Decline Or Fall?
Here's an article from the UK claiming Obama will be "the first US President to manage an empire in decline." (Let's leave aside the fact that America, unlike the UK a century ago, isn't an empire.) Europeans have been trying this gag out since the end of WW2. They apparently can't get over the fact they're not in charge any more.
Now it's true if Obama governs poorly, the U.S. will not be as big a player, but that's hardly guaranteed, and I'm guessing Obama (now that the he's steering the ship) will do what he can to avoid this outcome. In any case, I can't see him screwing the pooch so much that in four or eight years, we still won't be the most powerful nation on the planet.
America won't stay on top forever, but what Europe doesn't understand is wishing won't bring about that decline any faster.
(Europe's also mad we don't hate Israel as much as they do. If Obama goes along with them in this, it would be a major step in making the U.S. less vital in world affairs.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:46 AM
5 Comments:
You suggest America won't be on top forever, but is that a knee jerk position based on the assumption that nothing lasts forever? I think it is quite possible that after a few more centuries of American dominance economically and militarily, other sections of the world will eventually become at least defacto parts of the American system.
If the American system is seen to be the most sure way to promote stability and increasing living standards, I would think other nations, one by one, without relinquishing their sovereignty, would become essentially additional states in the system, through treaties and international law. Canada would probably be the first nation to do this (isn't it half-way there already?).
Since nothing lasts forever, I wouldn't call this a knee jerk position. Quite the opposite. It's just the basic understanding that no one can safely predict the future, but we can be relatively confident that as long as all humanity isn't destroyed, there's a long history of change, sometimes gradual, sometimes quick, that makes it highly unlikely for any nation to stay on top.
Hey DG,
I gather the Big O2 has already passed his health care plan and your supply of cannabis is both advance delivery and depleted.
It's far more likely that the US will be part of the "international law" of the UN by the time Obama ends his term. We've had a brief respite from the International Criminal Court, but no more.
SWMBCg, etc.
Well, I don't think it is likely that the UN is going to be the foundation of any real world government. It is hopelessly corrupt and inept. And it is a political morass, dominated by third world countries in terms of members, but controlled by 1st world powerhouses, and ultimately stimied in doing anything meaningful because of the security council vetos.
I also do not think an Obama adminsitration is likely to submit US citizens' rights to international adjudication, nor US troops to international control. Those types of moves would be a quick ticket out of the White House in 2012.
As for inevitable change, I'm not denying that 1000 years from now, things will look a lot different. I just don't think it is inevitable that the American system will collapse or be replaced. I think it is quite likely it will evolve over time into a world-wide organization, because the benefits it brings to citizens are generally desired by all people around the world.
Thank you Francis Fukuyama.
Post a Comment
<< Home