I've come to similar conclusions (although I'd defend American involvement against the North Vietnamese - simply because we were more successful in Korea doesn't make Ree into any more of a Democrat than Diem. He was just more competant. I also think the bombing of civilians is savage). Yet, I still find myself on the Right, and decidedly so. Frequently, U.S. involvements go sour out of ignorance rather than malice; their opponents are much more likely to act from pre-meditated barbarism. Americans want to trade with, not conquer, the nations of the world. When it works, the lifestyles of all involved improve markedly.The Left, on the other hand, has been a sore disappointment. What might have been a 'loyal opposition', acting to resolve the problems within Western philosophy and political engagement, have instead acted to exploit them. Thus, I feel uncomfortable criticizing anything about American policy in the company of those with a liberal persuasion. I would like a mechanism of resolving troubling issues that does not entail exploiting or nationalizing businesses, and I don't find that amongst the 'activists' I've seen.
What to do? I've virtually given up on Communists - they're worse than Nazis, and much more self-righteous. Most soft socialists I've encountered have a vicious anti-capitalism streak that makes it very difficult to carry on conversations through. Amongst those on the Right, many have simply given up on engaging in any sort of reasoned dialogue about political issues, and simply hunker down and simmer. In a society so prosperous and successful, the prevailing mood of fear and apprehension is infuriating.
We are essentially a moral and principled country, a model for the world. We have allies with good ideas, from which we might learn much (German ideas in regards to worker/management relations are excellent, the British have a knowledgable foreign service, etc.) If we had more Mandelas instead of Castros, political change would be far simpler. But we don't. Far more often than not, we are placed in the position where we either support an entrenched dictator, or allow radical thugs free run of a country. We are criticized either way. I've simply concluded that most problems in the world would be much more easily resolvable without the involvement of left-wing cadre, is all - beyond that, there's a mass of confusion. Nationalism, religious fanaticism, simple greed and avarice, are only a few of a multitude of issues that complicate dilemnas that Americans policy makers must sift through daily. Holding opinions on these from the layman's point of view is a quagmire, and you'll just have to accept that, barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I'll adopt the stance of my government. It has a fairly good track record after all.
In any case, I still think the West is winning, and that this means that civilization is winning. Am I being obtuse when I include the Japanese culture in that equation? When I take pride in South African affluence, despite apartheid? Am I cruel, to support the better 'evil'? My presumption, based on my own 'empirical evidence', is that most activism is selfish and self-centered, and that real change for the better comes through technology and development, not from the good will of my fellow men. Should I thus turn to the 'Greens', who virtually advocate turning away from industry? No thank you.
I appreciate the frank dialogue. Understand, however, that you aren't the only one that has used reasoned judgement to get to his conclusions.
"Doc" Cruel
