism was like in the Belgian Congo or German Southwest Africa would understand why that's an extremely inappropriate thing to say.

The problem with conflating the two, is it obscures the line between them, and makes it possible to slip from economic dominantion to the something more naked without seeing it coming.

Remember that in Iraq, the main course of civilian casualties has been intercine fighting, not something directly attributable to occupying US forces.

The last time we had mulitpolarity, we got the Second World War, because it's an unstable system that encourages states to pass the buck on deterring agressors to other great powers.

Economic autarky and withdraw to the American continent is an option for the United States if faced with Chinese agression, it is not for European states that are far more depedent on resource imports and are exposed to the east and south on land fronts that allow a nation to attack without being forced to transport their forces across large stretches of water.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 09:26:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Never heard of Divide and Conquer?
by generic on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 11:39:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display: