Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/10/11/declining-american-hegemony-could-be-good-thing
the only positive thing he might be held responsible for and only by accident. cannot wait till he leaves thru the virus or the vote! white house needs to be disinfected on so many levels when he and his gang of thugs are escorted out.
As the “greatest generation” disappears (Do people understand that some of these young men stood about cheering during lynchings before they entered the armed forces?), the perception that the US stands for democracy, peace and justice vanishes. That is why everyone loves WWII so much–the one “good” war in which we rode in on the white horses and set things right (except it wasn’t that simple). Now everyone knows what we really stand for: brutal armed encounters in the service of corporate America.
“Armed encounters”? “Encounters”?
This is an important discussion that has been in the Progressive vision for a long time. It is past time to get the word out as more and more catch on to how Fox “News” and the messaging that preceded it lied them into wars of empire at the expense of internal peace and success. “Let’s give Peace a chance and let it begin with me.”
then Trump has been a boon to those wishing the more rapid dismantling of the American empire.
Biden will almost certainly install more competent viceroys to slow this sucker down, even as he likely restores better table manners to the WH.
This fundamental contradiction is what makes these elections so problematic. Does style matter so much we’re willing to extend the life of the imperial death rattle so we can feel more “civilized”?
80% of boomers got us here.
Their grandchildren will be working hard for 30 years
to rebuild America.
It starts at the ballot box, not the vigilante bullet.
I don’t think there is any question that declining American hegemony will be of benefit, not only to the rest of the world, but most people in the United States too.
There is only a very small segment - the corporate elite - that benefit from American hegemony. We as a people need to join with the rest of the world and ending American hegemonic power is a step that will better permit that.
Typhiod Trump is a nationalist and an isolationist------what the US could have done??? But people went with greed-----who is filling this void----China with it’s social control-----we are entering the BRAVE NEW WORLD.
Orangeman is simply my special enemy as an Earthling, at the moment. Kinda simplifies all that “problematical” part for me: I’m not even identifying as a US American at all, and I could readily agree this empire certainly deserves whatever Karma has to hand out for it, in terms of the requisite doses of chaos and suffering to… to what? Teach us a lesson? We already know, if we’re awake: certain remarkably outstanding enemies of Life on Earth – historic paragons of evil, by any measure – aren’t really difficult at all to identify. And I do happen to be an Earthling. Not all that complicated, imho.
Better the US as hegemon than China.
That is a problem with the article, for sure. To think that China and Russia are not going to be stepping in to take our place is naïve. That being said, I would love us to have a chance to become a Democratic Socialist country with the needs of people being paramount.
Curious as to your reasoning on that? How about no hegemon?
I’m fine with no hegemon, but the ruling and owner classes in China and the US, and perhaps Russia, are the ones you need to convince. I say “better the US” because it’s not quite as bad here as it is (and has been for centuries) in China.
Yeah, well how many countries has China bombed, invaded and/or sanctioned in the last 30 years?
We at least potentially have the power to change what the US oligarchs do. We have no such power with the Chinese oligarchs.
If you have a skill of some kind, I’m sure they’d invite you in to work there, so you could go there and check it out. Be sure to check out the socioeconomic stratum that represents the lowest of the working class.
That does not change the fact that China is NOT putting its military in 120+ Countries and bombing any country they deem “stepped out of line”. Nor Is Russia.
The Coups in Bolivia and Guatemala , the sanctions On Iran and Venezuela , the invasions of Libya and Iraq , were not done by China and Russia.
China and Russia do not have military bases in Mexico.
The Word Hegemony does not translate to what a given Country does to its people domestically. The term hegemony is what one state does to another state so as to dominate it and dictate its policy.
Rome was a Hegemony. The British Empire was a Hegemony. The British Empire claiming Hong Kong as its own made it a Hegemony. If China claimed the jersey Islands as Chinese and part of its empire, then that would have made it a hegemony.
Russia has enough problems controlling its own territory. They cut loose from Eastern Europe and from all of those Stans along their Southern Frontier for that very reason. The only reason they went into Syria is because the USA started meddling there.
China uses Investment into a given Countries infrastructure so as to maintain an influence over the same. They really do not care what sort of Governments are in place in the same and make no demands as the type of Government those Countries can have , unlike the USA.
Through out its Thousands of years of History China rarely tried to expand beyond their natural borders. Unlike the Romans , or the French or the British or the Americans they did not plant Colonies all over the world and claim them as part of their Empire. They have always been insular in that regard. There were brief periods of time where they may have done so but this to establish trading Colonies moreso then it was to exert Political control as the USA does.
This a comparion of the largest Chinese Empire (the Qing Dynasty) to the british. Note how the British Control territory and peoples not even close to their borders.
The claim that “If we do not do this XXXX will” has always been the cry of Imperialists. The British Empire claimed if they did not take India the french would, if they did not take Kenya, The Germans would and so on. It is called Empire speak and members of that given empire always buy into it.
It also why the USA spends 1.2 trillion on arms a year. They use THAT language to justify it.
“it is very likely that the declining global hegemony of the United States will be an opportunity to build better lives everywhere…”
Yes, everywhere but here. I fear the consequences of the sociopaths focusing their attention - military - towards the increasingly irritable and dysfunctional “Homeland”.
Q: how do we have any power to change what the u.s. oligarchs do?
(LOTE voting does not count as an answer)