American hubris

[StringJunky]

Does anyone think that the geopolitical centre of gravity needs to move away from the US and towards  more collectively level-headed democracies? At 62, I'm starting to think that American influence and dominance is too toxic for the world. Even on the 'left' of the American political spectrum, the likes of Biden are merely paying lip-service to world peace as long as no one takes a slice of their pie.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The extent to which we are now seeing the worst elements of British politicians embracing the worst elements of US politics is disturbing. The UK has the most far right government I've seen in my lifetime  here... and getting worse. Couple those with the FR Israeli administration justifying each others actions, we have a perfect storm of conspiring instigators for the issues we have today.  

Edited February 29 by StringJunky

[iNow]

It’s not America per se, but the right wing. 

And when the US is no longer dominant, it’s China who will take over. Be careful what you wish for. 

[genio]

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's either leniency or strictness in politics. The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track. Take a look at Canada and the wastefulness of the liberals trying to save everyone.

I'd like to see a government that understands discipline.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s not America per se, but the right wing. 

And when the US is no longer dominant, it’s China who will take over. Be careful what you wish for. 

Says an American  One has to consider the US bounces from right of centre to far right intermittently over a long period, so, on balance, it's too far to the right. It doesn't need to be an overnight revolution. It means Europe having more of the rope to balance things out. Just look at the supply issues happening for Ukraine now. Time to move away.

50 minutes ago, genio said:

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's either leniency or strictness in politics. The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track. Take a look at Canada and the wastefulness of the liberals trying to save everyone.

I'd like to see a government that understands discipline.

From your use of 'liberals' means that I can safely ignore your opinion.

Edited February 29 by StringJunky

[genio]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

From your use of 'liberals' means that I can safely ignore your opinion.

Why do I need to know? You could have simply ignored my comment or address my supposed misunderstanding of liberals.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Does anyone think that the geopolitical centre of gravity needs to move away from the US and towards  more collectively level-headed democracies? At 62, I'm starting to think that American influence and dominance is too toxic for the world. Even on the 'left' of the American political spectrum, the likes of Biden are merely paying lip-service to world peace as long as no one takes a slice of their pie.

If the rest of the free world wants to step up and shoulder more of the burden of world peace, I think they are free to do so. What’s stopping them?

In the most recent data I found, the US paid 25% of UN peacekeeping costs. Other countries would also have to beef up their military budgets, and take a more active and visible role in diplomacy. Have at it.

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

If the rest of the free world wants to step up and shoulder more of the burden of world peace, I think they are free to do so. What’s stopping them?

In the most recent data I found, the US paid 25% of UN peacekeeping costs. Other countries would also have to beef up their military budgets, and take a more active and visible role. Have at it.

Of course. The EU needs to let go of their fiscal dependence militarily. I no longer see the US as a reliable partner moving forward. Does that make me part of the "extreme radical Left"? The UK is bound to them at the hip, so it will have to be outside of them. I'm deliberately not considering loyalties here, but an attempt at a more dispassionate view that is  more inclusive of different political philosophies where fiscal and geopolitical compromise is a keyword.

As it happens, the EU and Ukraine appear to be actively stepping up to the plate in terms of their defence industrial base to meet the needs of Ukraine. Hopefully, this is a precursor to military independence from the US and to democratize the power base more equitably. The road to peaceful existence is a stable equivalence of political and military power... not this totally asymmetric situation that we have here. That, I feel, is the solution to removing the hubris of the OP title.

Edited February 29 by StringJunky

[iNow]

The EU is stepping up and already paying more to NATO per capita than other countries (especially Poland who has more skin in the game). Spending based on GDP is also way up. 

Problem is they can’t ramp up quickly enough and won’t be able to supply Ukraine with munitions until closer to 2025. 

The US is the only country who can help Ukraine bridge the gap and get them enough weapons to survive through the rest of this year. The US also wants to do this. Over 70% of the populace supports it. If a bill came to the floor, it would pass. 

The problem is one man trying to save his job. He’s Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and he won’t allow the bill to come to the floor for that vote. 

Don’t blame America. Blame MAGA morons and their Cheeto Mussolini godhead who seems always to want what’s best for Putin (and are perhaps more susceptible to Putins social media manipulation farms)

Edited February 29 by iNow

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

The EU is stepping up and already paying more to NATO per capita than other countries (especially Poland who has more skin in the game). Problem is they can’t ramp up quickly enough and won’t be able to supply Ukraine until closer to 2025. 

US is the only country who can help them bridge the gap and get through the rest of this year. The US also wants to do this. Over 70% of the populace supports it. If a bill came to the floor, it would pass. 

The problem is one man trying to save his job. He’s Speaker of the House, Mine Johnson, and he won’t allow the bill to come to the floor for that vote. 

Don’t blame America. Blame MAGA morons and their Cheeto Mussolini godhead. 

I know there are decent people in the US, I talk to you guys everyday, but one has to look at the sum total of effects of your political establishment on the world... wankers included.  I'm looking more at the forest that is each country rather than the individual trees within each forest.

Edited February 29 by StringJunky

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I know there are decent people in the US, I talk to you guys everyday, but one has to look at the sum total of effects of your political establishment on the world... wankers included.

Unfortunately the MAGA elected officials do not reflect the will of the people they allegedly represent. Many of them are in heavily-gerrymandered districts, so they are in no danger of losing their seats, which doesn’t offer much leverage to make them accountable.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

The EU is stepping up and already paying more to NATO per capita than other countries (especially Poland who has more skin in the game). Spending based on GDP is also way up. 

Problem is they can’t ramp up quickly enough and won’t be able to supply Ukraine with munitions until closer to 2025. 

The US is the only country who can help Ukraine bridge the gap and get them enough weapons to survive through the rest of this year. The US also wants to do this. Over 70% of the populace supports it. If a bill came to the floor, it would pass. 

The problem is one man trying to save his job. He’s Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and he won’t allow the bill to come to the floor for that vote. 

Don’t blame America. Blame MAGA morons and their Cheeto Mussolini godhead who seems always to want what’s best for Putin (and are perhaps more susceptible to Putins social media manipulation farms)

• Max total size: 3.91 MB

No one really comes close to the US in defence spending per capita. While Poland may be spending a slightly higher percent of their GDP, the US GDP per capita is almost 4 times higher. But that's defence spending by Nato countries, not "paying more to Nato".

Edited February 29 by J.C.MacSwell

[LaurieAG]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

It’s not America per se, but the right wing. 

And when the US is no longer dominant, it’s China who will take over. Be careful what you wish for. 

In Australia over the past 35 years the (right wing of the) left wing political party has implemented more draconian right wing policies than the right wing party themselves.

[J.C.MacSwell]

But with regard tro American Hubris , I think they're "Damned if they do, damned if they don't".

We need to find a soft landing for the inevitable fall of American hegemony, without allowing Putin and Xi's "multipolar World" where the "poles" are autocracies.

Certainly the UN has no answer, especially with the 5 current veto powers.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I know there are decent people in the US, I talk to you guys everyday, but one has to look at the sum total of effects of your political establishment on the world... wankers included.  I'm looking more at the forest that is each country rather than the individual trees within each forest.

Ultimately, it's Walt Disney's fault, for making us cry when Bambi's mum was killed; he greated the algorithm.

 

That ignores the nuances of life, in favour of a cute picture.

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Does anyone think that the geopolitical centre of gravity needs to move away from the US and towards  more collectively level-headed democracies?

I used to think a shift towards the Global South might be a geopolitical good, but then came Modi, Bolsonaro, et al.  I still have hopes India could become more of a center.  I have doubts that the US can really promote democracy effectively by gunboat diplomacy and supporting genocide.  And our defense contractors have the power of oligarchs.  

[StringJunky]

28 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I used to think a shift towards the Global South might be a geopolitical good, but then came Modi, Bolsonaro, et al.  I still have hopes India could become more of a center.  I have doubts that the US can really promote democracy effectively by gunboat diplomacy and supporting genocide.  And our defense contractors have the power of oligarchs.  

The US is not unique in its attitude; it's what happens when one side is holding too much of the rope.  It's human nature to get cocky and pushy when one is standing on the top of the hill.

Edited February 29 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

The trick is to posture yourself such that you seem to represent the least painful choice, if not in fact the lesser evil. This I think is far easier to do locally than globally.

[exchemist]

I would not characterise it as hubris but I am afraid I do think we are witnessing the end of US dominance of geopolitics, as a result of the possibly terminal dysfunction of its politics. One sees every day authoritarians, in Russia, China and even now Israel, becoming ever bolder, as they see the US weaken. The EU is finding itself suddenly exposed by its tacit and complacent reliance on the US to uphold the rules-based order that has largely held sway since the end of the war. The Chinese are gearing up to retake Taiwan and appropriate the South China Sea. Putin knows if he can hold on for a Trump presidency, he will be assured of success in Ukraine and can turn his sights towards the Baltic States and the Kaliningrad exclave. Israel has embarked on a Final Solution to the Gaza problem, via blatant ethnic cleansing and what looks increasingly like genocide, while the US is impotent to stop it. 

There is every sign that the US Republican party has withdrawn support for the democratic system, taking a large chunk of the electorate along with them, and instead embraced a loathsome personality cult. The USA will be lucky if its judicial system, its free media and its term limits on presidents survive. The country will be consumed with its own internal problems for the next few years at least.  Xi, Putin and others will be rubbing their hands at the prospect. 

So much for "making America great again". 

Edited February 29 by exchemist

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, genio said:

It's either leniency or strictness in politics. The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track.

And this is the mistake many folks make when trying to interpret complex issues by using single words to define them. I know a LOT of people who think the way you do, that "liberal" means "anything goes" and conservative means "responsible". I also know a LOT of people who think conservative means "fearful" and "ignorant" and "stuck in the mud", while liberal means "progressive" and "hopeful" and "forward-thinking". This is the problem with using these terms with each other. It's hard to know how a person has been influenced when they use such broad terms.

I'm not sure hubris is the problem in the US. In trying to focus on capitalism to the exclusion of any other ownership principles, we're allowing our leadership to pretend to care about us when their re-elections are really up to big corporations. We may find it hard to give up what we think we've earned, but I don't think it's out of pride. If the American public had any pride at all we'd gather to stop these stains on humanity from exploiting us even further (the CEO of Kellogg's recently claimed that if we're worried about the high price of food, we should eat Frosted Flakes for dinner). 

We make very little investment in The People. Everything goes to keep big corporations in business, including bailing them out with tax dollars when they mess up. I think we should focus on better social spending and representing the will of The People, and maybe then we can better assess whether this is a matter of hubris or not.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, genio said:

The leniency of the left leads to the strictness of the right to steer the economy back on track. Take a look at Canada and the wastefulness of the liberals trying to save everyone

It’s not like that in the US, though. For the last ~30 years the economy has crashed when the right has been in charge, and the left fixes it, at least to some extent. The last 4 GOP presidential terms have resulted in a net growth of less than a million jobs, and three recessions started on their watch.

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Does anyone think that the geopolitical centre of gravity needs to move away from the US and towards  more collectively level-headed democracies?

A couple of thoughts here. There is vigorous debate regarding the power system in the world, and while the US is still a super power, but it is not clear whether we are still in a unipolar world. Many scholars have argued that we are either moving or already are in a multipolar world where international power is far more fractured. I understand that this is not the gist of your question, but I think is relevant context. 

It is also relevant to note that not only military is relevant, but increasingly access to critical resources, economic power and economic connections. Strong economic interdependency can be a powerful weapon, too, for example. A big issue in the statement is the level-headed democracy aspect. While the US has a special outspoken brand of crazy, Europe for example has similar questions, all connected to populism and mostly right-wing populism right now. In general, populistic streaks have always been a danger to democracies, as they promise easy and quick fixes to real or perceived grievances. However, as part of their anti-establishment appeal, they often popularize circumvention of procedure, frequently scapegoat vulnerable (especially non-voting) groups and are at least friendly with authoritarian ideas. 

We have seen how vulnerable populations are whenever something happens leading to arguably self-destructive behaviour (e.g. Brexit). Even worse, it does not really seem that negative consequences borne out of this sentiments are necessarily penalized. Even after the rather egregious attempt by the far right to dismantle democracy, the party still obtained the plurality of votes (but lost the majority). Some called it a win for democracy, but really it is more a near miss. 

Likewise, in Germany the far right party is likely to become second-strongest party and even after the meeting of some of their leadership with (other) self-confessed nazis, regarding the deportation of immigrants and other desirables (Wannsee, anyone), they are only dropping a little bit in polls (which should be unthinkable, given Germany's past).

Anyway, the gist of it is that it is difficult to find an strong coalition of enough level-headed democracies, level-headedness goes out of the window the moment folks feel somewhat threatened (and I am almost certain that during uncertain economic times, folks will feel more threatened by e.g. immigrants than, say, Russia). But maybe I am just getting increasingly disillusioned.

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

In Australia over the past 35 years the (right wing of the) left wing political party has implemented more draconian right wing policies than the right wing party themselves.

Go too far left or right, one ends up basically the same as the other.

[CharonY]

49 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And this is the mistake many folks make when trying to interpret complex issues by using single words to define them. I know a LOT of people who think the way you do, that "liberal" means "anything goes" and conservative means "responsible". I also know a LOT of people who think conservative means "fearful" and "ignorant" and "stuck in the mud", while liberal means "progressive" and "hopeful" and "forward-thinking". This is the problem with using these terms with each other. It's hard to know how a person has been influenced when they use such broad terms.

Slogans over analysis has always been a problem in politics. It may have been supercharged by the way social media short-circuits memory, but it is interesting (and somewhat frightening) to see how superficial discussions go. Also it is weird that folks think that slogans are universal creating a very weird globalized perception of politics. I do think that to some degree that is strategic, as it helps populist sentiments by creating simple paths to become afraid.

[MigL]

You would think that with their combined economies, the EU would be more assertive on the World stage, but some member states are actively undermining the Union's influence.
The same can be said for NATO.
Witness Hungary, whose leader seems more aligned with Russia than European neighbors.
Witness Turkey, who buys Russian equipment to operate within NATO, among other problems, such as with Greece and Sweden's acceptance.
And what about Britain opting out of the EU, which, IIRC, you're in favor of, String Junky; does that not reduce the EU's influence to that of vassal to the US ?
The EU has had , for a few years now, the opportunity to be on equal footing with the US, but many of its member states are 'full of themselves' and want to go it alone ( France ), some think they'd be better off on their own ( UK ), some don't give a damn ( Italy ), and all do way more trade/deals, and are then beholden to, dispicable economies like Russia and China.
The only member state that seems to 'glue' them together is the country that nearly destroyed Europe in the last century ( Germany ).

And then all these states ( and Canada too ! ) blame their failures on American hubris, as you now do.

14 hours ago, StringJunky said:

From your use of 'liberals' means that I can safely ignore your opinion.

Liberals is the name of the political party, akin to Democrats.
The other parties of note are Progressive Conservatives, also akin to Democrats ( thankfully we have no equivalent to Republicans ), and National Democratic Party, socialists who make promises they'll never have to keep because they'll never be in power.
That's today's lesson in canadian politics.

14 hours ago, swansont said:

If the rest of the free world wants to step up and shoulder more of the burden of world peace, I think they are free to do so. What’s stopping them?
In the most recent data I found, the US paid 25% of UN peacekeeping costs. Other countries would also have to beef up their military budgets, and take a more active and visible role in diplomacy. Have at it.

That sounds an awful lot like what D Trump said 6-7 years ago when he suggested pulling out of NATO, and more recently when he said he would let V Putin have Ukraine, and possibly the rest of Europe, unless they start paying their share.
Careful, you might get called a 'Trumpet' 😄😄 .

It is not a matter of America being altruistic in providing defense for Europe and the rest of the free World, but a matter of self interest. It is always better to deal with free states than the likes of Russia, china, and other unreasonable autocratic states.

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Europe for example has similar questions, all connected to populism

I'm not sure when 'populism' took on a different meaning, as it used to refer to the will of the people determining governance, not a few 'elites'. Unfortunately, like other institutions such as communism, fascism, and religion, it is easily corrupted.
The best example would be the populism of the French Revolution, which took power from a few 'elites' and gave it to the common people. Fear mistrust, and insecurity ultimately led to the revolution 'eating itself'

But back to the OP...
The US exerts control over other countries, not militarily like Russia does, or military and economic coercion like China, but rather, through other countries' greed; America is still the largest spender in the world, and other countries want the benefits of America's spending power. 

[CharonY]

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not sure when 'populism' took on a different meaning, as it used to refer to the will of the people determining governance, not a few 'elites'. Unfortunately, like other institutions such as communism, fascism, and religion, it is easily corrupted.
The best example would be the populism of the French Revolution, which took power from a few 'elites' and gave it to the common people. Fear mistrust, and insecurity ultimately led to the revolution 'eating itself'

It has always been a mix, and there is indeed a bit of a clash with elitism. I.e. ordinary people in opposition to an elite establishment, as you mentioned. The issue is that there always has been a school of thought that governance needs to be based informed decisions (ideally evidence-based). Thus in a perfect world, the population would be mostly rational, well-informed and fight for their rights, which is a "good" form of populism. The other side, however, which arguably is more common, is that elites are directing populist sentiments, i.e. fostering fear regarding crime, economic woes, cultural changes etc. I understand that this is not easily resolved, but in my mind the fundamental difference is the presence of evidence or at least some level of analysis on given claims.

While that might sound elitist (and to some degree it is), I will also note that populism thrives in a fact-free space and historically has led to rather problematic outcomes. It is not an issue of being corrupted, but an inherent weakness in the system.

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Go too far left or right, one ends up basically the same as the other.

I am a bit skeptical regarding the horseshoe theory of politics. Mostly because of the simplification, I suppose. They are probably only similar for some traits, but rather heterogeneous in others. I.e. you can split extremists in many camps and trying to find a singular trait that organizes all of the in a particular way is difficult. And looking at sentiments, these will also be very different depending on the population. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

Liberals is the name of the political party, akin to Democrats.
The other parties of note are Progressive Conservatives, also akin to Democrats ( thankfully we have no equivalent to Republicans ), and National Democratic Party, socialists who make promises they'll never have to keep because they'll never be in power.
That's today's lesson in canadian politics.

I would probably add that US cultural influence is dripping across the border and politicians are taking lessons. Not the good ones, unfortunately. It seems more like probing, but some provincial governments are or are enacting laws regarding transgender persons. Some of them are posturing (e.g. legislating procedures that are not done in the first place), or pandering to the parental rights movement that (AFAIK) has US origins. Then there were the US style convoy protests which some conservatives tried to leverage to gain points and so on. Crazy is contagious, I tell you (but then we now know that we cannot handle contagions).