Excellent article.
Various countries are posited as as replacing America as the dominant power. This is usually done by concentrating on America’s problems while ignoring those of the contender.
Europe, Russia and China have structural economic and cultural issues that dwarf those of the USA.
Dominance in the world is relative, not absolute. America could go into significant decline in absolute terms and remain dominant as long as competitors decline at equal or greater rates.
Exactly. China is going to have a meltdown not too long from now. Usually when that happens it means it will split up among provincial warlords, if history is any judge.
But that's not to say that America isn't in deep, deep trouble.
Another candidate for world leader is Brazil. But there, too, they have worse problems than we do. We're probably in for a bad time all over the world, which may last for 20 years or so. I hate to seem gloomy, but it's hard to avoid.
And that large an economic collapse is pretty sure to lead to wars. So, we'll see how it all plays out. Better if Pakistan didn't have nukes. Better if North Korea didn't have nukes. Better if Iran wasn't getting nukes from Putin. Better if Putin didn't have ambitions to reset the Soviet Empire. Because we're going to be seeing a world-wide mess.
“Dominance in the world is relative, not absolute. America could go into significant decline in absolute terms and remain dominant as long as competitors decline at equal or greater rates.”
While perhaps true, it is not at all comforting. America is declining rapidly. Until now, the welfare classes have been confined to the elderly, the poor, large corporations, and trial lawyers. Recently, we added public employee unions. By 2010, the left will have achieved it’s goal of making ALL Americans into part of the welfare class with its health care plan. Welfare classes vote differently and think differently.
This is a huge transition that will quickly accelerate our decline. We have much further to fall than do other countries so the relative ranking will perhaps remain but become relatively meaningless because so small.
From a world viewpoint, America has already abdicated its leadership as a proponent of individual freedom and limited government. Fascism is everywhere on the rise, China, Venezuela, Hondouras. We have joined that parade both internally and in our foreign policy.
America’s principal cultural export used to be the notion of limited government and freedom. All that remains of our cultural export today is the debris from Hollywood and rap music, advocating complete behavioral license (one very small and dangerous part of freedom) and group identity politics, so long as it does not endanger our fascist rulers.
So at least we will remain a leader in the “cheerleading moral decline” zone.
I can think of quite a few times, when reading the comments sections of British newspapers, that commenters have salivated over the scenario of China overtaking American as the lone global superpower. It made not one jot of difference to them that the world under the whip of the Chinese government would be a very different prospect to the world being under the benign leadership of the US. I thought then that I’d never seen people so anxious to embrace their chains, if it would pique their “enemies”, but that was before a majority of Americans (both alive and dead) elected Hussein.
“Various countries are posited as as replacing America as the dominant power. This is usually done by concentrating on America’s problems while ignoring those of the contender.”
I used to agree with that line of thinking, but with Dumb’O in there explicitely stating that his purpose is to reduce the US to “no better than any other country”, I’ve become a pessimist.
Only another Reagan will be able to undo the coming damage. Is there one in the wings?
Right now I’d put my money on China, especially if they loosen up politically. They sure as hell have no intention of being “no better than the rest”. They have a strong nationalist streak and they’re aiming to be #1.
True, but that does not make the statement false. America too may fall apart, for instance. Or commit suicide in some other manner. Most great civilizations are not concurred: they self-destruct and their terrritories are then taken by some other peoples.
Sixty years ago Great Britain owned one fourth of the world surface. Would you say then that forecasts of its decline are false? Declines, even precipitous declines, do happen. "Europe, Russia and China have structural economic and cultural issues that dwarf those of the USA."
Yes, now they do. But who told you that Texas or Southwest of the U.S. cannot separate from the rest of the country in a few years? We had a civil war once; can it not happen again? And, if so, do you know the consequences?
You do what most people do: take a snapshot of reality and, assuming the basic structure being intact, make a forecast. It's the fundamental structural changes that change the relative position of countries. "Dominance in the world is relative, not absolute. America could go into significant decline in absolute terms and remain dominant as long as competitors decline at equal or greater rates."
I completely agree with you. A good supporting example is the Turkish Empire. It has been viewed as a "sick man of Europe" for centuries, but somehow that sick man refused to die.