I could argue each point but am not inclined to do so, since it's clear the author believes we _should_ have a hegemony, whereas I'm coming from the view that maintaining a hegemony, whereby we have become a de-facto militaristic nation fed by a never-ending state of conflict and never-ending drum-beating of militaristic patriotism ("support our troops!" everywhere you go), at the expense of caring for our own citizens and striving for a healthy, educated and more equal society, is an egregiously misplaced sense of priorities. And there are too many people in this country who have drunk the koolaid relentlessly fed us that it is _imperative_ to maintain such misplaced priorities in order to remain "free" (whatever that means).
I could argue each point but am not inclined to do so, since it's clear the author believes we _should_ have a hegemony, whereas I'm coming from the view that maintaining a hegemony, whereby we have become a de-facto militaristic nation fed by a never-ending state of conflict and never-ending drum-beating of militaristic patriotism ("support our troops!" everywhere you go), at the expense of caring for our own citizens and striving for a healthy, educated and more equal society, is an egregiously misplaced sense of priorities. And there are too many people in this country who have drunk the koolaid relentlessly fed us that it is _imperative_ to maintain such misplaced priorities in order to remain "free" (whatever that means).