Prior to World War II, the US was one of many world powers - economically and militarily. Following WWII, the US gradually assumed the role of the "world's policeman" because the United Nations was a toothless tiger, but then it was designed to be a "peacekeeping" organization reliant on its members to provide enforcement against the rogue states, such as Serbia, North Korea, Iraq, Tanzania, Sudan, and other non-national organizations, such as Shining Path, Al Queda, Hamas, Somali Pirates, and other terrorist or insurgent groups in failed nation-states around the world. Now that China is in ascendancy, both economically and militarily, the exit of the US from the role of the World's only Super Power leaves a vacuum. And, as surely as Nature abhors a vacuum, China will gladly, if not even so gradually, fill the void.
Does President Obama seem aware of this? And, if he is aware, does it matter to his world view and the role that the US should play? The evidence is readily apparent from his attitude toward Israel, Europe, Japan, and other traditional allies. He shows more deference toward Castro's Cuba and Chavez' Venezuela than he does toward Uribe's Columbia.
This attitude is readily explainable, especially for someone who grew up during the 70s and 80s, went to college in the 90s, and worked as a social worker in the 90s and 2000s. It is the attitude that the rich are oppressors, that the US wields its power to maintain the oppression of the rich, and despite the tyranny of Communism in the USSR, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba and elsewhere from WWII to the present, that communism in the form of wealth re-distribution is good.
Obama's attitude and his belief system are the antithesis of the Protestant Ethic, the principles on which the USA was founded in 1776. This is what evolves under a secular, egalitarian, progressive ethos. That evolution would not be so bad if the ideal of caring for the least among us had not been corrupted along the way. The corruption is that those in power get to decide what is best for you and me, while reserving for themselves what is best for themselves. That is raw power being exercised and it is important to one's prosperity and well-being to stand as close as possible to those who exercise that power. As Lord Acton observed during the 19th century, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is the lesson of the French Revolution and the fall of Louis XVI, followed by the rise and fall of Robespierre and the Jacobins in the Terror, and the rise and fall of Napoleon, who crowned himself Emperor.
In the great sweep of history, the seeds of decline of nation-states and empires are sown even during the period that the rise to power and wealth is taking place. So, now, the question is whether the US empire is in decline or only going through a transition? From President Obama's perspective it is a transition to a situation in which the US is just one of many world powers. In this world view, it is quite alright for China to rise, and in doing so, the economic conditions and living standards of millions of impoverished peasant farmers is improved. Who can disagree with this outcome?
Personally, I would not object. That is, of course, as long as the economic conditions and living standards Americans enjoy does not decline. To Max Boot's point, is it necessarily a negative that the US becomes more insular as it cares for its own people, while giving up its military super powers? There are a number of considerations at stake in such a world view: if the US becomes less attractive for economic refugees, will illegal immigration decline? If we become less rapacious as a consumer of scarce natural resources, will the Islamic extremists adopt a new attitude towards the Great Satan? Will universal access to medical care lead to a healthier population? Will public education succeed in instructing the next generation of leaders in science, medicine, law, engineering, agriculture, culture, and education?
The Obama attitude is certainly a change from the mythology of American Exceptionalism that evolved over the last 65 years. Whether it is an improvement is yet to be determined. Over the next 50 years I think I will hedge my positions in a rational manner by moving out of major cities and moving closer to necessary resources such as clean water, arable land, and upwind from radioactive clouds. Am I leaving out anything?
No comments:
Post a Comment