Dunno if anyone's read Fareed Zakaria's new book yet, I plan to if I have some time over summer, but I did read the excerpt in Newsweek.

<link>

But I guess when i see any handwringing about how America might be a fading superpower, might be on its way off p.1 of history etc etc, my big question is, so what?

How does it affect the lives of 95% of americans anyway?

The only conceivable changes I can see to the lives of your ordinary Americans is that gasoline might stay pricey as USA would increasingly lose the clout to ensure supply of cheap oil from Middle East (a first taste of that came just recently when the Saudi ruler listened to Bush's prayers and answered 'no').

And immigration to USA would drop off as would-be-immigrants get more economic opportunities at home, or eye other prosperous nations. I imagine a lot of americans would be quite happy about that.

Possibly it would mean big influxes of tourist dollars as more folks from today's developing countries can afford a Disney vacation. And it might even be good for America's balance of trade.

So, again, what does it matter to the average american whether the world is 'In the Shadow of the Eagle' (as another book put it), or its a Post-American world?

We've been conditioned to equate America's greatness with our leadership position. It's not going to last. No empire lasts forever.

Britain had the largest empire in human history at one time. Today, they are merely a prosperous, stable, peaceful country of exceedingly decent and polite people who seem to be getting on okay. I wouldn't mind it if America ended up like Britain.

Just remember...interventionism is not purely a "right-wing" or "neo-con" hobby.

If we give up the "Iraqs"...it means we also give up the "Kosovos" or potential "Darfurs".

If we give up the "Iraqs"...it means we also give up the "Kosovos" or potential "Darfurs".

******************************­******************************­*********

Well, sure, but presumably the next superpower or superpowers would do interventions according to their own set of moral values. And America could be like one of the other Nato powers....send in a small force, not have anything approaching primary responsibility.

And again....what difference would it make to 95% of americans ? As long as they could live in relative peace and not in penury, would it really matter if America's 'standing in the world' became akin to that of Sweden?

Or that means that the UN, or NATO, or maybe the EU etc takes on those roles -- with the US as a participant but not in the lead role.

Seems possibly a better approach anyway.

Why will Americans support "Darfurs", where the possibility of Al Qaeda (with good, for them, lessons learned in Iraq) ready to start picking off "peacekeepers" with IEDs and suicide bombers?

Even if we're "only" 50% of the force.

Wow. It is unbelievable to me that the United States becoming a second rate power does not deserve more debate. Exactly which country and which other culture would you prefer to take up the banner?

Maybe Switzerland, or perhaps one of the Scandinavian nations?

I've never been there, but from what I've seen and read I think I'd like it. And the Danes seem to have a pretty good attitude toward life on balance.

I could live with Sweden too.

Exactly which country and which other culture would you prefer to take up the banner?

******************************­******************************­*

I'd prefer a multi-power world, where USA is balanced out by a strong EU, Asian economic powers, and Brazil.

Just remember the pre-American world and you'll get an idea.

"Wow. It is unbelievable to me that the United States becoming a second rate power does not deserve more debate."

Americans want more government than they are willing to pay for, which is destroying our economic foundations. I doubt you'll see more debate in this election than you've seen in any since 1980.

"Exactly which country and which other culture would you prefer to take up the banner?"

China, Russia, and India are the usual suspects. Brazil is showing ambitions of bein a regional power. Nature abhors a vacuum and our weakness provides an opening for others to vie for the top spot.

A better book might be After the Empire. It was written by a guy who, back in the 1970s, predicted the year the USSR would fall based on patterns within their demographics. I haven't read Zakaria's book yet. I like him, and I think Foreign Affairs is still the best journal out there, but I don't think he'll take nearly as nuanced an approach as Todd does. And Todd takes the stance of a sympathetic outsider, not someone who has anything to gain by either supporting or attacking our policy.

Not at all. If we exercised more discretion and better diplomacy, we could take on the true humanitarian stuff far more effectively. It’s all a question of where we wish to expend our resources. Ill-conceived missions like Iraq have damaged our ability to accept worthier responsibilities. I’ll be happy if we end up more like Britain, too (as opposed to, say, Rome), but Britain still gets around, as, I think, should we.

I agree. I live in Greece right now, and Scandinavians roll through here like nobody’s business during the warmer months. They have a good philosophy on life. As do the Greeks, I hasten to add. :-)