We’ve Only Got America 'A'

[Richard]

More uncertainty to ponder.

The world system is currently being challenged by two new forces: a rising superpower, called China, and a rising collection of superempowered individuals, as represented by the WikiLeakers, among others. What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to superempower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy — from a global bank to a nation state — as individuals.

And so it goes...

Richard

We’ve Only Got America A
Ths Friedman, NYT, 14 Dec 2010

Former President José María Figueres of Costa Rica has a saying I like: “There is no Planet B” — so we’d better make Plan A work to preserve a stable environment. I feel the same way about America these days. There is no America B, so we’d better make this one work a lot better than we’ve been doing, and not only for our sake. When Britain went into decline as the globe’s stabilizing power, America was right there, ready to pick up the role. Even with all our imperfections and mistakes, the world has been a better place for it. If America goes weak, though, and cannot project power the way it has, your kids won’t just grow up in a different America. They will grow up in a different world. You will not like who picks up the pieces. Just glance at a few recent headlines.

The world system is currently being challenged by two new forces: a rising superpower, called China, and a rising collection of superempowered individuals, as represented by the WikiLeakers, among others. What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to superempower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy — from a global bank to a nation state — as individuals.

China has put on a sound and light show these past few weeks that underscored just how much its rising economic clout can be used to warp the U.S.-led international order when it so chooses. I am talking specifically about the lengths to which China went to not only reject the Nobel Peace Prize given to one of its citizens — Liu Xiaobo, a democracy advocate who is serving an 11-year sentence in China for “subversion of state power” — but to intimidate China’s trading partners from even sending representatives to attend the Nobel award ceremony at Oslo’s City Hall.

Mr. Liu was represented at Friday’s Nobel ceremony by an empty chair because China would not release him from prison — only the fifth time in the 109-year history of the prize that the winner was not in attendance. Under pressure from Beijing, the following countries joined China’s boycott of the ceremony: Serbia, Morocco, Pakistan, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Colombia, Ukraine, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Vietnam and the Philippines. What a pathetic bunch.

“The empty chair in Oslo’s Town Hall last Friday was not only that of Liu, but of China itself,” observed Rowan Callick, a columnist for The Australian. “The world is still waiting for China to play its proper, full role in international affairs. The perversity of such a successful, civilized nation playing a dominant role as a backer — if sometimes merely by default — of cruel, failed or failing states is intensely frustrating.”

It gets worse. The Financial Times reported that “outside Mr. Liu’s apartment in Beijing, where his wife Liu Xia has been held under house arrest since the award was announced, large blue screens were erected, preventing television cameras from having a view of the building.”

Honestly, I thought China’s leaders had more self-confidence than that. Clearly, they are feeling very insecure. Think if China had said instead: “We disagree with this award and we will not be attending. But anytime one of our citizens is honored with a Nobel, it is an honor for all of China — and so we will pass this on to his family.” It would have been a one-day story, and China’s leaders would have looked so strong.

As for the superempowered individuals — some are constructive, some are destructive. I read many WikiLeaks and learned some useful things. But their release also raises some troubling questions. I don’t want to live in a country where they throw whistle-blowers in jail. That’s China. But I also don’t want to live in a country where any individual feels entitled to just dump out all the internal communications of a government or a bank in a way that undermines the ability to have private, confidential communications that are vital to the functioning of any society. That’s anarchy.

But here’s the fact: A China that can choke off conversations far beyond its borders, and superempowered individuals who can expose conversations far beyond their borders — or create posses of “cyber-hacktivists” who can melt down the computers of people they don’t like — are now a reality. They are rising powers. A stable world requires that we learn how to get the best from both and limit the worst; it will require smart legal and technological responses.

For that job, there is no alternative to a strong America. Critics said of the British Labour Party of the 1960s that the Britain they were trying to build was half-Sweden and half-heaven. The alternative today to a world ordered by American power is not some cuddly multipolar system — half-Sweden and half-heaven. It is half-China and half-superempowered individuals.

Managing that will never be easy. But it will be a lot easier with a healthy America, committed to its core values, powerful enough to project them and successful enough that others want to follow our lead — voluntarily.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/op...me&ref=general

[nmap]

Good article. I agree with many of the conclusions - should Pax Americana fail, the world will be very different. Probably poorer. Probably a lot more dangerous, and far more brutal.

That said, we as a people are striving against the stability of the existing culture and patterns of our own society. While there is little point in getting into specifics, the general notion is that there is something wrong with our society and something or other will fix it. But fixing it, no matter what that entails, is change. I note that current legislation is so very complex that no one reads it before enactment, no one understands it before or after, and certainly no one has full cognizance of the long-term implications.

Social Security taxes were first collected in 1937. The system was based on longevity assumptions - and also on the assumption of a growing workforce. Seventy years later, we see that those assumptions were flawed and we have an intractable problem.

What are the long term implications policies pursued over the past couple decades? No one knows. And we're so busy fighting fires that we do little more than apply short term repairs to the structure.

So...even though the author of the piece makes some great points...even though I agree with his ideas and conclusions...even though we should work to make sure that America A survives and prospers...I would not wager that the "A" option will succeed.

[Dusty]

[Richard]

Although I am not a bettor - I harbor no doubts in the resiliency of the idea which is America.

Richard

[akv]

Originally Posted by Richard

Although I am not a bettor - I harbor no doubts in the resiliency of the idea which is America.

I agree, though by residing here and trying to be productive members of society we have all implicitly made this bet. However, IMHO there are points in the article to question.

Specifically, folks tend to simultaneously anoint China the heir apparent, while lamenting America's decline is linked to the foolishness and folly of rising big government. This feature in considerably greater magnitude has always defined China, even with their geopolitical limitations, as one of the world's ancient cultures, they have had plenty of time to figure this out, historically they gravitate towards free markets for a while then implode back into isolation. Unless you believe the current Chinese government officials just happen to be the smartest folks ever, how are they immune from the historic and global pitfalls and poor decisions of big government? (If they are we should bring them over and set them up with flats in Georgetown). Their own history, for example the 5 year plans, and "Sparrow Wars" tend to contradict this notion.

The Wikileaks situation is embarrassing and demonstrates the need for greater security controls for government data. However if anything it once again reinforces notions of government foibles. After 9/11 we figured out our various government agencies weren't set up to share information quickly and efficiently, we changed this, though it appears we overcompensated, so besides adding some security measures and prosecuting the hackers, what is the watershed here?

America A is resilient, though the font might change, it might be America A as different culturally in 2150, as our culture is to the America of 1860.

Originally Posted by Richard

...I harbor no doubts in the resiliency of the idea which is America.

Richard

"Richard, I'll take leftside, TR has right. While Team Sergeant has our 6, you take point".

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

Although I am not a bettor - I harbor no doubts in the resiliency of the idea which is America.

Richard

Over the last several years, I've conducted an informal experiment. I've asked people "What, in your opinion, is the American dream?"

In general, the answers have boiled down to: Own a big house and make a lot of money. Things such as are covered in the Bill of Rights are never (yes, seriously - never over the course of years) mentioned.

This semester, I probed deeper. I asked if they would repudiate some rights - the example I used was freedom of speech - for a one time payment. The consensus was that for $50,000 or so, they would be glad to sell their rights.

Does my informal sample cover everyone? No. There are people, including many here, who have done much to defend and protect the idea you mention. But it seems that there is some ambiguity on what, exactly, the idea is.

AKV points out the cultural shift that has occurred in the past, and by implication may occur in the future. Great point! But this suggests we might need to distill some idea that remained true from 1860 to present - some idea that will still define America.

Will the idea prove resilient? I hope it does. If the light goes out, it may be a long time before another spark appears.

[Richard]

But this suggests we might need to distill some idea that remained true from 1860 to present - some idea that will still define America.

Don't need to 'distill' s**t - it's the same idea that has always drawn people to this land and has kept pushing it forward - the opportunity to live as a free man.*

And so it goes...

Richard

* 'man' in reference to humankind

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

Don't need to 'distill' s**t - it's the same idea that has always drawn people to this land and has kept pushing it forward - the opportunity to live as a free man.*

And so it goes...

Richard

* 'man' in reference to humankind

Sounds like a pretty good distillation to me....

[echoes]

Originally Posted by Richard

More uncertainty to ponder.

The world system is currently being challenged by two new forces: a rising superpower, called China, and a rising collection of superempowered individuals, as represented by the WikiLeakers, among others. What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to superempower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy — from a global bank to a nation state — as individuals.

And so it goes...

Richard

We’ve Only Got America A
Ths Friedman, NYT, 14 Dec 2010

Former President José María Figueres of Costa Rica has a saying I like: “There is no Planet B” — so we’d better make Plan A work to preserve a stable environment. I feel the same way about America these days. There is no America B, so we’d better make this one work a lot better than we’ve been doing, and not only for our sake. When Britain went into decline as the globe’s stabilizing power, America was right there, ready to pick up the role. Even with all our imperfections and mistakes, the world has been a better place for it. If America goes weak, though, and cannot project power the way it has, your kids won’t just grow up in a different America. They will grow up in a different world. You will not like who picks up the pieces. Just glance at a few recent headlines.

The world system is currently being challenged by two new forces: a rising superpower, called China, and a rising collection of superempowered individuals, as represented by the WikiLeakers, among others. What globalization, technological integration and the general flattening of the world have done is to superempower individuals to such a degree that they can actually challenge any hierarchy — from a global bank to a nation state — as individuals.

China has put on a sound and light show these past few weeks that underscored just how much its rising economic clout can be used to warp the U.S.-led international order when it so chooses. I am talking specifically about the lengths to which China went to not only reject the Nobel Peace Prize given to one of its citizens — Liu Xiaobo, a democracy advocate who is serving an 11-year sentence in China for “subversion of state power” — but to intimidate China’s trading partners from even sending representatives to attend the Nobel award ceremony at Oslo’s City Hall.

Mr. Liu was represented at Friday’s Nobel ceremony by an empty chair because China would not release him from prison — only the fifth time in the 109-year history of the prize that the winner was not in attendance. Under pressure from Beijing, the following countries joined China’s boycott of the ceremony: Serbia, Morocco, Pakistan, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Colombia, Ukraine, Algeria, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Vietnam and the Philippines. What a pathetic bunch.

“The empty chair in Oslo’s Town Hall last Friday was not only that of Liu, but of China itself,” observed Rowan Callick, a columnist for The Australian. “The world is still waiting for China to play its proper, full role in international affairs. The perversity of such a successful, civilized nation playing a dominant role as a backer — if sometimes merely by default — of cruel, failed or failing states is intensely frustrating.”

It gets worse. The Financial Times reported that “outside Mr. Liu’s apartment in Beijing, where his wife Liu Xia has been held under house arrest since the award was announced, large blue screens were erected, preventing television cameras from having a view of the building.”

Honestly, I thought China’s leaders had more self-confidence than that. Clearly, they are feeling very insecure. Think if China had said instead: “We disagree with this award and we will not be attending. But anytime one of our citizens is honored with a Nobel, it is an honor for all of China — and so we will pass this on to his family.” It would have been a one-day story, and China’s leaders would have looked so strong.

As for the superempowered individuals — some are constructive, some are destructive. I read many WikiLeaks and learned some useful things. But their release also raises some troubling questions. I don’t want to live in a country where they throw whistle-blowers in jail. That’s China. But I also don’t want to live in a country where any individual feels entitled to just dump out all the internal communications of a government or a bank in a way that undermines the ability to have private, confidential communications that are vital to the functioning of any society. That’s anarchy.

But here’s the fact: A China that can choke off conversations far beyond its borders, and superempowered individuals who can expose conversations far beyond their borders — or create posses of “cyber-hacktivists” who can melt down the computers of people they don’t like — are now a reality. They are rising powers. A stable world requires that we learn how to get the best from both and limit the worst; it will require smart legal and technological responses.

For that job, there is no alternative to a strong America. Critics said of the British Labour Party of the 1960s that the Britain they were trying to build was half-Sweden and half-heaven. The alternative today to a world ordered by American power is not some cuddly multipolar system — half-Sweden and half-heaven. It is half-China and half-superempowered individuals.

Managing that will never be easy. But it will be a lot easier with a healthy America, committed to its core values, powerful enough to project them and successful enough that others want to follow our lead — voluntarily.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/op...me&ref=general

Hope it is okay to post this Sir....but America is, IMHO, what we do not see on the TV, or read about in studies generated from a sample of the population. America is hardcore Ideas, Values, and Service, again, IMHO.

Come to any small town USA, and a person can find it...at a coffe shop, bakery, or biker-bar, it is there! The idea is still there that we are the greatest Country in the world, because We have the greatest military, greatest science, greatest un-inhibited philosophers....greatest freedoms, of anyone on this planet....(Thanks to Our Brave Soldiers!)

THE DREAM is still alive for many Americans still trying to live it, and IMHO, they will!

JHMO, and not fact.

Holly

[rdret1]

Originally Posted by nmap

In general, the answers have boiled down to: Own a big house and make a lot of money. Things such as are covered in the Bill of Rights are never (yes, seriously - never over the course of years) mentioned.

This semester, I probed deeper. I asked if they would repudiate some rights - the example I used was freedom of speech - for a one time payment. The consensus was that for $50,000 or so, they would be glad to sell their rights.

That actually kind of scares me. Over the years I know I have become rather jaded about many things and therefore believe that the majority of people are indeed idiots. The idea, however, that someone would be willing to "sell" his/her rights (which one being irrelevant) for the pitance of $50K or so just boggles my mind. Have these individuals you have spoken to become so protected and mentally isolated that they really don't know the true value of those rights? Can they not see and comprehend what people all over the world go through that do not have those rights? Truly amazing.

[greenberetTFS]

Originally Posted by rdret1

That actually kind of scares me. Over the years I know I have become rather jaded about many things and therefore believe that the majority of people are indeed idiots. The idea, however, that someone would be willing to "sell" his/her rights (which one being irrelevant) for the pitance of $50K or so just boggles my mind. Have these individuals you have spoken to become so protected and mentally isolated that they really don't know the true value of those rights? Can they not see and comprehend what people all over the world go through that do not have those rights? Truly amazing.

rdret1,

You sure have that right,it's a frightening thing
when so many people don't realize and take their rights for granted...........

Big Teddy