[Welcome Paul Starobin, and Host Christian Caryl - bev]![]()
After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age
Is the sun setting on America’s empire? Has Washington’s influence in the world reached its apogee? Or has the U.S. just plain lost its mojo? Paul Starobin isn’t the first to ask these questions, but in his book After America he provides a uniquely informative take on what the answers imply for our global future. He argues that America has already lost its preeminence, weakened by imperial overstretch, rampant debt, and the decline of its economic power. Now it’s a matter of figuring out what the precise consequences of a post-American future will be.
In the first section of the book Paul describes the evolution of America’s exceptionalist self-image and a brief history of the circumstances that spurred the U.S. to end up dominating global politics in the second half of the twentieth century. In the next section he documents indicators of America’s decline in a number of areas relative to the rest of the world – everything from broadband internet access to health care. He argues that America’s vast military commitments have sapped the national spirit and inspired a growing spirit of opposition to Washington’s dominance among friend and foe alike. As a result, he concludes, the United States has lost its ability to inspire admiration and mobilize support for its policies.
This all adds up to a compelling argument, even if many of the details might not be totally unfamiliar. It’s the next part of the book where Starobin really allows the originality of his concept to unfold. Here he charts five likely scenarios for global politics the era following America’s loss of superiority. The first is, straightforwardly enough, chaos – namely, a world where the authority of nation-states, not just America’s, has fatally eroded without anything cohesive to take its place. Chapter Eight envisions a multipolar world, one shaped by a group of regional powers like China, Russia, India and Brazil rather than a single superpower. Next he tackles the prospect of a global order where America has been replaced in its role as the big kid on the block by a future Chinese hyperpower. In Chapter Ten, perhaps the most imaginative of them all, he envisions a future defined by key mega-cities, nodes of culture, business and entertainment that span national borders and perhaps even end up competing with the modern nation-state. A chapter entitled “Universal Civilizations” outlines the possibility of some form of “world government” evolving from the modern mesh of international human rights law and multi-national organizations. In Chapter Twelve, Starobin views all of these scenarios through the prism of modern-day California, and projects some of their ramifications forward into the uncertainties of the post-American future.
In his final chapter Starobin discusses the necessary adjustments that American civilization will soon find itself forced to confront. His message can be condensed, perhaps, into a single imperative: Get over it! “There are all sorts of dark scenarios for America in an After America world,” he writes. “All are manifestations of the same pathology: a failure to come to grips with present realities.” He proposes that, rather than lecturing to the rest of the world, it’s time for Americans to start learning from it. Some, he suggests, might be better at this than others. (Fly-over Republicans may have a harder time, while coastal Democrats are already embracing cosmopolitanism.) But apathy is no solution. This is the world, he concludes, and our place in it is changing – whether we like it or not.




129 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Paul, Welcome to the Lake.
Christian, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hello, everyone, and thanks, first of all, to Bev and Christian, and also to Jane Hamsher, for doing this. I look forward to questions and an interesting exchange….Paul
Hey, it’s a pleasure.
Paul, here’s a first question for you:
Your book is really about America and the rest of the world, yet I often had the feeling that your imagined audience was specifically American and not global at all. Who’s the intended reader of this book?
Welcome to the Lake, Christian and Paul.
I, for one, don’t believe our place as “No.1″ in the world is by any means guaranteed. I’m looking forward to this chat.
In the first instance, Americans are the intended reader–because I feel that this is material that they might not want to think about (except in passing) but really do need to grapple with…Also, I am an American of a certain generation–born in 1957, a child of the ‘American Century’–and so I have a feeling for the vocabulary of this conversation…But beyond that, the book is for everyone, really…
Thanks, Elliott. I’m curious–which parts of our being ‘No 1′ do you feel are most vulnerable, most at risk?
So what sort of feedback have you received from folks so far – Americans and otherwise? (BTW, Elliott, are you writing from the US?)
Good afternoon Christian and Paul and welcome to FDL.
Paul, I have not had an opportunity to read your book but do have a question. Based on the intro, do you cover the role of the corporations in all the next age? It seems that the multi-nationals are playing a strong role in all this and their impact is as large or larger than the role of many of the nation-states
As a technical note, if you are replying to a specific comment, there is a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. Click “Reply” and the system automagically fills in the comment number and name of the commenter to whom you are replying.
Makes it much easier to follow the conversation that way… :})
Welcome, Paul and Christian.
In your book, do you point to any other nations which currently have the kind of influence that we in America might aspire to as the natural sequel to our current hegemonic status?
On the whole the feedback has been positive–frankly, more positive than I expected, especially in ‘heartland’ places like Dallas. The book pivots on a chapter that I call ‘Middling America’–which tries to make the case that we are no longer preeminent, as we once were, in our economy, our culture, our social policy, our uses of common technology, our educational system. I expected to get more push back on this than I have actually received–lots of nodding of heads out there, especially on the education point… The exception to this reaction, not surprisingly, is in Washington–the imperial capital, and most in denial about all of this…
That’s a good point, particularly as most of the foreign policy of the West for the past two hundred years seems to have been dictated not so much by Western governments, but by key Western businesses and industries.
Indeed! Paul, I seem to remember you mentioning Halliburton in particular (relocating its HQ from Houston to Dubai). Other examples?
I think we are in an ‘inter-regnum’–no successor has of yet claimed the hegemon prize to supplant America as No. 1. China has the best chance of accomplishing this feat–but it is possible that the ‘After America’ world will have no hegemon; power may be shared by different actors (nation-states, city-states); power may become quite diffuse, in a chaotic way. So it often goes after a hegemon has peaked…
The European Union actually has the world’s biggest economy today (something very few Americans realize), and we’ve been in conflict with them over a number of commercial and legal issues. Yet you don’t seem to consider them much of a rival for the position, either. I suspect that has something to do with power projection and the military?
All the multinationals, certainly in the energy industry but also in consumer products lines of business, are shifting their direction to markets in the East as well as places like Brazil. I see many of these companies are basically rootless–they are located in one place or another as function of time zone, of where executives like to gather for business and fun, but they are companies without a national home–they are part of a global civilization, if you will. I would make an exception, though, for the major Chinese ‘national champion’ companies, and the Russian ones, too, like Gazprom. They are more or less creatures of the state, it seems
There seems to be a bit of a pattern to things like that move. Here in the US, we see the corporations often going to the states with least restrictions, giving them a base to hit the rest of the country.
So it is not a surprise if the multi-nationals continue to do this on a global level (which they do with their “headquarters” in the Cayman Islands or Lichtenstein, or Dubai, or (fill-in-the-blank)
Business, Finance.
Years ago I used to think that American companies would always be “America First.” And then I saw that Coca-Cola was run by a Colombian (I believe) and many of their top officers were internationals. That’s when I realized their loyalty was to their business, not our country.
An excellent point – mobility today often trumps sovereignty.
At the same time, isn’t there sometimes a bit of a tendency to exaggerate the multinationals’ weight? They do have lots of power, but they still can’t really compete with states…..?
Or no?
Yes, I see Europe, the inventor of modern nationalism (and the Germans foremost among the inventors) as post-national (with the Germans, again leading the way, in many respects). Europe lacks the will for power projection in any kind of nation-state way, I think–look how far it is from getting its act together on a common defense policy, for example. Look at how reluctant it is to join America in the Afghanistan war’s latest phase…
But where will WE go — is there a nation that we can reasonably aspire to emulate? Could we seek to be peace-makers, or a technology hotbed, or a cultural powerhouse — and is there a nation that you could point to which is already of that sort?
Yes
Russia seems to be notorious for the number and quality of its criminal hackers, many of which are apparently former KGB agents. (Then again, so is China.) Do you foresee this buccaneering running into opposition from the multinationals as they wax in power?
For that matter, what happens to progressive initiatives and social-welfare projects if the state withers away and the multinationals are all that’s left?
Yes, and isn’t it interesting that American iconic brands, at least some of them, are now ‘owned’ by foreigners–I am thinking about Budweiser, which is part of a beer conglomerate run by Brazilians and Belgians…I expect that the Indians are going to be doing a far amount of running of these multinational businesses as well–there is a real business talent there to be expressed in coming years…
Exactly. Whereas a country like Russia is still perfectly happy to resort to military means to get its way (see last year’s war with Georgia) yet doesn’t really have the economic power or effective diplomacy to be a real candidate for hegemony, either.
Russia is producing amazing hackers. It is hard for me to know the degree to which the hackers are in cahoots with the Kremlin–I am willing to entertain the proposition that a lot of their work is independently done. They do not need to be motivated to be ‘nationalistic’ by the Kremlin. There is also a great (I mean under-appreciated) tradition of Russian anarchism–which perfectly suits a new age of cyber-warfare.
A great point. How well I remember the anxiety over the Dubai proposal to take over container terminals in several American ports a while back. A lot of folks were shocked to learn that 1) practically none of them are run by Americans as it is, 2) none of the world’s major shipping companies are today, either, and 3) Dubai already owns all sorts of sensitive installations around the country already (like some of New York’s snootiest hotels)…
Here’s another one:
The U.S. certainly has a lot of problems, which you document very well in the book. But if the American system has one virtue, it’s flexibility – an amazing capacity for change and adaptation. Do you think it’s possible that we can still come up with ways of countering some of the problems you describe?
Vice President Biden was cruel (and diplomatically unwise) to dismiss Russia as a has been, as he did a few weeks ago, but it is hard to make the case right now for Russia as anything more than a ‘medium’ great power in a multipolar world. They have not done anything creative with their economy, that’s for sure–unless one counts the task of extracting commodities like oil from frozen Siberian ground, which does take a certain amount of ingenuity….
I guess the brain drain is over …
And yet the nationalist sentiment in some quarters there, as you point out in the book, is pretty intense… Motive but little means…
From elsewhere to us, you mean?
Paul, thank you for visiting with us.
I have not read your book but its topic(s) have been of major concern to me for many years (born ten years before you).
I shall certainly read your book.
My experience suggests that many Americans, being little interested in history, will have even less interest in what most will regard as “hate-America speculation”, as it would challenge their imaginations overmuch.
The majority in this nation will not believe that such change is possible and will not prepare themselves for such change.
The Political Class will refuse to come to grips with any of it and the Moneyed Class already view things as “end times” and are behaving accordingly.
The military will not take at all kindly to the idea that their playtime is over.
But overwhelming change is coming, and Americans may well see the day when the most “valuable” items they possess will be whatever parts of their bodies they may sell, their lives and human life in general being worth little or nothing.
The American Dream(!) may very well morph into nightmare.
It needn’t be this way, but the humane visions which might mitigate such dire consequence have yet to be arrive and I suspect that America’s myths will preclude their adoption or embrace when, or if, they do.
DW
Yes, I don’t think America has exhausted its capacity for creativity and for re-invention–which is why I prefer to be an optimist about the ability of America and Americans to arrive at a sort of happy peace with the After America world. If we are fortunate, this will happen sooner rather than later–our ability to reform our health care system to provide, at a minimum, universal health insurance, as virtually all other ‘advanced’ countries enjoy, is a test of this proposition. But as for getting back what we once had–the economic, cultural, social preeminence that we once enjoyed, I don’t see that happening.
How does peak oil and global warming figure into your calculus or do they?
yes.
it extended the “hybrid vigor” of American innovation and creativity — at the expense of their home countries, since so many who came to study here, stayed here.
Yes, it’s hard to imagine that we could continue at the peak forever. But isn’t this story also at least partly about other countries developing democracies (there are far more of them today than there were fifty years ago), healthy market economies, and stable political institutions (partly in response to a positive example the US once set)? So it’s also – at least in part -about the “rise of the rest”…?
For whom? If I were in my twenties, I’d be thinking seriously about trying to find a country where I could get decent health care, could work without intellectual property laws that tend to favor people with good lawyers, and where we don’t waste lots of money on the military. There’s one right next door, in fact.
Thanks for this. Actually, I think these various ‘classes’ react in different ways to the idea (and reality) of America losing its dominance. To wit:
–Many ‘ordinary Americans’ feel this in their bones and can deal with it, so long as an ‘un-dominant’ America can still provide them with a decent education and standard of living.
–The ‘moneyed class’ has already moved on, to global horizons. Wall Street has long been an ‘After America’ investor; it goes wherever the highest rate of return can be had.
–The political class doesn’t like this discussion, in general, but Democrats are more willing to entertain or indulge it than are Republicans, who tended to most invested in the myth of American Exceptionalism, that is, the idea of an America uniquely destined for greatness
A great point. Paul, if I’m not mistaken, at one point I believe you were touring a hospital in Dubai, staffed in part by Arab-American (or “just” Arab) doctors who had left America for the more congenial (and less paranoid) environment there? I believe you also mention the harm done by post-9/11 crackdowns on immigration….
Touche! I wonder if anyone can supply figures on how many American citizens have emigrated to Canada (or put down roots there) within the past ten years. I’ll bet it’s higher than a lot of us would expect. Same for Europe, too. Not to mention the fact that there is an enormous American expatriate community around the world today.
Asking this for a friend:
Christian,
Thoughts or reactions to Robert Kaplan’s “Coming Anarchy” or Kaplan’s “Warrior Politics” ?
Thank you for chatting today, gentlemen, I look forward to reading this book.
How do you think America, and Americans, will be treated in our dotage and decline? Will we be required to wear maple-leaf patches on our clothing when we travel abroad? Is Obama merely a blip in the “how-we’re-regarded” slope?
Secondly, do you see our military adventurism ending tidily, with equipment brought home and alliances in place? Or do you think our foreign wars might end messily, with technology left behind and our reputation in tatters?
I appreciate your taking time today for a talk. What a great idea for a book!
I see “middling America’ aka ’sagging America’ and ‘the rise of the rest’ as sides of the same coin. I take issue with Fareed Zakaria’s take on the Post-American world because his great focus is the rise of the rest–in fact, that’s what a lot of folks would prefer to talk about, understandably, because it is a less painful subject
Thanks for coming here. The book sounds really interesting.
Paul, I’m just guessing here, but I suspect you might find a lot more to agree with in the “Coming Anarchy” than with the other book mentioned….
I spoke with the head of Harvard Medical International, which is building a state of the art teaching hospital in Dubai–and he predicted that it would be a global magnet for Arab health care providers, including Arab Americans. He may be right.
Thanks, Dianne, much appreciated
Point well taken. But the “rise of the rest” is a real phenomenon nonetheless, no? We’ve both traveled around the world, and I think we both agree that there are a lot of other countries out there today where you and I and many of those listening in would be perfectly happy living in. Not sure that was true twenty, thirty years ago.
If I had young children, I be sure they learned how to speak Chinese.
How do these investors and participants in Dubai’s ascension square their involvement with the indentured servitude — almost slavery — that Dubai’s working class endures?
All good questions. I tend to think that America will provoke less anxiety, and less talk, positive or negative, in the post-dominant phase, because it always the No. 1 guy who is the target of envy and resentment, if only because that much power tends to be scary to those who possess so little of their own. Perhaps the way the British are now regarded in the world is a fair proxy for this
Anecdotally speaking, I have a younger cousin who was recently laid-off from Toyota and has moved to Ecuador and bought a bar on the beach. I’m tempted to join him more and more frequently.
Agree.
With the exception of your view of the Political Class.
If the Democrats enact meaningful health care reform (this is where ‘ordinary Americans’ are already hurting very badly), then and only then would I agree with you that the dems are open to this discussion.
At some point action MUST follow talk and that is the one thing that the Political Class (in its entirety) with its kabuki-mentality refuses to seriously engage in.
DW
I think there’s a lot more of this going around than a lot of us realize…
Paul, apologies, sort of running ahead of ourselves a bit – what about Hugh’s question re peak oil and global warming (35)? Any thoughts on that score?
Yes, Christian, I agree. The rise of the rest is a real thing, in big and small ways. For example, Australia (which I have never visited) is definitely a ‘rise’ story, even though Australia I don’t think will ever be the world’s dominant power. From all I hear, it might be very pleasant indeed to live there–Sydney is certainly a world class global city
I just read something the other day about American grads finding jobs in China. The article said the Chinese valued our grads’ entrepreneurial spirit.
What a rush, to go to China and emerge a couple years later, business in hand, fluent in Mandarin.
An intriguing example – particularly since Australia is a bit of an exception on the other score – one of the few countries around that’s (seemingly) just as willing as the US to resort to traditional modes of power projection. But that’s more of a footnote.
About peak oil and global warming, my honest answer is I’m not sure how this is going to break as a factor in bringing about an After America world–except to say that part of the story of America’s middling status is its failure to come to grips with the possible end of the hydrocarbon age and with the perils of global warming. Our performance on issues like energy conservation and the use of renewable resources has been terrible relative to any number of European countries (for example, Spain and Germany with their use of renewable sources, and Denmark in energy conservation).
Yes, I should have addressed that to both of you.
I also was struck by that story–I believe in The New York Times. But on the whole I think it’s a good thing for American college graduates to spend some time in such jobs overseas and develop a global skill set, including fluency in languages like Mandarin Chinese. This is a useful tool, for sure, however the world goes
Paul. Have you thought of an answer to PW’s second question at #23: What happens to our progressives and our social welfare initiatives??
Australia will be interesting as a test case of how extensively China will be able to extend its ‘orbit’ in that part of the world.
Until there is only one government on this planet there will always be some countries that are stronger than others. Logically tnen, there will be one country that is the strongest. Since the United States of America is not comfortable being the strongest nation on the planet, would the USA be happier with some other country being the strongest? If so, which country should it be?
Paul
How would you factor in peak fossil energy and climate change into your thinking?
I’m curious to hear what Paul says on the Robert Kaplan score. I tend to be very ambivalent about his work. He’s a great reporter in many respects but he’s essentially decided that he wants to be a sort of Rudyard Kipling for the 21st century – as much a booster and cheerleader for the new American imperialism as on objective reporter on same. I think “Coming Anarchy,” while flawed, has a lot of great insights in it (though I don’t buy the overall conclusion that we’re headed for a completely chaotic world and the death of the nation state). “Warrior Politics,” on the other hand, is sort of a kooky book – very much a part of the political support mission (not sure I want to call it propaganda – that’s up to you) I mention above.
For what it’s worth….
Expats can lead great lives–and it helps a lot that Uncle Sam has in his generosity excluded a fair chunk of income from taxes if one lives abroad. I wonder if that will ever be pared back in any significant way
Australia is certainly the country I would move to if I were leaving the USA. It’s a great place, wonderful people and Sydney is very cosmopolitan. They do not, however, encourage people to move there – rather the opposite.
Hi, Synoia. Check out comment 60 and see if that clarifies things. If not, feel free to have another go.
Robert Kaplan has a large body of work to his name–representing an enormous personal commitment to getting to the story, including many very difficult and dangerous places to reach, on his own terms. The reporter in me can only admire that kind of energy and initiative. As for how he interprets global trends, I see him as something of a romantic–I guess the Kipling comparison works for me–in his feeling, and I do select the world feeling, about American imperial power and the (helpful)role in can play in the world. I am decidedly not of the imperial school and I am at a loss to understand why Kaplan (and many others) thought that the George W. Bush adventure in Iraq, for example, could turn out well. In general, I am dismayed to see this sort of imperial mindset in the front ranks of American journalism. I see it as a kind of blinder to the truth.
Paul, just trying to make sure everybody gets a shot here. What about TomThumb’s remark at 63 (and its precursor)? What about the effects of all this on US progressives and US welfare programs and initiatives? Hollow them out or help them?
Well put. Think I’m pretty much in the same place.
I’m intrigued about the Australian experiment in multiculturalism–which has become a kind of state ideology. How is it going? How are non-European immigrants treated there? How does Sydney compare to, say, LA? My knowledge base is slim–these are questions that would lead the journalist in me to visit Australia.
How helpful do you imagine the media will be, Paul, in educating the public to what we face?
And how long might it take until they might consider that to be a part of their “job” (beyond cheer-leading for empire)?
And Teddy, just curious – have you found yourself compelled (as you put it) to “wear the maple leaf” to disguise your American-ness in some parts of the world? Would love to hear details.
Thank you, this will be appreciated by the friend who could not be here this afternoon.
Yes, good question. I am concerned about the problem of bigness in the world–in the sense that a world dominated by huge institutions, whether they be multinational corporations, global bureaucracies like the UN, or huge nation-states like America, may not be well positioned to deliver social welfare to the people who need assistance. My own sympathies lie in a Jeffersonian direction–one reason I am intrigued by city-states, for example, is that they will be closer to the people and thus may be more accountable to those who need services. I wonder if U.S. progressives are not making a mistake in fastening on Washington as the key in this respect. Lots of interesting social-welfare experiments are happening in the states and regions, for example, Massachusetts and health care….
Everyone should travel to Australia. I completely fell in love with the people – they really enjoy life. Sydney is much quieter than LA, much smaller and more dignified. There is a peacefulness about the place and a huge pride in their country. It’s beautiful.
I really can’t say about the non-European immigrants. They protect their way of life fiercely and I suspect their jobs. I did not see any aborigines until we left Sydney and suspect that they are much happier away from the cities. Melbourne is just fantastic.
I am semi-optimistic about the media. There are certainly all too many (one, for me, is too many) imperial cheerleaders, with a rooted base in Washington, as one would expect, but happily the media in all its varieties contains plenty of skeptics, subversives and the usual lot of malcontents who understand that the heat always should be on those who exercise power…
Okay, here’s another one:
America had a lot of positive effects on the world in the twentieth century. After World War II the U.S. was the dominant force behind the creation of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, and an international economic order that brought unparalleled prosperity. A lot of people in the world actually still look to the United States for leadership, both practical and moral. Does the prospect of America’s decline make you happy?
I’m there.
Does the prospect of America’s decline make me happy?
I am pained by some of the circumstances that have led to the loss of America’s preeminence and the lost luster of its model–I have in mind, especially, the war in Iraq. About America’s decline–I would prefer to say about the end of America’s ascendancy–I feel a certain poignancy, the sort of emotion that arises when something sweet or at least worthwhile is bygone. Perhaps it is a bit like watching a child enter a new phase of life–you KNOW that the past phase will never re-occur. I feel alternately fearful and hopeful for what the new phase of global life will mean for America. I can see dark but also light possibilities.
Okay. So, if we could, let’s hear a bit about both options – dark and light?
Not at all. Disappointed is more the feeling. I was born in the early ’50s and was raised on the American exceptionalism. Looking back from today, it is nothing but the disappointment of seeing things become so much less than what they could be.
The life of empires keeps getting shorter and shorter as the pace of the world gets faster and faster.
States and regions in the US do not have the where-with-all to do social-welfare on the level it is needed.
And the relative wealth disparities between them are likely to continue unless the whole notion of “wealth” AND “resources”changes drastically. Which it inevitably must.
DW
The life of empires keeps getting shorter and shorter as the pace of the world gets faster and faster.
Now that’s a fascinating point.
So your feeling is more like a kind of disappointment – over ideals betrayed, possibilities never quite attained?
I think perhaps we were never exceptional – just bigger, louder, and the engine that drove the world. We might evolve into something much nicer now. Let’s hope so.
I worry about nostalgia taking over an emotional response to the loss of American power–empires are always most dangerous to themselves and others when in possession of this feeling, as illustrated by the British-French misadventure in Suez in the 1950s.
I too share the disappointment. In college, in the late 1970s, I did a stint as an intern for a D.C. energy group bent on developing an intelligent response to the oil shocks of that time. Well, we see how that went. Why couldn’t we develop an intelligent response? At the risk of sounding naive, I still don’t quite get it.
Ideals betrayed is a very large part of it.
My statement on the biggest difference between Jimmy Carter as President versus Ronald Reagan:
Carter tried to force us to live up to our professed ideals. Reagan made people feel good about their hate and that it was OK to hate.
By electing Reagan, it was (superficially) the easy path that turned out to be the hardest.
You may be right. I go back and forth on this myself. I guess I just don’t like bigness, in almost any form, but that’s not a very good answer.
And how about Obama? I wish he would challenge the country more–we know he can play the role of conciliator but can he ‘dish’ the harsh truths to the people, in the interest of rousing action?
Yes, we can evolve in that happy direction–given a certain philosophical disposition that I am not sure that possess, at least not yet. Again, the British may be the model. Is post-Imperial London such an unhappy place?
Good question. We know what people liked about Reagan (as you pointed out in your book): it was all that “Morning in America” optimism. I think you can give the people some of the hard truths, but you can’t do it unless they’re embedded in some sort of larger compelling vision for which people are prepared to sacrifice. And I haven’t really heard that from Obama yet.
Plus their cooking got a lot better once they lost the Empire.
So there is hope.
Paul, here’s another one:
You cite the detachment of the military from the rest of society as a symptom of decline. So are you in favor of returning to the draft?
that’s very funny.
It may not be a “good” answer, Paul, but I agree, “small is beautiful” and much less likely to embrace destructive behaviors …
He appears to me to see conciliation as more important than the actual product he is selling. Not sure if he is capable of challenging the country in the way that says “these are tough decisions that we need to make and the tough row we’re are going to have to hoe to deal with these problems”
About the life of empires getting shorter and shorter–I wonder if it will be possible in an After America age for anyone to have a global empire. Perhaps that underestimates the role of military power but I am mindful of the ‘improvements’ in asymmetric warfare. America may be the last of the Big Daddies, I sometimes say
Yes, I think America shall have the “distinction” of being the “last” …
One hopes.
;~D
I wish this were the case. On the other hand, modern technology (and particularly the Internet) also empower tiny, marginal groups in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Al Qaeda at its peak – what, couple of hundred people? (Plus millions of sympathizers, but the actual core group is miniscule.)
Just a thought….
Right, he, Obama, seems to approach things sometimes in too intellectual or philosophical a way–I mean there are limits to this style in a national leader.
That’s actually quite a striking observation. There just doesn’t appear to be anyone around who is really willing – much less capable – of picking up the imperial mantle. Empires just aren’t good business these days.
Endings can be sad…or happy….I am used to being called a declinist but I prefer to be called an ‘end-ist.’ I’m with T.S. Eliot in his Quartets in his insistence of endings being beginnings…
I guess the Vegas bookmakers would not count out China but who possibly else? I don’t see much of an imperial drive in the Indians, say.
Just want to say before this Salon ends that I have enjoyed it tremendously. Will order the book right now. Thanks Paul, Christian, and Bev. Outstanding, as usual.
Yes, he does like to bargain, it seems, as opposed to just planting his stake in some patch of ground and defending it from attack, which was more of the style and strategy of FDR, say.
I’m inclined to agree. The Chinese have a great deal of ambition but they’ve also been notably reluctant to commit themselves to adventures beyond their borders….
Thanks, Twain. I guess I should also put in a plug for the book’s website, which is http://www.afteramericabook.com. I try to keep up with current developments on the After America front….
Thanks much! Great to see such a good turnout.
I am far from being a China expert. I have paid some attention to their ‘encounter’ with South America if that’s the right word. Chile, which has the world’s richest copper troves, is a place I visited to glean some insights on this score. It strikes me that it is very early days in terms of understanding how the Chinese ‘ascension’ will play itself out–beyond the economic weight they are accumulating.
Thank you both so much for being here today Paul and Christian. I hope everyone orders the book — it’s great, and also do check out the website http://www.afteramericabook.com.
Great salon.
As we come to the end of this interesting Book Salon,
Paul, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and America’s future.
Christian, Thank you very much for Hosting this Book Salon.
Everyone, if you have not bought Paul’s book yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Thanks very much. Enjoyed it.
I really like the ideas behind this book! I’ve always wondered what the “New World” will look like after America is no longer top dog.
Now, I have a question for Mr. Starobin. I’ve been talking to some of my friends recently, and we view it as more likely that the world will be dominated by cities- that states and, perhaps, even national governments (though this seems somewhat more unlikely) will fade away, to be replaced by cities. As an example, as a northern Kentuckian, I often feel as if I’m part of Cincinnati’s suburbs, despite living in a very wooded area. Cincinnati dominates the area; it’s a huge influence.
Is this what you mean by the mega-cities? And how likely do you see this future? What specific trends do you see as leading us towards this possibility?
Thank you for coming here, and thank you for your time.
Thanks Paul, Christian
and Bev too
Thanks, Jane. Terrific questions–the engagement of this audience really does come across. And wonderful to have a chance, in this length, to respond to folks….
Blue Texan is upstairs!
All You Need to Know in One, Simple Formula: ObamaCare – The Public Option = RomneyCare
These were “reactive” behaviors, in response to perceived (and real) behaviors on our part. The nature of “organizations” in future will be of fundamentally different purpose, unless they are “berserkers” or “pirates”, one imagines.
Or hopes, Christian, however audaciously.
DW
Great salon!!
Thanks all!
DW
Yes, I see the city-state phenomenon in just those terms. Richard Florida, among others, is a source on these mega regions and how they matter. Part of what intrigues me is how the mega regions are developing their own global connections–for example, the greater San Diego region, including the Mexican chunk of Northern Baja California, is doing this, quite deliberately. I neglected the cities thread at the start of my effort to gather material for the book–but I found myself quite drawn to it as time went on.
Thanks, Bev. And let me join everyone in thanking Christian for graciously and with so much finesse stepping in as moderator
What intrigues me is that, as somebody who loves Ancient Greek history, it’s easy to see that some civilizations really focused on this- Ancient Greece was just a series of city-states that more or less functioned autonomously. I’m wondering if, with this historical precedent, future city-states will function much like this?
In fact, if you’ll allow me to ramble, perhaps that was the basis for the nation-state to begin with. Cities couldn’t compete with nations because a nation could spread out over more territory to gather more resources, something a city couldn’t do because of its centralized nature. Nations won because they had more resources and power due to their larger nature.
Now, however, with increased globalization and transport, it’s easier to stay in one place and get everything you need, creating a sort of backwards march through history that results in the city state becoming viable again.
What do you think, Mr. Starobin?
I posted at the exact wrong time. (slaps forehead)
707, AngelsAwake
kj
I taught at a small university just outside London in 19980 -during the onset of the first gulf war and the Shah’s flight. The national mood was dreary! –17 straight years of economic downturn. Numbers of layoffs were shown nightly on a map, much like a weather map, with totals on the weekend. Sure, that was thirty years ago, but the working class was taking it hard. Big money absorbed the well-educated into the corporate scene… Today?
When you say, today, do you mean you think it is not so unhappy? I agree, as I write at the book’s end, that a post-imperial Washington will experience a funk. But it does not have to be a permanent one, and in the case of cities like New York and LA, I am not sure there need be any real funk….