but he thought I should have posted it in the thread.

So here goes, even though the content is more political than I like to be on this forum. Perhaps the thread topic and discussion of CvC's "political trinity" justify this brief excursion into politics.

Trinity and its components - part 1

Your questions #1 & 2

a.) OK, so are you saying the the Passion, Reason, Chance trinity does not apply in the 21st Century US?
The trinity of people, government and military does apply; but not in its "ideal" form.

b.) So would you suggest better ascribing the characteristic of Passion (you can also say Emotion) to the Government or the Army and not the People?
To government - which is the rest of the story.

------------------------
US "government" re: national foreign policy issues

Formally, we have the Executive Branch (with several thousand presidential appointees) and the Legislative Branch (with thousands of staffers) - all subject to change on 2, 4 and 6 year cycles. Because of fund-raising, the next 2-year cycle for the House has already started (to end Nov 2010). All of these folks are very much politicians and take politics (not policy) very seriously. You do see "passion" in them - and, in many cases, actual "hostility" and "animosity" between those politicians - the "gotcha" tactic.

Informally, you have to add several other components to government. One is the media (old and new), which feeds off the politicians - and also feeds off another component, special interest groups (of which, there are 10s of 1000s, with variable input into the area of foreign policy).

Interest groups affect (and seek to effect) policy via lobbying (probably the most effective, if you have an inside track); and by use of the media. Since these folks have special interests, they tend to be true believers - so, "hostility" and "animosity" runs even higher among them than among the politicians. The media feeds off of that (helps ratings to have two nutjobs yelling at each other) - and so, we have what in effect is a constantly running Freak Show.

Another input into government (and the key source of presidential appointees) are the think tanks. While some are neutral (say, CFR which publishes Foreign Affairs, or AFIO in the intelligence area), many have definite agendas and more closely resemble special interest groups. So, with the latter, "hostility" and "animosity" can and do reign.

In short, the various components that make up our government (formally and informally) are made up of people, who are very inclined to emotions, passions and everything else you say.

----------------------
US People (using that in a collective sense, as in "We the People ...") re: national foreign policy issues

Apathy (as to things political) would best describe the vast majority of the American people; and yes ...

Quote:
.. we are talking about the same 21st Century Americans who vote more on game shows than they do national elections ...
and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Of course, I would say more elegantly () that USAians have more and more dropped out of the political process, as fewer and fewer people remain involved in the political parties at the grassroots level, leaving politics as they are to the "professional politicians".

We see that the same thing has happened in the union movement. Except for unions of government employees (isn't that interesting), the union movement is a shell of its former self. That is scarcely surprising because government has become the "union of last resort".

USAians are not stupid (collectively) and are aware (collectively) of both foreign and domestic affairs (the latter being currently more important); but have left direct involvement in the political process to the "pros". That could change if the People feel threatened in their survival (hard to see absent a Thermonuclear War), or in their vital interests - try to cut out the Social Security system and see what would happen - Gray Panthers !

Of course, if one were to take our media at face value - and as an expression of what USAians really are - one would fairly conclude that the US People are collectively a bunch of impassioned nutjobs.

----------------------------------------

Trinity and its components - part 2

CvC actually relates to all this in the six paragraphs I quoted at post # 59, where this seems very pertinent:

Now, whether this will be the case always in future, whether all wars hereafter in Europe will be carried on with the whole power of the States, and, consequently, will only take place on account of great interests closely affecting the people, or whether a separation of the interests of the Government from those of the people will gradually again arise, would be a difficult point to settle; and, least of all, shall we take upon us to settle it.
I'd suggest that, in the US of the 1st decade of the 21st century, the interests of government (as I have described the components) have separated from the interests of the People, who every now and then rear up - as in the case of the last two elections (2006 and 2008).

Combine this with all-volunteer military forces, and we have something that is kin to what CvC described in his summary of pre-French Revolution history.

And, in fact, Rome (which CvC found unique) may be the best parallel - since the trinity applied there, but in a different way than in its "ideal form".

I also found this piece of CvC interesting and seemingly applicable to methodology:

We here bring our historical survey to a close, for it was not our design to give at a gallop some of the principles on which war has been carried on in each age, but only to show how each period has had its own peculiar forms of war, its own restrictive conditions, and its own prejudices. Each period would, therefore, also keep its own theory of war, even if every where, in early times, as well as in later, the task had been undertaken of working out a theory on philosophical principles. The events in each age must, therefore, be judged of in connection with the peculiarities of the time, and only he who, less through an anxious study of minute details than through an accurate glance at the whole, can transfer himself into each particular age, is fit to understand and appreciate its generals.

But this conduct of war, conditioned by the peculiar relations of States, and of the military force employed, must still always contain in itself something more general, or rather something quite general, with which, above everything, theory is concerned.
So, while some things change in some way, they remain all the more the same in basic principles.

PS: I eschew game shows; but my evening viewing goes something like this:

Brett Baer (1/2 news, 1/2 Fox commentary); Shep Smith (straight news); O'Reilly and Hannity; Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews (these last 5 from 8pm-1am; and definitely a Freak Show, best viewed for its entertainment value).

Most of the time, all that is on for background noise, while I read or write things on the computer.

Cheers

Mike