How bad is it?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Booyeah, baby.

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/how-bad-is-it/

Of the 20 advanced democracies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the U.S. has the highest poverty rate, for both adults and children; the lowest rate of social mobility; the lowest score on UN indexes of child welfare and gender inequality; the highest ratio of health care expenditure to GDP, combined with the lowest life expectancy and the highest rates of infant mortality, mental illness, obesity, inability to afford health care, and personal bankruptcy resulting from medical expenses; the highest homicide rate; and the highest incarceration rate. Nor are the baneful effects of America's social and economic order confined within our borders; among OECD nations the U.S. also has the highest carbon dioxide emissions, the highest per capita water consumption, the next-to-largest ecological footprint, the next-to-lowest score on the Yale Environmental Performance Index, the highest (by a colossal margin) per capita rate of military spending and arms sales, and the next-to-lowest rate of per capita spending on international development and humanitarian assistance.

Contemplating these dreary statistics, one might well conclude that the United States is — to a distressing extent — a nation of violent, intolerant, ignorant, superstitious, passive, shallow, boorish, selfish, unhealthy, unhappy people, addicted to flickering screens, incurious about other societies and cultures, unwilling or unable to assert or even comprehend their nominal political sovereignty. Or, more simply, that America is a failure.

Read the rest of the article. It's worth the time.

[P3nT4gR4m]

As a former medievalist, Berman finds contemporary parallels to the fall of Rome compelling. By the end of the empire, he points out, economic inequality was drastic and increasing, the legitimacy and efficacy of the state was waning, popular culture was debased, civic virtue among elites was practically nonexistent, and imperial military commitments were hopelessly unsustainable.

So similar, in fact, that I frequently have to remind myself that there was never a Caesar Obama

[E.O.T.]

YAY!!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The US isn't going to go down without taking as many of its allies with it as possible, though.

[Cain]

Well, that's the problem with positing a large system of interdependability.  Sure, it means less fighting, as everyone is on more or less the same page, and has more or less the same interests (at least until the oil runs out), but at the same time, it means contagion is a very real possibility, and blowing a hole in the bottom of the system means bringing the whole game crashing down.

I strongly suspect the US is motivated to act against autarkic economics for this reason, and thus why it's essential grand strategy has not altered since the Cold War.  When you look at it, you can see the Anglo-American-French allliance, that was built mostly on international commerce and limited, representative democracy, has warred against every autarkic form of government since about, well, WW2.  Germany and Italy tried it, under the fascists, and then the Soviet Union tried a form of it, up until the mid-80s.  Even up to today, when it comes to attacking places like Iraq (which was a heavily centralised and closed economy) and threatening North Korea, you can see that dynamic at work.

In some ways, I think the Rome metaphor is not a suitable one for modern day America.  Rome fell due to internal bickering, sure, but great sweeps of nomadic forces from the Steppes, the ending point for many a previously promising civilization, also played a role.  Fortunately, or regrettably depending on your point of view, since the invention of gunpowder and modern logistical approaches, such Steppe peoples tended to come off worse in conflicts with nation-states.  For a while, some held on, sure, but, to be fair, they were fighting Russia.

Instead, a better comparison could be with the Hasburg Empire, during the early 16th century.  On paper, the Austro-Spanish Empire was impressive.  It encircled France, the most powerful nation in Christendom.  The Hasburg family was wealthy beyond measure.  Spanish arms, in particular the formation known as the "tercio", were among the most powerful in all of Europe.  The Pope had been convinced to only recognize Spanish and Portguese claims to the New World, and its vast wealth of silver which flowed in the Hasburg coffers.  One quarter of the entire European population lived in lands under their control.

The Hasburgs, in theory, could have ruled all of Europe.

Except, of course, it didn't turn out like that.   The Hasburgs had a number of issues, which prevented them from bringing their full power to bare, and making the victories they needed to gain advantage over their rivals.

Their first, and most pressing issue, was their tax base.  Despite the huge regions they controlled, the Hasburgs collected very little in actual taxes.  I believe, in fact, the majority of the taxation fell on the Castillian peasantry and merchant class.  As such, especially with the mounting costs of military campaigns in this period, the year's takings could be spent entirely on a single theatre of war.  The Italian banks offset this somewhat, but they couldn't fund campaigns indefinitely, and it was bad business to do so.  Any attempt to raise taxes would, of course, result in a powerful backlash, and when you already have the majority of your troops in the field, you don't need further unrest back home.

The second problem was the Hasburgs picked too many enemies.  The Valois kings made alliances with the Ottoman Empire, while the British supported insurgency in the Netherlands, and the Swedish sent armies in to pillage Germany.  Privateers harried their supply lines to the New World. 

Finally, the Hasburgs subscribed to an early version of domino theory - that if they allowed certain losses, that those losses would spiral out of control and they would lose everything.  As such, no price was too high to pay for any piece of land to stay under Hasburg control.

Do those three things sound familiar?  Unwilling to raise taxes to meet existing commitments, overextension and a refusal to retreat and focus on one's core interests?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Thanks for that Cain. I take back what I said earlier about history. It's not always boring and unfunny. Sometimes it can help in making current events seem doubly hilarious!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I was thinking about the Hapsburg comparison as well, Cain. Mostly because I've been watching 'Muhtesem Yuzyil' on Turkish tv lately (the dramatized history of Suleiman's reign).

Some comparisons I've read likening the US and Rome put 'terrorism' in place of the Steppes 'barbarians' but I don't think the similarity holds well at all. The attacks from the north were doing serious damage to Rome, while most of the people within Rome ignored the threat. Terrorism in US isn't doing much real damage, but everyone seems preoccupied with the imagined threat.

In contrast the Hapsburgs, as you point out had a larger threat from their own ego than external forces. They could have easily used diplomacy with the Ottoman's and allies, but instead saw it as their holy duty to give no quarter to any opponent. The vision that the Hapsburgs were the inheritors of the Holy Roman Empire and the popular US idea that they are God's Nation (esp under Bush, but even now among the populace) are also very similar... including seeing the Muslim world as a direct threat to Christianity and the West.

In one of those pieces of 'history is interesting' this conflict and its resolution directly set the stage for WWI (with the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires allying with Germany) which in turn set the stage for WWII (Hitler's rise to power after the harsh penalties on Germany post-WWI) which in turn set the stage for the Cold War (rise of the Soviets vs the West), which in turn put the world where it is now (CIA trained guerrillas/terrorists).*

...and that's why I love history


*Huge simplification obviously

[Cain]

Indeed.  When you get in depth with it, the parallels are quite impressive.

The only main difference I would say is that the Habsburgs were an up and coming power, whereas in our current scenario, the US is the dominate power.  This shouldn't overly complicate the strategic situation, but it does mean that their behaviour may differ in some ways.  While Russia/China could certainly stand in for the French/Ottoman alliance, it's not clear that they are of a relative power level in regards to the historical comparison.

That said, these are relatively minor details, in the grand scheme of things. 

And yes, while terrorists have been likened to steppe barbarians before, I too find the anology somewhat, uh, hyperbolic.  The Mongols and their kin were among the best pre-gunpowder warriors there were.  When unified, and led by a talented leader, they could easily bring much greater force to bear than any of the settled kingdoms and empires.  I mean, terrorism certainly has the potential to go that way...if one thinks of a dystopian future scenario in which the likes of 9/11 or Mumbai are a base level attack, rather than the upper end of the possible...a future in which the potential for WMD is much easier due to the proliferation of technological advances, and entirely new types of warfare are made possible by AI and nanobots.  But, well, we're not quite there yet, are we?  Terrorists have only shown themselves capable of taking control at a local level, or else in the most collapsed and failed of states around (Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, post-war Iraq etc).  It's not like Saudi Arabia is going to fall tomorrow or anything.

[navkat]

We're all doomed.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We're all doomed.

Yes we are, as it happens.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

THANKS A LOT, OBAMA! 

Seriously, though, I like the article, but I hate the way it starts out.  The first thing this article does is to insult the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels, mentioning them as his first example of what's wrong with America and comparing them to people who can't find the United States on a world map.  The author has basically set up a filter at the beginning of his article to ensure that most of the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels won't bother to read the rest of it.

I wonder if that was deliberate -- cause the people who might be hostile to what you have to say to tune out early on, so that you can spend the rest of your time preaching to the choir, as it were.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

THANKS A LOT, OBAMA! 

Seriously, though, I like the article, but I hate the way it starts out.  The first thing this article does is to insult the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels, mentioning them as his first example of what's wrong with America and comparing them to people who can't find the United States on a world map.  The author has basically set up a filter at the beginning of his article to ensure that most of the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels won't bother to read the rest of it.

I wonder if that was deliberate -- cause the people who might be hostile to what you have to say to tune out early on, so that you can spend the rest of your time preaching to the choir, as it were.

Or maybe he just had to shit his hate.

[Cain]

Unfortunately, eventually, you have to draw a line somewhere.  Or else what's the point?  You're never going to make friends telling people they're Doing It Wrong anyway.

I am quite willing to draw the line where people who believe in angels have to be respected on a par with scientific knowledge.

Offense at insufficient respect for retarded belief systems with no method of verificaiton seems to be a hallmark of our current political discourse.  If we stopped respecting people's rights to retarded beliefs so much, and condemned a little bit more, maybe these people would be less inclined to share their brainfarts with the public at large.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Unfortunately, eventually, you have to draw a line somewhere.  Or else what's the point?  You're never going to make friends telling people they're Doing It Wrong anyway.

I am quite willing to draw the line where people who believe in angels have to be respected on a par with scientific knowledge.

Offense at insufficient respect for retarded belief systems with no method of verificaiton seems to be a hallmark of our current political discourse.  If we stopped respecting people's rights to retarded beliefs so much, and condemned a little bit more, maybe these people would be less inclined to share their brainfarts with the public at large.

No argument here, regardless of what those beliefs are.

Because every time a Dawkins Tard froths on his keyboard, an angel gets his wings.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

THANKS A LOT, OBAMA! 

Seriously, though, I like the article, but I hate the way it starts out.  The first thing this article does is to insult the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels, mentioning them as his first example of what's wrong with America and comparing them to people who can't find the United States on a world map.  The author has basically set up a filter at the beginning of his article to ensure that most of the 70% of Americans who believe in the existence of angels won't bother to read the rest of it.

I wonder if that was deliberate -- cause the people who might be hostile to what you have to say to tune out early on, so that you can spend the rest of your time preaching to the choir, as it were.

I don't think his goal is to change any minds. I think the author is well aware that those minds won't be changed no matter what he says, so he's just screaming in the dark as the ship goes down.

All the lifeboats are already gone.