Re: decline

[robert <http://dummy.us.eu.org/robert>]

Agreed.

I might add that it took centuries for Rome to finally fester and fall.
The U.S.'s fall may be faster, but I still think it will take some time.

I'm not certain that it will be China.  My hope is that what comes next
will be the withering away of the nation-state all together.

 > From: Noelle <noelle>
 > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 07:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
 >
 > M.T. in St. Paul, MN, asks: It seems the U.S. is in decline. I'm 
 > very much an amateur when it comes to understanding why past empires 
 > declined but know there are multiple reasons, depending on which 
 > empire and which era. I don't believe Donald Trump is responsible 
 > for America's decline, though he is accelerating it. I'm curious if 
 > you agree America is in decline, if so what is the most important 
 > reason for that decline, and where America comes out in the end, 
 > assuming the lunacy of Trump and MAGA eventually fade away. As an 
 > example, as an amateur, I believe Britain's decline was due to 
 > overreach, trying to control a massive empire when it could no 
 > longer do so.
 > 
 > Just as an FYI, the article that triggered this question is New York 
 > Times article written by Carlos Lozada, headlined "America Has 
 > Become a Dangerous Nation," and beginning with the observation: "We 
 > had a good run—some eight decades or so—but it is clear by now that 
 > the United States has ceased to be the leader of the free world."
 > 
 > (Z) answers: I think that there is no question the U.S. is in 
 > decline, and has been so for at least 30-40 years.
 > 
 > As to the reason, my answer is "unsophisticated thinking," which has 
 > manifest in two very important ways. The first is that, over the 
 > course of the era of plenty (the latter half of the 20th century), 
 > many Americans eventually shifted to a way of thinking that amounts 
 > to "I've got mine, who cares if they've got theirs." There was a 
 > time, particularly right after World War II, when the majority 
 > accepted that everyone benefits if the roads and bridges are kept in 
 > good repair, that everyone benefits if the nation has a large number 
 > of college-educated people, that everyone benefits if it's plausible 
 > to make a good wage and to afford to own a home and raise a family 
 > and become a productive member of your community. Now, selfishness 
 > is more common than interest in the common good (maybe because World 
 > War II, the last time this nation truly rallied, was so long ago?). 
 > The result is a society that has been hollowed out from within, and 
 > where many people are not especially interested in the overall 
 > health and strength of the nation, while others are looking for 
 > convenient scapegoats to blame for their troubles.
 > 
 > The second, which is something of a variant of the first, is that 
 > America's empire-like power since World War II has always been much 
 > more about its soft power (alliances, cooperation, diplomacy) and 
 > much less about its hard power (military). However, particularly 
 > recently, and on the instigation of people who aren't very 
 > sophisticated thinkers, the nation has lavished money on the 
 > military, and has neglected its soft power. There was most certainly 
 > a time when having the biggest guns and the most soldiers was all 
 > you needed to impose your will on the planet, or a large portion of 
 > it, but that time has long passed. And the U.S. might well have done 
 > enough to damage its soft power, at this point, that it cannot be 
 > fixed. Meanwhile, this spending of $1 trillion/year on the military 
 > is not sustainable, long-term. So, the U.S. is likely to recede 
 > further and further in terms of both types of power.
 > 
 > You are right that Donald Trump was not the cause of all this, but 
 > he certainly harnessed it in his rise to power, and he has certainly 
 > accelerated the trends (and note that I initially typed that as 
 > "accelerated the trans," which may or may not be a Freudian slip). 
 > As a historian, I am more about understanding the past rather than 
 > predicting the future, but I would say that absent a sea-change 
 > event like World War II, the U.S. is not likely to regain its 
 > hegemonic status. It will settle in as one of the next-tier powers, 
 > along with the U.K., Russia, France, etc., with all looking up at 
 > China. And this is going to be painful for the American people, as 
 > the country won't be as safe, and goods will not be as available or 
 > as cheap, with the result being that quality of life will degrade.
 > 
 > There are, I will note, three presidents that really serve as the 
 > main drivers of all of this, with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush 
 > joining the list, in addition to Trump. However, I think that if you 
 > managed to revive any of the pre-Reagan Republican presidents, 
 > particularly Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, they would 
 > agree with every word I have written here.
 > 3/28.26