I do not understand what you mean by this, and what long term is to you. I want to be convinced, but I fail to see this as true.
What would be a superpower in your eyes, and which of the past examples of morally problematic powers (USSR, British/Spanish/Portuguese/French empires,for example) do you consider not to meet the definition, or not to have been "long term"?
They have over a billion people have have made significant investments over decades to indoctrinate nationalistic fervour. They have zero need to attract anyone. By statistics alone they have more “bright, creative” people than US+UK+EU combined, and far greater willingness to employ those people for national goals. The same people we have working on adtech and similar nonsense.
They do not need anyone to migrate, which is entirely different.
America has been a superpower based on capitalism for under a hundred years. That isn't long enough to see if it's a better way of building power than other philosophies just yet.
This seems to me like a bag of words, not a real concept that means something. It's like saying America is "a superpower based on Christianity," or "a superpower based on immigration," or "a superpower built on the back of slavery," or "a superpower based on the proposition that all men are created equal." Capitalism isn't even a philosophy, it's a side effect of freedom.
Is it? In the country where capitalism came from "in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections" http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/stru...
I split it like this: do you have people at the borders to keep people out, or keep people in. If you have to use force to keep your own citizens and regions in, well good luck to you.
On the other hand, if you have to refuse people and regions to join you, you're in a very good position.
That's why you can only keep using force and supression for so long, and history has shown that we evolve to more fair, moral systems.
PS, why US is not on your problematic powers list for what's done/doing in the Middle East?
> I do not understand what you mean by this, and what long term is to you. I want to be convinced, but I fail to see this as true.
I too am curious what it means. The only thing comes to mind is a variation of the just world fallacy.