I disagree. I think you need to look at a nation’s foundations and governance as having a hierarchy of layered objectives:
you need to have an economy that provides wealth, otherwise everybody starves and nothing else matters
then you need governance to maintain security, safety, and social justice to ensure a stable society and a generally happy population
then you can work on an infrastructure for the arts, sciences, and education
The success of a nation I think is measured by the degree to which it successfully provides a framework for all those things to happen.
Sweden built a very successful society, one often considered a model of social democracy, and one of the strongest economies in Europe. Sending a man to walk on the moon was certainly “wild and extraordinary” but serious questions have since been asked about why the hell they ever bothered. The unmanned robotic missions have had far more actual scientific value.
As I said before, the US has good points and bad, and among the bad is that the right to shoot and be shot is fundamentally protected, but basic health care is not. Putting a man on the moon didn’t do anything to change either of those things.
But I think that is true for most major nations. Taken to an extreme, though, that might be interpreted as an aspiration to be a global bully, like the policy objectives of the Bush henchmen from PNAC. A bit too much of Deutschland über alles in der Welt there for my comfort.
A guy walking on the moon sparks the imagination of generations. Robot missions to Ceres and properly funded paternity leave systems – meh. Life for the individual as for the nation is more than mere comfort and utility. Sweden is not a very successful society; they are of course an adequately well fed, comfortable and secure (& dull) society, but they don’t really seem to be producing much of anything anymore which will go down into history. Living your days in comfortable complacency may be ok for some, but it does no raise you into a category of the best.
Of course the foundation with regard to such things as being able to feed, educate and provide security for the population must be in some measure of order before going out on wild adventures. But some (most really) nations seem all too contend with merely tinkering with those parametres and never get to the fun stuff which sets them apart to be included in the group of the truly admirable great. Those are the same nations which would never have left Africa, crossed the Atlantic on fool’s voyage, walked on the moon, or done anything else of spectacular and great madness.
For its size, Switzerland ranks pretty high there.
Sweden, by staying out of the Eurozone, at least gets some points here.
I wonder what you think of a forbidden nation like Taiwan. Only a few small nations grant it diplomatic recognition. Taiwan competes at the Olympics under the humiliating title of “Chinese Taipei,” and doesn’t dare declare itself an independent nation – for fear of Chinese invasion (China promises to invade if they declare de jure indenpendence). On the other hand, Taiwan has a significant military and, like Switzerland, still have conscription. Because of national independence being continually threatened, pride in country is probably greater than in other nations ranking as high in liberal criteria such as relative income equality, universal health care, gun control, and even gay rights. (No same-sex marriage yet, but thought likely to be first in Asia when it comes.) So what’s more important – aspiring to walk unbowed, or taking it for granted?