What is about anti-US writers that none of them can come up with a coherent argument that is worth reading? Case in point, Eric Hobsbawm's screed in Le Monde Diplomatique, here excerpted and translated in The Guardian.
Here's Hobsbawn morally incomprehensible:
In other words, The world needs a force for good, but I don't propose lifting a finger to have one. Naughty dictator, naughty naughy. Please stop.
Here's Hobsbawm with an interesting observation:
This is true, the ultimate dominance of the US is and will continue to be, cultural and economic. The military component so current right now needs to be short. A) because the US can't really afford it, B) because the American people ultimately don't support it, and C) most of the problems of the world are not conducive to solution in this fashion.
Once we pass beyond the current situation of terrorists and terror-states aided and abetted by European appeasement and collaboration, the US military venture will probably subside. Also, maybe someday there will be a Democratic Party that will overcome it's own rampant inanities and form a significant opposition.
As to why people like Hobsbawm can't string a coherent and rational argument together, it seems to be part of the "madness of the ideologues" too blinded by their hatred and anger to actually grasp the world.
Is there anyone out there that is actually writing progressive analysis that is readable? I have some ideas but I welcome other's observations.
Posted by campbell at June 14, 2003 12:51 AM | TrackBack