Who's Century?

 Hey Bobby. Been thinking about something and since you are far more erudite in regard to international affairs, I thought I'd bounce it off you.

 I saw a news opinion piece sometime ago suggesting that the American century was over. I grew up with that concept and felt I was very lucky to be born into the nation which had become the leader of the world.

To be honest, I didn't bother to read the article. Still, the headline got me thinking.

I expect you remember that during Trump's first term I said I don't think our allies are ever going to trust us again. Even if Trump doesn't win a second term, who knows who we will elect next time? 

And here he is. 

It's not just that he's trying to destroy the American government except for a few powerful arms which he will remake into his servants carrying out  his will, he's already trying for a third term but I question that he will be able to get it. Not to mention, the man is damned old. I doubt he has a third term in him.

I think this is something that runs a whole lot deeper than Trump. He's just a symptom of the disease.

My feeling is that the American people are in a position that reminds me very strongly of the British at the end of World War II. After centuries of empire building (and empire holding) the British people were tired of their young men going off to die in foreign countries so that the people back home could swagger about in imperial pride and the ultra rich could benefit from the loot  collected from around the subservient globe.

They adored Winston Churchill as the unparalleled leader who led the crusade against the Nazis, but they had no interest in following this old noble in struggling to retain the British Empire.

They wanted a national health service. They wanted to be exactly what Napoleon always said they were, a nation of shopkeepers rather than a nation of conquerors.

Trump, with his whole America first thing, is about in the same position right now. The original America first movement headed by Lindbergh simply didn't want us to be used by the European powers as cannon fodder to grow their empires. The America first movement today is not that old movement brought back to life. Today it's a rejection by the American people of being the world's policeman. Many Americans don't want American soldiers going to war in foreign lands.  

They're tired of paying the price for leading the world and no wonder, it's a very expensive price. I recently saw a report that today America still spends more on its military budget than the next 10 nations combined. We could do a lot domestically with even a portion of those funds.

We're almost a century late to the party, but I really think a lot of of us are ready to turn into a more thoroughly socialized nation.

Yes, the Trumpsters say that that's what they hate the most, but as was pointed out before the affordable care act was adopted, once people have it, they do not want to let it go. The Brits traded their world empire for the NIH, but I think we're getting prepared to do that ourselves.

I hate to say it, but I think what we really need right now is Teddy Roosevelt. Not the rough rider (me he-man) but the trustbuster. Even Trumpsters might be able to get behind that if  the theoretical hero promised to bring our troops home and stop leading the world at the cost of American treasure and blood.

This brings up the next part of the question. If we do resign from the position who replaces us?

China desperately wants to, but China's in desperately bad shape. Her economy is nothing but a giant bubble. Corruption is so extremely pervasive bridges regularly collapse alongside of buildings and the rapidly built cities are on the edge of an economic disaster. Even their fake islands that they constructed in order to claim the South China Sea are beginning to erode away right out from under their naval and airbases.

India has potential but it's wrapped up in its own extreme right ring hatred and bigotry and I think lacks the industrial base to be regarded as a serious contender.

Remember a few decades back when everyone thought Brazil was going to rule the world? No one's even suggesting it now.

Russia? " I will quote Baron Stein, "Theirs is the rage of dreaming sheep!"  Russia had an opportunity to be a economic powerhouse. Putin has crushed Russia for the foreseeable future. Even if he wins in Ukraine, he has lost every other battle, including the economic struggles.

I think the best bet is the European Union. It's hard to credit tired old Europe becoming the world leader again, but a united Europe is a new beast. If Europe  can successfully stop its endless efforts to conduct war against itself, it will be an economic powerhouse with plenty of resources and plenty of manpower -- and it's highly industrialized as well. We all have assumed that Europe is that stable, but then Europe was assuming that Russia was that stable too. (remember  Angela Merkel  assuring the world that Russia was now a friendly bear?) The European Union is still an experiment that's in its early stages. If they can keep it together, I think this century will be called the European Union century.

So, lots to cover here. I wonder how you respond to my oddball thoughts.

From an article in the LA Times on self-immolation inTibet as a protest against Chinese occupation and brutality:

 "Only by staying alive can the will become a reality."

I add:

The Chinese empire endures. The oldest empire still in existence. It seems to me that the battles fought in the 20th century between democracy and totalitarianism have largely been won. No one can deny the totalitarianism still rules all too many human beings on our planet. Nevertheless, the trends are clearly heading toward democracy.

Not only victories 20th-century, but also spread of technology which empowers individual people and groups and individual people are having a tremendous impact. I'm certainly not saying that the battles are over, but I do believe the ultimate victory is now in sight.

As the middle-class continues to rise, the Chinese government will more and more be forced to deal with the demands of well-educated populace which now expects life to be getting better and better at an accelerated rate. The inevitable result will be democracy. The question, then, becomes how long will this process take? How much human suffering must continue in a pointless effort to maintain a system which is already beginning to rot on the trash heap of history?

I have no doubt that given enough time, the people of Tibet will be free. But I do worry that they may not be free for decades and many, many more will die before this can be accomplished.

In spite of this grave concern, I will again make a prediction i have been making for some time. In the foreseeable future, certainly within the next 50 years, China will be one of our very best friends. She will be our trading partner.  She will be our ally. It happened with Germany. It happened with Japan.  It will happen with China.

But how much suffering must be added on to the already too great a toll? It is all so pointless. The old regime clings to the power which is rapidly eroding. And the people suffer on.

Old writing, never posted

The L.a. Times--February 27, 2011

An article in today’s edition refers to the dreams of Islamic North Africa creating to a new golden age. It is surprising how few Americans realize that there was a time when the best place to live within the Islamic world. Here you found the best medicine, the finest doctors, the world's premier universities, and the most tolerant society on the planet. It isn't that life was wonderful compared to today's society enjoyed by those of us in the West. But compared to the alternatives available in the world that time, the Islamic world, especially the Arabic world, was a far superior place to live.

Naturally, this fact is well known throughout the Islamic world today. Much of the hatred of the West which expresses itself in terrorism rose out of a belief that this golden age was stolen away by Western imperialism. Certainly it is true that imperialism stripped away much dignity and insulted the honor of the region, but this would hardly have been possible during the golden age. At that time, Europe was in the throes of the dark ages. It was only possible for the west to exploit the Islamic world after that world degenerated scientifically, militarily, and socially.

It seems unlikely that anyone alive when Europe was so weak and the Arabs so strong could possibly have predicted this astonishing reversal of fortune. Europe was what had been, the ruin of the richness and vigor of the Roman Empire. All across North Africa science was flourishing. Education was respected and strongly supported by society. It is natural to ask, "what went wrong?"

If you're interested in a detailed answer I suggest the book entitled, What Went Wrong? By Bernard Lewis. The answers are complex, but the pattern is rather clear. Like China, a great civilization turned inward. An inherent sense of superiority led to a contempt for the ideas found and the rest of the world. Any civilization which forgets that it had to earn its place in the world finds itself believing that its superiority is a natural law, a given, an unalterable fact of reality.

This mistaken conviction leads the deluded society into a state of rigidity. Since we are the best and must be the best there is nothing to be gained by paying attention to the rest of the world. Once a society comes to believe this it ceases to make progress, more importantly, it fails to respect the progress being made by others. Crystallized by its own sense of the inevitability of supremacy, the society ceases to move and advance. However far the rest of the world is behind this society, it now begins to catch up and in time surpasses those who were once in the lead.

It was religious extremism more than anything else, although arrogance cannot be ignored as a contributing factor, which turned the Islamic world to fundamentalism and to a sense of entitlement. Being the favorite of God, there was no need to earn a place at the head of progress. Surely this spot would just be granted.


Contrast this situation with what is currently happening in China. After decades of brutal communist repression, China is once again opening up to the rest of the world. Of course, the last time this happened, China was forced to interact with the world which they had rejected. The situation under Mao was not analogous to either of the cases I've already described above. While it's true that China under his rule was behind a "bamboo curtain", it is also true that he sought to modernize the country. His intentions were focused on science and industry rather than cultural matters, but he did much to make China into a modern nation. When Hong Kong was returned to Chinese control there was speculation around the world as to what would happen to the incredibly wealthy area. With communist ideology lead them to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? If the communists did not ban free enterprise in this area how would they reconcile that action with the collectivist beliefs which they used to justify their domination of the nation?

What happened was quite astonishing. Wealth and financial success simply could not be ignored. China needed the money and the energy of Hong Kong. The golden eggs were too valuable. Unsurprisingly, once this admission was made by the communist party, free enterprise began creeping in and spreading throughout the entire nation. Today we see a China which is undoubtedly more free that has ever been in all its history. Which is not to say that China is a free country, but by comparison to the past it is an age, at least, of hope.

So great that the changes been that the Chinese government is now strongly advocating the teachings of Confucius. Of all the counterrevolutionary ideas despised under Mao Tse Tung, the most pernicious, the most dangerous, were those of the Sage. Yet today, without any outward sign of shame, the Communist Party is doing its best to convince its citizens that the old philosopher had it right after all. It seems impossible to believe, at least for someone like me who grew up with an awareness of such extremes as the Cultural Revolution, but the government of China is now trying to pacify and please its citizens rather than simply force them into submission. I've seen much change in this world. Some of it was predictable, much of it was not. But of all the changes that occurred, the continuing democratization of the world was a change for which I fervently hoped and which I believe will continue for the foreseeable future.

There are dangers inherent in democratization, of course. After all, in a democracy the bad guy may win the election. But I believe that the world is much safer than it was and will continue to become even more so as democracy spreads. I believe the last of the great wars is over. There is simply too much to lose and so little to gain when one applies mass violence to national problems. Look at Germany and Japan today. One could argue that they have created an economic empire which reaches around the globe. Had Tojo and Hitler built their nations economically rather than militarily, that might have attained the same end without the deaths of so many millions. I hope that China has learned this lesson.

Three months since I've posted. Well, at least I'm at it now. Yesterday I was surprised by Chris Matthews on Hardball expressing two points: First, that the UN Resolution on Libya added a phrase allowing all necessary actions to protect civilians and Second, that he was surprised that Hillary Clinton and President Obama were so far off message compared to each other. He asked his guests if this indicated stress and disagreement over policy in the White House.

My responses: when I heard the UN resolution announced I knew exactly what it meant. It was a cart blanche. Attack whatever of Kadafi’s forces you want, just claim it was in defense of civilians. Without this excuse, Kadafi could still survive. With it, Kadafi is suddenly looking a lot like Hitler when he moved into his Berlin bunker.

As for trouble in the White House...please, we’re dealing with the Clinton's and Obama. The Clinton’s were the most effective political team in recent history, until they met the Senator from Illinois. Every word, probably every gesture made by Hillary and Obama have been carefully choreographed, and the choreographer is Barack Hussein Obama.

Love it or hate it, politics in this nations is, in many ways, deeply akin to a musical spectacular, live on stage.

As I write this, the news is announcing that the French have made the first attacks in Libya, and they hit “military vehicles”, not aircraft. The operation is apparently commanded by the French, not Americans. The first time in history, I believe, since WW II that Americans have taken orders from a non American commander. Like the day when Churchill was forced to ask for American help to save his nation, this is the passing of an era. Churchill was forced to oversee the collapse of the British Empire and Obama is forced to acknowledge that American power is limited. Many believe that the US will fade into a minor power, as did Britain. I disagree. This is an adjustment we won't like, but it is a healthy one. It is time to share the burden and to accept that we will remain the world’s leader, but will cease to be the world’s unquestioned boss.

This is true economically as well. Many fear China as a military and economic threat. I don’t see it. There will be rough times and serious crises, but in the next 30 to 50 years, China will become our best friend and most important trading partner. The talking heads have declared themselves amazed that China has defied conventional wisdom in becoming a centrally controlled, dictatorial capitalistic economy. Supposedly impossible, but they declare it a success. Well, it is impossible. China is changing and she is changing fast. More and more freedom, more and more efforts on the part of the government to placate its people instead of crushing them. China is following the exact course suggested when Hong King was allowed to remain largely free of communist dogmatic control. She is painfully and slowly turning into a democracy. Oddly, China is following the course I believed would be the fate of the Soviet Union, a slow and inevitable transformation into a free state.

I was wrong about the Russians, but the Chinese are showing that at least my concept was sound. I just applied it to the wrong country!