The shift in public opinion about America's proper place in the world is perhaps best exemplified by Henry Luce, publisher of Time Magazine during WWII, who in 1941 exhorted President Franklin Roosevelt and policymakers to pursue the "first great American Century." Internationalists such as Luce believed that the US should use its economic and military might to promote democracy and act as the world's Good Samaritan.
The first American Century petered out in the 1970s as US growth slowed and the Soviet Union reached military parity, but it was temporarily resurrected by the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Currently, the great American international project seems to have hit another bump in the road with new economic difficulties, mixed success (at best) in two wars of choice, and serious questions about whether the US can afford prolonged military dominance.
Richard N. Haass, for one, is more optimistic. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that, despite recent troubles, it's time the US pursue the second American Century. American military might is still unmatched while our economy remains strong (if not necessarily as strong as we'd like). While we first have to get our ducks in a row at home, Haass believes we can once again serve as a beacon to the world by establishing a global order of cooperation that promotes international law and solves transnational problems such as global warming.
Read his piece and share your thoughts for participation credit. Do you agree with his assessment that it's possible? Whether or not it's possible, is this something the US should pursue?
Aubrey Wells:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Haas that it is time that the US focus outward in order to reenforce hegemonic power in order to control the common missions of the international arena. Due to our economic and military strength, even in relation to rising powers, we have the ability to sway the international arena to cooperate in order to pursue common interests, and it is crucial that we do this in order to maintain a global lead in democracy and capitalism, instead of sitting aside and waiting for another country to take over with the capability to organize international law in a way that goes against the American interest. For example, if we wait and give China the chance to strengthen their military and economy to the point that they overtake our economy and military, international law and the resolution of transnational problems will be put in the hands of a non-democratic nation that we still have limited information about.
He makes valid points that there is no peer competitor, and that Americans should not fear the rest of the world. I absolutely agree, sometimes I feel that the American government tends to feed citizens with worry in order to instill some sort of nationalism and to make sure to keep control of the people. It makes it easier to rule, when one has an external enemy. As to Haass's writing, I feel he is undermining the alarming issues in our domestic policies. He seems to think that the problems can just be magically fixed and only marginally important. Yes, the United States does a lot of stuff right and has the largest economy with almost $16 trillion, but no one takes into account the distribution of wealth in the country. One article I read said that one percent of the nation owns a third of the wealth. I think this is one problem that will end up undermining the rest of the people in the United States and will cause problems in the future. Politics are not about the people anyone for the most part. Yes, government tries to listen to the people, but businesses and elites have more of a say in the country. He kind of threw me about saying we should lower corporate taxes because in my opinion, our country should get out of debt before even thinking about any tax reform. Lately, I feel like everyone wants tax reform, but what people don't understand is that the government needs this money to run the country. Over the years, everyone has been so quick to cut taxes, and every time the government has to cut spending. In my opinion, the country is not in good shape and is not prepared to have another great century. Many are holding on to this idealized version of the United States, but I think people are slowing coming to the realization that the United States may not be great for "everyone". Many people are left behind in this rise to prosperity, mostly because government is leaving behind. Look at the situation during the Great Recession, the government bailed out the banking sector, but what about all the people that were affected. Do you think that the government is more worried about public schooling or the military budget? And does our country really need to out-spending everyone as much as we do? While I have hopes that Haass is right about the next great century, I hold many doubts because I have not seen much change in the status quo especially when it comes to issues that effect everyone like public schools and infrastructure, which I think are the foundations of the very country we live it. Until the government can get its priorities straight, I can only hope that we can keep growing and becoming better.
ReplyDelete-Lizzie Williams
I think that with the right decisions made that this century could become another century with American dominance. I think our biggest problem is internal. Sure, we have a huge target on our back, but if September 11 was any hint we don't respond well to an attack. In the words of Kelly Clarkson, "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger." I think North Korea needs to take a look in the mirror and realize they are not up for a tussle with us and same goes for Iran. The world runs a little bit smoother with a hegemon in power and the U.S. has done pretty well in that role before. I think Haass is right when it comes to some of the steps needed for a great American century we just to get our act together on the home front. Our public school system, for the most part, is pretty crappy and nobody really knows what the hell is going on with healthcare. The homefront is where our issues need to be solved and then I think we can put everyone else's weight on our backs if needed
ReplyDelete-Jay Clinton
I largely agree with Haass, and would even argue that the next great "American" time period is already in play because the last one never really ended. Despite the US' obvious current domestic issues and the need for policymakers to at least act like they have their domestic priorities in order (our public schools need work, and the recent Jon Stewart quip about thousand of unsound bridges haunts my dreams), as Haass explains, there really doesn't seem to be any viable, equal challenge to the US' place at the top. Something Haass doesn't explicitly mention that I think is also notable is the US' cultural power - US brand & corporation names, US media, etc. still permeate the rest of the world. The US is still very much a cultural center and a source of soft cultural power. I think this positioning, along with the other factors Haass mentions, buys the US some time as a global leader and allows the country to keep its position of leadership even as it undergoes a relative minimum in terms of what's going on domestically.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Haas. The US still has enough momentum from the first American century to continue on with the second. Historically, it has worked out better for the world to have one hegemonic power. The US has no “serious” competition to challenge for this title. When you look at aspects that make up a hegemonic power, like military power, economy and influence, the US is way above any other country. The closest competition is China. Its economy is challenging the US, but its military power is years away from even coming close to the power of the US military. Countries like North Korea and Iran can be aggressive but will never challenge the US. Because of this, it is the duty of the US to once again claim the title of the world’s hegemonic power. The US cannot deny this title like it did shortly after WWI. I also agree with what Haas believes the US needs to do both domestically and abroad. In the US, the public school system definitely needs some improving. Abroad, the US needs to learn that it cannot try to be every country’s friend and try to swoop in and save the day. If the US can do what Haas states in his article, then we will surely experience the second American century.
ReplyDelete-Seth Tillman