History is Weird
my New World Order unveiled.
History is weird, the old reformation era alignments are out of date in the United States of the 21st century in part due to the excesses of the Protestant Hard right, among other things.The left, See’s the trend as being towards agnosticism and Atheism being the dominant factor, the right as imposing Fundamentalist Uber Capitalistic Protestantism (the Rightist New World Order), but I see the return of more tolerant views all around so that we return more to the model of more benign Church/State relations maximizing the freedom of full choice as opposed to the triumph of Humanism as a state religion (the leftist New World Order) as I think was the intention of our founders. Originally, I would have called our founders Humanists as they were often the products of the Enlightenment, but since Marx and State Sponsored Atheism, the term Humanist really describes the ideas that are farther to the left than the nation at large so it’s no longer the Enlightenment as our father’s knew it, it’s something else. I can’t predict the demographics for certain, but my instincts tell me that Mainstream Religion will mainly moderate and not disappear to the extent that it did in Europe, where it may also revive to an extent. The more moderate faiths were seen as failing to prevent the cultural revolutions of the 60′s but the harder Fundamentalist factions don’t seem to have any better luck, so I think mainstream faith will stop declining a some point and regrow in the new environment of the 21st century. Increases and decreases in Fundamentalist fervor is a historical pattern.
I perceive especially a return to a more Hemispheric orientation of American Foreign policy (Monroe Doctrine w/o North American supremacy) avoiding the Euro-Asian conflicts by concentrating on growth in this hemisphere? That would involve shedding Protestant/Catholic squabbles in a largely Catholic North and South America. The alternative would seem either one world Globalism under either an excessively Socialist or Capitalist model, of which I see evidence of both appearing and I want neither? The power of the Church of Rome would largely be checked by the spread (a continuing trend) of Protestantism, Agnosticism and Atheism at current rates in an environment where even in Latin America, religion (and lack of religion) has been allowed to flourish as a democratic model generally put forward in the United States and Canada, which the Latin Americans seem to follow despite their dominant Catholicism? The Church of Rome is used to being on the defensive and I don’t think it has it in it anymore to go back on the offensive (along the lines of the counter-reformation anyway), seeing it’s interests tied mainly to pluralism as opposed to dominance that it lost, as well as still seeking converts where it can? I really don’t trust one world globalism (not till we are out in space, in a big way that will eventually unite us finally)) at all, the interests of China and India being too hard to avoid in conflicts with Islam, Europe and Russia. So I advocate kind of a hemispheric balance of power, keeping Eurasian conflict in check by balance of power diplomacy from the America’s?
England is situated to our east as the limit of our immediate security concerns as well as Japan occupying a similar position on out west. I would want Strong Naval Power shared as a defensive alliance with Freedom of the Seas being our primary Strategic concern. Australia and New Zealand also offer areas of common security interests. I would eventually want to see Japan put more resources and effort into her Naval forces again in alliance with the “New World” (not an order), just the New World literally with very secure shoulders (England and Japan).
I would see an area of possible expansion of Democratic market economies in Africa beginning with stable secure close relations with South Africa. Zimbabwe could be a problem, but the Chinese need to examine exactly what they want to be aligned with there, Mugabe is still trying ideas that the Chinese have discarded and they may eventually consider that? But Southern Africa is a long way away from China so their options may be limited by their Naval Power. Growth in Africa should be encouraged and assisted spreading north until the population becomes Islamic, them it would be time to stabilize and hold the lower 2/3 or 1/2 of Africa in an alignment of Democratic Market oriented states.
Our own Changing demographics would seem to indicate this as a rational plan. North America has large Catholic and Hispanic populations so mutual bonds should be relatively natural. The Large African American population in both the United States and many areas of Latin America also would seem to give us an edge in working for growth and development in Africa.
Resource-wise Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand are extremely well endowed as well as looking for growth in Africa. Never forget that the United States, Canada and Argentina are some of the best food producing areas in the world.
The real goal of this policy is to step back a little from the World Policeman role and just try to play common sense balance of Power diplomacy in a more hands off manner. Europe still has a giant role to play especially if they are on a less adversarial footing with Russia. China and India are huge power centers on their own now and Russian adventurism is best checked by a China ( and India to a lesser degree) with a more commercial interest in growth and Stability.
Islam will eventually emerge as a power center on its own but I see too much loss of money and treasure trying to directly affect Islam, they need to be left alone to find some possible growth and development along Islamic lines and that’s the real danger that all the powers face, our diplomacy with Islam should be to encourage economic growth within Islam, not try to stake out areas of interest, this will become easier the less fossil fuel dependent we become, and we are moving that way. More peace and prosperity within the Islamic world would probably decrease the Arab/Israeli situation with jobs and growth and freedom from Western Influence in areas where it is not wanted.
If somebody get too powerful, you shift our alliance to the weaker side and preserve the peace that way. So the New World Oder is basically in my view the New World practicing Balance of Power Diplomacy on the Eurasian land mass from the huge islands called the Western Hemisphere.
Obama has started off in the right direction, we have enough to do staying out of more trouble in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to worry excessively about Ortega, Castro (both Brothers, but Fidel will not be with us much longer) and Chavez. Ortega played the hard liner, but it seemed Raoul and Chavez were at least trying to get along better. With neighbors it would seem that internal biases towards free markets might best be balanced with a view towards moving to a better Hemispheric Solidarity, especially if the regime in question has popular support. I really feel that we would have a more peaceful, prosperous future if we cut our neighbors the maximum amount of slack our interests will allow. There does not seem to be a general trend to centralized planned states as there was after the second World War, we can be a little less paranoid I think and more generally friendly. Essentially, I’m advocating a “Kinder, Gentler” Monroe Doctrine, internally (Western Hemisphere and select allies) anyway.
These theories are in many ways inspired by Ron Paul, as much as Barak Obama, except I want to adhere to General David Petraeus as far as Afghanistan, if he says get out, I want out ASAP?
The reasoning being that just up and leaving will not only free Osama and his tribe to do as they please, but the Taliban might also allow the Kashmir separatist a free hand and India and Pakistan went to the brink of war recently over it and both are Nuclear armed.