Wednesday, January 12, 2011
An Accidental Wet Blanket?
I fear my call a few days ago for a pause may have inadvertently discouraged new posts, inchoate or otherwise. Hence, in the spirit of Mao Zedong, "Let a hundred flowers bloom" ... and let the "pause" be over!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A Pause?
Re "Thread" with John & Ellen Brightly:
Appreciating John Doane’s response (appearing as a comment under our first post)
Hi John,
We appreciate the moral and religious perspective that you bring to the discussion. Certainly we need to consider the morality of what our country is doing in the world as we try to formulate some approaches to modifying aspects of our behavior. We remember a young couple, adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church, telling us that their church taught that all human organizations become corrupt (we assume that is self-referencing), that there needed to be some group of people adhering to the ideals of religion throughout history to keep those ideals alive (for us that would extend beyond Christianity to other religions as well). We believe that that resonates with your experience as you have expressed it.
In analyzing the problem and formulating solutions we may well have to consider the sensibilities that allow us to justify the things our country does to other peoples in the world, inquire as to our mentalities as we allow corporations to destroy lives and the environment for the sake of us shareholders. (We will take another look at the work of Hanna Arendt.)
When you say, “I don't doubt that the United States has participated in all kinds of evil abroad. But we haven't like so many other countries established our own autocratic rule; the aftermath of World War II was a chance we had to do that and we did better.”, we agree that we did some good things, like supporting other countries with the Marshall Plan (even if for our own benefit), but although we did not establish “our own autocratic rule” in the same way as say the USSR we did establish a kind of autocratic rule or empire that now makes use of military bases and establishments in most of the countries of our world. And then there is the whole question of how we used the CIA, our secret army – secret to Americans but not to the people they effect -- to overthrow democratically elected governments (e.g., Iran, Chile, etc.), to carry out reigns of assasination (in Vietnam), to install and support dictators (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, etc.), to support Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda, and the Taliban, even Pol Pot, at various times. Yes others do similar things, but does that justify what we do, what our government does in our name? Does what we do actually contribute to our well-being and security or does it undermine it? Is it either humane or intelligent?
The question remains as to how to analyse the structure of the system and how to formulate approaches to modifying it. We know that we, personally, cannot do this alone but perhaps together all of us members of the Chorus with others can make a positive, pragmatic contribution.
Hi John,
We appreciate the moral and religious perspective that you bring to the discussion. Certainly we need to consider the morality of what our country is doing in the world as we try to formulate some approaches to modifying aspects of our behavior. We remember a young couple, adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church, telling us that their church taught that all human organizations become corrupt (we assume that is self-referencing), that there needed to be some group of people adhering to the ideals of religion throughout history to keep those ideals alive (for us that would extend beyond Christianity to other religions as well). We believe that that resonates with your experience as you have expressed it.
In analyzing the problem and formulating solutions we may well have to consider the sensibilities that allow us to justify the things our country does to other peoples in the world, inquire as to our mentalities as we allow corporations to destroy lives and the environment for the sake of us shareholders. (We will take another look at the work of Hanna Arendt.)
When you say, “I don't doubt that the United States has participated in all kinds of evil abroad. But we haven't like so many other countries established our own autocratic rule; the aftermath of World War II was a chance we had to do that and we did better.”, we agree that we did some good things, like supporting other countries with the Marshall Plan (even if for our own benefit), but although we did not establish “our own autocratic rule” in the same way as say the USSR we did establish a kind of autocratic rule or empire that now makes use of military bases and establishments in most of the countries of our world. And then there is the whole question of how we used the CIA, our secret army – secret to Americans but not to the people they effect -- to overthrow democratically elected governments (e.g., Iran, Chile, etc.), to carry out reigns of assasination (in Vietnam), to install and support dictators (the Shah, Pinochet, Saddam, etc.), to support Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda, and the Taliban, even Pol Pot, at various times. Yes others do similar things, but does that justify what we do, what our government does in our name? Does what we do actually contribute to our well-being and security or does it undermine it? Is it either humane or intelligent?
The question remains as to how to analyse the structure of the system and how to formulate approaches to modifying it. We know that we, personally, cannot do this alone but perhaps together all of us members of the Chorus with others can make a positive, pragmatic contribution.
Appreciating Tom's Views, Hoping we can all contribute to solutions
Ellen and I are hopeful that Tom will continue to offer his observations and perspective and help formulate some solutions (perhaps better to call them approaches) to what many people see as great dangers.
(1) We totally agree with Tom that our Chorus process here must avoid “... participants not listening to each other and simply shouting to be heard.” At times it might be useful to employ the Rappaport method of ethical debate in which one first responds by restating the other’s position to their satisfaction, then supporting some of the other’s themes, and only then offering contrasting or opposing views.
(2) Tom says, “ … how they organize themselves to identify leaders, allocate scarce resources, distribute power, etc. can explain why some organizations are successful and some are not.” We agree that consideration of these factors is useful in analyzing our own country’s behavior. Using, for example, Chalmers Johnson’s books as a starting point, Johnson is very concerned about our allocation of scarce resources to those aspects of empire that diminish the well-being and security of the US. His view, as well as those of many others, is that the US has to choose between democracy and empire, that empire will and is bankrupting the US while diminishing our democracy. Can we together weigh the consequences of the US spending about one trillion dollars a year on the military and our wars? Why do we do that? How much of that yields productive results? How much do we really need to safeguard ourselves? How much simply diverts the economy away from education, health and economic prosperity? Johnson’s analysis of the US’s military Keynsianism would seem to be worthy of our consideration.
(3) Tom says, “… for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment.” We agree that we should inquire as to those processes, values and systems. Given that they produced the Vietnam war, the support of dictatorships, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (we won’t repeat the doleful list here) etc., the question would seem to be what can we do to improve them.
With respect to our leader’s making “individual bad decisions” these were decisions that were supported by our processes and values; clearly LBJ and GWB would not have been able to get us into strategically and morally disastrous wars had our congress and fourth estate performed their constitutional and other responsibilities properly, had we been responsible citizens and performed ours.
(4) Tom says, “To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths.” We agree with Tom’s assessment that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are essential strengths, but believe that these have been seriously eroded precisely because of the nature of our current processes, values and systems, and that this has become so serious that we need as individuals to come together to arrive at a consensus as to where we are and what we should do to ameliorate the problems. Using Chalmers Johnson again as a starting point – we are sticking with his books for reasons of simplicity – Johnson speaks about the system that our founders set up, how much serious thought they gave to freedom, democracy and law, about the dangers of empire that they were opposed to, and how far we have strayed putting ourselves today into great danger. As to market capitalism it would seem absolutely necessary to reign in and correct the irresponsibilities that destroy our prosperity, pollute the oceans and the entire biosphere. Keep the good parts of capitalism and the “free market system,” which of course doesn’t properly describe our system, but don’t give up education, a public health system, social security, medicare etc. for the sake of military Keynesianism and empire.
(5) Tom says, ‘Not only do I disagree that the United States is on a "destructive path that: harms our own democracy" etc., but I am absolutely opposed to non-Americans ("others") meddling in our internal affairs "to modify our behavior."’ Here we would simply ask all of us to consider the harms to our own democracy pointed out by people like Chalmers Johnson (in “Nemesis,” etc.) and others, and tell us whether the arguments of Johnson and others are valid.
As to others “meddling in our internal affairs,” wouldn’t it have been great if some Olympian had come down, or maybe the Delphic oracle, or maybe just some moral authority, and told LBJ and GWB, , not to meddle in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.? Would we not have been better off to listen to the rest of the world that was opposed to our military adventures? And why should we not be in favor of the International Criminal Court? Might not our participation have given pause to those who authorize and employed/employ torture in the name of national security?
(1) We totally agree with Tom that our Chorus process here must avoid “... participants not listening to each other and simply shouting to be heard.” At times it might be useful to employ the Rappaport method of ethical debate in which one first responds by restating the other’s position to their satisfaction, then supporting some of the other’s themes, and only then offering contrasting or opposing views.
(2) Tom says, “ … how they organize themselves to identify leaders, allocate scarce resources, distribute power, etc. can explain why some organizations are successful and some are not.” We agree that consideration of these factors is useful in analyzing our own country’s behavior. Using, for example, Chalmers Johnson’s books as a starting point, Johnson is very concerned about our allocation of scarce resources to those aspects of empire that diminish the well-being and security of the US. His view, as well as those of many others, is that the US has to choose between democracy and empire, that empire will and is bankrupting the US while diminishing our democracy. Can we together weigh the consequences of the US spending about one trillion dollars a year on the military and our wars? Why do we do that? How much of that yields productive results? How much do we really need to safeguard ourselves? How much simply diverts the economy away from education, health and economic prosperity? Johnson’s analysis of the US’s military Keynsianism would seem to be worthy of our consideration.
(3) Tom says, “… for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment.” We agree that we should inquire as to those processes, values and systems. Given that they produced the Vietnam war, the support of dictatorships, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (we won’t repeat the doleful list here) etc., the question would seem to be what can we do to improve them.
With respect to our leader’s making “individual bad decisions” these were decisions that were supported by our processes and values; clearly LBJ and GWB would not have been able to get us into strategically and morally disastrous wars had our congress and fourth estate performed their constitutional and other responsibilities properly, had we been responsible citizens and performed ours.
(4) Tom says, “To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths.” We agree with Tom’s assessment that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are essential strengths, but believe that these have been seriously eroded precisely because of the nature of our current processes, values and systems, and that this has become so serious that we need as individuals to come together to arrive at a consensus as to where we are and what we should do to ameliorate the problems. Using Chalmers Johnson again as a starting point – we are sticking with his books for reasons of simplicity – Johnson speaks about the system that our founders set up, how much serious thought they gave to freedom, democracy and law, about the dangers of empire that they were opposed to, and how far we have strayed putting ourselves today into great danger. As to market capitalism it would seem absolutely necessary to reign in and correct the irresponsibilities that destroy our prosperity, pollute the oceans and the entire biosphere. Keep the good parts of capitalism and the “free market system,” which of course doesn’t properly describe our system, but don’t give up education, a public health system, social security, medicare etc. for the sake of military Keynesianism and empire.
(5) Tom says, ‘Not only do I disagree that the United States is on a "destructive path that: harms our own democracy" etc., but I am absolutely opposed to non-Americans ("others") meddling in our internal affairs "to modify our behavior."’ Here we would simply ask all of us to consider the harms to our own democracy pointed out by people like Chalmers Johnson (in “Nemesis,” etc.) and others, and tell us whether the arguments of Johnson and others are valid.
As to others “meddling in our internal affairs,” wouldn’t it have been great if some Olympian had come down, or maybe the Delphic oracle, or maybe just some moral authority, and told LBJ and GWB, , not to meddle in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.? Would we not have been better off to listen to the rest of the world that was opposed to our military adventures? And why should we not be in favor of the International Criminal Court? Might not our participation have given pause to those who authorize and employed/employ torture in the name of national security?
Friday, January 7, 2011
Another Respectful Post
Unaccustomed as I am to punditry, I hesitate to engage in this dialogue. Moreover, as our country has become more polarized since the 1960's, I have found that political discussions quickly become heated, typically resulting in participants not listening to each other and simply shouting to be heard, which adds to my hesitation. Nevertheless, I do have pleasant memories of the Chorus' early fascination with dialectics, contradictions, toasts and amendments to toasts, and in honor of these memories, I offer a few observations.
Unlike most of the Chorus, my time since Yale has been spent primarily the business world. This has given me a viewpoint perhaps orthogonal to most other Chorus members. One of the recurring questions I have faced in business is why some large organizations succeed consistently over decades in producing great leaders, developing innovative products, capturing major new markets, coping with unexpected upheavals, sustaining significant profitability, etc., while other firms rise quickly and then fall or stagnate. The answer cannot simply be "better people" because, with employee populations of 25,000 or even many more, it is difficult for small differences in abilities, experiences, education, etc. to be significant enough to account for such large, persistent differences in organizational success over many years. Differences among large groups of employees performing similar tasks in competing companies are statistically insignificant.
Unlike most of the Chorus, my time since Yale has been spent primarily the business world. This has given me a viewpoint perhaps orthogonal to most other Chorus members. One of the recurring questions I have faced in business is why some large organizations succeed consistently over decades in producing great leaders, developing innovative products, capturing major new markets, coping with unexpected upheavals, sustaining significant profitability, etc., while other firms rise quickly and then fall or stagnate. The answer cannot simply be "better people" because, with employee populations of 25,000 or even many more, it is difficult for small differences in abilities, experiences, education, etc. to be significant enough to account for such large, persistent differences in organizational success over many years. Differences among large groups of employees performing similar tasks in competing companies are statistically insignificant.
In any large group of humans, although some will make mistakes, some will be evil, and some will be incompetent, these individual failings do not mean that the group as a whole shares these traits. Just because a few individuals in a group are dysfunctional does not mean that the group as a whole is dysfunctional. Thus, assessing the performance of a group should be more than simply identifying behavior lapses by a few members of the group.
Over the years, a growing consensus seems to be emerging that explains differences in firms' performance by identifying differences in processes, values and systems. In other words, although two large groups of people may not be statistically different in any meaningful way, how they organize themselves to identify leaders, allocate scare resources, distribute power, etc. can explain why some organizations are successful and some are not. By analogy, which I do not think is spurious, I think it better to assess the performance of the United States by looking at its processes, values and systems, and not at the actions of individual citizens, even those occupying high office. In fact, this approach echoes some of the themes in John Brightly's first post, e.g. "Although we thought we had the better system, mostly we wished to know, to understand" and "Alas, the answer is clear; our major institutions and we have caused this devastation."
Hence, for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment. It is here where I suspect John's and my views may differ.
To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths. However, many on the left would would disagree with my assessment. Similarly, I believe the American electoral system has worked well to purge itself of poor performers, as in 2008 (when Bush and the Republicans were chastised for the war in Iraq, etc.) and in 2010 (when Obama and the Democrats were "shellacked" for the focus on healthcare to the exclusion of jobs and the economy). However, many on the left would complain about Al Gore's 2000 election "stolen" by the Supreme Court, or about the American electorate being too stupid to appreciate all Democrats have accomplished over the last two years. Finally, where I see the United States' serial defeats of the Axis powers in WWII, the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and Japan (economically) in the "lost decades" of the last 20 years, to the enormous benefit of its citizens, many on the left see a country which should literally apologize for these "sins" and actually pay for them by redistributing its wealth to others.
If the United States is truly the villain of this story, who is the hero (the Gary Cooper) that should take its place to maintain peace and order in the world (assuming this is a widely desired objective)? The EU with its mortally wounded welfare state system and crippled "force de frappe"? Russia with its entrenched kleptocracy and aging nuclear arsenal? Iran with its prophet-king and "peaceful" nuclear program? India with its non-adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel) and its pre-occupation with confronting Pakistan militarily? China with its quasi-capitalistic economy but well-known record on human rights (e.g. missiles facing Taiwan and "peacekeeping" efforts in Tibet and Xinjiang)? The UN with its Security Council frozen in WWII, corrupt bureaucracy, and "blue helmet" military force even more ridiculous than the EU's "force de frappe"?
Hence, for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment. It is here where I suspect John's and my views may differ.
To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths. However, many on the left would would disagree with my assessment. Similarly, I believe the American electoral system has worked well to purge itself of poor performers, as in 2008 (when Bush and the Republicans were chastised for the war in Iraq, etc.) and in 2010 (when Obama and the Democrats were "shellacked" for the focus on healthcare to the exclusion of jobs and the economy). However, many on the left would complain about Al Gore's 2000 election "stolen" by the Supreme Court, or about the American electorate being too stupid to appreciate all Democrats have accomplished over the last two years. Finally, where I see the United States' serial defeats of the Axis powers in WWII, the Soviet Union in the Cold War, and Japan (economically) in the "lost decades" of the last 20 years, to the enormous benefit of its citizens, many on the left see a country which should literally apologize for these "sins" and actually pay for them by redistributing its wealth to others.
Thus, I disagree with the premise of John's statement, "The central question is not who to replace the US, although there are possible answers there, but to first recognize that the US has been and is on a destructive path that: harms our own democracy and security, the lives and well-being of other peoples of the world, and indeed through pollution and proliferation, the well-being of the biosphere; and then to join with others to modify our behavior to avoid further catastrophe." Not only do I disagree that the United States is on a "destructive path that: harms our own democracy" etc., but I am absolutely opposed to non-Americans ("others") meddling in our internal affairs "to modify our behavior." Of course, these "others" should be free to express their opinions about American behavior, but they should not be able to impose a UN "global warming" tax on Americans or to assert jurisdiction unilaterally in their local courts for "war crimes" alleged to have been committed elsewhere.
Rather, I think America's processes, values and systems easily allow it to self-correct, perhaps not perfectly but better than most of the alternatives -- e.g. power passing from Kim Il-sung to Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un, or from Hosni Mubarak to Gamal Mubarak, or from Vladimir Putin to ... Vladimir Putin. (To be sure, power passing from Jerry Brown to ... Jerry Brown is perhaps "an exception that proves the rule" -- at least I hope so). I think our 2-party system remains vibrant and robust, particularly when compared to record of the LDP in Japan, the PRI in Mexico, the Communist Party in China, etc.
So, in my humble opinion, the alternative to the USA ("If not the USA, who?") cannot be ignored in good faith by anyone who sincerely wants to change the world for the better. To pick only one example, Chiang Kai-shek (Jiang Jieshi) was corrupt and most likely a "tool of America." Nevertheless, after he was forced to pass from the scene, the alternative that emerged was Mao Zedong, who caused prolonged suffering and misery to millions. China's economic and financial strength today is due not to Mao but to Deng Xiaoping, who was twice purged by Mao but nevertheless managed to survive and eventually proclaim in 1992 "To get rich is glorious," thereby unleashing enormous capitalist energy in China.
If the United States is truly the villain of this story, who is the hero (the Gary Cooper) that should take its place to maintain peace and order in the world (assuming this is a widely desired objective)? The EU with its mortally wounded welfare state system and crippled "force de frappe"? Russia with its entrenched kleptocracy and aging nuclear arsenal? Iran with its prophet-king and "peaceful" nuclear program? India with its non-adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (along with Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Israel) and its pre-occupation with confronting Pakistan militarily? China with its quasi-capitalistic economy but well-known record on human rights (e.g. missiles facing Taiwan and "peacekeeping" efforts in Tibet and Xinjiang)? The UN with its Security Council frozen in WWII, corrupt bureaucracy, and "blue helmet" military force even more ridiculous than the EU's "force de frappe"?
Unless this question can be answered satisfactorily, I am quite content for the United States to retain its position as a "unipolar" power, at least for now.
Respectful Reply To Tom's Response
Hi Tom,
I will ask John Francis to post his essay; I don’t have an electronic copy. In response to your questions, "If not the USA, who?" and “who the preferred alternative without fault would be?” let me try a brief answer. I look forward to discussions with you.
The central question is not who to replace the US, although there are possible answers there, but to first recognize that the US has been and is on a destructive path that: harms our own democracy and security, the lives and well-being of other peoples of the world, and indeed through pollution and proliferation, the well-being of the biosphere; and then to join with others to modify our behavior to avoid further catastrophe. That is what people like Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevitch, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, the late Howard Zinn, and many others tell us is necessary. This may sound like peace and apple pie but the point is to get us to consider what we might do rather than to hope this all will go away; consider together then act each in his own way.
Since the US plays such a huge role in the world, modifying our own country’s behavior for the better would bring immense benefits to all, and, of course, has the potential to change the behavior of other countries and peoples as they react to us.
Of course, there are no pure “alternatives without fault” -- even though there are some more moral actors that we could certainly try to emulate; but the fact that there are no “alternatives without fault” doesn’t relieve us of our responsibility for the behavior of our own country.
“If not the USA, who?” suggests that perhaps some roles are necessary and that if we do not play those roles, others may take our place with less desirable results. Let us consider which roles we play that are necessary and positive and support them, and those which are unnecessary and harmful, especially those related to military and economic hegemony, and modify them. The world is not a safe place, but, for the most part, we are making it less safe, in our actions and example.
Also, there are many moral actors in the world, not to speak of all of those who have been harmed by us, who would be happier if it were “not the USA”.
(One answer as to “who?”, among others, has been suggested by General Romeo Dellaire, the UN General during the Rwanda genocide, in his book “Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda,” who argues that it would be salutary for secondary powers such as Brazil and Canada to participate more and play more of a constructive role. But that is secondary, the responsibility is on us as individuals to act.)
Does this come close to answering your questions?
I will ask John Francis to post his essay; I don’t have an electronic copy. In response to your questions, "If not the USA, who?" and “who the preferred alternative without fault would be?” let me try a brief answer. I look forward to discussions with you.
The central question is not who to replace the US, although there are possible answers there, but to first recognize that the US has been and is on a destructive path that: harms our own democracy and security, the lives and well-being of other peoples of the world, and indeed through pollution and proliferation, the well-being of the biosphere; and then to join with others to modify our behavior to avoid further catastrophe. That is what people like Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevitch, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, the late Howard Zinn, and many others tell us is necessary. This may sound like peace and apple pie but the point is to get us to consider what we might do rather than to hope this all will go away; consider together then act each in his own way.
Since the US plays such a huge role in the world, modifying our own country’s behavior for the better would bring immense benefits to all, and, of course, has the potential to change the behavior of other countries and peoples as they react to us.
Of course, there are no pure “alternatives without fault” -- even though there are some more moral actors that we could certainly try to emulate; but the fact that there are no “alternatives without fault” doesn’t relieve us of our responsibility for the behavior of our own country.
“If not the USA, who?” suggests that perhaps some roles are necessary and that if we do not play those roles, others may take our place with less desirable results. Let us consider which roles we play that are necessary and positive and support them, and those which are unnecessary and harmful, especially those related to military and economic hegemony, and modify them. The world is not a safe place, but, for the most part, we are making it less safe, in our actions and example.
Also, there are many moral actors in the world, not to speak of all of those who have been harmed by us, who would be happier if it were “not the USA”.
(One answer as to “who?”, among others, has been suggested by General Romeo Dellaire, the UN General during the Rwanda genocide, in his book “Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda,” who argues that it would be salutary for secondary powers such as Brazil and Canada to participate more and play more of a constructive role. But that is secondary, the responsibility is on us as individuals to act.)
Does this come close to answering your questions?
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A Humble Request
John Brightly, would you please be so kind as to post John Francis' early history of the Chorus? It might be an appropriate counterpoint to your own short history.
Your essay demands a longer response. However, with limited time, I will simply attempt to stand on Denis' shoulders to ask "If not the USA, who?" Admittedly, it is easy to find fault with America. However, it is not intuitively obvious (at least to me) who the preferred alternative without fault would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)