I think andros has a good point that needs to be examined further.
Most references I see to “US on the decline” come in one of two forms:
The first form is the ‘other countries are fast approaching!’, which is undone by the fact that it takes a current situation and extrapolates it to last indefinitely. China, by this ideal, shall shortly become the greatest economic power in all the world, dwarfing the U.S. and any attempt at a Euromarket, simply because of its size and its incredible growth. Of course, twenty years ago we were told that the Japanese would shortly own all of the U.S. because of their superior business practices and long-term thinking. Then their economy collapsed, and you rarely hear discussion of how Japan is going to economically dominate the world. This doesn’t mean it’s not possible for the theory to pull out- Japan may get back up, China may continue its growth, the US might fall into a serious depression following a tech stock bust- but odds are against it.
The second form is the ‘we’re getting stupid and weak!’ form that Card seems to be taking above. The problem is trying to sort out the truth from the alarmist lies, and trying to determine what’s merely holding ourselves to an unattainable ideal. For example, when I was in high school it was accepted as simple fact that US schoolkids were idiots. After all, a study had been done, and half of the kids couldn’t find the US on a map- ergo, our schools weren’t teaching at all well, and by 2020 the average adult probably wouldn’t be functionally literate. Except. Except that the study that everyone was citing, the one that stated that US students couldn’t find the US on a map, had a bit of a trick to it. Y’see, 98% of the students found the continental US on a map. It’s just that about half of them either forgot to also mark Alaska and Hawaii, or misidentified which chain of islands were Hawaii. Doesn’t seem nearly so dire now, does it?
What Card talks about is apathy and political illiteracy. However, the question is whether the ideal he holds us to was ever actually met in the years we were theoretically in our glory days. Does Joe Sixpack understand the issues surrounding him today? Most definitely not; he is probably uninformed and bases his views on either which slogans sound snappier, or by what his friends tell him to think. The question, though, is did Joe Sixpack’s father or grandfather actually understand the issues of their day any better? Given the lack of education of previous generations, part of me wants to state it as obvious truth that they didn’t; Josep Sixpacski probably didn’t comprehend the real facts regarding tariffs, the rise of American imperialism, and the transfer of regionalism to federalism that occurred during the late 19th century. But one could also argue that Sixpacski didn’t have quite so many issues to worry about; since the FDR New Deal and our burgeoning expectation that the federal government deal with every little matter we face, I expect that the number of issues Joe Sixpack is expected to have basic understanding of number about fiftyfold what his grandfather cared about. Sixpack is exepcted to have a reasoned position on abortion, feminism, gay rights, equality in divorce cases, systematic sexism, and political correctness. Sixpacski was expected to have a reasoned position on whether women should be allowed to vote.
But the evidence that Card comes up with I find sorely lacking. He cites a decline in voter participation as “apathy”; in fact, there are other, less malignant causes. Voter enrollment itself is dramatically greater than it was a hundred years ago due to the enfrachisment of a great number of the populace; thus, part of the reason that the percentage of voters who actually vote has dropped is because the percentage of those we call ‘voters’ has risen. Likewise, trusting the numbers of the 19th and early 20th centuries in comparison to the numbers of the late 20th century… I mean, how much of “turnout decline” in Chicago is because the dead aren’t showing up to vote in alphabetical order for Mayor Daley Sr.? How much of the decline in Boston is because Mayor Curley isn’t around to get some of his supporters to vote ten to twenty times each?
And as for being “well led”- I emphatically disagree with that. We are more cynically informed than our predecessors, and that leads us to believe we were once better led. But that’s because todays press considers it more important to jump in with leading indicators rather regardless of the actual truth of the matter while forty years ago the press was perfectly happy to keep politician’s foibles under wraps if they felt it would hurt the country. Whatever people want to impugne about George W., he is smarter, more honest, and more of a leader than many of his predecessors.
I do agree that there is a chance that the US is actually in decline, and that in fifty years we’ll be a second-string player to a European Union or a Pan Asiatic Alliance or some such. Or, perhaps, in fifty years the US per se will be no more, having been absorbed into a larger North American Union with Canada, or perhaps some actual functioning world government will have emerged. But I don’t see any actual evidence of decline; what I see evidence of is that we’re not living up to a mythical ideal that we never lived up to previously.