Pax Americana

President Bush speaks of his drive to bring democracy and free enterprise to all nations. He believes this to be his duty as President of the United States of America and as a Christian. It remains his belief, I think, that once the unfree or less free see the benefits of an American-like system, they will embrace the change. He seems to believe this remains the case in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have two concerns about this approach to the world. The first: is there a hidden or at least veiled agenda. Second: what does history have to tell us of the Pax whomevers that came before: Pax Romana and Pax Britannia.

Let's begin with the last first. The Roman Empire may have been based on aspects of Alexander's conquests but his short lived campaign could not be called peace in any modern sense of the word. In establishing the Roman Empire, ruthless military force rather than philosophical belief spread Rome's hegemony through a good part of the known world. In the case of my own ancestors, I doubt the "wild Allemanie" were subjected to much discussion of Greco-Roman notions of democracy.

I doubt very much that Pax Britannia had anything to do with spreading notions of democracy. Rather it was an ingenious system wherein commercial establishments like the Hudsons Bay Company and the East India Company performed most of the colonization to be backed up by the military might of the empire. Witness the bizarre Falklands War in defense of one notion--empire. No, Pax Britannia was not about spreading ideas but about supplying the homeland with goods and services with the least possible outlay of capital. This was before the coining of the word outsourcing.

As for my other concern, I suggested there might be a hidden agenda. In truth, I do not see it as hidden. What I do see is nearly the entire Republican Party membership trying to hide from the world that this is a two-pronged policy clearly visible to those with independent eyes to see. It is a policy to put into place guaranteed stocks of oil for the future of the United States economy and a policy to spread the gospel of materialistic Christianity throughout the globe, George W. Bush as a super-Reverend Ike. Perhaps you agree that these are good policies. Fine. Then it is clear where to punch your hanging chad in this fall's election.

If you do not agree and if you find these notions dangerous, then your choice is also clear. I hear too much about John Kerry not being the perfect candidate. I respond, "Who is?" Politics as is Life is about Pragmatism when all is said and done (else why would this and previous administrations support Saudi Arabia which denies so many basic rights to its people and which is not a "Christian Nation?"

The only way the deeply troubled voter can address issues of campaign finance reform, imperialism, lack of openness in government, a clearly focused and aggressive campaign against terrorism, and a host of other issues I believe have gone awry under the current administration is to establish a new administration through the use of the ballot box, not to make a statement, but to replace this administration. A vote for a fringe candidate, even one with wonderful ideas, is a vote to keep the current administration in power. A vote for Ralph Nader will serve two ends: feeding his hubris and stacking religious right conservatives on the United States Supreme Court.

By: Ernie Seckinger

From: The Revolutionist His Bondservant Forever In Christ Jesus