TED Conversations

Todd Westervelt

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

About U.S. hegemony.

Given, for example, that France is more philanthropic, per capita, than the rest of the world, including the U.S., and that countries, such as those in the Northeast region of Europe, seem to be doing relatively well regarding terrorism and associated threats, what reason is there for the U.S. to take "moral" or "military" leadership role within the world?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    Dec 28 2012: "what reason is there for the U.S. to take "moral" or "military" leadership role within the world?"

    There is no "reason". The United States just has the biggest economy in the world and the biggest population of the developed countries, it also spends a larger percentage of its GDP on the military than the other developed countries, except a few tiny ones. These factors allow the US to take a leadership role and it takes that opportunity because it fits with the countries "manifest destiny" mythology and yields extensive material rewards, at least for the rich and (upper) middle class.

    • Todd Westervelt

      • 0
      Dec 28 2012: And what might be wrong with some lebensraum to our south, to Mexico? Their culture (from the processual viewpoint of Csikszentmihalyi's "pursue your happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others") is a wreck, and they - as a whole - are a threat to our security.

      Might there be another term, other than "leadership role" that you can use, since what you seem to be implying is not leadership but an immoral form of imperialism?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.