On another sell out by the liberal class, we have Vietnam. Hedges again: "The role of the liberal class in defending the purportedly good intentions of the power elite was on public display in 1985, when Foreign Affairs published a tenth-an...niversary retrospective on the Vietnam War. The liberals in the magazine, writers such as David Fromkin and James Chace, argued that the military intervention in Vietnam was 'predicated on the view that the United States has a duty to look beyond its purely national interests,' and that, prusuant to its 'global responsibilities,' the U.S. must serve 'the interests on mankind.' In moral terms, in other words, the intent of the military intervention was good. It was correct to oppose 'communist aggression' by the Vietnamese. But the war, these liberals argued, was ultimately wrong because it was impractical, because 'our side was likely to lose.' The liberal class critiqued the war on practical but not moral grounds. They were countered by the militarists who argued that with more resolve the North Vietnamese could have been defeated on the battlefield. The virtues of the nation, even in an act of war, are sacrosanct. the liberal class cannot question these virtues and remain within the circles of the power elite." [pp. 37-8]
Now, this is exactly what some liberals at Assumption argue, at times claiming to ignorant of foreign affairs. Liberals cannot see, perhaps, the connection between foreign policy and domestic policy or, as I like to say, that foreign policies are really only domestic policies in disguise or supplements to domestic policies that serve the entrenched elites and their self-interested policies. I think, though, liberals like Clinton and Kerry and Obama can see the connection and reinforce it so that they can remain "in the game." Otherwise, like Kucinich on the left and Ron Paul on the right, they will be ostracized, an old political practice recognized by Plato and Aristotle.