The Unz Review - Mobile

The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection

A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
The Age of Great Expectations and the Great Void
History After “the End of History”

Email This Page to Someone


 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_550373401

The fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 abruptly ended one historical era and inaugurated another. So, too, did the outcome of last year’s U.S. presidential election. What are we to make of the interval between those two watershed moments? Answering that question is essential to understanding how Donald Trump became president and where his ascendency leaves us.

Hardly had this period commenced before observers fell into the habit of referring to it as the “post-Cold War” era. Now that it’s over, a more descriptive name might be in order. My suggestion: America’s Age of Great Expectations.

Forgive and Forget

The end of the Cold War caught the United States completely by surprise. During the 1980s, even with Mikhail Gorbachev running the Kremlin, few in Washington questioned the prevailing conviction that the Soviet-American rivalry was and would remain a defining feature of international politics more or less in perpetuity. Indeed, endorsing such an assumption was among the prerequisites for gaining entrée to official circles. Virtually no one in the American establishment gave serious thought to the here-today, gone-tomorrow possibility that the Soviet threat, the Soviet empire, and the Soviet Union itself might someday vanish. Washington had plans aplenty for what to do should a Third World War erupt, but none for what to do if the prospect of such a climactic conflict simply disappeared.

Still, without missing a beat, when the Berlin Wall fell and two years later the Soviet Union imploded, leading members of that establishment wasted no time in explaining the implications of developments they had totally failed to anticipate. With something close to unanimity, politicians and policy-oriented intellectuals interpreted the unification of Berlin and the ensuing collapse of communism as an all-American victory of cosmic proportions. “We” had won, “they” had lost — with that outcome vindicating everything the United States represented as the archetype of freedom.

From within the confines of that establishment, one rising young intellectual audaciously suggested that the “end of history” itself might be at hand, with the “sole superpower” left standing now perfectly positioned to determine the future of all humankind. In Washington, various powers-that-be considered this hypothesis and concluded that it sounded just about right. The future took on the appearance of a blank slate upon which Destiny itself was inviting Americans to inscribe their intentions.

American elites might, of course, have assigned a far different, less celebratory meaning to the passing of the Cold War. They might have seen the outcome as a moment that called for regret, repentance, and making amends.

After all, the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, or more broadly between what was then called the Free World and the Communist bloc, had yielded a host of baleful effects. An arms race between two superpowers had created monstrous nuclear arsenals and, on multiple occasions, brought the planet precariously close to Armageddon. Two singularly inglorious wars had claimed the lives of many tens of thousands of American soldiers and literally millions of Asians. One, on the Korean peninsula, had ended in an unsatisfactory draw; the other, in Southeast Asia, in catastrophic defeat. Proxy fights in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East killed so many more and laid waste to whole countries. Cold War obsessions led Washington to overthrow democratic governments, connive in assassination, make common cause with corrupt dictators, and turn a blind eye to genocidal violence. On the home front, hysteria compromised civil liberties and fostered a sprawling, intrusive, and unaccountable national security apparatus. Meanwhile, the military-industrial complex and its beneficiaries conspired to spend vast sums on weapons purchases that somehow never seemed adequate to the putative dangers at hand.

Rather than reflecting on such somber and sordid matters, however, the American political establishment together with ambitious members of the country’s intelligentsia found it so much more expedient simply to move on. As they saw it, the annus mirabilis of 1989 wiped away the sins of former years. Eager to make a fresh start, Washington granted itself a plenary indulgence. After all, why contemplate past unpleasantness when a future so stunningly rich in promise now beckoned?

Three Big Ideas and a Dubious Corollary

Soon enough, that promise found concrete expression. In remarkably short order, three themes emerged to define the new American age. Informing each of them was a sense of exuberant anticipation toward an era of almost unimaginable expectations. The twentieth century was ending on a high note. For the planet as a whole but especially for the United States, great things lay ahead.

Focused on the world economy, the first of those themes emphasized the transformative potential of turbocharged globalization led by U.S.-based financial institutions and transnational corporations. An “open world” would facilitate the movement of goods, capital, ideas, and people and thereby create wealth on an unprecedented scale. In the process, the rules governing American-style corporate capitalism would come to prevail everywhere on the planet. Everyone would benefit, but especially Americans who would continue to enjoy more than their fair share of material abundance.

Focused on statecraft, the second theme spelled out the implications of an international order dominated as never before — not even in the heydays of the Roman and British Empires — by a single nation. With the passing of the Cold War, the United States now stood apart as both supreme power and irreplaceable global leader, its status guaranteed by its unstoppable military might.

In the editorial offices of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard, such “truths” achieved a self-evident status. Although more muted in their public pronouncements than Washington’s reigning pundits, officials enjoying access to the Oval Office, the State Department’s 7th floor, and the E-ring of the Pentagon generally agreed. The assertive exercise of (benign!) global hegemony seemingly held the key to ensuring that Americans would enjoy safety and security, both at home and abroad, now and in perpetuity.

The third theme was all about rethinking the concept of personal freedom as commonly understood and pursued by most Americans. During the protracted emergency of the Cold War, reaching an accommodation between freedom and the putative imperatives of national security had not come easily. Cold War-style patriotism seemingly prioritized the interests of the state at the expense of the individual. Yet even as thrillingly expressed by John F. Kennedy — “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” — this was never an easy sell, especially if it meant wading through rice paddies and getting shot at.

Once the Cold War ended, however, the tension between individual freedom and national security momentarily dissipated. Reigning conceptions of what freedom could or should entail underwent a radical transformation. Emphasizing the removal of restraints and inhibitions, the shift made itself felt everywhere, from patterns of consumption and modes of cultural expression to sexuality and the definition of the family. Norms that had prevailed for decades if not generations — marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gender identity as fixed at birth — became passé. The concept of a transcendent common good, which during the Cold War had taken a backseat to national security, now took a backseat to maximizing individual choice and autonomy.

Finally, as a complement to these themes, in the realm of governance, the end of the Cold War cemented the status of the president as quasi-deity. In the Age of Great Expectations, the myth of the president as a deliverer from (or, in the eyes of critics, the ultimate perpetrator of) evil flourished. In the solar system of American politics, the man in the White House increasingly became the sun around which everything seemed to orbit. By comparison, nothing else much mattered.

From one administration to the next, of course, presidential efforts to deliver Americans to the Promised Land regularly came up short. Even so, the political establishment and the establishment media collaborated in sustaining the pretense that out of the next endlessly hyped “race for the White House,” another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan would magically emerge to save the nation. From one election cycle to the next, these campaigns became longer and more expensive, drearier and yet ever more circus-like. No matter. During the Age of Great Expectations, the reflexive tendency to see the president as the ultimate guarantor of American abundance, security, and freedom remained sacrosanct.

Blindsided

Meanwhile, between promise and reality, a yawning gap began to appear. During the concluding decade of the twentieth century and the first decade-and-a-half of the twenty-first, Americans endured a seemingly endless series of crises. Individually, none of these merit comparison with, say, the Civil War or World War II. Yet never in U.S. history has a sequence of events occurring in such close proximity subjected American institutions and the American people to greater stress.

During the decade between 1998 and 2008, they came on with startling regularity: one president impeached and his successor chosen by the direct intervention of the Supreme Court; a massive terrorist attack on American soil that killed thousands, traumatized the nation, and left senior officials bereft of their senses; a mindless, needless, and unsuccessful war of choice launched on the basis of false claims and outright lies; a natural disaster(exacerbated by engineering folly) that all but destroyed a major American city, after which government agencies mounted a belated and half-hearted response; and finally, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, bringing ruin to millions of families.

For the sake of completeness, we should append to this roster of seismic occurrences one additional event: Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president. He arrived at the zenith of American political life as a seemingly messianic figure called upon not only to undo the damage wrought by his predecessor, George W. Bush, but somehow to absolve the nation of its original sins of slavery and racism.

Yet during the Obama presidency race relations, in fact, deteriorated. Whether prompted by cynical political calculations or a crass desire to boost ratings, race baiters came out of the woodwork — one of them, of course, infamously birthered in Trump Tower in mid-Manhattan — and poured their poisons into the body politic. Even so, as the end of Obama’s term approached, the cult of the presidency itself remained remarkably intact.

Individually, the impact of these various crises ranged from disconcerting to debilitating to horrifying. Yet to treat them separately is to overlook their collective implications, which the election of Donald Trump only now enables us to appreciate. It was not one president’s dalliance with an intern orhanging chadsor 9/11 orMission Accomplishedor the inundation of the Lower Ninth Ward or the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the absurd birther movement that undermined the Age of Great Expectations. It was the way all these events together exposed those expectations as radically suspect.

In effect, the various crises that punctuated the post-Cold War era called into question key themes to which a fevered American triumphalism had given rise. Globalization, militarized hegemony, and a more expansive definition of freedom, guided by enlightened presidents in tune with the times, should have provided Americans with all the blessings that were rightly theirs as a consequence of having prevailed in the Cold War. Instead, between 1989 and 2016, things kept happening that weren’t supposed to happen. A future marketed as all but foreordained proved elusive, if not illusory. As actually experienced, the Age of Great Expectations became an Age of Unwelcome Surprises.

A Candidate for Decline

True, globalization created wealth on a vast scale, just not for ordinary Americans. The already well-to-do did splendidly, in some cases unbelievably so. But middle-class incomes stagnated and good jobs became increasingly hard to find or keep. By the election of 2016, the United States looked increasingly like a society divided between haves and have-nots, the affluent and the left-behind, the 1% and everyone else. Prospective voters were noticing.

Meanwhile, policies inspired by Washington’s soaring hegemonic ambitions produced remarkably few happy outcomes. With U.S. forces continuously engaged in combat operations, peace all but vanished as a policy objective (or even a word in Washington’s political lexicon). The acknowledged standing of the country’s military as the world’s best-trained, best-equipped, and best-led force coexisted uneasily with the fact that it proved unable to win. Instead, the national security establishment became conditioned to the idea of permanent war, high-ranking officials taking it for granted that ordinary citizens would simply accommodate themselves to this new reality. Yet it soon became apparent that, instead of giving ordinary Americans a sense of security, this new paradigm induced an acute sense of vulnerability, which left many susceptible to demagogic fear mongering.

As for the revised definition of freedom, with autonomy emerging as the national summum bonum, it left some satisfied but others adrift. During the Age of Great Expectations, distinctions between citizen and consumer blurred. Shopping became tantamount to a civic obligation, essential to keeping the economy afloat. Yet if all the hoopla surrounding Black Friday and Cyber Monday represented a celebration of American freedom, its satisfactions were transitory at best, rarely extending beyond the due date printed on a credit card statement. Meanwhile, as digital connections displaced personal ones, relationships, like jobs, became more contingent and temporary. Loneliness emerged as an abiding affliction. Meanwhile, for all the talk of empowering the marginalized — people of color, women, gays — elites reaped the lion’s share of the benefits while ordinary people were left to make do. The atmosphere was rife with hypocrisy and even a whiff of nihilism.

To these various contradictions, the establishment itself remained stubbornly oblivious, with the 2016 presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton offering a case in point. As her long record in public life made abundantly clear, Clinton embodied the establishment in the Age of Great Expectations. She believed in globalization, in the indispensability of American leadership backed by military power, and in the post-Cold War cultural project. And she certainly believed in the presidency as the mechanism to translate aspirations into outcomes.

Such commonplace convictions of the era, along with her vanguard role in pressing for the empowerment of women, imparted to her run an air of inevitability. That she deserved to win appeared self-evident. It was, after all, her turn. Largely overlooked were signs that the abiding themes of the Age of Great Expectations no longer commanded automatic allegiance.

Gasping for Air

Senator Bernie Sanders offered one of those signs. That a past-his-prime, self-professed socialist from Vermont with a negligible record of legislative achievement and tenuous links to the Democratic Party might mount a serious challenge to Clinton seemed, on the face of it, absurd. Yet by zeroing in on unfairness and inequality as inevitable byproducts of globalization, Sanders struck a chord.

Knocked briefly off balance, Clinton responded by modifying certain of her longstanding positions. By backing away from free trade, the ne plus ultra of globalization, she managed, though not without difficulty, to defeat the Sanders insurgency. Even so, he, in effect, served as the canary in the establishment coal mine, signaling that the Age of Great Expectations might be running out of oxygen.

A parallel and far stranger insurgency was simultaneously wreaking havoc in the Republican Party. That a narcissistic political neophyte stood the slightest chance of capturing the GOP seemed even more improbable than Sanders taking a nomination that appeared Clinton’s by right.

Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates . Yet he possessed a singular gift: a knack for riling up those who nurse gripes and are keen to pin the blame on someone or something. In post-Cold War America, among the millions that Hillary Clinton was famously dismissing as “deplorables,” gripes had been ripening like cheese in a hothouse.

Through whatever combination of intuition and malice aforethought, Trump demonstrated a genius for motivating those deplorables. He pushed their buttons. They responded by turning out in droves to attend his rallies. There they listened to a message that they found compelling.

In Trump’s pledge to “make America great again” his followers heard a promise to restore everything they believed had been taken from them in the Age of Great Expectations. Globalization was neither beneficial nor inevitable, the candidate insisted, and vowed, once elected, to curb its effects along with the excesses of corporate capitalism, thereby bringing back millions of lost jobs from overseas. He would, he swore, fund a massive infrastructure program, cut taxes, keep a lid on the national debt, and generally champion the cause of working stiffs. The many complications and contradictions inherent in these various prescriptions would, he assured his fans, give way to his business savvy.

In considering America’s role in the post-Cold War world, Trump exhibited a similar impatience with the status quo. Rather than allowing armed conflicts to drag on forever, he promised to win them (putting to work his mastery of military affairs) or, if not, to quit and get out, pausing just long enough to claim as a sort of consolation prize whatever spoils might be lying loose on the battlefield. At the very least, he would prevent so-called allies from treating the United States like some patsy. Henceforth, nations benefitting from American protection were going to foot their share of the bill. What all of this added up to may not have been clear, but it did suggest a sharp departure from the usual post-1989 formula for exercising global leadership.

No less important than Trump’s semi-coherent critique of globalization and American globalism, however, was his success in channeling the discontent of all those who nursed an inchoate sense that post-Cold War freedoms might be working for some, but not for them.

Not that Trump had anything to say about whether freedom confers obligations, or whether conspicuous consumption might not actually hold the key to human happiness, or any of the various controversies related to gender, sexuality, and family. He was indifferent to all such matters. He was, however, distinctly able to offer his followers a grimly persuasive explanation for how America had gone off course and how the blessings of liberties to which they were entitled had been stolen. He did that by fingering as scapegoats Muslims, Mexicans, and others “not-like-me.”

Trump’s political strategy reduced to this: as president, he would overturn the conventions that had governed right thinking since the end of the Cold War. To the amazement of an establishment grown smug and lazy, his approach worked. Even while disregarding all received wisdom when it came to organizing and conducting a presidential campaign in the Age of Great Expectations, Trump won. He did so by enchanting the disenchanted, all those who had lost faith in the promises that had sprung from the bosom of the elites that the end of the Cold War had taken by surprise.

Adrift Without a Compass

Within hours of Trump’s election, among progressives, expressing fear and trepidation at the prospect of what he might actually do on assuming office became de rigueur. Yet those who had actually voted for Trump were also left wondering what to expect. Both camps assign him the status of a transformative historical figure. However, premonitions of incipient fascism and hopes that he will engineer a new American Golden Age are likely to prove similarly misplaced. To focus on the man himself rather than on the circumstances that produced him is to miss the significance of what has occurred.

Note, for example, that his mandate is almost entirely negative. It centers on rejection: of globalization, of counterproductive military meddling, and of the post-Cold War cultural project. Yet neither Trump nor any of his surrogates has offered a coherent alternative to the triad of themes providing the through line for the last quarter-century of American history. Apart a lingering conviction that forceful — in The Donald’s case, blustering — presidential leadership can somehow turn things around, “Trumpism” is a dog’s breakfast.

In all likelihood, his presidency will prove less transformative than transitional. As a result, concerns about what he may do, however worrisome, matter less than the larger question of where we go from here. The principles that enjoyed favor following the Cold War have been found wanting. What should replace them?

Efforts to identify those principles should begin with an honest accounting of the age we are now leaving behind, the history that happened after “the end of history.” That accounting should, in turn, allow room for regret, repentance, and making amends — the very critical appraisal that ought to have occurred at the end of the Cold War but was preempted when American elites succumbed to their bout of victory disease.

Don’t expect Donald Trump to undertake any such appraisal. Nor will the establishment that candidate Trump so roundly denounced, but which President-elect Trump, at least in his senior national security appointments, now shows sign of accommodating. Those expecting Trump’s election to inject courage into members of the political class or imagination into inside-the-Beltway “thought leaders” are in for a disappointment. So the principles we need — an approach to political economy providing sustainable and equitable prosperity; a foreign policy that discards militarism in favor of prudence and pragmatism; and an enriched, inclusive concept of freedom — will have to come from somewhere else.

“Where there is no vision,” the Book of Proverbs tells us, “the people perish.” In the present day, there is no vision to which Americans collectively adhere. For proof, we need look no further than the election of Donald Trump.

The Age of Great Expectations has ended, leaving behind an ominous void. Yet Trump’s own inability to explain what should fill that great void provides neither excuse for inaction nor cause for despair. Instead, Trump himself makes manifest the need to reflect on the nation’s recent past and to think deeply about its future.

A decade before the Cold War ended, writing in democracy, a short-lived journal devoted to “political renewal and radical change,” the historian and social critic Christopher Lasch sketched out a set of principles that might lead us out of our current crisis. Lasch called for a politics based on “the nurture of the soil against the exploitation of resources, the family against the factory, the romantic vision of the individual against the technological vision, [and] localism over democratic centralism.” Nearly a half-century later, as a place to begin, his prescription remains apt.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book isAmerica’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

(Reprinted from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 

36 Comments to "The Age of Great Expectations and the Great Void"

Commenters to Ignore
...to Follow
Endorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. Decent (if mostly superficial) critique of the establishment, but unfair to Mr Trump imo.

    A small detail:

    race baiters came out of the woodwork — one of them, of course, infamously birthered in Trump Tower in mid-Manhattan

    I know, it is liberal ‘common wisdom’ that birther activism was a species of racism. But one’s place of birth has nothing to do with one’s ‘race’. It seems to me that the doubts about Obama’s birthplace were perfectly legitimate, and he could stop the birther campaign any time by publishing all the relevant documents. Yet he (or his handlers) preferred to play the martyrdom game. That’s a shame.

    • Replies:
    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Well, I agree with the ideas of Christopher Lasch and Mr. Bacevich. Only, I think these ideas have for decades been cultivated and propagated by rightwing anti-modernists, agrarians etc. – take for example Hitler’s secretary for agriculture, Darré, who would have subscribed to nearly everything Lasch proposes here.
    On the other side, this is definitely NOT what Marx wanted (who denounced all “reactionary” variants of socialism and wanted the capitalist revolution to progreed till its natural end).
    Thus, the question is if the post-Marxian Left can really appropriate so much of rightwing traditions without the public noticing it and getting amazed.

    • Replies:
  3. Not that Trump had anything to say about whether freedom confers obligations, or whether conspicuous consumption might not actually hold the key to human happiness, or any of the various controversies related to gender, sexuality, and family. He was indifferent to all such matters.

    Trump’s entrepreneurial, personal and political success suggest knowledge of what he likes and how to attain it. Bacevich thinks the Donald preferring acclaim, champagne and models to hemlock and little Greek boys proves Trump and his supporters have a great void where their imperishable soul ought to be.

    As for military affairs, Trump understands the crucial thing is to find your opponent’s weakness and batter away at it relentlessly with all available forces. With Trump it is attack, attack and yet more attacks. He never bothers to defend.

  4. Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates

    There’s no doubt that Trump was sui generis among Presidential candidates/Establishment front people.

    But it’s a serious misuse of the English language to call him, “Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic”. Mr Bacevich must come from a very protected environment with no experience of real “Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed and erratic” people to say this. The real “Coarse, vulgar and unprincipled” world is an order of magnitude different from what we are talking about here.

    Alternatively, he’s just repeating a standard MSM propaganda script, in which case why bother contributing to Unz? The Washington Post or NYT specialize in these kind of smears and have a much wider readership.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: ,
  5. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    The fall of the Berlin Wall in October 1989 abruptly ended one historical era and inaugurated another.

    The Goldman Age.

    Doesn’t look much like the ever-imagined bygone Golden Age, despite the similarity between the names. (It’s long time no “treasury secretary” is appointed in the USA and the entire Western EU who hasn’t been in the Goldman team.)

  6. I predict Bacevich and his friends on the left will fail in their attempts to put together a community of sheep and wolves.

    https://teleolojic.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/identity-politics-sure-what-other-kind-are-there/

    Atomization. Radical individualism. These problems of modernity trouble both Left and Right. Community is often pined for as a solution for our contemporary universalized selfishness that has lead to familial, social, and environmental degradation. And yet the paradigm of Universal Person can produce nothing else. Identity politics as we have seen flourish (or flounder) in the political theorizing of the West, have emerged to fill the Identity Vacuum inherent in universal, pluralistic and multicultural society. The cult of Universal Personhood is the genesis of the Identity crisis in the West.

  7. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    What is this ‘Post Cold War Project’ you speak of?

    I get the feeling there IS a project, a very big, important project — but nobody wants to state what it is exactly. They seem to be sneaking it through in any way possible, with as little explanation as possible.

    I also get the distinct feeling this endeavour doesn’t involve: “the nurture of the soil against the exploitation of resources, the family against the factory, the romantic vision of the individual against the technological vision, [and] localism over democratic centralism.”

    If the ‘elites’ have a project, they had better explain it clearly and honestly and sell it as such, because, frankly, it is coming off as a small clique of creepy incestous insiders trying to hoodwink the peasants into something they have no desire to be a part of.

    Many of the peasants don’t enjoy this approach and the attitude their ‘elites’ seem to have. There will be no ‘Projects’ being undertaken without the people’s consent.

    I hope you understand this. It’s key point.

  8. The collapse of USSR would be beneficial for the Human Kind, if the West was the Christian democracy and not the oligarchy. I mean if the priorities of the political elites would be the improvement of the quality of life of their own ordinary people and the other peoples too. Unfortunately all that talk about promoting the democracy and human rights was just a hoax. Now it is time to build the walls. I think Trump should employ the Chinese for this purpose – they have some experience.

  9. Mexicans and Arabs is exactly right-the addition to the population of 60,000,000 affirmative action beneficiaries, unassimilable hostiles, and permanent government dependents existing on the redistributed wealth of the middle class is why Trump won and why he ran.

    • Replies:
  10. It would be interesting to list the great Complacencies of the Unprepared before 1990. The British in India in 1857 come straight to mind. The court of the Ancien Régime also demands acknowledgment. Charles l and James ll perhaps?

  11. Colonel Bacevitch

    Since you mentioned Globalism…I highly recommend that you read economist Ha Joon Chang’s book “Kicking away the Ladder”. Professor Chang’s book is the most devasting critique of economic globalism in print. Also check out Professor Chang’s website:”The top 20 myths of Capitalism”.

    Gulf War 1+Gulf War 2+Afghanistan+Syria+Ukraine…..how many trillions of $$$$$ are we talking about?

    These trillions could have been used to develope thousands of Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Males for careers in medicine,science, and technologies…much better idea than the H1B-L1B Chinese Legal Immigrant Scab Labor Program. A major opportunity has been blown. The blowing off of the limbs of Working Class Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Males in the aforementioned nations is truely a profound evil. And this grinding of the bodies of Working Class White American Teenage Males from the American Heartland into chopped meat in Iraq…Afghanistan….Syria is justified with loathsome-vile propaganda that these White Working Class Teenage boys are “PROTECTING OUR FREEDOM”.

    I indict Globalism in the strongest possible terms…I indict Globalism as the greatest of all crimes post-1945-2017….

  12. Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

    Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.

    • Replies:
  13. says:
         Show CommentNext New Comment

    Are you serious? Arabs, inconsequential in numbers and pitiful in action. You meant to say Jews. The Jews control America, and Americans know it. This according to no less than Ariel Sharon. Come on, some honesty and backbone here, unless of course you’re Jewish, and wish to hide reality. Mr. Trump ran to drain the swamp in Washington D. C. Who are the people in control there?

    • Replies:
  14. Bingo!

    Who demands mass immigration into white gentile countries, but stops non-Jew immigration into “that shitty little country”?
    Who runs the Federal Reserve?
    Who runs Wall Street?
    Who owns the US Congress?
    Who owns the White House?
    Who dominates the US Supreme Court?
    Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible ’6M & gas chambers’?
    Who runs the media / entertainment?
    Who runs the music business?
    Who dominates ‘academia’?
    Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
    Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the “hate speech” canard?
    Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
    Who are the real & biggest racists on the planet?

  15. Bit of an understatement here:

    Norms that had prevailed for decades if not generations — marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gender identity as fixed at birth — became passé.

    I’m fairly certain they’ve been around a bit longer than that.

  16. It also proves how ignorant Bacevich is to use an idiotic LSM meme that is also a lie. Trump is very informed, made all the right moves to win the election, and has proven over and over again that his insight is much more precise than hacks like Bacevich. Is it jealousy because Bacevich and his band of fellow fools were so blinded to the truth because they are elitist pricks, or just sheer stupidity and an unwillingness to admit they have been wrong all along?

    Truthfully, these shithead anal-lysts need to examine their own assinine minds before trying to examine Trump and his motives. They can’t even be honest to themselves about their own motives, but we see it, every time they spout this drivel.

  17. I stopped reading after a while. Just change the dates, events and names and it’s the same c**p I heard in the 1960s from all my MLK, Kennedy worshipping professors.

    Who says Trump is coarse and vulgar? The liberals and this writer is just blathering all the liberal talking points.

  18. It didn’t take long for the basket of deplorables to start posting comments here.

    You are rubes. The Kremlin is playing you like pianos.

    • Replies: ,
  19. Bacevich notices that “during the Obama presidency race relations, in fact, deteriorated” – and promptly points the finger of blame at Trump – `cause of the “birther” thing.

    What’s up with that?

    Is he reallly that silly?

  20. Well said.

  21. I mean, it’s certainly true that, during the Obama presidency, race relations in America have deteriorated.

    That’s a really, really big thing that’s happened in the last few years.

    And it’s very, very important to understand *why* it has happened.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mr. Bacevich seems to believe that it’s deplorable whites who are to blame for this.

  22. Repeat after me – Hitler and the National Socialists were a phenomenon located on the extreme left.

  23. They are horrid.

  24. Very interesting.
    Is the next chapter available?
    I.e., how to secede from the state?

  25. Sorry – but it is not possible to write a history of America for the last 25 years and not bring up Jews.

    Without question, foreign policy and economic policy in America are dominated by Jews working for the tribe.

    Articles like this about America, can never get it right, leaving those essential facts out of it.

    Peace — Art

  26. I am one of the deplorables.

    The Kremlin does not play me like a piano. USA first!

    Hitlery and Soros play you like a bass drum!

  27. The “protected environment” that “Miro23” assumes Colonel/Professor Bacevich comes from includes, inter alia, combat in Vietnam and public opposition to the Iraq war before it took the life of his only son, a 1st Lieutenant.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/us/16prof.html

    I probably spend more time defending Trump’s agenda (as far as it can be discerned) than cringing at the character traits Bacevich reasonably criticized. That criticism was cutting, but in view of Trump’s exhibitionism, hardly based on ignorance.

    Bacevich has long shown courage that detractors hiding behind pseudonyms show no sign of.

    That being said, there are points in the article to criticize, as I tried to do with respect in the first comment when the article appeared in the American Conservative:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/after-the-end-of-history/

    • Replies:
  28. I’ve heard the name, but I don’t know who Bacevitch is. He’s just someone who wrote an article on Unz and said;

    Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed, erratic, and with little regard for truth, Trump was sui generis among presidential candidates.

    I’ve seen enough of Trump speaking live, and I’ve read his books to be able to say that he isn’t “Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed or erratic” in any meaningful sense compared with real coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed and erratic people – of whom I have experienced many. “Regard for truth” is a different question.

    So, I’m just replying to the article, not giving him some special status from somewhere else.

    • Replies:
  29. ” Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed,and erratic”

    These are the terms leftists use to describe anyone who is not a leftist.

    They are insane, and the only way to defeat them is to use the very same hardball tactics against them, starting with labeling each and every one of them as : “racist”, which is not offbase anyway.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies:
  30. Retired US Army C0lonel…Retired West Point Professor of Military History…. his was son killed in action in Iraq……

  31. Re “Coarse, vulgar, unprincipled, uninformed,and erratic”
    So, Obama isn’t “coarse”—look where that got us. Being refined and cool didn’t stop him from starting wars, choosing strangers every Tuesday morning before lunch to be droned, selling the USA down the river to TBTF banks, and foisting on his hapless constituents a ruinous health insurance scheme.
    Things might have gone better if Obama had been a bit more coarse and a bit less cool.

    I like Bacevich and I like this article in general, but I don’t like his reliance on insulting epithets, which basically say nothing but just sling shit in a barn-door fashion.

    If we are to allow such language in an analysis, let’s have the same language applied to Trump’s opponent, HRC: dishonest, grasping, power-hungry, bellicose, vicious, snide, complacent, lacking ideas; Netanyahu’s stooge, bloodthirsty, criminal.
    I think I prefer coarse.
    I agree with Gene Tuttle’s comments at The American Conservative.

    • Replies:
  32. “……to the principles we need — an approach to political economy providing sustainable and equitable prosperity; a foreign policy that discards militarism in favor of prudence and pragmatism; and an enriched, inclusive concept of freedom — will have to come from somewhere else.”

    I recall reading Lasch decades ago. His was a kind of cheerleading of the anti-racist, cumbaiyah social democracy of the Socialist Party USA. Not that there is anything wrong with that to some degree, except that it was and is utopian.

    I remember Lasch somewhere remarking that the only really moral people anywhere were the poor and I do not recall if he had in mind Blacks as mo’ betta’ and more equal than whites. AS I recall Lasch was or is Jewish, not that there is anything wrong with that either, except for the Jewish animus against White people, Christians especially, and their rabble rousing of the Blacks to get Whites divided and conquerd, all in due time.

    A ‘sustainable’ (new word, more fashionable now) and ‘equitable prosperity’ is fine with me as well as the usual Trump voter. “An enriched, inclusive concept of freedom” is total BS. Just more hopeless Words with zero content in terms of anything he suggested in the article. WE do not need more Freedom, we need less of it and more Obligation toward the Body Politic.

    The “coming from somewhere else” is exactly what the Trump insurrection is. It lacks coherence, it lacks slick words, but it is a cry from the heart, which may have been one of Lasch’s poetic formulations.

    The Compleat media, gov’t, religious, and every institution you can name…refusal to face up to Race Inequality is what is fundamentally tearing the country apart. It is that simple. The economy will never reach full speed ahead with almost half of the folks in the country too dumb to know how to figure out what to do next, both at the job and in their personal lives.

    Mexican IQ at 90 and Black IQ at 85 precludes any economic high gear. Socially, the lies of race equality have the blacks hating us, and the Mexicans are not too far behind. For example, the latest secession movement in California is led by Mexicans, and I suspect they might want to join Mexico….just a wild white male racist’s hunch.

    There has never been a successful multi-racial country in history, anywhere in our solar system.
    Bacevich just mouthes the lies Of Our Time and is part of the problem of Liberalism and its delusions of grandeur. An ‘enriched and inclusive concept of freedom…” is precisely what we do not need. His ‘Concepts’ are theory divorced from any determinate set of facts with regard to politics and society. You can conceptualize purple cows, peace & luv schmoos who just luv to die for you and serve themselves up for dinner, Open Marriage, New Ages of Rainbow Humanity, etc. all of which have never and will never exist.

    Keeping on with this kind of childish rubbish brings on war and civil war, and the latter is where we are heading. You want peace and love? Everybody stays in their own country. No immigration.
    And for Whites, love of your own people, and rejection of all those Others stirring up hatreds, including our white liberal brothers and sisters. Time for Hard men who can think straight and shoot straight. Road to hell paved with Good Intentions….

    all
    liberals should travel to the third world and meet some of these noble savages…like in the Philippines, or Honduras, or Haiti, or Africa, or Arab countries….or Vietnam, etc. White civilization is the best deal you will ever make. MLK day is around the corner…more cowardice as our capon liberal men prepare a hellish future for their own children. And our ladies….getting better, but all still lacking an understanding of the primeval tribalism that our brains contain, and no Concept of Freedom will be given quarter when the killing starts.

    Joe Webb

  33. ” Things might have gone better if O had been a bit more coarse and a bit less cool”

    Look I am guessing that you voted for HC, as you simply do not comprehend that things never go “better” when the insane democrats are in charge.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies:
  34. My post was a response to the content of the Bacevich article.

    Your riff sounds a bit trollish.

    Furthermore, it sounds kind of stupid.

  35. This was a very disappointing article by the fuzzy-around-the-edges Andrew Bacevich, who seems to become more and more the muttering priest-queen of Neoliberalism as he drifts into an irrelevant old age. What exactly is his basis for maligning Donald Trump? What has Trump done to earn the ire of this man? As it so happens, Bacevich ought to be giving his untrammeled endorsement to Trump based on his stated policy goals alone. It is well known that he (Basevich) hates and despises the Iraq war for claiming the life of his son, and that he attacks in print those whom he holds responsible for that misadventure. He even went so far as to endorse Barack Obama in 2008 on the strength of his (Obama’s) promise to pull out of Iraq.

    But, like the de-testacled school teacher he is, he cannot see these slithering politicians for what they really are. Again and again he is fooled by them and their rhetoric, because he himself has no basis in reality. He lives in a realm of academic paper-pushing and useless criticism. It was Donald Trump, however, who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and who singlehandedly threw the Bush clan off the stage of history by handing them a humiliating electoral defeat and rebuking them to their faces for the war they started. Bacevich should be singing Trump’s praises, but instead all he can do is cluck about how uniformed and rude he is.

    Why has this great man, Donald Trump, been saddled with such an ungrateful people? Trump has every right to turn his face to God and say, like Moses, “Did I beget all these children? They are indeed a stiff-necked raced.” It seems that no result would ever really satisfy Andrew Bacevich. All he really loves is the criticism itself, the writing and the tub-thumping, the melancholic happy place he goes to when in the act of crafting another one of his owlish obsequies. When all is said and done he will pass unremarked from this world, leaving as the sole monument to his existence, a pile of printed paper.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone



 
Remember
My Information
Why?

 Email Replies to my Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Past
Classics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?