Different Philosophy
I’m hoping I’m not alone in this, but I strongly disagree with Mitt Romney’s reason for becoming president (as told to the Wall Street Journal): to “… allow us to remain the world’s military and economic superpower for an indefinite period of time”.
I’m pretty sure the reason the United States came into being was so that the people would have “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; not so that we could be the military and economic superpower for all time. Our president should always have, as his/her strongest driving force, these goals - that all people (rich and poor, Hispanic and white, gay and straight, Christian and atheist) are guaranteed the right to pursue their lives as they see fit, without interference.
While it’s true that we need to protect ourselves from realistic military threats to our lands, and that a sound economy are required - there is no need, nor is there any rationale, for us to be a “superpower” forever.
As a side note, the author of the article gives Romney a pass for his seemingly politically expedient position changes by saying “… what was a flip-flop becomes an openness to reconsider former positions”. It’s interesting that Kerry was pilloried in 2004 when he reconsidered his former positions. Here - Romney is praised or it.
Bill G said,
November 25, 2007 @ 7:32 am
I have thought about your interesting post for a while. I have concluded that I am OK with Romney saying he wants to be President to “… allow us to remain the world’s military and economic superpower for an indefinite period of time”.
The reason is because I can’t think of anyone else that I would be comfortable with taking the Superpower role. Especially not Europe, the UN, China, or Russia. That leaves us.
marzke said,
November 25, 2007 @ 9:13 am
I hadn’t thought of it in those terms: I agree that I don’t want the land in the United States to be able to be militarily threatened and I also don’t want our economy to be regulated by a world organization. However, the connotations of the word “superpower” do not imply independence or equality: it implies imperialism or fascism - both of which are repugnant goals for the United States or any other country. Why can’t we be happy with just being a “major power” or simply a “power” or perhaps a “driving force” or “catalyst of ideas” or any number of descriptions that imply that the US is a friend of the world, not the SUPERPOWER!
I don’t feel that any country (countries) need to be considered to be a “superpower”. That is, if the United States suddenly decides to stop being the only country on earth that objects to North Korea, Iran, “Palestine”, Al Qaida, etc., then let the rest of world bear the consequences, too. All of those perceived “enemies of the US” hate other people closer to their borders that they would gladly harass if the US would stop its random foreign policies of meddling.
If we’re going to pretend to be be a superpower, then we should act like one: put 500,000 troops in Iraq and nuke Iran’s nuclear facilities, for example. Those two examples are what the connotation of the word “superpower” bring and I certainly don’t want the US to do it.
As a further illustration, our “superpower” status did not prevent 9/11 (although it is my opinion that our feeling that we are a superpower led to it), and our justified attacks in Afghanistan after 9/11 did not require a “superpower” military.