Loved the debates, especially
hearing the climate change team talk, and being able to go back and forth with
them. Of course, I hold that they are still wrong, and a global pandemic is a
far larger threat to the U.S. current position in the world. That said I didn’t
find any of the threats outlined to be particularly threatening right now. The
U.S. occupies such a unique position in the world, with the closest analogy
being the Roman Empire (both regimes effectively ruled the entire known world
with only the occasion near-peer challenger). Granted our ‘known world’ is much
larger, and so our global empire is more complete, and because we learned from
the Roman mistakes of military occupation, the costs of our empire are much
less.
I know that if there is one thing which is constant in the world it is the rising and falling of powers as the weak seek power and the strong seek to hold onto it. The U.S. power is, however, far more secure than any other nation, and indeed it is unlikely that any nation would have the economic, diplomatic or military power to challenge the U.S. for decades if not more. Climate change is fairly easily managed by the U.S. because of our diverse geography and ability to grow food at so many different latitudes. A degrading of the current global order would by its nature mean the global system would be looking for an alternative, and there is not another state or collection of states with more to offer the global system than the U.S. so it is quite likely a new global order would still feature the U.S. at its center.
It took the Roman empire 1000 years
to reach the point where it could not deal with external competitors, and I
would argue the U.S. is economically, militarily, and socially just as well
postured to last for quite some time to come. Even the British Empire was the
pre-eminent global power for several centuries and the U.S. power is
significantly more complete than our former colonial overlords. Indeed, based
almost solely on our geography the U.S., spanning the two hemispheres is immune
from almost all attack. The global pandemic our team argued for is possibly the
largest threat, but the U.S. civil response is robust enough that it is equally
likely that any pandemic would be more detrimental to our ‘rivals’.
Tim, I like your idea that the one thing constant in our world is the rising and falling of powers. It was also really interesting to compare the US to the Roman Empire. I knew it was around for a long time, but 1000 years is fascinating to put into context.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Mongol Empire dominated for a similar time frame if not longer and was impressive as the largest connected empire over land. Genghis Khan build the foundation of this empire on the idea that loyalty should be valued above kinship although kinship can help seal the bonds of loyalty, i.e. marriage & adoption. It would be an interesting case study to compare the structures of these great empires with the US and identify the common threads that support them for so long.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteAlways appreciate your perspective and comments drawn from history.
When I think about the pace of growth, knowledge, and technology, I wonder whether there will be an increase in the pace in which empires burn out? Romans, 1000 years, British 300-400 years, the US could maybe sustain an empire 100-200 years (thinking that it started sometime in the 1900s)? All postulation and thinking, but we've done a lot of that in this class and I've enjoyed it!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTim,
ReplyDeleteI really like your comparison of the US and the Roman Empire. I definitely agree with you that the US power is more secure and that US has learned from the mistakes that Romans made, which eventually caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
I cannot, however, agree with you on the climate change issue. You mentioned that the US can easily manage climate change because its diverse geography and its ability to grow food at different places. However, the US can only manage climate change if it is willing to accept it as a serious threat. There are still too many people (including in the incoming administration) who are not willing to accept it as a threat and rather downplay or even ridicule it. If the new administration is not willing to address it, the consequences will be a lot more severe than all the hurricanes and tornadoes as well as severe droughts and floods we have faced so far. While the US is able to manage climate change at the moment and is able to grow food at so many different places, it will not be able to do so in the future if nothing is done today to address it (or if the incoming administration decides to remove/change policies that have been enacted to address it). You mentioned in the chat box during class that the US is able to move north for food production. However, climate change not only causes severe droughts and floods, it also causes an increase in freezing temperatures and a prolonged winter season, which will also impact food security. (Last year, for example, states like Minnesota faced record negative temperatures). If this continues or gets even worse, then how can the US move north to grow food?