I’d say the U.S. has a “bit” of time left. I mean, we’re only 227 years old, and we’ve only been a really “major” world power for…100 years, more or less?
Rome lasted about 500 years, not counting the Roman Republic…or the Byzantine Empire.
Egypt lasted…what, 3000 years? Give or take a millennium?
It’s rather difficult to extrapolate based on what has come before, simply because modern states, especialy post-WW II, are so dissimilar to pre-modern states in many ways.
Will the period of a single dominant superpower eventually come to an end? Probably ( maybe even in a couple of decades ). But as BrainGlutton noted, barring a catastrophe of unforseeable severity ( partition after civil war, nuclear devastation, viral zombies that vomit infected blood that can turn you into a crazed maniac in 90 seconds flat ), the shear size, population and resource base of the U.S. will probably always guarantee a position of relative power in the world.
I think if I was an American, I would almost be looking forward to the day we “fell” from number one. Unless of course it is by some catastrophe.
Being a middle power country is pretty sweet. You enjoy about the same standard of living (or even greater) and don’t have to do nearly as much of the heavy lifting in the international arena.
I think in the traditional sense, empires have collapsed because they stretched beyond their means to maintain their conquests. The Roman Empire lost their strength in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The US, as pointed out earlier, is a continental power, and doesn’t have all its eggs in faraway baskets.
Plus, even though we’re trillions in debt, our GNP is much higher, a different case than the Great Depression. As long as we produce more than we owe, we’re not in danger of collapsing, at least according the capitalist dogma.
How’s the deficit these days…?
4% of GNP, I believe, and climbing.
That’s the Achilles heel. IMHO. The dollar being brought to (relative) account (as it currently isn’t) by a currency of comparable strength e.g. the euro. Early, early days . . . I found it moderately symbolic that Saddam had stored away (in cash) 90%/10% in favour of dollars over euro’s – a good indicator and a good start for the newly minted euro.
But Ranchoth, don’t forget the accelerated rate of change. 300 years in past eras doesn’t translate to 300 years today. This could end in as little as 20 years.
I think Simonx’s quote:
is relevant.
Consider the changes in the infrastructure of the US economy in the last hundred years. Agrarian to a large degree, then industrial, techological, to service-based. (I know I’m generalizing here). Each of these “bases” gave way to the next in a large degree not because of any planned progression, but more due to the loss to other countries or global communities.
We lost the manufacturing base to the asian countries, our technology base to just about everyone, and are losing our service industries to India. Companies are outsourcing software development in huge numbers, which undermines the US economy. Where does the US economy go from here? What “base” do we progress to next?
One can argue that the diversity of a mixed base is a better foundation, but this supports the premise that you are no longer the leader in any one of them.
I believe the US is in an imminent position for a “fall”, and that it will be a long and deep one.
As someone with a history degree, I find that the vast majority of people who pitifully attempt to try to predict the downfall of the US by comparing her to empires through history know very little about history and understand even less.
Well then, as someone with a history degree don’t you think you should weigh in on the topic with your knowledge rather than leaving off with a smug, condescending assertion? What’s being misunderstood, overlooked, and so forth in these comparisons/contrasts with historical empires?
Rik,
Your statement, while true, isn’t necessarily helpful. I, for one, would be very interested in what detail you can provide on the subject.
As for my own $.02, the former “empires” all expanded their territories, etc., because it was in their own best interests to do so, primarily from an economic standpoint. The US is acting similary, and I personally don’t really have a problem with it. I can see other people in other nations having some issues, but I doubt they would be similarly inclined to criticize their own nations, were their own nations in the political position to impress their interests on other nations (did that make sense?). In other words, ALL countries seek their own best interests, and the US is no exception, and is in the unique position at this particular point in history to do so. I believe it is patently hypocritical to criticize the US for something any other nation would do, given the opportunity.
I’m sure Paul Kennedy (History Professor, Yale) would give his tenure to bathe in the reflected glory of your “history degree”:
"Kennedy’s book chronicles the decline of the British empire, and argues that the American empire is next. "
Why are the comparisons inaccurate? Simple.
First off, and most importantly, each of these empires fell for very very different reasons.
Some, Assyria for example, were conquered by outside enemies because they had made too many of them. Some, like Britain (which was an empire only in a loose use of the word) gave up their posessions willingly because they had become too expensive economically and politically to maintain. Still others fell to civil wars.
Secondly, in these comparisons, those reasons are almost always oversimplified and misstated.
For instance, just above, someone stated that Rome fell because they overextended themselves. That’s nonsense.
It’s nearly impossible to give a single reason why Rome fell, but if forced to make that statement, the most accurate reason would be a lack of a stable system of succession. One pretender general after another pulled Roman troops from the borders and marched on Rome to make his claim to the purple. Those troops were rarely, if ever, replaced, leaving the borders open to barbarian predations. The constant civil wars also weakened the empire socially and economically, until it was a hollow shell of its former self.
In short, history is a complex and chaotic affair with a multitude of causes for each major event. It can’t be used realistically to predict the future of modern countries, particularly since “all else” is most certainly NOT equal. This is a far different world than it was when the British empire disassembled, just as it was a far different world from there back to the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, and on and on.
Yes, most history departments in larger universities are dominated by Marxists, as their public pronunciations demonstrate time and again.
So Rik, are you and your degree saying that the US will be the leading power forever and ever until the sun goes red giant on us?
Are you and your degree saying that history is irrelevant and should be ignored because it has no lessons to teach us modern Americans?
My theory that hubris will play a major part of the end of US supremacy may or may not have any legs, but some posters here sure like to cuddle up nice and cozy under a blanket of warm of it.
I did write “bask”, didn’t I ? You all saw me, right ? Okay . . . .
<tip toes off, humming, “We keep the red flag flying high, flying high . . . .”>
Of course. People tend to flock to theories that are in line with the beliefs they already hold.
I tend to agree with Neurotik on this particular topic. The US’s downfall, when it occurs, will be for economic reasons. Of course, I’m using the word “downfall” only in the sense of it not having as much influence on the worldwide stage. As has been said earlier the US’s natural resources are, IMO, rich enough to ensure that the US will remain a world power for a very long time even if it isn’t #1.
**I did not use Rome or any favorite historical empire to declare the end of the US “empire” is nigh. I never, ever said the end is near or far, just inevitable. In fact, the questions I put up for debate were:
** I hate to tell you this but falling into anarchy or being subsumed by a larger entity isn’t unique. Nor do I think that it is inevitable that the US will ceast to exist. Rome didn’t. Greece didn’t.
** I’m beginning to think the debate you are having is a different one than the one I put forth in the OP.
Let me restate: History has shown us that supremacy of one nation over western civilization does not last forever. The US is now, arguably, the western world’s leading superpower. How long will this last and what will cause the US’s decrease in influence.
Biggirl, it looks to me like RikWriter’s answers were absolutely spot-on. He directly answered the questions you directly posed to him. “Do you think history has nothing to teach us?” “Learning from history is important, but the history of every country/empire is unique.”
Sounds simple enough to me. The debate had evolved from the original OP, because people challenged him to come back and give his input. Which he did.
I mention all this because I strongly agree. The “downfall” of the US is inevitable. History at least teaches us that. But whether its sooner or later, or how that downfall will happen, is lost in the fog of the Uncertainty Principle, so to speak.
It is if we’re eventually subsumed by a global government (which is what I suspect might happen, far in the future.)