The relationship between American intellectuals and political leaders was not confined to the Democratic Party. The most recent example of this alliance between an intellectual and political elite can be found in President George W. Bush’s administration, with its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the expansion of the welfare state in education and Medicare. These policies were created, supported, and justified by neo-conservatives, who, during the Cold War, were anti-communist, pro-free-market, and supporters of traditional cultural values.4 For neo-conservatives, democracy was a superior form of government because it protected human liberty; and other regimes that curtailed human freedom, like the Soviet Union, were deemed evil. Regimes therefore were evaluated and ordered, with democracy as the best, totalitarian as the worst, and authoritarian governments as somewhere in between.5 For the neo-conservatives, the United States should have prevented the Soviet Union from spreading totalitarian regimes around the world as well as have promoted democratic ones (or in conditions when it was not possible, supported authoritarian ones).
“United States must abandon the RMA and focus more on training of the infantry, media propaganda,..”
I ran across a podcast that featured the head of “Project Narrative” at Ohio State University. The project has attracted DARPA funding as well as participants from the military elite forces.
Basically, the project believes a narrative or story telling is an underutilized technology and is attempting to develop an integrative approach to narrative theory.
It seems to me the totalitarian regimes that we’ve engaged with recently have utilized this technology more effectively than we do. Or it could be that our lack of focus on narrative has contributed to the failure of long term foreign policy objectives.
Promoting American exceptionalism through military force hasn’t proved to be an effective strategy. Instead we should put more effort in understanding narratives that run against our dominant story line and act accordingly.
I believe it is narrative that guides, directs, and controls human events more so than a centralized bureaucracy or independent actors on the ground.
No one understood this better than Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation and how it was implemented in the battle fields of the Civil War.
But that was 160 years ago when resources and information were limited compared to the massive defense budget and digital technology that we’ve come to rely on today.
We should view narrative as a potent aspect of our foreign policy strategy and properly align our resources in a way where we can bring the American people and the world more favorable out comes.
Three questions. First, what is Nisbet's distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian governments? Second, the cultivation of character in soldiers is crucial, especially in view of the threat of another coup d'etat attempt this next time led by the U.S. military, according to several generals as recently reported on CNN. They recommend more civics education, more liberal education, and especially an understanding of the political philosophy underlying the U.S. Constitution. Do you agree? And how exactly would that be accomplished? Third, your review ends by asserting that humans alone cannot direct history. Are you referring to the need for God's guidance? Or, that chance and unforeseeable circumstances prevent full rational control of history? Thank you.
“United States must abandon the RMA and focus more on training of the infantry, media propaganda,..”
I ran across a podcast that featured the head of “Project Narrative” at Ohio State University. The project has attracted DARPA funding as well as participants from the military elite forces.
Basically, the project believes a narrative or story telling is an underutilized technology and is attempting to develop an integrative approach to narrative theory.
It seems to me the totalitarian regimes that we’ve engaged with recently have utilized this technology more effectively than we do. Or it could be that our lack of focus on narrative has contributed to the failure of long term foreign policy objectives.
Promoting American exceptionalism through military force hasn’t proved to be an effective strategy. Instead we should put more effort in understanding narratives that run against our dominant story line and act accordingly.
I believe it is narrative that guides, directs, and controls human events more so than a centralized bureaucracy or independent actors on the ground.
No one understood this better than Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation and how it was implemented in the battle fields of the Civil War.
But that was 160 years ago when resources and information were limited compared to the massive defense budget and digital technology that we’ve come to rely on today.
We should view narrative as a potent aspect of our foreign policy strategy and properly align our resources in a way where we can bring the American people and the world more favorable out comes.
https://projectnarrative.osu.edu/about/pn-mission
Three questions. First, what is Nisbet's distinction between totalitarian and authoritarian governments? Second, the cultivation of character in soldiers is crucial, especially in view of the threat of another coup d'etat attempt this next time led by the U.S. military, according to several generals as recently reported on CNN. They recommend more civics education, more liberal education, and especially an understanding of the political philosophy underlying the U.S. Constitution. Do you agree? And how exactly would that be accomplished? Third, your review ends by asserting that humans alone cannot direct history. Are you referring to the need for God's guidance? Or, that chance and unforeseeable circumstances prevent full rational control of history? Thank you.