It's like saying "My mom is the best mom in the world", with the implication your mom is some how less than. Just like anything else there are some things that make me very proud of my country and there are things which I am deeply ashamed.

To make a stretch of a conclusion. Clinton = Reagan.

It's a ways to 2016. I'm focused on 2014. And I have no 2016 candidate in mind. That comes after the mid terms.

Domestic policy of course wobbles around quite a bit, because politicians have to deal with the "locals." Foreign policy has not shifted in any major way in over half a century however, and Hillary Clinton will sure as fuck not be the person to try to change it. The reason for this is because of the American Exceptionalism - militaristic nationalism - mentioned in the article. Americans are saturated with it, we grow up in a worldview that demands the application of violence to enforce America's wishes on the world, being the unquestionably right thing to do, because We're The Best™

And for what it's worth, Reagan did not invent American exceptionalism - he was just a self-advertising product of the notion, which has driven the United States for much of its history.

You've not seen any foreign policy changes over the last 50 years, going back to 1964?

Particular policy details might wobble around, but the core components - use of force to institute American dominion through the world, either directly or through right-wing proxy - haven't changed. we don't call ourselves an empire, but ever sense the emergence of a bipolar world in the wake of WW2, it's exactly how we've conducted ourselves.

Problem is, our policy isn't changing, but the world is.

That's obvious. And I think we are continually adjusting to those shifts in the bigger foreign policy picture.

Outside of the quagmire in the middle east, how are we using force to "institute American dominion through the world" ? And even in the middle east venue I doubt anyone in the halls of government expects dominion to be the result of our actions.

Obama noted that recently in terms of ISIS in Iraq. There's no US military solution there. There's only regional, political, social and diplomatic solutions.

When it comes to Iraq, or any nation really, the US wants one of two things.

Either
1) a pliable state that gives us what we want as we want it
or
2) A ruined state that can't provide anything for anyone.

Ever noticed how US policy wonks wobbled back and forth about the "need" for a unified Iraq when the Iraqi parliament was being amenable to Us desires, but swapped to the "need" for a three-state partition every time that Parliament didn't agree with what the US wanted? Unfortunately for Iraq, ISIS happened to pop its head up during one of the latter phases of Iraqi intransigence. So US involvement amounts to rushing to defend Kurdistan - which we hope to make our newest client state - and letting Baghdad fall to chaos.

You try to draw an exception on the Middle East, but you can't do that - right now, the middle east is the focus of US foreign policy, because of our dependence on the region's primary product - petroleum. No juice, no go.

But you can look at our involvement in Africa, or Latin America and the Caribbean for more examples. Our endorsement of hte rightist coup in Honduras, for a resent Obama-administration example. Either you're a pliable client or you get fucked. Remember that military action need not be direct - it can be via proxy as well, or funneled through arms traits or political support for like-minded militarist regimes.

Or even look at our efforts to "contain" Russia via Ukraine.

US foreign policy is Pax Americana, US hegemony. Empire.

Wow. That's real stretch, Scootaloo. How many global US conspiracy theories can you hobble together?

ISIS is doing what we want? Are you implying they're our proxy or some such?

I see your point of view - "US foreign policy is Pax Americana, US hegemony. Empire". But it doesn't work back wards from a presupposed assumption to fit everything into your point of view.

Not everything is a nefarious US plot. Come on, I'm sure you know that.

I'm saying that they are doing something that the US wants to happen anyway, and so we have no real interest in interfering. Our leaders will cluck their tongues for the camera... but there's no interest here in interfering, except where ISIS might "overstep" - again, our interest in a Kurdistan.

"nefarious"? No, i actually imagine that this is what any nation with the power and scope the US had would do. The mongols were no saints, nor were the Romans or the Inka. All played this game.

The problem is, of course, that empires always fall, and many fall in exceptionally messy ways, at great cost to their component peoples.

We're not the Mongols, the Romans of ancient times or the Inca. It's a facile comparison at best.

" I'm saying that they are doing something that the US wants to happen anyway" - I think you ought to expand that assumption. Any references or articles to flesh out the claim?

Do you really believe that we reached the "end of history" twenty years ago, that nothing before that point is relevant to anything? Empires all work pretty much the same way. it doesn't matter if it's the Sumerians or the Dutch or the Soviets or us.

Yes. Read up on the history of US involvement with Iraq 1979-present. Then come back and tell me we have an interest in a democratic iraq, or preserving that country.

Take care. Thanks for the discussion.

Basically proposing that the US was now "in charge" with hte fall of the soviet union and that the past was pretty much rendered null and void, all that existed was "forward." Seriously if you want a good look at Americna Exceptionalism from a viewpointhtat fully and eagerly embraces the notion, have a look at hte book.

Ronny Ray Gun makes me sick to my stomach

Electing Hillary Clinton would be a terrible mistake.