Well, let’s get a bit picky about what “our host” actually said too: “But the US, a country founded on an idealistic set of ideas, is an unusual combination of altruism and self-interest.” Nowhere did she say how much was altruism, how much self-interest — her point was only that the US was an unusual combination of the two. And that point was taken, evidently, from Kagan, who supplies considerable historical evidence for it.

I’d phrase it a little differently than that myself. In general, and without getting too Ayn-Randian about it, I would distrust altruism as a motive in both individuals and nations. I’d say that American idealism at its best is manifested mainly in a willingness to act for goals that embrace more than their immediate self-interest — but see their long-term self-interest as being bound up with such goals. That too, however, is obviously not always the case, and when it isn’t the US deserves to be criticized. The difference between the left and the right on this is just that the left really does equate moral behavior with the abdication of self-interest, a fundamentally suicidal notion that goes a long way to explaining its current predicament.

we purchase less land for more money and you say it is “paltry” in comparison

Precisely where did I say Paltry? Considering the amount of territory obtained, I stand by the actual statement that, “$25-million was a very small settlement indeed.” Nowhere did I say paltry.

I think you lost sight of the original topic here and drifted. I’d be happy to discuss the various details of history elsewhere, but that wasn’t the original point I was trying to make, here.

From our host’s post, There’s no doubt, of course, that the US—like every other nation on earth that ever has been and ever will be—has had its own selfish interests at heart, as well, in all these activities. Countries are not saints, nor could they ever be.

But the US, a country founded on an idealistic set of ideas, is an unusual combination of altruism and self-interest. This is a brew that has indeed led to our entry in wars in the past, and certainly the Iraq War is an example of such a war in the present.

Though I agree with that statement in part, I suspect there is less altruism and more self-interest. When the two run together, it’s a good thing, but if they are at odds, I suspect self-interest will always win.

I mostly agree with you on the civil war but remember that though slavery was a festering sore, it was not the reason that the war was declared. There were other issues of importance as well, one such such was the question about states rights versus a more centralized national government. The emancipation proclamation wasn’t signed until January 1, 1863. I disagree with respect to Texas.

Here’s why…

Yes Texas did ‘officially’ gain its independence from Mexico, but its leaders had tried to persuade the US to annex it first. You might note that President John Quincy Adams offered to buy Texas in 1827 for one million and President Anrew Jackson also offered to buy Texas in 1829 for five million, so it wasn’t like we were uninterested. Ofcourse both offers were refused.

The US did not outright annex Texas at the time of Texan independence becuase it did not want to precipitate a war with Mexico, who never recognized Texan independence, just then. Later when it was more advantageous, war was initiated by us and with far greater gains. Not just Texas, but California as well.

As for the Gadsden purchase of 1853, it was purchased because it was perceived a necessary part of one southern route of the proposed transcontinental railroad. Additionally, Mexico was hardly in a position to refuse our offer. Given the land acquired in the Gadsden purchase in addition to the land won in 1848, $25-million was a very small settlement indeed. The Louisiana purchase cost the US fifteen-million.

Aside from the historical quibbles discussed above, I have to question the premise of going to war for altruistic reasons altogether. It sounds to me, on the face of it like going to court to obtain justice.

War is a serious and deadly business and our leadership had better be looking at serious reasons for engaging American personnel and putting them in harm’s way. I happen to think that the regime change in Iraq and the possible opening up of the middle east to some form of more democratic government than is presently prevalent there is a strategic necessity.

Demographically, the middle east is one of the fastest growing areas of the world. If the chasm between that part of the world and the rest of the developed world continues, conflict will only increase. In this age of nuclear proliferation and chemical and biological weapons, it is in our strategic interest to act before we are struck, because a hard strike against us would be horrible. If it also has elements of altruism, so much the better. Let’s face it, if altruism were our prime motivation, we would have intervened in Darfur and Zimbabwe long ago. In fact, our only really altruistic mission of late was against Serbia in Kosovo. We’re still there and what a mess it still is.

While I am not a progressive and consider myself a somewhat of a neo-con, on issues of defense and foreign policy anyway, I am amazed at that statement by Kagan and I think that Kagan is a good writer and historian.

In my opinion, while the 19th century expansion of the American state from coast to coast was driven by manifest destiny, the belief that the American state was meant to govern from ‘sea to shining sea, the Spanish American War was the first expansion beyond these natural boundaries and an open departure from this belief, hence the the reason for some of the resistance to this war.

I am not of the school of thought that seems so fashionable today and which seems to connote that our own national interests cannot coincide with altruistic intrests and I will agree with Kagan that our sympathies for the oppressed were in play, but so were other interests.

Indeed the most interesting aspect of the Spanish American War was that it was the first example of the new mass-media showing its ability to influence public opinion. See the Effects of the media on Spanish American Relations in 1898

I think that our involvement in the middle east today is also a congruence of interests consisting of parts both altruistic and realistic. Bringing democracy to the middle east will do more to stabilize the area than anything else, however, also insuring the world a steady supply of oil will prevent world wide economic chaos.

Where we are more altruistic than our empiricist predecessors is that we are going to leave, or at least reduce our presence once the country has been stabilized.

INtersting discussion and a good site, I’m glad I stumbled onto it.