The Fonts of American Power and preserving American hegemony

good stuff.

i had to change some of my votes (pre-submit) because i thought at first you were referring to hegemony within american government.

i feel that bush has weakened america but that he wasnt the start of that weakening. i believe that an increasingly wrongheaded philosophy of corporate government or, fascism, if you will, led to the ability of bush to follow through on some of his worst ideas.

aside from that, i agree that his policies and approach to foreign policy are largely to blame.

but i dont see the relative peace of the cold war as a period of stability. rather, i see it as a time of intense but smaller warfare and intense separation of powers. as the empire subsided, they were replaced with violent instability and, to the extent that america's corporate interests and our govt's support/encouragement/involvement in those interests, we did not help build a stable world for the 21st century. this is the system that also allowed bush to take power and to exercise the extension of that power.

so i think we agree on nearly every point, just that our interpretation might be a bit different. but i appreciate this analysis and hope it gets votes.

If anyone question's America's hegemony, they are simply flat out wrong- we are the world hyperpower, hands down. That being said, America must utilize its hyperpower status for the world's good, and not use it to make the world its @!$%#.

I am British and our culture has been hugely influenced by American culture, most things i watch on tv are American (i can watch fox but i don't, i watch CNN or BBC News) and most the brands i buy are American. I don't mind that and i don't mind American hegemony as long as it doesn't subvert other cultures and abuse others. I am now bothered by American hegemony because it is waning, its like a bird that i don't mind being near me but then as it gets scared it flaps about and maybe bashes into me (weird analogy but an accurate one) and that is whats happening to America. As it loses power it flaps about bombing such and such and doing the opposite of its people's peaceful intentions.

I believe what is best is a co-operative multi-polar world. One where the EU integrates further and acts as partner not a counterweight to disgree with everything the US does. One where India overtakes China (because India is democratic and free) and assumes the same role as the US and the EU and also a world where the UN is reformed and becomes stronger to regulate the actions of nations properly and effectively.

Before you even wrote this article, you should've considered reading Survival vs. Hegemony by Noam Chomsky.

A well written and researched piece. Bravo!
I have a few comments if I may. I have not taken the time to consider this reply too carefully, nor have I read all of your referenced articles, so forgive me if this appears a little lightweight. I considered a timely, ad hoc response, better than a thoroughly constructed and referentially supported piece in this instance as most of your argument is clearly above reproach. The twentieth century is certainly the American century. Most of the global institutions of consequence are either the direct result of the pax Americana or are so strongly influenced by American involvement that they reflect the American value system more so than any other and so can be considered American by default. In the context of the past 100 years the US has no peer.
Let me address American Culture first.
I would question the rationale you use to persuade us that this American Hegemony is a good thing. Certainly the "cultural" gifts you mention that American society and artists have offered the world are worth looking at a little closer before we ascribe the term "cultural export" to any of them, I think.
MTV – The cultural significance of MTV can not be completely over looked I will grant. Wether we want this type of drivel infecting cultural expression is another discussion. I will point out though, that while this blight on popular and youth culture originated in the US it has now been localised into many different languages and tweaked to suit the specific market requirements of the countries or regions in which it is consumed.
MTV and American TV and film as a whole have little to do with art or culture as we once understood the words. They are commercial exercises. The only reason American television and film has appeal is because it is completely devoid of ideas that might challenge the audience and so impact the bottom line. "Snakes on a Plane" is a good case to illustrate the point. It was rewritten and re-shot at the behest of the studios on the foot of feed back form the test audiences. If you make exactly what the customer wants he will buy it. However, that is not artistic expression. It is consumer capitalism.
CNN - Journalistic integrity is the corner stone of any free society and is a plank upon which democracy rests. Cable news channels increasingly reflect the wishes of their corporate owners and so at the expense of the truth they will enable the peddling of their owner's wares. Here in Australia it is particularly evident but the Fox behemoth is also witnessed in the US so you know to which I speak. The Turner Empire is no different. It just shouts for the other team. In my humble opinion the BBC and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Co.) are some of the only examples left of truly independent journalism. To which, in the print and web media, I would ad the WSJ. Not because I feel it, as a paper, has any great love of the clear prism, but because it serves its readership well by providing accurate information which can then be applied to make money in the sophisticated markets you mention.
I have highlighted the three "institutions" above as an example from which the reader, I hope, can extrapolate. American culture is a contradiction in terms as the nation was built upon the backs of the immigrant and as such is a melting pot of many diverse cultures.
Truly American cultural achievements are rare. Jazz and Hip Hop music come to mind. The Hollywood musical at a stretch and Broadway plays before they are boiled down into a consumable commodity by the film industry. The real gems you seem to have over looked. I suspect because of the intellectual frame work form which you are writing. I mean no disrespect here. You and I are products of our social environment and yours places a very high value on the dollar value when it comes to such things as art. The gems you have ignored, I think, belong to America's writers but they do not provide a strong contribution to the GDP and so do not warrant inclusion, perhaps.
A last note on the cultural aspects of your article, in my experience American society tends to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. If it can not or will not be bought and sold, regardless of its worth it, tends to matter little.
America itself requires some rebuttal also I think. Your indulgence, please.
You muse, "300 Million people in a free society, living in a system designed with great vision and humanity. How do you stop that? How do you compete with that? How do you prevent the march of a group of 300 million people empowered more than any other people elsewhere?" In a world where the rest of the inhabitants do not feel threatened by it the answer is "you don't". You let them get on with it peacefully and productively in the hope that some day a society may evolve to rival, rather than challenge, those of Mesopotamia, Asia and Europe.
The collective output of the European nations, I would argue, far and away eclipses that of your young country every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Culture we have covered, I believe, but just so we have a frame work from which to expand allow me to drop some names in here, from the scientific, engineering, medical, and yes, cultural realms, at the risk of being rude. In the sphere of automotive engineering to use a convenient example the efforts of our American cousins pale by comparison to those of Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin and Rolls, to name the first ones that come to mind. Cadillac, (named for a French man ironically) can only be considered as a childish parody when examined against the likes of Mercedes and BMW. That's before I go on speak about the majestic designs and patents of Toyota Motor Company's Lexus machines. Henry Ford did not make good cars. He made adequate cars cheaply. And that's about as much praise as can be applied to any of the other American car manufactures.
Pardon me for getting really vulgar in display for a moment while we consider Bugatti, Maserati, Lamborghiti Lotus, Land Rover, Audi and Jaguar. I know Ford own Jaguar now, but again, all they have succeeded in doing since the acquisition is to destroy the mystique of the marque.
Let's move on – Bang & Olufsen, Rolex, Leica, Mission, Krups, Airbus. In most if not all disciplines the European manufacturers excel in craftsmanship when compared to any other region of the world, with the exception in certain fields, of the Japanese.
So, let us pause and reflect upon the numbers and the geopolitics of the debate. The European Union is home to some 380 millions. By the time this century is half over it with reach form Galway in Ireland to the Baring Straights on the Russian coast and encompass well over 1 billion people comprising some 20 - 30 distinct ethnicities and languages. It will then have land access to the Middle Eastern oil fields and make the necessity of exporting oil to the United States a curse. Deprived of her access to cheap oil the US will slowly decay and become less and less of a global power.
In the 21st century, I propose, the US will continue to become less and less relevant to world affairs as her ability to coerce by military strength wanes and her ability to protect her life blood – oil goes with it. America will not fail so much as fade. A child with whom we no longer are indulgent. That is not to say that the tantrums will not become louder and longer. They will just be seen as impotent and will no longer give the world cause for concern.
In your section on Ideas you cite the Global Good Neighbour Initiative piece which speaks about the proud legacy of American foreign policy from the early part of the last century. I have only one point to make on this line of reasoning and it might be seen by some readers as a "cheap shot".
America is infamously alone in being the only nation to have used atomic weapons on another country. Even McNamara, whose ruthless efficiency in bombing gave a blazing death to 100,000 citizens of Tokyo, now laments the use of nuclear weapons. This perhaps may account for my scepticism when you speak of "Benevolent American Hegemony". Fear of destruction by a country shown to have so little regard for the sanctity of human life is what has allowed the US to plunder the riches of the world and so become completly dominant in the past 100 years.
Please note, I make the distinction between having WMD and using them. England, Russia, France, China and others all have them, but the world never feared they would use them. That was a paranoia endured only by Americans during the second half of the century, I would suggest because the American people thought the Russians were like them, where as the rest of the world knew them to be like us. We knew they would not pull the temple down on their own heads. To paraphrase Sting – The Russians loved their children too.
JFK would have followed through. Khrushchev was more human. Again, you cannot blame Kennedy for being a product of his society. I believe he would have done what he thought was expected of him in October of 1962. I believe he would have killed us all if Khrushchev had not prevailed by "backing down". The Bay of Pigs – well, I fear I will digress too far here so I will move to close.
I should say at this juncture that I am American by birth. I was born in California to Irish immigrants in the early '60's. However, I was educated and trained in Ireland and having lived for some time as an adult in the Bay Area, (I am a computer scientist and I wanted to spend some time playing with the biggest having played at home in Ireland with the best) I returned to Europe before settling in the "lucky country" , Australia.
I admire your style of prose and as I have said earlier your arguments are well constructed and properly referenced. You are clearly in possession of an agile mind and are to be commended for constructing a patriotic defence of your country's foreign policy.
However, I am perplexed by your stance. Current American foreign policy is to be condemned, I believe, by all right minded individuals. That's not to say it can not be changed. But it is people like you who must change it.
America is a great idea that once gave rise to a great nation. Not withstanding the sum of the atrocities committed throughout its existence - from the genocide of its indigenous peoples to slavery, to nuclear war to New Orleans 2005 and Iraq ongoing it can be fixed, but only when the questions you have posed no longer matter.

Shibbolith-

The European Union is home to some 380 millions.

The EU actually has 455 million people now! since the 10 new members, 8 from Eastern Europe joined. I just thought i would mention a fact that back ups your argument nicely. Thats 155 million more than the US. In three months time it will be 480 million as 30 million more join from Romania and Bulgaria. By the time Turkey joins in 2015 there will be well over half a billion.

I'm a bit perplexed as to how you distinguish this from neoconservative thought. The basic tenet of neoconservatism is that, for all its faults (neo-cons come from socialist backgrounds and aren't too keen on capitalism, though they de-emphasis that), the progressive nature of the US and the rest of the West is far superior to that of the alternatives (mainly, the Soviet model they had hoped would turn out better). From this, they argue for a realpolitik support of the American system, which is then exaggerated to support for a Pax Americana. Aside from a few tactical differences (in which I think most neo-cons are actually more cogent), I just don't see a difference.

I also read the sequel article to this, where you seem to argue that America will not be able to achieve or maintain hegemony. I like that better, but there you don't seem to be arguing for a ideal to be pursued, so I'm not sure if you've given up on this idea here.