I don’t think it is a simplification to say that the conservative dominance of the national economic discourse ushered in by Reagan have brought about disastrous and ignorant economic policies which has destabilized the country and weakened its position in the world.
It will be interesting indeed when historians not old enough to have been personally influenced by him begin writing Reagan histories.
In a hundred years Ph. D. dissertations will be handed out on how Reagan-era conservatism eventually destroyed the post-war American hegemony.
That won’t mean there is any merit to those dissertations. Group think is very powerful even when there are clear facts to the contrary. The relative decline of America with respect to the rest of the world is mainly due to the fact that post WWII we had almost full productivity and the rest of the world was either crushed, not developed, or some combination of the two. It was practically inevitable as the rest of the world rebuilt or industrialized that the share of world production the US had would decrease.
In fact, global trade can be a net win and was a net win. However, we could have managed things better domestically by recognizing that the laws of supply and demand don’t follow the wishes of disingenuous ideologues who maintain political power by exploiting the ignorance of the electorate.
Obviously we wouldn’t be around to see it, but if in 100 years Ph.D dissertations are still being done, that likely means we survived the current wave of nationalism and figured out a solution to global warming. I’d be happy if that’s the case.
I didn’t say American dissertations, did I? 
Lol, how did the data become infected by groupthink? 
Economically, Reagan sucked. The numbers say so.
The argument I’ve heard is that Big Science use their control over journals to control what does and does not get published, so a study whose results go against Big Science’s Woke Agenda gets smothered in the crib.
Proponents of this theory never provide any evidence for it - rather, the lack of evidence is in fact evidence of a coverup by Big Science.
It’s hives and minds all the way down!
I think it’s really telling that almost every post in a thread about America’s decline or lack thereof has to do with economics. A few people have mentioned the hegemony of American popular culture, but there genuinely are quality of life measures that aren’t tied to economics.
Education (which has been mentioned several times) is not just a path to a higher-paying job; it is also an end in itself. Not that any of these things exist in isolation. Health isn’t just about how much you spend on healthcare.
I do think America is in decline by most key measures, though not all of them. I think there’s a cultural decline, in that the vast, safe, money-making middle of popular culture is crowding out the edgy and excellent. Most of us are, for want of a better word, culturally lazy: we don’t create and we don’t want to go terribly far out of our way to access those who do. I think that’s more about modernity and technology than America specifically, but I do think that alienation and isolation (even before the pandemic) were contributing to a cultural malaise that goes hand in hand with the economic aspects everyone else is talking about.
Economics are easier to track, and I did throw some health, incarceration, and cost of secondary education statistics in my post, but yes, there are other indicators.
Given the garbo I’ve published while playing reviewer roulette, this line has always amused me. Simar to government conspiracies after having seen government close-up.
It wasn’t even offered in response to an argument, but to a question. One policy action targets need, another wildly does not. But you are correct that multiple policy actions are not necessarily exclusive of each other.
I know. What I am saying is, this point seems to be implicitly suggesting the goal of MW is reducing poverty across the board, and because it fails to do so, that’s a significant negative against it.
But that’s not usually the main (or only) reason cited by proponents. It’s usually more about fairness, the economy and government (not) needing to pick up the tab for insufficiently compensated workers.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. “Edgy” and “excellent” are necessarily talking about a small minority. It’s always true that most contributions to a field are not described that way.
How can it be a criticism of the masses?
Yes. And at least IMO America’s political influence and perception throughout the world has been in decline at least since the GWB administration. There may have been a brief uptick during the Obama administration, but I still think that in general America’s influence around the globe was on the wane. And the Trump administration basically drove both over a cliff.
What I mean is that the various creative industries are not seeking excellence, because medium-to-good produces a safer return. That’s fine insofar as it goes: I have nothing at all against popular culture. But I think that all good art—whether popular, avant-garde, or unique and stupendous—contributes to the broader cultural discourse. Popular is always going to dominate in numbers, and that’s fine, but I think our cultural discourse is a bit lopsided, because so many millions of people are fishing from so few streams.
The fact that there are so many millions of people makes it hard to say anything definitive, because there will be ten million counterexamples to point to. But I don’t think we have thriving regional literary scenes, for example, or distinctive local film cultures. We do rather better with food and music.
Just talking about the anglosphere, I don’t think America’s production per capita is anywhere near where Britain’s is, for example, or Ireland. I don’t think where we are is bad, not at all, I just don’t think we’re where we could be, and I don’t think we’re moving in that direction.
I’ve noticed a sharp increase in the average person’s cultural inputs and outputs, even during the Obama years, so I’ll have to disagree with you on that. It’s amazing what you can do with a phone.
~Max
It’s an interesting take, I’m not sure I agree.
I don’t know much about fine art, but in general the US is still a juggernaut in cultural contributions and in certain areas like TV is going through something of a renaissance.
Also, no disrespect to some of the great Chinese artists coming through, but in general America whoomps China’s ass in terms of just about any form of contemporary art you care to mention.
That’s thanks to personal expression being something China is having to re-learn.
So there’s nothing to worry about if this were the primary concern.
And I agree with Max_S about an increase in content creators. Of course not all are great, but some are.
So in terms of areas of decline in the US, I am not sure that art / cultural output would be even in my top 10.
That’s because it’s bullshit. The actual argument is that journals, academics and institutions are as sensitive to good and bad publicity as anyone else, so most avoid investigating contentious topics and the few who do suffer damage to their reputations, loose jobs or don’t have their contracts renewed, have trouble finding publishers, etc. There’s no Big Science, just an intolerant society.