The Fading Superpower
by Tom Trumpinski • Mar 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 am • 11 comments
Immanuel Wallerstein has an excellent piece on the 180-degree change of the Bush administration in its approach to North Korea. It is becoming more and more obvious to the world that the way to get respect from Washington is to develop a nuclear capability.
Because of the morass in Iraq, it has become more and more clear to our opponents (and allies) that we can no longer adequately project our power on a global scale. What this portends has yet to be played out, but it bodes ill for foreign relations over the next decade.
Tom
Comment by J. Prescott on 2 March 2007 at 3:12 pm:
Fading superpower, or need to evolve superpower?
The advantages that we have militarily have not gone away…you can make an argument that they are slightly curtailed, but Iraq showed that we can still “shock and awe” with the best of them. What Iraq and the past 6 years have shown that in conventional warfare we are still number one. Yes, I still think we could take China, even given their manpower and technology jump. And, no, I am not forgetting Korea, because in general we fought with our hands tied behind our back. And, yes, I know about how bad it is in Iraq, but most of it is due to us (rightly) holding back in what we are doing. (See Ralph Peters, http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/the_roots_of_to.html, and background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters.)
This is not the decline of a superpower, unless we allow it. We still have a hell of a hand. Not we need to quit whining and come up with comprehensive solutions that involve something more than just pontificating.
Comment by erik on 2 March 2007 at 3:48 pm:
Has anyone read any of Chalmers Johnsons’s Blowback trilogy? the final book just came out:
http://tinyurl.com/23rzg6
chalmers was a cia worker during the cold war who became disillusioned by american empire after the fall of the ussr. the first book, “blowback” was regarded as somewhat prophetic regarding 911 (although no doubt many other predicted similar consequences). the other two books are called “the sorrows of empire” and most recently “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic.” i’ve been meaning to read all three, but haven’t.
another book that i would recommend is ellen meiksins-wood’s empire of capital… because i’d like to hear a non-marxist’s critique, debunking or reaction to what seems to me a watertight case.
as usual please spare me the typical conflations of marxism with stalinism, trotskyism, maoism, castroism etc unless you are willing to let me associate all capitalism with agusto pinochet.
Comment by kofi the there is no excuse on 4 March 2007 at 2:40 am:
Thread hijack:
The other day Brian threw a bit of a fit over something that may not have been homophobic, may not have been hateful, and was apparently improperly attributed to a particular individual. I gave him (and will continue to give) a lot of shit because he ripped down blog postings and refused to publicly apologize or address the issue of unnecessary ultra-sensitivity. That said, this evening I will gladly carry Brian’s flag and rally against truly hateful comments.
In a video that was recently linked on the Drudge Report, Ann Coulter spouted hate and filth that can not be defended or justified. She was apparently speaking to the American Conservative Union and her comment received a shameful round of applause. It was despicable. It was wrong. It should not be tolerated.
Coulter makes her living with inflammatory and controversial commentary. I don’t often agree with her but respect her right to speak. Nonetheless, in this particular situation she has clearly stepped over the line.
Brian, this is the sort of speech that you should be expending your energy to combat. And this is the sort of speech that I will steadfastly stand next to you to oppose.
Comment by Karen Pierce on 4 March 2007 at 2:50 pm:
I agree with you about Ann Coulter, Kofi. After reading through the Statement of Principles of the ACU, I found I could agree with most of them. But I would be embarrassed to be associated with someone like Ann Coulter. The Republican party should realize they could gain people like me if they would lose people like her. The applauding of the audience was sickening. I wish other members of the ACU would speak out and say they were disgusted by her statement.
I don’t know about the postings Brian removed. If they were the ones where someone outed someone else, that would seem like a valid reason to remove them. I wouldn’t remove statements like Ann Coulter’s, though. If someone makes statements like those, the rest of you should overwhelmingly speak out against them. Fight bad speech with good speech.
Comment by tet on 5 March 2007 at 9:51 am:
Bah, put me down on the pro-slur side. This is a tempest in a teapot that’s going to get Ann Coulter lots and lots of publicity.
You really think World Net Daily is going to stop running her stuff because of this? How about Fox?
By giving her this kind of attention, you’re impowering her, when what people should be talking about is Edwards’s belief that government is the answer to our problems. THAT’S the danger to our freedoms, not Ann’s satirical use of the term “faggot”.
Did you get the context?
She said, “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
I cannot deny the truth of that statement, and the cries of outrage from the left (and Kofi) just emphasize to me the fact that the freedom of speech that I fought for, low these 35 years ago is gone forever.
It doesn’t look to me that Edwards has orgasms while having sex with men. It looks to me that he probably does while thinking of ways to steal my money in taxes and use it to “improve” the world.
I hate that.
Tom
Comment by tet on 5 March 2007 at 12:30 pm:
I was just in the Illini Union over lunch and I passed a guy with an orange-and-blue T-shirt that read, “Ann Coulter is a whore.”
Now, see, THAT’S how you do it–you reply in a way that’s equally insulting, but very funny.
That puts you on the high ground by showing that you’ve got a sense of humor about things and eliminates the usual “strident cries” of the terminally wronged.
After all, as Abbie Hoffman was quick to point out, we did a lot of work to give ourselves “the right to yell ‘Burning Theatre’ in a fire.”
Kudos to the t-shirt designer.
Tom
Comment by kofi the kofi is a whore on 5 March 2007 at 1:31 pm:
I’m confused, Tom. I don’t think I or Karen suggested Ann should not be free to say what she said. What have we done so far? We’ve publicly said that we think what she said was wrong. We’ve said that we think those who applauded were wrong. We never said she should be legally prohibited from saying what she said. I don’t believe that I am abridging freedom of speech by saying I disagree with Ann Coulter. I may use more words and lack the humor of a t-shirt, but the message is essentially the same isn’t it?
Comment by tet on 5 March 2007 at 1:55 pm:
See, Kofi, what she said was a backhanded slap at Edwards, but if you look closely, the main comment was one on freedom of speech.
She implied that the lovely Mr. Edwards might be gay, but that was not the gist of her joke. The gist was that she would no longer be free to comment on it in a contemptuous manner even if he was.
If Amy Poeller said this on Saturday Night Live or Stephen Colbert on his program (hell, even if Carlos Mencia said it, for the most part) nobody’d say a word. Ann’s the target because she’s a right-wing slattern.
Therefore, in the hope of some right-wing slattern in the audience giving me a tumble (Ann, this means you), I say “speak what you will, all political speech is protected.”
Personally, I’d just call Edwards a pretty boy and a wuss, but the latter is characteristic of so many men nowadays, it’s hardly a distinguishing feature.
Tom
Comment by Brian on 5 March 2007 at 6:04 pm:
No, Tom, the gist of her joke was that people would think there was something wrong with her if she used the epithet “faggot” to describe a former Senator and current candidate for the President of the United States. Her implication is that this widespread conclusion would be bad, perhaps a symptom of the hyper-political correctness that you are referring to.
You can agree with this, but it flies in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary. She DID use the epithet “faggot” to describe a former Senator and current candidate for President of the United States (she actually has done this twice, once before when Al Gore was running for President), and on neither occasion has anybody called for any kind of punitive treatment except the kind that is fully within the bounds of the first amendment–indeed, exactly the kind that you are calling for: fighting bad speech with good.
Show me ONE member of this mythical PC police you and others are always alluding to when these sorts of things happen. All I’ve heard from anybody on the subject is people saying Ann Coulter’s a hateful moron who doesn’t deserve our attention.
Comment by Professor Doctor on 5 March 2007 at 10:52 pm:
In the marketplace of ideas, all Coulter’s goods are rotten. If this leads to being dropped from wherever she works, this doesn’t have a thing to do with suppressing free speech. It’s about private media outlets and political caucuses deciding who they’re going to give a microphone to. This is simply the moment where people can no longer shrug and say “Ann is Ann”, or some other such euphemism. There are limits to the discourse in American politics, and they have nothing to do with the failure of our constitutional rights. Coulter may as well have dropped the n-bomb.
Comment by tet on 6 March 2007 at 8:48 am:
PD, there should not be any limits on political discourse unless the discourse causes MEASUREABLE damage like slander and libel. You’re wrong in that respect.
Ann is in no economic danger from the PC police because she, fortunately for her, works (at the moment) for people who are interested in protecting her rights.
I find it astonishing (or perhaps not) that conservatives are even rushing to abandon her. I guess this is just another reason for me to be happy that I do not include myself within their number.
In order to demonstrate the existence and power of the PC police in the real world, I only have to say two little words:
Lawrence Summers.
[You know, I spent five or six years being called a faggot when I worked in the factory because of my waist-length hair (and my tendency to harass and call the cops on guys waiting outside gay bars to bash dudes.) I also was called a Polack or a Lugan damn near every day when I was a schoolboy.
I find the power that you young folks allow words to have over you to be just amazing. Ain't you ever heard the old saying about "sticks and stones...?"]
Tom