I think that political scientist Ian Bremmer is overestimating the effect that the shaking of confidence in the U. S. caused by the financial crisis of ten years ago had on U. S. standing in the world. From his opinion piece at Time:
The financial crisis and all that followed sharply exacerbated these negative attitudes by calling into question the long-term viability of Western capitalism. (If the U.S. can’t properly regulate its own banks, how can it serve as a model for developing countries?) The search for an alternative model took on new urgency.
A decade ago, China wasn’t yet ready to offer one. But the U.S.-based meltdown presented Beijing with an unprecedented opportunity to showcase the virtues of state-driven economic development. The country’s political leaders demonstrated their ability to respond to the crisis with fast and effective emergency measures. In 2008, China’s economy was smaller than Japan’s. Today it’s more than twice as large–and about equal to the combined total of the 19 countries that use the euro. As China’s economy expanded, so did its influence.
To the contrary I think that America’s position in the world almost entirely stems from the power of the U. S. economy and our military which are intertwined. Fifteen years of indecisive war had already cast doubts on our military and somewhat more than a decade of foolish trade and economic policies were so much more significant in weakening both of those sources of power that the financial crisis as such pales into insignificance alongside them.
Since the financial crisis continued indecisive war and the Obama Administration’s inadequate response to the Great Recession have further diminished our primary sources of power. On that latter point, you cannot have it both ways. If additional stimulus can wring more growth from the U. S. economy, the Obama administration’s “2% is as good as it gets” claim is essentially refuted and its response was inadequate.
What to do now? We need major course corrections. It’s not too great an exaggeration to say that we need to reverse the major economic, trade, and foreign policy trends of the last twenty-five years. Less consolidation, less financialization, less offshoring (particularly to China), less intervention. Less subsidizing the rich.
I have no real hope that we’ll do any of those things which to my mind means that we will continue to squander money and lives and our influence will continue to recede. As I suggested yesterday, those bemoaning a return to “the jungle” in international affairs are really mourning the decline of U. S. influence.
