There were many other books/articles/documentaries with the same doom-and-gloom published since.
I think most people don't understand America. So maybe an immigrant like me can help: the United States isn't an enduring superpower because it's an eternal and permanent amazing place free of problems. Its unique power of self-healing and course correction, combined with its plentiful resources and human capital, is what makes it great. When everything seems lost, when everybody says "this time is different, it's the big one that will end America", our system finds a way out.
I won't argue about whether the current administration and wars are good or bad. I'll just say that we'll overcome, like we always did, our problems.
It will take generations, if it's even possible, for the US to recover its standing in the eyes of the world, and that standing was the core of our power.
"Fixing ourselves" is critical, but just the first step. There's a huge amount of additional work after that.
The US never became the world's superpower because it did anything "moral" or had "character" or anything remotely like that. The US became the world's superpower because Europe and Japan decided to do WW2 and destroy everything, while committing atrocity after atrocity after atrocity.
It was never anything about the US per se that made it a superpower. It was to a much greater extent incredible moral, economic and military failings on the part of everyone else. From Albania to Zimbabwe, Morocco to China.
The US lost superpower status and boom. There are big shooting wars again. In Europe. In Asia. I was kind of hoping it to take at least a decade or two after the US lost control. Then again, maybe it has.
- America will stop being the superpower, the only one
There was a point after the fall of the Berlin wall and before China joined the WTO (and for an indeterminate number of years after) where America's status as the sole superpower was indisputable.
The same was said about W. Also elected twice.
We then saw 8golden years, before the orange president.
So I would wait a bit before being able to say "good riddance, everything will be ok now, USA is saved"
Sssshhhh stating this for his whole life was one reason Warren Buffet got villified.
His point was he's an old guy. And Reagan was better than Nixon who was better than Bush junior who was better Trump ... but they all sucked and all of them were the worst thing ever to happen to America.
So yeah, Trump is the worst that has happened to America ... so far.
(and if you point out that "The American age ending" what so many people seem to want will obviously lead to democratic presidents sucking up to Putin as well ...)
Ah yes, the golden age of extrajudical assassinations of American citizens, forever wars, the rise of the surveillance state, imprisonment of journalists amd whistle blowers, and the deterioration of race relations. Tell me more of this golden age.
The European empires were commercial ventures, extracting raw materials for the workshops and factories at home. These empires were already weakening in the nineteenth century, because social changes at home meant that practices like slavery were no longer acceptable, thus increasing the cost of administering the colonies, and decreasing profitability. The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts. It also pooled all the European empires into one system, so everyone could buy resources from anywhere, and the local elites (like my ancestors) who once had to be bought off can become corrupt politicians, so the West can disclaim any responsibility.
The MAGA movement's foreign policy forsakes this extraordinarily convenient system for the older system of explicit, militarily-defended empires. It brings the US into conflict with every power that matters in the world except Russia. The US will have to spend an awful lot on the Department of War to maintain its economic exclusivity arrangements, of the sort it is currently building with Venezuela. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick,' but MAGA has chosen to scream into the void about how big its stick is instead.
"The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts."
I wonder how Europe got there? Maybe they all decided to talk through their problems.
The rules-based order was first proposed in late Victorian Britain, as part of a wider debate as to how the British Empire should evolve, but yes, the World Wars made the idea a lot more attractive to much more of the world.
Global dominance is an unreachable goal in the first place. Even with AI.
All the article does is recognise the shift in Grand Strategy, but comes to all the wrong conclusions, because they completely miss what the current US Grand Strategy is.
There is a consensus across all factions in the US Government to secure the US “backyard” in the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive zone of interest where the US can regenerate its strength.
That’s the primary goal for this current US administration and they are making pretty good progress. Basically everyone is afraid they are going to be the next Venezuela, including Canada.
Hegseth’s recent revival of the century-old “Greater North America” security perimeter underlines where the US locates its vital security interests. You just need to listen.
From Greenland in the North through the Panama Canal all the way to the littoral states of the “Gulf of America” north of the equator.
The Iran war is a setback, and I doubt Trump and Bibi will be friends any longer after this because the Israelis dragged him into that mess and now Bibi is literally fighting for his life in an election and so is Trump.
But it’s just a blip in the grand scheme of things.
How the US should secure its interests in its traditional spheres of influence in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East is important, but not essential to the US Grand Strategy.
If the US Army wanted to end the Iran war, it could do it within an hour. Iran cannot compete with the level of Escalation the US is capable of.
Using a tactical nuclear weapon to atomise their government in session and asking for an unconditional surrender or they are going to continue, nuking desalination for example to make Iran permanently uninhabitable and therefore inoperable for the IRCG, is an option that is always on the table for the president.
It would come with serious repercussions though, but can he do it? Any time of the day.
So the question is not if they can win the war and project power across the region with an iron fist, but if they should. And the answer to that is no. Especially now that their Middle East logistics have been shredded by the Iranians.
You cannot rule the Middle East with an iron fist, only by soft power.
All the conflicts in the zone over the past century of modern warfare have shown violence leads to a direct loss of power and influence over time. You can either win them over or kill ‘em all.
You cannot stay in these countries. The natives will grind you down, and then you have to evac with your tail between your legs.
The president maneuvered the country into a problem that is really hard to solve, and the only people I am aware of who would have been capable of solving this from inside the army have either been replaced by loyalist baboons with stars, or simply are not available for this administration because solving problems for Trump means, you make millions of Americans life’s worse and not better.
And if you serve, you serve the people, not a single man who holds office for anywhere between four and eight years.
This article is 56 years late.
"The End of the American Era" was published in 1970:
https://www.amazon.com/End-American-Era-Andrew-Hacker/dp/B00...
There were many other books/articles/documentaries with the same doom-and-gloom published since.
I think most people don't understand America. So maybe an immigrant like me can help: the United States isn't an enduring superpower because it's an eternal and permanent amazing place free of problems. Its unique power of self-healing and course correction, combined with its plentiful resources and human capital, is what makes it great. When everything seems lost, when everybody says "this time is different, it's the big one that will end America", our system finds a way out.
I won't argue about whether the current administration and wars are good or bad. I'll just say that we'll overcome, like we always did, our problems.
Agreed. We've been in much much worse positions in the past. We will fix ourselves and _hopefully_ learn from our mistakes.
It will take generations, if it's even possible, for the US to recover its standing in the eyes of the world, and that standing was the core of our power.
"Fixing ourselves" is critical, but just the first step. There's a huge amount of additional work after that.
The US never became the world's superpower because it did anything "moral" or had "character" or anything remotely like that. The US became the world's superpower because Europe and Japan decided to do WW2 and destroy everything, while committing atrocity after atrocity after atrocity.
It was never anything about the US per se that made it a superpower. It was to a much greater extent incredible moral, economic and military failings on the part of everyone else. From Albania to Zimbabwe, Morocco to China.
The US lost superpower status and boom. There are big shooting wars again. In Europe. In Asia. I was kind of hoping it to take at least a decade or two after the US lost control. Then again, maybe it has.
> The US never became the world's superpower because it did anything "moral" or had "character" or anything remotely like that.
I never asserted, nor do I believe, that it did.
> Its unique power of self-healing and course correction is what makes it great
is it because each batch of immigrants is always rehabilitating it :3
(second gen)
There are two very different positions:
- America will stop being a superpower
- America will stop being the superpower, the only one
There was a point after the fall of the Berlin wall and before China joined the WTO (and for an indeterminate number of years after) where America's status as the sole superpower was indisputable.
> the United States isn't an enduring superpower because it's an eternal and permanent amazing place free of problems.
It’s a sad age when I can’t tell if OP is hyperbolic or just actually that retarded.
"you aren't going to like what comes after America "
- Leonard Cohen https://genius.com/Leonard-cohen-what-is-coming-21603-annota...
You're probably right, but it doesn't have to be. The news today about Canada and the EU is heartening.
Up until WWII - maaaybe.
After that, hell no, I don't want any of that.
It only took twice electing a mendacious and profoundly dangerous buffoon to bring about the end of American hegemony. Good riddance.
The same was said about W. Also elected twice. We then saw 8golden years, before the orange president. So I would wait a bit before being able to say "good riddance, everything will be ok now, USA is saved"
Yeah, wierd how much better W's administration looks when compared to you know who.
Sssshhhh stating this for his whole life was one reason Warren Buffet got villified.
His point was he's an old guy. And Reagan was better than Nixon who was better than Bush junior who was better Trump ... but they all sucked and all of them were the worst thing ever to happen to America.
So yeah, Trump is the worst that has happened to America ... so far.
(and if you point out that "The American age ending" what so many people seem to want will obviously lead to democratic presidents sucking up to Putin as well ...)
Ah yes, the golden age of extrajudical assassinations of American citizens, forever wars, the rise of the surveillance state, imprisonment of journalists amd whistle blowers, and the deterioration of race relations. Tell me more of this golden age.
> The same was said about W. Also elected twice.
Well, he certainly gave it the ol' college try—and it did take quite a while to recover from his presidency.
Eh?
Forever wars, the Patriot Act and a financial crises that took years to recover from under another president?
Yeah, Clinton and Obama were the max!8-((
But did you omit Biden (or did you not)? IOW shouldn't you have said "THREE dangerous buffoons"?
The fire of the Empire is beautiful at night.
https://archive.today/4L2NN
The European empires were commercial ventures, extracting raw materials for the workshops and factories at home. These empires were already weakening in the nineteenth century, because social changes at home meant that practices like slavery were no longer acceptable, thus increasing the cost of administering the colonies, and decreasing profitability. The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts. It also pooled all the European empires into one system, so everyone could buy resources from anywhere, and the local elites (like my ancestors) who once had to be bought off can become corrupt politicians, so the West can disclaim any responsibility.
The MAGA movement's foreign policy forsakes this extraordinarily convenient system for the older system of explicit, militarily-defended empires. It brings the US into conflict with every power that matters in the world except Russia. The US will have to spend an awful lot on the Department of War to maintain its economic exclusivity arrangements, of the sort it is currently building with Venezuela. Theodore Roosevelt said, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick,' but MAGA has chosen to scream into the void about how big its stick is instead.
"The solution was what we now call the rules-based order, and means that European-style legal systems control business across borders, so armed force need not be used to enforce contracts."
I wonder how Europe got there? Maybe they all decided to talk through their problems.
The rules-based order was first proposed in late Victorian Britain, as part of a wider debate as to how the British Empire should evolve, but yes, the World Wars made the idea a lot more attractive to much more of the world.
What a bunch of nonsense.
Global dominance is an unreachable goal in the first place. Even with AI.
All the article does is recognise the shift in Grand Strategy, but comes to all the wrong conclusions, because they completely miss what the current US Grand Strategy is.
There is a consensus across all factions in the US Government to secure the US “backyard” in the Western Hemisphere as an exclusive zone of interest where the US can regenerate its strength.
That’s the primary goal for this current US administration and they are making pretty good progress. Basically everyone is afraid they are going to be the next Venezuela, including Canada.
Hegseth’s recent revival of the century-old “Greater North America” security perimeter underlines where the US locates its vital security interests. You just need to listen.
From Greenland in the North through the Panama Canal all the way to the littoral states of the “Gulf of America” north of the equator.
The Iran war is a setback, and I doubt Trump and Bibi will be friends any longer after this because the Israelis dragged him into that mess and now Bibi is literally fighting for his life in an election and so is Trump. But it’s just a blip in the grand scheme of things.
How the US should secure its interests in its traditional spheres of influence in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East is important, but not essential to the US Grand Strategy.
If the US Army wanted to end the Iran war, it could do it within an hour. Iran cannot compete with the level of Escalation the US is capable of.
Using a tactical nuclear weapon to atomise their government in session and asking for an unconditional surrender or they are going to continue, nuking desalination for example to make Iran permanently uninhabitable and therefore inoperable for the IRCG, is an option that is always on the table for the president.
It would come with serious repercussions though, but can he do it? Any time of the day.
So the question is not if they can win the war and project power across the region with an iron fist, but if they should. And the answer to that is no. Especially now that their Middle East logistics have been shredded by the Iranians.
You cannot rule the Middle East with an iron fist, only by soft power.
All the conflicts in the zone over the past century of modern warfare have shown violence leads to a direct loss of power and influence over time. You can either win them over or kill ‘em all.
You cannot stay in these countries. The natives will grind you down, and then you have to evac with your tail between your legs.
The president maneuvered the country into a problem that is really hard to solve, and the only people I am aware of who would have been capable of solving this from inside the army have either been replaced by loyalist baboons with stars, or simply are not available for this administration because solving problems for Trump means, you make millions of Americans life’s worse and not better.
And if you serve, you serve the people, not a single man who holds office for anywhere between four and eight years.