Will 2020 mark the transition of world leadership from West-to-East?

[septimus]

I just read two newspaper opinion pieces which I found dismaying, even frightening. The first was Ross Douthat calling Western society “decadent.”

But what if the feeling of acceleration is an illusion, conjured by our expectations of perpetual progress and exaggerated by the distorting filter of the internet? What if we — or at least we in the developed world, in America and Europe and the Pacific Rim — really inhabit an era in which repetition is more the norm than invention; in which stalemate rather than revolution stamps our politics; in which sclerosis afflicts public institutions and private life alike; in which new developments in science, new exploratory projects, consistently underdeliver? What if the meltdown at the Iowa caucuses, an antique system undone by pseudo-innovation and incompetence, was much more emblematic of our age than any great catastrophe or breakthrough?

“What fascinates and terrifies us about the Roman Empire is not that it finally went smash,” wrote W.H. Auden of that endless autumn, but rather that “it managed to last for four centuries without creativity, warmth, or hope.”

Whether we are waiting for Christians or barbarians, a renaissance or the Singularity, the dilemma that Auden described is now not Rome’s but ours…
… that supposedly most American of qualities, wanderlust, has markedly declined … [and] … Americans are less likely to switch employers than they were a generation ago.

… [We are] cycling … backward to fights that were fresh and new in the 1970s and ’80s. The hysteria with which we’re experiencing them may represent nothing more than the way that a decadent society manages its political passions [approaching] radical politics as a sport, a hobby, a kick to the body chemistry, that doesn’t put anything in their relatively comfortable late-modern lives at risk.
…
The terrorist in 21st-century America isn’t the guy who sees more deeply than the rest; he’s the guy who doesn’t get it, who takes the stuff he reads on the internet literally in a way that most of the people posting don’t, who confuses virtual entertainment with reality…

If you want to feel as if Western society is convulsing, there’s an app for that, a convincing simulation waiting. But in the real world, it’s possible that Western society is leaning back in an easy chair, hooked up to a drip of something soothing, playing and replaying an ideological greatest-hits tape from its wild and crazy youth.

So you can even build a case for decadence, not as a falling-off or disappointing end, but as a healthy balance between the misery of poverty and the dangers of growth for growth’s sake. A sustainable decadence … because the more revolutionary alternatives are too dangerous, and a simple greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number calculus requires that we just keep the existing system running and give up more ambitious dreams.

This piece struck a bell with me. Inspired by the apparent progressivism of some Americans I’d been listening to “I dreamed I saw John Hill last night,” an old working-man’s ballad. But the song is silly now: Americans aren’t organizing unions; they’re competing for gig jobs. We’re not landing Men on the Moon either; we’re designing new iPhone apps to order espresso. Just as the Romans who conquered Gaul and Britain are not the Romans who declined for centuries under their Emperors, so the Americans who landed on the Moon are not today’s Americans.

But Douthat’s article was written before the coronavirus became a big scare. How will our decadent empire cope with that? I read an article contrasting the responses from China and U.S.A. to the coronavirus:

Consider this: In China tens of million had been put on lockdown and three new hospitals were built by the time the country reached the infection statistics that the United States has now. And still the reaction was universally deemed to have come too late. What gives Americans confidence that they are in a better position than China was back then? The only explanation I have heard is that America and China have different political values, but surely to expect that your values can defend you from the world is what defines a religious rather than a scientific approach to life.

This is where it might be apt to return to the point above about seriousness. So far the most memorable image to come out of the United States during the epidemic is not that of a new hospital but the stunt orchestrated by Representative Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), who mocked coronavirus concerns by wearing a giant gas mask onto the House floor to vote for an emergency spending bill to fight the virus. People in China are taking notice and stepping up their propaganda campaign. The main message? Can you trust America to do the right thing during an emergency?

Hence the thread title. When history books are written a decade or two from now, there is a fair chance that this epidemic will be viewed as a key turning-point in human history, where leadership moved from the Atlantic to East Asia.

[Leaper]

Is the author, or you, arguing that the U.S. could have followed China’s lead? My understanding was that civil liberties were a big reason why we couldn’t. Is that not the case? (And one of the hospitals did kind of collapse, so there’s give and take there…)

[Tatterdemalion]

I think it might be more accurate to say 2016 than 2020.

[RioRico]

@septimus

I just read two newspaper opinion pieces which I found dismaying, even frightening.

Opinion pieces are SUPPOSED to generate such reactions. Facts are superfluous.

Inspired by the apparent progressivism of some Americans I’d been listening to “I dreamed I saw John Hill last night,” an old working-man’s ballad.

JOE Hill, not JOHN Hill. “This is my last and final will. Good luck to all of you - Joe Hill.” Don’t have a copy of the IWW Little Red Songbook handy, eh? And the “old working-man’s ballad” was a poem by a British TV writer. But it sounds good anyway.

When history books are written a decade or two from now, there is a fair chance that this epidemic will be viewed as a key turning-point in human history, where leadership moved from the Atlantic to East Asia.

Define “leadership” (control? influence?) and its realm. Cultural? USA dominates global media. Economic? Ditto. Political? That’s a function of economic and military power. Spiritual, moral? Beyond my ken.

I’ll point to IMHO the deciding factor for USA global leadership: geography. Not the geography of military invulnerability, but the geography of commerce.

No other nation faces two oceans, linked coast-to-coast with rapid communications, with a huge internal transport network serving a vast temperate-zone agricultural hinterland and dense industrial regions. China, Russia, India, and Brazil are the closest contenders; all are critically lacking. None can as easily project power and trade.

Don’t look to China for moral leadership; they’re busy killing Uyghurs, and COVID may bring down the Beijing regime. Then we’ll learn the meaning of the old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. It’ll get real interesting you-betcha.

Part of the US geographic advantage will evaporate with drastic climate warming. The fix? Annex Canada. Maybe Canucks will teach Yanks some politeness. But I doubt it.

[Spoons]

@RioRico

No other nation faces two oceans, linked coast-to-coast with rapid communications…

Canada faces three oceans, and has a “huge internal transport network serving a vast temperate-zone agricultural hinterland and dense industrial regions.” Australia also does. And they both have rapid communications, agriculture, and the infrastructure that allows them to get goods to ports.

As for two-ocean nations, I can think of Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Colombia. Oh, and South Africa. I’m pretty sure that all these countries are linked coast to coast, with rapid communications. They certainly have temperate-zone agricultural hinterlands.

Now, three oceans, and the ability to grow crops, build machinery, and get all those goods to port? Canada and Australia can, but the US doing the same on the “two oceans” argument means nothing special in this regard. I’d suggest that you rethink your argument.

[pool]

If China really had any foresight I don’t think they’d have a cripplingly large population that they can’t take care of, I mean shit we don’t even take care of our much smaller population in the United States.

That said in many ways I think sometimes the US society has turned into a bunch of decadent hedonists that realize the world is going to shit and fast and everyone is just trying to have fun on the rollercoaster before it flies off the rails. I think that’s why we see the increases in deaths of despair.

[jtur88]

@pool

If China really had any foresight I don’t think they’d have a cripplingly large population that they can’t take care of,
.

Through most of the Christian era, China had half the world’s population – now that’s down to a quarter. Not that bad, given the late start.

[Red_Wiggler]

@RioRico

Part of the US geographic advantage will evaporate with drastic climate warming. The fix? Annex Canada. Maybe Canucks will teach Yanks some politeness. But I doubt it.

Make that “submit to Canada” and we can talk.

[Icarus]

Well, to be charitable, there has been a lot of ink spilled over the last few years about how what is loosely defined as “western liberal capitalism” isn’t really working out for a lot of people, and they are starting to notice. Hence the support for Bernie Sanders, Brexit, and to a great degree Trump. “Things ain’t right and they need to change!”

Now, whether anyone in real life (other than the political pundit class) is looking to the East and saying, “Huh, they seem to have their sh*t together. Maybe we oughta, I dunno, sign up with them?..” Yeah, I don’t think that’s happening. At all. Even a little.

[septimus]

@Leaper

Is the author, or you, arguing that the U.S. could have followed China’s lead? My understanding was that civil liberties were a big reason why we couldn’t. Is that not the case? (And one of the hospitals did kind of collapse, so there’s give and take there…)

***Thanks for helping develop the point about American decadence! *** There are concerted efforts to deny the right to vote, but many are unaware or don’t care. Twenty-seven states have legislated obstacles to labor unions. Sick leave and other liberties are denied to many workers. “American liberty” has become a joke.

Oh, we do have “Civil Liberties” I suppose! One thread (I didn’t click) wonders if the gummint has the right force us to submit to vaccination. And boy, do we need to ensure the right to isolate quarantine and buy ammo so we can attack the virus with out AR-15s! Millions will die if (when?) the virus is out of control, but we need our guns!

[septimus]

@RioRico

JOE Hill, not JOHN Hill. “This is my last and final will. Good luck to all of you - Joe Hill.” Don’t have a copy of the IWW Little Red Songbook handy, eh? And the “old working-man’s ballad” was a poem by a British TV writer. But it sounds good anyway.

You woke up on the snarky side today! I’ve been listening to three different versions of “Joe Hill” so I do know his name (Joel Emmanuel Hägglund). The substitution ‘John’ was simple aphasia. But you do you.

Alfred Hayes moved to the U.S. when he was three years old; he served in the U.S. Army during W.W. II. But if you want to insist he was British, whatever.

The poem was written about ten or 15 years after Joe Hill’s execution — just as it says in the poem. And Joe Hill died before Pete Seeger was born; that’s “old” enough for me!

[Shodan]

I am not sure of your point - the Chinese are going to take over the world because they can’t own guns, don’t care about civil rights, and they built three hospitals in no time and only one fell down. Uh, OK.

Regards,
Shodan

[RioRico]

@Spoons

Canada faces three oceans, and has a “huge internal transport network serving a vast temperate-zone agricultural hinterland and dense industrial regions.” Australia also does. And they both have rapid communications, agriculture, and the infrastructure that allows them to get goods to ports.

As for two-ocean nations, I can think of Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Colombia. Oh, and South Africa. I’m pretty sure that all these countries are linked coast to coast, with rapid communications. They certainly have temperate-zone agricultural hinterlands.

Now, three oceans, and the ability to grow crops, build machinery, and get all those goods to port? Canada and Australia can, but the US doing the same on the “two oceans” argument means nothing special in this regard. I’d suggest that you rethink your argument.

Canada’s third ocean (Arctic) isn’t exactly awash with trade routes and ports and the transport network mostly abuts the US. Perfect for annexation! I could count the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean as USA’s third ocean. They’re certainly busier than the Arctic.

Australia’s “vast temperate-zone agricultural hinterland” is where, exactly? US ag production is ~7.5x Australia’s by value. (cite) Of course Oz has fewer people to feed and so exports a larger fraction, which is still a lot less. How does Australia’s location lead to world leadership in anything?

Central American 2-ocean nations and South Africa aren’t about to become global superpowers let alone social-moral-cultural leaders. India is also bi-coastal and an even larger ag producer than the US while single-coast China far outproduces any other nation. Neither India nor China shows any inclination for moral leadership.

The USA advantage beside location is scale. Only Russia is comparable but their location sucks - they’ve unsuccessfully fought for warm-water ports for centuries. Contenders China, India, and Brazil are all stuck against mountains. Oz is dry and remote. Smaller states aren’t contenders for global leadership - except in education, happiness, healthcare, opportunity - fields the raggedy-ass US neglects.

The argument isn’t mine alone. Search on “US geographic advantages” for more.

[Leaper]

@septimus

***Thanks for helping develop the point about American decadence! *** There are concerted efforts to deny the right to vote, but many are unaware or don’t care. Twenty-seven states have legislated obstacles to labor unions. Sick leave and other liberties are denied to many workers. “American liberty” has become a joke.

Oh, we do have “Civil Liberties” I suppose! One thread (I didn’t click) wonders if the gummint has the right force us to submit to vaccination. And boy, do we need to ensure the right to isolate quarantine and buy ammo so we can attack the virus with out AR-15s! Millions will die if (when?) the virus is out of control, but we need our guns!

So since it’s already bad, there’s no harm in making it much worse in order to save lives? I don’t necessarily agree, especially not with our current President.

I assume this means you do agree that we as a nation should have taken authoritarian, draconian measures? Examples?

[septimus]

OP dealt in generalities unrelated to the present American debacles. But this article does make a case that America’s severe dysfunction is especially recent.

But in what awful, dysfunctional universe do we live that it has fallen to private companies and philanthropies to deliver necessary medical support in a time of American pandemic? … Even those who are getting tested have to wait at least several days for results; in Senegal, where the per capita income is less than $3,000, they are getting results in four hours. Yesterday, apparently, the CDC conducted zero tests.

What kind of society behaves this way, with a complete lack of institutional guidance and coordinated purpose, subjecting the vulnerable and scared to the terrors of pandemic disease? America, apparently. A few days ago, I wrote on Twitter that the coronavirus, and our distressingly inept response, kept bringing to mind an essay by Umair Haque, first published in 2018 and prompted primarily by the opioid crisis, about the U.S. as the world’s first rich failed state. Every day it seems more prescient, but perhaps never more so than when it was announced that New York City schools could only be closed down as a last-resort measure, because more than a hundred thousand of its students depended on the school system for food and would, if schools closed, go hungry… In the richest country the world has ever known, everyone is on their own and everything seems broken.

I wonder if teachings like this will influence the reflexive response, seen even in this thread, that the American model is superior because Freedom™.