America's national interests

Remove all ads!

Y'know, we've been bouncing back and forth about whether America should do this or that, or if Bush is good or bad, or if such-and-such a policy is wise or disastrous, etc. And it strikes me that we chat about these questions, lay out arguments, make solid points, completely fail to reach a compromise, and then walk away convinced that we're still right and the other fella's inexplicably blind to our flawless logic.

So maybe we should ask a foundational question: What are America's national interests?

I'm not asking "what are any given country's national interests" - that's too abstract, and most of our discussions focus on American policy anyway.

Surely we can agree that the "American national interest" is not synonomous with "world interest". Nor is the American national interest synonomous with "the interest of any given American citizen" or "the interest of General Motors". Nor, presumably, is the national interest synonomous with "the wishes of 50.1% of the population", since people and presidents can mistake what is truly good for the nation. (We have whole threads dedicated to proving that proposition!) Nor even necessarily is the national interest synonomous with a particular religion or even "the moral right" - well, Aristotle would think it is, but he's not on these boards. And it's probably true that "national interest" is not just one single focus (justice! or love! or freedom! or etc.!) but a range of priorities.

I suspect that if we laid out clearly and cleanly what we personally believe to be America's true national interests, a lot of our very real disagreements would be clarified. Not solved, but at least we'd better understand each other. We might find that our arguments over policy are actually arguments over ends, not means. Or we might come to agree that such-and-such a policy is indeed in the American interest but not in the world's interest (or Microsoft's interest, or my personal interest, or the interest of our own country, or whatever).

In the spirit of Death Rabbit, I will refrain from presenting my interpretation 'til others have had a chance to offer their views. Make us proud!

 

Good Thread, GM. IMO, the national interest of any nation is best served through the virtue of its people. Government is nothing more but the collective force of society. When virtue is missing, the government will be belligerent and oppressive. But when knowledge and virtue are commonplace among its population, there will be a longing for peace and a love for liberty.

If we can agree on this, then the national interest should be how the intellect and moral character of our society can be improved upon and better fashioned. In other words, national security begins best in our own backyards.

 

I don't really want to touch on the issue of "moral character", it brings up the endemic crux of who's morals...yours, mine, a Fundamental Christian, a Secular Humanist, a Wiccan? It's a veritable Pandora's box, best left shut (or devoted to another thread )

I will comment on your other goal, that of developing the intellect of the society. Noble cause, in fact history is full of civilizations which have prized and sought to develop learning, intellect and culture. Unfortunately, we know little about those civilizations as they were ground under the boots of conquering aggressors , who subsequently rewrote history and eradicated any memory of the fine accomplishemnts of the vanquished! Societal intellect is a nice ideal, and should never be ignored, but if it is paramount, then that intellect becomes the property of the stronger culture. Societal intellect should be nurtured and cherished but never put ahead of the primary objective of the American national interest.

The American national interest is to secure LIFE , LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS for Americans. This is where it must start. This is the entire purpose for the founding of any sovreign nation. Each of those three items can open up limitless avenues of conversation as to what they mean, but if you start there, every action that the Nation makes in support of those items will be just, defensible and sensible.

*steps off soapbox and hands it to the next person in line*

edit: While I was writing this, DMC was posting his thoughts, which in many ways say the same thing I am saying. Gotta be a little quicker next time!

 

I'd say America is like a giant corporation. What is a corporation's interests? : To grow and become more wealthy and powerful. The populus is like the shareholders. They become pissed when the corporation does not do the above. (Of course, they're pissed no matter what.) It really doesn't matter who is the world power, everyone is going to judge them without mercy (not to mention unfairly). Me included. It's like a hockey game. The people sitting on the couch yell and scream at the TV because the player didn't pass to center so they could score, or because the goalie was too slow. The guys on the couch are probably fat and slow and can't skate, or don't own a hockey stick, but they still consider it their right to call the players idiots and say "man, what a loser! That guy can't play hockey. Why did they sign him?" The thing about it is, it is their right. Those hockey players wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for those fat, lazy slobs on the couch. Just like the fatcats in Washington (or any other city) wouldn't have jobs if nobody lived in America. Now, I know this rant probably makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, but it's our right as human beings to be critical and to complain about our polititions. It's been like that from the beginning of time.

I know you're asking "what's the point?" Well, the point is: It doesn't matter whether it's the UK, America, Russia or China who is the world power... everyone who isn't in the limelight gets totally ignored, while the people in it are being scrutinized and sized-up and getting called names.

You know what. Nevermind. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

I agree that you should quote one of the "Founding Brothers" of the American nation, HS, in speaking on the national interest. Since you say that "Life, Liberty and Happiness" is the main function of government, let me quote another of the Founding Brothers and one of the signers of the orginal document (by Thomas Jefferson) from which you quoted:

"The preservation of liberty depends upon the intellectual and moral character of the people. As long as knowledge and virtue are generally diffused among the body of a nation, it is impossible they should be enslaved." - John Adams

[ October 25, 2003, 08:57: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Hey Mystra, anyone who can boil down the National Interest to the parameters of a sporting event is OK by me! Sports is really just a microcosm of society as a whole.

@Chandros (this is getting to be a habit!) We remember John Adam's quote and can cherish it through subsequent generations because WE WON!. We had just gotten done securing our freedom, and had the liberty to wax poetic. If we had not won our war for Independence, John Adams would have been hung as a traitor to the Crown, and we would be reading the historical decrees of fatherly King George!

 

I think every nation has the same national interest. Peace (=safety) and prosperity of it's people and most nations state these things in their constitution as main goal.

National interest has an internal and an external side, which in the end are entwined. Internal ? To get a 4-party system. What would I see as the external national interest of the Americans ? I think DMC's post is great.

As for me, I'd say it would be in their best interest to promote democracy and trade. As it would to lead to more prosperity and peace (safety) outside of their borders and, as consequence, to more of those two inside their borders. My interpretation of things is, that it is not the case in the moment. Indeed, I think if they continue like this, I think they're is even remote (very, very remote) the danger of being torn apart like the Spanish-Empire (which once was very mighty indeed), with no friends but only enemies. Which I think would not be good for anyone.

Like the Greeks fell victim to the Macedonians and Romans. Yet their books are somehow not forgotten. Or the Hebrews were utterly crushed and send into diaspora, yet their special brand of monotheistic religion took on many varieties and spread all-over. Or the Chinese, which build a huge wall to save them from conquerors, which conquered them anyhow. And they seized the oppurtinity to turn the conquerors to Chinese. Or the Romans, which fell in the end to a not stopping wave of migrant-tribes. Which then went great lengths to rewrite history and make it look like the bright light of the Romans would shine on them, taking their titles and claiming succession. renovatio imperii romani.

 

Your point is well taken, but there is a common thread to all the civilizations that you mentioned...they were all conquerors in their own rights. Alexander controlled the largest empire the world had yet known. If the Greeks had never survived the City-state period and not developed into a world power, would we still be reading the plays or Sophocles or the writings of Aristotle, or would they have been lost? Classical Greek culture survived for us to study today because it survived two-plus millenia ago. It spread, it proliferated due to conquest. As a result when the Greek empire crummbled under Roman expansion, it had become so deeply entrenched throughout the known world that it did not whither. Even Octavian attended schools in Greece.

The Hebrew monotheism survived a diaspora because it brought a truly unique message to a primitive world..."There is a God...He is not you...you can hope for eternal bliss in the prescence of God" This was unprecedented in a polytheistic and natural religion world.

Roman legacy persists because of the special Roman outlook and efficiency of governing conquered territories. Too much to go into now, but all the examples you cited were able to leave a gift to the world of intellect and culture because they were first able, in each their own way, to survive and promote first the basic interest of the nation and citizens. China has always shown a remarkable ability to be conquered and turn the conquerors into Chinese...not sure how they do that...needs more thought.

Dacians, Minoans, Ionians, Chaldeans, Carthaginians, Hittites, Assyrians...the list on the other side of the ledger is much longer...of cultures that have been lost in the shuffle of time. I doubt that the major differences between these and the others mentioned as survivors was a relative difference in societal intellect. If I have gotten too far , run me through with any suitable bronze farming implement!

 

I do not know, if this is really off-topic. As the past somehow determines the way the present and future is seen.

Well, your points are not deniable. But I am not sure, as for celts for example, that the la-tène culture really is completly vanished. I think quite the opposite. It just didn't leave written things, except for city names maybe. And even it's only things like the carneval in Venice and the Oktoberfest in Bavaria. Even if there was a huge imput of greek-culture, again.

But I think that the main factor about the greeks was, that they were merchants. Leaving their mountainous homes on ships and settling all over the mediterranian, likes frogs on a pond. Their downfall came with the peloponnesian wars, leaving them defensless versus the Macedonians. The Macedonians themselves fell out on eachother. But still, greek colonies like Marseilles still exist. They did never stop to exist. The people lived on, doing econmical great, even if their former political entities disappeared and were replaced by others. (That is, in the west, everything did bad in the dark-ages).

And the Sassanid-Empire and the Byzantine Emprie did gave eachother a hard-time, until they were both lying bleeding around, easy prey for the Arabs, coming their way. Yet, too, both cultures were absorbed by their conquerors.

Ideas which have there own merit will not vanish. Nor has the changing of political entities a huge impact. Much more important is economical decline, not so much caused by the entities themselves, but more caused by the changes taking place around them.

To the Chinese: I think there trick is to write in prictures and not in phonetics. If we would have the same system, I wouldn't have to bother learning English grammar and spelling.

 

Is American national interest a monolith? That is to say, can we truly pin down what is in the best interests of the nation without consulting all this hullaboo the politicians talk about when they say they know what's good for America... I would argue the average American can't perceive or doesn't care about our country's standing occupation in Iraq, its goals, or the interests of the MNCs like Halliburton who have inexplicably won all the reconstruction bids without contest.

When considering questions of national interest, I think a more pertinent and direct question would be, what do the leaders want? There can be a great disparity between what the leadership desires and what the constituency desires.

So maybe we ought to be more specific... subjectively, what was good for GM was indeed good for the US when they passed the Federal Highway Act. It created many hyperspecialized industries and many jobs for the economy. But then the environmentalists will tell you that massive commute will contribute to an apocalyptic meltdown of the polar ice caps.

 

@Yago

Macedonians were Greeks as well, they weren't a different nation. Also, the Byzantine empire was conquered by the Turks not by Arabs and the byzantine culture was not absorbed by the turks, it managed to survive in the greek-orthodox church.

 

dmc wrote:

This is close to what I think but I'd add one, maybe substantial, change. I think America's interests go beyond maintaining its existence in the political, economic, and military arenas and extends to maintaining dominance in each arena where it is dominant and seeking dominance in each arena that it is not. (note that maintaining dominance doesn't mean pissing on everyone else).

 

I’m going to go back to Chandos’s first post. Chandos talked about what the national interest should be. IMO, that’s not what this topic is about; rather it’s about what the national interest is, which is not necessarily the same thing.

dmc made the comment that groups “revel in power and enjoy wielding it”. This is basically what Laches said above, except he worded it differently. In the case of the U.S., as an outsider, it appears to me that dmc and Laches are right. How often have we heard the U.S. proudly say that “we are the greatest nation on the earth”? And how many times has Bush said that he “expects” some person or nation to behave in a certain way, as if that person or nation should actually care about what Bush expects? This is the behaviour of a nation that wants to dominate. And it is only natural that they should want to do so. Going back to Mystra’s sports analogy, a dominant individual or team wants to continue with, and improve on, its dominance. Similarly, as the most powerful nation in the world today, it makes sense that the U.S. would want to increase its power; after all, nobody actually wants to become weaker.

For Canada, while U.S. dominance is not necessarily seen as good per se, it is also not such a big deal since our two nations are so closely tied together; to a lesser extent, the same can probably be said for much of Europe. However, this desire to dominate is what some parts of the world fear about the U.S., and it is partly why the U.S. is hated so by the people in those areas. And then there is that danger encapsulated by the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Edit: corrected spelling of Chandos's name (I apparently have the same affliction as Hacken Slash - see below)

[ October 26, 2003, 16:48: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

I know I have an off-topic notoriety

Macedonians: We could settle on, the southerners held the northerners not in high-esteem ?

Byzantine-Empire: I meant that the Arabs had nearly the complete eastern-hellinistic world on a silver plate, i.e. taking control of Persia, Syria, Egypt (and N-Africa). And immediately started to absorb (i.e. translating it into arabic, adding arabic numbers) the culture they found there. Keeping former provinces of their empire defintely out of reach for the Byzantines.

On topic: The point is, how long is it realisticly possible for the Americans to keep their dominance, if this is truly their national interest ? By having two huge countries (India, China) as competitors ? Isn't it in the end unavoidable to be outgrown by them, as the Americans have outgrown the UK ? I think relative decline is unavoidable. But in the end, if it's not absolute decline, why worry about it ?

 

You know, at this point, I'd be real happy with just being able to run around the block without having to worry about people shooting at me. But then, I would think that my children would also like that same freedom. And their children. And so on, and so forth...

At some point, someone actually has to get some work done instead of hiding in the gym or wine cellar.

 

Yes, and everything that's wrong with it!

 

Interesting point. Certainly by sheer population size, both India and China would seem to be able to simply "outgrow" the US. China in particular has experienced so much growth in manufacturing in the last generation it is a little daunting. Try to find any childrens toy that is not made in China. Even the recent success of the Chinese Space Program shows a certain level of high tech success (although, bear in mind, that they are roughly where the US and the USSR were in @ 1961 and have utilized groundbreaking techology already developed by either nation) I think that the ultimate achilles heel for China will be the very fact that it will never truly become a prosperous manufacturing giant without a Democratic form of government. Interesting that it might serve the US interests more for China to remain a cooperative Communist country than a competitive Democracy!

India I see as a little less threat to American security and growth. They are confronted with the fundamental hurdle of having to develop an effective agricultural sector to feed themselves to stop being a net importer of food. A nation of that many people will always have a significant trade imbalance until such is done. A few cultures have attained world dominance with a complete dependence on imported food (Rome and Great Britain come to mind), but usually a healthy agricultural production is the first step of a manufacturing nation.

I fear that we are sliding off the original topic, however. GM asked what America's interests were. I still feel that they are best named as the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans. Barring any serious differences to those three, maybe we should begin with them and try to define exactly what they are.

 

I'm sorry, Chandros, what did you say? I was busy watching the ball game .