Divided States of America: Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation

[stefanstackhouse]

This was a good article, but missed one important dimension to the problem that the USA faces. It isn't just the size of the federal government that is at issue. Perhaps an even bigger issue is how effective and efficient those federal dollars are spent, however many or few of them we might allocate. The simple fact is that we have a tremendously inefficient, wasteful, and downright incompetent government. Yes, perhaps we do need to make greater investments in infrastructure and education, and perhaps we do need to at least keep tax revenues at present levels or even raise them in order to dig ourselves out of this massive fiscal deficit. However, much of our problem can be attributed to the huge waste of the taxes we have already raised. Merely taxing more to spend more will achieve very little if the waste and inefficiency and incompetence continues at present levels. On the other hand, if we had more competent leadership that was capable of setting prudent national priorities and managing our government efficiently, we would find that we could accomplish far more with existing resources than we are at present. The need to raise taxes further would be considerably lessened. Even more importantly, the American people might be more favorably disposed to support an increase in taxes if they could be confident that this money would be really used efficiently. Knowing that it will mostly be wasted, it is little wonder that there is not more enthusiasm in favor of increased taxes.

The strange and tragic paradox is that this should actually be a "win-win" proposition for both parties, and an obvious opportunity for bi-partisan cooperation. Reducing government waste and inefficiency and focusing scarce resources only on higher priorities would free up considerable sums which could then potentially be used for new initiatives, or tax cuts, or both. Yet, while there is perpetual talk about cutting government waste, little of real substance is ever accomplished. This is one more symptom - perhaps the most significant of all - indicating American decline.

[mae]

Der Spiegel journalists seems unable to deal with the fact that it was Europe that produced fascism, nazism & communism.

Producing the 3 most murderous ideologies in the world which murdered over 100 million must be very traumatic for some Europeans.

No wonder they have to smack America every few weeks to feel better about themselves. It must be unbearable to have superiority complex while at the same time being the products of the birthplace of fascism.

May I suggest therapy instead?

I saw a T-shirt once with these words - Why do Europeans tell so many lies about America? Because thats the only way they can make it as bad as Europe.

[finebetty]

Originally Posted by powermeerkat

Or mentioned that American defense budget could be significantly lowered (and so could Americans' taxes) if mighty EU finally created its own unified military force capable of defending Europe.

Hopefully that will never happen. There are only 27 independent countries in the not so mighty EU, of 50 independent countries in Europe (Eurasia)... wish people would stop bullying us to become the united states of europe... there are reasons why each country in Europe wants to hang on to its independence and rushing, so that some politicians can get their names into the history books, or to appease everyone else, is the worst idea ever....and your defense budget is your problem....if you lower it, as is essential, the rest of us will survive more or less...

[pschaeffer]

Fareed Zakaria is quoted as saying

"What we see today is an American economy that has boomed because of policies and developments of the 1950s and '60s: the interstate-highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public-education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies."

Wow is that far off. America in the 1950s and 60s was noted for its highly restrictive immigration policies. Eisenhower deported illegals by the million ("Operation Wetback"). In 1964, the national quotas system was repealed. However, mass immigration didn't take off until years later.

By the 1960s, America had maintained highly restrictive immigration policies for more than 40 years. Much of the cohesion and success of America was directly attributable to the absence of large scale immigration (which gave prior waves of immigrants better job opportunities and promoted assimilation).

Many social indicators have declined since 1970 (highly inequality, lower wages, etc.). It's not exactly coincidence that mass unskilled immigration resumed around 1970.

See "Polarized America" (http://voteview.com/polarized_america.htm) for a set of charts showing the rather exact correlation between political polarization, inequality, and mass immigration.

Of course, I could point out that Germany is doing even worse. See "The amazing truth about PISA scores: USA beats Western Europe, ties with Asia." (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/20...ores-usa.html).

The same article shows that America's schools beat most countries in Europe and match Germany.

[WhiteCamry]

Originally Posted by stealthnameless

The Two Party System
In America many citizens are concerned about how our governments two main political party’s The Republican party and The Democratic party rarely see eye to eye but that is not necessary a bad thing. Through out American history there has always been in some form a two party system. Even before the drafting of United States constitution there were deep political divisions. There were major political divisions as early as 1777 when the two party’s of the day the Federalists and Antifederalists argued whether or not to even have a comprehensive central government.

The American party system didn't coalesce until after 1789, when Washington was elected president.

Originally Posted by stealthnameless

And while many U.S. citizens are disappointed with a two party system many Americans would rather have a two party system rather than a single party system which we see being overly powerful and oppressive. And despite the implementation of a two party political system America has always been able to resolve whatever crisis’s pop up.

For that matter, we Americans find third parties superfluous except as a means of testing emerging single issues for either of the Big Two parties to snap up.

Originally Posted by stealthnameless

The Myth of Americas permanent decline
The article Divided States Of America Notes On the Decline Of A Great Nation by Speigel says “The reality of life in America so greatly contradicts the claim -- albeit one that has always been exaggerated -- to be the "greatest nation on earth," that even the most ardent patriots must be overcome with doubt.”

For a superb history of the permanent myth of American decline I recommend "L'Ennemi americain" by Philippe Roger.


One last thought: before China can hope to fancy itself on a par with the United States, the powers that be in Beijing should bear in mind that no one-party state survives the ten years after hosting an Olympics. The residents of Berlin, Moscow and Sarajevo will attest to this.

This article may apply mainly to the Central Atlantic, which is in serious decline. However, trains, etc, are growing out west and in New England. Also down south there is a lot of economic revival. The streets are smoothly paved, which is in part due to the lack of cold weather, which cracks streets in the north. The Central Atlantic is the worst.

New England also seems to be experiencing revival and growth. Where I live, which at one time was an artic ghost city, is now an arts center, with major art-walks on Friday, with arts displayed everwhere in the street, contrary to situation in New York, which continues to cater to the rich, bans artists from selling on the street, and continues to elect conservative mayors.

In the little city I live in, they are even trying to bring back light-rail and have just expanded the train by two new stations.

http://www.portlanddailysun.me/index...travel-options

I meet people from as far away as New Mexico, coming here to study Photography at the SALT institute in Portland. I feel almost like there is a Renaissance.

[Albertus]

This article should serve as a great entree into the Washington/Georgetown party circuit for Spiegel reporters living in the DC Beltway. Other than that, it's the typical platitudes directed against the "out" crowd and unhelpful non-analysis of underlying, economic and political problems in the US that are used by a political system to maintain power. If you liked this article, you might also like Mother Goose.

[Jim Sherman]

My point was that the writer is being extraordinarily pessimistic. The writer is doing more than presenting facts. He is inserting opinion. There is no acknowledgement of the capacity of the nation to rise and solve these challenges. In the 1980s, most of the world was writing off the US to the rising power of Japan, following a period of malaise in the US during the 70s. That proved wrong.


I agree that some (and perhaps many) US officials are often uninformed about history and ethnology. But my expectation that a nation, when presented with a new opportunity, to build a stable and prosperous democracy is not a flawed expectation or hope. What is flawed is that some in the U.S. might have expected that to have a good chance of success despite the profound cultural challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan. Culture matters greatly. There are cultural reasons that Poland is successful in post Communist E. Europe and Russia is not. Nevertheless, the Iraqis and Afghanis could have proved me wrong, but they did not. Their hatred of one another is stronger than their love of democracy. That's not our problem.

Also, you comment that the U.S.is a post colonial imperialist. While the Europeans perfected the art of imperialism in the 20th and 19th centuries, the last time I checked the US is not present in any place where troops are not legally welcome. Did Iraq ask to be invaded? Saddam and his regime certainly did not, but plenty of Iraqi exiles did. And many others (particularly the Shia and Kurds) celebrated with the U.S. their newly found freedom. In fact, the Kurds have a main boulevard named after George Bush. I have a friend in Erbil who angers when told that some in the world wish there was no invasion.

Vietnam was wrong because there was not a sufficiently motivated South Vietnamese willing to fight the North's aggression. Given such, we had no business being there. That is unlike South Korea where the South was motivated and could be a strong partner.


I am not sure how anyone thinks our core values are any less supported today than in the past. The world has never been more democratic, more free market oriented, and more respectful of human rights. I believe that steadfast US leadership (along with our allies) has made this possible. There has been no turning away by the U.S. I agree that European enlightenment embraced these values. Indeed. But it was not by any luck that they were implemented by the founding fathers of the U.S. The founders well understood the flaws of European society and planned from the very beginning to create a union based on maximum freedom in the economic and political spheres. There is no less zeal in our society today for these founding principles. And for anyone who has participating with "grass roots" organizations in the U.S., democracy is alive and well. That is not to say we cannot improve certain laws. Yes, for sure. But if anything, new technology has energized people to be more engaged than ever before.

[Jim Sherman]

Originally Posted by backroomdancer

OK, then give us a drop-out plan from the NATO, albeit that would also mean closing down dozens of military bases in Europe, hence the loss of 10,000s of US military jobs. Bring it on, I think it could be up for debate!
The taxes could only be lowered if the weapon lobbies in the US would be ignored and there would be a reasonable household concept.

Such little spiteful comments here a based on total breach of international treaties and agreements, and call for a new world order - it's a little ridiculous, if you ask me.

The fact is that defense spending in the U.S. dropped as a percentage of GNP throughout the Clinton years. It ramped up under Bush due to 9/11 and 2 wars. However, the trend downward was happening and the defense lobby was ignored.
I believe it will continue to go down again now. Obama has already indicated it will drop to 3.5%. It is a shame you have such a cynical view of U.S. public policy.

As for NATO, it is the most successful military alliance in world history. It has held the peace in Europe for 60+ years -- a continent not known to experience peace for very long. It is based on mutual interest. If Germany wishes to exit it, it is free to do so. Fortunately, other sensible Germans would see this as ridiculous. As for some U.S. bases or soldiers in Europe, that is immaterial to the Pentagon at this time, and we will continue to ramp down the European presence to a modest footprint.

[powermeerkat]

"your defense budget is your problem....if you lower it, as is essential, the rest of us will survive more or less"


Like you survived by yourselves WW1 and WW?

Like Republic of Korea survived Korean War without US help?

Europeans couldn't even handle a small local conflict in the heart of Europe (War in former Yugoslavia) and prevent the massacre in Srebrnica.


It's ironic that so many who critize US military and its budget, complain bitterly when Pentagon wants to close some of its bases abroad (e.g. in Germany) and when push comes to shove, always call US cavalry.

[one day your call may not be answered and we shall see how you'll do on your own then].


P.S. Given any freedom of movement humans always vote with their feet. I don't see thousands of Americans moving to, say, Europe seeking greener pastures. But I see thousands of British, French, German, Italian, Spanish etc., physicians and scientists applying for work permits and residenceship in "the country in decline".


Btw. On Tuesday, Puerto Ricans voted en mass to apply for US statehood. Here's wondering why any nation would like to become a part of a "declining, decaying former superpower".