July 10, 2004
A MACHINE THAT WOULD GO OF ITSELF:
U.S. Power in the 21st Century: According to John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, two things make a country great: population and wealth — and the United States is not lacking in either. He predicts a bright future for the United States as a world leader, provided it uses its power wisely. (John Mearsheimer, July 05, 2004, The Globalist)
There was talk in the late 1980s that the United States had reached the apogee of its power and was likely to decline in the years ahead — much the way Britain’s strength withered away after 1900.But that pessimism was short-lived. By the mid-1990s — with the Soviet Union gone and the U.S. economy catching fire — it became fashionable to call the United States a global hegemon.
But what does America’s trajectory look like now?
Instead of declining, it looks like the United States will become even more powerful in the 21st century than it was in the 20th century.
Power in the international system is largely a function of two factors: population size and wealth. Great powers are invariably the states with the largest populations and the most wealth. [...]
The main reason to think that the United States will grow increasingly powerful over time is demography. America’s population is likely to grow at a rapid clip over the next 50 years, while its potential rivals are likely either to shrink or grow modestly. [...]
There were 285 million Americans in 2000. The United Nations predicts that our population will grow to 409 million by 2050 — an increase of 44%.
Some experts believe that the American population will be 500 million by 2050, which — if proved correct — would represent a staggering 75% increase in size.
What about China? For sure, China is the one country that might someday challenge the United States. It certainly has a huge population.
The UN estimates that there were almost 1.28 billion Chinese in 2000 and that their numbers are likely to grow to about 1.4 billion by 2050, which is a modest 9% growth. [...]
Because of China’s one child policy, its population is aging at a rapid pace, which is likely to act as a drag on its economy over time.
Not only does China have an inadequate pension system, but it will be increasingly difficult for its work force to support its vast army of retirees, mainly because the number of workers per retiree will decrease sharply over time. Moreover, most retirees will have only one child to whom they can turn for support. [...]
One of the essential ingredients that societies need to generate wealth is a large pool of smart and ambitious people.
The United States not only has an abundance of homegrown talent, but it also acts like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up talented foreigners from all corners of the globe and transforming them into American citizens.
So long as we avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of secularism and nativism there's every reason to believe our best days are ahead of us. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 10, 2004 10:00 AM
Also, a refreshing viewpoint that says people are resources, not drains, as so many other pessimistic analyses assume.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at July 10, 2004 10:02 AMi've been telling all the 'doomsayers' in cnada and in europe that i know; so you think the usa is too powerful now wait till 2050; then you'll really know power.
the only issue that can defert this is a 'mortal blow at the american spirit. i hopr that america becomes more powerful and more determined to exercise it's role in the world.
it's very hard for any competitor to in the long run match america due to it's wealth and people but also to it's 'revolutionary' nature; the place is in constant revolution; some call it reinvention so while the world craves stability american craves revolution and reivention. any place that has elections every two years; it self absorbant anout it self and how the world views it; is always expecting better of itself.
the true picture is how scary the usa must be to those other potential competitors to it in the world. which is not a bad thing.
may the revolution that began in 1776 continue.
Posted by: patrick at July 10, 2004 12:08 PMwhere is the link?
Posted by: at July 10, 2004 12:43 PMBut population and wealth are not primaries that spring from the Earth like Athena from the brow of Zeus. They're results of a process, whose drivers are freedom and independence. To ignore those sources of our population and wealth, or to allow them to be undone, would undo our world leadership as surely as night follows day.
Leftists don't believe the above, which is a sound reason to avoid leftists.
This is one of those areas in which being a conservative conflicts with being American. Conservatives know that nothing human is permanent and that hegmonies must end. Some other country must come along to supplant us. Given that global hegemonies are becoming shorter lived and that British hegemony lasted for (generously) 316 years, we shouldn't have much longer to go.
But as an American, I just don't see it.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 10, 2004 1:31 PMDavid:
Why? The West's empire has lasted for over 2,000 years now, simply shifting its center of gravity periodically--from Athens to Rome to Constantinople to Paris to London to Washington--next we'd expect to see it move South and West (to Miami and LA) as Latin America develops and Asia and Africa Christianize).
Posted by: oj at July 10, 2004 2:58 PMThis post is a joke right?
Unlimited immigration is the key to greatness?
I think you are confusing cause and effect.
Immigration is transforming America to the point where it won't be America anymore.
Instead we will be another Mexico or Brazil.
It transforms the immigrants.
Posted by: oj at July 10, 2004 7:05 PM2000 years. That's convenient.
I'm an American. I don't want to achieve worldwide hegemony through the survival of my ideals, I want to achieve worldwide hegemony by having my country able to kick the ass of any two other countries.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 10, 2004 9:40 PMThe two have never been mutually exclusive, indeed may depend on one another.
Posted by: oj at July 10, 2004 9:57 PM ~~~~y time I hear David's sic transit gloria line, and one hears it a lot these days, I call to mind the scene in the film Return of the King, in which Aragorn leads the Men of the West is a charge against evil with words like, "There will come a day when the world of men shall fail, but that day is not today."
Of course all things built by man fail ultimately, but for the future as far as anyone can reasonably forsee it, is ours, if we have the will. Brezysnski, even, alludes to this in his recent book, The Choice, even though , as a good Democrat, he adopts the party line about hubris and the need for alliances.
It is a matter of military Spencerianism, for all that Spencer himself despised the military. Our free institutions allow us to create great wealth. Our traditions of military virtue cause us to transform this wealth into overwhelming power accompanied by the will to use it when necessary. Pray tell, who will challenge us, and when? We stood up to the Soviets--are we now afraid of the North Koreans?
It is easy to understand why we are hated. It's sad and unnecessary, but understandable. Failed and failing "civilizations" hate us as colonialsts, Crusaders, people of the wagon train. Sad, but they may hate, as long as . . .you know the rest.
Lou: Exactly.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 10, 2004 11:26 PMDavid, OJ: Properly, 2300 years.
Posted by: Chris at July 11, 2004 2:03 AMSomehow, the though of South Beach supplanting Athens is a little disconcerting.
Wasn't Rome made stronger by "immigration"? The decadence that came later had little to do with those from the outside. The same is true for Europe: immigration is not really connected to their spiritual implosion. It does, however, point it out much more starkly.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 11, 2004 11:30 AMJim, that's not how Gibbon saw it. He blamed Rome's decline on 'religion and barbarism.'
It is true that Rome's decline coincided with the forced conversion of the Romans to Christianity.
Military power is nice to have, even though we went through the '20s and '30s without it. It's not so clear how you use military power against a continent-sized state with a billion people in it.
Kill everybody in it with nukes? Possible but not probable. If not that, what?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 11, 2004 2:20 PMSame as Rome--convert them.
Posted by: oj at July 11, 2004 2:28 PMAccording to you, that was only temporary.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 11, 2004 4:37 PMAll things are temporary--Rome moved East, then West.
Posted by: oj at July 11, 2004 4:42 PM