A blast from the past. A Paul Street article from 2003 connecting the dots:

It is commonplace for left writers and activists to note stark contradictions between the declared objectives of United States foreign policy and the harsh imperial realities of that policy. It is difficult, we note, with good reason, for thinking persons to take seriously the US government's statements for freedom, justice, democracy and security and against terrorism, authoritarianism, violence, and insecurity when Uncle Sam's policy makers:

Fuel the global arms race and engage in reckless saber-rattling military actions and pronouncements (most notably the "Axis of Evil" address) that mock international law and threaten to produce a new global war;

etc., etc., etc

It is important, however, to also keep our eyes on the US domestic scene, where the chasm between declared goals and harsh social realities is also great. That scene, after all, is where the true social and political taproot of dangerous imperial projects and the authoritarian values, paradigms, policies, and practices that inform such projects are always found.

Consider, for example, the startling expansion of a racist mass incarceration state before and then through the period that has witnessed the United States' emergence of as the world¼s unchallenged superpower. In a contradiction that Orwell could certainly appreciate, the nation that proudly proclaims itself homeland and headquarters of world freedom now imprisons 730,000 people per year.

etc., etc., etc.

Like the imperial project, the domestic lock up is remarkably expensive and regressive and carries huge social-democratic opportunity costs paid for by American taxpayers. Both policies divert billions of dollars from social programs that might tackle endemic poverty and inequality and thereby eliminate the need for punitive, vengeful, and authoritarian policies. Rewards go especially to a relatively small minority of private corporate contractors: the military and prison industrial complexes, which are not devoid of interlocking relationships of financial, social, intellectual, and technological capital.

Both policies recruit significant rank-and-file constituencies thanks to their role in producing relatively de-concentrated local economic development and employment opportunities for lower to lower-middle-class persons. Those constituencies' often difficult economic situation in an age of deindustrialization and top-down class warfare encourages them to enter high-stress positions (prison guard, infantryman) in potentially dangerous and atavistic settings that most people of greater advantage (leaving aside tourists like upper-class Vietnam War veteran Oliver Stone) naturally avoid.

Lots more good stuff here:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/street2.html

And my favorite quote du jour from Tom Sullivan over at Digby: "America can no longer afford Americans."

Flag-pin-wearing American exceptionalists tell crowds this is the greatest nation on Earth, and then repeat “we’re broke.” They hope to dismantle safety net programs, telling Americans working harder than ever – at jobs and looking for jobs – that they don’t have enough “skin in the game.” Wake up and smell the austerity. America can no longer afford Americans.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2017/07/we-rugged-individuals-by-bloggers...

God bless America. Is this a great country or what?