AMERICA IN DECLINE?

For many years I have pondered the question of American decline. Numerous books and essays have been written over the last few decades about the possibility that the American Empire will follow the path previously taken by the British Empire, the Spanish Empire and the Roman Empire. Essentially, these Western global superpowers of history all overextended themselves financially by spending too much money on military adventures abroad and domestic programs at home. The Romans and Spaniards exacerbated the problem by allowing themselves to be governed by too many foolish emperors, and the British people, who governed themselves, became foolishly overconfident in their own power. So, are we Americans on the same path?

Andrew McCarthy, in writing this piece about the debt ceiling debate, argues that we have already reached our Day of Reckoning. We are adding so much to our national debt so quickly that we are already on an unsustainable and ruinous path. Therefore, he argues that we ought to have the crisis now, and he has faith that the American people voted for fiscal sanity in 2010 and will back the Tea Party Republicans in their efforts to restore that sanity.

I disagree. There is no such thing, when voting is concerned, as "the American people". There are millions of individual American voters, all of whom have an image of the world as they think it is, which is oftentimes completely different than the world as it really exists. Those voters coalesce into voting blocs based on conditions at the time of the election. Some are ideologically hard-wired to vote a certain way and maintain that voting pattern almost irrespective of all other conditions. Others are more impulsive and emotional. Others vote based on their assessment of the personalities and qualifications of the individuals on the ballot. If one understands that this is, in fact, the case when it comes to how our people govern themselves, then one can only conclude that "the American people" did not vote for fiscal sanity in 2010, but a coalition of people came together with different motivations and, more importantly, different visions of the state of the country and the problems facing the country, and voted for GOP candidates more than for Democratic candidates.

In a few days, unless some compromise is reached, the U.S. government will be unable to spend above the debt ceiling. Unless I miss my guess, events will unfold pretty much as Megan McArdle describes them here. Interest on the debt will continue to be paid, along with military salaries and other monies for ongoing military operations, Social Security checks and Medicare/Medicaid payments will still go out, and bills for services already rendered will be paid (all of which to reassure the markets that the government will still meet its basic obligations). Everything else will be on the chopping block. Most of the rest of federal operations will have to be put on hold. This will create a crisis atmosphere, no doubt fully exploited by the media (ratings and revenues, my friends, ratings and revenues). Markets will drop even with the aforementioned assurances. It will be bad news all around.

Someone once said that "the people" are a sovereign who can say only two words...yes or no.

Make no mistake. "The people" didn't vote for anything in the last election. A coalition came together that helped elect a Republican House in 2010. A new coalition may come together and give it back to the Democrats in 2012. The sovereign who rules America with only two words and has an unreal vision of the world is just as dangerous as any dissolute, half-mad Roman or Spanish emperor ever was, with consequences just as dire for this country as it was for those lost empires.

Over the last few years I have written a number of posts on this blog predicting that we will see another big, global war within the next decade or so. As you know, the world has not experienced a truly big war (one that involved the most powerful nations on the planet arrayed on opposite sides in direct conflict) since 1945. Why have we enjoyed such a long period of peace? There are, of course, a lot of theories about that one, but the answer that makes the most sense to me is the one that combines the existence of nuclear weapons with the ability of the superpowers to achieve their economic and ideological goals without going to war with one another, thus risking the mass destruction those nuclear weapons would cause. With the collapse of the Soviet Union the world has briefly enjoyed a period with one superpower. That, of course, cannot last. Other great powers are emerging, especially China.

Still, just because there is more than one great power (or superpower) does not mean that a big, global war is necessary or inevitable. Why, then, should we worry? Fundamentally, we need to realize the reasons why wars happen in the first place, big or small, global or local. Economics and/or ideology is the starting point for all wars, in my estimation. One nation's leaders decide that their economic or political survival in their cherished, ideological vision of themselves is imperiled and can only be salvaged by making war (Japan's forays into China in 1931 and 1937, followed by her attacks on the Western powers in 1941). Or a nation is consumed by the messianic vision of her leader (Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). Or a nation's leaders decide they must preempt a rival's attack (Israel in '67). Or there is a competition over land or resources that neither party wishes to resolve simply through talk and compromise (India vs. Pakistan several times).

We have enjoyed since 1945 decades of economic growth (on average) in the Western world and Asia, and we have watched as numerous developing countries have tapped into their economic potentials. While we have seen numerous wars over that time, all have been relatively small and localized, at least as compared with the two world wars. While some have involved enormous casualties (Chinese civil war from '45-47, India and Pakistan in '47) and even led to genocide (Cambodia, Rwanda), none have grown to a global scale or have directly involved the greatest military and economic powers of the Earth.

This is about to change. Why? Read this piece by Caroline Glick about the economic, social and political conditions now facing countries like Egypt and Syria. When the leaders of a country are facing a populace on the brink of starvation and their nation on the brink of ruin, they have a tendency to do rash things. If this economic ruin were limited to the Arab nations, it would not necessarily lead to global conflagration. But it seems increasingly clear to me that widespread economic ruin could very well strike the rest of the world due to the financially precarious condition of Europe and the United States. We may not have seen the real repeat of the Great Depression yet. It may be yet to come.

Much ado today about the deal offered by the GOP Senate leader on raising the debt ceiling. It seems like a canny political move designed to put the onus on the President. If, however, a failure to raise the debt ceiling does lead to dire economic consequences, I think the GOP will take as much or more heat than the President.

Bill Kristol thinks the McConnell plan is dead in the water and has some alternatives.

Martin Wolf believes that ideologues are responsible for two looming financial disasters. He equates those in Europe who put their faith in the European Project, which led to the single currency and the continent now on the financial brink, with the Tea Party anti-tax folks in the GOP who are willing to risk a global financial meltdown by refusing to raise the debt limit. If failure to raise the debt limit does lead to a financial crisis I predict it will not last for long and it can be quickly fixed, at least in the short run. Unfortunately for the Europeans, the Eurozone mess cannot be fixed easily or quickly.

Michael Goodwin has some scathing remarks about the President's handling of the situation.

Charles Krauthammer is equally contemptuous of the President's positioning and posturing on the issue.

On the other hand, liberal columnist Harold Meyerson believes the debt talks reveal the Republican Party is dominated by people who wish to make war against government. As usual, Meyerson believes this is due to the inherent racial animosity and fear of the majority of white Republicans. Why it can't just be about a different philosophy of government I simply cannot fathom. But Meyerson, like so many liberals, simply cannot believe that knowledgeable people of intelligence and good will can come to a different conclusion about the proper role of government in modern life. People who have a different view, like conservatives and libertarians, must therefore be motivated by greed, fear or racial hatred.

Why are small business owners not hiring? Unless the economy starts booming again, it simply costs more to hire people than they are worth in terms of generating profits.