Would That Be So Bad?

In The New Republic, Robert Kagan writes on "the myth of American decline". The myth of decline, according to Kagan, rests on two pillars; one is the wake of the financial crisis, which has left the U.S. in an enduring economic rut, and the other is an alleged decrease in military power relative to the rest of the world. Kagan avers that both of these are mistaken.

In economic terms, and even despite the current years of recession and slow growth, America’s position in the world has not changed. Its share of the world’s GDP has held remarkably steady, not only over the past decade but over the past four decades. In 1969, the United States produced roughly a quarter of the world’s economic output. Today it still produces roughly a quarter, and it remains not only the largest but also the richest economy in the world. [...]

Here [in "military hegemony"] the United States remains unmatched. It is far and away the most powerful nation the world has ever known, and there has been no decline in America’s relative military capacity—at least not yet. Americans currently spend less than $600 billion a year on defense, more than the rest of the other great powers combined. (This figure does not include the deployment in Iraq, which is ending, or the combat forces in Afghanistan, which are likely to diminish steadily over the next couple of years.) They do so, moreover, while consuming a little less than 4 percent of GDP annually—a higher percentage than the other great powers, but in historical terms lower than the 10 percent of GDP that the United States spent on defense in the mid-1950s and the 7 percent it spent in the late 1980s. The superior expenditures underestimate America’s actual superiority in military capability. American land and air forces are equipped with the most advanced weaponry, and are the most experienced in actual combat. They would defeat any competitor in a head-to-head battle. American naval power remains predominant in every region of the world.

With regard to the ongoing economic / financial crisis, many economic critics claim - and I agree - that FedGov is playing a game of "extend and pretend" by printing money, that many of our biggest banks, as well as those in Europe, are for all intents and purposes insolvent, and that all this will not end well. Nevertheless, Kagan's point that relatively we are still on top, and my point that economic forecasting is notoriously difficult - not even economists can do it consistently right - are worth keeping in mind. The future isn't certain, at least in the short term.

Kagan also argues that the U.S. is not "overstretched" militarily, and that we can easily afford our military expenses. Here lies Kagan's real concern: the projection of power abroad. He takes it as a given that this is necessary.

But here's why Kagan doesn't wish Americans to take seriously the idea of decline:

BUT THERE IS a danger. It is that in the meantime, while the nation continues to struggle, Americans may convince themselves that decline is indeed inevitable, or that the United States can take a time-out from its global responsibilities while it gets its own house in order. To many Americans, accepting decline may provide a welcome escape from the moral and material burdens that have weighed on them since World War II. Many may unconsciously yearn to return to the way things were in 1900, when the United States was rich, powerful, and not responsible for world order. [emphasis added]

See, the funny thing is, is that a nation should be run for the benefit of its citizens. So, at least, one would think. Would it really be so bad if we ceased to be the world's policeman, i.e. we had "a welcome escape from our [alleged] moral and material burdens"? For whose benefit are these burdens anyway? More Americans are cottoning to the notion that, insofar as it affects them, they carry all the burden while the elite who run the country gain the benefits.

Would it be so bad if we returned to a situation in which "the United States was rich, powerful, and not responsible for world order"? But to do that would mean abandoning much of the elite project, that is, halting quasi-genocidal levels of immigration, halting the export of the manufacturing base as well as other jobs, and putting an end to the endless, purposeless, foreign wars. It would mean a nation whose purpose was aligned with its people.