Does America’s Superpower Status End with a Bang or a Whimper?

posted at 11:29 am on October 10, 2009 by
[ Diplomacy ]   

The Weekly Standard has adapted as an article the 2009 Wriston Lecture of the Manhattan Institute delivered this past week by Charles Krauthammer. The topic is whether that sound we now hear resonating throughout the globe is the death knell of America’s tenure as a superpower.

Unfortunately, the video link to the entire address at the Institute’s website is down, but YouTube has the following two-minute clip, which captures the speech’s flavor.

Then of course there’s the article. In it, Krauthammer lays out the argument put forth by the left that our time is indeed at hand — that we have already begun our descent into ordinary nationhood as China rises up to assume the role as the world’s next America. Face it, they say. China already owns the U.S. national debt. All that remains is for us to leave the keys in the mailbox on our way out.

As the above clip reveals, Barack Obama is no small cheerleader for the new order. He seems to believe, as do the Europeans who have so eagerly embraced him on the world stage, that we have it coming to us. In the Obaman view, the decline in American hegemony and exceptionalism is redress for our past sins, which include unilateralism when multilateralism was called for (which is always), arrogance, derision toward Europe, and — let’s not forget — mistreatment of natives here at home.

Peter Wehner at Contentions suggests that Obama’s repeated mea culpae for these and other transgressions, many of them made while standing on foreign soil, are the reason he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Krauthammer also presents the opposing view, that fears of China’s preeminence are exaggerated and that “declinist” predictions are cyclical. Then he rejects both views. Krauthammer maintains that the “question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no” because ultimately it comes down to a matter of choice. America, he insists, can write its own future — that “America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.”

Which brings us back to the Obama Doctrine, which in turn suggests the choice has already been made for us. It’s a grim picture, but one countered correctly I believe by Max Boot, also of Contentions. Boot notes that Obama, whether it was intention or not, has already assumed the reins of leadership on a variety of International issues, including renewed Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and global warming.

Boot also notes optimistically that the

U.S. economy remains the most dynamic among all the industrialized nations; our defense budget remains the largest in the world — bigger, by some measures, than the rest of the world put together; and our population remains young and energetic — not aging as rapidly as Europe, Russia, Japan, or even China.

These “fundamental ingredients of American success” are so deeply woven into the American fabric, Boot argues, that Obama may find it more difficult than he imagines to relinquish superpower status.

One can only hope.

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Superpower.

Certainly used as a nationalist reference this term is quite imposing. Macroscalar.

All macros are made up of many micros. The individual units that make up the macro and therefore the trait of the macro can be summed up “a chain is only as strong as its’ weakest link”. And it seems that there may be a number of weak links in the chain called the USA. Strengthening the weak links would obviously strengthen the chain, in this scenario making the Superpower more powerful.

A news article posted yesterday, by way of example:

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/international/China_Prepares_for_Deep_Freeze_in_Holiday_Profits_92961546

demonstrates actively the premise. Note particularly that an enterprise in China making Christmas decorations is not having a boom year. Christmas decorations. Convince me that this factory was set up to serve all the Christmas celebrations in China. Not. The weak link in the chain in this macroevent is that there is a recession affecting many Christmas celebrants, en micro, therefore affecting their spending habits, spreading the recession to a far flung enterprise without another outlet for their goods.

Politics, as a macro, are made up of many micros as well. Discern the weak links in the chain. The failure of conservatives in America to clearly define a unified vision, to communicate that vision, and constituents to embrace that vision, is the weak link for conservatives as a macro. Superpower. It is still there, being played out at the micro level, disjointed, without the true leadership necessary to link the chain, much less to have a strong chain. America as a superpower has always counted amongst her links the weak and the strong. Leadership is what makes the chain pullable. That we may be viewed as a Superpower in decline implies that the not-so-Superpowers are in a similar decline economically as reported above. Or politically as well. Their underemployed can’t be any more pleased with the performance of their leadership than Americans.

Our ability to influence world events may seem diminished, other countries/leaders enhanced at the moment. Moments change. Leadership with a vision will be the determinant. Many people throughout the world have looked to America for leadership for quite some time. To think that they aren’t still watching would be folly. To think that they too don’t realize that a momentary fancy shall pass would be to already cede Superpower status.

Robert17 on October 10, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Robert17: Interesting stuff. Really sounds like China’s grooming itself for the job of world leader. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Howard Portnoy on October 10, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Decline is a choice, but we faced this same situation post-Watergate in the late 1970s — comparing Obama’s current trajectory to the Carter years, we’re still about 1978 right now, when Jimmy was being praised for the Sadat-Began accord by the media, which ignored the fact that he was just setting the stage for the things that would go wrong in 1979-80. Those disasters, starting with the Shah’s fall, led to the charges of America being a “pitiful helpless giant” and the excuses by Democrats and the big media that the demands of the presidency may just be too big anymore for one man to handle, because there was no other way to justify the re-election of Carter.

China might replace the USSR as the prime challenger to U.S. dominance by the end of Obama’s first term, but as noted China’s economic fortunes are tied to America’s, unless they can find alternate world markets for their goods. More likely, instead of one single global superpower like the Soviets challenging for dominance, Obama’s failures will be more on the ‘death by 1,000 cuts’ line, with nations like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and groups like al Qaida chipping away at the U.S. from all sides.

How embarrassing/annoying that gets to the American public by 2012 will go a long way towards determining if Obama can win re-election. The Soviet expansionism alone wouldn’t have done in Carter in 1980; it was the combination of the Soviets moving into Afghanistan and increasing their influence in Africa and Central America combined with the Iranian hostage crisis that allowed swing voters to look past the Democrat and media claims that Reagan would blow up the world and opt for a president with a more forceful foreign policy.

jon1979 on October 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM

China can’t become a world leader because they have placed themselves in a box called communism. They are dabbling in free markets but just can’t quite let go of the old power strings. We are being used like a yo-yo. Down when the libs are in charge of Congress and up when conservatives are in charge.

Kissmygrits on October 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Krauthammer’s premise says it all: Decline is a choice. It’s not fated by laws of history. It depends on the moral choices of individuals.

America already is an example of exceptionalism — exemption from grinding, deterministic laws or changeless fate. If things could only ever occur in one pattern, there would BE no United States of America.

The success of America is the success of the free individual. Chinese central planning and Russian hegemonic feudalism are not actually stronger than a free people. Only we can defeat ourselves.

J.E. Dyer on October 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Only we can defeat ourselves.

Therein lies the problem.

The American electorate took a step in that direction by electing Obama. We are now taking a second step by ignoring what Obama is on course to do.

Howard Portnoy on October 10, 2009 at 3:40 PM

The Soviet expansionism alone wouldn’t have done in Carter in 1980; it was the combination of the Soviets moving into Afghanistan and increasing their influence in Africa and Central America combined with the Iranian hostage crisis that allowed swing voters to look past the Democrat and media claims that Reagan would blow up the world and opt for a president with a more forceful foreign policy.

I think the economy and the repeated blows to national self-confidence represented by the energy crisis and by the way that Carter, rather than typifying a response came to embody American impotence – sweater-bound malaise and all – played at least as big a role. Carter was in huge trouble with the American public long before a single hostage was taken and before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

CK MacLeod on October 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM

We will be nuked, in preparation for the coming of the Mahdi.

Everyone knew it would happen. They chose to pretend their pretensions would never catch up with them.

VinceP1974 on October 10, 2009 at 7:49 PM

“Bang” or “whimper” will depend very much on how fast the surrendercrats have us retreat.

Dark-Star on October 10, 2009 at 8:11 PM

I think the economy and the repeated blows to national self-confidence represented by the energy crisis and by the way that Carter, rather than typifying a response came to embody American impotence – sweater-bound malaise and all – played at least as big a role. Carter was in huge trouble with the American public long before a single hostage was taken and before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

CK MacLeod on October 10, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Stagflation played a factor, but the wimpiness of Carter’s foreign policy was what sealed the deal for Reagan. Pre-hostage crisis and pre-Afghanistan, Carter was annoying not only Republicans but the left of his party who (just as with Obama today) thought the economy was falling apart because Jimmy wouldn’t go far enough left fast enough. That’s what Ted Kennedy’s challenge was based on.

(Also I notice this morning that I may have been a little slow in my timetable on when the Democrats would start pulling out “the demands of the presidency may just be too big anymore for one man to handle” card. I thought it wouldn’t show up until the 2010 primary season, but Glenn Reynolds pointed out Newsweek already has a pundit piece using the parallel spin that American may be ungovernable because Obama is failing at governing. Which of course will be followed in 2 1/2 years by the natural “So lets elect him again because it’s impossible for anyone to do a better job.”)

jon1979 on October 11, 2009 at 6:51 AM

jon1979 – I think you’ll enjoy this book very much: ‘What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?’: Jimmy Carter, America’s ‘Malaise,’ and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country I’ve been planning to review it as soon as I find the time. It includes a few (very few) dubious sops to the left, but I found it to be overall quite objective, devastating on Carter as well as on Kennedy, and insightful about the rise of the Reagan right. Most of all, it’s a great evocation of the era combined with a behind-the-scenes look at the Carter Administration’s near-comical befuddlement.

Maybe what the hostage crisis and Afghanistan did was make it impossible for Carter to turn things around, and make it possible for Reagan to win a substantial victory over the incumbent despite scare tactics and the Anderson candidacy siphoning away the protest vote.

You’re right that the spin on the ungovernability of America is very familiar. It’s never statism that’s at fault for the statists.

CK MacLeod on October 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM