Something that bothers me in every debate or news article about the economy, unemployment, debt ceilings, etc is that they all seem to focus on the point that America is in the decline, and this is the worst thing possible in the history of humanity. The media, politicians, and many posters on this board act like the second we lose our #1 standing (in whatever measure you choose), our society will instantly devolve into a starving, broke, and crime-ridden 4th world country.
In all seriousness, what’s the worst that can happen? Are people in other 1st world countries that aren’t #1 really that unhappy in their daily lives? What’s so wrong with having a moderately sized home, having to budget for your wants vs your needs, driving a fuel-efficient car, and so forth? Everyone acts like it would basically be the apocalypse to not be the richest nation in the world.
You should have seen the reports in the news right before the fall of Rome also. You would think the world was ending, but it was just making room for the next empire. The same story echos throughout history and for that matter scripture.
Der Trihs is right in saying that though the US talks a lot about those goals, the reality is quite a bit different. Not to say the US didn’t have some good points, but it’s not the world’s savior as it tried to make itself out to be.
I think it would be great if we weren’t #1 and didn’t have to worry about it. However, we made so many blood enemies attaining and maintaining our #1 status that the second we let up, we’ll get destroyed, not just allowed to be #3 or #8 or whatever. This is the unfortunate blowback of our hegemony. When the inevitable fall comes, it will be precipitous.
How will history remember the US empire once it collapses and the ones we have oppressed gain power and tell the stories? I’m sure the history of the US will not be told in such glowing terms as the US defines itself today, and will fit nicely into past patterns of empires.
I do hope as all the empires that rise and fall over time that there is a general trend towards a better humanity.
I can see the reasoning, but does history support it? Great Britain fell from its status as #1, and is doing reasonably well today. Its enemies didn’t destroy it. Sweden, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, all have (at various historical eras) been top dogs and then fallen to a lesser status, without being destroyed by their victorious enemies.
Personally, I think it’s time for the U.S. to retreat to a comfortable semi-retirement, spending more money on, say, health care, and less on weapons.
"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? "
I see little evidence that in terms of foreign policy America is acting any better than modern day China or India, no. For that matter, modern day Britain isn’t acting like 17th century Britain - I’m not sure why you brought them up.
I actually think that the US’s position as sole superpower is safe for some decades yet, and the threat is not from China per se. The fact is that the USA is the most benign and democratic superpower the world has ever had. Yes, I realise that the US empire has done very bad things and abused its power, but compared to the Mongols or the Soviet Union it’s like a friendly uncle. And the dominant empire that came before it, the British empire, wasn’t that bad by historical standards either (pausing to acknowledge that, yes, the British did Very Bad Things too). The general historical trend appears to be away from oppressive empires run by lunatics, towards more cooperative groups of states in which some merely have more say than others.
Absolutely. I was so distraught that the British Empire dissolved and the world maps no longer had all those expanses of pink that I had to emigrate to the US to be back at #1.
Seriously, though, there is nothing wrong in falling from being “the” to merely “one of the” richest countries in the world. And you can let the new #1 incur most of the world’s military costs.
Say for example that Japan became the dominant source of entertainment in the world. Japan is still a very sexist country, where women are expected to quit and become housewives before the age of 30. They are expected to be submissive, obedient, and caring.
Now imagine that the majority of TV, music, and movies all bore messages to this effect. Do you think that this would have zero effect on the world? I’ve been told that Japanese owned companies, in the US, with 99% American workers, have more cases of sexual harassment than any other comparable American business because of the corporate climate that drifts down from the top of the company and I have no particular reason to doubt the veracity of that statement, since it was a Japanese university professor who related it to me, not a Japan-basher.
While subtle, the US has a huge influence over the rest of the world. To be certain, some other nation might have an even more positive effect on the rest of the world, but 90% of all nations would have a far more negative effect than us. Without knowing to whom the needle will swing, it’s safest to keep it where it is.
Great OP. I totally agree that there needs to be more questioning of the widespread assumption that we (the US) must “continue to be number one” (I guess they mean militarily and, in some respects, economically, plus in terms of popular cultural influence).
For one thing, to assume that this is even possible is to be ignorant of the comings and goings of empires and nations throughout history.
For another thing, it puts too much emphasis on the nation-state as the be-all and end-all, period. (I admit it’s still a very strong unit type nowadays, but that in itself won’t last forever.)
One aspect to this assumption is the annoying reflex that we have to “do something” whenever there is a crisis of any sort, anywhere in the world. Yes, we all want to do what we can to prevent the next Rwanda. But does Mexico (say) fret about what role it should take in, for example, the Syria issue? Of course not. I’m not saying we should be isolationist; but it sure would be nice to let someone else take over this self-assumed “responsibility” for a while. Perhaps that sounds selfish, but think of all the money we’d save (and the occasional full-out mistaken military interventions we’d avoid) if we didn’t have such high-and-mighty self-regard. (Some may point out that, especially since 9-11, the politics and events even in the most remote corners of the world can have real-life consequences within th US borders; but that seems to me further reason to follow my advice, as the *specified motives *behind the 9-11 attacks were about US meddling overseas.)
Positive effect ? Meh. Whether we’re talking Hollywood or foreign policy, the main cultural exports of the US are “might makes right” and “money is the end all, be all of existence”. Oh, and the extreme usefulness and versatility of the word “fuck”. I mean, say what you want about Communism as a political system in practice, but at least as an idea it has heart. Accumulating more shit than the neighbour, looking out for number 1 and fuck everyone else ? Not so much.
I have no idea what an Indian cultural hegemony would be like, and I’m not saying it would be any better, but it can’t be much worse either. There’d be more spontaneous dancing, for one thing
