Three quick points Phillip:

The article by Mr. Older is clearly an argument. It is a definitional argument in the sense that Older is defining the world past and present as he sees it. It is a causal argument in the sense that he is attributing past atrocities as the immediate cause for present problems.

We have to both admit that interpretation of history is subjective. History is written and rewritten by those who want some facts to percolate to the surface while ignoring other facts. Older and you choose certain facts while ignoring others while I might do the same with my own perspective. It all happened, the good and the bad, the tragedies and triumphs. Still, when it comes down to sheer numbers the goodness of America far outweighs her bad side.

Choosing to define the grand experiment as a grand orchestra that is subjugating the world, seems to dwell too much on out foreign and not domestic policy. The grand experiment was never intended to mean we go around the world and make countries in our own image, that in fact seems to be the opposite goal. We can debate another time about whether or not America should be the world’s police force, but that is entirely off topic. The experiment, and what makes it so grand, is that at the birth of this nation, the founders chose to restrict the government and favor the people and not the other way around. Such a republic had never been practiced before where ALL not the few were declared to be “endowed with unalienable rights.” That is why it was an experiment. Because it was new to the world stage. Were there bumps along the way? Certainly. Were we perfect? Definitely not! But experiments were never intended to be perfect outcomes, but rather messy progressions towards a glorious end.