Since World War II, America has been the undisputed global economic champion. The majority of Americans living today know only the United States as an economic and military superpower. Unfortunately, history reminds us that there is an expiration date on all great powers. From the Roman Empire to the present moment, great powers eventually fall.
Usually unaware of their decline until it is too late, great powers miss the warning signs. The cataracts induced by their own perceived strength blinds them to reality.
Does America now find itself at the precipice of its global economic power being referred to in the past tense? This is certainly not something likely to happen in the next decade, but if the necessary recalibrations are not realized soon, like its antecedents, America will have sewn and irrigated the seeds of its own implosion.
Writing in The Atlantic magazine, Richard Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said: “When great powers fade, as they inevitably must, it’s normally for one of two reasons. Some powers exhaust themselves through overreach abroad, underinvestment at home, or a mixture of the two.”
I wish to add another characteristic undergirding Haas’ accurate observations, which is arrogance. It is unavoidable, for it is the predictable byproduct of being a great power. From the Greatest Generation to the end of the Cold War, one might suggest that America, like other great powers, came by its hubris naturally.
With its economic status being legitimately challenged, the arrogance that once felt like an ally furthers its erosion. Arrogance is playing the role of Iago from Shakespeare’s Othello, telling America what it wants to hear, while infecting it with jealously and betrayal, ultimately undermining its best interests.
In what CNN’s Fareed Zakaria defines as “the rise of the rest,” America’s response to the emerging threats of economic globalization has been to lapse into a rhapsodic nostalgia that hearkens to a time, assuming it ever existed, that has no chance of returning.
This is the fundamental problem with President Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum. Even if it were to produce an economic advantage, which most experts doubt, it reflects policy based on yesteryear. If protectionism didn’t work when America enjoyed a greater economic advantage, why would it work today?
Ironically, on the same day that America was languishing in protectionism, the Trans-Pacific Partnership went into effect without the United States.
It is legitimate to be concerned with America’s manufacturing job loss and the unfair trade practices by China. But the prescription offered by America is one that is punitive against U.S. allies, while placing its hopes on regurgitating an industry that is essentially antiquated. The latter is not disparagement, but rather a sober assessment.
Jiffy Lube’s co-founder, Stephen Spinelli Jr., in a CNBC article last month, suggested that automation would eliminate one million American jobs by 2026. This is the conversation America needs to have. How do we prepare the populous for the inevitable change?
In the run up to World War II, Franklin Roosevelt during his famous “fireside chats” prepared the American people for the tough road ahead, assuring that victory would occur, but not without some setbacks.
America’s future economic prosperity rests, not with cheap political shibboleths, but clearheaded reality. Tariffs are, at best, political tourniquets designed to stop the bleeding in the short-term, not provide long-term healing.
The serious response to the trade problems is not preparing Americans for jobs that are most likely not returning, but with an eye to the future, having a workforce ready to assume the emerging jobs. That, however, is a proposition that will not materialize before the next election cycle.
It is a false assumption that somehow America can proceed with business as usual as if these challenges will mystically work themselves out. So, as America plays politics, tantalizing a few with useless pablum, the rest of the world is playing: “Let’s invest in future prosperity!”
As President John F. Kennedy stated when he accepted the Democratic nomination for president: “For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do. Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons — new and uncertain nations — new pressures of population and deprivation.”
The threats and weapons that Kennedy referred in 1960 are of a different variety today. It is now the threats and weapons of mind, ingenuity and a commitment to the future. The failure to realize this phenomenon and act accordingly is preparing the American people to take solace in lamenting that they were once a great power.
Rev. Byron Williams is one of the leading public theologians in the nation. He is a columnist, author, and adjunct professor at Wake Forest University. He is also host of the NPR-affiliated broadcast The Public Morality. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism, 1963: The Year of Hope and Hostility, and the forthcoming The Radical Declaration: An Enlightened Ideal Learn more >
If you have an issue with the accuracy of anything I’ve stated, spell it out.
I wanted to comment on the “Elon Poll” entry. The poll was surveying how much people knew about their elect5ed officials and the conclusion, as expected, was not so good. fewer than half knew their local officials, or even which ones were elected’
It occurred to me, tho, that how would people get that info?? Local officials don’t make the national media and local media is severely limited. So how would people know. Especially since politics have become so one sided (everyone is on one side or the other. Altho that is changing.
HI EBRUM don’t want you sloping into disuse
p.s., some one ask who Smarty is. Smarty was my pony. Best frient an old lady could have
Speaking of new weapons, did you see in the news thar the Rusians demonstrated their ability to hack into our power grid and shit it down, and shut down or blow up our nuclear plants? I am so glad we moved south and have a whole house generator wired in to take over when the power fails.
What about it, are you ready for what comes next Ebrun????
Paranoia is not my problem, Smarty. But hang in there, I understand that counseling can be effective.
Mr. Williams essay reflects a fashionable view among left wing pundits who take great pleasure in predicting the demise of American power and influence. While such portents can be readily dismissed as typical alarmist dogma from paranoid collectivists, there no doubt lies a not so subtle theme or undercurrent in their protestations. Do they really believe America is in decline or are they hoping for it? Are they cheering or lamenting whenever America suffers a loss of power or influence on the world stage?
The hostility on the left for American exceptionalism is galvanized by the means historically employed to successfully achieve power and influence—our (predominately) capitalist economy, our (relatively) decentralized political system, our reliance on republican traditions rather than democratic binges that can result from emotional traumas. It is through these means that the ability of the individual to succeed and prosper on such a grand scale here has not been equaled anywhere else in the world.
It is obvious that many on the far left abhor these characteristics that have been successful in achieving American economic power and political stability. Instead, they promote the ascendancy of the welfare state administered by an insidious bureaucracy under the control of socialist politicians who are kept in power through over taxation and subsequent redistribution to favored constituencies.
While this collectivist governing model is the surest was to promote the decline of American “greatness,'” the left will be unconcerned since Socialism is their ticket to their taking societal power and control. So whenever leftists predict the decline of American greatness under conservative regimes, they are merely promoting their own quest for political power at the expense of American exceptionalism..
Yea EBRUN, we knew we could count on you to prove our point!
I am sorry, Smartysmom, did you have a point? I must have missed it.
Sorry you didn’t get it. My point was that without your blather we wouldn’t have any reason to comment.
Your on the right tract, Smarty. keep reading my comments and a dose of reality may eventually sink in.
BTW, why not try using spell check? It will help you with words and phrases like “shit it down,” “theore,” “consistant” and “qccurracy” (really?).
Dear EBRUN:
Instead of feverishly trying to put me in a box to discount the arguments put forth, do yourself a favor: read the piece and if you have specific differences would welcome discussing them judiciously!
Wow, Byron I have to give you credit, you’ve got balls. You’re the first lefty contributor on this blog to challenge me to a discussion,
BTW, I have read the piece and I am not trying to put you in a ‘box’. You define yourself by your opinions in this essay and others that you have authored (and I have read) on this blog and by admirably referencing the leftist opinions of outspoken critics of the current Administration.
Every informed observer of our economy has lamented the fact that automation has and will continue to eliminate millions of American jobs. You offer no solutions, just tired platitudes, e.g., “the world is changing”, or lets have a “workforce ready to assume emerging jobs”, or “the old era is ending”, or””lets invest in future prosperity.” I could cite more, but what is your solution?
It’s surprising to me that a college professor would pen such a sophomoric essay and then claim the intellectual high ground. But my question to you is: Can you honestly state that you are not hoping that the current Administration’s policies fail thus setting the stage for a new, left of center Administration to take power? To me, that is the crucial question that should be addressed before any sort of reasoned, civil debate can be had, at least in this venue on this subject.
“You offer no solutions” is a hackneyed cliche. If you were you were familiar with my work you would not offer the sophomoric analysis that I’m hoping for Trump to fail. Hence, your perjorative use of “lefty”. That is a way to ignore the issues presented. I think tariffs is a failed policy that harms allies and Americans. They have little or no impact on China! Now, is it possible for you to engage in a judicious conversation without seeking to confer intent that was not expressed in the piece?
I am sorry, but trite platitudes just don’t cut it, even if you are only an adjunct professor.
The Administration’s tariffs have not even been put into place, yet you claim they have failed. I understand that they are to be targeted and that negotiations with our allies are ongoing.
I don’t know how effective they will be in today’s global economy and neither do you. Some experts think they will fail while others think they can be effective if properly administered.
And some national security analysts believe our steel and aluminum industries are vital to our national security. You claim that they are “antiquated.” Wow, a “leading public” theologian who is also an expert on national industrial policy?
Your arrogance is emblematic of a liberal ideologue. So in this venue,” lefty” is not a pejorative term, but an appropriate description of your persona.
Smart discussion. But I am wondering if anyone reading this blog knows of and would comment on the view of the future by George Friedman in “The Next 100 Years.”
He speaks of today as one of change and challenge but the US access to two oceans for trade, its identity as a nation of immigrants, and willingness to project military power will keep it in the ascendancy for at least another century. Yes, immigration and free trade are being challenged but he believes that within a generation the US will be paying Mexico to send people to come here and free trade is inevitable. Military policy will remain aggressive.
I personally am betting that electing Trump will eventually be seen like the bad decision made in a bar late one night and the morning hangover and the stranger in the bed beside you will bring mental clarity.
But then again, as that great philosopher Yogi Berra once said “prediction is difficult, especially when it is about the future.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Next_100_Years:_A_Forecast_for_the_21st_Century
Drew, I read the summary in the link I posted. It appears that George Friedman in “The Next 100 Years.” was mostly wrong as demonstrated by what actually happened. I think few of us could have, in 2009, seen what 2016 was going to bring
America’s fall from greatness will be due to our lapse into extremism, apathy, governmental corruption brought on by unlimited special interest money, and misplaced priorities. We, regardless of what we have been led to believe, are not immune from Karma. American Exceptionalism will lead to our American Mediocrity.
David Scott:
If one reads deTocqueville in context, it quickly becomes apparent that his definition and the current use are miles apart. In fact, deTocqueville’s wasn’t complementary!
I read (some where creditable that a foriegn car maker was considering opening a factory in the U.S. but couldn’t find enuf employees who could pass the basic education test required for the jobs. This speaks to the total failure of our public ed system and behind that to our population’s desire to not have any demands mader on it. Mommy and Daddy don’t want little Johmmy to have to compete, they want him to get an A no matter what. Well guess how that is going to turn out!
That is without mentioning finding employees who can pass the drug test. And more to the point, do you want your next car made by someone who is high??
We are the authors of our own destruction and arw doing that at high levels of accomplishment
Between the first and second World Wars, the United States was no world power. The rise of the United States on the world stage occurred after the second World War. The United States had the sixteen largest army in the world, behind Czechoslovakia, Spain, Turkey, Romania and Poland. There were 132,000 soldiers in uniform, and our troops would have been cut to pieces by Yugoslavia’s 139,000 troops. Fortune called our military the “worst equipped” in the world. All our tanks and aircraft were obsolete. MacArthur was the only four-star general, and there were no three-star generals. MacArthur’s aide, Major Dwight Eisenhower, was the Army’s lobbyist. He would requisition of street car token and head to Capitol Hill once in a while to ask Congress for money. (from William Manchester”s The Glory and the Dream.
Pearl Harbor awakened a sleeping giant. We are now a colossus, a military presence everywhere all the time. In the air, on the sea and under it and armed to the teeth on the ground on every continent.
In 1930, halfway between the end of World War I and the beginning of our entry into World War II, the federal government spent $35 billion, and had a surplus of nearly $8 billion. In 2017, the same government spent $4.1 trillion and borrowed half a $ trillion which increased our federal debt load to more than $20 trillion.
Clearly there is a cost to military dominance in the world. The Second World War ruined most of the great nations, making America the most powerful country. Europe and Asia are no longer weak and defenseless.
should read “sixteenth”
This.
“American Exceptionalism” (i.e. “we are above the law”) seems to mean that in order to prevent a “New Hitler” from taking over the world, we had to BECOME that New Hitler and take it over FIRST.
After all, the military mindset dictates that “the best defense is a good offense”.
It’s important to understand that the United States still maintains its occupations of Europe and Japan – 75 years after the war ended. And that we have also continued our aggression against Russia (whom we have invaded twice), much as it was in 1948 – even though the USSR collapsed and Russia is now a Christian nation, even though Russia surrendered control of all of the Eastern Bloc nations, even though we made a deal with Gorbachev not to aggressively undermine former areas of the USSR.
It is also important to remember that whenever one of our client states tries to reassert control over its resources, we bomb them back to the stone age and make sure everyone knows who those resources REALLY belong to. Many of our clients are dictatorial police states enforcing colonialism with no concern whatsoever for either Republicanism or Capitalism.
It is only in the Imperial Core, where ignorance prevails, that our Empire appears to be a capitalist representative democracy, and not the militant corporate socialist security state that it actually is.
After all, we are unprecedented in the history of the world for our massive centralized production of weapons of mass destruction – the cornerstone of our power. No one has ever created more destructive power, or constantly threatened to use it, than we have.
THIS is the historical means by which we gained power and influence. You have to go back to the Mongols to find a comparable power that used mass destruction to intimidate, plunder, and force tribute the way we do. The methods are strikingly similar.
If you take pride in American Exceptionalism, recognize that you are taking pride in lawlessness – in being the most vicious and ruthless bully on the block. A bully who recognizes no rules, and nobody else’s rights to anything.
My comments were made in support of Mr. Scott’s contention that global powers fade with time. The eclipse happened to Rome, The Mongols, Vikings, China, Spain, England and Nazi Germany.
My point was to establish the approximate timeline when the United States rose from the 16th largest military before World War II to the world military and economic power it is today. We emerged from WWII having developed the world’s largest, most powerful economy while every other country was in ruins.
Today, we are the dominant power, but we have gotten to this point by borrowing a lot of other peoples’ money. We have achieved this status on credit. How long can the nation borrow $ trillions to support a police force that spans the globe? Analysts and strategic thinkers believe that our constant need for massive borrowing is America’s Achilles heel.
I disagree that our foreign policy is conclusively imperialist. Unlike the European colonial nations or the former Soviet Union or ancient Rome, we do not send troops to extend our borders. There are statues honoring Bill Clinton in Kosovo as a result of our military intervention and the prevention of the genocide that was unfolding. Our mission was humanitarian. The British have a statue to Abraham Lincoln in the park outside Westminster Abbey. They admire the man who ended slavery.
The United States, at least until now, has exported an ideal. The notion of self-government, representative democracy and, most importantly, freedom. People around the world dream of the kind of freedoms Americans enjoy. By our example, many countries have adopted much of what we have created, and have emulated our laws and institutions.
We did not annex West Germany after World War II. We occupied the territory and rebuilt the economy through the Marshall Plan. Japan is a world power today and hardly under our domination, rising from the ashes of our horrific bombing and nuclear war. Twice in the 20th Century, we sent our men and our treasure to sort out conflicts that did not start with us.
In Rwanda, the people prayed for the United States to stop the holocaust when the Hutu’s slaughtered the Tutsi’s. We did not come to their aid, but they wanted American help. In conflict-ridden areas around the world, people hope to see American salvation in military uniforms. Afterward, we leave.
Beginning with George W. Bush, our foreign policy became infected with the notion of American exceptionalism and moved further to the right. We are not yet a grasping, clutching empire annexing our neighbors. Quite the opposite, we are now trying to keep people away.
Our foreign policy for half a century was containment of Communism. The Communist threat was real and worldwide. We won that confrontation, mostly because Communism was unable to supply goods and services to the people who lived under Communism. Communism was a nightmare offering no privacy, no individual freedom, and no money. It was not a workable economic system. In Russia and its client states, communism was replaced by a kleptocracy which transferred state wealth to a few KGB operatives and a few oligarchs who threaten the United States today. I can find no evidence whatsoever of a Christian democracy in Russia. It is a dictatorship with a leader who has made himself the richest man in the world through graft, corruption, and theft of the peoples’ property, through murder, war crimes and the assassination of his opposition. He bombs schools and hospitals in Syria and poisons people in the United Kingdom. He is an enemy of the United States and a threat to everything we hold dear.
It appears that you do not comprehend the nature of globalization and modern imperialism. If we extend our borders, we have to take care of the people within them.We don’t want that.
But we do have over 800 military bases placed strategically throughout the entire world.
Both Europe and Japan are currently dependent on us for their own self-defense. They are our dependent vassals.
There were statues of Stalin in Warsaw and Ulan Bator.
We can print all the money we want because we possess the world’s reserve currency. But debt = profit for the international banking syndicate, and we DO need them for wealth transfers and economic attacks.
We are still behaving as if Russia is a Godless Communist state trying to take over the world. Russia is structured just as we are – the appearance of representative democracy, with a National Security State actually exercising power behind the scenes. For the uninformed, please google Christian Orthodox Church in Russia. Russia is a Christian nation, just as the old Russian Empire was a Christian Empire.
Walt and Mearsheimer have established that the American political system has become completely unresponsive to the needs of ordinary people. There is no self-governance – it is “he who has the gold, rules.”
And we bomb schools and hospitals wherever and whenever a client state defies the Imperial Will.
The point is that our power and influence flow from the barrel of a gun. Not from the Constitution. We surrendered our position of “light to the world” and have essentially become the new British Empire making the world safe for predatory banking.
Not really. But thanks for playing.