Racism, Democracy, and the Realists
The Poet Omar on Jan 05 2007 at 2:57 am | Filed under: Foreign affairs, History, The Poet Omar's Page
One of the most frequently heard talking points amongst US foreign policy “Realists” is that not every culture in the world is a suitable breeding ground for democracy. General Brent Scowcroft is one of the most recognized prophets of this philosophy, but I cannot begin to count the numbers of those on both the right and left who echo this belief. Here are several different angles to the same argument (from right, left, and center authors):
Now Dr. Bellin’s argument is more slanted toward economic considerations than the other two, but her conclusion is basically the same: Islamic societies in general, and Iraq in particular, are incompatible with democracy. Needless to say, I disagree. Examples of successful democratic governments (though not necessarily US-style democracies) do exist in Muslim majority nations. Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Turkey to name but several. The real issue, I find, however is one that hasn’t been frequently touched on: is it racist to assume that non-Western cultures are incompatible with democracy?
I see many, many eyebrows raising at this point. Fear not, dear reader, I am not skewing off into some Marxist, socio-economic racial argument here. It is simply surprising to me that in our otherwise racially charged newsmedia environment that this question has not really been seriously posed. Two of the above articles which I cited touch on this issue from different points-of-view, however neither really addresses the issue historically. Also, neither touches on the idea that some of those firmly opposed to regime change in Iraq on the basis that democracy will not work in said country are otherwise highly race conscious leftists. I find this to be an interesting and undercommented upon coincidence. My intent here isn’t to simply lefty-bash, but rather to raise the point that if one were to say that democracy was unsuitable for, say, black Africans (including their descendents in the Americas [African Americans]), one would be, quite rightly, criticized as racist. I don’t believe that any ethnic group in the world is incompatible with democracy nor do I believe that democracy is the ideal form of government for every nation. Rather, each nation must be considered individually based on its own history and culture, not simply its ethnic make-up.
For example, Iraq is an excellent example of a nation that does not currently possess the proper infrastructure to sustain any form of government, save perhaps dictatorship. Had its underlying infrastructure survived the war, then perhaps a stable, democratic government could have been built. As it is, I fear that, short of partition, which is unlikely to happen, no government will prove stable enough to last past a few months. This is not due to the ethnicity or religion of the Iraqi people, nor is this is an indictment of either Muslims or Arabs in general, but rather a statement of the brutal reality of the situation that exists post-invasion. Iraq simply lacks the resources in 2007 to sustain the development of a democratic government.
Let us consider some other societies that have not proven particularly suitable to democratic government:
1. France. An absolute train-wreck of socialism, nationalism, and anti-Semitism since the fall of the Bourbon dynasty. In reality, the glory of France was briefly revived under the First Napoleonic Empire, but that was merely the ancien regime under new management. The French Revolution and the 19th century French swing toward hard-left socialism and communism saw the end of anything resembling glory and national honor for France. The real death knell was sounded at Verdun and in the trenches of the First World War when the last of the “True Frenchmen” gave their lives to preserve their nation and its honor. What has existed since 1918 (with a very few exceptions such as Charles de Gaulle and Phillipe Leclerc) is a nation led by leftist cowards who despise everything truly French. France under its monarchs was a noble, Catholic nation that was the stalwart defender of Western European culture. France without its monarch is a hopelessly confused mass of left and far-left charlatans attempting to rewrite France’s history starting in 1789 (and then skipping ahead to 1871, conveniently ignoring both Napoleonic Empires). Sad.
2. Britain. Nowhere near as much of a lost cause as France, but demonstrably on the same path. Britain is strongest and proudest when it has a strong monarch leading it. Yes, Britain is and has been the textbook perfect model for parliamentary democracy, but remember that until the reign of QE2, the monarch was always a major player in British politics. Great Britain in the days of Elizabeth I through Victoria was the world’s mightiest empire, virtually unchallenged. In all that time, strong monarchs ruled, for better or worse. Since Victoria’s death, Britain has fallen more and more under the malaise of socialism. The last, noble monarch-loving Britains were the generation that produced Britain’s “Finest Hour” in 1940. They were the last of the Victorians and Edwardians and appreciated the importance of a strong monarch (even though George VI was not exactly inspiring in words, he certainly set a great example by deeds). Not necessarily faulting HRH Queen Elizabeth II, who volunteered courageously for service in World War 2, thus providing a noble example, the nation has been on nothing but a downward spiral since the death of her father. Again, non-monarch dominated democracy, rather a bit of a failure for the Brits.
3. Russia. Where do I even start with this mess? Russia is historically, a nation best governed by an absolute monarch. The Russian people, over the past millennia of their history, are a peasant nation. There is no shame in that. Rather, there is a particular nobility in knowing that despite never-ending hardships, the Russian people persevere. In its day, Russia was one of the most powerful nations in the world and was always considered a major power in European affairs. Under the leadership of the Tsars (or Czars if you prefer), Russia grew from a few hundred miles of snowy, barbarian villages into the massive economic and military power that very nearly defeated Germany in the First World War. Although certainly not all of Russia’s Tsars (or Tsarinas) were ideal, certain names still evoke images of grandeur and glory: Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and Alexander I (the highly eccentric Tsar who defeated Napoleon). The great tragedy of Russian history was the rise of leftism in one of its most militant and corrupting forms, Leninist-Stalinist communism. The overthrow of the Tsars and the creation of the Soviet Union and the rise of worldwide communism resulted in the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century, possibly of mankind’s entire history. A hundred million deaths are laid at the feet of communism and its saints and the fall of Russia from Orthodox Christian, monarchist empire to the despotic, fragmented shell that it is today (run now by an uneasy alliance of former hard-line communists and organized crime figures) is one of the most rapid and sad declines of a nation in history. It is rather ironic that in the post-communist era, a real middle class (a bourgeoisie) has emerged in Russia. Lenin must be turning over on his tomb. Again, democracy just not the best thing for the Russians.
Other examples most assuredly exist, however my point was simply to show that the success of democracy is not tied to ethnicity (race), but rather to the cultural identity of a nation. As many of those opposed to the Iraq War have based that opposition on, among other points, the idea that democracy and Arabs (specifically Iraqis) are not compatible, it was necessary to point out that democracy is not necessarily “successful” amongst the nations of “the West.” It is always assumed that as the original founders of modern democracy, the nations of Europe and the Americas are naturally inclined toward democracy. It is also assumed that democracy is not only always compatible with European and American nations, but that democracy is the ideal form of government in those nations. These are false assumptions as I have demonstrated above. Democracy is not a cure-all. It is not the end-all, be-all solution to all of the world’s problems. Certain societies will not prosper under democratic governance, while others will. That is a cold, hard fact of realpolitik. The problem with the arguments of the “Realists” is that they use the wrong parameters to define “democratic” and “non-democratic” compatible nations. Rather than use religion or ethnicity as the litmus test (as far too many have done and which is clearly ethnocentric thinking), the overall national culture and history should be considered. Thus, it is most assuredly racist or, at least, ethnocentric to argue that “Arabs” or “Muslims” cannot successfully establish democratic societies. It is not in any way racist, however, to base the potential or actual success of democratic government on a nation as whole, including its history and culture. Some will say, “What is the difference?” I respond, “Everything.” It is the difference between criticizing a nation’s policies and its people. It is the difference between constructive and destructive criticism. It is “Realism” at its best. Knowing what can reasonably be accomplished and what cannot [which countries are suitably fertile for democracy] while not alienating those whom you may need as allies in the future [the world's Arab and Muslim populations].
Sphere: Related Content21 Responses to “Racism, Democracy, and the Realists”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
I don’t mean to be churlish, but democracy has not exactly taken root in Pakistan. Remember that time in the 90’s when a democratically elected leader was overthrown in a military coup? That guy is still in charge, and he still limits elections.
Otherwise, your point about ethnicity being no indicator of democratic inclinations is right. I think, however, you inflate the “nobleness” of pre-Revolutionary France, and unfairly discount its attempts at social justice since. You similarly discount the reign of Margaret Thatcher—a democratically elected Prime Minister who in fact led her country quite admirably (to say nothing of the multiple revolts against the monarchy in favor of greater democracy over the last 1000 years).
That’s a good point regarding Pakistan, Josh. I should probably not have used it as an example, but I suspect that President Pervez Musharraf’s takeover was more of a reaction against the Islamist takeover than a real swing toward permanent military despotism. Once Pakistan has expelled or at least greatly reduced the influence of the Islamists and built up a more stable infrastructure and society, then I imagince that democracy will be restored. Musharraf just needs to be patient with his reforms, however, and not give the Islamist reactionaries too much ammo in their struggle against modernization.
Also, modern France is not exactly a paragon of “social justice.” Examine its highly discriminatory practices toward its immigrant Muslim population (part of the cause of last year’s riots). Bourbon or Napoleonic France weren’t perfect, no doubt, but they were a great deal better than what currently exists.
Thatcherism in Britain was the last hurrah of the old guard, not really a move back to the Britain of yesteryear. Although fairly successful from an economic and foreign policy standpoint, culturally Thatcherism was a failure. Its successor, Blairism, represents the absolute cultural collapse of Britain and is more indicative of the current state of the UK than Thatcherism is. If nothing else, examine the fervent nationalism of the Scots and Welsh. They aren’t proud to be “Britains” anymore; they are reverting to the old ways and, were it not for interdependent economies, would probably have declared independence from the UK by now.
That France doesn’t get it right goes without saying, but I don’t think you can accuse them of neglecting the ideas of social justice, or even of democracy. Their entire ideal of citizenship and race – in which buying into being “french” and participating in French society is what makes one French, and that the government does not collect data on race because it officially considers it a non-issue – is deeply democratic, or at the least liberal. Discrimination happens, but it is not government policy; rather the officially color-blind policies are to blame, because if race doesn’t exist, how can racism?
Also, both Bourbon and Napoleonic France were overturned specifically because of how they perverted the ideals of the Revolution. You think Napoleon III was better than Jacques Chirac? At least Chirac wasn’t baited into a disastrous war. And your classification of France as hopeless leftist is also false: Chirac is technically center-right, even by our definitions, and his successor, Nikolas Sarkozy, is even more so. The current electoral battle in France is between what we would consider a traditional conservative and a communist… meaning, there remains a vibrant debate in the country.
Oh, and “fervent nationalism” in Scotland and Wales has existed since they were incorporated; why do you think they’ve had separate teams at the World Cup for decades? Scotland in particular has been mildly seccesionist since at least the early 18th century, and had a big wave of it in the 1970’s as well.
The problems of England and France aren’t that they make bad democracies; it’s that they elected bad leaders. Sound familiar?
Omar,
I am no fan of many of Blair’s domestic initiatives, and I am certainly not one to defend the French government on a regular basis, but I think in the grand scheme of things they are reasonably successful as democracies, Britain especially so.
France is more problematic, as the central government subverts much democratic impulses, and creates conditions that lead to a drive for the government to be given even more power vis a vis the individual.
I am more sanguine about the possibility of democracy in most nations as well, though I think the factors you bring up are correct. That includes in regard to Russia and the Middle East. I am much more concerned about both areas due to the power of many groups to stand in democracy’s way than they are incapable of it, or that it wouldn’t be better for them. Democracy takes breathing space form its enemies to take root. Otherwise it can easily fail. We were lucky, Britain already had developed a large raft of democratic institutions for us to adapt, we had an ocean between us and most interlopers and an extraordinary set of leaders. We nevertheless could have flown apart numerous times in the initial decades, and some of those stresses were caused by issues that in a perfect world should have riven us, slavery being a perfect example. Luckily for us now, though the price the slaves of the time paid for putting the conflict off was horrific, the elimination of slavery waited until the Republic was valued enough for us to survive the conflict intact as a nation.
Morally that was problematic, but in actuality it probably hastened the end of slavery. If the colonies had split over the issue early on there might have been no war, but a split into two weaker nations. Slavery most probably would have existed far longer and our nation would have been stunted. The inevitable conflicts over the expansion of the two nations would have probably led to intermittent conflict,and eventually the war might have been fought anyway with the South feeling even more the conquered nation than it did historically.
People underestimate how much randomness infects history. That is true in any lessons we take from Iraq or the democratic success of nations. In the 30’s and 40’s one might have concluded, in fact the evidence was pretty strong, that most Asian countries were incapable of democracy, including Japan, China, Korea and Vietnam. Two of those countries, as imperfect as they are, have proven that wrong. I suspect in the ever shifting sands of Middle Eastern politics that Iraq, Iran and most of the rest are capable of it. If it happens though I am sure it will surprise us. That being said, some present day democracies we would never expect will probably stumble as well.
Perhaps and perhaps not, but this still doesn’t erase the fact that France, as a whole, has been on a downward spiral since at least 1918, and, realistically, since 1789. What, other than perhaps possession of nuclear weapons, makes France a nation even worth mentioning anymore? Where is the strong, confident France of the past? Instead we get Chirac which leads to your second point:
So, we have the choice between an incompetent who dreamed of glory (Napoleon III) and a crook who dreams of lining his own pockets at the world’s expense (Chirac). This isn’t about bad leadership (on the contrary, Chirac has proven to be about as popular with the French electorate as George Bush is here), but rather about the nature of the French government itself. France, under its socialist democracy (despite the occasional right-center resurgence, as you point out), is rapidly becoming a non-factor in world affairs. It cannot even claim to be a leader on the European stage anymore, having forfeited that role to Germany. Would this have happened under Louis XIV or Napoleon I? I think not.
Soccer teams are one thing, demand for independent government and return to national language are quite another. The Welsh, in particular, have been quite persnickety about refusing to use English and preferring to use their version of the Celtic language. It is common in interviews with Welsh and, increasingly, Scots actors and actresses for the question to be asked of whether having to do the “English” accent for television and theater is offensive. Scottish and Welsh desires for “independence” died in the 18th century. The English made sure that their subject peoples were not only wholly “British,” but that they were proud to be “British” and rejected anyone who opposed “Britain.” That trend has reversed itself post-20th century, especially post-World War 2. The United Kingdom is rapidly becoming “United” no more. Thatcherism, for all its economic good, failed to stop this trend and Blairism seems to be all about embracing it. HM QE2 seems completely absent from these discussions. That does not bode well for the future.
But how do we define success, Lance? If we consider the smooth flow of elections and failure to succumb to military coup d’etat as the mark of success, then yes, Britain and France are, indeed, remarkably successul. If we look at the overall progress of the nations and their historical accomplishments and, for lack of a better term, national pride and glory, then I think we can fairly safely say that France and Britain have been failures.
France under its ancien regime and under the Napoleonic Empires was a widely respected world power with a moderate degree of material wealth and reasonably prosperous citizenry. It was the leader of the continental powers and a strong check to German supremacy. For many years, in fact, France defined the culture of Western Europe (and of Russia, for that matter). What is it now but a bad example of socialism gone wrong?
Britain, under its strong monarchs, was THE world power. Post-Victoria, or really post George VI, it is rapidly becoming a (dis)United Kingdom and is falling into the same trap of national malaise brought on by socialism that France is caught in.
Strong leaders have always inspired the British and French peoples. Which is not to say that other nations (including the US) don’t benefit from such, but the US seems to continue to prosper under its democratic system even when we have questionable central authority figures (W, Clinton, and Bush I come to mind). Britain and France, among other nations, seem not to be able to handle slumps in leadership as well under their democratic systems. Thus I pose the idea that the current forms of democracy operating in those two nations have failed. Its people are no longer proud and prosperous. Rather, they are heading for the history books, as two formerly great nations that only historians will remember.
I remain baffled, given the eggregious human rights abuses and the total hatred of basic civic rights under both Louis XIV and Napoleon I, that you seem to think they were “better” for France than the Fifth Republic – which, despite its incomplete embrace of free market liberalism, is far better at protecting private rights and keeping religious bias from the government than our own country.
What is noteworthy about France? Aside from its accelerating embrace of market mechanisms (did you forget the unsuccessful protests over the new youth employment rules that allow “at-will” termination?), they are the sixth-largest economy in the world, behind the only the UK, German, Japan, and China. That’s nothing to write off, considering they have the population of Texas and the territory of Michigan.
And as for Scotland and Wales, you’re using territories that have a centuries-long tradition of chafing against British rule as an example of some kind of unique centrifigal force at work. Consolidated kingdoms all over the world are breaking up or at least readjusting themselves – most notably in Africa, but look at Russia, the Basques, parts of Tuscany, or, hell, Africa and East Timor. Seccession and ethnic nationalism is a global movement, spurred in part by our own leaders’ rhetoric to that effect. In the European Parliament, MEPs identify much more strongly with their region than with their country – is the entirety of Europe about to fly apart in an orgy of self-hatred? Quite probably not.
Omar, according to your definition, the only countries of note today are the U.S., Russia, and China. That is clearly not the case. If you count the EU as a collective unit (which, in economic terms, it basically is), then the EU has by far the largest economy on earth, and accordingly a tremendous amount of sway in setting international economic policy.
The ability to invade poor countries (which France still does more than any one else besides America) does not make a country great any more. No one cares about colonies; they care about your ability to make money. And France does that – it’s economy is one of the largest in the world.
Hmmm, I am not sure France doesn’t beat us there as well, though I haven’t counted it up recently. Maybe we have moved ahead. Not that anyone seems to pay attention to France’s military adventures.
I have to agree that economically France has done relatively well, though I see that slipping since the 1980’s in relative terms. Still, I consider their relative prosperity a success.
On Britain however I have to disagree with Omar. Britain may be a nanny state filled with all kinds of Clintonesque micro-programmatic nonsense (digital finger printing for beer?) but outside of China I would rate them with anyone else as a military power and still one of the most open economies in the world. If you have to be a third way nanny state they seem to be able to avoid the most damaging economic aspects of it. I guess Omar that I would have agreed with you about Britain pre-Thatcher. There is a reason people spoke of the “English Disease” in respect to their economy in the 1970’s. Blair may be a nanny, but he has kept the essentials of Thatcherism in place, which is why he is loathed by the left in Britain.
They certainly are not preeminent but, especially in the case of Britain, I think that says more about our and the rest of the world’s ascendancy than their decline. France’s sclerotic state is certainly depriving them of a lot, but it hasn’t been disastrous. I think it may turn out to be, but that is true of much of the world which needs to re think their social insurance programs in light of demographic reality.
More importantly to me, is that national pride and glory may be a wonderful thing, but that isn’t the purpose of the state to me. A prosperous and free citizenry are. Britain and more acutely France, may be depriving their citizens of some of that, but they have far more than most of mankind. Not being the glorious powers of old seems a small price to pay for that.
Once again, I agree with your basic premise, but I think the notion of Europe’s welfare states as failures is too harsh. I don’t think less democracy is the answer, at least if we mean by that more monarchical influence.
Actually, this is only partially true. Napoloen I was, for his day, quite a reformer as concerns certain aspects of civil rights (for example, he allowed Jews to be equal citizens under the law, something the Bourbons never did). Equally, persecution of Freemasons and Protestants ended under the first Napleonic Empire (in fact, more than a few of Napoleon’s inner circle were Masons [Jean Lannes comes to mind]). Also, the reformed, modernized French law known as the Code Napoleon was created during this period. Its influence is still felt today in, among other places, the US state of Louisiana.
My point here isn’t necessarily that pre-20th century France was a better place for modern liberalism (and its attached values), but rather that the nation, as a whole, was more successful and influential than it currently is. France of earlier centuries was not facing the issue of collapse of national identity. It is facing such an issue today, and I cannot believe that in her prime, under a strong monarch, France would have allowed such a situation.
I do not count the EU as a collective unit (despite the efforts of its bureaucrats). Its constitution has still not passed muster in numerous countries and many Europeans still seem unwilling to surrender their sovereignty to the government of the United States of Europe. The EU, in my oh so humble opinion, is an experiment in politcal desperation doomed to failure.
Not so, although those are certainly the “Big Three” so to speak. I prefer not to dwell on crass economics or even military power, but rather to focus on trends and the cycle of history. The US, despite some atrocious blunders in the past 50 years, is basically continuing to trend upwards. We are still a young nation, with a booming economy, growing population, and some concept of national identity and dream. China, despite its hiccoughs, is basically in the same situation. Russia, in my estimate, is trending downwards. Economically, they aren’t doing well, the population is aging and beginning to fragment into various nationalities, as opposed to the old identity as a single nation of several ethnicities (Georgians, Ukrainians, etc.), and its stability and political picture are very much in question.
My predictions for the upward trending powers of the next twenty years are:
US, China, India, South Korea, Taiwan (barring confrontation with China militarily), Indonesia (despite stability issues), Malaysia (same as Indonesia), and, with some major reforms, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. Possibly Eastern Europe may be included in this, but too much communist influence still remains and there are real stability issues to take into account. I’d love to see a resurgent Poland or a thriving new power in Rumania or Hungary, but I’m still skeptical.
One other nation that has potential, but is more like a next 40 or 50 years kind of project as opposed to 20 is South Africa. They have tremendous human and natural resources, and are beginning to develop the infrastructure necessary to build a successful, long-lasting democracy. I’m thrilled about the progress that they have made in the past 20 years and I hope that the other major African states can copy that (Kenya comes to mind along with the DRC). If, and that’s a big IF, Africa can gain some measure of stability and unify its peoples, then it will be the next powerhouse to replace Asia.
We may be approaching this from two different angles, Lance. From the standpoint of political theory (and, in all fairness, US national interest), then yes I would absolutely agree that Britain and France should remain democracies and that we should continue to lean on them to adopt more liberal as opposed to leftist/statist positions.
From the point of view of a historian, or even as a romantic with dreams of past glory, the reality is that Britain and France are mere shadows of their former glory. Together, those two nations virtually ruled the pre-twentieth century world. What the heck happened to them? It wasn’t merely US and Soviet ascendency, post-World War II. It’s what happened that led up to World War I and the immediate aftermath (1919-1939). The US was merely
a distant, and heavily isolationist agricultural nation. We were not heavy hitters in the 1920’s and 30’s. The Soviets were busy trying to form a stable government, foment worldwide revolution, and, after Lenin’s death, killing each other off to determine who the “true” Communists were. They weren’t much to worry about in the 20’s and 30’s either.
France and Britain were infected with socialism and the national malaise that comes with it. Euro-style socialism is a sort of touchy-feely race to the bottom to see which nation can become a non-entity the fastest. Austria and Switzerland have accomplished this goal nicely, and France is rapidly working on becoming a German protectorate. Britain and France do still have reasonably powerful militaries, but when it comes down to it, both have declining, aging populations, virtually stagnant economies, and no plans for the future other than to embrace the EU.
Let’s look at it this way : in the choice between sacrifice today for a glorious future versus free healthcare, child support, university education, and guaranteed employment today and nothing tomorrow, both Britons and Frenchmen appear to have chosen the latter. I can only hope that the US does not follow.
How history repeats itself: in 1889 the “feminisme” movement to grant women more political and economic rights was in full swing, and women in record numbers were leaving home to go to work (France led the world in this at the time). This was all in the aftermath of the Paris Commune, France’s humiliation at the hands of the Germans, the disgrace of Napoleon III, and radically altering ideas of the family for context. While this was happening, in 1895 or so, the number of French deaths outnumbered French births for the first time ever, and between 1880 and 1890, France’s population grew by only 2 million (as opposed to Germany’s 20-million person growth).
The biggest reason was reforms to property laws that discouraged large families and encouraged women to work rather than raise their families… somewhat like the situation in modern France. It was really the divisiveness of the Dreyfus Affair, and WWI, that finally put the population “problem” into perspective, and people began breeding again.
My point is that this isn’t a new problem for France – they’ve dealt with it before, a century ago in fact, and they’ll deal with it again.
I’m afraid you’re wrong there again. The U.S. has been in a relative decline since the 1970’s – our share of global GDP has been trending steadily downwards. In 1950, the U.S. economy was pushing 40% of global GDP, now we’re just under 24%. We remain unchallenged economically, but if you’re going to talk about trends, then in the medium future China will become the undisputed economic superpower of the planet. Our international standing financially is also much more tenuous than most Americans give us credit for.
Similarly, Russia’s economy is in fact booming, and the recent series of spats between Gazprom and the former Soviet states is good evidence of how Russia’s growing power is coming to be wielded. The recent price hike on Belarus was, in part, a retaliation against Lukaschenko renigging on his pledge to integrate Belarus into the Federation. The insurgencies in Ingushetia, North Ossetia, and even Chechnya have calmed in recent months as Putin has displayed a ferocity Yeltsin never could muster. Rather than fragmenting, Russia is in fact congealing back into something far more reminiscent of the old Soviet than a failed confederation.
As for your predictions: I’m curious as to what you think Jordan has to offer economically. They don’t have a well-developed banking system (like Dubai or Bahrain), they don’t have much oil, they don’t have many universities or a high literacy rate (like Egypt), or a strong tech sector (like Israel). Why Jordan, and not, say, one of the Hong Kong-esque UAE city states? Similarly, what prospects do you see in the Congo that make it so appealing, considering the severe human rights issues that remain even in the cease fire?
As for your response to Lance: with the exception of the U.S., every country on Earth is but a shadow of its former self (and even here, there is a “return to national greatness” movement that assumes we are past our peak”). And what’s remarkable is, most countries, especially Europe and East Asia, are far better in total than they were a century ago. Developing a strong service sector is not as sexy or high profile as conquering Africa or starting wars, but it has far deeper, longer-lasting benefit for the population at large.
That is not a question of continued nation survival so much as it is a social and economic realignment. France is currently in the throws of major population demographic shift. The question of who and what a Frechman is today is going to have a radically different answer 20 years from now. Given current trends, France will become Algeria north. Short of duking it out with Algeria again (including the major problem of immigrants in France), how exactly do you see France changing course and revitalizing itself? Please don’t tell me that the EU is your solution.
Perhaps I am wrong on this point. Economics isn’t an area of strength for me. My view of this is however, not that the US GDP has been shrinking (quite the contrary), but rather that the overall world GDP has been increasing. Since the global GDP of other nations has increased, the US share naturally appears smaller. This is not a reflection of US economic downtrends, but rather a reflection of uptrends in the rest of the world.
.
And if Putin and his hard-line Communist buddies want to restore the old Soviet Union, then by all means, let them do so. We all know how that worked out for them. Is Russia simply going to be trapped in a never-ending cycle of Communist rule followed by collapse then quasi-capitalist democracy for a short time, then rise of Communism again? That doesn’t sound like a state on the rise to me.
Compared to Israel or Saudi Arabia or the UAE, virtually nothing. Jordan offers one thing that the other Arab nations do not, however : stability. It has a long record of westernization (despite occasional throwbacks to the bad old days), a great deal of British infrastructure still remaining (in the Arab-Israeli Wars, Jordan’s military was the only Arab one that consistenly performed well), and, most importantly, a track record of peace with Israel. Jordan is the buffer state, through which East and West meet and exchange ideas and goods (since Iraq isn’t a viable alternative). Jordan’s rulers are also highly respected in the Middle East and enjoy the support of the Bedouins and most devout Muslims (the Hashemites were the traditional protectors of Mecca). That is an enormous political advantage if wielded wisely. It’s the kind of legitimacy that the Saudis will never have. Also, King Abdullah II is a very forward looking, Western educated ruler. He enjoys a great deal more vision than Bashar Assad does in Syria. Jordan stands to benefit from Israel’s growth more than any other Arab state. That alone is worth it.
The DRC seems to be settling down a bit. President Kabila seems like a genuine reformer (or at least a moderate) and he was democratically elected with a reasonable majority (nearly 60%). I’m not saying that he is perfect and he is certainly inheriting a country looking at an uphill struggle for stability, but I think he has great potential. Only time will tell, but look at the progress that the DRC has made in the last century : in 1906 they were still occupied by Leopold II’s Belgian hand-hacking rubber hunters. In 2006, they elected their first democratically elected President since universal direct suffrage was granted. They have problems, yes, but the sheer size of the country, its resources, and its, hopefully, reforming, visionary leader will propel it to future success.
The US is on the downslide of its peak, but the peak is hardly at an end. There is no need to return to national greatness here. The advantage that the US has over other nations in this respect (and that makes using the US sort of an apples and oranges comparison) is that we are one of the world’s youngest nations. The US, in its present form, is only 230 years old (give or take). We haven’t really gone through the cycles of history yet.
A reasonable argument can certainly be made that many Asian nations are better off today than they were a century ago (China certainly comes to mind), but others certainly aren’t (North Korea comes to mind, as does Cambodia). Europe is demonstrably worse off. Especially Western Europe. World War I (mainly, but not exclusively) ruined it. The British were the most prosperous people in the world a century ago; everyone wanted to be British (except the French and Germans). Now people can barely find Britain on the map. Oh, they have a nice service sector economy. Well, jolly good for them. That’ll make a nice epitaph for the history books: Britain, once the world’s mightiest empire spent its final days as a nation developing a wonderful service sector economy. Other than the little material scraps that the nanny state offers British subjects (free healthcare and other social welfare), how exactly are they better off today than they were when they ruled the world?
I’m sorry to say your poor command of economics is sinking your argument again. “Relative Decline” means that the U.S.’s position of dominance is not what it was—not that the economy has shrunk, but that is occupies a far less important place in the global economy than it once did.
And your best argument for Jordan is that it’s a stable buffer state? Buffer states don’t become prosperous; they are held in place by those who wish the buffer.
I’ve seen no evidence that a single election means anything to the DRC, at least not anything more than single elections mean in Venezuela, Iran, or Russia.
And Russia’s behavior is certainly that of a country on the rise—gaining territory, flexing its political, economic, and diplomatic muscles against our interests (especially in Venezuela, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran, and Syria), even taking the lead in space launches as it recently has. The very fact of Russia’s near-total dominance in the LNG sector, and it’s growing dominance in oil (it produces more oil than OPEC) means its influence and power are rising, not falling.
As for “Western Europe” before and after World War I… you do realize that most French citizens didn’t have electricity or reliable running water until the Marshall Plan, right? Same thing with England and most of the Maastricht 15. By any possible economic measure one can conceive, each and every single country in Europe is far better off now than it was a century ago—in education, health, income, and liberty. I defy you to find me one Parisian who is just dying for a return to Bonapartism, for example, or for Spain to return to its pre-Franco days. You won’t, because even though they don’t operate the sexy global empires you seem to love so much, they are materially vastly better off.
And yes, those broing service sector jobs you deride so much are what made them, and the United States, as powerful as they are today. There is a good reason the entire International Financial system is run by Europe and the U.S., namely that we are that much more powerful than the rest of the planet. The breakdown of the Doha round was a result of the frustration the G-20: they’re pissed we can tweak the rules in our favor still, and are looking for a way around it.
Empires don’t last; lamenting their passing in great and all, but I think we should rather celebrate that, unlike the Greeks or Romans, or Chinese or Khmer or Saffavids or Ottomans, these Empires didn’t end in fire and brimstone, but whimpers. Don’t tell me WWI or WWII were those violent deaths; the British and French and Belgian Soviet Empires remained despite their occupation and attack by Nazi troops. It wasn’t until the 50’s that voluntary decolonization brought about their end.
Josh, you may well be right about the economics aspect. As I freely admit, economics are not my strength (that’s more Lance and Michael’s department). I find your arguments to be extremely limited in scope, however. You seem to place value upon nations and societies strictly based on their material wealth and economic power. While I don’t disagree that those are important factors, they are vastly overshadowed by cultural and political impact and by the weight of history and I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.
For example, Britons today may well be much better off from an economic and material standpoint than they were under, say Queen Victoria. The MAJORITY of the today’s world population has no desire to be British, however. During Victoria’s time, I would suspect that the reverse was true. Britain, regardless of its GDP or the buying power of its individual citizens, ruled the world, fairly uncontested. By your definitions, the regional economic superpowers should rule fairly uncontestedly in their respective spheres of influence, but neither Japan nor Hong Kong rule China. Heck they can’t even influence North Korea. Likewise, Dubai, the UAE, and Bahrain do not control the Middle East. I daresay that most Middle Easterners could not even find them on a map.
Economics are vital to a nation’s success. I absolutely agree with you on that point. There are larger issues however, that have nothing to do with economics and play a huge part in a nation’s history and continued prosperity. Those are the things that have been missing from modern day France, Britain, and Russia (among other nations). Those are the things that make national “glory” for lack of a better term.
If that’s the case then I don’t really know what your argument. No one seems to desperately want to be anyone or anything else. Economics best explains the immigration flows across the EU and the US (the tightly-knit ethnic communities that have resulted speak to this). So because no one culture is seen as the overwhelmingly best one out there, including the US thanks to our behavior in recent years, what’s the point?
No. Race does not = culture.
France had its Revolution due to debts from the American Revolution. The Brits had larger debts, but since their King was not absoulte and their finances were transparent, they obtained lower interest rates. The Burbon Kings fell due to too much power, in a sense.
Cultural and political impact flow from economic power. The success of England and, later, the US was directly tied to economic power.
In some cases, yes, but that statement is directly contradicted by, among other examples, France under Napoleon I (it virtually owned Europe and many flocked to the banners of France due to its cultural and political power; economically it was a mere stripling compared to Britain and Napoleon was always desperate for funds), the Byzantine Empire (economically they were a mere sideshadow to the power of the Italian city-states to the West and the Muslim empires to the East, yet they were still a culturally dominant power and no major players in the eastern Med acted without concern for the Byzantines’ opinions), and Frederick the Great’s Prussia (economically sound, but hardly inspiring compared to Austria, Russia, or Britain, yet stil a major force in central European affairs due to its political and military power).
Agreed, which is a point that I make in my post.
Oh, I think the Revolution’s underpinings were more complex than simply the economic woes caused by the financial mismanagement of the Bourbon monarchs and their advisors. Also, France was already an economic trainwreck prior to 1776, mostly due to the raiding of the national treasury carried out by Louis XIV.
I think that you may be making the same mistakes as Josh, Don. Economics are vital to a nation’s success. I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. There are other aspects of statehood that also having major bearings, however. As I pointed out above, using the economic strength-only argument, Britain should have been the master of Europe, circa 1805-1806, yet nearly bankrupt France was. Hong Kong and Japan, in the late 20th century should have been THE dominant nations in Asia, yet neither have been able to even slightly influence China or even third world nation North Korea. Contrary to Josh’s assumptions, I believe that many citizens of the world would definitely like to be citizens of the United States of America. Our so-called “tarnished” reputation still brings in droves of both legal and illegal immigrants and doing a random survey in any country east of Germany (excluding perhaps Israel), I suspect a substantial number of foreign citizens would indicate a desire to become Americans. America has the rare combination of economic, cultural, and political power that makes a true superpower. Victorian Britain had it as did Tsarist Russia. These “superpower” states make the citizens of other nations green with envy and give their own citizens a true sense of national pride. That is something that is lacking in the Britain and Russia of today. While I’m not saying that returning the monarchs to power would be cure-alls, both nations certainly seemed to enjoy a great deal more national pride and success under strong monarchs than they do under their current systems.
In fact, France had more total wealth than England, due to a larger population. Per capita, England had more wealth.
France’s “success” was due to military power, but in the end they lost . . .
A similar thing happened in 1914-18 and 1939-45, with the Germans replacing the French.
When you have a border with someone, the military can dominate. Economic power is required for any long term strength, but short term the size and quality of the army can be more important.
Not long ago there was a poll that indicated a large % of Mexicans–including those that are better off–would like to come to the US. But I’m not sure they want to be us as much as benifit from our economy.
The success of various other countries: Japan, South Korea, etc., is based largely on the US/English model. In a sense, it’s our success.
The EU is a joke. In order to sway anything, they have to decide on a policy. Are the Germans and French going to agree on policy?
Of course. As other countries develop functioning economies our slice of the total will fall, even though we will benifit from trade with these countries.
In order to benifit from trade with Japan, we had to open Japan for trade, and Japan benifitted even more than we did. But they did so by copying us–they are an extension of our success.
I can’t believe that I missed your point, I will have to do some research on this.