Winter Break WK #3: “From Pax Americana to slacker Americans”
Take it from a Brit: Losing the No. 1 world superpower spot won’t be that bad. Really.
By Chris Ayres
December 27, 2008
There has been much talk in the media about America’s threatened superpower status — a result of its near-fatal exposure to the Kryptonite of subprime mortgages, among other factors — and how the country will inevitably find itself going the way of that other once-undefeated political juggernaut, the dear old British Empire.
To which I say: Lucky America!
I mean, yeah, it’s going to sting a bit. Losing any big, sexy-sounding job title will inevitably deliver a blow to your self-esteem. Yet it can also be liberating.
Do Tehranis and Muscovites blame Britain for the culture of mindless self-gratification that brought down the global economy? Of course not. They blame America — even though Britain is arguably the more guilty party, what with its foreign-debt-to-GDP ratio standing at an unconscionable (and, really, quite embarrassing) 490%, as opposed to the United States’ puritanical 89% (according to the 2007 “purchasing power parity” GDP and external debt figures supplied by the CIA World Factbook).
The fact is that when you’re No. 1, you always get blamed for everything. When you’re No. 3, or No. 5 — or No. 135 — you can put your hands in your pockets and whistle tunelessly with a “Who, me?” look on your face, and no one ever asks any questions.
Take Slovakia. Five years ago, Slovakia invaded Iraq. Admittedly, it did this with the help of a few other countries. But still, does Slovakia ever get the blame for all the trouble that has gone down over there since then?
Nope.
Imagine, for a moment, the relief of being simply too unimportant to be held responsible for any event of consequence. Imagine Barack Obama being roused by the proverbial “red phone” at 11 a.m. — the leaders of low-ranking countries can presumably nap until late morning — to be informed of a terrible rumpus in deepest Nmbubu-Oobu, and his only responsibility is to write a stern news release calling on Belgium to act. And when it all goes horribly wrong — as it inevitably will — all he has to do is tut disapprovingly and mutter something about those arrogant Flems in Bruges.
Being British, I speak from some experience when it comes to lost superpowerdom. I was born in northern England in the mid-1970s — a time when my grandparents still believed that Britain was the mightiest nation on Earth, even though the prime minister, Harold Wilson, was being warned that the country was facing “wholesale domestic liquidation” unless it could secure an emergency, Third World-style bailout from the International Monetary Fund.
In Britain in those days — as in America now — people bought consumer products based on patriotism. The misery! I later fell victim to this nonsense myself: My first car was an antique 1974 MGB, the electronics supplied by the pride of postwar British manufacturing, Lucas Industries. When I bought the MGB, I sincerely believed that British sports cars were the finest in the world. Then the wiring loom under the steering wheel short-circuited when I was halfway down Caledonia Road in North London and I had to jump out with my trousers literally on fire.
My next car was Japanese.
Today, of course, there are pretty much no truly British cars. And who cares? We live in an era of globalization. The Indians might own the company that makes Jaguars, but I probably have money in a pension fund somewhere that owns stock in that very same Indian company. So, in a small way, the British are still in the car business — with the added benefit that a modern Jag probably won’t cause a trouser fire.
And even if you own a “foreign” car these days, chances are that at least a few bits and pieces of it have been sourced from your homeland. That’s the way it should be: Countries that are good at one thing should concentrate on it, and countries that are bad at that same thing should stop doing it. [See Law of Comparative Advantage - Kautzman]
Besides, abandoning consumer patriotism is as liberating as no longer being blamed for everything. It’s especially liberating when shopping for an automobile. Farewell, beige Ford Taurus! Hello, gunmetal-gray BMW M3!
Not all domestic industries suffer when a nation goes into an irreversible decline, of course. Others suddenly find themselves booming. The beleaguered American newspaper industry, for example, might very well be able to profit immensely by simply dispatching its most snide and ironically detached correspondents to the new capitals of world power, from which they will be able to report with maximum condescension about the hilarious earnestness of the locals. Mark my words: Demoralized Americans won’t be able to get enough of these reports, and thus will buy multiple newspapers every morning while traveling to work on buses and trains, having abandoned their cars when the U.S. government stopped qualifying for its bulk oil discount from the Saudis.
Not that working 8-to-7 six days a week will seem so important when you’re no longer ruling the world. If Britain’s experience is anything to go by, Americans will soon find more satisfaction by trying to break pointless world records — crossing Greenland on a pogo stick, using only one arm, while dressed in native Bolivian costume, for example — or writing absurdist comedy, or recovering from apocalyptic, three-gin-and-tonic lunchtime hangovers.
Oh yes, you’re in for a treat.
Chris Ayres is Los Angeles correspondent for the Times of London and the author of “Death by Leisure: A Cautionary Tale” (Grove Press, February 2009).
This article made me chuckle. I like this British author’s satirical irony…especially when he’s making fun of his own trouser wearing, gin and tonic drinking, pogo stick jumping nation. But even through his humour he has a good point. If America wasn’t such a power nation, involved in everybody else’s affairs, needing to know when the prime minister in Nmbubu-Oobu sneezes, everything would be a lot easier, especially for our nation’s leaders. Obama could spend more time on starting humane societies for homeless dogs and traveling to Hawaii than he could as president of the superpower USA. Furthermore, it would make lives easier for normal civilian Americans, since they wouldn’t have to compete and meet with the huge demands of surviving in a super nation. The need for power and prestige would be gone and as the British author claimed, us Washingtonians could now spend our time trying to grow the biggest apple or climb the tallest evergreen. However, I don’t think that America’s role as a super power in the world’s affairs will lessen anytime soon. We have too many resources, knowledge, ability, freedom…and pride to have our nation succumb to meanly nothingness. Although we have our scares, namely the supposed economic depression people think we are in, our nation has continually bounced back, hopefully a little wiser and maybe a little rougher for wear. But I believe unless the planet earth strays into a dark hole and vanishes, our nation will continue to be a superpower, whether all of us like it or not.
Connection: Kautzman bolded out the Law of Comparative Advantages. The definition accordingly says, “Mutually beneficial exchange is possible whenever relative production costs differ prior to trade.” Basically this means that nations gain an advantage by producing goods at a low cost and exchanging their outputs for different goods produced by other nations at a low cost. For instance, Florida grows oranges at a lower cost than Iowa, but Iowa excels at growing corn. So both states share their gains by exchanging their products at relatively low costs. This is another reason why the US won’t diminish in power anytime soon, because we have too many resources and products available for us to exchange with all the other countries of the world.
It sounds like this guy just thinks everything is funny. And it is. So spot on. It’s surprising that most Americans, and people in general, don’t realize that everybody blames the one in charge. It’s just easier when those “responsible” are well known and the ones that visibly call the shots. Even if it is someone else’s fault, it’s easier for people just to blame something familiar and relatively unchanging.
In the world’s case, it’s America.
We rock.
So what’s the author’s best solution? Take the fall. Become like the British Empire. Sure it may suck, but nothing lasts forever.
Though I see many problems with this theory. First, America is based upon Capitalism. That means that we don’t like to lose. So giving up our top dog spot will do more than just sting, it’ll probably destroy us, and everything we stand for. And second, I think we would be worried about who would inherit the position after us. What if it’s a meanie country that doesn’t give us everything we want? What would we do then? We’d be forced to live within our means. No more being a spoiled little brat of a country. We’d only get what we could afford. Oh dear. Whatever would we do?
So, maybe if we could get over those two things, we could do it. But I doubt it. “Pride cometh before the fall,” so says that one book that people in this country regard so highly.
So, maybe we should invest in this comparative advantage crap. We can just make the stuff we don’t completely suck at instead of trying to be amazing at things we aren’t. Like cars for instance. Our car companies aren’t so great. So instead of making more sub par cars, we should focus on things like movies and music. That’s our biggest and most successful export. We make bank. So maybe what we should do with all of those displaced auto workers is send them to California to work cheap for Hollywood. Or something inventive and ridiculous like that.
Connection: Kautzman had a reference to the law of comparative advantages that I googled. I didn’t really understand in the context of the article, but when I looked it up, it made more sense. My guess is that when countries that produce the same goods, though there is one that is better than the other in some places, they divvy up the production roles so that the superior one is producing its best products, and the inferior one is producing products that it’s only slightly worse at doing. In this way, optimum output is accomplished. Everyone wins.
Well, I do not know how I feel about America losing its superpower status. “No longer being blamed for everything” sounds rather cool but it probably comes at quite a very large cost. The United States has expanded its world influence for quite some time. We have involved ourselves in the operation of foreign countries in order to assist them in doing what we want them to. During the Cold War, we particularly made it our mission become more involved to help countries fight against communism. Why? Because America probably was and probably still is the best country around. I do not think that it would be beneficial to have another Great Britain around. “Demoralized Americans won’t be able to get enough of these reports, and thus will buy multiple newspapers every morning while traveling to work on buses and trains, having abandoned their cars when the U.S. government stopped qualifying for its bulk oil discount from the Saudis.” I love how sarcastic this author was at times. “Countries that are good at one thing should concentrate on it, and countries that are bad at that same thing should stop doing it.” That certainly seems fair enough to an extent.
Connection: This article is an example of public opinion even though this author is not a U.S. citizen. This author seems to believe that America’s superpower status is in danger which is an example of a belief about politics and policy issues.
Ayers makes a great point. “Losing any big, sexy-sounding job title will inevitably deliver a blow to your self-esteem. Yet it can also be liberating.” There will be a day that America will fall out of its super power status, and another country will rise to the top. No power lasts forever. We could go down the list of great empires and nations that rose to the top and fell. Granted, we’re no Roman empire, but there’s a good chance we’ll fall in line with Britain. We’ll maintain a place of power, but we will get to finally get to sit back with our hands in pockets, twiddling our thumbs, with that “who me?” face. Not too bad right? America could stop being the “world police” and stop being the focal point for hate.
The article also points out that even if we’re not the number one country on the planet, it’s not like we’re going to decline into nothing. America can concentrate on other areas of consumer expertise. “Besides, abandoning consumer patriotism is as liberating as no longer being blamed for everything. It’s especially liberating when shopping for an automobile.” (Especially in reference to trouser fire.) Overall, yes, it’s great that America is at the top of the mountain now, but it’s not so bad to fall a few places behind number one.
Connection: We talked in class about how the past policies really take full-scale effect in the future. The super power status that we hold now, is due to the acts of generations before us. Our emergence as a super power lies within joining the World War. We fought to keep that super power as we competed in the Cold War. How will the Bush administration and the future Obama administration effect our world status, say, 40 years from now?
In Response to Annika LaVoie:
Although I think you make an excellent point that by taking away so much focus on being the best, America could become more involved with our own affairs, but I have to disagree that taking away our “super power” status is a good idea. As much as it is hard to live up to, it creates a sense of safeness and strength to warn off other countries from attacking. I mean our location is pretty much a big target, what stops other countries from dropping a large bomb on us? The reason it hasn’t happened is because we put fear into them as being the best. Not only that, but does it really make sense for say a country like China to attack us when we consume and import so many of their products? Face it, we are a consumer nation and a lot of other countries make money off of us. I also disagree with you on the fact that we need to stop knowing what happens in other countries because if Iran decided they were going to nuclear attack us I’m sure our country would want to be aware of their actions. In the end, we are currently still the world’s “super power” and hopefully it stays that way.
I don’t think that the United States will lose its super power status anytime soon. I do agree though, with Rebecca that “No longer being blamed for everything” would be cool even though it probably would come at a great cost. With these superpowers the United States has involved itself in many other countries and their governments, usually swaying or assisting them into what the United States wants. Some countries even come to the United States for help in solving their disputes with other countries because of the power it holds. But as the author pointed out, losing this power could “also be liberating”. Right now for instance it could turn out to be a good thing for the United States with the current situation of the economy. It would give the United States an opportunity to concentrate more on itself and avoid a large economic disaster which is possible at this point. And without the United States getting into other countries business as much, the U.S. would not be able be held responsible for the outcome of the situations. I think that just as it would be liberating for the leaders of the country, it would probably become easier for the average person as well. But whether it is or is not a good thing, the U.S. probably won’t lose its superpower status for quite a while.