The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?

[wm]

"Not all uses of tu quoque arguments involve logical fallacy. They can be properly used to bring about awareness of inconsistency, to indirectly repeal a criticism by narrowing its scope or challenging its criteria, or to call into question the credibility of a source of knowledge."

The quoted posting on the licit and illicit use of tu quoque, points to the overall character of this thread. Each side has a view that may have some relevance. However, the actual truth of the matter quite probably lies somewhere in between the two polar extremes that this thread's posts seem to display. The dogged adherence by posters to their positions reminds me of a great exchange from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

Billy the Kid: Here's the deal. What I win, I keep. What you win, I keep.
Bill, Ted: Sounds good, Mr. The Kid!

To close with more memorable words from Bill and Ted: "Be excellent to each other," and "Party on Dudes!"

[Schmedlap]

The US has held a leadership role in the world and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The attitude of many leaders when their Soldiers start getting irritable is one of "I don't care if you hate me; I just care that we accomplish the mission and you all go home alive." Let's concede for argument that all of Europe dislikes the United States and even dislikes most Americans. Who cares? Europe still ACTS like an ally and it is a good trading partner.

And if it is so important to be liked by other countries, then I am still not losing any sleep at night, because Japan, India, South Korea, and other populous, economically powerful countries across the world are friendly with us. What is Europe going to do, lob a nuke at us? I don't think so. Begin a trade embargo on Dannon yogurt or BMWs? Oh no. Let them whine. So long as they're not running al-Qaeda training camps, their hissy fits seem pretty irrelevant. When it comes time for their political leaders to catch a breath and think about things like adults, they will always find themselves concluding that their interests align with ours. And that is all that matters: interests, not emotions. Hate us all you want. Just keep growing your economies and don't kill each other.

[selil]

The quoted posting on the licit and illicit use of tu quoque, points to the overall character of this thread. Each side has a view that may have some relevance. However, the actual truth of the matter quite probably lies somewhere in between the two polar extremes that this thread's posts seem to display. The dogged adherence by posters to their positions reminds me of a great exchange from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

Actually I don't believe there is a middle ground. You have to call it where it lies not in between where the two teams think it should be.

On one side you have Germany the country that started two world wars, as a country has an split personality disorder, and is the site of the number one abomination in the last century the holocaust. Add to that the fact that Europe has relied on the United States for a large component of its national defense and Germany especially.

On the other side you have the nation that until WW2 forswore large scale combat, only truly got involved after a major attack on it, and as a consequence of that basically rebuilt the entirety of Europe. The United States has always rejected effete continental metropolitanization of international politics for workman like behavior. If a hammer doesn't do it get a bigger hammer. United States foreign policy has always been "define the enemy, kill the enemy, go home", it is only when we deviate from that script that we seem to run into issues.

Though I'd have to agree with Fuchs. Those who are more political animals than thinking individuals would disagree with me, but I think the United States will shutter its bases in Europe and other locales. The collective gasp of punditry heard around the world is amazing. Thinking outside the box, not restricted by political obsession, nor held by the straw man of "what about", I think the case will be made for stripping our foreign bases and bringing all troops home.

Of course what about Korea? Well, I know there are bunch of people who say we have this obligation. I'm not sure the next generation of Americans are going to be willing to pay for that obligation regardless of the current political culture. The situation in Korea hasn't been resolved in 50 years it is time to go home. Fulda Gap? So we are to pay for an Army to sit next to spot on a map based on WW2 maneuver warfare tactics in a nation that is obviously hostile (including trading with our actual enemies) to our interests.

There are a variety of technologies, techniques, skills, methods, incentives, and outright bribes that are cheaper, easier, and faster than the current politics of leprosy we have.

The refrain of "You're an isolationist" is almost as evil "You're a communist" and usually only followed by the more tenacious "that is childish" as far as pejorative phrases and ad hominem attack. The problem is that todays children are going to inherent the running of the United States tomorrow. It has nothing to do with "my" politics or feelings, but the reality of what will become U.S. domestic politics in the future.

Regardless of the emotion history is on my side it is only a matter of time. From the Philippines to the Panama canal the United States has left. Of course Fuchs will not want to look at what happened in both locations after the U.S. left. Regardless of the emotions, feelings, "political expediency", I think that the economic issues currently in play and the brittle supply chains to a world wide national force are going to force a draw down. My hope is that we can maintain the standing force because I perceive that in a vacuum of projected power all heck will break loose.

Time will resolve the argument one way or the other.

[J Wolfsberger]

Regardless of the emotion history is on my side it is only a matter of time. From the Philippines to the Panama canal the United States has left. Of course Fuchs will not want to look at what happened in both locations after the U.S. left. Regardless of the emotions, feelings, "political expediency", I think that the economic issues currently in play and the brittle supply chains to a world wide national force are going to force a draw down. My hope is that we can maintain the standing force because I perceive that in a vacuum of projected power all heck will break loose.

The first is calling the US an "imperial" power. If so, we're the only one in history that packs up and goes home when asked. Sam points to two cases, and I'll add France and Austria. (And yes, we intervene in other countries when we think it's in our interest. Then we go home.)

The second is that our general tradition is isolationism. Regardless of his reasons, B. Obama is tapping into a long standing theme in US history. If he's elected, I expect Sam's forecast to play out.

And I don't expect the rest of the world to be happy when it does. Zimbabwe? Darfur? Sri Lanka? North Korea? A war in South America? AIDS? Malaria? Famine? Not out problems.

[marct]

The first is calling the US an "imperial" power. If so, we're the only one in history that packs up and goes home when asked.

Yup - it's one of the reasons you guys confuse people !

The second is that our general tradition is isolationism. Regardless of his reasons, B. Obama is tapping into a long standing theme in US history. If he's elected, I expect Sam's forecast to play out.

And I don't expect the rest of the world to be happy when it does. Zimbabwe? Darfur? Sri Lanka? North Korea? A war in South America? AIDS? Malaria? Famine? Not out problems.

Hmmm. It's not your problem until you need something from those areas . Isolationism is all well and good, and you're right, it's an old US tradition, but I suspect that if you were to try it in practice, your economic situation would make today look like paradise. You might be able to do a form of social isolationism, but certainly not economic isolationism. Sorry JW, but you're stuck with interacting with the rest of the world whether or not you like it .

[Steve Blair]

The US has never really been economically isolationist...at least not in the sense that I think you mean, Marc. Trade has always been an issue, except possibly for some traditionally isolationist parts of New England (and even there seaborne commerce was a big part of their historical background and profitability). But we have certainly been militarily and politically isolationist...and like Sam I'm starting to see a fair chance that we will return to such policies. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the majority of our overseas bases closed down...and it would be interesting to see how long the quiet lasted before others started shouting for US "help" (mostly funds and the like) to deal with some of the world's problem spots.

There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

The US has never really been economically isolationist...at least not in the sense that I think you mean, Marc. Trade has always been an issue, except possibly for some traditionally isolationist parts of New England (and even there seaborne commerce was a big part of their historical background and profitability).

You're quite right; I used the wrong term - isolationist when the proper one would be protectionist (i.e. erecting trade / tariff barriers on incoming goods while trying to undermine them in other countries). I'm thinking of the stance in the 1820's and again in the 1870's-90's, mainly in manufactured goods.

But we have certainly been militarily and politically isolationist...and like Sam I'm starting to see a fair chance that we will return to such policies. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the majority of our overseas bases closed down...and it would be interesting to see how long the quiet lasted before others started shouting for US "help" (mostly funds and the like) to deal with some of the world's problem spots.

Hmmm. Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see a fair number of your overseas bases closed either, but I think you will see new ones opening up. My gut guess would be that there will still be quite a few US troops on foreign soil, regardless of any political isolationist tendencies. As for groups shouting for help, it would probably start before any draw down . OTOH, you might also want t think about what various US multi-national corporations would do in response to such a draw down (maybe I should invest in Blackwater stock!).

There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.

I'm honestly not sure if it's that or not .

[J Wolfsberger]

Isolationism is all well and good, and you're right, it's an old US tradition, but I suspect that if you were to try it in practice, your economic situation would make today look like paradise. You might be able to do a form of social isolationism, but certainly not economic isolationism. Sorry JW, but you're stuck with interacting with the rest of the world whether or not you like it .

I was agreeing with Sam's prediction, not advocating. The point I was getting at is that I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion.

[marct]

I was agreeing with Sam's prediction, not advocating. The point I was getting at is that I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion.

LOLOL - okay, got it and I think that's exactly what would happen .

[Ken White]

To include Fuchs' (but not snapperhead who has contributed nothing other than pseudointellectual bon mots). Though I have to admit most of you take the issue more seriously than do I. We have been on the nasty list for most of the world for most of our existence. Rarely, we are if not loved, either accepted or respected -- but mostly we're slammed. I've seen so much of it here and there I don't pay much attention to it. It goes in cycles. That's why I think this is sort of important:

Originally Posted by Steve Blair:
There's also a segment, I think, that likes the idea of having the US "handy"...in other words sitting quietly on the sidelines yet willing to come when called (with money and/or military force if needed) to deal with things that others don't want to deal with directly. The fact that from time to time we don't want to play in that role makes them nervous. The roots of much of this are quite deep, and there's enough of it to go around.

To which Marc responded:

I'm honestly not sure if it's that or not .

I submit that Steve is correct.

At the ripe old age of 14, I was in China (B.M. - Before Mao) and a British Officer pointed to a "Yankee go home" graffiti on a wall. I told him I was from Kentucky, so that didn't apply to me and he was totally uncomprehending. That was the beginning of a revelation. Very few people in the rest of the world can understand the US (many in the US don't understand it...), Canadians probably come closer than anyone but even they think we're beyond tacky and really rather weird (both truths). Surprisingly, I think Asians understand us a little better than do Europeans. So too do South Americans, many of whom harbor some earned resentment toward us -- but they all still want to come here. We totally baffle most Europeans I've met..

Given the fact that we contributed to the defeat of Germany in two wars, Japan in one; we effectively forced the British and French out of the Colonial business and messed up Suez for them and have managed to annoy most nations in the world at one time or another in pursuit of US interests and you have plenty of reasons for us to be on many a nasty list. Add to that a really ignorant and pathetic media face to the world which tends to emphasize our clownish side coupled with the fact that we're big and over prone to try to throw our weight around when it is to our benefit and ignore those issues that are note seen as beneficial (always with an eye to domestic politics) and we're seen an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical pain in the tail too many. That is unlikely to change.

So are we.

In the immortal words of J Wolfsberger:

...I think we'd make the attempt. Having done so, when it didn't work out, we'd lurch way to far in the other direction.

Just to add to the confusion.

Yep...

[patmc]

That is a pretty good one paragraph summary of it. Well put.

Given the fact that we contributed to the defeat of Germany in two wars, Japan in one; we effectively forced the British and French out of the Colonial business and messed up Suez for them and have managed to annoy most nations in the world at one time or another in pursuit of US interests and you have plenty of reasons for us to be on many a nasty list. Add to that a really ignorant and pathetic media face to the world which tends to emphasize our clownish side coupled with the fact that we're big and over prone to try to throw our weight around when it is to our benefit and ignore those issues that are note seen as beneficial (always with an eye to domestic politics) and we're seen an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical pain in the tail too many. That is unlikely to change.

So are we.