[Billthedrill]

No to your first, yes to your second - I agree with the article insofar as it is skeptical about declinistic historical models, especially those that when attempting to elevate from a descriptive model to a predictive one find that they must cherry-pick historical data in order to remain valid. When we have the broad class of models labeled "imperialistic" whose claim to validity rests on an indefinite time period we have a real problem. Kennedy's, for example - its proponents insist that it is still valid, it just needs longer to play out. Most neo-Marxist models insist the same.

The difficulty with this is that a model without boundaries is useless as a predictive model, and that describes all of the declinistic models proposed in the article. I believe the author would agree. And if it fails as a predictive model it is useless as a normative model. Hence to depend on any of these for reliable advice on, say, foreign policy, is to go beyond the capabilities of the model. Kennedy got his nose rubbed in that one.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Predictive, schmaddictive. No historical model can be predictive. We can only form theses and defend them with intellectual honesty.

Clearly many who saw decline were just wrong. I see decline of the West in the loss of confidence in the culture. For example, the civilization's people must be "arrogant" enough to force immigrants to assimilate. This is now lacking everywhere in the West.

America may recover that backbone in response to some future crisis. We hope it will not be too late.