Today he offers a way to evaluate potential candidates for the next Emperor: "How do you propose to avoid a long war?"
What's wrong with a "long war"? Says Lind:
Sun Tzu said it succinctly: "There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." Acceptance by any Presidential candidate of a "long war" or "persistent conflict" is an admission of grand strategic imbecility. Which, just possibly, ought not be the highest qualification for public office, all appearances notwithstanding.Worse yet, America has already been through a long war - from its 1917 intervention in Europe to the 1990 "victory" against Communism (see here for why I put that in quotes). And the fruits of that?
In 1914, America was a republic with a small federal government, a self-reliant citizenry, growing industry, an expanding middle class, an uplifting culture and exemplary morals. By 1990 and the end of that long war, we had become a tawdry and increasingly resented world empire with a vast, endlessly intrusive federal government, a population of willingly manipulated consumers, shrinking industry, a vanishing middle class, a debauched culture and morals that would shame a self-respecting stoat.Yet every "mainstream" candidate for the Throne of St. Abraham promises more war, more Empire, more of the same.
Where will another long war leave us? What's left of America won't be worth a bucket of warm spit, or however you say that in Spanish.
Of course, given the acceleration of history as evidenced by the 20th century alone, it won't take another 70 years for the said spitbucket transformation, but probably much, much less.