Good Riddance to the American Century

My book “The End of the American Century” appeared in 2009.  There I argued that the combination of domestic decline and global change had put an end to the era of U.S. global dominance, and that American citizens would have to come to terms with a flattening standard of living and reduced global influence.  This was not necessarily a bad thing, either for the United States or for the rest of the world.
     I finished writing the book during 2008, just as Barack Obama was mounting his stunning rise to the presidency.  For the paperbound edition of the book, which appeared just after the election, I added an epilogue called “Reality and Hope in the Obama Era,” where I offered some hope that the new president could temper some of the problems I had raised.  But I also cautioned that America’s problems (for example with education, violence, debt, inequality) were so deep-seated, and the global changes so persistent (e.g. globalization of production, rise of new powers, climate change) that his options would be limited. 

     President Obama, I believe, recognized all of these problems, and tried his best to redress or adapt to them. He rescued an economy in freefall; got us moving on climate change; passed milestone legislation on health care; and restored America’s battered international reputation, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in the process.  He was on track in adapting to the end of the American Century. 

Now we have a President who is intent on returning to that era of American superiority and dominance.  Indeed, Trump rode to power by demagoguing many of the issues of U.S. decline that I had documented in my book: the stagnating incomes of the middle class; the decline of manufacturing; the continuing prevalence of violence; declining trust and confidence in government; the high cost of medical care; and infrastructure decay.   

     Trump knew which buttons to push, but he had no idea how to deal with any of these problems.  He promised to “make America great again” without having any notion of what that might entail.  His vision was to go backwards, not forward.  In a world so rapidly changing, this is no solution at all.  America needs to adapt to change—embrace it, even—and not reject it, as Trump seems to want to do.  His presidency is a dead end. 

     Any progress this country made during the Obama years is quickly being rolled back and reversed in the first months of the Trump presidency.  The most pressing and damaging problems I discussed—debt, inequality, and climate change—are all likely to worsen under a Trump administration. 

     We can not go back to the American Century (which really lasted only about half a century anyway), nor should we.  That era was bred of specific historical, economic and international circumstances.  We are in a different era now, both domestically and internationally.  The U.S. can not and should not dominate the world as we once did.  To think and act otherwise is to court disaster in a globalized and interdependent world.  We should bid adieu to the American Century, and move forward. 

Economic Inequality Put an End to the American Century

The biggest impediment to U.S recovery is economic inequality. This is the central argument in my article "The U.S. No Longer Makes the Grade: Economic Inequality Put an End to the 'American Century"" in the Phi Kappa Phi Forum, vol. 92, No. 3.  This article is available at Butler's "Digital Commons" site by clicking here.  The footnotes for the article are temporarily available at the Forum's website at this link.

Correction:  There is an important typo on page 7, column 1, 2nd paragraph.  The sentence there should read as follows:

"A recent global study by the International Monetary Fund, for example, found that countries with strong economic growth tended to have greater income equality than those with weak growth...."

 Comments and (civil!) discourse on this piece are welcome.

Der Spiegel on "A Superpower in Decline"

Sometimes the most clear-eyed analysis of the United States comes from outside the country, and this may be especially true in these times when so many Americans are frightened and angry about the way things are going. Germany's weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel has published a long and thoughtful piece about the United States, entitled "A Superpower in Decline: Is the American Dream Over?" which reflects and updates many of the themes I raised in The End of the American Century.

For those who would dismiss Spiegel's analysis as biased, left-wing, or "socialist," I should point out that the magazine is generally considered to have a conservative (and capitalist!) slant. It is enlightening, and a little sobering, to read an intelligent analysis of our problems from outside the cauldron of contemporary U.S. politics.

Below are a few excerpts from the Spiegel article, though I would encourage everyone to read the whole thing.

• America has long been a country of limitless possibility. But the dream has now become a nightmare for many. The US is now realizing just how fragile its success has become -- and how bitter its reality. Should the superpower not find a way out of crisis, it could spell trouble ahead for the global economy.

• Americans have lived beyond their means for decades. It was a culture long defined by a mantra of entitlement, one that promised opportunities for all while ignoring the risks.

• The country is reacting strangely irrationally to the loss of its importance -- it is a reaction characterized primarily by rage. Significant portions of America simply want to return to a supposedly idyllic past.

• The rich keep getting richer, with the top 0.1 percent of income earners making more money than the 120 million people at the bottom of the income scale.

• Since the beginning of the millennium, no new jobs are being created on balance, because the US economy has undergone structural change. Companies are dominated by investors interested only in the kinds of quick and large profits that can be achieved by reducing the workforce.

• In 1978, the average income for men in the United States was $45,879. In 2007, it was $45,113, adjusted for inflation.

• How strong is the cement holding together a society that manically declares any social thinking to be socialist?

• The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama.

Can US Education Be Fixed?

The following is an email I received from Lloyd Eskildson, about the failures of US education, especially in comparison with other wealthy countries.
..........
Your book is 'spot on' as the British would say, except for one aspect - needing more money for education. What is needed instead is much greater respect for education and increased parental/pupil motivation. Unfortunately, the resulting potential job attractiveness (also a motivator) would largely be negated by the much lower wage rates in Asia; at least this would cure the functional illiteracy issue. Though I have never taken an 'education course' nor do I have an education degree, I have had a strong interest in education for 30+ years, and have served as consultant to and Chief Deputy at the Maricopa County School Supt. Office. Following are some comments I made regarding a January, 2010 "U.S. News/World Report" that was trying to be optimistic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The bulk of this issue focuses on efforts to improve U.S. education. Contents include part of President Obama's plan (encouraging a longer school day and school year), D.C. schools' efforts to abandon teacher tenure and implement merit pay, New Orleans becoming the only major city with a majority of pupils in charter schools, and a major 'No Child Left Behind' (NCLB) mistake (allowing states to choose their own standards, invariably low). The issue also highlights the provocative question, "Will School Reform Fail?" on its front cover.

The answer, unfortunately, is "Yes - just like all the prior school reform efforts." But first, some background, starting with good news. 1)The "U.S. News and World Report" does not mention increased funding as a need. This follows decades of an emphasis on steadily increased inflation-adjusted funding/pupil (up about 250% in 30 years), with very little if anything to show in the way of improved pupil outcomes - especially at the high-school graduate level. Unfortunately, we have wasted trillions of dollars getting to this point, and continue doing so. 2)President Obama's efforts to extend the school day and year are on the right track. The late Professor Harold Stevenson (Univ. of Michigan) spent years researching differences between U.S. schools and those in China, Japan, and Taiwan. Each of the three nations spends a much smaller proportion of GDP on education, while their upper-level pupils consistently outscore ours. Stevenson found that Asian pupils spent almost 50% more time/week in class and had a school year about one-third longer. (Many Asian pupils also enroll in additional week-end and evening private schooling.) Similarly, years ago I found that the highest-scoring Arizona 3rd-grade readers were consistently located in the same small, farming community - the 'secret' was their teacher spent much more time on reading than others; unfortunately, this effort was not sustained in higher grades and the higher achievement faded as the pupils aged. Regardless, when Professor Stevenson presented his findings at a symposium that I helped organize, educators in attendance downplayed, belittled, and ignored his findings. 3)Studies have repeatedly found that high goals lead to higher achievement - in all areas of life. Hopefully, the NCLB mistake of allowing educators to assign themselves self-defeating low-goals (avoid accountability), will be quickly corrected now that it has been recognized.

Now, the relatively bad news. 1)U.S. educators are not likely to extend the school day and school year to come close to matching the efforts of pupils in the Far East - despite President Obama's imprimatur. 2)Education vouchers, school choice, and charter schools are major components of current reform efforts. All are based on the belief that schools competing for pupils will outperform those that do not. Makes sense, and there is some encouraging evidence. However, Stanford's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) reported (6/15/09) that, 'in the aggregate, students in charter schools (are) not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.' Readers might be tempted to dismiss this finding as economic heresy; however, it is actually an invaluable piece of evidence. 2)The late Professor James Coleman (Univ. of Chicago) conducted one of the largest education studies in history, involving over 150,000 pupils, and intended to demonstrate that minority pupils were short-changed. Instead, Coleman found there was more variation in pupil achievement within schools than between schools - ergo, differences between U.S. schools were not the main key to success! Coleman's findings were derived from sophisticated statistical analysis. However, this major finding has been obvious for decades -sizable and sustained differences in pupil achievement exist between various ethnic and socio-economic groups. Instead of recognizing, celebrating (where appropriate), and acting upon those differences, we pretend they don't exist. When I went to school it was no secret that pupils of Asian and Jewish heritage performed, on average, much better than the rest of us. The rest of us survived a lack of special attention and got over it. Similarly, it's obvious today that minorities, in general, do much worse than most - in both dropout rates and academic achievement. How is this caused by, or to be cured by, the schools?

Coleman's finding is consistent with CREDOs. What's more, both findings are consistent with another of Stevenson's - that Asian parents (and pupils) were much more concerned about and involved with their children's' schooling than their American counterparts. Seemingly, American educators have been inadvertently functioning as education's worst enemies - constantly emphasizing the need for more money and new programs has implicitly downplayed the key role of parental and pupil motivation. Asian societies maximize those motivations through high-stakes college entrance examinations; conversely, the U.S. further reduces these motivations by trying to make it easier for graduates to attend college (already 67%, though about one-half drop out - up from one-fifth in the 1960s) through greater funding for aid and scholarships.

Finally, the really bad news. Education reform has been tried and failed for more decades than even I can recall. We've lurched back and forth from group instruction to individualized instruction, team-teaching to individual teacher teaching, bilingual instruction to English immersion, large schools to small schools, special education to mainstreaming, norm-referenced to criterion-referenced testing, New Math to higher-order thinking to rote drills, ability grouping to not, raising standards to building self-esteem through lower standards, more homework to less, reading instruction via phonics vs. whole language, cultural literacy to multiculturalism to values-free education, peer tutoring to teaching assistants, teacher-directed vs. child-centered, site-based management vs. leadership accountability, public school assignments by residence to open enrollment, vouchers, and charter schools, basic schools vs. 'regular' schools, etc. En route, we've also added kindergarten and pre-school (some areas), teacher professionalization, computers and the Internet, rebuilt and upgraded facilities, reduced class size, added specialists and supervisors, driven out competitive games in P.E., increased time-on-task (until we forgot about it), added compensatory education (Title I), Head Start, and gifted education, increased teacher pay to where it exceeds that of most private school teachers, raised additional monies through special tax programs, bake sales, book sales, and carnivals, and even mentioned parental involvement from time to time.

For what? Dropout rates, and achievement levels for those graduating are about where they were years ago. Its been like Lucie, Charlie Brown, and the football - over and over. The really good news is that Stevenson also found that U.S. children began school with higher achievement levels than their Far East competitors. We've had great educators - Jaime Escalante (Los Angeles), Marva Collins (Chicago), Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin (KIPP), Seymour Fliegel (Harlem), almost all those who taught at my high school (Wheaton High - '59), as well as innumerable successors today. But they can't do it on their own. We just need to forget about education fads, face reality, and demand more - starting with ourselves.

---------------------------
My (DSM) response to this was as follows:

Thanks so much for this thoughtful essay. I agree with most of what you say, and especially your focus on the problem of parental involvement (or lack thereof) and student motivation. In my mind, though, the main reason for this in the US, compared to the other countries you mention, is simply the much higher incidence of poverty in this country. Poverty creates so many obstacles to effective education that no "fix" of the educational system is likely to work--as you point out.

U.S. #1 in Cumulative Carbon Emissions

This is why the developing countries are unhappy about U.S. insistence that they cut THEIR carbon emissions!.



See scientist James Hansen's Newsweek article on "Power Failure: Politicians Are Fiddling While the Planet Burns" where he writes that "Planet earth is in imminent peril." We now have evidence, he continues "that continued exploitation of all fossil fuels on Earth threatens not only the other millions of species on the planet but also the survival of humanity itself--and the timetable is shorter than we thought."

While Hansen supported the election of Barack Obama, he now believes that in terms of climate change, "President Obama does not get it" and that he and his advisers have caved to pressure from monied interests.

"Civil resistance may be our best hope," he concludes.

Obama's Peace Prize, and U.S. Power, as Seen From India

The Nobel Committee's selection of President Obama for the Peace Prize is a recognition of the reality that U.S. power rests "not in its weapons or in its armies, but in the syncretic values of the American people." This is the view of India's M.D. Nalapat, a Professor of Geopolitics at Manipal University. Professor Nalapat's essay, "Peace, Not War, the Best Strategy" appears on the webpage of the China-U.S. Friendship Exchange as part of a dialogue on the themes of my book on The End of the American Century.

This response to Nalapat's essay appears on that same site this month.

It is both enlightening and refreshing to hear about the U.S. role in the world from a thoughtful critic outside the U.S., like India's Professor M.D. Nalapat. He points to the past tendency of the U.S. to rely on ''military and economic muscle to seek 'compromises' that are in fact surrenders by the other side.'' I believe those views are widespread in the world, though quite different from the way most Americans perceive their role in the world. It is difficult for Americans to hear the voices and opinions of others, because we are so used to thinking of ourselves as the world's best, and the most admirable. Kishore Mahbubani, the author of The New Asian Hemisphere, thinks Americans are blind to their own shortcomings, and basically unable ''to listen to other voices on the planet.'' In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, this is one big factor in America's declining global power, influence, and effectiveness.

Mr. Nalapat views the great strength of the U.S. resting in its ''syncretic values'' and its openness to innovation and immigration. Indeed, I would agree that immigration, and the power of assimilation and adaptation, have been an important element of this country's history and development. Immigrants have provided both an energetic workforce and a vital source of creativity, innovation, and invention. The election of Barack Obama, an African-American with a multi-ethnic heritage, seems a confirmation of this admirable national trait.

However, this American advantage may also be eroding, and even becoming problematic. In the U.S. now, there is growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and one would expect this to increase as the economic downturn continues to bite. While the United States has (almost) always welcomed others to our shores, we have not usually treated them very well once they get here. Hispanics and other minorities, for example, experience much higher levels of poverty and unemployment than Whites, and are much more likely to be stuck with poor schools and inadequate health care.

The U.S. is still a global leader in science, technology and innovation, but even in these areas, the country is losing some of its edge. Over the last two decades, the U.S. has steadily lost its overwhelming global dominance in the production of both patents and scientific journal articles. The decline of American schools has taken a toll on science education, too, with American students often coming in dead last on international tests and competitions in science and math. China produces four times as many engineers as the United States. As other countries like China and India gear up technologically, it seems likely that talented and creative people are more likely to stay at home, or return home after taking some education in the United States.

Of course the U.S. remains a major global player in science, technology and innovation. But its ''American Century'' dominance in this area, as in so many others, is on the wane in the face of both domestic decline and the ''rise of the rest.'' Similar to Joseph Nye's emphasis on culture, Madhav Nalapat stresses the ''arts and sciences'' as a powerful tool for the U.S., especially in its interaction with China. And this is where I most differ with Dr. Nalapat. While culture and scientific exchanges are important, they can not substitute for the much more overwhelming influence of trade and economics. This is where China (and the EU, and India) are really gaining, and where the U.S. is particularly vulnerable. It is the growing economic might and confidence of these powers, and others that will most challenge the dominance of the United States.

Dick Armey: Fostering Hate with Deliberate Lies

I was absolutely stunned to read this quotation from Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader, in a speech he gave recently in North Carolina:

"Nearly every important office in Washington, D.C., today is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike for our heritage, our freedom, our history and our Constitution."

It is inconceivable that Armey, who worked so long in Washington, actually believes this. Could he actually come up with some names of people that fit in that category? Probably not. So one can only conclude that Armey deliberately lied when he said this to a crowd of supporters in Hickory, N.C.

Since retiring from the House in 2003 has worked as a lobbyist for a big law firm, while also serving as chairman of a conservative nonprofit called FreedomWorks, which is opposed to "big government." A story on him, and how he "has taken his politics and ideas to the right-wing protest movement," appeared in the November 8 issue of the New York Times Magazine.

Later, in discussing the health care reform with a reporter, he admitted that he did not believe some of the extreme charges--for example, about "death panels"--but said that "if people want to believe that, it's O.K. with me."

This is demagoguery, fear- and hate-mongering that has no place in the U.S. political arena, though it is increasingly dominating and poisoning the political process, and American democracy. Armey should be ashamed of himself; instead, he seems to revel in the way his provocative lies stirs up the political pot.

President Obama called attention to this phenomenon in his Afghanistan speech on Wednesday night, where he called for a return to the spirit and values that unite us as Americans:

"we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership, nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time, if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse."

"I refuse to accept," the President continued, "the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we -- as Americans -- can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment -- they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people."

We can disagree about policies, and the role of government, and the rights of the individual vs. the needs of the community. That is all part of the political process. But we need to speak out against, and call to account, people like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck who deliberately lie and deliberately foster hate and division.

Reality and Hope in the Obama Era

What follows is the first page from the new epilogue of the paperback edition of The End of the American Century, entitled "Reality and Hope in the Obama Era."

“What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility -- a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world." --President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009

Much has changed, for better and for worse, since the hardbound edition of this book first went to press in early 2008. Indeed, the publication of the book in October of that year coincided with both the exhilarating finale of the 2008 presidential elections, and the meltdown of the U.S. economy. The election of Barack Obama fulfilled the first criterion of the “best-case scenario” that I posed in Chapter 10: new political leadership. Both for who he is and what he says, Obama provides the best possible hope of restoring some of America’s domestic health and international reputation, after the catastrophic lost decade of the George W. Bush administration. President Obama wants to fix the many American problems enumerated in this book—health care, education, infrastructure, the environment among them—and in the first months of his administration had already initiated policies and legislation to do so. He also pledged from the outset to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, to abide by international law, and to be more cooperative and multilateral in dealing with other countries.

On the other hand, as I cautioned even for the best case scenario, new leadership will not reverse or solve the problems of American decline. The problems facing this country are so systemic and deep seated—most of them long-preceding the Bush administration—that even radical changes will have only minimal impact on the trajectory of America’s decline. Furthermore, the debt-induced economic crisis that I presaged at the end of Chapter 1 is already well underway. Much of the country’s economic growth of the last twenty years was fueled by government and consumer debt, creating a giant country-sized Ponzi scheme that was bound to implode. President Obama’s well-intentioned and necessary—but enormous-- spending plans to fix things will only hugely inflate the country’s already unprecedented levels of debt. It is difficult to see how the country will extricate itself from this mess. Certainly the time frame is many years, perhaps a decade or more, and not the cheerful predictions of most economists and politicians that we will be out of the woods in a few months or years.

On the international scene, the events of the last year have been a good-news, bad-news story. The election of an African-American as President of the United States gave a huge boost to this country’s international reputation. Obama’s message of hope, reconciliation, humility and multilateralism was welcomed all across the globe, and promised to allay—at least somewhat—the ill will fostered by the Bush administration’s arrogance and belligerence. However, during America’s lost decade, much of the rest of the world had moved on, and beyond, the United States. Almost nowhere is the country still viewed as the “city on the hill” to be followed and emulated. Increasingly, foreign leaders and their populations have dismissed, criticized or mocked the U.S. and its policies. This tendency has accelerated as the rest of the world has had to bear the brunt of America’s economic and financial mismanagement. When the Chinese Prime Minister, for example, complained about “the unsustainable model of development characterized by prolonged low savings and high consumption,” there was no question which country he was referring to.

The End of the American Century Published in Paperbound

The End of the American Century is now available in paperback, with a newly added epilogue on the Obama Presidency, entitled "Reality and Hope in the Obama Era." (See the next post for the first page of the epilogue). The book is available from the publisher at the link at the top of this page, and also from Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc.



(For readers who purchased the hardbound edition, and would like to see the epilogue, send me an email and I will provide you with that chapter.)

Dialogue and Forum on "The End of the American Century"

An extended "dialogue" on the themes of The End of the American Century has been posted on the website of the China-U.S. Friendship Exchange at this link. The interview with me was conducted by the organization's founder and president, Dr. Sheng-Wei Wang, who is based in Hong Kong. The interview focuses especially on America's changing global role and its relationship with China.

This November issue of the China-U.S. Friendship blog also includes two other essays on themes related to my book: "American Power in the 21st Century" by Harvard's Joseph Nye (author of Soft Power); and "Peace, Not War, the Best Strategy," by Professor of Geopolitics Madhav Das Nalapat at the Manipal Academy of Higher Education in India. Those two essays are accessible at this link.

My responses to those two essays will appear in the next (December) issue of China-U.S. Friendship.com.

U.S. Health Care Compares Badly to Others

In his address to Congress last week, President Obama decried the failures of the American health care system, and pointed out how poorly it fares in comparison to other wealthy countries. Millions of people in this country do not have health insurance and can’t afford necessary medical care. Tens of thousands die each year from lack of such access. We are “the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people,” observed the President.

The sorry and disgraceful state of the American system of health care is documented in The End of the American Century (pp. 48-53), and was also the subject of a post I made on this blog a year ago (US Ranks Low on Health Care). Since then, there is a mounting pile of evidence documenting how badly America fares in health care, on multiple dimensions. This is true both in terms of general overall statistics, like infant mortality, maternal mortality, and average lifespan (reported by organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations), but also in more specialized areas, like survival rates for disease, patient access to physicians, and public satisfaction with health care in different countries.

The highly regarded Commonwealth Fund, for example, conducts periodic studies of such issues, comparing the United States to other wealthy countries. One such study on patient access to primary-care physicians found that Americans wait longer to see their doctors than patients in Britain, Germany, Australia, or New Zealand, Holland or France—all countries with strong public-health systems. Almost a quarter of Americans reported waiting six days or more for an appointment, compared to just 14% in the UK and 18% in France, for example.

Another study on “preventable deaths” found the U.S. ranking dead last of the 19 countries in the study. These are deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective health care--which of course is often unavailable to millions of American citizens. The U.S. ranking on this scale actually declined from 1997 to 2003, from 15th place to 19th place. Number one in the ranking? France.

Yet another study compared five-year survival rates for various diseases in the U.S. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and England—all of whom spend far less on health care than the U.S. Of the five diseases, on only one of them (breast cancer) did the U.S. have the best five-year survival rates.

The veteran journalist T.R. Reid has just published a new book, The Healing of America, in which he compares health care systems around the world. In a summary of the book in Newsweek ("No Country for Sick Men"), Reid observes that in health care:

“The United States is the odd man out among the world’s advanced, free-market democracies. All the other industrialized democracies guarantee health care for everybody—young or old, sick or well, rich or poor, native or immigrant. The U.S.A., the world’s richest and most powerful nation, is the only advanced country that has never made a commitment to provide medical care to everyone who needs it.”

Consequently, according to Reid,

“about 22,000 of our fellow Americans die each year of treatable diseases because they lack insurance and can’t afford a doctor.”

Many Americans express concern about the “rationing” of health care in a government-supported system. But has Reid observes, the U.S. already rations health care. It is “rationing care by wealth.” While this may seem natural to Americans, he says, “to the rest of the developed world, it looks immoral.”

The immorality of this is particularly callous in its effects on children. A study from the National Center for Health Statistics reports that poor children are 3.6 times more likely to have poor health than children from affluent families. As I point out in my book, “The United States is the only developed country in the world where children suffer poor health and die simply because their parents are poor or unemployed.” (p. 52).

One also hears concern in the current debates about the potential costs of a system of universal health care—legitimate concerns in the face of unprecedented government deficits and debt. But the U.S. already has the most expensive health care system in the world, no matter how you measure it. As a share of GDP (2006), health care constituted over 15% in the U.S., compared to 11% in France, 10% in Canada and 8% in England—all of them with universal coverage for their citizens (OECD). On a per-capita basis, the U.S. also outspends every other country in the world, by a long shot.

Many Americans assume that the largely private medical care in the U.S. is more efficient, less bureaucratic and less costly than the government-run programs in other countries. In fact, administrative costs in the U.S. are higher in for-profit hospitals than in public ones, and overall administrative costs are higher in the U.S. than in countries with government-run programs. Compared to other countries, the U.S. also comes up high on administrative costs in health care. A 2003 study in the New England Journal of Medicine estimates that administrative costs absorbed 31 cents of every health care dollar in the U.S. compared to only 17 cents in Canada, which has a universal health insurance plan paid for by the government.

By all of these statistical measures, the U.S. health care system looks bad. But what it really comes down to is not statistical comparisons but fairness, compassion and justice. And the outcome of health care reform will depend as much on these American values more than anything else. President Obama himself recognized this in his address to Congress, where he appealed to the “large-heartedness” in the American character—“that concern and regard for the plight of others.”

“It, too, is part of the American character -- our ability to stand in other people's shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.”

Much of the opposition to health care reform has come from people who are worried about how the changes will affect themselves and their families. Perhaps this self-interest is normal, and part of human nature. But our fate and health as a country is as much dependent on the health and safety of others as it is on our own. Re-establishing a sense of community and common purpose—and of the American tradition of large-heartedness—is an essential ingredient in the prescription for the ailing American health care system--and in restoring the United States as a great power.

Entering A Systemic Revolution

The collapse of the United States as the global hegemon constitutes a “systemic revolution” that will transform both the U.S. and the rest of the globe. Such a revolution is different from “normal” political revolutions, which entail an overthrow of the government. A systemic revolution ushers in even broader and more enduring changes in economy, society and culture, and it also transcends national boundaries, affecting other countries and the global system itself. It is a global paradigm shift, and we are right smack in the middle of it.

This is the opening paragraph of my article "Entering a Systemic Revolution" which appears in the online journal Logos: A Journal of Modern Society and Culture (volume 8, issue 2). The article can be accessed here through my Selected Works page.

The article is a revised version of a lecture I gave in March at a conference on "The Past and Future of Revolutions" at Northeastern Illinois University.

In the article, I compare the current global situation to previous "systemic revolutions", among them the French Revolution of 1789, the Industrial Revolution, the Darwinian Revolution, and the anti-communist revolutions of 1989. Like those epochal changes, the domestic and international decline of the U.S. will affect both the United States and the rest of the world, and will bring fundamental and global changes in politics, economics, culture, and ideology.

Global Views of US Improve, But Still Negative

A BBC poll of citizens of 21 countries shows that the global image of the U.S. has improved slightly in the last year, but is still largely negative. Far more countries (12) have predominantly negative views of the U.S. than have predominantly positive views (6). On average, across all countries, positive views of the U.S. have increased over the last year from 35% to 40%, but those are still outweighed by the negative views (43%, down from 47%). Respondents in each country were asked if they felt "the following countries are having a mainly positive or mainly negative influence on the world."

Negative feelings about U.S. influence were particularly strong among America's closest neighbors and allies. In the UK, 45% thought U.S. influence was mostly negative; France, 53%; Mexico 54%; Canada 55%; Spain 56%; and Germany 65%. In a ranking of all the countries in the survey, Germany was viewed as having the most positive influence, whereas the U.S. ranked 10th on the list, just below China.

Another BBC poll of 17 countries showed an overwhelming majority--67%--believing that the election of President Obama "will lead to improved relations between the United States and the rest of the world."

These polls were conducted between November 21, 2008 and February 1, 2009.

The BBC polls confirm that there has been some softening of global views about the U.S., at least partially due to President Obama. But they also reveal the persistence, depth and breadth of animosity to the U.S., and how far the U.S. has to go to recover from the damage to the country's reputation. As I suggested in The End of the American Century, the decline of the U.S. and its reputation was deep-seated, and preceded the Bush administration. George W. Bush made things far worse, but new leadership in D.C.--even a very positive influence like Barack Obama--can not easily or quickly restore America's reputation, or its global leadership.

Obama in Ankara: Re-setting US Relations with the Muslim World

President Obama has taken deliberate and high-profile initiatives to mend U.S. relations with the Arab and Muslim world. In the first months of his presidency, he welcomed Jordan’s King Abdullah II to Washington, where he endorsed the “two-state” solution to the Israel-Palestine issue—a proposal long favored by the Arab states. He met with Saudi King Abdullah in London during the G20 Summit, causing a media stir when he bowed to the king, as is customary and respectful with royalty.

Most importantly, he delivered a major address in April to the parliament in Turkey, declaring that “the United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” But he went even further, recognizing the richness and influence of Islam, and promising that the U.S. would listen, even when it did not agree:

“I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them.”

This is an extraordinary and important passage, in numerous ways, and encapsulates much of the new orientation and policies of the Obama administration, and not just toward the Arab world. First of all, it is diminishing the centrality in U.S. policy of the war on terrorism—which has so distorted American policies, priorities and values.

Secondly, the speech emphasizes “broader engagement” with the Muslim world, which is both necessary and inevitable, given the size—over one billion—and growing influence of the global Muslim population. The President’s approach to Islam is not just tolerant, but respectful and appreciative of the faith, which has done so much to “shape the world” and which, Obama could have added, has much in common with both Christianity and Judaism.

The President emphasized his intent to listen to others, even when there is disagreement. This fits in with his frequent references to the importance of a great power to recognize past errors, to temper hubris, and to approach other peoples with humility. Such a change from the previous administration could hardly be more dramatic, and has been noted around the world. The Egyptian Foreign Minister said that “Obama’s speech is the first and significant step for easing the tension between the Muslim world and the United States.”

Finally, the President’s personal touch at the end of that passage sent an important signal, both to the global community and to his own citizens, that we are all part of one human community. It was a risky political statement, for it would antagonize and alienate some Americans. But it was also a courageous one—identifying himself with what some consider to be the enemy—and calling on his compatriots for tolerance and understanding.

How Torture Hurts and Weakens the U.S.

Mark Danner is our contemporary Diogenes, searching (often vainly) for the honest man and using dogged empiricism to establish the truth. His focus in recent years has been on the U.S. use of torture and his latest report, in the New York Review of Books, is "The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means."

As a followup to my recent post on the Spanish court considering criminal charges against U.S. officials for the justification and use of torture, I offer these two quotations about the effects of U.S. torture on our values and our security.

The first is from President Obama, in an interview on 60 Minutes:

I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantánamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn’t made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against US interests all around the world.... The whole premise of Guantánamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists.... Are we going to just keep on going until the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? Do we think that’s really going to make us safer?

And Danner's response to Obama's sentiments:

This is as clear and concise a summary of the damage wrought by torture as one is likely to get. Torture has undermined the United States’ reputation for respecting and following the law and thus has crippled its political influence. By torturing, the United States has wounded itself and helped its enemies in what is in the end an inherently political war—a war, that is, in which the critical target to be conquered is the allegiances and attitudes of young Muslims. And by torturing prisoners, many of whom were implicated in committing great crimes against Americans, the United States has made it impossible to render justice on those criminals, instead sentencing them—and the country itself—to an endless limbo of injustice. That limbo stands as a kind of worldwide advertisement for the costs of the US reversion to torture, whose power President Obama has tried to reduce by announcing that he will close Guantánamo.

More Evidence That Taxes Must Go Up

David Leonhardt, the prescient and hard-headed New York Times economics columnist, states flatly that "your taxes are going up" in his column of Feb. 25. Leonhardt's data and arguments reinforce those I have made in The End of the American Century, in my Op-Ed for the Christian Science Monitor ("This is not the time to cut taxes"); and in other posts here.

Leonhardt argues that if we want the government services that we have come to expect and rely on (like national security, infrastructure, Medicare, education), we need more federal revenues, because at the moment "we are not paying nearly enough taxes to maintain those programs." He sees taxes going up soon, "and the increase will be permanent."



On the upside, Leonhardt argues, there is room for such an increase, and it will probably not hurt economic growth. As he points out, for a half century federal taxes have remained fairly constant relative to the size of the economy--at about 18% of GDP. "But the 18 percent era has to end soon."

In The End of the American Century, I show that US tax rates are low in global comparisons.

"Compared to other wealthy countries, the United States has among the lowest rates of both individual and corporate income taxes, and total tax revenues in the U.S. (as a percentage of GDP) are lower than those in most of the affluent democracies that are members of the OECD [see OECD data here]. Thus, not only is the U.S. spending and consuming more than most countries, but it is not paying for the relatively few benefits that the government provides. This is the crux of the problem of the deficit and the debt."

Leonhardt argues (as I do in my CSM Op-Ed), the "despite all the scary stories you've heard, the evidence that higher taxes necessarily cripple an economy is somewhere between thin and nonexistent." He points out that the fastest postwar economic growth occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, "when the top marginal tax rate was a now-unthinkable 90 percent."

He also points out that it will not be sufficient to simply raise taxes on the very wealthy, as President Obama has proposed. The incomes and wealth of that group have soared in the last decade, as their federal tax rates have declined. So their higher tax rates should be restored.

But, as Leonhardt says, "the problem can't be solved just by taxing the rich." That top 1% pays only about one quarter of federal taxes. So the tax increases will have to spread more widely.

This will be a very difficult task politically. No politician wants to raise taxes. But not to do so will simply pass the problem onto our children, and burden them with an even bigger mountain of debt. We need to start paying for what we get. And especially now, as we launch huge new spending programs for health care, education, infrastructure and banks, we need to shell out for what we are getting.

Obama Imposes CEO Pay Limits

Limiting CEO pay must be in the air! I posted a blog with such a proposal on Saturday, before learning that Senator McCaskill had introduced a bill with similar provisions on Friday. Then yesterday President Obama himself announced executive pay limits, along very similar lines as my own "modest proposal." (Do you think the Prez reads my blog?!!).

According to the New York Times story, these executive pay limits "seek to alter corporate culture" which in my view is long overdue and would be a major accomplishment. According to the Times, "the new rules would set a $500,000 cap on cash compensation forthe most senior exeutives, curtail severance pay when top executives left a company,[and] restrict cashing in on stock incentives until government assistance was repaid."

President Obama observed that "This is America" and "We don't disparage wealth" or people achieving success. But "what gets people upset--and rightfully so--are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers."

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages," the President said, "in the midst of this economic crisis is not only in bad taste, it's a bad strategy, and I will not tolerate it as president." He pointed to this kind of CEO extravagance reflecting "a culture of narrow self-interest and short-term gain at the expense of everything else."

Bravo, Mr. President. This may be mostly a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important. What this country needs now, even more than an economic stimulus package, is a change of heart, and a change in the way we think, believe and behave. Just as when the President said "The United States does not torture," he is sending a message to Americans and to the rest of the world that the United States is changing.

(See my previous entries on CEO pay by clicking on the "CEO pay" label in the right sidebar).

The End of America's Disgrace

I only admitted this to my friends, but I was embarrassed about my country, and embarrassed to be an American during most of the past four years. For me, the President of the United States was particularly embarrassing and humiliating, but his cabinet and advisors were not much better. Even Congress acquiesced in Bush’s humiliation of America, and his undermining of the Constitution, and of our most fundamental values. The President authorized and advocated torture. Without apparent remorse, he violated international law and universal moral standards. He sent thousands of young Americans to their death in a useless, illegal and immoral war. He barely mentioned the tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of innocent Iraqis who lost their lives as a result of his personal crusade. The President approved the violation of habeas corpus, one of the most ancient and fundamental principles of law and human rights. He stifled freedom of speech and the press, and ridiculed his opponents, both at home and abroad. And even in seemingly trivial matters, he was an embarrassment; denying President-elect Obama and his family the use of Blair House during the transition was a final, departing, glaring example of his lack of even elementary decency and civility.

My own embarrassment even extended to my countrymen. We elected this jovial demagogue not once, but twice and even after all of this should have been clear to all. Eventually, I realized that I could not distance myself from my country—I am too much part of it. I also realized that Americans were only partly at fault for Bush. He exploited and played on our fears, and encouraged our baser instincts. This is the age-old strategy of demagogues and dictators everywhere, and it worked here too.

For me, all of this changed on January 20. Once again, I am proud to be an American, and—perhaps for the first time in my life—proud of the person we have elected as President. The November election itself was a revelation and an inspiration, but somehow it did not fully hit home until the inauguration. The two million people on the mall, many of them (like my daughter and her husband) arriving in the frigid pre-dawn hours. The poem, the music, the speech, and the benediction—all weaving together the same themes of unity, community, charity, justice, equality, freedom and faith. And especially Obama himself—a smart, hard-working, family man; an African-American; and a person who wants to help other people, especially the less fortunate.

What is perhaps most remarkable about this presidential transition is the absolutely huge difference from one man to the other. In past elections, I have been pleased with the election of some leaders (mostly Democrats, I have to admit), but I always felt that the change was incremental and marginal at best. The new guy was better than the old, but the difference was not earth shaking. This time, we have left behind the worst president in modern American history—a playboy millionaire who could barely compose a sentence—for a young man who braved amazing obstacles to rise to the top by hard work and intelligence, who has written books (on his own!), and who has dedicated much time to helping others.

Furthermore, his election has restored my faith in America, and in my fellow citizens. I actually did not believe that the U.S. could elect an African-American as President at this point in its history. But we did! Even Indiana voted for Obama (maybe because he can shoot 3-pointers!). The rest of the world, which understandably viewed Bush as a lightweight and a cowboy, is already reassessing the United States and its people. (As I document in my book, foreign publics increasingly blamed the disfunctionalism of the U.S. on its people, rather than on Bush alone). This is the first time in world history that a majority White country has elected a Black chief executive. The world has taken notice.

Obama’s election does not mean that we will soon solve all of America’s many problems. One man—no matter how talented and promising—can not do this, nor can one or two presidential terms. Over the past 20 years we have dug ourselves into a huge hole, and have squandered resources and reputation aplenty. We have lost our way and compromised our values. We have become a nation of individuals and consumers, rather than a community of citizens.

But in his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to begin rebuilding our shattered country. And he provides what any great leader does—an example for the rest of us.

This Is Not the Time To Cut Taxes

My op-ed piece, "This is not the time to cut taxes: To increase federal revenue, taxes must go up, not down," appears in the 1/13/09 issue of The Christian Science Monitor, accessed at the link above. There I write that

"talk of tax cuts may be music to the ears of American taxpayers and a nod to satisfy Republicans but they make no sense in a time of soaring budget deficits and huge new government expenditures, including the probability of $1 trillion for Obama's proposed economic stimulus plan."

I conclude the article with these thoughts:

"Obama should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of next year, for everyone except the very needy. He should also raise the marginal tax rates for the very wealthy. These rates are very low by both historical and international standards. Increased taxes will be unwelcome and painful, but the US is in a situation as unprecedented and dangerous as that of the Great Depression. Obama himself has called on Americans for sacrifice. And after two decades of bingeing, we can afford a little sacrifice."

U.S. Rejects Cluster Bomb Treaty

The Cluster Munitions Treaty was signed in Oslo, Norway earlier this month by 94 countries, not including the United States. The government of Afghanistan did sign, in a last minute shift, and in the face of intense diplomatic pressure from the Bush White House. This story illustrates several themes of The End of the American Century.

Cluster bombs are munitions dropped from the air or ground-launched that eject smaller submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. They are most commonly employed to kill enemy personnel or destroy vehicles. At least fifteen countries have used cluster munitions, including the U.S.in Iraq and Afghanistan, and both Russia and Georgia in their conflict earlier this year. The most extensive use, however, was by U.S. bombers over the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos during the Vietnam War. It is estimated that at least 9 million unexploded bomblets remain in Laos.

These unexploded bomblets are the biggest problem with these weapons. Like landmines (which are also banned under an international convention), the unexploded munitions remain a deadly hazard for civilians long after a conflict ends. Often they are brightly colored and look like baseballs, attracting children and with deadly results. A third of cluster bomb casualties are children.

Like the international treaty that banned land mines, the impetus for a cluster bomb ban grew out of an international grass roots movement. The Cluster Munition Coalition brought together some 300 "civil society organizations" from 80 countries, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Handicap International. The coalition also includes the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, an organization that won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize.

The convention banning cluster bombs was signed in Oslo by 94 countries, including U.S. allies like Britain, Germany, France and Japan, but not including the U.S. Other non-signatories include Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Israel. Unexpectedly, Afghan President Hamid Karzai ended up signing the treaty that bans the weapons that have devastated his country. According to the New York Times, Karzai's change of heart was particularly affected by testimony from cluster-bomb victims, including Soraj Ghulam Habib, a 17 year old from the city of Herat who lost both legs when he accidentally stepped on a cluster remnant seven years ago. The Bush administration had urged Karzai not to sign it, so his decision, according to The Times, "appeared to reflect Mr. Karzai's growing independence from the Bush administration."

The U.S. has begun to bend to international pressure on the issue, and has not actually employed cluster bombs since 2003. A State Department official told the Times that cluster bombs were sometimes more humane than conventional ones. "As an example, he said that antennas on a roof could be taken out efficiently with a cluster bomb, without bringing the building down."

Some expect President-Elect Obama to support the treaty, and his team has said it will "carefully review" the treaty. However, as London's The Economist points out,

"Mr. Obama will find it hard to change American policy once he realizes that cluster munitions make up more than half of the country's bomb stockpile."

The U.S. refusal to sign this treaty is part of a larger pattern and long-term trend of the U.S. disengaging from international law and the global community--a theme I develop in a chapter on "Abandoning International Order" in The End of the American Century. There is a long list of international treaties that the U.S. has not ratified. These include the UN convention prohibiting discrimination against women; the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the treaty banning land mines (signed by 122 nations), the Kyoto Treaty on global warming; and the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, to try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. All of these treaties have been signed by the vast majority of the world's nations. The only other country besides the U.S. to reject the Rights of the Child convention is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

For each of these treaties, the U.S. has its reasons for non-participation. But the very fact of the U.S. not participating in these international conventions sends a bad signal to the rest of the world. It is a sorry sign of U.S. "exceptionalism" and is an important factor in the declining popularity of the U.S. around the world, even before the extremely unpopular Bush administration. The U.S. shift away from international law is particularly tragic because no country was more important in establishing international law and institutions (like the U.N.) in the years after World War II.

The about-face of the Afghan government is also telling in several ways. On the one hand, the Bush administration pressure on the Afghan government to reject the treaty is also part of a pattern. While other administrations have failed to participate in important international treaties, the Bush White House has gone out of its way to keep other countries from doing so. The most egregious example of this is the International Criminal Court. Shortly after President Bush "unsigned" the ICC statute, he urged Congress to pass the American Servicemembers Protection Act. This legislation gives immunity to U.S. personnel from the court. It also provides for punitive actions against countries that are parties to the ICC, but which refuse to confer immunity to Americans. For many people around the globe, it seemed as if the U.S. was asserting that Americans were above the law when it comes to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On the other hand, Karzai's rejection of pressure from his protector and benefactor, shows just how weak the U.S. has become in the international arena. The United States, and particularly its current president, has become so marginalized that it can not even influence a country that is utterly dependent on the U.S. Washington has lost an enormous amount of face in the global community, and has little left in its arsenal of "soft power." It will take a major and sustained effort by the Obama administration to repair the damage. But it is unlikely that U.S. reputation, power and influence will ever return to where it was.