These are unsettling times.
Lately we have been witness to a continuing carnival of a presidential
election, a series of horrific terrorist attacks and massacres both here and
abroad, plus the British Brexit vote. People here, and in other countries, are
unsettled and uncertain. Indeed, the
world is unsettled and uncertain. In
this country, the appeal of Donald Trump is baffling in many ways, but it is
also understandable, given the wrenching changes underway in people's lives,
and in the world, and the fear and uncertainty that this occasions. This kind
of disruption, fear and uncertainty often leads people to seek simple
solutions, scapegoats and demagogues.
The reasons behind all this uncertainty are the large-scale
shifts in the world, and in the U.S. role in the world. I call these "systemic changes" and
I want to focus on the two most important ones: first, the decline of the United States as the
single dominant and determining global power; and second, the rise of
transnational forces and threats that diminish the autonomy and power of ALL
nation states, including the U.S. We are
no longer in control of events, either in our own back yard, or on the global
stage, and this is discomfiting.
First let me address the issue of the change of the U.S.
role in the world. Eight years ago, I
wrote a book called "The End of the American Century" which addressed
this phenomenon. "The American
Century," basically the second half of the 20th century was one of
unprecedented global dominance by a single country, the United States. This was evident in almost every sphere:
politics, economics, the military, ideology, and culture. The Soviet Union, our only real rival during
that time, was strong militarily but not in any other respect. Its standard of living by most measures was
about a tenth of that in the U.S., something I can attest to from living in
that country briefly in the 1970s
Even in the long course of history, it is rare to find
countries or empires that so dominated the world: one thinks only of the Roman
Empire or, maybe, the British Empire.
But all empires fade eventually.
Italy and Britain may be very pleasant places to live (and visit!) right
now, but they are not the dominant powers they once were. Something similar is happening to the United
States. This is not necessarily a bad
thing, but it contributes to uncertainty.
For the U.S., it is not so much that we have suffered
absolute decline, but rather have declined relative to other forces and
countries. The U.S still has the
strongest military, the biggest economy, and the most durable and resilient
political system. But we no longer
dominate the world as we did during the American Century. China, for example, has experienced fabulous
economic growth in recent decades, and is increasingly asserting itself on the
global stage. Europe, by combining, sort
of, into the European Union has created an economic powerhouse, larger than the
American one. Neither China nor the EU
is much of a military power just yet, but increasingly it seems that military
power is not as useful and determinate as it once was. Plus, as I will discuss below, there are transnational forces that also cut
into America's ability to shape the world.
So for Americans used to being #1, this relative decline can be
unsettling, and speaks to the appeal of Trump's "America First"
slogan.
So the relative decline of the U.S. in the global arena is
the first major dimension of systemic change.
The other is the rise of transnationalism. By transnational, I mean problems, forces, movements
or institutions that transcend national boundaries, making them difficult for
national governments to deal with. These are proliferating in the modern world,
but I will highlight those that have contributed especially to this age of
uncertainty: globalization of the
economy; terrorism; and climate change.
Perhaps none of these merit my attention, since they've been
so much in the news, and in the current electoral campaign. Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders
complained about the maverick status of multinational corporations. As transnational institutions, these can
easily shift operations from one country to another in search of cheaper labor
or supplies, while remaining relatively immune from the regulations or taxation
of government in any particular country.
Of course, a globalized economy does have its benefits, in terms of more
efficient production and cheaper and more abundant consumer goods. But it also hurts those workers who get left
behind. This is particularly true in
manufacturing, which has faced a double whammy of automation and globalization,
causing jobs in manufacturing to plunge from 28% of all jobs in 1970 to less
than 10% today. The problem is not going
to go away. The shrinking of
manufacturing employment is global--not just in the U.S.
Globalization, automation and the decline of manufacturing
have contributed to a stagnation of real earnings in the U.S. For the average American family, household
income is $4,000 less than it was 15 years ago.
Meanwhile economic inequality has grown much worse, with the top 1
percent of American households taking in more than half of the recent gains in
income growth. Income and wealth inequality in the United States is now the
highest it has been since before the Great Depression of the 1930s, as Bernie
Sanders kept reminding us during his own run for the presidency.
This issue is particularly egregious at the very top of the
income scale. In the 1950s, big-company
CEOs earned about fifty times the pay of an average worker. Even then, that ratio was very high compared
to other countries. But since then, CEO
pay in the U.S. has skyrocketed compared to average salaries. By 1990, average CEO pay was 100 times the
average worker's salary. By 2000, it was
more than 500 times. In Germany, that
ratio was only 11 to 1; and in the United Kingdom, 25 to 1.
So it is not surprising that so many people are fearful and
angry. Even though the economy is
growing, they are being left behind. The
dislocations caused by globalization though, can only be addressed by
collective action, and that requires action by government, and cooperation
among national governments. A weak and
ineffective government is no match for the power of large multinational
corporations.
Terrorism is another transnational force that has frightened
and destabilized us. It often seems that
governments are helpless in the face of this enemy, which is not located in any
one region, supported by any particular country, or subject to any conventional
norms of morality. Social media,
another transnational force, facilitates the organization, recruitment and
concealment of terrorist groups. Against
transnational terrorists, particularly the fundamentalist brand, deterrence and
threats are useless, and even conventional military force is only haphazardly
effective. America's vaunted military,
the most awesome in the history of the world, is not by itself able to
eliminate transnational terrorism. This
too causes fear and uncertainty, and a sense of powerlessness. But, like the forces of globalization, the
solution requires global action and cooperation.
Climate change, another transnational phenomenon, is even
more threatening and dangerous than globalization and terrorism, though more
baffling because of its inherent invisibility.
Even though the evidence for climate change is overwhelming and
irrefutable, most people don't actually see it or experience it. So they are open to the blandishments of
politicians and the fossil fuel industry who prey on their ignorance and fears
in claiming it does not exist. And this contributes
to our national sense of unease and uncertainty, since we are not sure what to
believe and whom to trust. Climate
change, however, is literally a life-and-death issue that requires strong
government action, national sacrifice and global cooperation. All of these are difficult to imagine in the
current political climate in the United States.
These transnational phenomena--globalization, terrorism and
climate change-- all threaten the American way of life, and they are devilishly
resistant to resolution in the way we have solved problems in the past. Throwing money at them won't work. Military power is either irrelevant or
ineffectual. Things have changed since
The American Century when our country was, it seemed, both dominant and in
control of our fate. In both the
domestic sphere and the international one, things are not like they used to
be. Thus appear opportunistic
politicians who promise to roll back the clock, or to "make America great
again."
However, America's greatness was never achieved by going
back to the past, but rather by finding solutions to new problems, while
holding fast to the values that unite us.
These include industry, innovation and individualism, but also
compassion, tolerance, and civility. The
U.S. has survived through civil war, world wars, depressions, civil unrest and
terrorism. And we remain the world's
oldest and most successful democracy; even if we do not brandish the power and
influence we had during the Cold War years.
But we have created a kind of paradox of political life: at
a time when we are in desperate need of effective government to address
important domestic and international issues, government is increasingly unable
to act. Democratic government is not often consensual, but it does, by its very
nature, require compromise. But in
American politics, we have one candidate calling for a "political
revolution" and another, a billionaire cloaked as a populist, calling for
a return to the past and playing on people's fears, angers, and prejudice. The polarization of American politics has
made compromise almost unattainable, and in the process has practically
paralyzed the operations of government.
Of course, this simply adds to people's frustration with
politics and government, which accounts for polls showing record low levels of
trust in the federal government. This is
not a happy situation for a system of government that is supposed to be based
on popular will. And it contributes to
the turmoil, alienation, and uncertainty.
Keeping this democracy alive is, in my mind, the single
biggest challenge we face at the moment and the key to addressing the systemic
transformations we are facing. In the
current political environment, the bedrock principles of democracy--compromise,
tolerance, participation, inclusion--are under threat. There is a disturbing growth of
authoritarianism in American political culture, with 44% of non-college grads
(in 2011) approving of "having a strong leader who doesn't have to bother
with Congress or elections."
The growing authoritarianism in the U.S. may be disturbing,
but it is not terribly surprising. Times
of systemic change, fear and uncertainty, especially combined with economic
downturn, often foster the emergence of demagogic politicians, and even
dictators. It is also understandable why
so many Americans are lashing out at the whole system, given the vast gulf
between rich and poor, the continuing pernicious impact of money in politics,
and the seeming paralysis of government.
The solution is not to reject the system, but to improve
it. As Winston Churchill famously
quipped: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the
others." And democracy is uniquely
suited to dealing with problems that are so complex and disruptive, because it
demands participation, inclusion, compromise, respect for minorities, and due
process. The problems we are facing are
unprecedented, in my view, and signal a systemic shift in U.S. politics and
international relations. The U.S. will
not be "great" in the way we were before, but it remains the most
important and admired country in the world, and it's involvement in global
politics is indispensible.
(Based on a talk I gave at a Kiwanis Club 8/30/16)
Posts
