June 10, 2005
Affluence Won't Destroy America's Future - Probably
David,
Congrats on an intriguing and well-written essay (posting of June 9), as well as the heated discussion it engendered. I hope that you will indulge me with a few thoughts of my own about the possibility of America’s eventual diminution.
As you observed correctly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to both physics and politics with equal validity: entropy ensues over time. Thus, every historical empire has failed. It seems to me that the most flexible imperial systems, those that accommodated disorder most effectively such as the British and Ottoman Empires, however, tended to survive time's arrow best. Because a secular democracy within a federated republic that protects human rights and individual liberties adapts to circumstances rather than endeavors to control them, the United States may be able to avoid the dissolution you apprehend.
I share your admiration for twentieth century America, but I believe that you ignore its most crucial precondition for success: imperialistic expoliation. At the end of the nineteenth century, the need of American capitalism for exploitable materials and labor had transcended its borders. As we embarked on our small wars of colonial expansion (our favorite target was the decaying Spanish Empire), we encountered the oxymoron of an imperial democracy. The political leaders of day could not decide whether the United States was liberating indigenous populations or merely replacing a colonial oppressor. We might be able to conquer the Philippines and Cuba, for example, but we could neither incoprorate them into the body politic nor suppress them dictatorially. Hence, we perfected the Puppet State, which engendered the cant and hypocrisy so pervasive in recent American foreign policy. First these puppets were employed as a method of de facto colonialism (remember that Japan's slogan for its attack on America's colonial military base at Pearl Harbor was "Asia for the Asians"). Later they became commingled with our Cold War imperative to oppose the expansion of international communism. Regardless, the imperial fruits of our victory in the First World War fueled the Roaring Twenties; our victory in the Second World War begat the birth of consumerism during the 1950's; and to a lesser extent, our victory over Stalinistic Communism yielded the Clintonian boom.
Obvioulsy, colonialism, either to defend private American interests or preserve the "free world", has become passe'. Yet, the net result of a century of the expansion of the American Empire has been to achieve Woodrow Wilson's ideal of making "the world safe for democracy" to a remarkable degree. It took us a little longer than he anticipated, but notwithstanding the invention of penicillin or a walk on the Moon, I believe that this will prove to be America's most enduring legacy of the twentieth century. I think that the question that you're struggling with becomes, having eradicated twentieth century totalitarianism in virtually all of its multifarious incarnations, where do we go from here? What is America's twenty-first century rationale? Will "liberty and justice for all" simply be supplanted by "greed is good"?
I think that the future bodes many challenges for the American Empire, but I don't share your catastrophic anxieties. First, you don't have to be Durkheim to see the futility in bemoaning the specialization of labor. I'm not interested in hunting for my own food (or even cooking it half the time, for that matter) or building my own house, but I certainly don't begrudge those who do. My skills lie elsewhere, and a sophicticated and specialized marketplace enables me to express and hone them effectively. Second, America has never been the kind of monolithic entity you postulated. Federalist No. 10 tells us that faction has been with us since the creation of the Republic. Although contemporary political arguments may seem a bit strident lately, at least our leaders aren't shooting one another (like Burr and Hamilton) or getting caned in the Senate chamber (like Sumner). In fact, America's greatest strength lies in its abilty to transform the competition inherent in diversity into cultural progress: political freedom, social stability and economic affulence. Further, to equate greed with affluence is to equate lust with love. The former may engender the latter, but not visa versa. Because the cardinal precept of the American canon is predicated upon individuality, some Americans will allow their inherent self-interest (or "self-importance") to transmogrify into solipsistic egotism undoubtedly. A society is not defined by its excesses, however. It's defined by its achievements. If the history of mankind has taught us one lesson it is that our quest for material, spiritual and intellectual improvement, our "pursuit of happiness" however we happen to define it individually, endures perpetually. This may be the elusive "more" to which you refer, and to rail against it is a quixotic endeavor. Finally, I don't believe that some kind of atavistic Luddism will stave off a doomsday conflagration or resolve America's twenty-first cultural malaise. In fact, I believe that the opposite is optimal: we shouldn't run from the future but toward it.
But how?
I think that the crisis facing the United States must be resolved by reaffirming of America's cultural values and its role within the world. One may disagree with President Bush's vision to democratize the Middle East, for example, or with how he has chosen to implement it or even with his sincerity in undertaking it. Nevertheless, unlike the Democrats, at least he has a vision. Most significantly, however, both Democrats and Republicans misapprehend America's domestic and international raison d'être. Mere democracy is not a panacea either at home or abroad. Tyrannies of the majority can and do occur. If the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany had held free and fair elections in 1938, both Stalin and Hitler would have received overwhelming popular support. Further, theocracy is antithetical to democracy, ipso facto. An Islamic or Jewish democracy is as oxymoronic as a Christian, Buddhist or Hindu one. The goal of the United States must be use its considerable influence to induce, rather than compel, every nation on Earth to adopt a limited secular democracy that safeguards human rights and civil liberties. Democracy may not be a panacea, but the equality of opportunity engendered by political freedom is.
The beauty of a federated republic lies in its reliance upon its constituent elements for its effective operation. It is based upon the principle that if each of those elements is predicated upon popular sovereignty and protects both the individual liberties and the natural rights of the polity, each of the subsequent structures it creates functions legitimately. From a school board to a congressional district to a county to a state to a nation, the optimal size of a republic depends upon ideology, not geography. Thus, Montesquieu's assertion that a democracy cannot govern a large nation-state becomes invalid. A large state must be configured uniformly with a plethora of small democratic units for it to function as a republic, but it can do so because, to quote Tip O'Neill's famous aphorism, "All politics is local."
If federalism and technology have eliminated the geographic strictures of republicanism, what inhibits the optimal size of a democratic nation-state? Physically, the size of a republic has no limits, and any boundaries that do exist are purely cultural. For example, one could make an excellent case that Germany and Japan are American colonies in the traditonal sense of the word. They were conquered by a foreign power that disarmed them forcibly and imposed its form of government upon them unilaterally. Even sixty years after the cessation of hostilities, the conqueror maintains a large and active military presence in both countries. Yet, very few people in Germany or Japan (or in the United States, for that matter) would contend that either is a colonial possession. Why? Because the nature of the government that the United States imposed was a secular democracy within a federated republic that respects human rights. Hence, the indigenous population, not the conquering nation, possesses national sovereignty. Thus, what prevents these three nations, for example, as well as others that share the same values and systems, such as the G-7, from strengthening the ties that bind them formally? I believe that the only obstacle is cultural. If so, because America's cultural mores achieve greater global hegemony daily, a unified political superstructure, a transnational democratic confederation if you will, must become the American imperative for the new millenium.
As a globalized economy demonstrates, this process has already begun. (In fact, the primary defect of economic globalization lies the ability of multinaitonal corporations to exploit the current international political power vacuum. Whether it's social economic or political, power is power, and its exercise tends to corrupt. Hence, uncontrolled economic globalization requires a global political organization to counterbalance and obviate the excesses and exploitation inherent in dissipative capitalism.) The process simply needs to be accelerated dramatically and promulgated vociferously by the United States. Thus, America's national rationale for the new millenium must be to redefine the nation-state as a constituent element of a transnational democratic confederation. In this way we can continue the work begun by our founders and achieve the global hegemony of their ideals, not merely socially, politically or economically, but culturally. By creating a multinational republic, we can ensure the success of the American experiment universally and permanently.
The nature of this confederation, its means and its methods, are fit topics of debate. Nevertheless, its existence becomes both more likely and more compelling daily. It seems obvious to me that we only have three choices: lead, follow or get out of the way, and as an arogant (and perhaps self-important) American, I suggest we lead.
I just thought of something rather interesting… When (not “if”) America’s economy collapses, the international corporations born from it will not. For instance, Wal-Mart and Microsoft will still be doing fine. McDonalds will certainly still be serving burgers. It will only be those who are tied down to the U.S. that will suffer. All the people who can go beyond the fetters of a human body (via corporations, over-sea investments etc.) will be fine… unfortunately, that’s not a majority of Americans. Oh, well.
Posted by: Zeek at June 10, 2005 10:52 PMZeek,
The problem is that the mass exodus has already started. American corporations are like rats from a sinking ship. The board members and the bottom line have become more important than the either the product or the employees.
Posted by: Rocky at June 10, 2005 11:38 PMSo, Rocky, you have to ask yourself, do you want to be the rat or the captain that goes down with the ship? I prefer not going down with the ship… I’m too young to have my life ruined by a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: Zeek at June 10, 2005 11:43 PMSo, Zeek. You’re just giving up?
Personally, I’m going to do all I can to plug the holes and keep the ship afloat - even if it means running for office when I get back to the States. Please don’t make me go that far. :(
There are plenty of ways to change the system. But you have to get involved in something first.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 11, 2005 12:13 AMAP, I don’t like the way you say “giving up.” The way I view it, I’m not giving up, I’m just changing myself instead of the rest of the country.
Posted by: Zeek at June 11, 2005 12:23 AMAmerican Pundit,
Unless you were just being facetious I am curious as to what office you might consider running for and, other than it is your right to do so, what qualifications to you bring to the table.
Posted by: steve smith at June 11, 2005 10:33 AMChuck, thanks for the counterpoint. I will let each article stand in defense of our own conclusions. It is too complicated a topic for me debate point by point with the time I have available. But it was good to have another perspective.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 11, 2005 04:17 PMNow that’s a scary thought: with the eventual downfall of the American economy, the WTO becomes the lone power in the international arena with enough resources to actually do something (good or bad). Assuming, of course, that the UN remains as it is, sucking up to the ICC and WTO through ridiculous documents such as the Global Compact.
Posted by: ant at June 11, 2005 05:57 PMant, that is one of the many scenarios that could unfold. The US needs to decide if it is going to stay on board with the world or continue to act like a rogue superpower. For if our economy tumbles, the rest of the world will not be so sympathetic toward a faltering US which had ample notice and warning of its economic pitfalls and chose to ignore them in place of playing the role of a pushy big spender world superpower.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2005 12:35 AMHow about a little lesson in global economic reality?
If the US economy collapses, there will no longer be a WTO—or if there is one, certainly not one which is the “lone power” anywhere but in some dusty and irrelevant office somewhere.
“When we collapse,” the rest of the world—many of whom will be starving to death—will be in no position to opine on the quaint subject of whether or not they’re sympathetic to our plight.
Oh, they hate us out there, it’s true. Sad sacks that they are. But if we go, they’ll be digging for grubs under rocks because American creativity and the American economy is the glue currently
holding what passes for civilization together.
Pauls, your comment says to me that it lacks the ability to comprehend how international relations develop over time, short time, and long time. If you think that the world will fall apart if the US fails, you would be extremely wrong. Countries that depended upon the US, will simply look elsewhere in the world, Australia, Canada, China, Malaysia, and such an event would be a boon to the S. American countries who would quickly move to fill the food export void, if any, left by the US.
But, you see, things don’t happen overnight, and the demise of the US will not be total and complete collapse. Far from it. As our economy worsens, we will work harder to export more food, as our economy worsens, we will be bartering from a position of weakness which will permit other nations to dictate their terms a bit more in their favor, with the realization that the US cannot afford to lose exports, given that our current trade deficit is now headed toward 700 BILLION dollars.
The demise of America’s greatness in the world will be a slow and painful one, if it occurs. A demise by a million cuts, so to speak, as we work ever harder to maintain our trading relations but negotiate from increasingly weaker and more needy positions.
This is already occuring with CAFTA, where the independent organization that scores trade agreements indicates CAFTA will add to the US GDP 0.00 % and it will increase our trade deficit by $100,000,000.00. This is how it happens. We work our ass off for advantage on trade and all we can get is less loss for the effort, but, loss, nonetheless.
Mike Johanns, Agriculture Secretary testified that we are able to produce more than we can sell. What does that mean? It means supply exceeds demand which erodes prices and profits unless we can expand exports or cut supply. But we can’t cut supply because that opens the door for other nations to pick up the slack and increase their market share while we decrease ours.
Demise by a million cuts, cuts in profits, cuts in trade balance, cuts in pricing, cuts in market share, cuts in jobs, cuts in benefits, cuts in real dollar wages, cuts, cuts, cuts.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2005 03:55 AMDavid,
Actually, if you recall, the great depression was happened over a single weekend. It took about 4 days for most stock-traders to lose all of their money, which in turn triggered the downward spiral of the economy, quite rapidly I might add. So I think you are being a bit optimistic when you say the collapse of the American economy will be “slow.” Collapse, by it’s very meaning, implies that it happens quickly and without much resistance.
Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 10:51 AMZeek, that is possible. But, in 1929, our economy was not shored up and entangled with the world economy in any way like it is today. I just don’t see an overnight event causing collapse. A trigger event can occur overnight, but the fallout leading to unrecoverable decline, should that happen, I see taking months or even a couple years.
There is no doubt in my mind however, that the stage is set.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2005 02:05 PMDavid, if you think a collapse is preventable, I would have to say you are mistaken. At this stage in the game a collapse is inevitable. It will only be slow in the sense that it will take a long time to recover from.
Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 02:38 PMInevitability is the province of time-travellers who can bring back visions of the future. There are a number of other scenarios that are possible, not the least of which is a global economic recession which would put all nations pretty much in the same boat, and thus, create more mutual cooperation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2005 03:42 PMsighs… Fine, David, do you want to make a bet? I bet you that human nature is going to be the exact same as it always has been and it is therefore inevitable that the American economy will collapse. If I’m wrong, I’ll change my name to “Served By David,” and never speak against you again. If I’m right, I get to laugh and say “I told you so! SERVED!”
Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 03:59 PMOh, I predict this will happen by 2012. I hope that isn’t farther out than you were thinking :)
Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 04:48 PM2012 ? Hell, Zeek, avian flu or an asteroid will have done us all in by then.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2005 06:44 PMI disagree.
I don’t think that a national economic collapse is either certain or even likely.
Collapses occur when fear destroys hope, just like booms occur when hope destroys fear. Notwithstanding some minor peaks or valleys, the US economy is so dominant that global investors are almost compeled to support it. In short, all that capital pouring out of the US as a trade defict comes back in as foreign investors buy our public and private debt.
The bigger problem is the gap between the industrailized and non-industiralized nations. The multinational corporations that are able to do so must exploit the differences between the two in order to maximize profits.
They produce in nations where capital is weak and scarce (and therefore the costs of labor and materials are low) and then sell in nations where captial is strong and plentiful (and the prices for goods and services are high). This is why we need a transnational government.
The world needs a political/legal organization that can regulate INTERnational commerce like Congress regulates national commerce - for the greater social and economic good of everyone, not just the shareholders. The industrialized nations must band together in order to create consumer economies throughout the non-industrialized world as quickly as possible. Developing nations must become markets for our products, not just markets for cheap labor and materials.
So I don’t think that an economic collapse (or even a substantial decline) in the United States is inevitable or even likely, but I do think that we’re going to have to start thinking about our country and its economy in a different way - more like an interdependent state than an independent nation.
In America, the various states compete against each other on many economic levels, but they’re all part of one big national economy. I believe that we’re simply living through an era were the nations of the world - first the industrialized ones, then the majority and eventually all nations - will realize that they may compete against each other on many levels, but that are all part of one big international economy.
Beacuse there is money to be made, multinational coroporations have beaten governments to the punch - they’re got systems and methods in place to maximze profitability. We need to create a governmental superstructure that will counterbalance their economic power with political power.
In 1886 Clemenceau said that war is too important to be left to the military; today we must say that the global economy is too important to be left to the multinational corporations.
Posted by: Chuck H at June 13, 2005 07:17 PMChuck H, every international trading agreement we have entered into since the 1980’s has been accompanied by ever steepening trade deficits. What does that correlation tell you.
And if you think foreign investors have any obligation to invest in America for any reason other than profit, you’d be very mistaken. That is where APEC and EU and China come in. They are already competing with American markets for investor dollars. Have you been making you killing on the international stocks these last couple years? If not, you should have been. In the not too distant future, they are likely to become clearly more attractive than US markets. Why? Because international markets are growing and have immense room to grow.
The US economy has no where to go but down in light of the looming pension crisis, health care inflation crisis, Medicare/Medicaid crisis, and the more distant Soc. Sec. crisis, not to mention the 2 billion dollars a day America spends on interest on its foreign debt in an environment where interest rates are as low as they are going to get have no place to go but up in the future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2005 08:00 PMChuck,
today we must say that the global economy is too important to be left to the multinational corporations.
The funny thing is, the multinational corporations will survive the looming depression (which I now dub “GDII”) but the American economy will not.
I don’t think that an economic collapse (or even a substantial decline) in the United States is inevitable or even likely
Tell me, Chuck, how do depressions happen? Do you know? From the reasons you gave that the American economy will not collapse, I can tell that you probably don’t. As such, your assertion holds little relevance as it fails to acknowledge the important causes of a depression.
Posted by: Zeek at June 13, 2005 10:44 PM
