Conrad Black is trained in
history and is an accomplished historian who has written intensive biographies
of important American Presidents. He has
every right to make the case for American decline as a sharp poke to focus the
minds of his listeners. Today none of us
think this decline is irreversible. However folks, Obama has had his shot and it is time to see
him off. His specific failure is
outright economic illiteracy. He has
fiddled while the inevitable consequence of Wall Street’s treason burns itself
out. Ten million freshly unemployed have
remained unemployed. The housing
industry remains unrepaired. That is his
failure and he is gone in November.
At the same time, I do think that
Mitt Romney will find solutions and I am sure that these will be in place by
this time next year. The best advice I can
give you today is to buy into the Romney bull market. It will soon be obvious.
If we are extremely lucky, he has
the imagination and knowledge to implement the structural changes so desperately
needed in the USA . I will not list them here, but they have been
covered in this blog and can be dug out by the determined reader. I really do not see the big fixes with Mitt
but then we do not know him and I think he is a lot smarter than is apparent. The chances are actually rather good although
it is unlikely I will ever get a chance to argue the cases to ensure proper consideration.
Conrad Black: America
is in decline
Conrad Black Apr 14, 2012
– 9:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Apr 14, 2012 10:08 AM ET
Prominent public intellectuals in the United States are becoming
increasingly vocal in their protestations that their country is not in decline.
Robert Kagan militates in his latest book that the United States is still by
far the most powerful country in the world, as it has been since the latter
days of the Second World War. Walter Russell Mead wrote in The Wall Street
Journal last week that the problem is not one of American decline, but the
decline of its principal allies, Europe and Japan; while countries that have
not historically been close allies such as China, India, Turkey and Brazil, are
making swift economic, and therefore, political progress.
Both Kagan and Mead are putting forth reasonable arguments — unlike
Barack Obama’s blustery assertion in his State of the Union message that
declinists “don’t know what they are talking about.” But while Kagan and Mead
are telling the truth, they are not telling the whole truth.
In 1945, the United States
accounted for half the world’s entire economic product, as all other major
industrial countries, except to some extent Britain , had been severely damaged
by the war. The United
States had a nuclear monopoly, was the
founder of the United Nations (in which great hopes then reposed), and had led
the world to victory over Nazism and Japanese imperialism. It was the only
Great Power that in the 1930s had been led by a government that, in the
aftermath of the Second World War was not shaming: neither an aggressive
dictatorship nor an appeaser of them.
During his State of the Union address in January, Barack Obama said
that declinists “don’t know what they are talking about.”
Decline from that pinnacle was inevitable. But it did not happen at
once. Indeed, the overwhelming and relatively bloodless victory in the Cold
War, the fruition of the brilliant American strategy of containment, left the
United States as the only seriously Great Power in the world, a condition
unique in the history of the nation-state, starting in the Middle Ages. As a
result, there was, 20 years ago, a good deal of frothy (and, as it turns out,
grossly premature) intellectual blather about the end of history and the
political culmination of the world in democratic capitalism.
The unipolar era has not been a success for America . The great irony of these
20-something post-Cold War years has been that while the United States was the
indispensable country in the triumph of capitalist democracy — its preservation
from 1917 to 1941, and its outright victory in the following 50 years — it is
not now one of the world’s best, or even better, functioning democracies.
Under the Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama administrations, there has been
no coherent strategy to replace the previous masterly and bipartisan missions
to lead the West to victory in the Second World War and in the Cold War. Bill
Clinton, on the world stage, as in America, and before that in the diminutive
state of Arkansas, exuded bonhomous goodwill, extended free trade to Mexico,
and expanded NATO into the former Soviet Union, suavely calling it “a
partnership for peace.” He moved in the Balkans, but only when the Europeans,
who started by calling the challenge posed by Bosnian massacres “The hour of
Europe,” fell on their faces and started crying like frightened little pigs for
America to end ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. And even then,
nothing would have happened if the Republican leader in the Senate, Robert
Dole, a bravely wounded veteran of the European theatre in the Second World
War, had not legislated military orders (lift and strike) normally in the
province of the commander-in-chief. There never really was a Clinton
foreign policy: His responses to the early terrorist attacks (Khobar Towers ,
the African embassies, the USS Cole) were very inadequate.
George W. Bush, forced to deal with the monstrous outrage of the Sept.
11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, had a piercing,
towel-snapping, locker room vision that since democracies do not engage in
aggressive war, ergo, every country that was not already democratic should be
propelled by the scruff of the neck and the small of the back toward
democratization. Thus did Hamas replace Fatah in Gaza ;
the Muslim Brotherhood, (whose adherents had proudly murdered Anwar Sadat) is
replacing Hosni Mubarak in Egypt ;
terrorist chaos is replacing Saleh in Yemen ;
and Hezbollah has more or less taken over from the Syrians in Lebanon .
Trillions of dollars have been spent, along with over 6,000 American lives, in Afghanistan and Iraq , and it would be impetuous to
forecast comparative stability and enlightenment in the near future of either
country.
Presidents Bush and Obama have done well uprooting and killing
terrorists, and generally keeping them out of America, but Obama’s fiercest
supporters apparently believed that all grievances in the Muslim, African,
South Asian and Oriental countries against America could be resolved almost
instantly because the U.S. government was no longer directed by a Caucasian of
wholly Judeo-Christian background. Two flatteringly revisionist speeches in Cairo and Ghana
and an absurdly exaggerated bow to the Mikado in Tokyo , and presto, all would be well. George
W. Bush’s mindless championship of democracy in infertile ground gave way to
Obama’s pseudo-realistic appeasement of Russia ;
carpet cold water-bombing of the Iranian democracy movement and Hillary
Clinton’s initial lionization of Syria ’s bloody-handed optometrist
President Assad as a “reformer.”
In swift review, Jimmy Carter evicted the pro-Western and relatively
progressive Shah of Iran
“like a dead mouse” (his national security advisor’s words), and we have had
the ayatollahs since. George Bush Sr. ejected Saddam Hussein from Kuwait but left him in power in Baghdad . Bill Clinton proclaimed a
quadruple-embargo: Iraq and Iran as sponsors of terrorism, and India and Pakistan as nuclear proliferators.
George W. Bush led NATO and the UN into Afghanistan
but then decamped to Iraq .
He made it up well with India, but both he and Obama have been hosed out of
their under-clothing by the ragtag of slippery officers and Islamist hucksters
in office in Pakistan, which has passed on hundreds of millions of dollars of
American assistance to the Haqqani Taliban, which in turn has been busy
murdering NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.
Obama is flirting with allowing Iran to fire the starting gun in a
nuclear proliferation contest in the Middle East, while effectively assuring
the Putin despotism through an open microphone that it can keep a full nuclear
first-strike threat. The United
States has spent a decade with its entire
conventional ground forces military capacity mired in Near Eastern quagmires,
and 15 years with bone-crushing current account deficits.
This may not amount fully to “decline” — but it is something that
Messrs. Mead and Kagan have not fully accounted for in their optimistic
narratives.
For good measure, under the Clinton and Bush administrations, the
Western world was flooded with worthless American real estate-backed debt,
largely by U.S. government order and statute, peddled by a corrupt Wall Street
with the complicity of the Federal Reserve, in a massive political payoff to
sleazy developers, crooked building trades unions and the spiviest elements of
the New York financial community. And we have had five years of average
$1.3-trillion federal budget deficits that have the effect of annual 100%
increases in the country’s 2008 money supply, and there are fewer people
working in the United States
than when these mountainous deficits began. The political system is gridlocked
and contemptible, and the commentariat is infested with shrieking imbeciles.
The entire public service, at all levels, has unsustainable deferred
benefit levels. The state school systems are an uncompetitive shambles. Medical
care, per capita, costs almost 2.5 times what it does in Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, Great Britain and Japan, yet 30% of Americans have inadequate
health care. And the U.S.
has, on average, 10 times as many incarcerated people as those countries, and
the legal cartel is strangling the country. The prison industry is a
$150-billion annual money-spinner; the organ transplant business generates
$20-billion a year. Presidential elections cost each party a billion dollars,
and the current and recent candidates are almost wholly implausible. Most of
the legislators spend two thirds of their time raising money, and the rest
serving their financial backers. The United States , always garish and
overly pecuniary, has become a chronically corrupt country.
Only twice before have there been three consecutive presidential terms
as dangerously mistaken in policy terms as these last three: Fillmore, Pierce
and Buchanan (1850-1861), and Harding, Coolidge, Hoover (1921-1933), and they
brought on the Civil War and the Great Depression. Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
D. Roosevelt were required to put the country back together.
Yes, America
is the world’s greatest country; and yes, some other important countries have
had even more serious problems. And yes, Mr. President, your country is in
decline.
It need not be irreversible, but those who have recognized this know
what they are talking about after all.
National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment