
Life at the End of American Empire - vo2maxer
https://lithub.com/life-at-the-end-of-american-empire/
======
fbonetti
It’s funny that the author on one hand acknowledges that the government sucks
at everything it does, whether it’s education, infrastructure, or health
insurance. He also acknowledges that the federal government has a tendency to
constantly engage in costly foreign wars regardless of who happens to be in
office. Yet his proposed solution is to give the government even more money
and even more power.

~~~
Apocryphon
Thus, ironically, the problem for both the right and the left is the same one-
_that governments today are too weak_. The right needs an at least temporarily
strong government to effect the _dismantling of the state_ , whereas the left
needs a strong government not merely to respond to the grinding conditions of
the economic “recovery”, but to overturn previous policies, put in new
protections and find some alternative to the current political and economic
order. Dark enlightenment types and progressives are confronting the same
frustration while having diametrically opposed goals. It is not so much that
Washington is too powerful as it is that the power it has is embedded in a
system, which, as Mark Leibovich portrays brilliantly, is feckless and
corrupt.

[https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/searle20131202](https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/searle20131202)

~~~
wostusername
This honestly reads as "working as intended" to me. No side can become the
tyrant and get everything it wants and screw the other ~50%.

~~~
danzig13
I don’t think the intention was to never solve anything though.

~~~
thecolorblue
This is really just my opinion, but I think the intention is to solve problems
when there is consensus.

------
Animats
_" Any single defeat can be attributed to particular and ad hoc circumstances,
but America is unique among the world’s dominant powers of the past 500 years
in its repeated failure to achieve military objectives over decades. Those
failures are even more extraordinary because they occurred in the absence of a
rising military rival and as America’s ability and willingness to produce and
pay for the weapons needed for military supremacy remained undiminished."_

Yes. That's extremely important. Vietnam was the US's first total loss, and
the US hasn't had a successful outcome since then. The US blew the endgame in
Afghanistan, in Iraq, and, most importantly, in Russia after the Cold War.

What went wrong?

After WWII, the US had confidence in its own system of government, and imposed
it on Germany and Japan with a sizable occupation force. It worked.

The US underfunded the post-war period of round one in Afghanistan, after
kicking the Soviets out. In Iraq, the occupation was botched. Paul Bremer is
generally blamed for this.[1]

Blowing the aftermath of a war leads to big trouble. See: WWI.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Criticism_and_cont...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer#Criticism_and_controversies)

~~~
CalRobert
The US has had plenty of moral lapses in its military adventures, but one
suspects that the powers of the past 500 years would have been far more
willing to obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians.

~~~
elfexec
> The US has had plenty of moral lapses in its military adventures, but one
> suspects that the powers of the past 500 years would have been far more
> willing to obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians.

Simply not true. There was a reason why european wars were fought in the
fields and not in cities/population centers in the past. Also, past powers
tended to conquer nations/cities in order to subjugate the population for
exploitation. After all, humans were valuable resources back then. It is very
rare that a military/government/nation would simply choose to exterminate the
inhabitants of a continent ( 100 or so native nations that were wiped out ) or
set entire cities full of civilians ablaze ( dresden, tokyo ) and nuke two
civilian cities ( hiroshima, nagasaki ).

Pretty much the US and our side kick britain are the only ones to be guilty of
the first two. We are still the only ones guilty of the 3rd.

But precedents being set, your assertion is likely to be truer in the future.
I suspect that in the next 500 years, powers would be more willing to
obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians, especially if
technology and automation make humans a less valuable commodity.

~~~
CalRobert
I appreciate your comment (and didn't downvote you). What I wrote does not
enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy.

My point wasn't that these things don't happen, just that we maybe, just
_maybe_ have slightly more compunction about killing tens of millions of
people at the push of a button (which we can now do) than someone from 1665
would. Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? I imagine his hand would
have been stayed only by the thought of all the ruined grazing land.

But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better
now than 500 years ago. And the 20th century has a grab bag of atrocities to
choose from.

~~~
elfexec
> What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have
> handy.

It's something that's uncitable so I don't think anyone holds that against
you. It's really a discussion on human nature. I can't cite anything to defend
my position either.

> Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland?

Though he was a religious zealot who did bad things in ireland, I doubt he'd
nuke the entire irish peoples - certainly not the protestants. Also,
technically, ireland was part of his domain/kingdom back then. Cromwell would
probably have nuked the kings and leaders, but not the people. Just like
jefferson davis would have nuked lincoln and the union leaders, but not the
american/northern people.

> But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better
> now than 500 years ago.

I agree, but I think societal norms and beliefs guide how we behave and think
- not just in civilian life but in military and political life. I think human
beings are just as evil and selfish as in the 1800s, but most of us wouldn't
support racial slavery. I don't think we are innately better than we were 150
years ago as human beings. Deep down we are the same, but the societal mores
has changed. Particularly the scientific white supremacy which allowed for
total genocide ( men, women and children ) in much of the 19th and 20th
centuries.

I don't think cromwell would have seen a school with 1000 kindegarten irish
kids and nuked it. But the US and Britain certainly would have if it were 1000
native kids and nazi germany would nuked 1000 jewish kids.

I suspect in the future, once a real war begins, nobody will think twice about
civilian casualties as the precedent has been set and the stakes would be so
high. Most importantly, nobody responsible for nuking hiroshima or nagasaki
was prosecuted. Nobody responsible for dresden or tokyo was prosecuted. The
lesson is that no matter what, you have to be on the winning side. But only
time will tell.

------
Jedi72
American pride won't save this country from long-term trends. Before any
meaningful change can be made, the "we're the best" attitude has to go.
Sometime in the next 2 decades China is gonna put a man on Mars before the US,
I can't wait to see the shocked faces

~~~
foogazi
the Soviet Union got to space first and then what good did that do?

I’ll be shocked when the American president sends her daughter to study in
China, or when the British monarchy starts exiling to China.

~~~
ocschwar
America got great by sending the children of the elite to Holland for college.

------
juanjmanfredi
I share frustration with many of the issues that the author discusses. But I
disagree completely with his thesis. I am profoundly optimistic about our
future.

The individual liberties provided by the Constitution empower each of us to
speak our minds, share ideas, and start/join movements. We have the power to
elect our representatives, and have an independent judiciary to push back
against corruption. The average quality of life here is higher than in almost
any other place on Earth, and no other country can compare to ours in terms of
diversity of thought, culture, and ethnicity.

Look, I understand that there are real, serious problems with our institutions
and our economy. The beautiful thing about the United States though is that
our political system allows for solutions to be discussed, proposed, and
adopted. The biggest threats I see to the United States are not unique to us:
climate change, nuclear nonproliferation, and global unrest/poverty.

~~~
falcolas
> no other country can compare to ours in terms of diversity of thought

So long as your thought is within culturally accepted norms. Otherwise,
American companies will happily chase you completely off the internet,
sometimes with the force of American law (it’s frankly scarier when they do it
without being forced by law).

------
kp98
I hear talk of the end of the American empire often, but I see issues like
healthcare and education as superfluous in the face of a few underlying trends
that provide the basis for another American century.

Healthcare reform is something we already have the levers to execute through
government policy, and I believe it will happen during the next financial
crisis along with entitlement reform.

On the other hand, there are certain trends that there are no obvious ways to
reverse, namely demographic decline, geographic dominance, and technological
innovation.

When you consider the decline of America in the face of China, for example,
consider that China faces a far more serious demographic issue, and as Russia
teaches us, it is almost impossible to grow economically during such a period.
America's birth rate, however, is 1.8 births per woman with immigration
putting the country into a healthy range.

Geographically, American is set up between the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic.
If global warming does hit the arctic hard, we will have access to the arctic
ocean via Alaska, whereas China and other regional super powers will not. In
terms of energy, raw resources, and land America is also looking at self
sufficiency for the next century to come.

Technologically, America draws on the best universities in the world, with
cities that have external economies of scale so large that they will be hard
to displace (ie SV, NYC, Boston). Not to mention we have an engrained culture
that affirms those who experiment and forgives those who fail. In the
technological sense I think America will succeed also.

Instead of looking at this as the end of America, I think people need to
recognize that we face extraordinary problems, which we can overcome. In my
own opinion, I think the highest order offence against the American people is
American business co-opting the government, and as soon as we work this out,
we will have a better ability to overcome issues of healthcare, education,
etc.

------
8bitsrule
Yet another cold, miserable, accurate report on the state of affairs. They're
always 90% about the problems, 10% on what we could do, only if.

We need leadership committed to picking something that needs doing and then
doing it. _Stat._ Two teams pulling in opposite directions aren't moving the
ball. Without a third? It's over.

------
FillardMillmore
> ...the prevalence of poor health [in America] is on par with the former
> Soviet-bloc states of Central and Eastern Europe

This claim seems tough to believe, but I suppose part of it does depend on
what you classify as 'poor health'. If anyone knows sources that back up this
claim, I'd be interested to read them.

~~~
danharaj
Why do you think it's tough to believe?

~~~
kp98
Because America has some of the best healthcare outcomes in the world

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_of_healthcare)

~~~
standardUser
Being in the top 10-15 is great. But that ranking comes with a price tag
roughly double the other highest ranking nations. Not to mention the financial
ruin and bankruptcies experienced by some survivors, and the financial
pressure experienced by virtually everyone that has to engage heavily with our
healthcare system.

And there are other metrics to consider. The US is 35th in life expectancy and
falling farther behind. And we have notoriously bad rates of maternal and
infant mortality compared to other wealthy nations.

~~~
ip26
I've heard before that it's a split distribution. The quality of healthcare &
outcomes in the US is some of the worst in the world, if you are poor. It's
some of the best in the world, if you are rich. Or so I've been told.

For example I was taught that a big part of why our maternal mortality is
high, is because new mothers who are poor do not or cannot follow up with
their doctor in the days after release from the hospital if something isn't
right, e.g. when bleeding fresh blood instead of clotting. Visits to the
doctor are expensive, and various barriers (such as language) may have
prevented them from being educated on when to come back for help.

~~~
standardUser
Absolutely. If you slice up the demographics in the right way you could find
very large populations in the US that have among the best health outcomes
anywhere in the world, such as the entirety of New England.

------
aquova
This is a well written article, covering a lot of the issues currently facing
the country. It's something I think about occasionally, and the opinion I
think I've eventually come to is that while it's nice to think of ourselves as
the top in the world in many aspects, it's okay to contract a bit and let the
empire shrink back. He often compares to Europe and China, who are in
different stages of what might be the naturally progression of global powers.
Europe had its world supreme phase, with several nations being eligible for
best in the world at different points. Post-WWII, they (for one reason or
another) scaled back and now have the high quality of living we see today.
China is where the US was 50 years ago, with rapid, grandiose projects and
economic success. But eventually those structures will crumble as they are in
the US and they will be where we are now.

I'm not sure what will happen. I think standards will continue to slip while
politicians play more into more into the "America #1" card until it finally
isn't feasible to do so. I don't think there will be a glorious revolution or
anything, more like economic downturn changing the political layout slowly,
causing even the giant corporate actors to go bust. Eventually America will
scale back until it reaches the equilibrium that Europe is closer to reaching.

------
_bxg1
I'm not yet at the point of starting a family, but when the time approaches
I'm going to seriously consider other, more functional societies as places to
do so.

~~~
taylodl
What's keeping you from considering those other societies now? Why wait until
you're starting a family?

~~~
_bxg1
It's good enough right now as a healthy, single, affluent working adult. Or at
least, it's not bad enough to consider leaving behind family and friends. But
if I had to think about a child's future, as well as my own increasing
healthcare needs later in life, combined with the fact that the societal
problems are only getting worse the longer time goes on, the equation may well
work out differently.

~~~
foogazi
But if it’s good for you now, wouldn’t it be good for your kids at that same
stage in the future?

I think about this too - The grass seems cheaper & healthier on the other side
sometimes, but the economic advantages of the US are impressive

------
malandrew
I think one factor that many people underestimate in the decline in any
country or empire is the cost of brownfield projects versus greenfield
projects.

For example, building a new town/city and its infrastructure is dirt cheap
relative to fixing and replacing existing infrastructure. This is not unlike
the cost of maintaining software and refactoring it versus writing it in the
first place.

With a new greenfield city land, labor is relatively cheap because the cost of
living is relatively cheap. There are also no entrenched interests that will
engage in legal battles every step of the way. There are also no citizens
whose you have to continue to support while you create the new replacement
infrastructure and you have none of the complexities of migration from old
infrastructure to new infrastructure.

Besides their authoritarian bent, these are some of the many reasons a country
like China is getting stuff done while the US and Europe gets relatively
little done.

------
vearwhershuh
The author presents a long list of laments (some reasonable, some comically
oblivious in that way that only older college professors are capable of) but
appears to regret the one thing that will actually improve any of them: the
falling of the American Empire.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Why do you think that "the falling of the American Empire" would actually fix
any of these issues?

------
snambi
Living long doesn't mean living well. Spending more doesn't mean spending
well.

Instead of counting the dollars spent, we should begin measuring outcome. May
be that will solve the problem.

------
chmaynard
This kind of diatribe is so easy to spot. The author starts with a premise and
carefully selects facts to support his opinion. I lost interest when he lauded
the construction of dams during the New Deal. Most of these dams are
environmental disasters and will probably be removed.

------
nirav72
is the U.S really declining or others are just catching up?

------
jayeshsalvi
Good read. America today looks like the crumpling world described by Ayn Rand
in `Atlass Shrugged`. Ironically the reason of this downfall is the adoption
of naive form of capitalism that Ayn Rand popularized.

~~~
mylons
america doesn’t have Laissez-faire capitalism.

------
jariel
A long list of poor arguments.

"America is unique among the world’s dominant powers of the past 500 years in
its repeated failure to achieve military objectives over decades."

Not even close.

"The US war in Korea had an ambiguous result"

50M relatively prosperous South Koreans would beg to differ.

"Vietnam was a clear defeat" Also not.

'Life expectancy' is a very poor measure of the healthcare system etc..

It goes on.

~~~
MarcScott
You're not presenting rebuttals for any of the arguments. You're just
disagreeing. Could you offer explanations of how the war in Vietnam was not a
clear defeat, or how a healthcare system could be measured in a better way
than citizen life expectancy?

~~~
jariel
Why would it behove me to validate a position when the author clearly could
not bother himself?

He offered no evidence for many of his claims, certainly nothing to support
his line of reasoning that 'life expectancy is short ergo health care is bad'.

Every verse a canard.

These kinds of articles pop up every year or so in the New Yorker, NYT, The
Atlantic, Foreign Policy - I have (we have) been reading them since I was a
teenager.

But for your convenience:

1) 'life expectancy' is a function of violence (young people dying in violence
pulls averages a lot), general health and lifestyle choices, and finally
healthcare.

Americans are violent, and they have very poor diets, and are sedentary - this
is the 'big differentiator' in health outcomes.

But the lie is worse, because the quality of healthcare in the United States
(for those who have it) is actually _very high_ \- it's the best in the world.
I've received mid-level healthcare services in four modern nations including
the US, and it's clear the US is by far 'the best' system in most ways,
obviously, except for cost, and coverage.

Whatever problem it is that you have, chances are almost 100% that you're
better off in America than anywhere else - with the presumption you can afford
it, of course, but most people can, just not all.

2) The author also misrepresented the nature of 'cost' in American healthcare.
When healthcare is socialised, costs are limited and regulated, of course the
government is going to ultimately 'spend less' per capita. In Canada, it's
literally illegal to pay a doctor to provide you almost any service. If it
were legal for citizens to buy health services, spending would increase
dramatically.

And then of course is the completely dysfunctional insurance system - but it's
been that way for quite a long time: 'expensive healthcare' is not a sign of
'American decline'. It's a perrenial sign of 'screwed up capitalism'.

3) This one is basically ridiculous: "America is unique among the world’s
dominant powers of the past 500 years in its repeated failure to achieve
military objectives over decades."

Literally the opposite is true: the English, French, Spaniards, Hapbsbourgs,
Swedish, Russians, Chinese etc. - everyone of them had material military
setbacks among their successes.

More specifically: North Korea invaded the South, and from 5000 miles away,
the Americans were able to ultimately re-establish - and hold - the integrity
of the South. South Korea, along with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong
(all Anglo-American protectorates to one degree or another) are shinning
examples of prosperity in Asia.

4) Vietnam is very poorly misunderstood no thanks to a lot of bad movies and
misleading documentaries. The Americans, with some effort, were able to hold
South Vietnam free from Communist overthrow. They pummelled the North into
submission at great cost to human life. This was in the early 1970's long
after the US withdrew the majority of its forces, and casualties had been
reduced to a trickle compared to the 10's of thousands of dead in 1968. The
war was essentially over.

Domestic policy, and a 'war wary' US public demanded withdrawal , even after
establishing a fairly hard-won peace. After the US fully withdrew from
Vietnam, the North regrouped, and then trounced the South. If America were to
have left the relatively small number of troops in Vietnam - again with almost
all conflict having ceased i.e. very few casualties - S. Vietnam might
resemble, at least somewhat, the S. Korea of today.

This was not a 'failure' \- it was 'folly'. Though it was probably a bad
choice to invade, it was also a bad choice to fully withdraw.

Just as Americans were far too willing to invade Iraq (a mistake), Barack
Obama's decision to withdraw when he did was also a mistake, driven at least
to some extent by populism. Literally the _day after_ US troops withdrew,
Iraqi PM Malaki purged his government of Sunni rivals, causing a 'political
civil war' which started to get violent, leaving the Sunni areas more afraid
of Iraqi Government Troops (i.e. Shia) - and so the Sunni tribes allowed ...
guess who (!?) to move in: ISIS! They literally felt they would be safer under
the Iraqi branch of ISIS. Of course, with US troops gone, Iran was free to
meddle directly in Iraqi affairs, which leads to 'Sulimani in Iraq'.

Were Obama to have left only 15K soldiers, sitting safely 'behind the wire',
not doing much, he could have maintained leverage over the Iraqi government
and required them to compromise. Instead - it fell apart.

ISIS would have remained a Syrian phenom, and not entered Iraq. Iran would
have had a much harder time in Iraq than the free hand they have today.

But this 'debacle in Iraq' is not remotely a sign of 'waning American power'.
The opposite! America in 2003 rolled through Iraq in three weeks. It was one
of the most astonishing and spectacular victories in world history. Never has
a 'world power' been able to walk across the planet, steamroll over a major
nation and obliterate a large military force so quickly. That the Americans
were not able to quell subsequent local violence and insurgencies isn't a
failure, I don't think anyone could have done this.

American actions in Iraq demonstrated folly, not American incapacity.

With drone capabilities, a global presence, it's pretty incredible (for better
or worse) what American power can do in 2020.

5) 'Education'. Again, very misrepresentative.

The US is ahead of most of the world in terms of the % of it's population it
sends to College. [1] Germany has 'free Uni' but only about 25% get to go. In
the US, it's a lot more. The US still has most of the best Universities,
that's not changing.

There is ample data to demonstrate that most test scores in the US are
_generally_ going up over time, with some bumps here and there [2].

The gap between White and Latino/African American has also been shrinking over
time.

6) Inequality. Though inequality is an increasing problem in some ways, it's
not an American phenom. Europe generally has the same problem, and it's all
offset by the fact that overall, people's lives are improving and certain
kinds of toxic inequality - like racial divisions, are narrowing. The gap
between White/Black/Latino incomes is also narrowing, as it is in education.

...

If the author would bother to look at some data, he might be able to
characterises the issue of 'American decline' a little better by putting it in
context: even as the American economy grows at a reasonable pace, 'the rest of
the world' is coming along quickly.

America is not 'losing', rather, the rest of the world is just starting to
'win'.

This is the 'big picture' chart that sets the tone for what is happening [3].

And more generally [4]

There are vast quantities of 'new economic citizens' in this world, and a
couple billion coming out of deep poverty.

 _This_ , and in particular the rise of China obviously that is really the
dynamic that changes America's context vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

America has many problems, but it's not 'in decline', far from it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_education_attainment)

[2] [https://www.brookings.edu/research/2018-brown-center-
report-...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/2018-brown-center-report-on-
american-education-trends-in-naep-math-reading-and-civics-scores/)

[3] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-
role-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2016/02/29/u-s-role-in-
global-economy-declines-nearly-50/#7050100d5e9e)

[4][https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPSH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVE...](https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPSH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
A couple of unrelated comments:

> Why would it behove me to validate a position when the author clearly could
> not bother himself?

The author wrote a book. This article is an excerpt. (It's really an ad for
the book.) You can't expect it to give the whole case for the author's
position; the book does that. This just gives a flavor of where the book is
going.

Why should you do different? Maybe because you want us to believe you. (I'm
talking about your original post. _This_ post clearly shows that you bothered
to validate your position.)

> That the Americans were not able to quell subsequent local [Iraqi] violence
> and insurgencies isn't a failure, I don't think anyone could have done this.

I think we could have. It just would have taken an occupation on the level of
what we did with Germany and Japan - maybe 300,000 to 500,000 troops for 10 to
15 years, rebuilding a functioning government, training politicians in how to
function within that government, training the population that they could
resolve disputes within the government system, and that they now had something
worth keeping. We didn't want to do that; we tried to occupy Iraq "on the
cheap", and the result was disastrous.

> America has many problems, but it's not 'in decline', far from it.

I think that the "decline" is in political will. The American people are no
longer willing to accept a war of mass casualties. They aren't willing to
restrain either politicians or corporations. They don't view the nation as an
"us", but rather as an "us" and a "them", at war with each other. That may be
a less disastrous decline, and more reversible, but it's still rather
concerning.

