Social Matter

Last time we noted the obvious: America is the center of the world, but the gravity that maintains that eminence is slipping by the day. It seems that every moments the bastions of anti-American hegemony increase in strength, in ardor, in fury, and in loudness. The causes of this are many but most revolve around the various kinds of self-imposed degeneracy and delusion that has permeated the culture and poisoned the ruling elite. Having recognized that American hegemony, as it is now, is on its way out let’s look approach an alternative, beginning with the lay of the land.

For starters we must recognize that an America whose hegemony is broken does not cease to be America. Even a hypothetically divided America remains a geopolitical powerhouse. It will dominate the Mississippi River and remain the de facto premier trade partner for the Caribbean, Canada, and Mexico. Even if, hypothetically, America was divided into its constituent states, certain states will retain their own enormous power and economic capability. We can talk about the world after American hegemony, but we cannot talk about a world absent of American power. Any new American foreign policy must take this into account.

Second, we must realize that a principle force eroding America’s geopolitical power is its cultural degeneracy. American universalism remains the single most powerful culture the world has ever seen but it must be cured of its many deficiencies before the foreign policy can be effectively aligned with its geopolitical objectives.

This takes us to the third point: What does a healthier American foreign policy look like? How does it act?

A new American foreign policy must completely shift its frame. The current frame is that of domination or destruction. What we can control, we maintain and support, though we also stymie its growth. What eludes our control or threatens our dominance we destroy, utterly and without mercy. No challengers can be had. America must maintain the monopoly on power via interventionism and economic warfare. And all this is calculated from the framework of zero-sum gains and losses. We either win it all, or lose it all, and act accordingly.

The results in foreign nations of this frame are self-evident. Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Serbia, the Ukraine. All these countries are in ruins, either physical or institutional. Even the subservient nations acquired successful by American policy, like Croatia, Poland, the Philippines, Thailand, Mexico, and Panama are hardly worthy allies, but vassals dominated from afar, carefully kept economically undeveloped (Poland, Mexico, Croatia) or left mired in political instability (Thailand, Mexico, the Philippines). The few American allies that have grown have succeeded in spite of American support, not because of it, like we see South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. And all of them are tossed aside as soon as the gains of supporting them outweigh the overt costs (as we see in the betrayal of the Kuomintang of China by America during the Chinese civil war).

It doesn’t have to be this way. America is a uniquely productive nation, combining settler ruggedness and an entrepreneurial spirit. Even if the American spirit has died among the great mass of the population all the foundation remains. A shift in frame could easily recapture the spark that propelled America towards amazing economic growth. Such a cultural shift would be used doubly: To put America back on the path towards economic growth and entrepreneurship while offering mutually beneficial commercial opportunities in the Western hemisphere. The reality of the situation is that no country can produce economic growth in Cuba, in Mexico, in Colombia, or in Venezuela like America can. They need only change their frame and purge their destructive behaviors and ambitions in order to attain entry into a market that could be theirs. The Western Hemisphere is eagerly awaiting a more benevolent America, if only it would step up to the mantle and claim its place as the rightful economic leaders of the New World.

Nor would a healthy American foreign policy deny the world at large. Denying Neoconservative interventionism does not, after all, mean embracing Ron Paul Libertarianism. A multipolar world would be characterized by its own immense difficulties. A rising China is bound to be pushier and more aggressive in the South China Sea. Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, and Japan are none to eager to join a China dominated Pacific. America has a role to play a mediator and bastion around which a Pacific alliance of non-Chinese intent forms. This is a natural role for America to take and can allow the country to maintain strength, though not hegemony, without needing to police the whole of the Pacific. The Australian, Indonesian, and Japanese navies are more than capable on their own, and American assistance can serve as benevolent supplementary force rather than cruel overlord in the area. Each of these major Pacific nations have already expressed interest in allying with America specifically for this purpose if only America would loosen its grip and universalism. It is strange to see, but a Communist Vietnam welcomes American influence as long as America promises not to destroy Vietnam once again.

In Europe too there are opportunities for American influence but not dominance. America has steadily estranged itself from France, Spain, Greece, and Germany through aggressive anti-Russian measures in the Ukraine. The Germans, economically and politically dominant in Europe, know the intent of American measures and find themselves increasingly unwilling to pay the price. By all accounts America’s strategy of sucking Russia into an aggressive, boots-on-the-ground war in the Ukraine has failed. This means that, so far, the American attempt to lock Europe into its sphere through a revival of NATO and an increase in military spending has failed also, but none of these measures have failed to force a high price on Europe. Consider ‘freedom apples’ in Poland. Nor are American allies in Europe particularly worthy. The Poles, though graciously accepting and encouraging American support now, have not forgotten the betrayals of erstwhile ‘allies’ in the past, nor have the Lithuanians who have been reduced to a shadow of their historical selves. These are hardly trustworthy long term allies especially against a Russia against whom they cannot protect.

Yet all of these European nations would welcome the enormous power of American foreign investment and restrained military support from a distance. That of course requires America to give up hegemony, to give up dictations in law and treaty, and to embrace partnership and construction rather than domination and destruction.

The Middle East is shaped by similar considerations. Turkey and Iran both jockey for power, amidst controversial Israel in the West and a pale Saudi Arabia in the south. While it is beneficial for American dominance to have these nations jockeying amongst themselves, it is not an effective long term strategy. After all, America cannot forever support the enormous cost that comes with forcing hundreds of millions of people to compete according to their whims.  And the Middle East is changing. Iran is slowly but surely attaching themselves to the Eurasianist camp. Turkey senses shifting winds and have moved to embrace the Turk Stream pipeline. Both Syria and Armenia are already aligned with Russia, with Armenia being a member of the EEU and Syria seeking future membership. Meanwhile Iraq will attach itself diplomatically to Iran should ISIS be eliminated. There is already a de facto stabilization occurring, one country at a time. If America insists on bleeding its coffers in the hot sun of the Middle East it can do so but will attain increasingly less success.

Even American allies there are turning aside. As Israel becomes increasingly polarized so too does AIPAC. Egypt without Mubarak is not a dependable American ally, as we see with its consorting with Russia. And Saudi Arabia, having seen how their American ‘friends’ abandoned Mubarak to his fate, are none too happy about the path the Middle East is set upon. Time is against them. Even if America could maintain their dominating power in the region they would be faced with diminishing returns and a tide dead set against them.

Every major region is experiencing a pushback against American domination and by extension American culture. It doesn’t have to be this way. If America were to take a more restrained approach it could reap enormous benefits. America could carefully pullback from Japan, encouraging a more assertive and nationalistic Japanese state to counter China. Shinzo Abe has certainly shown himself willing to take up that mantle. Absent of American influence Germany’s strength over Europe would begin to slip and America could pursue greater dealings with each one individually. Construction investment in Cyprus will do more to counter Russian influence than subordination to the EU would over the long term.

America can maintain itself as the worlds eminent power, but only by changing its frame. Today America is being poisoned internally by a dying, hedonistic culture and externally challenged by rising powers. These powers have been enabled by America’s foreign policy overreaches and frightening use of intervention. A retraction of this policy would drive half the world into America’s open arms. After all, would you rather work with ultra-alien Chinese, or the pleasant and industrious American? The answer is obvious. A new American foreign policy must embrace this perception and change its frame.

It must not leave a trail of destroyed, dominated vassals but a trail of creative, freely associating allies. There is no worse enemy than America and, should the American elite choose it, there may be no better friend than America.

Foreign Policy Geopolitics