The benefits of Empire are also strategic depth and resources to call on in war. The British and French nations survived the struggles with Germany because of their Empires.
The costs of Empire to the United States have been dear indeed, the military spending is trifling compared to the damage done to our economy by Free Trade, to Constitutional Republican Government by the necessities of Imperial rule, to our Liberties by this Intelligence Gendarmerie that crept into some power, to the Trust of our people in their government- America is culturally a high trust society. In sum Empire impoverished and unraveled America.
Fortunately we are both guarded and confined by our Oceanic geography.
No one is getting in… and we can’t really get away either.
The EU embodies ideas of negotiated sovereignty and economic cooperation developed in Europe, above all in Germany, during WW1 and after. The operative thinking was further developed during WW2 by the Axis, but was rolled out under American auspices once the Carolingian heartland was under US control.
The EU was designed to enable cartels to develop economies of scale so that they could compete with anyone. A dirigiste project camouflaged by liberal postures and rhetoric.
Fascinating writing Lorenzo! The EU seemed alright when I travelled around Europe in the early 2000s, but that was the early days of the War on Terror, and it definitely seems like things have become worse since then...
Whereas in previous European balances of power, the peace was underwritten by two or more strong states within an alliance, NATO was a covenant between all of western Europe and the U.S. NATO was further a repudiation of the idealism at the core of the UN.
Nothing has changed in actuality - this strong states balance of power structure still exists. This is because the majority of its members are "playing dressup" rather than hosting real military capacity.
NATO military power is really just the US war machine aided by a small number of auxiliaries: UK, France and Italy. Poland may well be joining this group soon given their military build-up over Ukraine.
West Germany would have been on this list pre 1990. A much better way of spending budget would actually be to just abolish the small nations' militaries and direct the funding of the bigger powers to provide joint defense for all.
You need a seed group of the militarily-involved in each country to have any sort of military mindedness. Also, having a say at all levels means being involved at all levels.
It’s absolutely patchy as are we by nature. I can go into some detail if requested. In most areas including where I live there’s considerable assistance but all spread out and frankly either overworked or under utilized. There’s also the matter of negotiating with insurance including the government. This gave rise to the healthcare caregiver role which certainly exists.
To the academic this cries out for central planning and control, if there was ever a country NOT to do this it’s America. Subsidiarity is absolutely the best policy in America.
Lorenzo, you’re a very poignant example of how even the most erudite, good writers (as you are) are heavily influenced by their prejudice produce speculative, erroneous or, the worst, even propagandistic writings. E.g.
Who openly, directly and continuously attack the US, EU and the national institutions - Trump, ADF, FN/RN, all the way to Orban (and Putin).
Trump a win for the working class, blacks, Latinos !? you’ve got to be joking, badly!
EU’s Council decides on all important issues and it consists of the elected national PMs, with a veto power, what is more democratic than that? (Qualified majority is my preference).
Your unqualified statement that it cannot be presumed that a state would act in the interests of its citizen is pretty telling, as it is absurd since at the same time you often denounce existing welfare policies.
Btw the import of gold and silver from the American colonies, the consequent raise of price level the Iberia and increase of imports ruined the Spanish economy.
Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU level and are not likely to lose office as a result. That makes a difference. Moreover, who voted for Ever Closer Union? How do you vote against it?
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
“Why do the national populists get the votes they do?…” Get them on false pretenses, see promises, assurances made by Brexiteers, Chavez, Orban, Trump, People endorsed Hitler, Mao, Castro, Putin etc, and regretted it deeply.
Trump didn’t “ electorally” take the GOP., SCOTUS/Heritage Foundation handed over control to the oligarchy by Citizens United, eg. Musk spelled it clearly.
“If national populists are such threats to institutions, ..” I write they ‘attack’, but yes, these far right or fascist parties ARE also a threat.
“why do so many people vote for them? …”. see above. And these institutions ARE NOT failing, they are just not perfect and need to adapt to all the time.
“Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for?” Immigration is a national policy, not EU one, and imo big mistakes were made and huge political prices were paid, as should.
“Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, “ Wrong. Western political systems have this built in assumption, eg. “of the people, by the people …”. but have also built in checks (and balances) which the budding authoritarians try to eliminate, eg. Orban, Trump. Difficult doesn’t mean we do not / shouldn’t do it.
“Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point”. No, it’s just a factual note on the impact of silver on the economy, which goes to explain how Spain got so poor after having a huge colonial empire.
Starting with “you disagree with me so you are ignorant and prejudiced” was a very unimpressive start. You have no idea how to argue a case, all you can do is assert. Learn what actual argument is, or go away.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.
The benefits of Empire are also strategic depth and resources to call on in war. The British and French nations survived the struggles with Germany because of their Empires.
The costs of Empire to the United States have been dear indeed, the military spending is trifling compared to the damage done to our economy by Free Trade, to Constitutional Republican Government by the necessities of Imperial rule, to our Liberties by this Intelligence Gendarmerie that crept into some power, to the Trust of our people in their government- America is culturally a high trust society. In sum Empire impoverished and unraveled America.
Fortunately we are both guarded and confined by our Oceanic geography.
No one is getting in… and we can’t really get away either.
The EU embodies ideas of negotiated sovereignty and economic cooperation developed in Europe, above all in Germany, during WW1 and after. The operative thinking was further developed during WW2 by the Axis, but was rolled out under American auspices once the Carolingian heartland was under US control.
The EU was designed to enable cartels to develop economies of scale so that they could compete with anyone. A dirigiste project camouflaged by liberal postures and rhetoric.
Fascinating writing Lorenzo! The EU seemed alright when I travelled around Europe in the early 2000s, but that was the early days of the War on Terror, and it definitely seems like things have become worse since then...
NGOS should be treated as Spies, they are active Intelligence and Government agents.
At the least FARA or equivalent. (Foreign Agents Registration Act, USA).
Whereas in previous European balances of power, the peace was underwritten by two or more strong states within an alliance, NATO was a covenant between all of western Europe and the U.S. NATO was further a repudiation of the idealism at the core of the UN.
Nothing has changed in actuality - this strong states balance of power structure still exists. This is because the majority of its members are "playing dressup" rather than hosting real military capacity.
NATO military power is really just the US war machine aided by a small number of auxiliaries: UK, France and Italy. Poland may well be joining this group soon given their military build-up over Ukraine.
West Germany would have been on this list pre 1990. A much better way of spending budget would actually be to just abolish the small nations' militaries and direct the funding of the bigger powers to provide joint defense for all.
You need a seed group of the militarily-involved in each country to have any sort of military mindedness. Also, having a say at all levels means being involved at all levels.
Typo: “PMs Tony Blair and George Brown”. Pretty sure he was called Gordon
Fixed, ta.
So concerning that last link.... it's not the Jews, WASPs, Vatican, or Mormons, but the AUSTRALIANS who are the heart of the Bankers Conspiracy?
The US has excellent healthcare, just not officially socialist and you have to know how to look.
It’s certainly not as straightforward as SNAP EBT Dole benefits but it’s certainly there-
The coverage of the same is a bit of a different matter.
It’s absolutely patchy as are we by nature. I can go into some detail if requested. In most areas including where I live there’s considerable assistance but all spread out and frankly either overworked or under utilized. There’s also the matter of negotiating with insurance including the government. This gave rise to the healthcare caregiver role which certainly exists.
To the academic this cries out for central planning and control, if there was ever a country NOT to do this it’s America. Subsidiarity is absolutely the best policy in America.
Lorenzo, you’re a very poignant example of how even the most erudite, good writers (as you are) are heavily influenced by their prejudice produce speculative, erroneous or, the worst, even propagandistic writings. E.g.
Who openly, directly and continuously attack the US, EU and the national institutions - Trump, ADF, FN/RN, all the way to Orban (and Putin).
Trump a win for the working class, blacks, Latinos !? you’ve got to be joking, badly!
EU’s Council decides on all important issues and it consists of the elected national PMs, with a veto power, what is more democratic than that? (Qualified majority is my preference).
Your unqualified statement that it cannot be presumed that a state would act in the interests of its citizen is pretty telling, as it is absurd since at the same time you often denounce existing welfare policies.
Btw the import of gold and silver from the American colonies, the consequent raise of price level the Iberia and increase of imports ruined the Spanish economy.
Pity.
Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU level and are not likely to lose office as a result. That makes a difference. Moreover, who voted for Ever Closer Union? How do you vote against it?
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.
Sorry smth went wrong . This is my full reply.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
“Why do the national populists get the votes they do?…” Get them on false pretenses, see promises, assurances made by Brexiteers, Chavez, Orban, Trump, People endorsed Hitler, Mao, Castro, Putin etc, and regretted it deeply.
Trump didn’t “ electorally” take the GOP., SCOTUS/Heritage Foundation handed over control to the oligarchy by Citizens United, eg. Musk spelled it clearly.
“If national populists are such threats to institutions, ..” I write they ‘attack’, but yes, these far right or fascist parties ARE also a threat.
“why do so many people vote for them? …”. see above. And these institutions ARE NOT failing, they are just not perfect and need to adapt to all the time.
“Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for?” Immigration is a national policy, not EU one, and imo big mistakes were made and huge political prices were paid, as should.
“Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, “ Wrong. Western political systems have this built in assumption, eg. “of the people, by the people …”. but have also built in checks (and balances) which the budding authoritarians try to eliminate, eg. Orban, Trump. Difficult doesn’t mean we do not / shouldn’t do it.
“Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point”. No, it’s just a factual note on the impact of silver on the economy, which goes to explain how Spain got so poor after having a huge colonial empire.
Rgds
Starting with “you disagree with me so you are ignorant and prejudiced” was a very unimpressive start. You have no idea how to argue a case, all you can do is assert. Learn what actual argument is, or go away.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.
“Those national leaders are not elected on the basis of what they do at the EU ..” they are elected to act on ALL issues, there’s no other political power ( the Euro Parliament is an quasi advisory body).
Why do the national populists get the votes they do? Why did Trump do so well among Hispanics and improve his vote among African-American males? I did not comment on Trump’s policies, except in very general terms, merely where he had electorally taken the GOP.
If national populists are such threats to institutions, why do so many people vote for them? Why do so many working class people vote for them? Why is there such falling trust in institutions?
Why are immigration policies they don’t want, did not vote for, and are clearly dysfunctional, continually foisted on European and British voters?
Of course you cannot presume a state will act in the interests of of its citizens, but must look at such things on a case-by-case basis. Imposing accountability on states is hard, and is never finally won, as there is constant motivation to evade such accountability, so search for new means to do so. See, for example, matters Trans.
Also, your last para is just a restatement of my point about empire not being in the interets of the people of the metropole, so I am not sure what point you are making.