Within our hemisphere, where we have proclaimed a pre-eminent dominance since the Monroe Administration, we selfishly abide by a doctrine given in his name. When it suits our purpose, in the name of humanitarianism, national security or just to protect "American interests" we openly interfere with sovereign nations within our hemisphere and impose our will through economic, subversive, or military means. If I list the names of each country in South and Central America and the Caribbean, there are only a few that have not been subjected to U.S. interference. [1]

The main problem within the countries where we interfere has to do with the indigenous population of each respective country rebelling against such outside interference upon their discovery that they and their resources are being exploited. The rebel politician or leader who brings the truth to the masses of these countries instantly becomes an enemy of the respective state and is jailed or snuffed without so much as an objection from Washington. Washington has been accused many times of instigating the repression of the masses of the lesser countries they dominate and has been adjudicated against as an aggressor nation by the World Court for supporting terror in Central America. Washington dismissed the findings of the World Court and stepped up support of terrorism in response. In general, the military and economic might of the U.S. has and continues to be used in order to maintain the status quo in countries where leaders were installed with the help of this might or the leaders do the bidding of U.S. interests and allow their countries resources and hence their population to be exploited.

This thinking and policy within our hemisphere dominates the foreign policy thought of the U.S. elsewhere across the globe. When interests have historically benefited the U.S. abroad, Washington has supported authoritarian dictators and one party elected governments that oppress their people and allow U.S. corporate interests to exploit their resources. The Shah or Iran, Saddam Hussein, the Pakistani military dictatorship, the governments of Indonesia and Nicolae Ceausescu are only a few examples. Given the U.S. track record of supporting such leaders and governments along with the public claims that the U.S. supports democracy and freedom, millions of people overseas who have suffered and continue to suffer under U.S. policy are increasingly rebelling against American influence and becoming more radical and thereby more dangerous.

At what point, in terms of numbers of disgruntled, radical people, will the military and economic power of the U.S. cease to become a factor? Illustrated another way, how long until the have-nots significantly out number the haves? In our world today, where we are already stretching our military thin, how could we respond to any military situation in Iran or North Korea or any other "hot spot" that may erupt as the world catches on to this apparent vulnerability? How much longer will U.S. foreign policy that has inflamed a good part of the globe be able to use their military might as a bargaining chip? In light of the increasing economic power of developing nations such as China and India, the enormous trade deficit and national debt will the U.S. be able to use their economic power as a bargaining chip?

I have often wondered how this would come down in the U.S. itself. Would the masses of have-nots rebel and take power away from the two parties that have perpetrated the same foreign and domestic policies dictated by wealth? How would the power of wealth manipulate the mass of have-nots or enjoin the haves to coalesce into a block able to counter the have-nots? I wonder at the atmosphere of fear being cast upon Americans today. I wonder at the increasing radicalism of the extremists of opposing viewpoints that publicly use vitriol and hate in order to sway masses with emotional patriotism while ignoring substantive debate. I look at the loss of what liberties and freedoms the average American has remaining and recall the words of H.L. Mencken,

• "The truth is that the common man's love of liberty, like his love of sense, justice and truth, is almost wholly imaginary. As I have argued, he is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. He longs for the warm, reassuring smell of the herd, and is willing to take the herdsman with it. Liberty is not a thing for such as he. He cannot enjoy it rationally himself, and he can think of it in others only as something to be taken away from them. It is, when it becomes a reality, the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority of men, like knowledge, courage and honor. A special sort of man is needed to understand it, nay, to stand it -- and he is inevitably an outlaw in democratic societies. The average man doesn't want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."