As the title asks. I get the feeling a majority of Americans prefer to be the superpower.
But as a Canadian, I’ve got to tell you, it’s not half bad being a middle power. Comparable standards of living, not as much of the heavy lifting on the world stage, and you get to complain about how the big dog is making a mess of things 
Yes, I prefer the U.S. to be the one and only superpower and hope it stays that way as long as possible. The reason is actually world stability. The world is inherently unstable and I believe that a single, rather benign superpower is the best option overall.
I can’t really look around and see how anyone else would be a better superpower even if the U.S. isn’t perfect. We act like Western Europe is a model of stability and decency even though Europe has historically been extremely unstable over the course of history and within living memory it was torn apart by two horrific wars.
The massive U.S. military surely puts a stop to many events before they occur because leaders know what will happen if they do something stupid. The Cold War was very nerve wracking while it was going on as well.
That’s not really what the OP was asking; he was asking if you’d rather prefer not living in the sole, single superpower. In an alternatie universe, suppose another Western democracy was the big dog - say, Canada or Australia or Italy or whomever, and as an American you enjoyed the benefits of not being a superpower as mentioned in the OP. How would that be?
It would generally suck although Canada has got itself a sweet situation. It can just be the un-American America and the U.S. will keep it safe from all threats no matter what.
It wouldn’t be so bad if Canada was the superpower and the U.S. played second fiddle but that is the only switcheroo that seems desirable at all to me. I suppose I could stretch it and say Australia or maybe Great Britain if I had to but god forbid it was someone like Italy or Mexico (repeat for all countries of any size).
An interesting take on my question Shagnasty, but I was thinking more on the lines of RickJay. Trying to delve into the US phsyce here. How much of your identity is wrapped up in being no. 1.
I remember that it was when I was around 8 that I realised Canada was only a tenth the size of the US and we weren’t even second banana in the world. It really bummed me out at the time, but I eventually got over it .
Personally, I hate it. We’re stuck with a $500 billion defense tab every year, and everybody despises us every time we have to play Globo-Cop.
I like living in a country that’s strong enough to defend itself and retaliate when attacked, as on 9/11. But the “superpower” thing? Screw it. Let somebody else worry about Iran.
It is pretty well burned into my psyche and I would say so of most Americans (most dopers aren’t normal Americans BTW. Only myself and a few others here hold the torch).
Honestly, it can be terrifying. I was born in 1973 and was raised during the height of the Cold War. We were led to believe (and it wasn’t very far-fetched. See full nuclear war halted by a rouge Russian Officer in 1983. that we would all be blown up before we were adults). I grew up less than 40 miles from the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the U.S. (Barksdale AFB, B-52 long-range bomber headquarters. Cite if you want). We all knew that and talked about horrific doomsday scenarios all the time. I don’t think most Americans appreciate how close we were several times to complete destruction.
Even though the Cold War is over, I still worry about those things. Our house now is outside the primary blast range of a direct strike on Boston. I have a plan to reunite all family into New Hampshire 100 miles away and I made people talk about these things because they can certainly happen in the U.S. at any time. The major problem is getting separated from a young child and we have plans that go down to E for that that at all times.
Other than that, it is great to be a superpower. We know that our military can walk over anyone that isn’t China/India and those are only because of huge populations. We would still win. I also treasure the idea that the U.S. is stronger than Western Europe overall. The U.S. is made up of people that got persecuted/were impoverished/dissastified whatever. It is beauty to see most of them make good and give their finger back to the crap their ancestors risked everything to leave. It isn’t like I hate western Europe and I go there often. It is just that I think most people don’t realize the dire nature of their problems in a historical context. I am sure you can say the same of Canada and Australia though.
What the hell does THAT mean?
Don’t make me channel Foghorn Leghorn.
Just like anyone anywhere, I think most Americans know no other way and that is just the way that we perceive things. We know we are the most powerful nation in the world and everything seems obvious. A change would not be welcome in that context.
Uh, I think he was referring to your “Real American” comment.
Could we still be just as rich, but the money would get spent on stuff like education and healthcare instead of our incredibly bloated military budget? 'Cause that sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me.
To me, the whole “Superpower” concept just paints a big red target on my back. It was better when the USSR was the bad guy.
The problem with us being the superpower is that when we get a really bad leader, the whole world suffers.
Oh yeah, I just love picking up the check for the entire planet’s defense and pharmaceuticals. And being demonized for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein for Christ’s sake. Please, give me more.
Thank God that’s never happened! :rolleyes:
You picked up that check for the planet? Make sure to let our government know so that they can subtract it from our multi-trillion dollar debt to the rest of the world.
You know nothing about international pharmaceuticals, drop it.
There’s a large foot-sized area in your mouth that you can speak about 9/11, Iraq, Saddam, if you’d like.
You’re “picking up the check” for more programs than you’d ever approve of in your wildest dreams, within your own state. Focus your irrational hatred. Just keep it in our country.
Most people are okay with the Saddam Gone part. It’s everything else they’re pissed about.
And we’re paying for the entire planet’s defense againest the…martians?
OK, that makes sense, but I don’t buy it. There has been a lot of legitimate criticism against the U.S., but the number one complaint I’ve heard (from Europeans at least) is that the U.S. had no right to invade a sovereign nation unilaterally. Or variants on that theme.
Well naturally Martians too, but mostly against each other. U.S. military presence around the globe has been maintaining political and economic stability worldwide for decades. I’m happy it’s being done, I’d be much happier if the cost wasn’t primarily on U.S. taxpayers.
No, I’m no expert, but you imply you are - so back it up. How is the higher prices we pay for drugs not subsidizing the lower prices paid in Europe and Canada?
Pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t sell drugs to Europe and Canada if they weren’t making a profit doing so. They just charge whatever the local market will bear as long as it’s more than what it costs them to produce the drug.
If the US drug market was subsidizing the european market (IOW, pharm companies lose money in europe and make up for this by their profits in the US), they would sell their drugs only in the US for a bigger profit instead of taking the loss.
I think many, if not most, Americans want to be left alone by the outside world, and we want the world to be remade into one which will leave us alone. I think history bears me out in large part.
America has never had a great deal of colonies. I think the most we’ve ever had was two, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, in the period from 1898 (when we won them both from Spain in a treaty to end the Spanish-American War) to 1935 (when we largely ceded the Philippines to local rule). Usually, when we take land we either make it a state and a full participant in our system of government at all levels, or we give it back to whoever appears to be in charge and the least likely to screw with us in the future. This has bitten us badly in the past and might not always be possible (vide Afghanistan and Iraq) but it is the general goal.
(Ironically, the Spanish colony that was the focus of the Spanish-American War—Cuba—was given independence almost immediately upon the conclusion of the war after only a brief period of American military occupation, during which time Leonard Wood and Walter Reed made their very famous names. It is also the country that is doing the worst now.)
The ideal is the Second World War, where we defeated two Evil Régimes and restored the rule of the rightful Governments of the People, by the People, and for the People, all of whom were interested in buying American products afterwards. The Boys Came Home, we were cheered abroad, and then we settled into the comfortable routine of ignoring the rest of the world. The most stressful time to be an American within living memory was when it looked like we might actually have to take and hold a colony named South Vietnam.* We’re going through similar stresses now over Iraq. We just aren’t good at directly owning the world. We’d much rather be selling to it and teaching it how to say “Coca-Cola” and “I’m the real Slim Shady”.
*(1968 was tough all over, however. Just ask the French, or the Czechs and Slovaks, or the Jamaicans, or the Mexicans.)
To answer the question, I think Americans like being citizens of a superpower if it means other countries are too scared to attack us. Otherwise we’d just as soon let someone else deal with the problems and let us get back to doing what we’re best at: ignoring the world.