My mother asked me what I thought Americas role in the quagmire that is in the Middle East should be, and my almost mute condition prohibited me from responding. I never could resist sounding off about any subject of which I possess no expertise, so why stop now? With the pluralization of society, America is focused on the pursuit of happiness more than its pursuit of life and liberty, thus limiting our credibility with countries that dont agree (as the Middle East surely do not....as the more arcane but somehow respectable Judeo-Christian tradition previously was). It seems the question centers around the United States role of being de facto leader of the free world and the adage applies if the shoe fits wear it (as it does with my qualifications for answering it). As a rule, hedonists and narcissists dont get to rule much of anything, much less the free world. We generally prefer our leaders to be self- sacrificing and egalitarian types. But for some years, it has increasingly become more shallow to the point where we have elected a leader whose every decision is incomprehensible unless understood in light of an agenda in sympathy with those our government has not traditionally been sympathetic with. The American people elected him twice without really vetting their candidate. If the United States wants to maintain leadership in the world, it cant hold to values that oppose those of large sectors of the world. It would also be well-advised to abandon the perception of cowardice in its pursuit of peace. That doesnt play well in Moscow. If the entity that is the United States wants to be seen as the leader of any sector of the Middle East, its got to have some ideas that have as their starting point some commonality with the values of that part of the world. If the country is satisfied with a Hallmark Greeting Cards level of philosophy masquerading as post-graduate studies, then they already know where to look.
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 03:09:18 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015