I confess I can't document my assertion about the U.S.being at war more than other countries since 1776. And I don't really need to say it was the MOST often at war to make my larger point. Yet I think it is quite plausible. You mention Britain and France. But between 1815 and 1914 they were largely quiescent in Europe. Expanding their empires in Africa and Asia entailed sporadic violence. After 1945, they struggled briefly to hold their empires but soon gave up the cause. As for Russia, yes it expanded across Eurasia, but reached its greatest extent by the end of the 19th century. It fought against Japan, and had a civil war, and the two world wars, and the war in Afghanistan. And then Georgia and now Ukraine. It's a close call with the U.S., but Russia never sent troops so far from home as the U.S. did. As for the McDonald's theory, it's a good one as far as it goes. It underlines the importance of global trade in calming world affairs. I favor it as an explanation more than the democratic peace idea. But McDonald's first non-American store came in 1967, so it's a short run of history for a broad theory.
Another terrific essay by Prof. Brands. However, I wonder if the U.S. is truly a democracy. I'm a third-party voter and feel that we're really a plutocracy. In a true democracy, like in many Western European countries, one would have federally financed elections with limits on campaign expenses. I recently read that in the U.S., the average winner in a senatorial race shucks out $20 million (or at least his/her supporters do). Congressional races are cheaper; the winner spends an average of $2 million on campaigning.
This comment may be tangential to the present discussion, but I wish commentators in the national media would avoid the terms dictator/dictatorship, etc. I'm glad that Dr. Brands prefers the terms autocrat/autrocracy. Someone once remarked "there's no such thing as one-man rule because even the king has to sleep at night." (To be PC, let's substitute "one-person" and "sovereign.")
There's a story from the time of Oliver Cromwell, the dictator (oops! autocrat LOL) who ruled England for several years after the Civil War of the 1640s. At one time in Cromwell's rule, his popularity dropped significantly. At a cabinet meeting, one of the members asked the Lord Protector if the fact that 90% of the people had turned against him concerned him. Cromwell replied: "What doth it matter if nine out of ten be against me, if the one who is for me doth hold a gun to the backs of the other nine?"
Whether true or apocryphal, the story illustrates that even an autocrat must have some percentage of support if s/he wants to hold on to power. I call it "the Cromwellian rule of ten percent." Even in so-called totalitarian societies, the strong man or woman must have the allegiance of some percentage of the population. An example is when Khrushchev lost the support of his own party (Communist Party of Soviet Union) and was elbowed out. (Fortunately, he was allowed to go into retirement and not shot as would have happened in Stalin's time.)
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. However, I have a question about this line that you said: "The nonvariant version suffers from the additional fact that the world's oldest large democracy—the United States—has been at one form of war or another more often than any other country during the two-and-a-half centuries since 1776." Where's your source for the claim that America has gone to war more than any other country since 1776? I would think that France, Britain, or Russia/the USSR were their imperial expansions would have been more warlike.
Also, what are your thoughts on Thomas Friedman's Golden Arches Theory from "The Lexus and the Olive Branch"? I'm of the belief that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022) has dispelled that theory.
I confess I can't document my assertion about the U.S.being at war more than other countries since 1776. And I don't really need to say it was the MOST often at war to make my larger point. Yet I think it is quite plausible. You mention Britain and France. But between 1815 and 1914 they were largely quiescent in Europe. Expanding their empires in Africa and Asia entailed sporadic violence. After 1945, they struggled briefly to hold their empires but soon gave up the cause. As for Russia, yes it expanded across Eurasia, but reached its greatest extent by the end of the 19th century. It fought against Japan, and had a civil war, and the two world wars, and the war in Afghanistan. And then Georgia and now Ukraine. It's a close call with the U.S., but Russia never sent troops so far from home as the U.S. did. As for the McDonald's theory, it's a good one as far as it goes. It underlines the importance of global trade in calming world affairs. I favor it as an explanation more than the democratic peace idea. But McDonald's first non-American store came in 1967, so it's a short run of history for a broad theory.
Another terrific essay by Prof. Brands. However, I wonder if the U.S. is truly a democracy. I'm a third-party voter and feel that we're really a plutocracy. In a true democracy, like in many Western European countries, one would have federally financed elections with limits on campaign expenses. I recently read that in the U.S., the average winner in a senatorial race shucks out $20 million (or at least his/her supporters do). Congressional races are cheaper; the winner spends an average of $2 million on campaigning.
This comment may be tangential to the present discussion, but I wish commentators in the national media would avoid the terms dictator/dictatorship, etc. I'm glad that Dr. Brands prefers the terms autocrat/autrocracy. Someone once remarked "there's no such thing as one-man rule because even the king has to sleep at night." (To be PC, let's substitute "one-person" and "sovereign.")
There's a story from the time of Oliver Cromwell, the dictator (oops! autocrat LOL) who ruled England for several years after the Civil War of the 1640s. At one time in Cromwell's rule, his popularity dropped significantly. At a cabinet meeting, one of the members asked the Lord Protector if the fact that 90% of the people had turned against him concerned him. Cromwell replied: "What doth it matter if nine out of ten be against me, if the one who is for me doth hold a gun to the backs of the other nine?"
Whether true or apocryphal, the story illustrates that even an autocrat must have some percentage of support if s/he wants to hold on to power. I call it "the Cromwellian rule of ten percent." Even in so-called totalitarian societies, the strong man or woman must have the allegiance of some percentage of the population. An example is when Khrushchev lost the support of his own party (Communist Party of Soviet Union) and was elbowed out. (Fortunately, he was allowed to go into retirement and not shot as would have happened in Stalin's time.)
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. However, I have a question about this line that you said: "The nonvariant version suffers from the additional fact that the world's oldest large democracy—the United States—has been at one form of war or another more often than any other country during the two-and-a-half centuries since 1776." Where's your source for the claim that America has gone to war more than any other country since 1776? I would think that France, Britain, or Russia/the USSR were their imperial expansions would have been more warlike.
Also, what are your thoughts on Thomas Friedman's Golden Arches Theory from "The Lexus and the Olive Branch"? I'm of the belief that the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022) has dispelled that theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lexus_and_the_Olive_Tree