Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Perhaps the US isn't a good global leader. It is, after all, only the aftermath of WW2 that left enough of a power vacuum for two countries at the edges of "proprer civilisation" like the USA and Russia to take the central position as the world superpowers.

I wouldn't be sad if the USA returns to a position of only interfering within its sphere of influence in North and South America.

Being a global leader isn't merely about the power to do so, but about caring about other countries to the point that you see them as directly intertwined with your own. The USA, for better or worse, has always viewed other nations as 'other'.




What?

The US is a nation of immigrants. It doesn't see other nations as "other" any more than any other nation, and probably less so because we're very culturally diverse.

But yeah, if you want to go back to the days where benevolent places like the British Empire, Imperial Germany, and the USSR ruled the world, have at it. Because they were benevolent, right?

The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe? You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that.

It's not ideal but it's not all bad, either.


I think the point was the "America First" policy is antithetical to the idea of helping developing nations. For example, giving aid to combat malaria does not put America First, but it does save lives and build good will across the world.

A great world leader should have no problem using their wealth and power to perform reasonable acts of charity and kindness to fellow nations without an expectation of reciprocity.


Coming from a (very friendly to America) third world country, lemme just say that nobody likes America for it's aid, or any such stuff. Nearly all the goodwill America has is because of it's private sector (which brings prosperity in their own countries) and culture.

All these countries understand that there is no such thing as free lunch, and what America will get by helping is not going to be worth the aid they receive.

You can hear the same sentiment from Israelis to Indians to Egyptians.


Benevolence doesn't make a global leader. Having your fate intertwined with that of others makes a leader. The USA has always had a desire for self-sufficiency, and an economic approach that views any gains made by other countries as a competitive loss.

It is not to say that the USA is a terrible country, or that it is 'evil' or anything so silly. It is simply that the USA does not want a global leadership role, appears uncomfortable with it thrust upon it, and approaches global treaties as something it should either accede to or reject rather than change.

The Paris accords, ought to have heavily influenced by the 'global leader' so the preeminent power would view the treaty as one that benefitted its world view. As it is, the US world view is absent from the Paris treaty---why is that? I'd say it's because the US abdicated its leadership position to the point where European interests and American interests no longer seem to align.

> The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe?

I think it is a mistake to completely discount the military and economic power of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. One should remember that historically the German military alone was enough to overrun Russia to the point that the Eastern Front was the site of the most horrific battles and loss of life of the entire war.

> You ready for the Chinese to invade Taiwan? The US is the only thing preventing that.

This is a bit of a tangent. Taiwan is a small island off the coast of the mainland whose government considers itself "Real China" and the far more populous mainland to be the 'rebel forces'. The continued existence of Taiwan is because China finds it useful, not because of any US intervention. If war sparked out, the USA and Europe would likely do the safe and sensible thing by treating it as a civil war within a nuclear power.

All these tangents boil down to "What if World War 3 breaks out?".

I hope for all that is good that WW3 does not break out between nuclear powers, and if it does that the USA will finally stay out of a continental conflict that is nowhere near its borders.


Not sure why this is getting downvoted. Maybe this doesn't hold as much water now, but compared to most countries, the US is pretty light on ethnic nationalism. I trust the US as a hegemon more than most countries.

>The US isn't doing a great job, but if American power gets rolled back, are you ready for Russia to come rolling into Eastern Europe?

Jesus fucking Christ I am not ready, and neither is Eastern Europe. I think everyone remembers what happened last time Russia was in charge over there...


Things change; consider 23.2% of Sweden's population are first or second generation immigrants.

US is ~26% including illegal immigrants now, but was ~35% in 1900 and ~18% in 1970. (First generation immigrants to the US are currently 14%.)


Imperial Germany never had much of a global empire, only a central European one. Places like Namibia and New Guinea weren't exactly powerhouse colonies.


Imperial Germany.... you mean like Koenigsberg?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: