Gotcha, I see. Yes we lag far behind.
If History is any guide, then Nations prosper and decline all too often.
“ …The frog is almost five hundred million years old. Could you really say with much certainty that America, with all its strength and prosperity, with its fighting man that is second to none, and with its standard of living that is highest in the world, will last as long as…the frog?
Joseph Heller, [Catch-22]
I’m sure there are examples I’m not remembering, but what are past instances of countries “made great again” (however you want to define that)?
Also, I’m wondering if the introduction of the qualifier “greatest in the world” isn’t spreading this topic too thin. I mean, I think it’s possible for a country to be great without being the greatest in the world. While I realize this is because this is America we’re talking about here, I’m not sure there’s enough value added for the complexity; if America is “just” great, that’s all I think some need to declare it “the greatest,” even if it’s second or fifth.
Putin’s Russia.
If America becomes “great” again (by whatever metric you choose), it won’t be soon, it won’t come easily and it will never be as it was. American influence has been waning to some extent since the end of the Cold War but this administration has been systematically destroying it, to the delight and benefit of Russia and China in particular.
America may have the greatest unilateral military power but its allies now know that they cannot rely on the US to support them any more, thanks to Trump’s incessant undermining of NATO, his betrayal of the Kurds in the Middle East, and his overt weakening of support for Japan and South Korea while kowtowing to Kim.
Our ability to broker agreements is toast. No one will trust the word of America to hold to multilateral agreements, thanks to Trump’s treatment of the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris accord. Even if the White House occupant at the time is assumed to be acting in good faith, why should any other signatory assume that the next incumbent will honor the agreement?
Our economic power is greatly weakened. Trump’s tariffs and trade tantrums have caused importers of US goods - and particularly agricultural products - to look elsewhere. Now that China is getting more of its grains and produce from South America, why should they come back to the US unless America drops the prices ridiculously low (which will only hurt the ever-struggling agricultural sector)?
And of course we’ve lost what little moral leadership and credibility we once had (at least with those with whom we once had it). Trump sent his handbag designer of a daughter to the G7 to mingle with world leaders, and has had to have basic political and economics concepts repeatedly explained to him. And the country elected this man. Why should anyone take the US seriously again?
And the overarching effect - the one that will be the most difficult to overcome - is this: Trump has given most of the world a strong incentive to learn how to do without America. They don’t really need us anymore, not the way they once did. Oh, they’ll still all take our money (and our entertainment products) but we’ve lost most of our soft power and quite a lot of our hard power. And other countries are already stepping into that void. Barring another crisis like WWII that destroys much of the rest of the world but leaves the US intact, it’s unlikely that we’ll see the US claw itself back to the top of the heap this generation.
Thanks, Mr. President.
China is also gaining ground, but obviously still has a long way to go with regards to human rights. Relative to other nations, it seems to me that they haven’t been this great since the Míng dynasty.
“Great” is such a subjective word it’s nearly meaningless. Centuries from now, when historians are asked what the greatest nations were in the 20th or 21st centuries, they’re just going to look at which ones had the greatest landmass and had the best win/loss ratios in wartime. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer was “Canada”.
Strength of economy and currency is going to be another major contributing factor.
In terms of economic strength, military might, cultural influence, and technological advancements America is the greatest.
But has it been virtuous?
From its usage of chattel slavery, to the consequences of disastrous foreign interference motivated by a moral superiority (i.e. the Iran/Iraq War and the subsequent history of both countries since; the genocide in Cambodia and other things) American influence has not been kind to the rest of the world. The Brits weren’t any better in previous centuries of course and the Belgians have a lot to answer for in Africa!
However I do wonder what would have happened if the world’s most powerful country had been something other than a democracy. Things might have been a lot worse.
Personally I think of the US as a bit of a distopia. It’s gone from being a land of freedom and wealth for its citizens to freedom for its corporations and wealth for the top 5%. The measure of a state’s success in the 21st century should be the happiness and well-being of its citizens, not its GDP or military strength. It’s taken two world wars and tens of millions of deaths for most of western Europe to grasp this. The covid crisis has especially exposed this difference.
Just editing to say: It’s been a long time since the US acted as a political example to the rest of the world. I don’t think many new countries would want to emulate the US system of government anymore. Not long ago it would have been the example.
Just to add: It’s been a long time since the US acted as a political example to the rest of the world. I don’t think many new countries would want to emulate the US system of government anymore. Not long ago it would have been the example. But that’s the problem with a written constitution: inertia.
Point - chattel slavery was actually the world norm for recorded history until into the 1800s - so that is a null point. If everybody was doing it, then everybody was equally unvirtuous. And to be blunt, there are countries today reputed to still practice chattel slavery.
You can’t be a leader if nobody is following you.
What’s interesting with this thread is that while most people are happy to say that the US is no longer the greatest nation in the world, they still believe in the idea of there being a greatest nation. Hence there’s talk of being knocked down into second place, or who the new leader will be.
The whole concept is silly IMO. All nations have good and bad points, and generally, thinking of a nation as being the best, or even one of the best, is dangerous. It makes a nation less likely to confront its weaknesses and emulate successful policies from elsewhere.
Economically, some countries have huge sway, but we don’t live in a world where any one nation gets to call all the shots any more.
Only militarily is there a clear leader. And that’s not going to change any time soon. But this is quite far from the notion of best, or greatest, country.
I have rarely seen the need for a “Like” button on the SDMB, but this is one of those rare times. Very well said, Little Nemo.
I think some kind of change to the electoral process that would prevent another incompetent populist from being elected would go a long way towards restoring foreign confidence.
I’m not sure such a change exists. I mean, we could get rid of the EC which would at least avoid the issue of the winner of the popular vote losing the election, but the wider problem of people voting for “the wrong person” is ultimately a problem with people themselves, not the electoral system.
You can’t make people rational, informed and wise. You can’t force them to vote based on policies and facts instead of who they’d like to have a beer with or what propaganda they’ve seen in their Facebook feed this week. You can’t slap them to the point they stop falling for what ought to be obvious bullshit. Because people don’t work like that.
And as the famous Churchillian quote attests, as bad as letting everyone - including credulous, ill-informed idiots - vote is, the alternatives are all worse.
I think some basic voting reform would at least knock a lot of our current political problems off their feet for a generation.
Our current system has been set up so that one party identifies the most easy manipulated segment of our population and hands disproportionate political power to those people. If we restored democracy in this country, these easily manipulated people would no longer dominate elections and their manipulators would lose power.
Yes, this. Trump is a problem, but he’s not the only problem. He’s a symptom of the larger problem, which is that far too many Americans are okay with their broken system, and okay with voting in the people who support Trump and his agenda.
Biden winning one Presidential election won’t fix this, because the obstructionist Senate will still be there, as will the ineffectual House of Representatives. To “make American great again” will take a series of elections that bring in new leaders who are actually committed to the ideal of running the country properly. That means the US electorate needs to grow up, and vote for serious candidates who will do what is needed, year after year, for probably a decade or more. And they need to be prepared to vote out anyone who doesn’t live up to their stated ideals, regardless of party.
Voting for idiots, voting for fanatics, voting for conspiracy theorists, voting for literally crazy people - all that shit needs to stop, and stop for good, if America wants the rest of the world to start respecting you again.
I think people lay too much blame on the Electoral College for Trump winning (and I’d prefer this not become another EC thread.) Fact is, 63 million voted for Trump, and there were certainly tens of millions of people who like Trump or lean Republican but sat on their couches rather than go vote for him (just like the tens of millions who lean Democratic but didn’t actually turn out to vote.) With just a bit more Trump enthusiasm and less Hillary enthusiasm, Trump could certainly have beaten Hillary in the national popular vote by one percent or less or something, and we wouldn’t be talking EC anymore.
If you want to blame someone or something, it lies with the fact that 100 million (or so) Americans supported Trump to begin with, not the Electoral College.
I’ll just note that while right now the “wrong person” is Trump and the “wrong people” are the Republicans enabling him, I’m well aware that at some point in the not-too-distant future the Democrats could run someone popular but deeply unsuited for the job. The pendulum of idiocy has swung far to the right at the moment, but eventually it will swing back. Don’t fall under the illusion that the the long-term solution lies with addressing the short-term issue.
That said, there is a lot we could do to overhaul our electoral system; abolish the EC, crack down on gerrymandering, implement secure voting systems (not voter ID, which has been shown to be of limited value, but actual election security and independent oversight, something the current administration has been stealthily removing or blocking), further campaign finance reform, stronger controls on foreign involvement in political campaigns (another one the Republicans have been blocking), reform of PACs, and so forth. None of these these would be easily implemented (particularly as the people benefiting from the current system won’t want anything changed.) but they’re all theoretically possible.
We can’t stop people from being stupid but if we can keep the stupid people to a minority level we can at least prevent them from taking over.