There’s little doubt of foreign interference in the U. S. political process.
To begin with, China has its hooks into the country for huge amounts of loans.
You can be sure, other countries are attempting to apply leverage, in a variety of ways.
Granted, no power outside America, has come in with military force, in order to attempt to overthrow the government, nor has anybody found a way to sufficiently corrupt our military, nor coerce our citizens, to get them to work to cause a coup in the country.
Frankly, if you were to try, I would laughingly wish you good luck. Why? Because our country has a variety of safeguards in place, to keep such things from happening. As well, the American satisfaction level is generally very high, making it a losing argument for most folks, to change how things work here.
For other nations, such protections don’t really tend to exist at all. In fact, many have no mechanism to really even allow, for free elections.
Here’s the thing, I cannot and will not, argue that any country, should be in the business of installing governments in any other sovereign state. I recognize it can be argued that the U. S. appears to do exactly that around the world, and I have to acknowledge, I don’t typically agree when we do so.
The fact is though, in most of the countries in question, contrary to what certain individuals would have others believe, the governmental entities we seek to destabilize or remove and replace, are tyrannical in nature.
Further, as a rule, if they were supported by the people who live in the places in question, the idea that it would be possible to cause those power structures to topple, would be far-flung.
Rather, what we find is, when America or any other supposedly advanced nation, meddles in the affairs of another country, they’re typically able to easily generate dissent against those in positions of power and authority.
There’ve been exceptions to this, one example being Cuba. In that case, it can be argued that the government of the island nation, was what kept the standing leadership in power. Nonetheless, at the very least, one can make the statement that the locals seemed uninterested in toppling that regime.
In that case, though this country tried to incite the people to a change of leadership, what happened? We failed.
Here’s my message for those talking about the “poor unfortunate entities” who’ve had their governments destabilized or removed by the plans and actions of outsiders. If your country had been led by people generally supported by the citizens of the state, it would at least have been hard to effect change.
The simple question can then be asked, “Was it?
In most cases, you don’t have to be the brightest bulb in the firmament, to answer that question.
You can certainly argue that there were deaths as a result of many such activities. Here’s the problem with that contention though. In most of the countries in question, there would’ve been deaths regardless the change of those in charge.
And where nobody wants to see anyone die, the idea that often, the deaths occurring after the country in question comes back to a stable state, not only fall below those happening under the former leadership, but the numbers tend to fall a great deal lower, than before the new government came into place.
That’s not the only thing that happens either. Often, the resultant change in authority, will be the cause of a serious reduction in a whole range of other issues having been suffered by the natives of that entity.
It will become possible to do things like, build hospitals, and schools. Housing will often be updated as a result of newfound largess on the part of the country. Any number of similar things, are bound to happen.
You can argue that the resultant power base, will be more friendly to the folks who helped them to gain their positions, but at that point I have a question for you, “Is that really a bad thing?”
The hope is, not only will that be the case, but they’ll also develop friendly relationships with others as well. The result not quite invariably, being a stronger country, and economy in the long haul.
While we’re at it, why don’t we discuss the strength of the America and its economy (which these days, is not what it ought to be, but nonetheless). Like it or not, regardless who you see, to be large and in charge in the U.S., we’re a wildly successful country when we let business do its thing, with a minimal amount of regulation, and comparatively small amounts of taxation.
I’m not arguing that the government can’t keep a watchful eye on enterprise, nor that their doing so on a limited basis, is necessarily harmful.
I get that for government to do a variety of reasonable and worthwhile tasks, it needs money to operate.
That said, pretty much every time the leadership of the country, gets heavily involved in trying to control business, or in exacting their pound of flesh, things begin to go poorly.
The why can be argued until we’re blue in the face. The question that I think would come out of that pursuit is, “Does it really matter?”
When business does well, people do well.
Yes, the folks who run the various corporations, do end up making a good deal of money.
That said, the workers too, end up making more as a result of an increased need for employees for the factories, stores, restaurants, offices, and for yet other pursuits.
Salaries at various workplaces become competitive, because the folks who own those businesses are seeking ever more skilled and productive workers.
This is a working model. I’ve yet to see any other, that’s as successful.
Just in case you want to argue that the United States “squashes” other countries, making them less viable, I have a single question, “How do we not get stomped underfoot by those other countries?”
You can try to argue that question however you please, but to me, the answer is simple. They cannot compete. If they could, their model for operation would be the one winning the day. It’s just not that complex.
Thanks for reading, and may your time be good.