Will US dominance on the international stage grow or shrink in the 21st century?

[Tinfoil Hater]

Pure speculation- but what do you think- will the US continue to be the worlds leading superpower and leader in all areas for the rest of the world this century, or will the US collapse and fragment like the Soviet union?

 

[acbytesla]

Pure speculation- but what do you think- will the US continue to be the worlds leading superpower and leader in all areas for the rest of the world this century, or will the US collapse and fragment like the Soviet union?

We will continue as a significant power, but our power will wane. And even though things are ugly with TrumpTurd at the helm, I am cautiously optimistic that the nation won't break apart.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Short Term - Trump has hurt us, but not to the point we can't recover.
Mid Term - Somewhat, but not to the point that we still aren't a major player.
Long Term - I think "Nation State" will not remain the most useful way to categorize the clustering of power.

 

[Minoosh]

Pure speculation- but what do you think- will the US continue to be the worlds leading superpower and leader in all areas for the rest of the world this century, or will the US collapse and fragment like the Soviet union?

No, it won't continue for the rest of the century but that doesn't mean the U.S. will collapse or fragment, either. It will gradually get less relevant to the future.

 

[psionl0]

Pure speculation- but what do you think- will the US continue to be the worlds leading superpower and leader in all areas for the rest of the world this century, or will the US collapse and fragment like the Soviet union?

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Loss of dominance on the international stage does not mean that the US will "collapse and fragment like the Soviet union".

 

[SezMe]

Long Term - I think "Nation State" will not remain the most useful way to categorize the clustering of power.

Yep. It will be Google country or Amazon country or ExxonMobile country, etc. and "country" won't connote physical space but market space. The concept of a nation state is on the decline.

 

[Upchurch]

We will continue as a significant power, but our power will wane. And even though things are ugly with TrumpTurd at the helm, I am cautiously optimistic that the nation won't break apart.

I largely agree with this, except I think Trump's abdicating of US leadership in the world won't likely be fully regained. We've lost a lot of clout and respect under Trump.

 

[theprestige]

Does the rest of the world actually want the US to have "clout and respect"? I get the impression they don't. I get the impression the rest of the world would be quite happy if the US downsized its military to the point where China could dominate the SCS and its bordering nations uncontested. If Russia were left in possession of the world's only remaining MAD arsenal. If the US economy and industrial output were reduced to something ineffectual in the global economy, and if whatever wealth remained were used solely to help fund "humanitarian" programs at the UN's discretion. If the US stopped producing culture, or at least stopped exporting it.

 

[Upchurch]

Does the rest of the world actually want the US to have "clout and respect"? I get the impression they don't.

Yay, Trump for conforming to the world's needs for the US to be utterly adequate!

I get the impression the rest of the world would be quite happy if the US downsized its military to the point where China could dominate the SCS and its bordering nations uncontested.

What in the world did you base that impression on?

 

[theprestige]

Yay, Trump for conforming to the world's needs for the US to be utterly adequate!

I don't know if I'd celebrate. Obama campaigned (and administered) in part on the principle of greater deference to the wishes and preferences of other countries. About that, I have mixed feelings.

That process has accelerated under Trump, and I have mixed feelings about that, as well.

But whatever. If the world needs the US to stop acting so much like a world leader, then the world probably shouldn't complain when they get what they need.

What in the world did you base that impression on?

Body of work. I think the general idea in Europe is about 80% the Arsenal of Democracy should sit down, shut up, and wait for its betters to call it into action; and about 20% who needs the Arsenal of Democracy anyway?

 

[Upchurch]

Body of work.

Okay, what body of work?

 

[BadBoy]

Okay, what body of work?

This is not another Stormy Daniels thread.

 

[kellyb]

I need to know the very specific particulars about what "dominance on the international stage" actually means in order to begin to answer.

 

[Loss Leader]

We'll shrink in importance as the rest of the world catches up to us. World War II gave us a pretty big boost, but China can't stay down forever. And if Europe ever gets its act together and really unifies, we'll be tied for second at best.

 

[Horatius]

Short Term - Trump has hurt us, but not to the point we can't recover.

The problem is, your "recovery", when it comes to international relations, at least, is not entirely in your hands. What electing Trump has done is show the world that the US electorate simply can't be trusted. No matter who they elect in any given term, they just might go insane and elect another Trump later.

And Trump has made it clear that, in the long term, no agreements with the US can be trusted. The US, Canada and Mexico have been doing well under NAFTA for 20 years now, but it might all get tossed away in a Trumpian fit of pique, or in an attempt to pander to his base. So, Canada and Mexico are looking to diversify their trading partners, so we won't be as vulnerable when Trump II is elected. And we're not likely to change that plan just because you take a few terms to elect Trump II.

It's a lot easier to lose trust than to build it, and the effects of Trump on how much people outside the US trust the US will linger far longer than he will.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah yeah yeah Trump has broken it so we can't go back. So did Obama. So did Bush. So did Clinton. So did the other Bush. So did Reagan. So did Carter.

The current President in power is always dar worst evar who's ruining everything according to somebody.

 

[Horatius]

Yeah yeah yeah Trump has broken it so we can't go back. So did Obama. So did Bush. So did Clinton. So did the other Bush. So did Reagan. So did Carter.

The current President in power is always dar worst evar who's ruining everything according to somebody.

Actually, no.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/12/18/global-public-opinion-in-the-bush-years-2001-2008/

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15367684/trump-world-leadership-gallup-poll/


Bush took a long time to get down to 34% favorable rating, and even that took two unpopular wars and a major economic crisis, and Obama was able to reverse most of that trend in only one year.

Trump is, after only one year, at a lower point than Bush ever got to. This is qualitatively and quantitatively different, and he's got another 3 years (at least) to make it go even lower. Trump really isn't the "same-old, same-old" problem.

 

[kellyb]

Does "dominance on the international stage" refer to popularity according to international polls?

 

[Horatius]

Does "dominance on the international stage" refer to popularity according to international polls?

Unless you're willing to invade or nuke people who don't go along with you, then yes, pretty much. The less people like/trust you, the less likely they are to value you as a trading partner or military ally.

We're already seeing greater efforts by other countries to form trade pacts that either exclude the US entirely, or place them at a lower tier of importance. Do you think this will stop if Trump's popularity continues to fall?

Once the North American Free Trade Agreement is replaced by the Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement ("Mexi-Can!" for short ), how likely do you think it is that we'll go back to the old agreement?

We've also see it in some rumblings about the EU countries working more closely together for defense. Once they no longer need (or want) US forces on site in Europe, will they turn around and invite the US back?

 

[theprestige]

We've also see it in some rumblings about the EU countries working more closely together for defense. Once they no longer need (or want) US forces on site in Europe, will they turn around and invite the US back?

One wonders what Russia will do, once Europe's security is no longer underwritten by an American guarantee of mutually assured destruction. There's a reason the proxy conflicts of the Cold War never expanded into Western Europe.