Foreign Relations?

Post modernism is an interesting phenomenon. I say this as a precursor to an even more interesting phenomenon: the isolation to which post modernism is applied.

When it comes to religion, the culture that currently has its grips on society (or the latest intellectual fad), seems to be the notion of “Whatever works for you.” All paths lead to nirvana correct? Or even your own sense of nirvana. Existentialism be damned, we can all find a meaning of our own. Just don’t let yours get in the way of mine.

When it comes to social welfare issues, Marxism seems to be making a comeback if with the necessity of blindess to true belief in the essence of bourgeoisie ignorance. We choose to ignore the Orwellian horse analogy in favor of praising the purported Robin Hood’s of our generation. Throw in a little mother-earth love and we have a solid hodge-podge of social ideals that leads us straight down a path of… huh?

With all of this greater love (with of course some figurative member of that horse-machine paying the price), I find that there is one area post-modernism has not left its imprint: foreign affairs.

With the United States waking up from its drunken stupor of the 80’s and 90’s, it seems we are looking around with a little bit of trepidation at the partners we have hopped into bed with. Did I just sleep with my best friends girl-friend question lingers in the air as we deal with the Middle East and east equally. Beer/Power goggles seem to have affected some of our decision making abilities as the hungry for glory have taken the reigns and promised invulnerability in the face of a vulnerable time.

Though this seems to be a crude and awkward association, the apt question is, what happens if we are stripped of title of Big Dog on the block?

I was reading an article about the rise and fall of Britain as a Superpower, and the analogy to our current trend. Caught in a net of our own making, intoxicated with our own power, what happens when not only the rest of the world, but the peoples of that world, realize the chain may actually have a chink in it?

The first Bush, and to be sure the second Bush, would say that to remain safe, we have to stay on top of the pile so to speak, and not that don’t disagree, but I can’t help but wonder if a little post-modernism wouldn’t actually benefit in terms of diplomacy at this stage in the game. It could be the naïveté of youth, or the hangover I am enduring myself, but the recurring nightmare of loss of control seems to have faded with the light of dawn. Still a little chagrined by activities the night before, I wonder, could safety in numbers be a more plausible step?

Britain may not be THE Superpower, but it still holds up nicely to the rest of the world. Though more vulnerable to terrorist activity, is that due to policy, or geography? Diplomacy and economic niceties have proved smart moves in placement. Coming from a bi-partisan political system, seeing the effects of too little balances and views, all paths leading to… something, might not be the worst place to land (in terms of foreign relations of course). We as a nation have always ascribed ourselves to that constant need of balance of power internally, would we be okay sharing that same stage with a few others internationally?

Hmm. The irony is not lost on me. The people of Britain, France, Germany, and most of Western Europe, that at one time or another battled to stay on top of the mountain, and eventually came tumbling down, seem to have found their equilibrium, why not us?

Or I could be completely wrong and we could all die if we do not stay the number one power. In that case, let’s hope that same post-modernism I am hodge-podging throughout this commentary saves you.