So, have we agreed upon how we are going to interpret the confusing OP?
I say America IS exceptional - if only because no other country anywhere near as powerful as us is as selfish as we and feels we should be able to be subsidized by the rest of the world. We are exceptional/different - in that respect. We are gleefully consuming our way to being a second tier power.
I also agree that many Americans interpret exceptionalism as “We’re #1.” Which I do not perceive. I truly do not know what are commonly accepted to be the much vaunted American ideals that we wish to export. Our flaws are legion, ranging from the genocide of the natives through slavery/segregation. I have difficulty seeing anything other than a general downward arc in America’s internal strength and our standing on the international stage since 9/11. A series of poor choices, at a time that the rest of the world is increasingly realizing how well they can get along without us.
For the time being, the USA may still be the most important. But it is fading. You can’t expect 300 million to compete against 1.4 billion when the latter is steadily rising. The only way America could hold its own indefinitely would be if one American somehow were always the equivalent of four Chinese in terms of productivity, etc.
But would it? There are good arguments that it would lead to strong economic growth. I am not an economist and I cannot judge these arguments. So is this what the markets have decided or is it what the lobbyists have chosen to lobby over?
My view is, no. I think that it’s actually wiser to invest in a green infrastructure now, even if it dislocates people. I think the trick is in finding ways to subsidize those who are dislocated in the short-term so that they we can collectively make the switch to a greener economy.
China’s massive size is both an advantage and disadvantage. A country doesn’t necessarily have to be the largest on the planet in order to be the strongest. I think what really matters is having smart leadership making smart decisions. The ratio of leaders to people governed is small: one leader or influential decision maker for every X number of people. The ones who make decisions have to be capable, competent decision makers who are capable of making decisions that are based on more than just what they can reap in terms of personal rewards. In theory, that’s an advantage that the United States should have over a more authoritarian country like China. However, that’s certainly debatable as of late.
Part of the problem is that the market is not a free market. It is tilted by regulations, taxes, and subsidies.
We currently subsidize fossil fuel industries, not only directly, but indirectly through military interventions and protectionism.
We also do not regulate the output of fossil fuels other than for some of the nastier pollutants that are visible and obvious, and even that was an uphill battle.
A nuclear plant is not allowed to release even a fraction of the radiation given off by a coal plant.
It’s hard to compete with an industry that gets to use our atmosphere as its waste pit.
Just having a carbon tax and trade system would help to equalize things, and make renewables and nuclear much more attractive to investors, especially if you used the proceeds from the GHG tax to subsidize them.
Many people I know subscribe to this belief–several of my coworkers, in fact. I mentioned this article and was met with complete disbelief. They refused to believe that the US wasn’t #1.
The newest Social Progress Index, shared with me before its official release Thursday morning, finds that out of 163 countries assessed worldwide, the United States, Brazil and Hungary are the only ones in which people are worse off than when the index began in 2011. And the declines in Brazil and Hungary were smaller than America’s.
The index, inspired by research of Nobel-winning economists, collects 50 metrics of well-being — nutrition, safety, freedom, the environment, health, education and more — to measure quality of life. Norway comes out on top in the 2020 edition, followed by Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. South Sudan is at the bottom, with Chad, Central African Republic and Eritrea just behind.
The United States, despite its immense wealth, military power and cultural influence, ranks 28th — having slipped from 19th in 2011. The index now puts the United States behind significantly poorer countries, including Estonia, Czech Republic, Cyprus and Greece.
The United States ranks No. 1 in the world in quality of universities, but No. 91 in access to quality basic education. The U.S. leads the world in medical technology, yet we are No. 97 in access to quality health care.
The Social Progress Index finds that Americans have health statistics similar to those of people in Chile, Jordan and Albania, while kids in the United States get an education roughly on par with what children get in Uzbekistan and Mongolia. A majority of countries have lower homicide rates, and most other advanced countries have lower traffic fatality rates and better sanitation and internet access.
The data for the latest index predates Covid-19, which has had a disproportionate impact on the United States and seems likely to exacerbate the slide in America’s standing
Well, just to answer these before tackling the broader question. I would say that, yes, without the US on board, climate change mitigation is not going to happen. Of course you can say the same thing about China at this point. Basically, without the buy in of the economic superpowers you simply aren’t going to get it done, especially when you couple that with the largest CO2 producers. As to an American civil war, again, yes…that would drag down the rest of the world, economically. Again, you could say something similar about China here. But the fact is, the US is the most important economy on the planet still.
Yes. I don’t really see how anyone can argue against this, to be honest…not with a straight face, unless they are simply and blindly deluded. The US is the most important country right now, at this time, economically, culturally, militarily, politically, etc. It’s why so many non-Americans care about the US election…or even know it’s happening. Consider…you could go to just about any country on the planet right now and ask them ‘who is running for President in the US’. While they might or might not know much about the candidates or what they stand for, you are going to be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t even know it’s happening at all. Ask them about the recent People’s congress in China (or elections happening in countries that aren’t the ones they live in), however, and you are going to get blank looks from many.
If the US goes TU economically, the world is going down. Full stop. This won’t always be the case, but it is right now. If China goes down (something that could actually happen, though it’s generally ignored around here) we MIGHT be able to muddle through as a civilization, though it would be a nasty shock. But if the US goes down right now we won’t be getting back up any time soon.
America’s interests are already waning. Clearly, we don’t have the influence we once had and it has seriously eroded over the last few presidencies, especially the current one. The world is already bi-polar, or even multi-polar and the US is increasingly moving away from the center where all other countries revolve around it to one extent or another. You can already see many countries that orbit China, and though China still orbits the US to an extent they are pushing to bring more countries into their own orbit and break away from dependence on the US and US trade while bringing US allies into their own orbit one way or another. The EU is starting to do the same. But it’s not going to happen today, or next year, or in this decade. It’s a gradual, slow process.
As to what it means, it’s hard to say. I doubt it will seriously affect our standard of living much, at least not in the short or medium term. What it might mean is something similar to what happened to the UK when they stopped being the central place other countries orbited around. Eventually, I guess, their standard of living leveled off while other countries shot ahead and their economies picked up steam. They had to change their own economic and political stance, orienting around other countries instead of having them oriented around them. Something similar to that is probably in store for the US at some point, though we are a lot bigger than the UK (and slightly more politically sound), so it won’t be the same. The real issue is going to be…who is going to be the new central nation, or will there even be one? If we are moving to a multi-polar world, which looks likely, then the US could still be one of those centers, in which case things won’t really change that much for the average American, depending on how that falls out.
Yes, that is the point. It’s Ethnocentrism. Everyone thinks their own country is best because it’s what they know.
If you don’t know much about Bangladesh it’s one of the poorest countries in the world, with Islam oppression and a bit of a caste system mixed in. It’s common to see lepers begging on city streets. On a positive note they are fantastic at cricket and producing low cost clothing.
To a large extent it is not subjective. Someone from a dirt-poor nation with high infant mortality, civil war, famine, lack of governance, crime that is off the charts, disease everywhere, lack of even basic medicines, everyone’s illiterate, human-rights abuses everywhere etc. (note, I am not referring to Bangladesh, just some hypothetical nation) can’t seriously claim that they’re better than some nation with great medicine, good income, cleanliness, high tech, safety, a strong economy, high education, a respected government and freedom and civil liberty (I am not referring to the USA here either; also a hypothetical nation.)
Except that they do; at least the less educated do. Most of them have no idea what the USA is like except what they’ve seen on TV. But they still see their own culture and country as ‘best.’
Bangladesh might be a bit of an extreme example and is serving to obscure the point a bit.
If we try to come up with some objective value of which country is best to live in, using numerous metrics like healthcare, education, housing, air quality, personal safety etc etc then Bangledesh does very badly. But also the US would be pretty mediocre, especially among developed nations.
OTOH if we can just arbitrarily decide what’s important, then someone from Bangledesh can say it’s wherever makes the best < insert name of a regional dish in Bangledesh >
I think the easiest thing in the world to do is to call yourself a Christian. It’s infinitely easier than actually following Christ’s teachings or simply being a passably decent human being.
Similarly, talking about how great America is liberates you from the painful work of evaluating, understanding, admitting, owning, and ameliorating its many and significant faults.
To whatever extent people think America is great, it never became that way by ignoring its problems and blindly singing its praises.
In other words, America’s strengths exist despite the jingoism and nationalism of putative ‘patriots,’ not because of them,
This … from somebody who well understands just how quantitatively mediocre we truly are on the world’s stage.
