it’s impossible to extricate hegemony from moral failings because the entire premise of hegemony—hell, the entire premise of the state—is the ability to compel people to do things. the only possible “moral” hegemony is one in which everyone already does the good thing so you don’t need the force.
you can have a more and less moral hegemony in the same way you can have a more or less moral war—it’s certainly a spectrum, but the best possible way of doing it is still going to require doing grossly evil things.
This is even before you get into the fact that there are functionally 3 outcomes of destroying Pax Americana: Things get better, things stay the same, things get worse. And they are not equally likely possibilities. 2 of the 3 make the destroyer equally as bad or worse than the Pax Americana.
So if you want to claim the moral ground to destroy Pax Americana, you are morally obligated to show your work and have a plan to get the 1 good outcome.
The office of President, or even fairy tale king, is responsible for the outcome of everything they do and everything they do not do. You dream of a world without choices or responsibilities.
How does wanting either to hold Obama responsible for his actions or for a president to work towards undoing the USA’s hegemonic influence mean I don’t want for no one to be responsible? Those are both examples of wanting someone to be responsible!
Because life is suffering, having the responsibility of President means you will *always* commit evil, through action or inaction. There will always be someone you could have saved, someone you could have not harmed.
I dont like that Obama bombed children or deported millions of minorities. It is pretty obvious wby you all have to fall back to these theoretical platitudes as a defense.
He did not. He sent 30000 additional troops into Afghanistan, expanded the gwot, and Libya now has slave markets. Antipathy towards Obama did not come from aesthetics.
Wait. So because Qaddafi threatened to butcher his own people, the US supported an international effort to save Benghazans from being massacred, and Qaddafi was ultimately deposed ... it's now Obama's fault there are slave markets in Libya?
libya had a state-sponsored system where migrants crossing to the mediterranean were detained indefinitely and then leased to private industry to perform compulsory labor. these terms were enforced by physical violence and occasionally lethal force.
Comments
Although, I don’t believe running for president is the only way someone could become chief executive of the hegemony.
The office of President, or even fairy tale king, is responsible for the outcome of everything they do and everything they do not do. You dream of a world without choices or responsibilities.
And you don't like that.
But if that person still has the power to act, and they do not, allowing some to suffer and die at their inaction, that too is a kind of evil.
This isn't a unique problem btw. Check out "the buddha"
I’m willing to listen about which one of my takes suggested that I don’t and instead just want a “protestor-in-chief.”
you aren't going to like
what comes after
America