However, I am not entirely sure a ‘reliable America’ reputation is good for us. We have been taken advantage of for decades in Military support in Europe from our NATO allies. We have faced Islamic extremism with the sorry aid of lukewarm Muslim allies using our interests as a pawn in their local games.
Other nations can pay their way. If Abe changes the Japanese constitution to build a functional deterant on their dime. Good. It’s their burden also and 70 year old beefs can be set aside .
That’s like saying that you’d be okay with someone dismantling the scaffolding that was put into place to build the dam, but not asking the question of whether the dam is able to stand on its own yet.
I would generally agree that it’s probably for the best that the US not hold the hegemony - not with the current global legal framework and internal election setup, at any rate - but right now is not the moment, let alone moving that direction haphazardly and unintentionally.
If the option was American hegemony or “no need nor way for anyone to have a hegemony” then sure. But right now, someone will have the hegemony. If we abandon it, it’s not going to stay open.
If you think it’s so hard and horrible having to be the 800 pound gorilla all the time, you might want to think about what life will be like as not the 800 pound gorilla before you step down.
I disagree hegemony is necessary for global order. I disagree someone else will have it inevitably. I would even go so far as to say it is bad for the US in the long term. The world will have to learn to cooperate internationally more. Sucks for them, but that’s part of the sovereign nation deal.