“The USA was founded as a trading nation; the “city on a hill” stuff was ex post facto propagandizing, to help us feel good about ourselves.”
Really? Wow, didn’t know that. Explains perfectly why we’re involved in a trillion dollar, 50 year cold war with “allies” that stab us in the back every chance available.
“No trading nation can cut itself off.”
A nation isn’t a trading nation if all it can do is print money, buy imports and fight (others) wars.
“we think we’re too good, too moral to dirty our hands with the problems of the rest of the world.”
No, completely wrong.
We think we’ve spent too much time, treasure and blood with “the problems of the rest of the world.”
“...Explains perfectly why we’re involved in a trillion dollar, 50 year cold war with “allies” that stab us in the back every chance available. … No, completely wrong.
We think we’ve spent too much time, treasure and blood …” [JPJones, post 21]
Difficult to plumb the depths of irony here: that many Americans, shielded by two oceans, weak and/or backward neighbors, and armed might, have become convinced they have “spent too much” after suffering only a tiny fraction of the loss and societal upset that afflicted so many other countries during the 20th century. Hesitation to intervene in both World Wars can only be seen as morally puny.
But the worst conceptual mistake Americans make is this: looking at less-than-perfectly-executed intervention in (for example) Southeast Asia, or Korea, or the earlier World Wars, and judging after the fact that involvement was not worth the effort, or a strategic error. The two aspects of the problem are not related.
Of course trade deficits are troubling. And allies do not behave exactly as we’d like them to. Could all of it have been done better? Quite likely. But none of that should furnish an excuse to withdraw. Unless we enjoy being intellectually dishonest.