Nobody can argue that America’s place on the world's geopolitical stage is changing. America is fighting a war in Afghanistan and maintaining ongoing military responsibilities in Iraq, while weathering a major financial crisis at home: There is reasonable concern over America’s ability to maintain the international diplomatic clout as it has for most of the 20th century.
We're asking you, our listeners, about America's role in the world now. What should it be? Leader? Helper? Should it be smaller? Bigger? Let us know in comments or text your answer to 69866 with the word TAKE.
But, if America cedes its position as the ostensible head of global diplomacy, where does that leave us? Are Americans prepared to live in a country that is not the "top-dog" of international politics? To answer that question, we speak with Andrew Bacevich, professor of History and International Relations at Boston University and Author of “Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War.”
Comments from Facebook:
"Fix our country; then the world."
"We should shower upon the world, that which they shower upon us."
"Americas role should be to mind its own people and to act in humanitarian rather than corporate interests. American exceptionalism is an oxymoron to say the least."
"Ditch superpower role, join the family of nations.
"For preservation of our status we should be a leader but to try to rectify foreign relations we should listen more than speak."
—Jersey City, NJ
"Helper, we proved incapable of leadership after the recession/depression."
"America should take a less active role and focus more on itself we are suffering from overstretch and cant finance a sustained interventionist agenda."
"Better question who would be a leader if not us?"