Bill Moyers interviews Andrew Bacevich, author of the recent book: “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism”. This is an interview to watch, even if you never read the book.
Bacevich is a former soldier (Vietnam) turned historian and political science professor. He identifies himself as a conservative, but has written articles for The Nation as well as for the American Conservative.
When the interview first appeared on Moyers PBS show, Bacevich’s book became a best-seller within hours.
The book and the interview concern the reasons for the Iraq war (and all US-waged wars since WWII), the US’s misguided use of its military, the US population’s addiction to profligate consumerism and the problems that causes, the many fallacies of the war on terror, the US presidency’s accrual of power over the past 40 years, and the erosion of democracy.
Bacevich’s main points overlap with ones that Noam Chomsky has made for decades. I admit to being a little perplexed as to why Bacevich has managed to reach a mainstream audience when Chomsky never has. Perhaps it is Bacevich’s gift for presenting ideas clearly, simply, and not condescendingly, or his credentials as a conservative, or his being a Vietnam veteran whose son served (and died) in Iraq, that allows more people to swallow his message. Ultimately however, it is the message that is important, not the messenger.
The interview is about 55 minutes long, broken into two segments. At the end of the first segment (27 minutes), click the “Part II” link at the top right of the image area. [Watch Interview]
September 30, 2008 at 5:39 am |
I loved the Bacevich interview. I have some thoughts.
Some time ago I listened to a program on NPR that asserted that the average American contributed 4 times as much CO2 to the atmosphere as the average 3rd world person. The average alternative energy life style American contributed twice as much. Even Buddhist monks who commit to absolute poverty and the homeless contribute more to global CO2 than a 3rd world person. This is because of their connections to the wider society. Buddhist monks may operate a winery to finance the monastery; this requires trucks to take the wine to market, glass factories to make the bottles,etc. The homeless go to free health clinics, homeless shelters, drunk tanks, etc. These satellite institutions are fully invested in the 1st world economy.
I have 11 cats. All eat better than I do from a nutritional standpoint, and they definitely have a better health care package than I do. On the other hand, my cats enhance my life, and I can afford their care. I dread the day when I can’t have at least one cat in my life.
The point I want to make is that there is a lot of consumption out there which seems profligate to some, but is what makes life worth living to others. Why shouldn’t I pay thousands for a work of art that delights me every time I see it on my wall. It also supports someone with a rare talent earning a living doing something that they enjoy doing.
The problem as I see it is not simply consumption, it is population. Unfortunately, I don’t see anything that will limit our population to a level that will allow all of us whether we are born in the US, or Africa, South America or Asia to have more in our life than basic subsistence.
Finally I would like to nominate George Bush for a Nobel prize for his efforts in the past 8 years to reduce CO2 emissions as evidenced in the past 2 weeks. Al Gore merely talked about this. Bush policies have actually done something concrete by reducing an increasing proportion of the US citizenry to what might pass for basic subsistence.