- This topic has 8 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
From a Reuters article this week:
U.S. economic and political clout will decline over the next two decades and the world will be more dangerous, with food and water scarce and advanced weapons plentiful, U.S. spy agencies projected on Thursday.
UPDATE 2-US clout down, risks up by 2025 -intel outlookWhen the Roman imperial system of government fell in the 5th century, many people continued on with little distraction. The barbarians may have eliminated the Emperor as ruler, but they didn't really modify Roman culture in the way one might otherwise suspect. Romans kept doing what they were doing largely within the system in which they had been doing it in decades or centuries past.But if America were to fall....what then? It might be to the pleasure of some people, but I can't see the subsequent power vacuum being filled by any other nation which has proved itself to be committed to democratic government or basic ideals which place a high value on human freedom. Whereas Rome's fall left a framework that others were ready to pick up and make their own, it doesn't seem that America's great contribution to world structure (Constitutional, democratic government) would be continued.
If anything the model that seems to be emulated the most is the pluralistic parliamentary systems of western Europe. American style democracy seems to be a uniquely American institution that the rest of the world neither wants nor needs. I would even tend to agree with them. American democracy is starting to crack at the seams while British and European style democracies are still going with no signs of falling apart like the bicameral system in America. It would appear that the European model increases inclusiveness and thus leads to less discord, where the American model is an either/or proposition with no realistic alternatives for those who disagree with the major parties.
I can't really say that the European model is any more sustainable than America's. I see the “inclusiveness” of the European model as leading to just as much, if not more, discord seen in America. The problem is that it has led to an “inclusiveness” of ideals that are not in accord with traditional Western ideals, thereby chipping away at the foundation upon which the system is built. Will Sharia law flourish in the U.K.? Will riots in Paris be a continual thing of the future? Will European nations continue in their drift toward socialism, perhaps under future “green” initiatives?I think the problem is not so much the governmental models themselves, but instead the attitudes and ideas coming out of citizens which work against these models. It could be argued that these Western models have prolonged sustainability for people who would otherwise would be living worse off had they been under some different form of government.The Romans adopted the ideals of Rome after the empire fell, probably simply because these ideals worked. Romans also probably recognized the value of such ideals on an objective scale. In America today citizens don't seem to recognize the value of the nation's founding ideals, other than perhaps a few parts of the Bill of Rights.
If America falls, so will the nation-state system. A world government will eventually fill the void you are referring to Phid.
Riots are pretty much part of the scene in Paris and have been since 1789. I dont think the comparison between Rome and America holds, but I will go with it for the sake of argument. Rome was much more of an Imperial power, America is not despite all the claims to the contrary. I dont buy the notion that America seeks Imperium, we do not. Nor do we seek indirect Imperium, America merely wants to be able to sell our goods around the world and in turn buy the goods of the rest of the world.Where we fall short is the modern notion that somehow the state owes its citizens sustenance, the Romas also fell to this fallacy after the Republic. The Americans of 200 years ago would roll over in their collective graves to see the social spending by the US Government. It is significant to me that America got by just fine without an income tax until well into the 20th century. The simple reason is that prior to then, the country lived within it's means and did not need an income tax. The average citizen has emulated the gvernment and now we have been on a deficit spending for so long that we think it is normal to be in debt.I have made the point before and I think it is worth making again. The only thing we have in common with Ancient Rome is during the latter days of the Empire. Our citizens like the Romans have figured out that we can vote ourselves bread and circuses, no matter the cost. You could even make the argument that UFC and mixed martial arts contests are no better than ancient gladiatoral contests.Bottom line: America IS decadent and I fear that the wise counsel of Washington, Jefferson, etc. is being lost in the noise about non-existent rights and the clamor for social spending.
I point to the Parisian riots of recent times as an example, among others, which seems to have resulted at least in part from modern European policy – taking in massive numbers of immigrants without sufficiently assimilating them into Europe. I think this is generally rooted in liberalism of today, and in the end it leads to factionalism within nations when unassimilated groups grow large enough. So although Paris has a history of rebellion, I think that the more recent events are of a different nature. And I think the parallel between Rome and America holds in only certain respects (certainly not all), even if only on a general scale...and indeed I was initially referring to the time of the Fall of Rome in my question. There is no imperial conquering of nations in America, but there is a desire to maintain a global presence on some level as a means of achieving U.S. security and political influence. In addition, there are parallels to be made about both being superpowers; providers of some semblance of stability within their respective worlds; exporters of values/ideas which shaped and influenced nations outside their territories. You make very good points about the U.S. income tax and spending. I think these are areas where cultural "drift" has occurred, thereby weakening our nation over the long term. Can America survive? Yes, I think so, but it will require a new cultural attitude which takes to heart JFK's statement "Ask not what your country can do for you . Ask what you can do for your country."
I have a very pessimistic view of the future of America. I think the paralells with the latter days of Rome are significant in some ways but nonexistent in others. Then as now, there were people who issued the call to return to traditional values(then Vegetius, now Conservatives), Then as now, those calls were ignored. As Roman influence declined, the influence of barbarians increased. As American influence declines, the influence of modern barbarians increases i.e. Islamists, Post-modernists, the Gay lobby. I wonder sometimes if we, as a society, are not in a terminal state of decline and on the cusp of the next Dark Ages? I tend to think we are, though it may be another 100 years or so before the curtain really falls. How long will the Dark Ages last? My conviction that we are headed to a new Dark Age is one of the main reasons I am such a supporter of space technology. I think the world is getting too small to survive a new Dark Age. There are no unexplored terrestial frontiers for expansion, we must look to the stars. Unfortunately, the same barbarians pooh-poohing the return of traditional values also bemoan the space program as being wasteful claiming the money could be better spent on the poor. This is another reason for me to despise the average liberal, as if I did not have enough reason already. I cannot stand short-sighted people. If nothing else, my study of history has made me realize the value of foresight and looking beyond the next meal or election. All of the most successful people in history have been forward looking visionaries that did things that benefited themselves as well as their nation/society/culture. Everyone else is just a splash on the pond of history. This is why I love talk of Obama being a rock star, I think it is very apt and describes the depth of his character well. I cant think of any rock star with anything of real substance about them and he is no exception.
Rome lost it because of bread and circuses… we give our folks the same; when the Barbarians came in seeking to escape the Huns they wanted the same treatment. So too the illegals that we are sheltering… need I say more?Wally
Rome lost it because of bread and circuses... we give our folks the same; when the Barbarians came in seeking to escape the Huns they wanted the same treatment. So too the illegals that we are sheltering... need I say more?Wally
You may be onto something here Wally. If America can no longer assimilate its immigrants, it will be undone by them (or overrun by them). I had not even thought about this before. Very astute observation.
Everything is too connected, too globalized. If America should fall out of it's super power status I dont think anyone will take it's place. The world is becoming more and more “united”. One world goverment? I dont know. Maybe some sort of unionization of politics.
Not that this is my idea, but it appears with this global recession that most economies are heavily dependent on US consumerism. Without our buying attitudes on a massive scale there is no need for all the “fluff” products that create so many jobs around the world.
Not that this is my idea, but it appears with this global recession that most economies are heavily dependent on US consumerism. Without our buying attitudes on a massive scale there is no need for all the "fluff" products that create so many jobs around the world.
Indeed, there is globalism in our world today like never before, which is why something which started in the U.S. housing market has spread to the other side of the globe. Our response to it, thus far, has not been too far off from what the Romans tried to do to keep their economy afloat. We should have taken our cues from the Romans.
The big question is. Debt got us into this mess, how is assuming even more debt going to get us out of it? Nobody is really asking this question. It is an elementary principle and one that I do not here anyone in congrees with a real voice talking about. Those that do, like Gov. Sanford of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are derided as being heartless. Are they really heartless or are they realistic?What the last economic stimulus bill does is no more than redistribution of wealth on a massive scale. Congress is taking the money out of my pocket and giving it to others. Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?
Congress is taking the money out of my pocket and giving it to others. Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?
It is not what the Founders intended. Franklin argued to make the poor feel uncomfortable in their poverty.
The Federalist Papers, the majority of which was written by Alexander Hamilton, argues that the Bill of Rights was not necessary and even a threat to liberties. Hamilton suggested that if a Bill of Rights had to be included in the Constitution, the Constitution was not doing enough to promote the liberty the American Revolution as fought for and that under the Constitution the government already did not have the power to violate what were considered civil liberties. James Madison, who also contributed to the Federalist papers, noted that a Bill of Rights could never be completed, and that the Bill of Rights was dangerous because a government could use this list as a way of abusing certain liberties that were not listed. The protection of liberty was not merely enforced by being written down but had to be enforced by the people and their government. While advocates of the Bill, such as Jefferson, argued that it could not hard civil liberties, Federalist believed that civil liberties that weren't listed were at risk.
[flash=200,200]http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1287227/the_bill_of_rights_in_historical_context.html[/flash]Noone has a right to a car, or a home or good credit or to redefine marriage.Wally, you need not say more. I always felt so safe, growing up. The US seemed untouched by many of the problems that the rest of the world struggled with. Now, it really matters what you beleive, can't go around ignoring current, multiple upheavals.
