| Links rels.: (1)The Decline and Fall of the American Empire Four Scenarios for the End of the American Century by 2025 http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175327/tomgram%3A_alfred_mccoy%2C_taking_down_america/ (2) The End of American Optimismhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703960004575427332237529948.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop(3) Why It's Time to WorryCan the United States go the way of Germany in the past—a great society undone by terrible social turmoil?http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/04/the-deepest-dangers-facing-the-united-states.html(4) O, say can't you see? Dangerously unbalanced powers and grab bag of doom and gloomhttp://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/11/14/dangerously_unbalanced_powers_and_grab_bag_of_doom_and_gloom/(5)The Decline and Fall of the American Republic: Six Questions for Bruce Ackermanhttp://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007818(6) Dr Patrick Porter on the Rise and Fall of Americahttp://thebrowser.com/interviews/dr-patrick-porter-on-rise-and-fall-americaThe New Republic Back to Normalcy Is America really in decline?
 Where on earth is the United States headed? Has it lost its way? Is the Obama effect, which initially promised to halt the souring of its global image, over? More seriously, is it in some sort of terminal decline? Has it joined the long historical list of number one powers that rose to the top, and then, as Rudyard Kipling outlined it, just slowly fell downhill: "Lo, all our pomp of yesterday / At one with Nineveh and Tyre"? Has it met its match in Afghanistan? And has its obsession with the ill-defined war on terrorism obscured attention to the steady, and really much more serious, rise of China to the center of the world's stage? Will the dollar fall and fall, like the pound sterling from the 1940s to the 1970s? It is easy to say "yes" to all those questions, and there are many in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and in the United States itself, who do so. But there is another way to think about America's current position in today's mightily complicated world, and it goes like this: All that is happening, really, is that the United States is slowly and naturally losing its abnormal status in the international system and returning to being one of the most prominent players in the small club of great powers. Things are not going badly wrong, and it is not as if America as becoming a flawed and impotent giant. Instead, things are just coming back to normal.
How would this more reassuring argument go? Well, we might start with a historical comparison. In about 1850, as the historian Eric Hobsbawm points out in his great work Industry and Empire, the small island-state of Britain produced perhaps two-thirds of the world's coal, half its iron, five-sevenths of its steel, and half of its commercial cotton cloth. This extraordinary position was indeed abnormal; that is, it could not last forever. And as soon as countries with bigger populations and resources (Germany, the United States, Russia, Japan) organized themselves along British lines, it was natural that they would produce a larger share of world product and take a larger share of world power and thus cut Britain's share back down to a more normal condition. This is a story which economic and political historians take for granted. It is about the tides of history and the shifts of power that occur when productive strength moves from one part of the world to another. It's actually a sensible way of thinking about history over the long term. So why should we not look at America, and America's present and future condition, in the same calm way? It is of course a much broader and more populous country than Britain was and is, and possesses far more natural resources, but the long-term trajectory is roughly the same. After 1890, the United States had slowly overtaken the British Empire as the world's number one by borrowing critical technologies (the steam engine, the railway, the textile factory), and then adding on its own contributions in chemical and electrical industries, and blazing the way in automobile and aircraft and computer hardware/software production. It was assisted by the good fortune of its geographic distance from any other great power (as Britain was by its insularity), and by the damage done elsewhere by World Wars I and II (as Britain was by the damage done elsewhere by the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars). By 1945, therefore, America possessed around half of the world's GNP, an amazing share, but no less than Britain's a century earlier when it held most of the world's steam engines. But it was a special historical moment in both cases. When other countries began to play catch-up, these high shares of world power would decline.
In the American case, we might tease out this argument by returning to a point made almost 20 years ago by the Harvard scholar Joseph Nye, that America's strength and influence in world affairs was like a sturdy three-legged stool; that is, the nation's unchallenged place rested upon the mutually reinforcing legs of soft power, economic power, and military power. In all three dimensions, Nye suggested, the United States was comfortably ahead of any other competitor. Global shares of relative strength were being diffused, perhaps, but in no way enough to shake America's dominant role. How does this assessment look today? Of the three legs to Nye's stool, soft power—the capacity to persuade other nations to do what America would like—looks the shakiest. This is not a measure of strength that can be computed statistically, like steel output or defense spending, so subjective impressions enter into the debate. Nevertheless, would anyone dispute the contention that America's ability to influence other states (such as Brazil, Russia, China, India) has declined during the past two decades? When Nye wrote, he pointed to the significance of popular culture (Hollywood, blue jeans), the dominance of the English language, the increasing standardization of U.S. business (from chain hotels to accounting rules), and the spread of democracy, all as signs of America's influence. Those were interesting thoughts, but we have since seen that radical students from Ankara to Amsterdam can still wear blue jeans but demonstrate against the United States, and that it is quite possible that a totally free voting system in (say) Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and China would lead to parliamentary majorities highly critical of Washington's policies. The Pew Foundation's regular poll of global opinion suggests diminishing approval of America, despite a short-term upward blip in favor of Obama. Soft power comes and goes very fast. As to the weakening of the second leg of the stool, America's relative economic and foreign-currency heft, well, a person would have had to have been blind and deaf not to observe its obvious deterioration in recent years. If anything surprises me, it is how fast and how large the relative weakening has been: A truly competitive great power should not have its trade deficits widening so fast, nor its federal, state, and municipal deficits ballooning at such a pace, literally, into the trillions of dollars. It is unsustainable, although that fact has been obscured by the thousands of American economists and investment advisers who emit positive noises to their clients and who themselves simply cannot think strategically. The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by the current congressional baying for China's currency to get stronger and stronger and stronger. Is that what the United States really wants—to get relatively weaker? At a certain stage in the past 500-year history of currencies and power, the Dutch guilder hustled the Spanish escudo off the scene; then the pound sterling hustled the guilder (and franc and mark) off the scene; then the dollar hustled the pound off the scene. What is Washington risking as it presses for a stronger Chinese currency? My apprehension is that it risks a much stronger Chinese political influence in the world. America's military strengths are, by contrast, still remarkable; at least this one leg of the stool is sturdy. But how sturdy? Well, almost half of the world's current defense expenditures come from the United States, so it is not surprising that it possesses a gigantic aircraft carrier Navy, a substantial Army and Marine Corps that can be deployed all over the globe, an ultra high-tech Air Force, and logistical and intelligence-gathering facilities that have no equal. This is the strongest leg of the three. But it is not going unchallenged, and in several regards. The first is in the rise of irregular or "asymmetrical" warfare by non-state actors. Anyone who has seen the recent award-winning movie The Hurt Locker, about the U.S. Army's uncomfortable and bloody experiences in Iraq, will know what this means. It means that the narrow streets of Fallujah, or, even more, the high passes of the Helmand mountains, equalize the struggle; high-tech doesn't quite work against a suicide bomber or a cunningly placed road mine. General Patton's style of warfare just doesn't succeed when you are no longer running your tanks through Lorraine but creeping, damaged and wincing, through the Khyber Pass. Sophisticated drones are, actually, stupid. They help avoid making the commitment to winning on the ground, and they will eventually lose. Secondly, there is the emergence, along the historical pattern of the rise and fall of the great powers, of new challenger nations that are pushing into America's post-1945 geopolitical space. Putin's Russia is clawing back its historic zones of control and, frankly, there seems little that Washington can do if Belarus or a kicking-and-screaming Latvia is reabsorbed by the Kremlin. India is intent on making the term "Indian Ocean" not just a geographic expression; in ten or 20 years' time, if its plans are fulfilled, it will be in control. Which is rather comforting, because it will thwart China's purposeful though clumsy efforts to acquire much-needed African mineral supplies. But China, in its turn, and through its very new and sophisticated weapons systems (disruptive electronic warfare, silent submarines, sea-skimming missiles), may soon possess the capacity to push the U.S. Navy away from China's shores. Like it or not, America is going to be squeezed out of Asia. Overall, and provided the gradual reduction of America's extensive footprint across Asia can occur through mutual agreements and uninterrupted economic links, that may not be a bad thing. Few, if any, Asian governments want the United States to pull out now, or abruptly, but most assume it will cease to be such a prominent player in the decades to come. Why not start that discussion now, or begin a rethink? American hopes of reshaping Asia sometimes look curiously like former British hopes of reshaping the Middle East. Don't go there. Finally, and most serious of all, there is America's dangerous and growing reliance upon other governments to fund its own national deficits. Military strength cannot rest upon pillars of sand; it cannot be reliant, not forever, upon foreign lenders. The president, in his increasingly lonely White House, and the increasingly ineffective Congress, seem unable to get a harsh but decent fiscal package together. And now, the Tea Party nutcases are demanding a tax-cut-and-spend policy that would make the famous Mad Hatter's tea party itself look rather rational.
This is not a way to run a country, and especially not the American nation that, despite its flaws, is the world's mainstay. This is worrying for its neighbors, its many friends and allies; it is worrying for even those states, like India and Brazil, that are going to assume a larger role in world affairs in the years to come. We should all be careful to wish away a reasonably benign American hegemony; we might regret its going. But the ebb and tides of history will take away that hegemony, as surely as autumn replaces the high summer months with fruit rather than flower. America's global position is at present strong, serious, and very large. But it is still, frankly, abnormal. It will come down a ratchet or two more. It will return from being an oversized world power to being a big nation, but one which needs to be listened to, and one which, for the next stretch, is the only country that can supply powerful heft to places in trouble. It will still be really important, but less so than it was. That isn't a bad thing. It will be more normal. Paul Kennedy is a professor of history and director of international security studies at Yale University. He is the author of The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. This article ran in the December 30, 2010, issue of the magazine. Click here to subscribe to TNR and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.  We Recommend
From Around the WebCOMMENTS (25) This topic is also discussed on www.streetsmartpolitics.com This topic is also discussed on www.streetsmartpolitics.com This is not a reason for us ourselves to hasten our relative decline with flat-earth right-wing economic, diplomatic, military, and strategic stupidity. This is not a reason for us ourselves to hasten our relative decline with flat-earth right-wing economic, diplomatic, military, and strategic stupidity. Kennedy complains, rightly, about our payments deficit, and then rejects the best way to correct it thus: "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by the current congressional baying for China's currency to get stronger and stronger and stronger. Is that what the United States really wants—to get relatively weaker?" The value of the dollar must be too high, otherwise there would be no payments deficit (assuming we believe in markets.) I could easily rephrase what he wrote: "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by academics hoping that China will always provide itself with a competitive advantage. Is that what the United States really wants—to have ... view full comment Kennedy complains, rightly, about our payments deficit, and then rejects the best way to correct it thus: "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by the current congressional baying for China's currency to get stronger and stronger and stronger. Is that what the United States really wants—to get relatively weaker?" The value of the dollar must be too high, otherwise there would be no payments deficit (assuming we believe in markets.) I could easily rephrase what he wrote: "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by academics hoping that China will always provide itself with a competitive advantage. Is that what the United States really wants—to have a perpetual balance of payments deficit?" How, also, will we remain vital with an increasingly impoverished working and middle class and wealth concentrated increasingly among a few who do not want to pay taxes. Regulatory capture and an election system beholden to corporations and the wealthy distort the healthy partnership of government and the free market. Compared to what other industrialized nations spend per person on health care we spend a trillion dollars a year extra and end up ranked in the low 30s on outcomes. Spending almost a trillion on our military adds another anchor dragging behind our economy. Ratcheting down a bit is fine; the bigger concern is that we're not willing to tax enough for the necessities that we need ... view full comment How, also, will we remain vital with an increasingly impoverished working and middle class and wealth concentrated increasingly among a few who do not want to pay taxes. Regulatory capture and an election system beholden to corporations and the wealthy distort the healthy partnership of government and the free market. Compared to what other industrialized nations spend per person on health care we spend a trillion dollars a year extra and end up ranked in the low 30s on outcomes. Spending almost a trillion on our military adds another anchor dragging behind our economy. Ratcheting down a bit is fine; the bigger concern is that we're not willing to tax enough for the necessities that we need government to provide and the wisdom to spend wisely on the investments for the general welfare for a sustainable future. Our position in the world owes much to geography and the need and willingness to attract and accept successive waves of immigration. Along the way we have evolved a political system that will undo us. It didn't have to go this way. Our position in the world owes much to geography and the need and willingness to attract and accept successive waves of immigration. Along the way we have evolved a political system that will undo us. It didn't have to go this way. Roi is right. America today needs economic recovery-- and a decrease in its debt and balance of trade deficit. The way to do so is temporary increases in Keynesian-effective spending. The China economic problem IS helped by an increase the the yuan/renminbi relative to the dollar. Can't tnr do better in its guest contributors? Roi is right. America today needs economic recovery-- and a decrease in its debt and balance of trade deficit. The way to do so is temporary increases in Keynesian-effective spending. The China economic problem IS helped by an increase the the yuan/renminbi relative to the dollar. Can't tnr do better in its guest contributors? jonrysh nails it. A strong dollar doesn't necessarily equate to a strong America, no matter how reasonable it may sound. Kennedy may criticize the tea partiers for being "nutcases", but they have an excuse: they are know nothings. What's Kennedy's excuse for his polemic (and that's what it is) in support of a "strong" dollar? His distaste for deficits, including trade deficits, cannot co-exist with his taste for a strong dollar. Just as Britain's insistence on a "strong" pound sterling hastened the economic decline of Britain, so too will America's insistence on a "strong" dollar. jonrysh nails it. A strong dollar doesn't necessarily equate to a strong America, no matter how reasonable it may sound. Kennedy may criticize the tea partiers for being "nutcases", but they have an excuse: they are know nothings. What's Kennedy's excuse for his polemic (and that's what it is) in support of a "strong" dollar? His distaste for deficits, including trade deficits, cannot co-exist with his taste for a strong dollar. Just as Britain's insistence on a "strong" pound sterling hastened the economic decline of Britain, so too will America's insistence on a "strong" dollar. "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by the current congressional baying for China's currency to get stronger and stronger and stronger. Is that what the United States really wants—to get relatively weaker?" So, Mr. Johnson, you know nothing of economics at all, and you expect me to read your article? Pass. "The collective folly of portfolio advisers is compounded by the current congressional baying for China's currency to get stronger and stronger and stronger. Is that what the United States really wants—to get relatively weaker?" So, Mr. Johnson, you know nothing of economics at all, and you expect me to read your article? Pass. The idea of America as "the first among equals", or even providing a Democratic example to the world doesn't require us to be the most powerful nation on earth. I agree we've squandered a position of reason and leadership by running lunatic deficits based on Supply-Side Economic assumptions that have never worked. Obama has returned some rationality to public policy, but has been crippled in his efforts by his desire to compromise with an intransigent Republican party. That, and trying to clean up the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. So while "the light on the hill" may be sitting on a lower hill, I don't think it means our light has gone off. The idea of America as "the first among equals", or even providing a Democratic example to the world doesn't require us to be the most powerful nation on earth. I agree we've squandered a position of reason and leadership by running lunatic deficits based on Supply-Side Economic assumptions that have never worked. Obama has returned some rationality to public policy, but has been crippled in his efforts by his desire to compromise with an intransigent Republican party. That, and trying to clean up the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. So while "the light on the hill" may be sitting on a lower hill, I don't think it means our light has gone off. America will always be the most righteous nation of consequence because its governing documents create the most righteous state. We fall down, but we get up because we have the Constitution to lean on. America will always be the most righteous nation of consequence because its governing documents create the most righteous state. We fall down, but we get up because we have the Constitution to lean on. America got a free ride for a long time because Communism tied the hands of competition contrary to what people think. China was awakened shaking most of it's communism and fed a fast diet of manufacturing taken away from US workers to save $$$. I just bought a Chinese carbon fiber monopod as good as anything made in the West. The freebie is over. China the traditional historical inventor, innovator is back with a vengeance. We awakened China by giving away US jobs and technology we paid dearly to get with our taxes. You can't put China back in it's communist box. America got a free ride for a long time because Communism tied the hands of competition contrary to what people think. China was awakened shaking most of it's communism and fed a fast diet of manufacturing taken away from US workers to save $$$. I just bought a Chinese carbon fiber monopod as good as anything made in the West. The freebie is over. China the traditional historical inventor, innovator is back with a vengeance. We awakened China by giving away US jobs and technology we paid dearly to get with our taxes. You can't put China back in it's communist box. The real problems go deeper. The worst is in education, where we have fallen well behind not only our rivals but much smaller countries in every significant measurement, ranging from basic math, science, and language (English as well as foreign languages) to the percentages of students who graduate from high school and college. Indeed, we are losing jobs not just to cheap labor overseas but to more highly skilled labor. Without our immigrants, our graduate schools would lack sufficient students to be going concerns, and we would suffer even worse shortages of professionals such as physicians. The real problems go deeper. The worst is in education, where we have fallen well behind not only our rivals but much smaller countries in every significant measurement, ranging from basic math, science, and language (English as well as foreign languages) to the percentages of students who graduate from high school and college. Indeed, we are losing jobs not just to cheap labor overseas but to more highly skilled labor. Without our immigrants, our graduate schools would lack sufficient students to be going concerns, and we would suffer even worse shortages of professionals such as physicians. In addition to Professor Kennedy's unfortunate lack of economic sophistication -- a strong dollar as he advocates is not a basis for eliminating a trade deficit, it is merely symbolic -- he overlooks a crucial fact. No other nation in the world is as attractive to immigrants as we are -- the worldwide vote is in favor of us and it is shown by the voting with feet, often with great risk and financial cost. Who is pounding down the doors to enter China or India or Russia or Brazil. Very few. And so long as we are for many the last, best hope we will be have the capacity to be a dominant moral, economic, and military power. If we are undone it will be by stupid domestic politics, not immut ... view full comment In addition to Professor Kennedy's unfortunate lack of economic sophistication -- a strong dollar as he advocates is not a basis for eliminating a trade deficit, it is merely symbolic -- he overlooks a crucial fact. No other nation in the world is as attractive to immigrants as we are -- the worldwide vote is in favor of us and it is shown by the voting with feet, often with great risk and financial cost. Who is pounding down the doors to enter China or India or Russia or Brazil. Very few. And so long as we are for many the last, best hope we will be have the capacity to be a dominant moral, economic, and military power. If we are undone it will be by stupid domestic politics, not immutable trends of history. Ditto mendales. We need to fix our immigration problem Why doesn't every foreign graduate get a green card with their diploma? This is suicidal non-policy. Kennedy has standing on this "return to normalcy" question. I think his take now is pretty solid, adjusted from his famous mid-80's "decline" meme. Relative decline is a Good Thing. Being King of the Hill when the rest of the world is a shattered ruin doesn't pay off forever. I think we got pretty good utilization from the post-war opportunity, but as the authors of the Marshall Plan understood, we need prosperous customers not impoverished vassals. I'd be more worried about dollar strength if the euro wasn't such a transparent nonsense. Th ... view full comment Ditto mendales. We need to fix our immigration problem Why doesn't every foreign graduate get a green card with their diploma? This is suicidal non-policy. Kennedy has standing on this "return to normalcy" question. I think his take now is pretty solid, adjusted from his famous mid-80's "decline" meme. Relative decline is a Good Thing. Being King of the Hill when the rest of the world is a shattered ruin doesn't pay off forever. I think we got pretty good utilization from the post-war opportunity, but as the authors of the Marshall Plan understood, we need prosperous customers not impoverished vassals. I'd be more worried about dollar strength if the euro wasn't such a transparent nonsense. The yuan will do what it does. I agree with Kennedy that this question shouldn't be a major policy determinant. If we do some responsible fiscal reform in the next couple of years the nervous bond markets will stabilize, and this becomes a non-issue. Although mentioned only casually just above, we should be wary about the "nervous bond market" trope. This is part of the conservative/libertarian propaganda about why we need to cut spending and shift to fiscal austerity generally. There is only one problem with this: The bond markets are not nervous. This is another case of the rightwing inventing a fiction and repeating it endlessly to justify another idiotic economic policy that is indistinguishable from "make the rich richer." "Nervous bond markets" are signaled by high and increasing interest rates. There is no sign of same in our economy, but this is the sword of Damocles that the right dangles to try and get us to do its biddin ... view full comment Although mentioned only casually just above, we should be wary about the "nervous bond market" trope. This is part of the conservative/libertarian propaganda about why we need to cut spending and shift to fiscal austerity generally. There is only one problem with this: The bond markets are not nervous. This is another case of the rightwing inventing a fiction and repeating it endlessly to justify another idiotic economic policy that is indistinguishable from "make the rich richer." "Nervous bond markets" are signaled by high and increasing interest rates. There is no sign of same in our economy, but this is the sword of Damocles that the right dangles to try and get us to do its bidding some more -- even though doing its bidding is what landed us in such a righteous mess in the first place. The right is forever pleading fantastic views of the facts -- typically done by speaking as if these fantastic views are nothing but common knowledge -- because the facts that exist will not support its equally fantastic theories of economics. Different day, same bullshit. On can hardly keep up with it. We are most certainly toast if the Left doesn't stop supporting far right wing economic constructs, such as throwing the poor, sick and elderly into the streets. We are most certainly toast if the Left doesn't stop supporting far right wing economic constructs, such as throwing the poor, sick and elderly into the streets. Traditionally the bond markets go along with fiscal recklessness right up to the point that they don't. And then it's too late. We aren't in the same boat as Ireland and Greece yet, and I'm pretty confident that we can fix the problem before it's too late. Most voters, and certainly most Senators and Congressmen, understand that vast unfunded spending on boondoggles and payoffs to special interests are not the same as "stimulus", and that putting government spending on automatic with the idea that we can always pay with other people's money leads to a cliff. We've been there before, and see it playing out now in the EuroZone. I don't think we need cuts as courageous as those being put in pla ... view full comment Traditionally the bond markets go along with fiscal recklessness right up to the point that they don't. And then it's too late. We aren't in the same boat as Ireland and Greece yet, and I'm pretty confident that we can fix the problem before it's too late. Most voters, and certainly most Senators and Congressmen, understand that vast unfunded spending on boondoggles and payoffs to special interests are not the same as "stimulus", and that putting government spending on automatic with the idea that we can always pay with other people's money leads to a cliff. We've been there before, and see it playing out now in the EuroZone. I don't think we need cuts as courageous as those being put in place by the British government, but they're not a bad example. I'd be happy to split the difference between what they're doing and "stimulus" of the sort we're becoming addicted to. Right. The British are "courageous." No, they aren't. There is nothing "courageous" about tripling the cost of education and cutting already meager benefits to the disabled by half. It's stupid, short-sighted and cruel. Right. The British are "courageous." No, they aren't. There is nothing "courageous" about tripling the cost of education and cutting already meager benefits to the disabled by half. It's stupid, short-sighted and cruel. By the way - yesterday, after a few Senate Republicans actually decided to allow START to proceed, and the repeal of DADT, I was feeling somewhat optimistic. Today, reading some of the comments, including bright ideas to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, sick, disabled and old, I am extremely pessimistic about the future of America. This country has lost its moral center. Everything else is secondary. We are depending on our big army and our ability to project violence around the world? This is a good plan? This is "power?" History is replete with the bones of vanished empires which depended upon that kind of "power," dinosaurs who ate themselves alive. Deadly carcinogenic chemica ... view full comment By the way - yesterday, after a few Senate Republicans actually decided to allow START to proceed, and the repeal of DADT, I was feeling somewhat optimistic. Today, reading some of the comments, including bright ideas to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, sick, disabled and old, I am extremely pessimistic about the future of America. This country has lost its moral center. Everything else is secondary. We are depending on our big army and our ability to project violence around the world? This is a good plan? This is "power?" History is replete with the bones of vanished empires which depended upon that kind of "power," dinosaurs who ate themselves alive. Deadly carcinogenic chemical have been found in the drinking water of 31 American cities - but yet - we lack the ability and the political will to deal with environmental damage. We're still attacking each other for being the wrong religion or color or just for being poor so how on earth can we fix really big problems? Hell a large number of Americans still believe the earth was created in 6 days flat and is waiting breathlessly for "the Rapture!" Belief in religious fairy tales and the ability to project violence isn't the same as the ability to protect our planet and help our people - people everywhere - maximize their creativity and their potential. It isn't enough to save our habitat, irreplaceable habitat that shelters and nurtures us as well as the plants and animals of this world. Our educational system is faltering. Economically, we confuse the replacement of people with machines thus creating wealth for business owners - not for workers! - with "productivity." Tell me, exactly what is being produced? Nothing, that's what. Just money - money for a few people, increasingly few, increasingly richer and more powerful people and corporations. Much of this money is being shifted overseas - it is not going to help America, period. People are losing employment, security and opportunity so that fewer people can have more money and more power. Labor is debased. This, we are told, is FREEDOM. It is The American Dream! Corporations have unlimited access - multinational corporations even - to the marketplace of ideas, to the very political process. The far right has its own 24/7 propaganda channel, which with incredible chutzpah it calls a "news" channel. Further - the Constitution itself may be part of the problem. The founding fathers didn't foresee, I think, a situation in which the citizens of Nebraska, through their Senators, are grossly overrepresented and vastly more powerful than the citizens of New York. We need to rethink this. As it is, we have a tyranny of the minority do we not? Why are the citizens of Alabama or Nebraska more equal than the citizens of New York, Illinois or California? And - the Supreme Court grossly overreached in 2000. The Electoral College, which represented slaves and land in the 19th century, was abused - no - the people - the majority of American citizens who had voted for Al Gore - were abused because of a handful of votes in a highly suspect election in a state with lots of electoral votes. A state where Jews voted in large numbers for - Pat Buchanan. A state where the governor - the brother of the Republican presidential candidate - had promised a Republican victory. Right. So - yes we're going down. We are going to hell in a handbasket, fast. And putting little bandaids on these structural problems is fixing bubkes. Meanwhile our leader has made a deal with the devil and made matters infinitely worse - we'll get a short term boost economically, maybe, but the deficit is worse, the rich and powerful are getting richer and more powerful - always bad for a democracy or a republic! and Social Security is obviously not safe, we still don't have civilized medical care - we have a real unemployment number approaching 1/5 of the work force and CNBC is predicting another recession in a couple of years and we are not out of this recession. So nu? PeteBeck makes a fair point, but I'd argue that there is now more hat than cattle to this assertion of the undying attractiveness of the U.S. and the revitalizing effect of talented immigrants. The GOP's attempt to make immigration a blue-collar red-button issue will have its longer-term affect, as constraints on legal as much as illegal -- indeed they often more effective in scaring legal immigrants -- immigration close down that avenue. If we couldn't even pass a law that would give a chance of in-state tuition and legalization to people who were brought here by their parents when they were kids -- surely the least offensive group possible from the demographic -- then it seems to be a litt ... view full comment PeteBeck makes a fair point, but I'd argue that there is now more hat than cattle to this assertion of the undying attractiveness of the U.S. and the revitalizing effect of talented immigrants. The GOP's attempt to make immigration a blue-collar red-button issue will have its longer-term affect, as constraints on legal as much as illegal -- indeed they often more effective in scaring legal immigrants -- immigration close down that avenue. If we couldn't even pass a law that would give a chance of in-state tuition and legalization to people who were brought here by their parents when they were kids -- surely the least offensive group possible from the demographic -- then it seems to be a little more than just anti-immigrant feeling per se. Powell, you just don't understand economics. Spending is not our problem. The failure to raise taxes to pay for what we spend is. And the most undertaxed are the wealthiest who now have an enormous share of our annual income. Powell, you just don't understand economics. Spending is not our problem. The failure to raise taxes to pay for what we spend is. And the most undertaxed are the wealthiest who now have an enormous share of our annual income. With all due respect roi, I may not understand economics but I do know something about politics. When the popular, and accurate, view is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on spending that is neither stimulative nor fair nor effective in addressing what it's supposed to be for, you are not going to get anywhere telling voters we need to raise their taxes so that we can continue in this vein. I'd like to see more revenues, but am certain that it's only going to happen in the context of spending and tax reform. With all due respect roi, I may not understand economics but I do know something about politics. When the popular, and accurate, view is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on spending that is neither stimulative nor fair nor effective in addressing what it's supposed to be for, you are not going to get anywhere telling voters we need to raise their taxes so that we can continue in this vein. I'd like to see more revenues, but am certain that it's only going to happen in the context of spending and tax reform. Powell, it may be popular, but it's not accurate that we're "wasting" hundreds of billions of dollars. Every single election, Republicans make this claim. Every single election, "cutting waste, fraud and abuse" is the mantra. After all these elections, the amount of remaining "waste, fraud, and abuse" is miniscule compared to the hundreds of billions spent on programs people really want -- the military, the social safety net, education, infrastructure. Every time Republicans implement taxation policies meant to "starve the beast", the result is more massive deficits than ever before. Under Clinton, we both raised taxes AND reduced the size of Government -- THAT is worth celebrating. Powell, it may be popular, but it's not accurate that we're "wasting" hundreds of billions of dollars. Every single election, Republicans make this claim. Every single election, "cutting waste, fraud and abuse" is the mantra. After all these elections, the amount of remaining "waste, fraud, and abuse" is miniscule compared to the hundreds of billions spent on programs people really want -- the military, the social safety net, education, infrastructure. Every time Republicans implement taxation policies meant to "starve the beast", the result is more massive deficits than ever before. Under Clinton, we both raised taxes AND reduced the size of Government -- THAT is worth celebrating. I agree that Clinton did a great job--what you said, plus saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the Balkans and reforming a welfare system that was highly destructive of poor families. On waste, you need to check your arithmetic. According to Obama advisor Christina Romer, Medicare wastes about 20% of its huge budget. Medicaid fraud is generally acknowledged to be in the tens of billions of dollars with negative public health consequences in the bargain. According to Greg Easterbrooke we spend $20 billion annually on construction at unnecessary foreign bases, and you can throw in quite a few tens of billions for redundant or unnecessary weapons systems. Farm subsidies are essentially econ ... view full comment I agree that Clinton did a great job--what you said, plus saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the Balkans and reforming a welfare system that was highly destructive of poor families. On waste, you need to check your arithmetic. According to Obama advisor Christina Romer, Medicare wastes about 20% of its huge budget. Medicaid fraud is generally acknowledged to be in the tens of billions of dollars with negative public health consequences in the bargain. According to Greg Easterbrooke we spend $20 billion annually on construction at unnecessary foreign bases, and you can throw in quite a few tens of billions for redundant or unnecessary weapons systems. Farm subsidies are essentially economic war against the Third World and go almost exclusively to millionare farmers and big agribusiness--cost between $20 billion and $60 billion per year depending on crop prices. According to the IRS we spend a whopping $190 billion per year in compliance costs for our Byzantine tax code. There's plenty more, but that's enough to solve the debt crisis right there. It would be nice if the world was a simple place in which we could tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys by the color of their hats, or whether they have a D or an R after their names, but that kind of thinking is strictly for comicbooks. Facebook : Red Democratica Twitter : Http://twitter.com/red_democratica Boletin diario : Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com Comentarios a :red_democratica@yahoo.com RED DEMOCRATICA BLOG : Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com Debate :Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion/messages Keep the candle burning 2010 ! |
Http://reddemocratica.blogspot.com
Boletin Diario :
Http://reddemocratica01.blogspot.com
Foro Debate :
Http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eleccion
Ahora en FACEBOOK : Red Democratica
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1631/articulos/protesta.phtml
Http://www.caretas.com.pe/2000/1612/articulos/debate.phtml
Celebrando 10 anos "On Line"..2009
Keep the candle burning
I have a dream
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/about_king/interactiveFrame.htm
FORUM TPSIPOL: RED DEMOCRATICA (1998-1999).
Informacion : Http://tpsipol.home-page.org
Para enviar un message , enviar a: eleccion@yahoogroups.com
Para suscribirse al Forum , enviar un mensaje a : eleccion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Para salir del Forum, enviar un mensaje en blanco : eleccion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com