Are the Best Days Behind Us?

[Guest American Woman]

I was having wings and beer at the local pub when I saw a newscast about a poll that said 53% of Americans believe that "the best days are behind us." Can't say what the criteria for "the best days" was, but I'm assuming it was a reference to 'the glory days.' So how would I have answered? I think I would have agreed that they are behind us, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The U.S. never asked to be the Super Power of the world. That wasn't the intention behind the actions that made us such; at least not in the beginning, for those who would say otherwise. I don't see my life as being any different if we are, or if we aren't, a Super Power. In some ways I think it would be a relief to hand that title over to someone else, who could then be critiqued the way the U.S. is now critiqued. So the questions then become:

Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

[Michael Hardner]

No... There is just change happening... A lot of it.

Britain isn't the world power it was, but would you say it's best days are behind it?

Would you rather live there in 1899?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see my life as being any different if we are, or if we aren't, a Super Power. In some ways I think it would be a relief to hand that title over to someone else, who could then be critiqued the way the U.S. is now critiqued.

Be careful what you wish for. I would take whatever criticism came at me to have great power. They are just words, tiring yes, but c'mon.

I do believe the best days for the U.S., at least in terms of power within the world, are behind your country. China, India, Brazil etc. are swiftly rising countries relative to the U.S., no small part thanks to the U.S. of course (which boggles my mind), and the years of U.S. hegemony are likely numbered.

Who would it be?

China could be the next superpower, and i could definitely see another bipolar world somewhat similar to the Cold War, though China seems far less concerned with its ideology and spreading "communism" (if you can really call China "communist" anymore) than it is with economics and regional power. The economic dependency the US/China have on each other would make another Cold War situation less likely, but a bipolar world may not be a very good thing, especially since China is a totalitarian state.

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

No. Has there ever been a more stable and secure world since the fall of the USSR? It hasn't been all daisies obviously (no thanks to some of the US's own policies), but i'd take U.S. hegemony over the instability that has come from a bipolar and multipolar world in the past.

However, that is not to say many other Western countries couldn't do as good a job or better as a global hegemonic power than the US.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[guyser]

Good question !

My take is the USA , at some point , will not be the worlds super power. Probably not in my lifetime and I have maybe 20-30 yrs left on this planet. (least i hope not longer...ugh)

But I doubt that there will be any other place that most of the world would want to move to. I dont mean for everyone , for instance you love living there, I love living here , neither of us want to trade although if it came to that we would.

I say the "collective" world still wants to get into the US because it has mythological and practical status as the beacon for hope. (kinda jingoistic huh?)

FOr instance I suspect China and India , at some point , will be huge , in cash, resources,brains etc. But I am not so sure the world will beat a path to its doors a la Ellis Island "give me your poor , your retched".

Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

Better place?

In some ways yes, some ways no. Buyt be careful, a better world doesnt hinge on the US being less dominant.

ETA...for eons to come, everyone will look to the US when the shit hits the fan, regardless of circumstances.Be it calamity, war, insurrection.....but never for hockey. That ones off the table....(cept for the women damn

Edited April 26, 2011 by guyser

[bush_cheney2004]

....Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

Ultimately, this is for America to decide on its own terms, not what the rest of the world would assume or compare with the past, which is already gone no matter what. America's best (and worst) have already been recorded in a history that reaches from Boston, across the planet, to the outermost parts of the solar system. In America, more "best days" are always ahead, because that's why people from around the world keep coming, just as before.

[Bonam]

I was having wings and beer at the local pub when I saw a newscast about a poll that said 53% of Americans believe that "the best days are behind us." Can't say what the criteria for "the best days" was, but I'm assuming it was a reference to 'the glory days.' So how would I have answered? I think I would have agreed that they are behind us, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The U.S. never asked to be the Super Power of the world. That wasn't the intention behind the actions that made us such; at least not in the beginning, for those who would say otherwise. I don't see my life as being any different if we are, or if we aren't, a Super Power. In some ways I think it would be a relief to hand that title over to someone else, who could then be critiqued the way the U.S. is now critiqued. So the questions then become:

Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

An interesting topic of discussion. Certainly, I think the extent of American dominance over world affairs has peaked. It did so in the 90s, right after the fall of the Soviet Union, which made the US the world's lone superpower. It peaked somewhere in the mid 90s, and since then many other nations have been gaining economic power and greater influence within their regions. Really, the 90s period of American global hegemony was historically unprecedented, never before in history had a single nation exerted such power over the entire world. I don't think anyone could/should have expected such an anomaly to last very long.

However, I don't think global military/economic dominance is the main factor to consider for determining whether the days are "best" or not. What determines that is the quality of people's lives, at least in my opinion. And quality of life, at least to the extent that it can be measured quantitatively, is directly tied to technological progress. Technologies free us from menial tasks, allow us to do things that were previously impossible, allow us to communicate more freely with others, access information, extend our lives, increase our productivity, grow our economy, entertain us, etc. And, the US remains the world's leader in technological innovation, and even if it wasn't, it would continue to benefit from innovation around the world due to the global economy which the US created during its period of dominance. In this regard, I think the best days are always ahead of us.

[msj]

Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

If the US were to go down hill (and lets hope not) then:

I'm going to guess a country with a young population and also is not run by a bunch of crazies - this rules out Iran (young but crazy rulers).

I'm also going to guess that having a one-child policy in place is going to wreak havoc with demographics now that it's been in place for 30 years and the country is run by crazies - so, China, buh bye.

So, the winner is ... um, Brazil? I guess.

Would the world be a better place?

F^ck yeah! Bikini's, the beautiful game, everyone speaking Portuguese! It's going to be great.

But seriously, the US is like the Roman Empire around Trajan's days - less than 200 years to get to Constantine! So, lots of promise to come... too bad we gotta go through Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax before we get there!

Ok, glib answers, I admit, but if the question is ....

Edited April 27, 2011 by msj

[eyeball]

...are "the best days" not behind us?

I sure hope the worst one's are.

[WIP]

I was having wings and beer at the local pub when I saw a newscast about a poll that said 53% of Americans believe that "the best days are behind us." Can't say what the criteria for "the best days" was, but I'm assuming it was a reference to 'the glory days.' So how would I have answered? I think I would have agreed that they are behind us, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The U.S. never asked to be the Super Power of the world.

Actually they did! Way back during WWII, FDR and his advisers had already made the calculation that England would not be able to hold on to its empire after the War's end, and the U.S. would take over as the world power. And ever since then the U.S. has spent its way into insolvency on military expenses in order to maintain control of the empire.

[Guest American Woman]

No... There is just change happening... A lot of it.

Britain isn't the world power it was, but would you say it's best days are behind it?

Would you rather live there in 1899?

World power aside, I wouldn't rather live anywhere in 1899; I'm happy living in the time period I am. Progress makes life better, but I don't think that's what the question is in reference to. Also, I was speaking of more than power; I was also thinking of respect, which I can see wasn't clear at all by my initial post. I'm editing to explain further: I'm speaking of being in the position to deserve the respect; of acting in accordance with that respect, and it's not just worldwide respect, but national respect.

Edited April 30, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Be careful what you wish for. I would take whatever criticism came at me to have great power. They are just words, tiring yes, but c'mon.

Really? You wish Canada were more powerful? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. How do you think it would make Canada/your life better if it were to have more power?

I do believe the best days for the U.S., at least in terms of power within the world, are behind your country. China, India, Brazil etc. are swiftly rising countries relative to the U.S., no small part thanks to the U.S. of course (which boggles my mind), and the years of U.S. hegemony are likely numbered.

Since I believe in a balance of power within my country, I believe a balance of power worldwide could be a good thing, ultimately, so I'm interested in knowing what part you think the U.S. played in the rise in power of the countries you've mentioned. I also will add this: I think because the rise to power in those countries is very new, it's therefore impossible to predict the long lasting effects their current rise will have, or how long it will last. It's not unheard of to crash as quickly as one rises.

China could be the next superpower, and i could definitely see another bipolar world somewhat similar to the Cold War, though China seems far less concerned with its ideology and spreading "communism" (if you can really call China "communist" anymore) than it is with economics and regional power. The economic dependency the US/China have on each other would make another Cold War situation less likely, but a bipolar world may not be a very good thing, especially since China is a totalitarian state.

I think the verdict on China is still out, and a good part of why I feel that way is because one cannot clearly define what it is. As you said, is it still communism? The government sure believes it is, and keeps that hold on the country, in spite of their interest in economics. I believe the interest in regional power was always there. But the government is still holding back the people, in spite of the growing economy, which is why so many Chinese still want to emigrate. I think the desire to retain power under communism will eventually clash with the economic desires, and which one wins out will ultimately determine China's fate.

No. Has there ever been a more stable and secure world since the fall of the USSR? It hasn't been all daisies obviously (no thanks to some of the US's own policies), but i'd take U.S. hegemony over the instability that has come from a bipolar and multipolar world in the past.

That's good to hear. To hear them talk, so many from the anti-US camp would cheer anyone else on as long as it meant the U.S. losing power. All of the criticism for the U.S. vs hardly any criticism towards the rising powers makes no sense to me. Seems one would be at least almost as concerned with the rising powers, which is why I asked what I did. I agree with you, btw. I think the world could have had a much worse power to deal with than the U.S., but to hear so many, you'd think there is no more evil entity than the U.S.

However, that is not to say many other Western countries couldn't do as good a job or better as a global hegemonic power than the US.

I've never felt that there weren't other countries who would be "as good" had they found themselves in the position the U.S. is in, but I don't assume that there would be those that would "be better." We've seen the actions of many countries who have been world powers, and none have done better. Furthermore, I think it's impossible to look at a nation that hasn't achieved that status and determine if they would "do better," because I think it takes a certain what-ever (I'm not sure of the word I'm looking for here -- perhaps someone can fill in the blank) to get there, and perhaps that "whatever" is what's often times perceived negatively.

[Guest American Woman]

An interesting topic of discussion. Certainly, I think the extent of American dominance over world affairs has peaked. It did so in the 90s, right after the fall of the Soviet Union, which made the US the world's lone superpower. It peaked somewhere in the mid 90s, and since then many other nations have been gaining economic power and greater influence within their regions. Really, the 90s period of American global hegemony was historically unprecedented, never before in history had a single nation exerted such power over the entire world. I don't think anyone could/should have expected such an anomaly to last very long.

You raise good points. I had never actually thought of it in that way before, but at the same time, because other nations are gaining influence doesn't necessarily mean the U.S. has to be losing influence; in other words, it doesn't mean that they have to necessarily be more influential.

However, I don't think global military/economic dominance is the main factor to consider for determining whether the days are "best" or not.

I agree, and I should have really touched on that. I just took the question to perhaps be pertaining to that idea, though I have no idea what all it entailed. I think, though, a lot of people worldwide perceive it that way, speaking of how our days of glory are over, as if somehow life will never be the same for Americans because of the whole loss of super power/sole super power status. As I said, I saw the feed on tv while in a pub, so I didn't hear any actual discussion about it. It did pique my curiosity, though, and I thought this board might be a good outlet for discussion.

What determines that is the quality of people's lives, at least in my opinion. And quality of life, at least to the extent that it can be measured quantitatively, is directly tied to technological progress. Technologies free us from menial tasks, allow us to do things that were previously impossible, allow us to communicate more freely with others, access information, extend our lives, increase our productivity, grow our economy, entertain us, etc. And, the US remains the world's leader in technological innovation, and even if it wasn't, it would continue to benefit from innovation around the world due to the global economy which the US created during its period of dominance. In this regard, I think the best days are always ahead of us.

I agree that the best days are always ahead of us in that regard. As I said to MH, I'd never desire to live anywhere back in time. We have to presume with all of our problems that life is better now than it was in the past; just the fact that we don't lose our children to illnesses as in the past makes these days "better." Same with technological advances, as you pointed out. It's also true that the world at large could benefit from such advances that take place in other nations, so that's not a real defining issue in regards to the question, yet they don't all have the capacity to do that, or we'd all be living better lives -- and that's just not true of some nations at large. However, it is true of the U.S., as you said.

[Guest American Woman]

If the US were to go down hill (and lets hope not) then:

I'm going to guess a country with a young population and also is not run by a bunch of crazies - this rules out Iran (young but crazy rulers).

I'm also going to guess that having a one-child policy in place is going to wreak havoc with demographics now that it's been in place for 30 years and the country is run by crazies - so, China, buh bye.

So, the winner is ... um, Brazil? I guess.

A lot of people feel that way. And have felt that way for a long time. But now Brazil, according to some, is actually starting to live up to its potential. Will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Would the world be a better place?

F^ck yeah! Bikini's, the beautiful game, everyone speaking Portuguese! It's going to be great.

There are plenty of bikinis in the U.S. You lost me on the "speaking Portuguese" though. Not sure what so great about that.

But seriously, the US is like the Roman Empire around Trajan's days - less than 200 years to get to Constantine! So, lots of promise to come... too bad we gotta go through Caracalla and Maximinus Thrax before we get there!

Ok, glib answers, I admit, but if the question is ....

There was nothing glib about the question. It's a serious question, and those who just want to see the U.S. removed from its position should care as much about the answers as they do about the U.S.

[Guest American Woman]

Good question !

My take is the USA , at some point , will not be the worlds super power. Probably not in my lifetime and I have maybe 20-30 yrs left on this planet. (least i hope not longer...ugh)

"May you live as long as you want to, and want to as long as you live," eh? What more can anyone ask for? I do wonder how the world will have changed when I leave it as opposed to when I entered it, though. I think I will live to see the end of the US being the world's super power. Maybe we'll get past seeing nations that way, even, if there are enough that rise to that status/position/economic power or whatever is involved in perceiving a country as such.

But I doubt that there will be any other place that most of the world would want to move to. I dont mean for everyone , for instance you love living there, I love living here , neither of us want to trade although if it came to that we would.

I agree with you completely, that you want to live there, I want to live here, but if I have to say, if I had to live anywhere else, it would be Canada. I wouldn't have to think twice about that. As for the idea that there will never be another place that most people want to move to, not so sure I agree with you there. People most often, I think, want to live somewhere based on the perception of said country, so if there is another country that is perceived as having better opportunities, or does in reality have better opportunities, I see that as becoming the country of choice.

I say the "collective" world still wants to get into the US because it has mythological and practical status as the beacon for hope. (kinda jingoistic huh?)

Ok. So we're really basically saying the same thing, right?

FOr instance I suspect China and India , at some point , will be huge , in cash, resources,brains etc. But I am not so sure the world will beat a path to its doors a la Ellis Island "give me your poor , your retched".

Ok. Now I'm beginning to better understand what you're saying, and I'm starting to think you may be right. There is more to the life one desires to live than economic opportunity, much more.

Better place?

In some ways yes, some ways no. Buyt be careful, a better world doesnt hinge on the US being less dominant.

No, it doesn't. You're right. That comment/question was more in reaction to how all the world's problems are so often blamed on/traced back to the U.S.

ETA...for eons to come, everyone will look to the US when the shit hits the fan, regardless of circumstances.Be it calamity, war, insurrection.....but never for hockey. That ones off the table....(cept for the women damn

Tue. But don't be too sure about the hockey thing.

[Guest American Woman]

Ultimately, this is for America to decide on its own terms, not what the rest of the world would assume or compare with the past, which is already gone no matter what. America's best (and worst) have already been recorded in a history that reaches from Boston, across the planet, to the outermost parts of the solar system. In America, more "best days" are always ahead, because that's why people from around the world keep coming, just as before.

I agree. It is ultimately for America to decide, but I think part of it is the worldwide perception. Perhaps I'm wrong. As I've already stated, I have no idea what criteria the question was based on, but raised the issue in regards to the criteria which came to my mind. In some regards, it's obvious that the "best days" are ahead of us; we are certainly going to progress rather than digress, for example. It all depends on the criteria one bases such a judgement on, which is one of the reasons I thought it would be an interesting topic of discussion; and I do appreciate the responses and the "food for thought" I've been given as a result.

[Guest American Woman]

Actually they did! Way back during WWII, FDR and his advisers had already made the calculation that England would not be able to hold on to its empire after the War's end, and the U.S. would take over as the world power. And ever since then the U.S. has spent its way into insolvency on military expenses in order to maintain control of the empire.

Do you have evidence of that? Seems to me that after WWII FDR and his advisors made the calculation that England would not be able to rebuild Europe alone in spite of its power after the war's end, and acted accordingly. I don't recall the desire to become the world's lone super power as the goal/reason for getting involved. Seems some always dismiss the good that the U.S. has done in such a manner. As for what the U.S. has done since then, it's often been at the request/expectations of other nations. The damned if we do, damned if we don't attitude often prevails.

Edited April 30, 2011 by American Woman

[Bob]

I suspect that some people's ideas of what the best days should look like differ from those of others. Some people, many Americans includes, loathe American influence and power. They openly wish for and work towards diluting American influence and power. I don't know, it's an interesting question but it is very broad in scope. I'm not really sure where to begin addressing it. It's been the subject of many books and lectures and articles over the past few years, though.

This question also connects to issues of "internationalism", as I think the movement to lessen American power and influence (i.e. Obama) will continue the progression of American decline - unemployment, a non-adaptive economy, growing government redundancy, poor educational performance, growing debts and deficits, overextended military engagements with poor planning, weak foreign policy, high rates of divorce, high rates of crime, obesity, etc. As has already been said, Americans will decide for themselves their own destiny. Let's just hope for the best.

[Guest American Woman]

I suspect that some people's ideas of what the best days should look like differ from those of others.

Oh, I agree. Yet we measure things by such subjective criteria all the time. This country has the best standard of living, this one is most desirable to live in, this one is happiest, etc. That's one of the reasons I started this thread, to get different views and ideas of what would even be considered in regards to answering the question.

Some people, many Americans includes, loathe American influence and power. They openly wish for and work towards diluting American influence and power. I don't know, it's an interesting question but it is very broad in scope. I'm not really sure where to begin addressing it. It's been the subject of many books and lectures and articles over the past few years, though.

It is a broad question, but people usually have opinions regarding what they base such criteria on, and that's what I was looking for.

This question also connects to issues of "internationalism", as I think the movement to lessen American power and influence (i.e. Obama) will continue the progression of American decline - unemployment, a non-adaptive economy, growing government redundancy, poor educational performance, growing debts and deficits, overextended military engagements with poor planning, weak foreign policy, high rates of divorce, high rates of crime, obesity, etc. As has already been said, Americans will decide for themselves their own destiny. Let's just hope for the best.

Citizens don't always "decide" what happens down the road; sometimes it's lack of insight, lack on knowledge (hindsight is 20/20), lack of the will to do anything about it. I'm speaking in absolutes, here. For example, young people haven't "decided their own destiny" regarding the availability, or lack thereof, of Social Security when they get to retirement age, and it remains to see where that program will be at, how much resources are available, at that time.

[Bob]

I'd say the indicators thus far as bad for the best days being ahead for the USA. America has a massive total debt and deficit. Unemployment is high. Many jobs are being replaced by lower-paying jobs. Salaries are not growing in line with inflation. There's a massive illegal immigration problem. In my view, American leadership for many years, including Obama of course, seems unwilling to address any of these problems boldly. There are also a lot of social problems - high rates of crime, leftist academia, stupid pop culture, etc... I'm sure the resident Americans in here can offer better insights into the problems they feel are threatening their country.

Despite all that, I still view America as arguably the best country in the world to live in (in a general sense, of course). I hope America can reverse track and realign itself with its basic principles, but I'm not so sure. It looks like the progression of American decline continues.

[dre]

I was having wings and beer at the local pub when I saw a newscast about a poll that said 53% of Americans believe that "the best days are behind us." Can't say what the criteria for "the best days" was, but I'm assuming it was a reference to 'the glory days.' So how would I have answered? I think I would have agreed that they are behind us, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The U.S. never asked to be the Super Power of the world. That wasn't the intention behind the actions that made us such; at least not in the beginning, for those who would say otherwise. I don't see my life as being any different if we are, or if we aren't, a Super Power. In some ways I think it would be a relief to hand that title over to someone else, who could then be critiqued the way the U.S. is now critiqued. So the questions then become:

Who would it be?

Would the world be a better place than it is now?

Or are "the best days" not behind us?

I find the link between those two things dubious. I dont think being a super power has anything to do with it. My guess is that most people would characterize the "glory days" as the time when the US was a brand new modern country with lots of jobs, increasing wages, a strong economy and currency and a large and growing middle class. The days prior to the global commoditization of labor, and the corporate take-over of government.

[kimmy]

The days prior to the global commoditization of labor, and the corporate take-over of government.

...and out of control public debt, and rising tuition and housing and fuel costs, and environmental hysteria...

-k

[bloodyminded]

Seems one would be at least almost as concerned with the rising powers

Yes, rationally, of course.

I've never felt that there weren't other countries who would be "as good" had they found themselves in the position the U.S. is in, but I don't assume that there would be those that would "be better."

It's sheer speculation, I suppose, but I see no reason to suppose others would magically behave better.

[WIP]

Do you have evidence of that? Seems to me that after WWII FDR and his advisors made the calculation that England would not be able to rebuild Europe alone in spite of its power after the war's end, and acted accordingly.

It's a point I've heard historians toss around that is based on memoirs of the people who were supposedly in the know during the War years. I don't know if it is based on fact or mostly hear-say, so I'm not going to plant a flag on it. The point was that the rivalry among the Allies wasn't just U.S. & England vs. Soviet Union, but that for all of the things that united England and America, there was still an issue over whether England would resume its position as the world military and economic superpower after the War, or whether the U.S. would - discreetly as possible - make sure that England was permanently saddled with enough debt so that they would be forced to divest themselves of their colonial empire...which was the source of England's power.

I don't know where the line between fact and conspiracy theory could be drawn here, but I am inclined to believe that the U.S. wanted England to be strong enough after the War to help counter the sudden emergence of the Soviet Union, but not powerful enough to resume their position of Number 1.

I don't recall the desire to become the world's lone super power as the goal/reason for getting involved. Seems some always dismiss the good that the U.S. has done in such a manner. As for what the U.S. has done since then, it's often been at the request/expectations of other nations. The damned if we do, damned if we don't attitude often prevails.

My personal education on U.S. foreign policy began about 20 years ago when I struck up a friendship with new neighbours in our old neighbourhood, who were originally from Guatemala. It was our kids that brought us together; but after some time when small talk discussions with the old man went on to more serious topics, I learned about his personal experience of growing up in a northern Guatemala Mayan village, until soldiers and mercenaries of the Reagan-backed government of Ephraim Rios Montt started a campaign of genocide to clear out the villages for refusing to help the Government fight the rebels against the land-owners they labeled as the "Communists." Like many of the Mayans, they were forced to flee across the border into Mexico and become permanent refugees. In our media, the whole drama was portrayed by the Reagan Administration and State Dept. officials as just one more front on the war against Communism. In short, the whole thing...like many other Latin American wars...was a fraud. Your Government, which...through Republican and Democratic leadership...continually claims to be spreading democracy throughout the world, was once again supporting the aristocrats and landed gentry of a typical third world nation against the will of the majority of people...and that is at the heart of why so much of the rest-of-the-world has a negative view of America. It is not as simple as "jealousy" or "they hate us for our freedom", and similar blather. Here in Canada, those may be the sources of whatever anti-Americanism pops up; since most of it is tied with insecurity over identity by Canadian nationalist wannabees....but that's not what's at the heart of anti-Americanism in most of the world.

The U.S. economic colonial empire operates in exactly the same way that the British, French, Italians and Portuguese operated in their colonies....except for actually planting the flag on their soil, the pattern is to take local despots and potentates under their wing, and wherever possible, make it possible for one minority group in the colony to control the majority population. So, in Guatemala, they supported the small Spanish mestizo land owners against the Mayan majority, just as the French selected the Alawite minority in Syria to run their colony...which is still clinging to power, or the Belgians put the minority Tutsi tribes in control of the majority Hutus in their central African colonies, England put the Sunni's in charge of the Shias in Iraq and used the Maharajas to carry out their agendas in India etc. Democracies can be unpredicable, and the U.S. has, and is STILL following the pattern of preferring the reliable dictator and the local aristocrats over the will of the majorities.

[Moonlight Graham]

Really? You wish Canada were more powerful? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity. How do you think it would make Canada/your life better if it were to have more power?

I was actually just taking about me personally, i'd take criticism to have great power. But i suppose that goes for Canada as well. Canada has a sweet deal as it is, where the U.S. takes most of the hits due to its power and how it acts on it, yet Canada reaps most of the benefits as well. But i would like Canada to be the global superpower. The power the U.S. has in countless areas is insane, so it would be nice to have a bit more of a personal say in that.

Since I believe in a balance of power within my country, I believe a balance of power worldwide could be a good thing, ultimately, so I'm interested in knowing what part you think the U.S. played in the rise in power of the countries you've mentioned. I also will add this: I think because the rise to power in those countries is very new, it's therefore impossible to predict the long lasting effects their current rise will have, or how long it will last. It's not unheard of to crash as quickly as one rises.

Well obviously the rise of China, India etc. can reverse just like any other country. Can't predict the future, but things seem to being going in a certain direction. The US, not to mention virtually all other industrialized countries, have helped drive the rise of these China, India etc. because we export jobs/business to them and are significant in their growing economies.

I think the verdict on China is still out, and a good part of why I feel that way is because one cannot clearly define what it is. As you said, is it still communism? The government sure believes it is, and keeps that hold on the country, in spite of their interest in economics.

I don't think it's communism much at all. It's really only in name. It's largely capitalist with a totalitarian dictatorship.

That's good to hear. To hear them talk, so many from the anti-US camp would cheer anyone else on as long as it meant the U.S. losing power. All of the criticism for the U.S. vs hardly any criticism towards the rising powers makes no sense to me. Seems one would be at least almost as concerned with the rising powers, which is why I asked what I did. I agree with you, btw. I think the world could have had a much worse power to deal with than the U.S., but to hear so many, you'd think there is no more evil entity than the U.S.

I am very concerned with China as a rising power, because of the nature of its government. To not be would be nuts. The US gets a bum rap for sure. It deserves a good deal of the criticism pointed at it, and this is a healthy thing to help keep it in check. But it is not appreciated how lucky the world is to have the US as the superpower hegemon. People, for whatever reason, don't think about the alternatives. What would the world be like is the USSR won the Cold War? One could name off 100 countries easily that would be a nightmare as the lone superpower compared to the US. We should all be VERY grateful that the US is in the position it is.

At the same time, people will and should criticize the US because of the influence of its actions on the rest of the world, and the US is far from perfect. The biggest car in the parking lot gets the most bird shit, right?

I've never felt that there weren't other countries who would be "as good" had they found themselves in the position the U.S. is in, but I don't assume that there would be those that would "be better." We've seen the actions of many countries who have been world powers, and none have done better.

Yeah, who knows. I'm sure some other western countries would do worse, some maybe better. Impossible to know.

Furthermore, I think it's impossible to look at a nation that hasn't achieved that status and determine if they would "do better," because I think it takes a certain what-ever (I'm not sure of the word I'm looking for here -- perhaps someone can fill in the blank) to get there, and perhaps that "whatever" is what's often times perceived negatively.

Balls. The word you're looking for is "balls".

[Bonam]

I was actually just taking about me personally, i'd take criticism to have great power. But i suppose that goes for Canada as well. Canada has a sweet deal as it is, where the U.S. takes most of the hits due to its power and how it acts on it, yet Canada reaps most of the benefits as well. But i would like Canada to be the global superpower. The power the U.S. has in countless areas is insane, so it would be nice to have a bit more of a personal say in that.

I'm not sure I'd agree. The US bears a heavy burden to be the superpower that it is. It spends a far larger portion of its resources on its military than we do, imposing a heavy tax/debt burden. And, Americans are often the first (or second after Israelis) targets of extremists and violent acts all around the world. Furthermore, every male over 18 still has to register for the draft.

I don't put a lot of value on having a "say" in US foreign policy, its actions will be the same whether I get to contribute one vote in some particular voting district in the US or not.

I would agree with you that Canada has a far sweeter deal, the US shoulders the burden, and yet we reap most of the same benefits that the US does. Pretty much the only thing we miss out on that I care about is having a large domestic military aerospace industry where I'd get to work on cutting edge projects.