2NC – Impact Calc
Outweighs:
B. Magnitude
1. The collapse of U.S. leadership will spark wars around the globe
Brookes – Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation – 7-4-2006 (Peter, New York Post, “Why They Need Us:
Imagine a World Without America,” http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070406a.cfm)
For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, today - America's 230th birthday provides an opportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good
ol' Uncle Sam. The picture isn't pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic
power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the
differences America made last century - just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.
On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it's not our preference, we are the world's
"cop on the beat," providing critical stability in some of the planet's toughest neighborhoods. Without the U.S.
"Globo-cop," rivals India and Pakistan might well find cause to unleash the dogs of war in South Asia undoubtedly leading to history's first nuclear (weapons) exchange. Talk about Fourth of July fireworks . . . In
Afghanistan, al Qaeda would still be an honored guest, scheming over a global caliphate stretching from Spain
to Indonesia. It wouldn't be sending fighters to Iraq; instead, Osama's gang would be fighting them tooth and
nail from Saudi Arabia to "Eurabia." In Asia, China would be the "Middle Kingdom," gobbling up democratic
Taiwan and compelling pacifist Japan (reluctantly) to join the nuclear weapons club. The Koreas might fight
another horrific war, resulting in millions of deaths. A resurgent Russia, meanwhile, would be breathing down
the neck of its "near abroad" neighbors. Forget the democratic revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, Comrade! In
Europe, they'd be taking orders from Paris or Berlin - if those rivals weren't at each other's throats again. In
Africa, Liberia would still be under Charles Taylor's sway, and Sudan would have no peace agreement. And
what other nation could or would provide freedom of the seas for commerce, including the shipment of oil and
gas - all free of charge? Weapons of mass destruction would be everywhere. North Korea would be brandishing
a solid nuclear arsenal. Libya would not have given up its weapons, and Pakistan's prodigious proliferator, A.Q.
Khan, would still be going door to door, hawking his nuclear wares. Also missing would be other gifts from
"Uncle Sugar" - starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World
Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries. Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF's costs to
feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries - and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe. In 2005, Washington
dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan),
contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries.
Moreover, President Bush's five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the
largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative - ever - working in over 100
(mostly African) countries. The United States is the world's economic engine. We not only have the largest
economy, we spend 40 percent of the world's budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like
information technology, defense and medicine. We're the world's ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the
International Monetary Fund's resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank
programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countriesAnd what does Uncle Sam get in
return? Mostly grief, especially from all the ungrateful freeloaders who benefit tremendously from the global
"public goods" we so selflessly provide with our time, effort, blood and treasure. How easily - and conveniently
- they forget . . . unless they need help, of course. But let us never forget, especially today, that despite the
name-calling, the jeers, the petty jealousies, we're the envy of the world - and rightfully so. The fact is that no
matter what anyone says: No country has given so much to so many so often - while asking for so little in return
- for so little gratitude than this great country of ours. So Happy birthday, America! Stand tall and proud you've earned it.
2. US-Russia war leads to extinction
Bostrom ‘2
(Dr. Nick, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at YALE, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human
Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," 3-8-02, http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An allout nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have
been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted
with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate
our species or permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that
could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one
day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for
instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently. Such a
war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear
Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century. The
special nature of the challenges posed by existential risks is illustrated by the following points: ·
Our approach to existential
risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach – see what
happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires
foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and
economic) of such actions. ·
We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or national security
policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We
might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective
fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat. ·
Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and
may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting
on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against
a major existential risk. If we take into account the welfare of future generations, the harm done by existential
risks is multiplied by another factor, the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits
[15,16].
This turns the kritik – if the enemies take over us, we will lose liberty and agency.
Nyquist ‘5
(J. R. Renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, received his B.A. from the University of
California at Irvine where he also attended graduate school, working in the Politics and Society Group. Since
leaving the program Mr. Nyquist has continued research in Soviet strategy, Cold War history, and social theory.
Mr. Nyquist was contracted with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency from 1988 until 1992 in the Soviet /
Russian analysis group. June 17, “NATIONAL SECURITY VS. SPECIAL INTERESTS”,
http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0617.html)
If the security of a free nation is undermined, then liberty is undermined. If we order our society in such a
way that national security finds itself subordinated to dozens of special concerns: to the demands of capitalists, free
thinkers, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, anarchists or ethnic minorities then national security will be
subverted. Prosperity, freedom and social justice are good things (to be sure), but we must not pursue these
objects by sacrificing the nation’s strategic position. My concern with America’s direction is precisely this: America has
moved toward prosperity, freedom and social justice in a way that sets particular interests so high upon a
pedestal as to cancel (to some degree or another) the very idea of a coherent national interest. In the rhetoric of
today’s demagogues, we often find the national interest identified negatively with the rich white male exploiter.
Here, the rhetoric of divide and conquer is clearly at work.
That’s a reason to vote for us
Bostrom ‘7
(Nick, Oxford philosophy professor, April, Humanity's biggest problems aren't what you
think they are, http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/44)
Now, if we think about what just reducing the probability of human extinction by just one percentage point -- not very much -- so
that's equivalent to 60 million lives saved, if we just count the currently living people, the current generation. Now one percent of six
billion people is equivalent to 60 million. So that's a large number. If we were to take into account future generations that will never
come into existence if we blow ourselves up, then the figure becomes astronomical. If we could, now, eventually, colonize a chunk of
the universe -- the Virgo supercluster -- maybe it will take us 100 million years to get there, but if we go extinct we never will. Then,
even a one percentage point reduction in the extinction risk could be equivalent to this astronomical number -10 to the power of 32. So if you take into account future generations as much as our own, every other moral
imperative of philanthropic cost just becomes irrelevant. The only thing you should focus on would be to reduce
existential risk because even the tiniest decrease in existential risk would just overwhelm any other benefit you
could hope to achieve. And even if you just look at the current people, and ignore the potential that would be lost
if we went extinct, it would still have a high priority. Now, let me spend the rest of my time on the third big problem,
because it's more subtle and perhaps difficult to grasp. Think about some time in your life -- some people might never have
experienced -- but some people, there are just those moments that you have experienced where life was fantastic.
The role of the ballot is to sustain American society – that is critical to preserving international stability
Kristol & Kagan ‘96
(William Kristol – visiting professor in government at Harvard University and
Robert Kagan – senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and PhD in American History, “Toward a Neo-Reganite Foreign Policy,”
Foreign Affairs. July/August,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276 )
it is time once again to challenge an indifferent America and a confused American conservatism.
Today's lukewarm consensus about America's reduced role in a post-Cold War world is wrong. Conservatives
TWENTY YEARS later,
should not accede to it; it is bad for the country and, incidentally, bad for conservatism. Conservatives will not be able to govern
America over the long term if they fail to offer a more elevated vision of America's international role. What should that role be?
Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological
predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance
by strengthening America's security, supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the
world. The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing
more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is
America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang
Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and
a guide to action. Consider the events of just the past six months, a period that few observers would consider remarkable for its drama on the world stage. In East Asia,
the carrier task forces of the U.S. Seventh Fleet helped deter Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan, and the 35,000 American troops stationed in South Korea
helped deter a possible invasion by the rulers in Pyongyang. In Europe, the United States sent 20,000 ground troops to implement a peace agreement in the former
Yugoslavia, maintained 100,000 in Western Europe as a symbolic commitment to European stability and security, and intervened diplomatically to prevent the
escalation of a conflict between Greece and Turkey. In the Middle East, the United States maintained the deployment of thousands of soldiers and a strong naval
presence in the Persian Gulf region to deter possible aggression by Saddam Hussein's Iraq or the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, and it mediated in the conflict
between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. In the Western Hemisphere, the United States completed the withdrawal of 15,000 soldiers after restoring a semblance of
democratic government in Haiti and, almost without public notice, prevented a military coup in Paraguay. In Africa, a U.S. expeditionary force rescued Americans and
others trapped in the Liberian civil conflict. These were just the most visible American actions of the past six months, and just those of a military or diplomatic nature.
During the same period, the United States made a thousand decisions in international economic forums, both as a government and as an amalgam of large corporations
America influenced both the external and internal
behavior of other countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Through the United
Nations, it maintained sanctions on rogue states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq. Through aid programs, the United
States tried to shore up friendly democratic regimes in developing nations. The enormous web of the global economic
system, with the United States at the center, combined with the pervasive influence of American ideas and culture,
allowed Americans to wield influence in many other ways of which they were entirely unconscious. The simple
and individual entrepreneurs, that shaped the lives and fortunes of billions around the globe.
truth of this era was stated last year by a Serb leader trying to explain Slobodan Milosevic's decision to finally seek rapprochement
with Washington. "As a pragmatist," the Serbian politician said, "Milosevic knows that all satellites of the United States are in a better
position than those that are not satellites." And America's allies are in a better position than those who are not its allies. Most of the
world's major powers welcome U.S. global involvement and prefer America's benevolent hegemony to the alternatives. Instead of
having to compete for dominant global influence with many other powers, therefore, the United States finds both the Europeans and
the Japanese -- after the United States, the two most powerful forces in the world -- supportive of its world leadership role. Those who
anticipated the dissolution of these alliances once the common threat of the Soviet Union disappeared have been proved wrong. The
principal concern of America's allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will withdraw.
Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good. They have never lived in a
world more conducive to their fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and
democratic governance, an international economic system of free-market capitalism and free trade, and the security of Americans not
only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world.
Americans have taken these remarkable benefits of the post-Cold War era for granted, partly because it has all
seemed so easy. Despite misguided warnings of imperial overstretch, the United States has so far exercised its hegemony
without any noticeable strain, and it has done so despite the fact that Americans appear to be in a more insular mood than at any
time since before the Second World War. The events of the last six months have excited no particular interest among
Americans and, indeed, seem to have been regarded with the same routine indifference as breathing and eating.
And that is the problem. The most difficult thing to preserve is that which does not appear to need preserving.
The dominant strategic and ideological position the United States now enjoys is the product of foreign policies
and defense strategies that are no longer being pursued. Americans have come to take the fruits of their
hegemonic power for granted. During the Cold War, the strategies of deterrence and containment worked so well in checking
the ambitions of America's adversaries that many American liberals denied that our adversaries had ambitions or even, for that matter,
that America had adversaries. Today the lack of a visible threat to U.S. vital interests or to world peace has tempted
Americans to absentmindedly dismantle the material and spiritual foundations on which their national wellbeing has been based. They do not notice that potential challengers are deterred before even contemplating confrontation by their
overwhelming power and influence. The ubiquitous post-Cold War question -- where is the threat? -- is thus
misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on American power and the will to use
it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is the
only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American
foreign policy, therefore, is to preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the
United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military supremacy and moral confidence.
Be skeptical of their truth claims, because they are the fifth column manipulated by the Soviets who seek
to destroy America
Stoos ‘8
(William Kevin, freelance writer, book reviewer, and attorney, whose feature and cover articles have appeared in
Carmelite Digest, Family Digest, Nature Conservancy Magazine, Liberty Magazine, Encyclopedia Britannica
Online, “Dangerous Illusions—Shadow World by Robert Chandler,” Canada Free Press, 10-29,
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5896)
No one knows exactly the origin of the term “fifth column,” but Chandler cites several historical examples of “ fifth columns”–
dedicated, clandestine—waiting in the wings to wreak havoc on the enemy. They wait to rise up, working behind the
scenes, lying in wait, ready to attack or sabotage or weaken the structure of a city, a country or a society. Not by frontal
assaults do fifth columns prove their worth, but by intrigue, subtle maneuvering, and deception. Chandler’s book
exposes the uncomfortable but indisputable fact that there is an active “progressive” (socialist) fifth column in the United
States. It is well-financed, discreet, motivated, and, one might say—legitimate, or respectable, at least to all
outward appearances. It is a group of fellow travelers, “progressives,” “marxist-leninist-communists, “ spelled in
small type, and their “useful idiots” (as Lenin would say) including some well meaning protestors, activists and
decent Americans who have no idea that they are being manipulated by more sinister forces. As Chandler
teaches, these are not your classical “rise up and throw off your chains,” violent revolutionary Marxists. Socialism has become
more subtle, more sophisticated, more urbane. It has long since evolved from defeating capitalism through
violent confrontation to gnawing at its innards through subtle conversion or subversion if you will, of the host
society. Gradually, socialists realized that liberal western democracies with a strong religious grounding and tied together with
common beliefs, traditions, and values—culture—could not be attacked from without. The sinews of religious tradition, especially,
were simply too strong to overcome. In fact, modern day socialist thinkers believed that religious values were the biggest obstacle to
the spread of socialism. For socialism to succeed it had to transform society from the inside out; it could never
conquer a strong democracy such as the United States by force of arms, violent overthrow, or even by direct
assault on the culture. If socialism were to succeed at all, it must work from within, transform, and eventually
replace, the values, customs and beliefs which bind together a strong society. In short, it could only attack and
defeat a country like the United States slowly, imperceptibly, comprehensively, and above all, culturally–by
convincing us to abandon that which made us great in first place. Norman Thomas, co-founder of the ACLU held that:
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt
every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how
it happened.” As Chandler’s book illustrates, this eerily prophetic statement is being played out before our eyes in the United
States. Shadow World reminds us–and most Americans need reminding–that socialism did not dry up and blow away with the
collapse of the Soviet Union. In fact it morphed, and adapted, because old-fashioned Marxist Leninist doctrine had proved an
historical failure. Classical Marxist doctrine could not bring down a strong democracy with strong religious roots. In time, socialists
adopted the thinking of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian socialist, who lived a short but influential life—a portion of it in spent as a
political prisoner under Mussolini. Gramsci’s prison writings found fertile soil in the minds of modern day American socialists who
run innocuous sounding “charities,” political cover organizations, labor unions, and church groups; organizations like ACORN, the
ACLU or National Lawyers Guild, or big money radicals like George Soros. Chandler tells how Gramsci’s writings have influenced
thousands of untouchable and now-tenured “progressive” [sic-socialist] college professors across the country (“teachers of
destruction” in the book) who were radicalized in the 1960s, and now seek to influence thousands of young
Americans who will carry the banner of Gramsci socialism into the next century. Intent on changing America
by attacking its fundamental beliefs, economy, values, religions, concepts of marriage, attitudes about human
life, and even its national sovereignty; intent on turning it into something it was not, they seek to transform the
United States into a secular humanist, socialist state, whose sovereignty and constitutional rights are gradually
ceded to international organizations like the United Nations, the World Court, and the International Criminal Court. As Shadow
World illustrates, Gramscian theory–that capitalist democracies may be defeated by controlling mass media, mass organizations and
public education and transforming society gradually from within—is being implemented by the fifth column American progressive
movement today. Chandler’s work will not be popular among certain presidential candidates, socialist politicians, or left-wing, big
money power brokers such as Soros who spent millions of his personal fortune trying single-handedly to defeat George Bush in the
last election. It will not be popular with socialist-progressive think tanks and “policy institutes” like the Institute for Policy Studies
whose agendas subvert our country’s interests and home and abroad and seek to erode and subordinate our individual rights to the
power of the State, in the name of the common good. Chandler names names, details their organizational structures, their agendas,
and the people who run them. As Chandler warns, not everything in our country is what it appears to be. Gramsci
socialism—which works from within to erode our freedoms, change our values, and subordinate our national
sovereignty–is subtly transforming our country every day. Chandler exposes the shadowy progressive-socialist movement
in the United States to the harsh sunlight outside the cave. One has only to consider the incessant attack on our religious traditions, the
ACLU’s endless legal assault on the Boy Scouts, the movement to redefine the concept of marriage, the rise of the culture of death, to
know Chandler is right. One has only to consider the incessant criticism of the United States whenever it fails to consult the United
Nations on any foreign policy decision, the pervasive political correctness that stifles dissent, the shouting down of any college
speaker who espouse any views to the right of radical, the propagation of class warfare, and the movement to redistribute wealth, to
know that our society is inching slowly, irreversibly down the path of secular humanism and socialism. The
sinews of common religion, traditions, values, language and political institutions that strengthened us and made
us the world’s greatest superpower, gave us the strongest economy in the world and made us a beacon of liberty
and hope are fraying. Chandler’s book tells us why, and outlines perhaps the greatest threat to our society—the one from within.
FW – Role of Ballot
Your moral duty as a judge is to support America
Kristol & Kagan ‘96
(William Kristol – visiting professor in government at Harvard University and
Robert Kagan – senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and PhD in American History, “Toward a Neo-Reganite Foreign Policy,”
Foreign Affairs. July/August,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=276 )
Citizen involvement. A gap is growing, meanwhile, between America's professional military, uncomfortable
with some of the missions that the new American role requires, and a civilian population increasingly unaware
of or indifferent to the importance of its military's efforts abroad. U.S. military leaders harbor justifiable
suspicions that while they serve as a kind of foreign legion, doing the hard work of American-style "empire
management," American civilians at home, preoccupied with the distribution of tax breaks and government
benefits, will not come to their support when the going gets tough. Weak political leadership and a poor job of
educating the citizenry to the responsibilities of global hegemony have created an increasingly distinct and
alienated military culture. Ask any mechanic or mess boy on an aircraft carrier why he is patrolling the oceans, and he can give a
more sophisticated explanation of power projection than 99 percent of American college graduates. It is foolish to imagine that
the United States can lead the world effectively while the overwhelming majority of the population neither
understands nor is involved, in any real way, with its international mission. The president and other political leaders can
take steps to close the growing separation of civilian and military cultures in our society. They can remind civilians of the
sacrifices being made by U.S. forces overseas and explain what those sacrifices are for. A clear statement of
America's global mission can help the public understand why U.S. troops are deployed overseas and can help
reassure military leaders of public support in difficult circumstances. It could also lay the groundwork for reasserting
more comprehensive civilian control over the military. There could be further efforts to involve more citizens in military
service. Perhaps the United States has reached the point where a return to the draft is not feasible because of the high degree of
professionalization of the military services. But there are other ways to lower the barriers between civilian and military life. Expanded
forms of reserve service could give many more Americans experience of the military and an appreciation of military virtues.
Conservatives preach that citizenship is not only about rights but also about responsibilities. There is no more profound
responsibility than the defense of the nation and its principles. Moral clarity. Finally, American foreign policy should
be informed with a clear moral purpose, based on the understanding that its moral goals and its fundamental national interests are
almost always in harmony. The United States achieved its present position of strength not by practicing a foreign
policy of live and let live, nor by passively waiting for threats to arise, but by actively promoting American
principles of governance abroad -- democracy, free markets, respect for liberty. During the Reagan years, the United States
pressed for changes in right-wing and left-wing dictatorships alike, among both friends and foes -- in the Philippines, South Korea,
Eastern Europe and even the Soviet Union. The purpose was not Wilsonian idealistic whimsy. The policy of putting pressure on
authoritarian and totalitarian regimes had practical aims and, in the end, delivered strategic benefits. Support for American
principles around the world can be sustained only by the continuing exertion of American influence. Some of
that influence comes from the aid provided to friendly regimes that are trying to carry out democratic and free market reforms.
However strong the case for reform of foreign aid programs, such programs deserve to be maintained as a useful way of exerting
American influence abroad. And sometimes that means not just supporting U.S. friends and gently pressuring other nations but
actively pursuing policies in Iran, Cuba, or China, for instance -- ultimately intended to bring about a change of regime. In any case,
the United States should not blindly "do business" with every nation, no matter its regime. Armand Hammerism should not be a tenet
of conservative foreign policy.
Anti-US 2NC
Loyalty is critical to preservation of rights and American hegemony - Criticizing US imperialism focuses only on the bad and
undermines our faith in the US
Hanson, 3 (Victor Davis, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor Emeritus at California University, Fresno, Ph.D. from
Stanford, “Loyalty, How Quaint.” National Review Online. Novem.ber 24.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson112403v55iss.html [ca])
Critical to this cynicism is the reductio ad absurdum, where the extreme and rare case is cited first, not last-and as
the primary, not the last-resort, reason to deprecate loyalty: "How can I support a country that promotes
racism? A military that bombs children? A president that was not really elected?" And when deliberately targeting
civilians in a time of peace is simplistically equated to injuring civilians while bombing enemy soldiers during
war-death being the common denominator that trumps all considerations of circumstance, chance, intent, and result-how can I
pledge my support to America in Afghanistan? The relativist further proclaims "Not in my name" to armed defense, but still
expects that same government to ensure that hijacked airliners do not vaporize him at work. Yet loyalty demands confidence in
some ability of the state to determine right and wrong, which is then the fountainhead for requisite action under
difficult circumstances. It is always easier to slur unabashed loyalists as unthinking Neanderthals (conjuring up
Vietnam-era slogans like "My country right or wrong") than to identify those who are sophisticated and disloyal as
simple traitors. Historical revision has done its part as well in destroying the old virtue of national loyalty. If we
teach our youth that World War II was mostly the Japanese internment camps (never mentioning the context of a liberal governor and
president, hand-in-glove, panicking amid wartime hysteria) and Hiroshima (always apart from the fear of a blood-bath when hitting
the shores of the Japanese mainland)-while ignoring the Rape of Nanking, Guadalcanal, or MacArthur's postbellum creation of a
liberal Japanese society-then how can the citizen look to the past to galvanize his confidence in the present? Yet to the classical mind
it was never a question of whether an Athenian or Roman was free from error. Rather the only rub was whether his country was at
least better than the alternative. For example, how often do American schools really discuss the debate over women's rights or
integrating the military after World War II in the context of how much worse the world outside the United States was at the time? Do
we remind our students of the horrendous and bloody landscape between 1930 and 1950 beyond our shores-the mass murdering of
races and religions in fascist Europe and Japan, the millions butchered in the Soviet Union and China, the tribal butchery and mayhem
in Africa and India, and the iron-clad rule of dictators in Latin America? If one is taught, instead, that the United States has been the
prime historical nexus of gender, race, and class pathology, then why should one feel any loyalty to it in the here and now? Finally,
the most recent manifestation of internationalism has done its part to contribute to the demise of loyalty and
patriotism. This idea of being a citizen not of the United States but "of the world" is, of course, age-old in the
West-a common enough, even trite, line from Socrates to Kant. But recent developments have elevated the concept from
philosophical speculation to a common tenet of our growing therapeutic culture, as unquestioned as UNICEF cards,
Nobel Peace Prize-winning opportunists, and cuddly banalities from a Kofi Annan. Globalization now unites us with instant
communications, from cell phones to the Internet. Its universal taste of blue jeans, T-shirts, and sunglasses makes us superficially
identical through a universal fashion. And billions share the same predilections in film, music, and television. This homogeneity, of
course, appears to break down more fundamental national differences-but in such a superficial way that only the naive could think that
because Mohamed Atta looked Western, lived in Germany, and attended a European university he surely would not mutter Koranic
verses like a primordial jihadist as he rammed a jetliner into the World Trade Center. The demise of the Soviet Union was another
event that gave far too many elites the idea that the end of history really was on the horizon-as if disparate, but now mesmerized, tribes
of the world would almost unconsciously ape the consumer capitalism and democracy of the West. For Europeans the disappearance
of some 300 Soviet divisions on their borders persuaded many that the old international institutions-the U.N. particularly-that had long
ago arisen from the ashes of World War II only to be subverted by the Soviet bloc could now at last fulfill their original liberal and
dreamy intent. Lost in all of this naivete was any cold empirical reckoning that would have reminded us that an elected
U.S. president and Congress, constrained by an independent judiciary and an ironclad Constitution, were far better protectors of
human rights and national security than a U.N. Security Council that was captive to a Chinese veto, or a U.N.
General Assembly that included such brutal regimes as those of Zimbabwe and Libya. For the American who professes
loyalty to the United Nations rather than the United States, a certain number of beliefs are required, among them the following: that
Kosovo, Bosnia, and Rwanda were not preventable; that the sole democracy in the Middle East-Israel-really deserves to be targeted by
over 50 percent of all U.N. condemnatory resolutions; and that U.N. peacekeepers are subject to a higher military code of conduct than
the U.S. Marine Corps. THE GLUE OF A PEOPLE Does the insidious erosion of national loyalty in our country really matter? It
does, because on a variety of levels patriotism is the only glue that holds a diverse people together, especially
during a war. We should remember that a liberal state is rare in civilization's history. Far more common has been the
rule of the tribe or clan, to which individuals proclaim natural allegiance and then do not extend notions of justice to those outside
their immediate kin group. In some sense, we have been plagued by just that kind of chaos in the Middle East-among tribal societies
bound by first-cousin marriages and religious fanaticism, without any belief that the idea of "Afghanistan" or "Iraq" should transcend
more immediate relationships with the family, local mullah, or ethnic enclaves. Contrast that separatism with Italian-, German-, and
Japanese-Americans who fought their former fatherlands in World War II, John F. Kennedy's declaration that his Catholicism was
secondary to his Americanism, or the new political career of the immigrant Arnold Schwarzenegger that will put him ideologically at
odds with dozens of his own in-laws. The greatest advocates of the liberal state always sought to subordinate familial,
ethnic, racial, and geographical loyalties-from the Athenian reformer Cleisthenes, who tried to diminish tribal affiliations at
Athens, to our own Founders, who sought to craft government that would transcend the chauvinism of the local clique. To understand
why a much smaller, much poorer United States could tragically send thousands to their deaths in the air over Schweinfurt, on the
ground at Sugar Loaf Hill, and at sea on creaky tankers in the mid Atlantic-and has worked itself into a near national hysteria over
battling enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq far less impressive than the Waffen SS or the kamikazes-we might take note of the last
half-century of pernicious ideologies and mentalities that privileged self and tribe over the general interest of
the state. So we have forgotten the tenuousness of our own great experiment: Of all of civilization's rare nation-states, the
United States was by far the most extraordinary and ambitious in its efforts to forge one people from so many
diverse backgrounds and heritages. We alone have tried to elevate a common adherence to a constitution and its ideals over
primary loyalties to diverse religions, races, and ethnicities-to such a degree that it is impossible to determine how a typical American
even looks or worships. But if we in America-either from the prejudices of the ignorant or the cynicism of the elite and educateddecide that the United States is not, and should not be, different from other countries (and is surely no better), then
there is no intrinsic reason why any of us would wish to sacrifice anything on its behalf. And if we feel that
our personal rights are exclusively our own, why feel any responsibility to a consensual state that is supposedly
neither creator nor guarantor of our freedom? If and when we reach that point of abject cynicism-and many equally
impressive consensual societies have, whether Athens in 338 B.C., Rome around the mid-5th century A.D., Venice in the
17th century, or France in spring 1940-then there is also no historical reason why we should continue to exist as a
nation. And indeed at that point we will most certainly not.
The only way America can lose against terrorism is if it succumbs to internal pressure –criticism is the most viable path
D’Souza, 7 (Dinesh, Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for
9/11, p. 273-275 [ca] )
There is one way, however, for the Islamic radicals to win. They can win the war in the American mind.
This is where the left fits into bin Laden's tactical scheme . Bin Laden recognizes that Al Qaeda by itself
cannot destroy America's will to resist. It is impossible for bin Laden to persuade the American people to
get out of Iraq. He relies on other Americans to undertake this psychological mission. To bin Laden's
unbelievable good fortune, there is a group in the United States dedicated to precisely this task. The left is
AI Qaeda's secret weapon in the campaign for American public opinion. As bin Laden knows, the left has
already succeeded once, in Vietnam. Here again, in Iraq, the left is laboring for a similar outcome, a Saigon-style evacuation by the U.S. military. Remember that Vietnam was a defeat for the American armed forces, but it was a
victory for the political left. It was a victory in the sense that the left demanded that America accept
humiliation and withdraw, and America accepted humiliation and withdrew. The left sought the "liberation" of
Vietnam, and Vietnam was "liberated." This outcome turned out to be very bad for the people of Indochina, who
suffered unimaginable horrors following the U.S. pullout. At the same time, the Vietnam disgrace helped to
advance the leftist agenda in America. First, the antiwar cause unified the left. As we discover from histories of the period,
opposition to Vietnam brought together the foreign policy left and the cultural left, so that devotees of Ho Chi Minh and
devotees of hallucinogenic drugs all marched together against the war. Second, the outcome in Vietnam decimated the political
influence of the right . Not only did America's defeat corrode the morale of the American military, but it also
undermined patriotism and traditional values in America. The Nixon presidency was further crippled, and a new
generation of liberal Democrats was elected to Congress in 1974. Finally, as historian David Allyn shows, the left's triumph in
Vietnam paid handsome social dividends.20 It greatly bolstered the counterculture, giving added impetus to women's liberation,
gay rights, and the sexual revolution. So, from the left's point of view, Vietnam was not only a foreign pol icy success but also
a cultural success. Therefore, for this group, the prospect of "another Vietnam" is an outcome that is eagerly anticipated.
Since the left is determined for its own reasons to ensure that America loses the war on terror, it becomes
a natural ally for bin Laden. Together they form what may be termed the liberal-Islamic alliance against
American foreign policy. Like the left, the Islamic radicals realize they are teaming up with "infidels,"
and they have no qualms about doing so. In Iraq, for example, Al Qaeda has shown no hesitation in making common
cause with Saddam Hussein's Baathist infidels. Bin Laden calls it a "convergence of imerests."21 Both are fighting
against the Americans, and so they find themselves on the same side. By the same token, bin Laden and
his followers believe they can work together with America's left. Both are fighting against Bush's war on terror,
and so there is another "convergence of interests."
Anti-American Exceptionalism (UTSA/Immigration Specific)
Their author supports breaking down American culture and American identity in support of
multiculturalism
Pease ‘8
(Donald Pease, Avalon Foundation Chair of the Humanities at Dartmouth, “Immigrant Nation/Nativist State:
Remembering Against an Archive of Forgetfulness,” boundary 2, 35:1, Spring 2008)
But A Forgetful Nation differs from the numerous works that have demystified this foundational myth in that Behdad supplies a
theoretically informed, materialist account of the role that immigration laws have played in the construction and
reproduction of the U.S. national identity. Cultural historians have ordinarily undertaken accounts of U.S. cultural identity
without reference to the immigration policies enforced at the nation’s borders. In discrediting the national myth, Behdad has
characterized the nation’s immigration practices as playing a crucial role in the production of the nation’s
cultural identity. This dimension of his analysis is guided by two questions: how do immigration laws contribute to the
normalization of U.S. citizens, and how does anxiety over illegal immigrants affect the formation of the national identity? Behdad’s
answers to these questions explain how the U.S. national identity was articulated through and depended upon the representation of
the immigrant as an alien Other, and they reconceptualize the U.S. border as a site of national identification and national
forgetfulness.
Link Wall
Today’s culture war is fought by Leftist intellectuals seeking to lay the foundation for revolution
Chandler ‘8 (Robert, PhD in political science, former political strategist with the Air Force, Defense Department and the
CIA, Shadow World: Resurgent Russia, the Global New Left, and Radical Islam, pg 21-26)
Today's culture war is designed by the revolutionary Left, the new "teachers of destruction," to enable them to
accede to political power through stealth. Once they occupy key positions in America's liberal democratic
government, they plan to crush the liberties provided for by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to
destroy corporate capitalism in the name of the public good. Three sketches of the Marxist roots influencing
today's culture war expose the realities behind the Left-wing images presented to Americans. The first is
"Critical Theory." It was developed by Marxist scholars at the Frankfurt School that reached back to its 1923 origin in Germany.
Critical Theory provided the European intellectual driving force that underwrote many of the counter-culture
events in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. The second Marxist root to the contemporary culture
war in American draws strength and guidance from the strategy and tactics for achieving power developed by
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist. And the third Marxist root is made up by 25,000 to 30,000 radical
professors ensconced on American campuses across the country who have turned their classrooms into political
re-education camps. These radical professors, wrapped in the pseudo-intellectual robes of Critical Theory and
Antonio Gramsci, make up America's contemporary "teachers of destruction ." The revolutionary agenda of the Marxist
professors in 2008 is the same as it was in the mid-1960s when Alice Widener warned that "the Marxist teachers of destruction seek to
destroy our union as a people through fomenting every kind of dissension by means of 'class struggle' . . . They seek to destroy
our justice. . . . They seek to destroy our common defense."' The difference today is that the "teachers of destruction" are several
steps closer to undermining the cultural pillars of American society, setting the stage for their accession to power. Critical Theory
helped to radicalize today's neo-Marxist culture war. Rooted in the Marxist-oriented ideas and activities of a German intellectual brain
trust assembled in the 1920s, the New Left radicals drew upon these early musings to sustain their assault on America. During the
1960s, Critical Theory rationalized the New Left's anti-capitalist and social change agendas. It accommodated
multidisciplinary research in an effort to develop a social theory that would be sufficiently systematic and
comprehensive to serve as a change agent for principal social and political problems of the present-day.' The
Institute of Social Research began as a part of the University of Frankfurt in Germany. Created to emulate the Marx-Lenin Institute in
Moscow, European Marxism served as the theoretical basis of the Institute's program of study. Over the years, the Institute's variety of
Marxist intellectuals conducted inquiries into empirical-historical open questions, a materialist supra-disciplinary social theory, and a
critical theory of society. The term Critical Theory was adopted by the Institute during its World War II exile at Colombia University
in New York. Critical Theory was an attempt to synthesize specific elements of political economy and socialist politics. Since
Americans were quite hostile toward any theory of socialist revolution and closeness to the Soviet Union, Critical Theory was chosen
as a cover word for the Institute's commitment to the study of Marxism." Hence, right from the beginning Marxist images
cast on the wall of Plato's cave were aimed at manipulating American perceptions and hiding the reality that Critical
Theory served as an intellectual dagger aimed at American hearts and minds. Critical Theory begins with a
premise that all inquiry, thought, political action, and "informed" political behavior must occur within a
framework of reference that accounts for history, society, and a synthesis of philosophy, the sciences, and
politics. By showing the relationship between ideas and theoretical positions in their social environment, critical theorists claim
that they expose the roots of social processes. "Social theories, for Critical Theory," Douglas Kellner explains, "are thus
forms of social practice which reproduce dominant forms of capitalist activity."" To take the summary view of Critical Theory one
step further: "While traditional theory uncritically reproduces the existing society, 'Critical Theory,' by contrast, is an expression of
activity which strives to transform it."" "It," in this case, being American society. The Nazi seizure of power compelled members of
the Institute of Social Research to flee Germany in 1933. After two years in Geneva, the Institute moved to New York (1935-41) and
later California (1941-53). These intellectual Marxists established their presence at American universities, including Columbia,
Princeton, Brandeis, and the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego. In 1953, the Institute of Social Research returned to
the University of Frankfurt in Germany, although some of its scholars, most notably Herbert Marcuse, remained in the United States.
During ,its years of exile, the Frankfurt School had become well-known for its theory of capitalism's growing strength over all aspects
of social life and its development of new forms of social control. German intellectuals at the Institute developed a "Critical Theory,"
which rejected Western civilization and tilted heavily to an imaginative, utopian, Marxist vision, which was totally disconnected from
everyday American experience. The critical theorists insisted that the logic of their thinking was sufficient to "transcend" reality—the
superior minds of the Institute's intellectuals, they argued, would fashion "truths" without the need for verification of theory by
experimental evidence. Critical Theory's influence on the New Left in the late 1960s and 1970s ensured that American society would
be infested by this Marxist malignancy. While it addressed many aspects of social structure, Critical Theory, in the final analysis,
proposed activities that would transform society into one far more amenable to Marxism. Critical Theory's "struggle for social
change" was an important step in undermining the values, structures, and practices of America's free market and
democratic principles. Special attention was given to the "culture industries" of U.S. capitalism. To the Frankfurt Institute's
Marxist thinkers, the culture industries used communication to manage the people's consciousness and mask social conflict behind the
scenes. According to the Institute's scholars, the mass deception conducted by the culture industries manipulated popular acceptance
of current society and served as an ideological indoctrination to reinforce existing cultural standards. By identifying
contradictions in society's belief in the existing system, these revolutionaries entertained a dream world where
their rules based on Marxism would prevail. The cultural Marxists at the Frankfurt School set into motion—and then
guided—the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s. Herbert Marcuse was among the most active in promotion of Critical Theory's
social revolution among university students. The new strategy of revolution was focused on a unique dispersed
disintegration of the capitalist governing system and the establishment of a classless world.13 Marcuse's young
disciples of the 1960s are now the tenured university "teachers of destruction," and their ruinous actions are
aimed directly at American culture. Herbert Marcuse offered opportunities to further develop and teach a radical Marxist brand
of sociology centered on culture and consciousness as vital elements of revolution. By the 1960s, the University of California at San
Diego-based Marcuse was known internationally as the "Guru of the New Left." Within this radical Left context, Marcuse developed a
comprehensive statement of the theory of a totally administered or one-dimensional society. He published One-Dimensional Man in
1964.15 Marcuse argued that mass media, culture, advertising, industrial organization and management, and modes of thought had a
synergistic impact on the existing governing systems. These conditions resulted in an erosion of the ability for cultural thinking and
creation of opposition to the capitalist-controlled system. Marcuse questioned the very existence of a revolutionary proletariat in
America and the predicted inevitable crisis of capitalism. This questioning of Marxism placed Marcuse at odds with the Old Left but
in a loving embrace with the New Left. While advanced industrial society was deemed to possess the capacity for qualitative change,
Marcuse posed the hypothesis "that forces and tendencies exist which may break this containment and explode on society. 516 During
the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse was celebrated worldwide as the "father of the New Left." Brandeis University refused to renew his
tenured position, prompting him to take a position at the University of California at San Diego. He enjoyed great influence and
popularity in the 1960s and early 1970s. His lectures, articles, and counsel to student radicals continued to call for revolutionary
change and radical opposition to bourgeois society. According to David Horowitz, Marcuse's most famous essay, written in 1965, was
about "Repressive Tolerance." Marcuse argued with regard to those possessing conservative views [of liberal government and
individual liberty], that since they already reflected "an oppressive and already dominant social class," their speech and access to
cultural platforms could be legitimately suppressed.17 The modern-day ultra-Left ideology of "Cultural Marxism" takes yesterday's
Soviet Marxist-Leninist model and stands it on its head. Revolution on this alternative path no longer envisions a cataclysmic clash
between workers and capitalists as the final act. Rather, contemporary revolutionary doctrine is far more dangerous: it is based on a
nonviolent, persistent, and "quiet" transformation of American traditions, families, education, media, and support institutions day-byday. The seizure of political and economic power remains a key objective, but this "final act" is really a first step
in transforming the existing cultural order.
No Slavery/Genocide/Racism
Refusing intervention on the basis of the state legitimizes atrocities and genocide
Watson, 2000 (David, New Internationalist Magazine, May,
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Imperialism_Neocolonialism/Empire_exterminism.html)
The imperial arrogance and hypocrisy of NATO's war, its incompetence, its cowardly and contemptible willingness to harm civilians
in order to safeguard its pilots, were all sickening. And the chaos and strife of the aftermath offer little hope. Still, it was stunning
to see solidarity activists in the West essentially apologizing for a regime that had perpetrated genocide in
Bosnia, and that was carrying out a pogrom in Kosovo even before NATO's ultimatum. NATO's alleged provocations of Serb death
squads to even more lavish displays of carnage were for some a more serious crime than the pogrom itself. The Left's largely
exclusive focus on damage to Serbian civil society, its repetition of Serb nationalist disinformation and its
willingness to downplay and deny Serb violence against the Albanians (the mantra that this was 'nothing compared to
Guatemala', etc) was at least as morally numb as mindless support for the war. NATO's war was clearly cynical
and in many ways criminal and irresponsible. I opposed it in both conception and execution. Nevertheless, one could
understand that the Kosovar Albanians, among the most oppressed peoples of Europe, might welcome a life
preserver from the devil himself. When the ship is on fire, one leaps into rough waters. They faced fascism (neo-fascism, if
you like) and though the intervention was an abomination, anyone not trapped by rigid dogma had to notice that
worse abominations, a Bosnian-style massacre or a mass expulsion as in Palestine, were definite possibilities.
The latest Balkan debacle was fought by the wrong people in the wrong way with the wrong means. But in the tragic circumstances it
was a war someone had to fight. Indeed, it's arguable that NATO's 'humanitarian interventionism', hypocritical as it
was, brought harm to fewer people than the United Nations' cynical 'humanitarian' non-intervention had in
Bosnia. If (to borrow Slovenian writer Slavoj Zizek's metaphor) the West played an indecisive and then clumsily homicidal Hamlet,
there was also a whiff of Macbeth, the tragic cycle of things that have gone around now coming around, in their decision to bomb.
Personally, after a decade of feeling depressed and powerless about Bosnia, I would have preferred that some natural disaster, a
hurricane or earthquake, had sent the Serbian cutthroats back to their barracks or to hell. But (as with Macbeth) since no natural
phenomenon was available, some unnatural element would have to accomplish the task. That labour fell to NATO, a big bully taking
on a smaller one. It's an ugly picture. But, as the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War proved when it toppled the Argentinian junta,
sometimes it is best for a nation and people to be defeated in war. Sometimes it even takes some evil empire to
do the dirty work. Dissidents need to do better than a reflexive, antiimperialist defense of 'the enemy of my
enemy'. If not, we risk falling into the passive or even active support of various Khomeinis, Milosevics, Saddam
Husseins or Argentine generals simply because they come into conflict with the West. One-dimensional antiimperialism surrenders to what Zizek calls the 'double blackmail', the false choice between the New World
Order and its rivals. Such knee-jerk politics does people like the Kosovars or East Timorese no good at all. We
need an anti-imperialism to match the challenges both of the New World Order and of the New World Disorder
it generates.
7. Turn – racism – our individualism good arguments straight turn racism – upholding individualism and
free will is the only way to repudiate racism
Schwartz, 2003 (Peter, Editor and Contributing Author of Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, by Ayn Rand,
Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, “The Racism of ‘Diversity,’” December 11, http://
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=-1&page=NewsArticle&id=7915)
If racism is to be repudiated, it is the premise of individualism, including individual free will, that must
be
upheld. There is no way to bring about racial integration except by completely disregarding color. There is no
benefit in being exposed to the thoughts of a black person as opposed to a white person; there is a benefit only
in interacting with individuals, of any race, who have rational viewpoints to offer. "Diversity," in any realm, has
no value in and of itself. Investors can be urged to diversify their holdings--but for the sake of minimizing their financial risk, not
for the sake of "diversity" as such. To maintain that "diversity" per se is desirable--that "too much" of one thing is
objectionable--is ludicrous. Do brown-eyed students need to be "diversified" with green-eyed ones? Does one's unimpaired health
need to be "diversified" with bouts of illness? The value of a racially integrated student body or work force lies entirely
in the individualism it implies. It implies that the students or workers were chosen objectively, with skin color ignored in favor
of the standard of individual merit. But that is not what "diversity" advocates want. They sneer at the principle of
"color-blindness." They want decisions on college or job applicants to be made exactly as the vilest of racists
make them: by bloodline. They insist that whatever is a result of your own choices--your ideas, your character, your
accomplishments--is to be dismissed, while that which is outside your control--the accident of skin color--is to define your life.
We need to identify "diversity" for what it is: a malignant policy that harms everyone, because it is the very essence of
racism.