I have complained here rather vociferously that many entertainers are ill-informed, naive, and/or just good old-fashioned stupid regarding politics and policy. They are, of course entitled to their opinions, but the danger lies in the fact that entertainers hold much sway over fans, and are at minimum going to have their opinions heard whether they are ill-considered or not.
Allow me to state now that "experts," with the benefit of vast erudition, research, and time to ruminate and ponder at length, are often just as wrong as dopey rock stars. Some will say all this really means is that I disagree with them - of course that's what it means, but they're still wrong.
Anyway, Salon's Suzy Hansen does a lengthy interview with Charles A. Kupchan, author of The End of the American Era, and a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Pretty snazzy credentials, no? He's still an idiot:
- In "The End of the American Era," Kupchan compares the current world situation to past turning points in history — the end of World War I, the federation of the American colonies, the Great Depression — to suggest ways in which the world might transform itself. In some of his most illuminating passages, Kupchan disputes the predictions of such optimistic leading thinkers as Francis Fukuyama and Thomas Friedman, who perceive democracy and globalization as great panaceas, and pessimists such as Samuel Huntington who foresees a "clash of civilizations." Instead, Kupchan's global map resembles that of the 19th century, when the reigning empire, Great Britain, gave the rising United States entree as a world power. This time, Kupchan says, it's America's turn to make room for Europe.
Make room for Europe?? Is he insane? On what level, other than sheer population, does Europe rival the U.S.? The unity of the EU is surface level only, and is enforced by top-down dictates and regulations that inhibit innovation and flexibility. Decades of appeasement and "sophisticated" equivocation have squandered Europe's moral capital. Their military capabilities are a joke compared the US - so what exactly is Europe going to ascend to?
- But one of the real dangers that we face at the moment is that Empire Lite might become Empire Heavy and rather than reassure others, we'll alienate them. Rather than appear as a benign hegemon, we appear predatory. We appear to lose our legitimacy as a great power, which is probably our most precious commodity. If that happens, then all bets are off. Then you really see countries run for cover and join arms against the United States.
Again, are you insane? The exact opposite is true: since there is no leadership coming from Europe in doing what needs to be done, where America leads Europe will follow. What just happened with the Security Council vote on Iraq?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ruprecht
Assume the US smashes the terrorists and then pulls back to our shores in disgust at the harrasment of our "allies". Does that actually mean the end of the American Era? I don't think so because Europe won't fill the void and regional players would fight amungst themselves. Shit might hit the fan but Uncle Sam would still be standing tall despite our lack of foreign involvement.
This fellow defines the American era as if the US wants an empire. He couldn't be more wrong. Folks in the US can't find countries no the map BECAUSE WE DON'T CARE. We left those little countries behind and they KEEP DRAGGING US BACK IN. American greatness is not defined by the number of wars we fight, but by the standard of living and influence we enjoy.
2 - Mark Strassburg
I am sure there are a lot of parents out there that must feel very comforted that their tuition dollars help pay for the tenure of idiots. Once again, we get a polytechnic display of how a degree and an exalted university position certainly don't equal intelligence. And I agree with you, Eric. As has been seen by so many "academics" over the past year, not one of them is willing to back up their fantasies with facts or explanations.
3 - Eric Olsen
Thanks guys, I appreciate the support.
4 - Andrew X
I remember reading this essay in a bookstore (what, I'm supposed to PAY for it??) and wondering what planet this guy is on.
Are there any Yanks out there that would in a strange way WELCOME an alliance against us, as long as it was even remotely civilized? (As opposed to Al Queda nutcases)
I mean, wouldn't you at least respect such an alliance? Oh, my, some people are actually TAKING INITIATIVE, are deciding that, as they don't like us, therefore we are NOT the cause, solution, be all, end all, of every problem, isssue, or concern they might have.
Maybe I'm being simplesme, but in a way I'm saying "Hey, give us a run for our money! Make things happen WITHOUT us!" But no, other than nihilistic death worshiping fruitcakes, the only competition we have depends on us economically or militarily or both.
Atlas might get tired, and if the looters keep relentlessly popping off and supporting our enemies, Atlas may indeed shrug.
And good luck with all that, world.
5 - narciso
Well he was a Clinton administration NSC official; making Europe safe for Al Queda
in Bosnia & Kosovo
6 - Porphyrogenitus
Ruprect is onto something.
For a Supra-Genius, Kaplan is intellectually confused. On the one hand he says we're either going to go for a "lite" Empire or a "hard" Empire.
Then at the end he says we're going to pull up the drawbridge and "Come Home, America" (Pat Buchanan, Eugene McCarthy, phone your publicists).
So, which is it, doc? You can't have it both ways. Except in a Salon interview, I suppose. Those people are as clueless as he is, and frequently blinded by academic credenza.
7 - Porphyrogenitus
Ruprect is onto something.
For a Supra-Genius, Kaplan is intellectually confused. On the one hand he says we're either going to go for a "lite" Empire or a "hard" Empire.
Then at the end he says we're going to pull up the drawbridge and "Come Home, America" (Pat Buchanan, Eugene McCarthy, phone your publicists).
So, which is it, doc? You can't have it both ways. Except in a Salon interview, I suppose. Those people are as clueless as he is, and frequently blinded by academic credenza.
Plus, Kupchan is ten years or so behind the times. Less Through (aka Lester Thurow) said in '93 that the 'House of Europe' was going to predominate. We know how that worked out.
8 - Porphy-the-Name-Challenged
"Supra-Genius Kupchan", even.
9 - Chris
Andrew X, your pitch was in the strike zone. I, too, wouldn't mind a bit if some other civilized countries or federations showed some class. Just as Japanese cars improved transportation for everyone, I wish modern Europeans would make some decent movies or write some good books or create a few million jobs or produce some brilliant music or have some universities that would actually draw hotshots from the USA. I wish that language cultures other than English would be so vibrant and flourishing that other people would want to join them, learn and speak their languages, marry into their populations, assimilate into their socities. All this would be great. Americans (and other English speakers) would be better off as a result. Competition is good.
The trouble here on the third rock is that there isn't enough competition. Europe is tired and ossified, the Russians are convalescent after 70 years of totalitarianism, the Muslim societies are a nightmare, the Chinese have made great material but little intellectual progress, Latin America is still mired in corruption, and Africa doesn't exactly have other people beating down the doors to live there. It's USA #1 not just because of American excellence but because almost everybody else sucks -- and it looks like the gap will widen. This is in no way a triumphalist rant, since I'm a Canadian, not an American. It's just an observation of the facts.
10 - John Opie
Hi y'all
As an expat suffering along in Germany, let me tell you that Kupchan is an excellent representative of European intellectual views.
Which is why he is as clueless as they are. The major flaw - shucks, there are so many - is demograhics: the open-air museums collectivly called Europe holds an aging population that is incapable of change.
EU as a challenger to the US? When they can't even build new fighters? When they decide to cancel buying adequate missile loads for them? Where they order new APCs with faulty steering/brake systems that the troops don't want to even get into, since they've seen the accidents? GMAHFB.
Clueless...
11 - Eric Olsen
Excellent points and ammo all - I see I have tapped into something. Is there anyone out there who agrees with anything Kupchan has to say? I'm also impressed that our friends outside the country see the situation perhaps even more starkly than we do.
12 - Rene Buchard
I would have agreed with Kupchan between 1970 and 1980. America seemed to be sunk by the oil embargoes, Vietnam, and domestic divisions.
Unfortunately for Kupchan's argument, the past two decades have seen america's fortunes rise, and europes fortunes stagnate and decay.
Europe is "locked in" to its demise, institutionally. A rapidly aging population of staunch socialists who are allergic to hard work. A strong influx of muslim immigrants taking full advantage of generous welfare provisions and excellent, and otherwise unused, obstetrics wards.
13 - Jay Manifold
Several things here (and keep in mind that I've only read your review, not the source):
I can agree with one notion of Kupcha's, namely that the future is one of widespread anti-Americanism, especially in (western) Europe; but such an attitude will be, as a practical matter, utterly impotent. I read recently that the US has created 57 million jobs in the past 30 years, while the EU zone created 5 million -- a majority of which were in the public sector. And the EU is not headed in the right direction. If anything, its economic policies are largely a matter of French and German trade unions strangling eastern-European competition in the cradle.
The gaps between our respective militaries are well-known; the only armed forces in the world which are in a class with the US are those of the UK (and, I suppose, man for man, the IDF). Over the next 15 years or so, this disparity will become grotesque. Think Mussolini attacking Ethiopian tribesmen with aircraft and machine guns, or German panzers attacking Polish cavalry. That's the future, and the US isn't going to be the side using muskets and horses.
Our present situation seems to me to have been well-anticipated by Strauss and Howe in GENERATIONS: an older Adaptive generation (exemplified by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al) pursuing a methodical, bureaucratic approach, while younger Idealist and Reactive generations (which nearly all bloggers are members of) demand something more decisive, not to say apocalyptic. I regard our challenge as one of risk management. How do we clearly defeat the bad guys now, thereby avoiding an even worse conflict in another decade or two, while minimizing collateral damage to the world?
14 - Kevin
Eric
I doubt few persons in the blogosphere would agree with Kupchan -- they're too well-informed, for one.
Kupchan's cheerleading for the EU reminds me of the breathless enthusiasm among intellectuals for the Soviet Union back in the early 80's. Even as the Berlin Wall was coming down, the eggheads told us that the Great Gorbachev would lead the USSR into a new era (he did, just not the one they were hoping for).
Similarly, the Europe is entering a new phase in its history, just not the one that Kupchan is describing.
15 - Mike Plaiss
Eric,
You ask, "Is there anyone out there who agrees with anything Kupchan has to say?" I'll venture in on this even though I feel just as strongly as you do that he is wrong. But he is onto something even if it is for the wrong reasons.
I believe that most Americans would LIKE to make way for others to share in the leadership of the world. The problem now, as Chris points out, is that there is no entity ready willing and able to assume this role. As he put it, "almost everybody else sucks." He's right.
But one thing we should have learned over the last 20 years (really a very short period of time) is how quickly things can change in the world. As unlikely as it seems right now it is not totally unthinkable that a democratic and prosperous China may emerge someday. I am sure we love to see such a China assume some responsibilities in Asia.
Europe continues to fall further and further behind us economically, but it is no mystery as to why. It is not inconceivable that they will someday decide to do something about it.
If, fifty years from now, responsible, economically powerful countries or blocks of countries have emerged, I am sure the US would gladly make way for them to assume powerful world leadership roles.
Historians living in a future world where it is not always just the U.S. that is standing up for civilization, may look back and conclude this Kupchan guy was onto something.
16 - Eric Olsen
More fine food for thought - thanks! I agree that we would love to be able to turn over at least some of our world policing/bankrolling/moral education duties, but the problem is we dont' seem to be able to trust anyone else to do them. Certainly things COULD change, and perhaps if the War on Terrorism is successful in the long run, that will help precipitate change.
17 - Mike Plaiss
Eric,
Couldn't resist a follow-up post even though I don't have a whole lot more to add - just some thoughts on why we have reason to be optimistic.
Fukuyama vs Huntington: who is right? Conservatives tend to come down on the side of Fukuyama, but sometimes miss the implications of him being right.
According to Fukuyama the world is a marketplace for ideas. The U.S. has come to dominate the world because "free markets, free people, and the rule of law" is the best damn idea out there. It produces the most dynamic and productive society, the most wealth, and thus the most power.
Over time (often a lot of time) the best ideas tend to get imitated. To some extent societies have no real choice - adopt the better ideas or fall further and further behind. There is obviously great resistance to change for cultural or religious reasons, but eventually like rain and wind eroding a large rock, that resistance melts away.
Whether it is Europe or the Middle East, what we see in the world today, the violent and visceral anti-Americanism, is a reaction from those that are resisting changes occurring all around them. It is a reaction from those that are LOSING the battle of ideas.
Unfortunately, this provides no comfort in the short term, but make no mistake we will win the war on terrorism. It might take a generation to do it, and we may experience another 9/11 or, God forbid, even worse, but we will win.
18 - Eric Olsen
Mike, I basically agree with your cultural Darwinism, although I am amazed by people's capacity for perverse self-destruction, as rather perfectly symbolized by suicide bombers. But I also see a direction to history in the long run.
19 - Jim Carruthers
Ye're all a bunch o' limp-wristed poodle-walkers!
Now here's a real (Scotch) Man and he says:
It's all disinformation!
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Jeezus, jumped up christ on a pogo stick, can you look Shrub in the face and tell me he is telling any truth?
20 - Porphyrogenitus
Jay: Its cool to see someone influenced by Howe & Straus. Their books are really thought-provoking (though even years and years after I've read them, I'm not sure they're right. Though I often notice things that support their theory).
Mike wrote:
As unlikely as it seems right now it is not totally unthinkable that
a democratic and prosperous China may emerge someday. I am sure
we love to see such a China assume some responsibilities in Asia.
Im more hopeful about India, actually, than China. Especially considering the historical differences (China has often been an expansionistic power, a conquerer and cultural bully whenever powerful. India has rarely been an expansionistic power, even when strong - indeed, at their strongest, India has often promoted peaceful relations with neighbors). India, for all its Caste-related issues, is, IMO, a more promising loci for Democratic Republicanism and the Rule of Law than China.
One of the things I've been hoping will come out of this whole mess, the silver-lining as it were, is closer relations between America and India, after a fairly long patch of coolness. That does seem to be happening, though slowly (largely impeded because of the Pakistan thing, but even that hasn't prevented closer ties, just slowed them down). It would be nice to have a real partner - as we have in Britain (however "small", Britain has a lot of influence and "clout" throughout the world).
China I'm not too optimistic about, *even* (especially?) as they grow in strength. India, on the other hand, could take a very significant role in the future - which will help counterbalance a growing China. We really should do all we can to try and foster better relations with India whenever possible. IMO.
21 - Brett McHargue
Porphy wrote:
China has often been an expansionistic power, a conquerer and cultural bully whenever powerful.
OK, I know I am strongly influenced by living in Europe, but I was born in Texas and have a great deal of pride in my country--and these words are exactly how the US is described over here, and often with good reason. One man's "the world is a marketplace for ideas" is another man's "cultural bully".
22 - Eric Olsen
I don't see the US as expansionist or conquering, and "cultural bully" would imply an effort to intimidate other cultures, which I also don't see. We just want to sell them stuff and not be attacked.
23 - Mike Finley
"Blinded by academic credenza?"
24 - Robert Rosenthal
If the US falters, the likely replacement is China, rather than the sick men of the EU. Every single time China has been a regional hegemon, it has expanded its borders. As soon as the US leaves Asians to the Asians (by default this means the Chinese) - look for the kinds of wars that characterized Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
25 - Mike Finley
Was the Soviet Union a superpower because of its moral authority? Is China a superpower because of its moral authority? Is the Vatican a superpower because of its moral authority?
I'm a little lost on this moral authority thing.
Who decides if we have moral authority? China? Russia? Iraq? North Korea? Venezuela? Europe?
Or is it just us? And our money and power?