There's a lot to digest in this post and I'm having difficulty. I don't understand how we can still be responsible and "turn aside from maintaining ... the 'Globalist American Empire.'" The world is more stable with projected American power. What happens if we don't support our military and our international obligations (a responsibility…
There's a lot to digest in this post and I'm having difficulty. I don't understand how we can still be responsible and "turn aside from maintaining ... the 'Globalist American Empire.'" The world is more stable with projected American power. What happens if we don't support our military and our international obligations (a responsibility of greatness) and instead devote ourselves to building "new local structures to sustain community and moral life"? In short order our international enemies would reconfigure the world and then come for America, which includes our new local structures.
No-one is "coming for America"! No-one has EVER come for America. America is too big, rich, and geographically isolated for anyone to even dream of invading America. Whenever America is struck in some small way, it is because America is trying to control the homeland of some other tribe on the other side of the planet. If the United States abandoned its global imperium, it would be safer than it is today.
The US could stop illegal immigration over the border in a week if the Democrats wanted to. You don't need the world's biggest military to achieve that, just a regular border patrol and a wall, plus laws to expel illegals when they are caught. The truth is that the powers that be WANT millions of people to pour over that border to replace people like you.
I agree we have gotten involved in too many pointless foreign entanglements, but we can be very proud of our major victories in the World Wars, and it is American influence since WWII that has maintained the geopolitical equilibrium. China would have invaded Taiwan long ago had it not been for the United States, for instance. My concern is that our privileged position is mostly due to the hard work and integrity of past generations. Economically we're sinking (the dollar keeps losing ground as the world's reserve currency, our national debt is out of control, imports greatly exceed exports, the fraction of patents awarded to American companies is low, etc.). If we turn inward, stop striving for effective government, and neglect the military, you can expect encroachment on our influence by other world powers. Eventual conquest of the United States economically, politically, or militarily is not out of the question. Everyone was shocked when the "eternal city" of Rome fell.
I don't think the US is declining economically. It has gained ground relative to Europe and Japan in both recent decades and recent years. Its decline has only been a relative one, next to the rise of China, which at the moment also seems to be petering out.
If the dollar is losing ground as a reserve currency, it's not due to economics so much as deliberate geopolitical action on the part of China and other countries that would like to bolster China as a counterweight to America.
I don't think imports being greater than exports is that big a problem. Germany has had a trade surplus for I think its entire post-WW2 history. The US has had an expanding trade deficit since the 1970s, yet in terms of GDP and wages it has only gained ground relative to Germany for the past few decades. US corporations dominate the world's economy and its technologies. Stats about patents don't seem to mean much when every new technological development worth noting is centered here.
Government spending IS out of control. Debt-to-GDP is going to have to stabilize. So that could be a problem. Congress is a poorly performing institution. Amidst our polarization, it's proving impossible to reach a consensus about bringing spending under control. So there might be a debt crisis that forces it. And honestly, cuts to defense might be one way to achieve it.
I'm somewhat mixed on the role of the US military (though I'm all for advising young men not to serve). As seen with the Houthis, it's important to be able to keep the sea lanes open. My thought for a long time has been to sharply scale back the US Army and Marines while maintaining a strong Navy and Air Force. Which isn't so different from how the US operated before WW2: in 1939 we had arguably the world's largest navy but a tiny army.
We mostly use our ground forces as an excuse to get into trouble. In Eurasia, local allies need to be able to do the heavy lifting in a ground conflict, and if they can't or won't, it's probably not a conflict worth fighting. But we can support them with air and naval power. Note that any battle for Taiwan, for example, would be an air and naval conflict; it would have to be Taiwanese troops holding the beaches.
I'd agree America is still very strong in important ways. Although, apropos of our Navy, we can't build ships very fast or efficiently.
The issue with the dollar, which is not in danger of losing its reserve status, is that the US has weaponized its control of the global finance system as an instrument of imperial statecraft. Eventually, other countries will figure out how to bypass this at some level.
Two of the biggest problems you cite - replacement of the US dollar as reserve currency and out of control national debt, are a direct result of excessive military spending and meddling in overseas power struggles. Imports exceeding exports can be fixed by restoring tariffs or letting the dollar sink (by abandoning reserve currency status), neither of which requires foreign military deployments. Same with patents - the countries that presumably take out more patents must be spending far less on the military than the US (everyone does). As for Taiwan, how is this the problem of some Appalachian kid dying of opioid addiction? Why is his community paying to keep the Taiwanese free of their mainland cousins (on land they invaded), when they desperately need the money at home? What did Taiwan ever do for the US (aside from steal the semiconductor business)?
I do think it's interesting that one of the big consequences of US defense of Taiwan is that our semiconductor industry moved there.
Having said that, I don't want Taiwan taken over by China, and I'm not proposing that we abandon our commitment to our allies. The vast bulk of our imperial adventures involve non-allied states.
Aaron, don't you admit however that China does have serious security interests as well as cultural legitimacy in Taiwan? Isn't it somewhat absurd to think that the GAE can park military assets in the backyards of its global power peers and expect that to be respected by rival great powers?
Until three decades ago, the Ukraine was Russia and had been for hundreds of years. Taiwan was China until the Japanese seized it. Would we Americans accept a world where Mexico seized Arizona, even if it was eighty years ago? Would we be fine if China signed an alliance with Gavin Newsom and started arming the California State Guard?
It's been 75 years since China and Taiwan were under common government, and when they were (1945-1949), that government was the predecessor of the current government of Taiwan, not the current government of China. The People's Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan.
China's claim to Taiwan would be akin to the U.S.A. claiming Quebec because at one point in the past (1763-1776), what is now the U.S.A. and what is now Quebec were under common government (i.e., the British crown).
And yet the government of China doesn't recognize a discontinuity between itself and the pre-WWII government, any more than modern Frenchmen believe that the France of 1789 is a different France than the ancien régime.
China is a civilizational state, not a national regime. Their source of legitimacy is based on continuity of language, culture, and history: in other words, a civilization that dates back to the dawn of time, not a constitution or legal order. This is why Americans have problems understanding how Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or even Frenchmen think about politics.
I think the Ukraine and Taiwan situations are different. Ukraine is not an ally of the US, the US has no strategic interests there, and our involvement over the past years is exactly what I'm talking about no longer supporting.
As for Taiwan, I think the cultural interest is overblown, unless you agree with the Chinese government's claim to have sovereignty over all ethnic Chinese everywhere in the world. There's also arguably been a Taiwanese ethnogenesis in recent decades. Obviously China has a security interest in it, but I think it's weaker than they would claim. They certainly should oppose US militarization of the island or its use as some sort of de facto US forward base. But we are not doing that in the way we've done it to South Korea, Japan, or Guam. Taiwan is also not an ally in the sense that say Japan or the UK are. We have many 200 troops there. We've maintained strategic ambiguity about Taiwan, which is smart.
While I probably would not get into the Taiwan business today, given that we have a long history there, it's probably not a wise idea to just pull the plug and tell China to "come and get it." Especially since we too have interests in Taiwan such as the chip factories.
For what it's worth, my understanding is Japan "stole" the semiconductor business from the US and Taiwan (and to a lesser degree South Korea) "stole" it from Japan.
I recently read the book "Chip Wars", which was pretty good, and IIRC Japan had something like 65% global market share in semis by the time its bubble burst circa 1990, aided by irrationally bloated government subsidies from MITI, which eventually declined to maybe 10-15%. TSMC (founded 1987 with heavy state support) showed up amidst that wreckage to start grabbing share.
We need desperately to identify and define Ally. NATO, which we underwrite, is no longer needed (or we should not have to pay for it while the European members larp off and bleed our taxes and our actual blood while letting their militaries rot). Allies do not take advantage like that. Thank you Trump for getting the members to pay more, but with no Warsaw Pact is there a true need now? Given Russia's lack of baby making (same for most of the world) I doubt they really have that much gas in the tank to really go after world domination. Ukraine showed them the costs.
Regarding Taiwan / China, we need to figure out "stole" verses we just rolled over and gave it to them with piss poor policy over generations.
"The world is more stable with projected American power."
That's frequently false (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Libya, before that Vietnam). I don't think Aaron's advocating that we "abolish the military," but perhaps he would prefer a military that is smaller, cheaper, and more focused on defending our homeland, while retaining the capacity to launch crushing retaliatory strikes on any enemy dumb enough to mess with us.
There's a lot to digest in this post and I'm having difficulty. I don't understand how we can still be responsible and "turn aside from maintaining ... the 'Globalist American Empire.'" The world is more stable with projected American power. What happens if we don't support our military and our international obligations (a responsibility of greatness) and instead devote ourselves to building "new local structures to sustain community and moral life"? In short order our international enemies would reconfigure the world and then come for America, which includes our new local structures.
What am I missing?
No-one is "coming for America"! No-one has EVER come for America. America is too big, rich, and geographically isolated for anyone to even dream of invading America. Whenever America is struck in some small way, it is because America is trying to control the homeland of some other tribe on the other side of the planet. If the United States abandoned its global imperium, it would be safer than it is today.
Have you looked at the border in recent months? Of course we are being invaded. Mark my words (the FBI agrees https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-warns-dangerous-individuals-coming-southern-border/story?id=108024830) it is just a matter of time before there are attacks right here in the good ole' USofA. Not all the threats are directly aligned to a hostile nation state, but many are indirectly controlled by hostile nation actors.
The US could stop illegal immigration over the border in a week if the Democrats wanted to. You don't need the world's biggest military to achieve that, just a regular border patrol and a wall, plus laws to expel illegals when they are caught. The truth is that the powers that be WANT millions of people to pour over that border to replace people like you.
I agree we have gotten involved in too many pointless foreign entanglements, but we can be very proud of our major victories in the World Wars, and it is American influence since WWII that has maintained the geopolitical equilibrium. China would have invaded Taiwan long ago had it not been for the United States, for instance. My concern is that our privileged position is mostly due to the hard work and integrity of past generations. Economically we're sinking (the dollar keeps losing ground as the world's reserve currency, our national debt is out of control, imports greatly exceed exports, the fraction of patents awarded to American companies is low, etc.). If we turn inward, stop striving for effective government, and neglect the military, you can expect encroachment on our influence by other world powers. Eventual conquest of the United States economically, politically, or militarily is not out of the question. Everyone was shocked when the "eternal city" of Rome fell.
I don't think the US is declining economically. It has gained ground relative to Europe and Japan in both recent decades and recent years. Its decline has only been a relative one, next to the rise of China, which at the moment also seems to be petering out.
If the dollar is losing ground as a reserve currency, it's not due to economics so much as deliberate geopolitical action on the part of China and other countries that would like to bolster China as a counterweight to America.
I don't think imports being greater than exports is that big a problem. Germany has had a trade surplus for I think its entire post-WW2 history. The US has had an expanding trade deficit since the 1970s, yet in terms of GDP and wages it has only gained ground relative to Germany for the past few decades. US corporations dominate the world's economy and its technologies. Stats about patents don't seem to mean much when every new technological development worth noting is centered here.
Government spending IS out of control. Debt-to-GDP is going to have to stabilize. So that could be a problem. Congress is a poorly performing institution. Amidst our polarization, it's proving impossible to reach a consensus about bringing spending under control. So there might be a debt crisis that forces it. And honestly, cuts to defense might be one way to achieve it.
I'm somewhat mixed on the role of the US military (though I'm all for advising young men not to serve). As seen with the Houthis, it's important to be able to keep the sea lanes open. My thought for a long time has been to sharply scale back the US Army and Marines while maintaining a strong Navy and Air Force. Which isn't so different from how the US operated before WW2: in 1939 we had arguably the world's largest navy but a tiny army.
We mostly use our ground forces as an excuse to get into trouble. In Eurasia, local allies need to be able to do the heavy lifting in a ground conflict, and if they can't or won't, it's probably not a conflict worth fighting. But we can support them with air and naval power. Note that any battle for Taiwan, for example, would be an air and naval conflict; it would have to be Taiwanese troops holding the beaches.
I'd agree America is still very strong in important ways. Although, apropos of our Navy, we can't build ships very fast or efficiently.
The issue with the dollar, which is not in danger of losing its reserve status, is that the US has weaponized its control of the global finance system as an instrument of imperial statecraft. Eventually, other countries will figure out how to bypass this at some level.
Two of the biggest problems you cite - replacement of the US dollar as reserve currency and out of control national debt, are a direct result of excessive military spending and meddling in overseas power struggles. Imports exceeding exports can be fixed by restoring tariffs or letting the dollar sink (by abandoning reserve currency status), neither of which requires foreign military deployments. Same with patents - the countries that presumably take out more patents must be spending far less on the military than the US (everyone does). As for Taiwan, how is this the problem of some Appalachian kid dying of opioid addiction? Why is his community paying to keep the Taiwanese free of their mainland cousins (on land they invaded), when they desperately need the money at home? What did Taiwan ever do for the US (aside from steal the semiconductor business)?
I do think it's interesting that one of the big consequences of US defense of Taiwan is that our semiconductor industry moved there.
Having said that, I don't want Taiwan taken over by China, and I'm not proposing that we abandon our commitment to our allies. The vast bulk of our imperial adventures involve non-allied states.
Aaron, don't you admit however that China does have serious security interests as well as cultural legitimacy in Taiwan? Isn't it somewhat absurd to think that the GAE can park military assets in the backyards of its global power peers and expect that to be respected by rival great powers?
Until three decades ago, the Ukraine was Russia and had been for hundreds of years. Taiwan was China until the Japanese seized it. Would we Americans accept a world where Mexico seized Arizona, even if it was eighty years ago? Would we be fine if China signed an alliance with Gavin Newsom and started arming the California State Guard?
It's been 75 years since China and Taiwan were under common government, and when they were (1945-1949), that government was the predecessor of the current government of Taiwan, not the current government of China. The People's Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan.
China's claim to Taiwan would be akin to the U.S.A. claiming Quebec because at one point in the past (1763-1776), what is now the U.S.A. and what is now Quebec were under common government (i.e., the British crown).
And yet the government of China doesn't recognize a discontinuity between itself and the pre-WWII government, any more than modern Frenchmen believe that the France of 1789 is a different France than the ancien régime.
China is a civilizational state, not a national regime. Their source of legitimacy is based on continuity of language, culture, and history: in other words, a civilization that dates back to the dawn of time, not a constitution or legal order. This is why Americans have problems understanding how Russians, Chinese, Iranians, or even Frenchmen think about politics.
I think the Ukraine and Taiwan situations are different. Ukraine is not an ally of the US, the US has no strategic interests there, and our involvement over the past years is exactly what I'm talking about no longer supporting.
As for Taiwan, I think the cultural interest is overblown, unless you agree with the Chinese government's claim to have sovereignty over all ethnic Chinese everywhere in the world. There's also arguably been a Taiwanese ethnogenesis in recent decades. Obviously China has a security interest in it, but I think it's weaker than they would claim. They certainly should oppose US militarization of the island or its use as some sort of de facto US forward base. But we are not doing that in the way we've done it to South Korea, Japan, or Guam. Taiwan is also not an ally in the sense that say Japan or the UK are. We have many 200 troops there. We've maintained strategic ambiguity about Taiwan, which is smart.
While I probably would not get into the Taiwan business today, given that we have a long history there, it's probably not a wise idea to just pull the plug and tell China to "come and get it." Especially since we too have interests in Taiwan such as the chip factories.
For what it's worth, my understanding is Japan "stole" the semiconductor business from the US and Taiwan (and to a lesser degree South Korea) "stole" it from Japan.
I recently read the book "Chip Wars", which was pretty good, and IIRC Japan had something like 65% global market share in semis by the time its bubble burst circa 1990, aided by irrationally bloated government subsidies from MITI, which eventually declined to maybe 10-15%. TSMC (founded 1987 with heavy state support) showed up amidst that wreckage to start grabbing share.
We need desperately to identify and define Ally. NATO, which we underwrite, is no longer needed (or we should not have to pay for it while the European members larp off and bleed our taxes and our actual blood while letting their militaries rot). Allies do not take advantage like that. Thank you Trump for getting the members to pay more, but with no Warsaw Pact is there a true need now? Given Russia's lack of baby making (same for most of the world) I doubt they really have that much gas in the tank to really go after world domination. Ukraine showed them the costs.
Regarding Taiwan / China, we need to figure out "stole" verses we just rolled over and gave it to them with piss poor policy over generations.
"The world is more stable with projected American power."
That's frequently false (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Libya, before that Vietnam). I don't think Aaron's advocating that we "abolish the military," but perhaps he would prefer a military that is smaller, cheaper, and more focused on defending our homeland, while retaining the capacity to launch crushing retaliatory strikes on any enemy dumb enough to mess with us.
You might benefit reading Alexander Dugin's Fourth Political Theory, to get a sense of how other peoples think of the West.
Or from another side you could read Edward Said's 'Orientalism' and get a sense of an Eastern sympathetic view.