Random thoughts on the American hegemon

Mark Twain once observed that even if history does not repeat itself, it does tend to rhyme. Even when pundits describe the current economic situation as ‘unprecedented’, there are still comparisons made to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The one thing, however, that seems to garner universal agreement, is the idea that things shall never be the same again. True, we may be greeted by different singers and different orchestral arrangements, but, alas, the song remains the same.

If one wishes to make an educated guess on what the remained of the 21st century will look like, Peter Clarke offers one in his book, “The Last Thousand Days of the British Empire.” After the First World War, Britain stood at the apex of its power, which had been gradually been building for three centuries, and yet, within three decades, it would rest at its nadir, and the global order underwent changes the scope of which had not been seen since the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and the Concert of Europe.

Britain would enter this process more powerful than any other nation on earth, and would leave it a nation relegated to a second tier status, behind the United States and the Soviet Union. A mixture of economic decline, war, indebtedness, the rise of competing powers, and the cost of maintaining control over vast swaths of territory was a powerful and poisonous cocktail that drained the resources of a country, and the energy of her people. The real damage, was in fact, psychological. After winning global wars, and proudly proclaiming that “the sun shall never set on the British Empire”, it was a humiliation that would scar Britons for more than a generation. The end of Empire Preference and the move toward the EEC can very much be seen in the context of a people struggling with an unsure future at the same time as coming to terms with their past.

The United States now finds itself in a similar set of circumstances. The rise of China, India, and Brazil, along with a more strident Russia creates the nascent stages of a new economic multipolarity. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the better part of a decade old, with no real signs of a positive resolution. The US government has, through a combination of banking bailouts, exponential spending increases, and good old fashioned porkbarrelling, increased its liabilities to an alarming level – something that is bound to worsen as the Baby Boomers begin to collect Social Security and use Medicare. On top of this is the maintenance of a military that receives more money than those of the next dozen or so nations combined – a military that continues to deploy forces to places like Korea and Germany, where operations first began when today’s retirees were still in diapers.

Naysayers will argue that America is resilient due to its resources and its exceptionalism, due in part to its people and their industry. They will also counter that everyone will suffer if America suffers. This is true, to a point.

Britain did not fall into complete oblivion, and neither will America. And yes, the American people are remarkably adaptable and enduring. These qualities, however, are not genetically predetermined by what passport one holds, or what flag one salutes. America is great, but it does not have a monopoly on greatness. That all of the nations of the world will suffer in such an environment is also correct, but the question is not whether everyone falls together. Rather, it is who bounces back, how soon, and how high?

In the post World War II era, the United States and the Soviet Union bounced back the quickest, and the highest. The question in 2009 is who will do it this time?