Is it Over? Part II

An American Original

We are living through the third great power shift in modern history. The first was the rise of the Western world, around the 15th century. It produced the world as we know it now—science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It also led to the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the Western world. The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the 19th century, was the rise of the United States. Once it industrialized, it soon became the most powerful nation in the world, stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For the last 20 years, America's superpower status in every realm has been largely unchallenged—something that's never happened before in history, at least since the Roman Empire dominated the known world 2,000 years ago. During this Pax Americana, the global economy has accelerated dramatically. And that expansion is the driver behind the third great power shift of the modern age—the rise of the rest.

Fareed Zakaria: The Rise of the Rest

Is it Over? Part I

Does Zakaria give credit where credit is due?  I mean, why are other nation-states rising?

Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories.

The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I can guarantee you things would not be this rosy if America had been a shrinking violet in the Fifties and Sixties.  I respect Zakaria, but I fear he's one of those NPR types who think the world would have gone this way if America had sat back and done nothing in the face of Communist aggression; done nothing to defend Israel; done nothing to overcome ideological and tribalistic resistance to capitalism, i.e. trade.  I'd like to ask him: did America's comittment to ideals and morals in the face of moral ambiguity and outright aggression produce good, or was it a mere diversion?  Perhaps even counter-productive?

According to Zakaria, the world is not as dark and dangerous as (ahem) some portray it.

Islamic jihadists are a nasty bunch—they do want to attack civilians everywhere. But it is increasingly clear that militants and suicide bombers make up a tiny portion of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims.

In fact, times are pretty good!

As I've traveled in the Middle East over the last few years, I've been struck by how little Iraq's troubles have destabilized the region. Everywhere you go, people angrily denounce American foreign policy. But most Middle Eastern countries are booming. Iraq's neighbors—Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—are enjoying unprecedented prosperity. The Gulf states are busy modernizing their economies and societies, asking the Louvre, New York University, and Cornell Medical School to set up remote branches in the desert. There's little evidence of chaos, instability, and rampant Islamic fundamentalism.

We're entering into a Brave New World:

The global economy has more than doubled in size over the last 15 years and is now approaching $54 trillion! Global trade has grown by 133 percent in the same period. The expansion of the global economic pie has been so large, with so many countries participating, that it has become the dominating force of the current era. Wars, terrorism, and civil strife cause disruptions temporarily but eventually they are overwhelmed by the waves of globalization. These circumstances may not last, but it is worth understanding what the world has looked like for the past few decades.

Zakaria shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature when he says:

It is an accident of history that for the last several centuries, the richest countries in the world have all been very small in terms of population. Denmark has 5.5 million people, the Netherlands has 16.6 million. The United States is the biggest of the bunch and has dominated the advanced industrial world. But the real giants—China, India, Brazil—have been sleeping, unable or unwilling to join the world of functioning economies. Now they are on the move and naturally, given their size, they will have a large footprint on the map of the future. Even if people in these countries remain relatively poor, as nations their total wealth will be massive. Or to put it another way, any number, no matter how small, when multiplied by 2.5 billion becomes a very big number. (2.5 billion is the population of China plus India.)

A) There are no accidents of history; and B) Denmark and Holland had reached a point -- as other European countries did between the 17th and 20th Centuries -- of optimum productivity and cohesion.  C) Big isn't necessarily intelligent or useful or clever.  European successes were not accidents, but the by-product of religious faith, industry, and a sustained effort to improve over the darkness of the past.  Europe advanced and matured morally and intellectually.  Like individuals, countries can go backwards or forwards.  This is not by accident, but by aspiration.

In his section on rising nationalism, Zakaria accurately portrays how the explosion of information has exacerbated old wounds: Russia hates how we say we won World War II (the Western Front was a "sideshow"); China rejects the "western narrative" of history.  Again, Zakaria fails to mention the obvious point: American-led capitalism and pluralism has set the stage for the kinds of tensions generically referred to as "globalization."  I do, however, agree with this assessment:

"Globalization is striking back," Gabor Steingart, an editor at Germany's leading news magazine, Der Spiegel, writes in a best-selling book. As others prosper, he argues, the United States has lost key industries, its people have stopped saving money, and its government has become increasingly indebted to Asian central banks. The current financial crisis has only given greater force to such fears.

In fact, Zakaria, the world is dangerous!  That Chinese executive you talked to was expressing a reversionary and reactionary nationalism (racism?) that can result in overt, imperialistic aggression.  And Islam, though it is hardly dominated by dynamite-strapped psychos, is nevertheless gripped by a driving desire to bring Infidels to submission, which is a short step away from paranoid psychosis.  Perhaps you need to read Men with Guns to understand the other part of human nature not really addressed in your article.  This Chinese woman captures the essence of the low-level conflicts all around us:

A young Chinese diplomat told me in 2006, "When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is, 'And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?' We see the hypocrisy, we just don't say anything—yet."

To survive and prosper in this world, the United States will have to give up its 1930's devotion to class warfare and the New Deal superstition that ordinary people can't take care of themselves without Hillary's help.  Yes, we will need international cooperation on a variety of issues, but this doesn't mean that New Age, anti-American nostrums will keep us healthy.  America needs to enter into a new phase of healthy dieting and a solid exercise program!  We need to apply a Marshall Plan to ourselves, in the form of human, economic development.  The rest of the world knows it.  Now it's time for us to see it.  We need to lead the way.

Here's a sentiment sure to play well with many Republicans!

But America's hidden secret is that most of these engineers are immigrants. Foreign students and immigrants account for almost 50 percent of all science researchers in the country. In 2006 they received 40 percent of all PhDs. By 2010, 75 percent of all science PhDs in this country will be awarded to foreign students. When these graduates settle in the country, they create economic opportunity. Half of all Silicon Valley start-ups have one founder who is an immigrant or first generation American. The potential for a new burst of American productivity depends not on our education system or R&D spending, but on our immigration policies. If these people are allowed and encouraged to stay, then innovation will happen here. If they leave, they'll take it with them.

Well . . . . I do think a lot of people are being unreasonable about the immigration situation, but I think if you want innovation, the best bet still is to let people make money.  Okay?  Yep:

More broadly, this is America's great—and potentially insurmountable—strength. It remains the most open, flexible society in the world, able to absorb other people, cultures, ideas, goods, and services. The country thrives on the hunger and energy of poor immigrants. Faced with the new technologies of foreign companies, or growing markets overseas, it adapts and adjusts. When you compare this dynamism with the closed and hierarchical nations that were once superpowers, you sense that the United States is different and may not fall into the trap of becoming rich, and fat, and lazy.

Ah, there it is!  The intelligence that brought on globalization is identified as a culprit!

Americans—particularly the American government—have not really understood the rise of the rest. This is one of the most thrilling stories in history. Billions of people are escaping from abject poverty. The world will be enriched and ennobled as they become consumers, producers, inventors, thinkers, dreamers, and doers. This is all happening because of American ideas and actions. For 60 years, the United States has pushed countries to open their markets, free up their politics, and embrace trade and technology. American diplomats, businessmen, and intellectuals have urged people in distant lands to be unafraid of change, to join the advanced world, to learn the secrets of our success. Yet just as they are beginning to do so, we are losing faith in such ideas. We have become suspicious of trade, openness, immigration, and investment because now it's not Americans going abroad but foreigners coming to America. Just as the world is opening up, we are closing down.

Well, I'm not being fair.  Zakaria and I are in agreement on the need to go lean and flexible.  To survive the coming storms, we need to be mobile, agile, adaptable, and innovative.

1930's Big Government is not the solution.

Nor is Zenophobia helpful.  Welcome to the New World!

The New Atlantis

Comments

[mdd]

Cicero, well done, Bravo.
It's nice to hear that the world has advanced so far on the backs of the American Dream, but, why does the world feel the need to keep whipping the horse that got them out of the mud?

[Irish Cicero]

I believe it's a very old, very fundamental problem called 'lack of historical perspective.' Your average progressive would say that American patriots are too partisan, too short-sighted, but is that accurate?

For example, for Rome, Greece and Islam, empire meant empire, complete with tribute. For America, "empire" has meant capitalism. Have we been pushy? Yes. Have our citizens profited, perhaps even unjustly? Yes. Do we station troops around the world to exact tribute?

No.

We pay their way, put money into the economy, and pay market prices for things. For all the smart ass stuff from Germany and Korea, they'd miss us if we were gone.