Is the US fucked?

[Eulogy]

Formerly the most powerful nation on earth, the United States of America is rotting within form corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and exploitation. The world's biggest Third World country is heading downhill into a miserable crime-ridden oblivion. Is such a fate inevitable? Will those who see the writing on the wall be able to get out in time?

[Darth Wong]

I think you've overstating the point here. But the US is definitely losing its leadership position.

[Nephtys]

Welcome to exaggerationland.

Yeah, the US is full of idiots, corruption and problems. But there's a long way to go before things actually get notably worse than the way it used to be. Crime is actually one of the least problems, being on the decline in the last two decades as well. Economically and geopolitically, the US is still a dominant nation and that is assuredly going to remain true for decades, even through mismanagement and an easily lead populace.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Formerly the most powerful nation on earth, the United States of America is rotting within form corruption, stupidity, ignorance, and exploitation. The world's biggest Third World country is heading downhill into a miserable crime-ridden oblivion. Is such a fate inevitable? Will those who see the writing on the wall be able to get out in time?

Wow, put down the pessimism-bong and have a Zoloft. Most nations get their turn in the spotlight and then fall back, allowing some other nation to have their turn at being top dog on Earth. Spain and England were both the most powerful nation on Earth. Both no longer anywhere near their zenith, in terms of global dominance. Yet, both are still around, and aren't bad places to live in. The United States will remain in its position of relative dominance for some decades to come, and even when it is upstaged by some other nation or blocs of nations, it's not going to magically become Sudan or Somalia.

[ArmorPierce]

Even if the united states were to fall from its global dominance it will still remain a major player due to its size alone.

[Covenant]

And in terms of rough geopolitical influence, the status of America as an island superpower may not exist when combined with massive unified regions of larger continents, like the Soviets attempted, but there are few conglomerations that can compete in terms of a North America-European alliance. America the country has issues, but everyone has issues. And if you're terrified of the rising Chinese, well, just don't encourage the fear-based responses that'd actually make them an active enemy. America's military dominance was a bubble of power that resulted from it's economic might being flexed to stop a few dramatic world-power takeovers, but it's not like we need to keep pumping the bubble up. We really don't, and we really wouldn't be that more vulnerable if we scaled back our world policing--but I think most people couch the failure of America in such terms that we can't simply reduce our excessive defense spending a smidge and refocus a bit on domestic policy. If Americans want to remain a relevent global uberpower, refocus on being a vital and positive contributor to the world economy and ride upwards on the growth of so-called 'competitors'. We might even discover that it's not to scary to have a big noisy neighbor state when they're buying our goods and everyone is happy.

[Simon_Jester]

To make matters weirder, trying to pump up the military further at the expense of domestic concerns is likely to cause a collapse of the domestic economy (and therefore the military) faster.

And I'm not just talking about "a dollar spent on guns is a dollar not spent on butter." I'm talking about political capital, the time and effort of politicians, and the attention of the public. All those are valuable resources in a democracy, and there's only so much to go around. Look at how much time has been spent arguing over the Iraq War since 2002, and how it delayed any effort to reform our domestic politics by helping Bush secure a second term.

Unnecessary foreign adventures are a luxury of nations that have their affairs in order at home. If the home front isn't basically sound, they'll just accelerate the decay.

[Solauren]

So, the amount of paranoia you have, does it come naturally, or are you just really well practiced?

The United States of America, right now, is simply a victim of gross mismanagement. Politically by Ronald Regan (who may have been or went senile while in office), George Bush Sr, and George Bush Jr.

Note: George Bush Sr was not as bad as Jr was, but any stretch. Bill Clinton was pretty good, but was mirred by 'political scandals'. Really, who cares if the President gets a blow job while in office? Besides his wife when it's not her.

Econmically, the mismanagement is rather self-evidence. Pick any number of greedy asshole companies that are either looking out for the buck, or commited outright fraud (i.e Enron)

Socially, well, that's harder to pin down on anyone. However, Fox News is a nice pin-cushion in this regard, as are any number of talking heads in a number of places on the political spectrum.

Eventually, new management will come in. The question is, how far will the current management let things sink.


Think of it this way
The United States is a company. Right now, it's being mismanaged in a number of ways, and the majority of it's employees are idiots that don't know what's going on, and don't care. As a result, US INC has suffered, both in terms of reputation and customer loyalty.

Eventually, the management will change, and the company will be run right. The first thing they'll try to do is improve work conditions, which will be meet with resistence from various intrenched or self-interested management positions (and ill-informed workers). Then, worker standards will increase. You won't be able to be hired at US INC with just a High School diploma. Economic output will increase, reputation and customer loyalty will increase, and other problems will be dealt with.

Hopefully, the replacement management will see the positive trends, and keep them up.

However, if not, they'll end up in insolvencey court and have to go through restructuring.

[Darth Wong]

To continue the corporate analogy, corporate cultures don't change until they are forced to change. This does not bode well for the US; it will have to run into severe problems before there is any impetus to fix what ails the country. Right now, the majority of people in the country are still basically healthy and prosperous, despite the suffering of a minority. As a people, they do not feel any collective urgency to change anything.

[dragon]

Yes the US is in a low part hower all countries have had their ups and downs this is just a down portion and things will change hopefully now that we got Bush gone. Sort of like how economy follows a sinewave with up, down etc, etc.

[Duckie]

If I had to make guesses and extrapolations given current trends (which I wouldn't if it weren't just idle speculation, since predicting the future of politics is up there with the lottery in terms of fools' errands):

The US has peaked in preeminence in the world for now. The era of America dictating and running half the world as its own global empire is over, and will never come back.

That said, the US itself is not necessarily fucked. Depending upon how it reacts to current and future crises will determine how far it falls from its peak- whether it ends up like modern Britain, or whether it ends up like modern Russia.

Regardless of whether it implodes due to problems that have or may arise, it will retain regional power. America's absurd military spending (and ability to intimidate and bully nations into getting its way through this) and its historic position as regional hegemon of the New World probably won't be going away.

To me, the British scenario seems the most likely. Especially if you consider that the Democrats will probably take the role of Labour in the "It's your fault the American Empire is gone!" scenario.

[Hillary]

Is the US fucked? Not before marriage.

[Darth Raptor]

Well now I can follow that and not sound like an idiot.

Most of the people ITT seem to be taking a persistent federal union for granted, so I've got to know: Is that a safe bet? Yes, due to size and geography the USA as it exists today is likely to be a major power by default for the foreseeable future (at least until space colonies then all bets are off), but it's not inconceivable that the federal government might collapse without taking the states with it. I can't see fifty independent countries where once was one, but a two or three-way split seems believable. Are people just assuming the federal government survives because the alternate scenario has too many variables, or something else?

[Duckie]

Well now I can follow that and not sound like an idiot.

Most of the people ITT seem to be taking a persistent federal union for granted, so I've got to know: Is that a safe bet? Yes, due to size and geography the USA as it exists today is likely to be a major power by default for the foreseeable future (at least until space colonies then all bets are off), but it's not inconceivable that the federal government might collapse without taking the states with it. I can't see fifty independent countries where once was one, but a two or three-way split seems believable. Are people just assuming the federal government survives because the alternate scenario has too many variables, or something else?

There are no current ideological movements with proper geographic fault lines in the US in a post civil war era. The closest is the 'culture war', which is extremely purple if you look at the actual demographics and not the simplifications of red state and blue state. Further, it will be over within a generation or two. If any other serious splits in the uS will develop, it will be in the future far enough that we cannot know what they would be over (judging by 1900's predictions of 2000, none of us know what the political issues of 2100 will be, save that they won't be anything like today's and they won't be anything like that which futurists predict)

[Guardsman Bass]

Well now I can follow that and not sound like an idiot.

Most of the people ITT seem to be taking a persistent federal union for granted, so I've got to know: Is that a safe bet? Yes, due to size and geography the USA as it exists today is likely to be a major power by default for the foreseeable future (at least until space colonies then all bets are off), but it's not inconceivable that the federal government might collapse without taking the states with it. I can't see fifty independent countries where once was one, but a two or three-way split seems believable. Are people just assuming the federal government survives because the alternate scenario has too many variables, or something else?

It's because there's really no serious movements for regional separatism - most Americans see themselves as Americans first, members of their states second, for example (I don't know about "regional identity"). There's nothing really on the horizon to change that, either - if anything, the impulse in North America is towards greater integration, including on the continental scale (aside from the hiccups NAFTA is having right now).

You could posit a situation where the federal government simply ceases to function, or function effectively, but it's hard to see how the US reaches that point short of some type of war - if bankruptcy, for example, was an issue, the US has room both to cut spending (although it would suck for the people who need it), or raise taxes (which were higher in the past).

The combination of that means that there really isn't an alternative arrangement to draw people's allegiance.

[Darth Wong]

The closest is the 'culture war', which is extremely purple if you look at the actual demographics and not the simplifications of red state and blue state.

However, it is extremely blue and red if you look at individuals and not these arbitrary state line boundaries: people in the US are very firmly in one camp or the other, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing some sectarian violence in the coming years, as the right-wing media continues to deliberately pump up its constituents' paranoia and hatred. Nothing that would actually destabilize the nation, but enough to be rather disturbing.

[Setzer]

I don't think the US will degenerate into a filthy wartorn hellhole, but I do believe we'll no longer enjoy the dominant position we have gotten used to. But that was simply a matter of time.

[Knobbyboy88]

It was always inevitable that US "hegemony" would eventually end. There is no cause for senseless alarmism. We aren't going anywhere any time soon.

The United States only achieved "hegemonic" status to begin with because of the political and economic implosion that occured in Western Europe as a result of the World Wars, and the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union and their idiotic "Red" Communist ideology. After almost a full century of warfare and ideological strife, we simply happened to be the "last man standing" who hadn't been militarily, economically, or politically ruined and we milked this newfound "superpower" status for all it was worth. The rest of the world has been moving to bridge the gap ever since, and it looks like they're finally getting close enough to catch us up.

I'd say that we have at least another 20 years or so on top, but we will still be a "major" for as long into the foreseeable future as anyone can predict.

[ray245]

It was always inevitable that US "hegemony" would eventually end. There is no cause for senseless alarmism. We aren't going anywhere any time soon.

The United States only achieved "hegemonic" status to begin with because of the political and economic implosion that occured in Western Europe as a result of the World Wars, and the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union and their idiotic "Red" Communist ideology. After almost a full century of warfare and ideological strife, we simply happened to be the "last man standing" who hadn't been militarily, economically, or politically ruined and we milked this newfound "superpower" status for all it was worth. The rest of the world has been moving to bridge the gap ever since, and it looks like they're finally getting close enough to catch us up.

I'd say that we have at least another 20 years or so on top, but we will still be a "major" for as long into the foreseeable future as anyone can predict.

I'm interested in why do you think that the fall of the USSR is inevitable?

[Knobbyboy88]

I'm interested in why do you think that the fall of the USSR is inevitable?

For a lot of reasons...The most apparent of which being the obvious untenability of "Red" Communist ideology and economics.

They simply couldn't compete with the Western "Capitalist" world.

[ray245]

I'm interested in why do you think that the fall of the USSR is inevitable?

For a lot of reasons...The most apparent of which being the obvious untenability of "Red" Communist ideology and economics.

They simply couldn't compete with the Western "Capitalist" world.

That's just a gross generalisation of the entire issue.

[loomer]

In some regards I'd give Knobby partial credit, as I hold Stalin's purges to ultimately be responsible for the fall of the USSR, and I'm sure you'd have most historians agree it was a significant factor. If Trotsky had taken power instead, we might still have a USSR.

[Duckie]

I love the revisionism that apparantly communism was doomed to fail due to its inefficient running. If the Soviet Union had defeated the US in the cold war, these same people would probably be saying it was inevitable that capitalism failed. Hindsight is 20-20, eh?

[For the record, I'm pretty sure it's agreed one of the major blows to the soviets was attempting to keep up with the conscious American effort to outspend them into poverty on nuclear weapons and military arms. The Soviets, with expensive things like a working welfare system and less 'efficient' economic policy, couldn't keep up. We'd have to get Stas or someone to confirm, but that's how I've always heard it]

[Samuel]

In some regards I'd give Knobby partial credit, as I hold Stalin's purges to ultimately be responsible for the fall of the USSR, and I'm sure you'd have most historians agree it was a significant factor. If Trotsky had taken power instead, we might still have a USSR.

The man who wanted to spread world revolution versus the man who wanted to industrialize the USSR before doing anything nuts? Why would Trotsky be better?

I love the revisionism that apparantly communism was doomed to fail due to its inefficient running. If the Soviet Union had defeated the US in the cold war, these same people would probably be saying it was inevitable that capitalism failed. Hindsight is 20-20, eh?

The USSR could never have defeated the US. Any war would be one of extermination so that is out and in the economic arena our victory was certain. They could have contented themselves with just regional, instead of global power though. Like the current Russian government, only more so.

[Knobbyboy88]

I love the revisionism that apparantly communism was doomed to fail due to its inefficient running.

All moralistic equivocations and historical revisionism aside, the simple fact of the matter remains that "Red" Communism simply wasn't an efficient economic system. The sheer level of bureaucracy inherent to "Red" government bred massive corruption, while crippling regulation and the general lack of freedoms available to the "common people" stiffled economic productivity and lead to wide spread apathy and rebelliousness among the people living under this system.

Could "Red" Communism have come to dominate the world if the United States hadn't been there to counter its influence?

I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe they could have. Maybe they couldn't have. The fact remains that the United States WAS there to counter the influence of "Red" ideology and history has more or less already spoken where this issue was concerned.

"Communism(as it is currently practiced, and possibly even in general)" simply doesn't work well enough to be a viable economic alternative in today's world. It is prone to corruption and the abuse of power, and it can be all too easily "outcompeted" by more traditional economic systems.