An unstable world doesn’t necessarily mean a declining America
Who says America is in decline?
Not me. But, if you listened to aÂ recentÂ RushÂ LimbaughÂ show, you mightâ€™ve heard him dismiss my new book,Â Every Nation for Itself, as a â€śdeclinistâ€ť tract that says Americaâ€™s time as leader of the world is â€śover.â€ť Nothing could be further from the truth. Thereâ€™s an inordinate amount of concern out there that writers who are trying to understand the seismic shifts the world has undergone in recent years are in fact doomsayers â€“ wonks who are convinced the U.S. is no longer a superpower and has lost its swagger. On the other side of this false dichotomy is the camp that tries to pretend all the upheaval of recent years has changed absolutely nothing about Americaâ€™s objective standing on the world stage.
The split is playing out right now, in fact, in the presidential campaign, with the GOP accusing President Obama of being a declinist, while Obama counters that he is merely being a realist and that the Romney camp doesnâ€™t understand the complexities of foreign affairs in the world today. Hereâ€™s the thing â€“Â not only is that irrelevant, but the very way the debate is being framed for the public is misleading, at best.
Hereâ€™s a simple way to think of it: If youâ€™re camping and suddenly find yourself being chased by a bear in the woods, you really donâ€™t need to outrun the bear â€“ you need to outrun the other guys who are in the woods with you. And so far, the U.S. is doing a fine job staying ahead of the pack.
The reason the question is being framed incorrectly has much more to do with the state of the world than the role the U.S. plays in it. No one has seriously considered that we would embark on some kind of new Marshall Plan to save the euro. No one has expected us to strike Iran on behalf of Israel, or overthrow Assad in Syria. But just because weâ€™re not being as interventionist as we have been in years and decades past does not mean weâ€™ve shirked our global leadership role.
In a world where the U.S. isnâ€™t saddled with these responsibilities, how do things change? First, for Americans, global affairs mean a lot less at the moment. The U.S. public is concerned about debt and the feeling that their wealth wonâ€™t accrue to the next generation, not globalization and foreign aid. But the issues are more serious for the rest of the world. Look at the clamor, for instance, around Iranâ€™s threats to close off the Straits of Hormuz, through which 36 percent of the worldâ€™s oil flows. Thatâ€™s a much bigger problem for China than for the U.S. Yet few pundits call on China to be the regionâ€™s cop.
Itâ€™s all right to be unenthusiastic about this change. The past 70 years felt like a better world order for everybody; sure, weâ€™d bring ourselves to the brink of nuclear war, and change was slow in coming, but between the fall of Communism and the promise of nuclear non-proliferation, big, important changes in the world order came to pass, with the U.S. in the lead.
Given that the world order of that era is never coming back, how does the U.S. do in the current framework? I believe the answer is: surprisingly well. Yet from the way some public intellectuals talk about it, youâ€™d never guess that.
Recently, at an event I attended, I heard a famous speaker and writer for a preeminent publication say that U.S. college graduates should head to Singapore for opportunities. Thatâ€™s â€“Â no other way to say it â€“Â a ludicrous statement. Half of the millionaires in China want to live in the U.S., which boasts the best universities, most incredible business opportunities and most resilient civil stability of any country in the world. As wonderful as Singapore is, its president was one of a number of Asian leaders begging for the U.S. to play an increased role in the region, to blunt the influence of China.
In short, weâ€™re living in an unstable world â€“ but everyone knows this, and the playing field is level. When you look around at growth opportunities, sure, several countries, from established to emerging, seem as if they might have more upside than the U.S.Â â€“ right now, anyway. Until thereâ€™s a coup. Or a currency devaluation. Or a political scandal. Then, fortunes get washed away and returns evaporate. The capitalist motive is replaced by cronyism â€“ if youâ€™re lucky. Or the infrastructure necessary to do business gets blown up or washed away, or falls into the wrong hands. Itâ€™s a dangerous world out there, and will continue to be. In that light â€“ considering the world as it is, not as pundits and naysayers dream it to be â€“ the U.S., with itsÂ trifecta of resilience, stability and growth, not to mention its entrepreneurial spirit, continues to look very good.
This essay is based on a transcribed interview with Bremmer.