>I mean, winding down empire is necessarily a messy process and
>nobody initiates it out of the kindness of their own heart.
>One area where we typically see eye to eye, even though it's
>always fun to talk about candidates, is that they're tools to
>be used and I think (and you may disagree here) that any
>theory of change that starts from the top is going to fail
>because the credentials that we require to get that job in the
>first place are a thirst for this sort of violence.

I actually largely agree with this. Some may view this as cynicism but a closer examination reveals that this is simply the harsh reality of who flourishes in our political system. There are certain areas that are permissibly debated within our body politic - and there are other areas which aren't allowed within the parameters of media/political discourse. It's why we've had endless circular debates on the same handful of topics - yet zero debate on the architecture of Empire and deeply embedded neo-colonialism still inherent in our foreign policy. We need look no further than the manner in which candidates who (genuinely) oppose the military-industrial complex are treated and maligned (for simply proposing policies that benefit human beings - yet threaten powerful interests).

>BUT, as your question also aptly indicates - it's the one area
>where the President has immense, unchecked power. So I guess
>there's no good reason to discard the possibility. As long as
>we have a USA, we're going to have a president. One that is
>disinclined to pursue all this bloodshed can do a ton of good,
>and do it without many institutional obstacles. Or, at least,
>we have to believe that if we want democracy right? That at
>some point we can say, loudly, "stop blowing people up" and
>they ... will? Or maybe not. The end of the fourth republic in
>France was precipitated by (among other things) a large and
>violent public outcry about France's violence abroad - but the
>outcome was, uh, obviously a lot more ambiguous than "no more
>of that".

Indeed - and the hope is that there will be a momentum-shift before it's too late. That is: before irreversible damage is done and we reach a crescendo where military might, biowarfare, cyber warfare, and largescale dehumanization propels us to a race to the bottom where untold suffering occurs.

Perhaps the President I most admire throughout our history is abolitionist John Quincy Adams who was a rarity in terms of his view of America's role in the world. He once stated:

"She (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world."

Unfortunately - not only have we searched abroad for monsters to destroy - but via the CIA and its degenerative efforts in LatAm, the Middle East, Vietnam etc.. - we have actually *created* those monsters - and continue to do so to this day.

Sadly, even most "liberals" still will rationalize the maintenance of empire abroad (as is done in this very post) by either deflecting and not addressing it directly, or hurling around "that's just the way it is"-isms to contribute to a status-quo freeze which has been frozen for far too long.


-->