Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Todd]

You can't imagine anything else than either empire or anarchy, can you?

I cannot write for Scarpia, but for thousands years, all over the world, empires have held sway.  Their relative power may wax and wane, and the names they assume may change, but powerful political entities quite often seek power over others.  I don't see any end to that in the near future.  It's possible to imagine anything; it's far more difficult to implement imaginary things. 

For instance, let's imagine one broad scenario where the US continues to decline relative to other powers.  That could result in the existing international order weakening to the point of true uselessness, thereby giving rise to a multi-polar or apolar world where low-level conflict between great (or at least major) powers again becomes more prevalent.  Nuclear weapons are of course part of the mix now, and one would hope that nuclear countries would never fight each other, at least directly, but leaders all over the world have shown a certain capacity for at least occasionally making bad, even terrible, decisions.  Of course, a multi-polar or apolar system could also give rise to everlasting world peace, and nation states themselves could simply fade away as people of various nations realize how much they love each other and can gain from cooperation, after they realize just how easy it is to let go of past slights and enmities. 

Either way, seems to me this makes the US election somewhat relevant, whatever one's opinion of the US political system or US global hegemony.  Hence, the thread.

[Florestan]

Well, don't get me wrong: what you say is basically correct and I've stated many times before that I'd rather lived under a de facto US rule than Russian or Chinese --- and actually this is the case; but this doesn't mean that I have to agree to this on principle. If people like you and me and Scarpia ---  and I assume we all are ordinary people with no or little stake in the political game and status-quo --- will continue to think that there is no escape from the imperial logic and that there is no way for the world's people themselves to make the political arrangements they seem fit to their own traditions and inclinations, and that they cannot live side by side peacefully, and that this or that state must needs command over all the others than the prospect is grim: endless arrogance, pride and striving to maintain the status-quo on the domineering part; endless frustration, anger and striving to overthrow the status-quo on the dominated part --- endless "world-wide civil war". for the time being only at economical level, in the not so distant future arguably a full-fledged war as well. This is where the doctrine of "the inevitability of empire" inevitably (pun intended) leads; and history shows irrefutably that no empire ever stood the barbarians. Certainly, the US is, or rather is perceived as, a beacon of civilization and an indestructible guardian of world peace --- but so was Rome in her times, and she fell big time, ushering in a thousand years of slow and painful recovery... Are you prepared to face another Middle Age which necessarily follows from your stance?

[Karl Henning]

Efficiency in government is a laudable goal.

That's just what Akin was preaching! Erm, saying.

[Karl Henning]

... Certainly, the US is, or rather is perceived as, a beacon of civilization and an indestructible guardian of world peace --- but so was Rome in her times, and she fell big time, ushering in a thousand years of slow and painful recovery... Are you prepared to face another Middle Age which necessarily follows from your stance?

No! Like imperial Rome before us, we'll stagger on in denial.

(Oh, I didn't just say that....)

[Scarpia]

Well, don't get me wrong: what you say is basically correct and I've stated many times before that I'd rather lived under a de facto US rule than Russian or Chinese --- and actually this is the case; but this doesn't mean that I have to agree to this on principle.

In what sense are you under de facto US rule?

[Todd]

history shows irrefutably that no empire ever stood the barbarians. Certainly, the US is, or rather is perceived as, a beacon of civilization and an indestructible guardian of world peace --- but so was Rome in her times, and she fell big time, ushering in a thousand years of slow and painful recovery... Are you prepared to face another Middle Age which necessarily follows from your stance?

No empire at the pinnacle of its power lasts forever, that is true.  But they don't they automatically disappear, either.  For instance, China was a great empire for many centuries (the Han didn't start off occupying everything from Shanghai to the Pamirs), and was the first or second largest economy for about 18 of the last 20 centuries, to the extent such things mattered, then became weak, and now is growing in strength again.  Also, the fall of an empire need not result in suffering for the citizens of the empire.  Great Britain ruled a good chunk of the world for a while, then it lost its empire, but the average Briton today leads a rather nice lifestyle by global standards, and it looks even better when compared to the average lifestyle of Britons in 1900, when the sun never set on the empire.

The US will almost certainly continue to decline, but I am not particularly scared by that prospect.  The US is not a colonial empire, so it has no lands to lose, and while it has garrisons the world over, it can bring home the troops, dismantle the machinery of empire, and get back to a greater focus on just making money.  Even if and/or when the current international system is replaced with something else, the US will still benefit from being separated from the Old World, Occidental and Oriental, by two oceans, and it still has rather robust domestic economic potential.  It is essentially impossible to see a scenario where the US loses its military strength completely, its strategic location, or its vibrant populace in the near, medium, or long term future.  The US could end up a smaller player in world affairs, much like it was in the 18th and 19th Centuries, but that's not the same as collapse, and it may not be bad for most Americans.  It may just be.

There is really relatively little value in referring to the collapse Rome.  Who are the barbarians now?  Surely not the Chinese, or Indians, or Brazilians.  Perhaps terrorist organizations?  Then again, perhaps not.  And when was Rome ever a global power?  It was not.  It ruled the most of modern Europe and parts of the Mediterranean basin, and it ruled in a time of limited communication, limited geographical knowledge, limited scientific knowledge, and so on.  (That's not to say that the contemporary world is defined by omniscience, but a little bit more is known.)  When Rome collapsed, a process which took quite a while from what I've read, there were no Dark Ages or Middle Ages in much of the world.  Some parts of the world flourished.  That's one reason why an inherently Eurocentric view is of limited value; there is more to the world than Europe.  Always has been, always will be, and this will be more true going forward.  The lessons one can draw from that history are not quite as all encompassing as you imply. 

[Scarpia]

Looking for a model for US decline, I find the Soviet Union the most likely model.  Fast out of the gate, then arrogance, cynicism, economic stagnation, crushing military expenditures, and finally the nations wealth taken over by oligarchs, who leave the rank and file population scrounging for food.

[Brian]

The US will almost certainly continue to decline, but I am not particularly scared by that prospect.  The US is not a colonial empire, so it has no lands to lose, and while it has garrisons the world over, it can bring home the troops, dismantle the machinery of empire, and get back to a greater focus on just making money. ... The US could end up a smaller player in world affairs, much like it was in the 18th and 19th Centuries, but that's not the same as collapse, and it may not be bad for most Americans.  It may just be.

I think the main damage will be to egos and pride. We are unlikely to grow poorer, sadder, and shorter of lifespan because of a decline of American power.

EDIT: Scarpia, 

[Florestan]

In what sense are you under de facto US rule?

1. Romania is a NATO member and has troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan (in the latter country we are actually the second in terms of soldiers numbers) --- I hope you will not deny that NATO is a US-lead military alliance, just as the Warsaw Pact (to which we were part before 1989) was a USSR-lead military alliance (the fact that I fully support our NATO membership does not change the nature of facts: our army is under US de facto military rule).

2. During the very recent Romanian political turmoils (of which I can safely bet you have not the slightest idea, we are not  a country in the position of shaking the whole world because of our political strife) the special emissary of President Obama, Phillip Gordon, came to Bucharest and summoned to order the Romanian political forces: cease the fight or else ... (the fact that I fully support Romanian political parties being reprimanded from abroad does not change the nature of facts: a US special emissary can dictate to our politicians how to behave).

3. A US anti-missile shield is to be installed in Romania in the near future. The fact that I fully support its being installed does not change the nature of facts: we shall be a US outpost in their quarrel with Russia and Iran.

Don't get me wrong: I feel safer and freer under this US de facto rule than under Russian and I've stated it explicitly. But how long will it last?

[Scarpia]

I think the main damage will be to egos and pride. We are unlikely to grow poorer, sadder, and shorter of lifespan because of a decline of American power.

EDIT: Scarpia, 

Here is a summary of what recall reading in the newspaper recently.  The average net worth of Americans is at a 20 year low.  The median income of American households is at a 20 year low.  The fraction of the US population that holds a job is at a 20 year low.  The fraction of the US population which depends on the US government for food is 15%, a 30 year high.   Unemployment or underemployment of young people who are supposed to be establishing their career paths is at 25%.  These are hurting more than pride, these are setbacks that have wiped out 20 years or more of economic progress.  Can you show me a sign that the economy is poised to retake those losses?

[Florestan]

The US will almost certainly continue to decline, but I am not particularly scared by that prospect.  The US is not a colonial empire, so it has no lands to lose, and while it has garrisons the world over, it can bring home the troops, dismantle the machinery of empire, and get back to a greater focus on just making money.  Even if and/or when the current international system is replaced with something else, the US will still benefit from being separated from the Old World, Occidental and Oriental, by two oceans, and it still has rather robust domestic economic potential.  It is essentially impossible to see a scenario where the US loses its military strength completely, its strategic location, or its vibrant populace in the near, medium, or long term future.  The US could end up a smaller player in world affairs, much like it was in the 18th and 19th Centuries, but that's not the same as collapse, and it may not be bad for most Americans.  It may just be.

That's one reason why an inherently Eurocentric view is of limited value; there is more to the world than Europe.  Always has been, always will be, and this will be more true going forward.  The lessons one can draw from that history are not quite as all encompassing as you imply.

Well, on one hand you say that the US is not going to suffer much from their "empire" collapsing, and OTOH you say that there's more to the world than Europe. Not a very consistent logic: you accuse me of being Eurocentric while extolling the virtues of US-centrism: Europe may go to blazes as long as US survives. It is here where our visions part irreconcilably. If you think that US can survive, albeit in a diminished form, while all other regions of the world, Europe first and foremost, succumb to the Chinese or Russian rule you are as wrong as it gets.

[Florestan]

Here is a summary of what recall reading in the newspaper recently.  The average net worth of Americans is at a 20 year low.  The median income of American households is at a 20 year low.  The fraction of the US population that holds a job is at a 20 year low.  The fraction of the US population which depends on the US government for food is 15%, a 30 year high.   Unemployment or underemployment of young people who are supposed to be establishing their career paths is at 25%. 

These are frightful figures. I won't ask who's to blame, but: what's to be done?

[Sammy]

Elections in Norway, anyone? Switzerland, anyone? Denmark, anyone? The Netherlands, anyone? Why is it that only the US elections stir such passion across the world?

Because the US is the best and most envied.  The sour grapes are bursting out of your mouth.

[Florestan]

Because the US is the best and most envied.  The sour grapes are bursting out of your mouth.

Oh yes, the land where all men are equal and some are more equal than others... 

(I know, I know, it has always been like that everywhere but US is the only country in the world pretending to be otherwise...      )

(And yes, I know a joke when told one, it's just that I adore contradicting people... after all, as comrade Lenin said: (damned be his name forever and ever, amen!) truth comes out of contradictions... 

[Todd]

you think that US can survive, albeit in a diminished form, while all other regions of the world, Europe first and foremost, succumb to the Chinese or Russian rule you are as wrong as it gets.

I don't buy the idea that Russia and China are going to rule the rest of the world.  There are many reasons for it.  I won't cover them all, but some highlights: First, though the US is declining and will continue to decline, it is not going to retreat from world affairs in my lifetime.  If and when it does begin to retreat, the US will still have significant enough resources at its disposal to defend its interests if need be.  Russia and China will know that.  Second, Russia has an economy too dependent on natural resources, still suffers from demographic problems, and lacks the ability to project military force at a sufficient level to actually take over any of Europe.  It can certainly use strong arm tactics with its resources (eg, shutting off natural gas), but its array of power is not what it once was, and it is quite difficult to act as even a regional hegemon under such conditions.  Third, China will not be a global power for at least a decade or two.  Hard power still matters, and while the US may shrink its force and its ability to project power, the Chinese are years away from contesting US naval supremacy or air supremacy.  They may not even want to challenge US naval supremacy; China is a huge beneficiary of the official US policy of open sea lanes.  Buying one Soviet carrier and planning to build two that are half the size of US carriers does not make for a formidable blue water navy.  Plus China has its own demographic problems to face, and in some industries is no longer the lowest cost producer.*  Fourth, Russia and China are not the only other burgeoning or reemerging powers out there.  Brazil recently passed the UK in nominal GDP, and is on track to surpass France in the next few years.  India is poised to start overtaking European powers in the next decade.  And they got nukes.  They have to be accounted for.  At its current rate of growth, Turkey will become a more important power next decade.  Fifth, despite current travails in Europe, it sure seems that the first best, second best, and third best option for European policy makers is to pursue greater political integration.  Doing so would have foreign policy benefits, which I'm certain most or all European leaders know about.

So I guess I not only don't see American collapse, I don't see the Russian and Chinese bogeymen that you do.  Perhaps a unipolar world becomes bipolar (ie, US and China) for while before becoming multi-polar with many players.  Maybe effective supranational government could emerge, though I don't think I'll see that in my lifetime.


* A longer-term wildcard here is additive manufacturing.  If it ever achieves scale, China and other low cost producers will begin to quickly lose their comparative advantage in many low value added manufacturing sectors altogether, with all that implies for their economies.

[Florestan]

I don't buy the idea that Russia and China are going to rule the rest of the world.  etc

Sweet dreams, my friend... 

(What you say amounts to "apres nous, le deluge": in the long run we'll be all dead so why care?)

[Todd]

(What you say amounts to "apres nous, le deluge": in the long run we'll be all dead so why care?)

Not at all.  I just don't succumb to fear of bogeymen. 

Now, just how will China and Russia (the latter, in particular) achieve the great feats you predict?

[Scarpia]

Sweet dreams, my friend... 

(What you say amounts to "apres nous, le deluge": in the long run we'll be all dead so why care?)

Neither Russia nor China would be my pick for ruling the world.  Russia's prosperity depends on selling oil and gas, which it is not even able to extract without the aid of western expertise.  Kleptocracy is not an efficient form of economic management.  China has won the race to the bottom in the sphere of low cost manufacturing but one-child policy is also creating a demographic time bomb that will go off to in the coming century.  That is not going to put it in a position of economic leadership.  The fact that the US is in decline does not imply that it will be replaced by another dominant superpower.  It will simply reach a point where the US is no longer economically competitive and will fall behind other developed economies in terms of human development.   I suspect the future will be defined by wallowing tubs of human misery and deprivation (US, China, Russia) and small, wealthy vibrant states (Korea, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, maybe Finland, France, Switzerland).

[Brian]

Unemployment or underemployment of young people who are supposed to be establishing their career paths is at 25%.

You're asking a personal question. I am one of these people. Tomorrow is my 23rd birthday and I am laughably underemployed at a company where I am paid by the hour on a temporary basis to compare PDFs and see if the people who generated them added any errors to the texts they contain. This morning I had a meeting with a brand-new boss, who, after hearing me list my education and work history, said, "what on earth are you doing here??" I have applied to 52 jobs in the past 52 weeks, which is fewer than many unemployed people because I work 40 hour weeks and want to continue living in Texas (I know people who've applied to 200+), but these have resulted in 6 interviews, 3 of which ended in me never hearing back about the hiring decision.

There are obviously many problems. For one, I clearly chose the wrong skillset. I am a writer, and an editor, and if it's not egotistical to say so, I am unusually good at both. My writing once got a praisequote from Joyce DiDonato. But America evidently doesn't need writers.

So am I supposed to be establishing a career path? Probably. Am I? Definitely not. Whatever job I land next will probably be yet another "filler" job to bide my time. In many ways I'm luckier than a lot of my fellow recent graduates: I am receiving a paycheck, I have supportive parents and friends (although my friends all live quite far away), I don't have any student loan debts, and I have genuine ability and published writing clips. But no, I don't see any sign that the economy will improve significantly, I don't see any sign that I have a place in it, and I don't see any hope of achieving the kind of financial security and career satisfaction that my parents have.

Even my engineer friends are significantly underpaid comparable to entry-level engineers in years past; my best friend is an engineer who tells me she's in the 25th percentile for recent college grads in her field. But she's 23 and owns her own modest home (four-room condo), so she has me beat by a solid 5-10 years.

[Todd]

I suspect the future will be defined by wallowing tubs of human misery and deprivation (US, China, Russia) and small, wealthy vibrant states (Korea, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, maybe Finland, France, Switzerland).

Hey now, worst case the US will have both wallowing tubs of misery and wealthy, vibrant areas.