Grand Strategy for a Divided America

[Edward Campbell]

I often cite or quote Prof John Mearsheimer, who can, I suppose, be classified as an American centred realist. I this lecture (45 minutes) he offers four options or models for America's grand strategy: Isolationism, Selective engagement, Offshore balancing and Global domination. He, as he explains, is an "offshore balancer" and you need to listen to him with that fact in mind.

         

It's a good listen, and I recommend it, especially for those who believe in American exceptionalism/Global domination/Liberal imperialism.

 

[a_majoor]

The current collapse of the Ammerican political system as demographics, economics and technology changes can be described by the changes in many metrics. This article in "The American Interest" points to the "Libertarianism as a Social Movement" idea that I think is valid, but points to another development which may have further unexpected second and third order effects; another religious revival (Great Awakening) in the United States.

This should not be entirely unexpected, since the future belongs to those who come there, and religious families in the United States (and indeed most parts of the world) tend to have larger, above replacement level families, while the secular/progressives have sub replacement size families or none at all:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/05/27/peak-left-and-the-valley-ahead/

Peak Left—and the Valley Ahead

Gallup has the story on a major statistical event in U.S. history: for the first time since data on the topic has been collected, the percentage of Americans identifying as socially liberal equals the percentage of Americans identifying as socially conservative. Both groups now stand at 31 percent.

On the one hand, while this is big news, it’s not exactly surprising. The percentage of actively religious Americans continues to decline, while gay marriage and marijuana legalization continue to score victories in state legislatures across the U.S. It is tempting to revert to Michael Lind’s hypothesis on the extinction of social conservatism and the triumph of various forms of blue-model liberalism.

But another statistic reported by Gallup should dampen the Left’s glee when it comes to American attitudes on social issues: twice as many Americans identify as economic conservatives as they do economic liberals. After six years of President Obama’s Blue Model agenda, 39 percent of Americans demand redder meat (versus 19 percent who describe themselves as economic liberals).

In a series of essays this past winter Walter Russell Mead identified three problems for the left.

First, heartfelt appeals by the liberal intelligentsia to the consciences of middle- and working-class Americans will fail to change their instincts toward economic individualism and individual responsibility.

Second, the liberal elites in journalism, academia, and the policy world inhabit a media cocoon that protects them from exposure to the economic and cultural realities of average Americans.

Finally, American demographic realities are not moving in the Left’s favor. As ethnic immigrant groups establish themselves, and as younger generations grow older, they tend to grow more conservative. No less a progressive thinker than John Judis has admitted this trend.

The Gallup results shed some light on the trends discussed in these three essays. Though America is indeed growing more secular and tolerant, the elite left is still too leftist for most Americans. What seems to be happening instead is that Americans are becoming more ‘live and let live’ libertarian. Social conservatives recoil in horror from the trend to permissiveness on issues ranging from gay marriage to pot; economic lefties shudder and gasp at the lack of enthusiasm for nanny state economic intervention.

Far from being something new, the creeping libertarianization of American life is one of the most deeply grounded aspects of American culture and life—easily traceable back into the 17th-century colonial era. World War II briefly altered that dynamic, creating a Greatest Generation that was less individualistic than, say, the Americans of the Jazz Age had been. But now we are back to the American norm: favoring individual rights of expression and action over law-based conformity and solidarity.

What has made that work, historically, has been the presence of two great counterweights, both well described by Alexis de Tocqueville almost two centuries ago. One has been the strong presence of Christian faith in the country, impressing all those otherwise atomized individuals in mind of their obligations to their fellow human beings, and leading them to form voluntary social organizations that make up at least partially for the weakness of the American state and the absence of class and group rights. The other has been the tyranny of opinion; Americans, noted de Tocqueville, are formally more free than other peoples, but in fact are ruled by the moral consensus of the majority, perhaps more than the Europeans of his day.

We’ve still got the conformity and the browbeating (just visit any college campus and see how dissenters from the Authorized Social Morality of the moment fare); the big question is whether American Christianity has a 21st-century revival ahead.

 

[Kirkhill]

We’ve still got the conformity and the browbeating (just visit any college campus and see how dissenters from the Authorized Social Morality of the moment fare); the big question is whether American Christianity has a 21st-century revival ahead.

Christian America may becoming more "godless" but they haven't lost religion, their love of church or a hellfire and damnation preacher.  They just get their sermons delivered by television during the evening news hour.  In Canada, T.C. Douglas's followers no longer go to his baptist church.  They listen to Peter Mansbridge and Lisa LaFlamme (and what was her real name and her previous profession anyway?).

 

[a_majoor]

Justice Clarence Thomas gave a commencement address which stresses many of the values that used to define America and Americans. Much of what Justice Thomas has to say should not be surprising, the values of community which he extols are the same as the ones that were outlined by Alexis de Tocqueville in De la démocratie en Amérique. Much of the "Culture Wars" have been about uprooting and transforming that sense of communities ("America is a nation of associations", according to de Tocqueville) into something else entirely:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/life-lessons-from-justice-thomas.php

LIFE LESSONS FROM JUSTICE THOMAS

Remembering This is the season of left-wing and formulaic commencement speeches. Contributing to the cause of true “diversity” — diversity in the life of the mind — Zev Chafets has edited a volume of heterodox commencement speeches under the title Remembering Who We Are: A Treasury of Conservative Commencement Addresses.

There are several speeches that I find inspirational and/or moving and/or thought-provoking in the book. One that is all of the above, and that I think is my favorite (if I had to choose one, which for this purpose I do), is Justice Clarence Thomas’s, published under the title “Do Your Best To Be Your Best.” Through the courtesies of the publisher, we are posting the text of Justice Thomas’s 2008 commencement speech at the University of Georgia below as edited for publication in the book. I’m not given to predictions, but in this case I want to make an exception. I predict you will enjoy this:

One of the sobering realizations that I came to while thinking about and preparing to be here today is that most of the graduates from the undergraduate program had not started the first grade when I went onto the Court. Life comes at you fast, and passes even faster.

In 1971, when I sat where you all are now sitting as graduates, I was just glad to be done with college. I was both scared and anxious about the rest of my life. My grandmother and mother were both there in the stadium bleachers to support me and to be there for my wedding the next day. Absent was the one person I wanted and needed there—my grandfather. Mired in a distracting mixture of fear, apprehension, and sadness, I wondered just what would happen next. How would I repay my student loans? Where would I live?

Somewhere through this fog of self-absorbed confusion, I barely noticed the graduation speaker. His name was Michael Harrington, the author of the then-popular book The Other America: Poverty in the United States, and himself a Holy Cross graduate. He seemed to be exhorting us on to solve the problems of poverty and injustice. As important as those are, I, like most people sitting there that day, was more focused on whether I would be able to solve my own problems, so that I would not become a problem for, or a burden to, others.

So having sat where you are sitting today, I have no illusion that I am at the center of your attention, nor do I think that what I have to say will be long remembered. But I do humbly request a few moments of your attention, recognizing that there is much going on in your lives. I promise that I will not clutter up your special day with my own ruminations about jurisprudence, although I do have an interest in discussing, at some point, my views on the Dormant Commerce Clause. [laughter] I take that as a lack of interest.

I will say in passing, however, that even today, after almost seventeen years on the Court, many of the lessons that I learned about life and academics still serve me well on the Court and in life. Believe me, what you have learned thus far really matters and matters greatly.

I will also not bore you with another litany of complaints or grievances, or exhortations to solve the problems that none of us of advanced years have been able to solve, or in some cases, even understand. It seems to be standard fare these days to charge young people to go out and do great things. Often what is meant is that they do something “out there” as opposed to their personal lives. Many years ago, when I read Dickens’s novel Bleak House, I was fascinated by Mrs. Jellyby’s obsession with her telescopic philanthropy—her great projects in Africa—while at the same time her task at hand went undone.

Realistically, the great battles for most of us involve conquering ourselves and discharging our duties at hand. These are the building blocks for the great things.

When I take stock of the nearly six decades of my life, the great people are mostly the people of my youth—my grandparents, my relatives, my neighbors, my teachers. One of the things they all had in common was the way they discharged their daily duties and their daily responsibilities—conscientiously and without complaint or grievance. I think of relatives like Cousin Hattie, who cleaned rooms at the Midway Hotel in Liberty County; her husband, Cousin Robert, who cut grass and farmed; and Miss Gertrude, who labored as a maid.

They went about their lives, doing their best with what they had, knowing all the while that this was not necessarily fair. They played the hand they were dealt. And, through it all, they were unfailingly good, kind, and decent people whose unrequited love for our great country and hope for our future were shining examples for us to emulate in our own struggles.

Whether in the merciless summer heat of Liberty County or the sudden downpours at the bus stop at Henry and East Broad streets in Savannah, they taught us how to live with personal dignity and respect for one another. To this day, the people who do their jobs, raise their families, and sacrifice so that we can gather here in peace are my heroes, from whom I draw great inspiration.

Quite a lot has happened in my lifetime, as I alluded to earlier. Monumental events involving constitutional and civil rights have made it possible for me to stand here today, when I could not sit there years ago as a college graduate. There are also the technological advances: from the scrub board to the automatic washing machine; the dishwasher (that is one of my personal favorites); the television; the computer; the iPod; and of course the now omnipresent cell phone.

My wife, who is my best friend in the world, often comments on the range of my life. I have been blessed to know and befriend the best and the least educated, the wealthiest and the poorest, the healthy and the physically challenged. I have seen a lot in my journey from the black soil of South Georgia to the white marble of the Supreme Court. It has been a longer journey than the miles from there to Washington could ever suggest. Along the way, I have learned many lessons. There is a saying that if you want to know what is down the road, ask the person who is coming back.

Today I am coming back down the dusty and difficult road of my life to meet at the commencement of your journey, the beginning of your journey, through the rest of your lives. I would just like to take a few more minutes of your precious time here at the side of this road between the hedges. I have just a few modest suggestions; I promise I will not hold you up very long.

First, show gratitude and appreciation. None of you, not one of you, made it here entirely on your own. There are people in your lives who gave you birth, who raised you and loved you, even when you were not so lovable. Thank the people who put up with your antics and loved you through it all. Thank the people who paid your tuition and your expenses. There are those who helped and counseled you through difficult times or when you made hard decisions. There are those who were compassionate enough to tell you what you needed to hear, not what you wanted to hear. Take some time today to thank them.

Don’t put it off; some of us did.

I never took the time to properly thank my grandparents, the two people who saved my life and made it possible for me to stand here today. Deep down, I know they understand, as they always did and as parents always seem to find a way to understand. But it is still a burden that I will carry to my grave. Take some time to thank those who helped you.

A simple thank-you will do wonders. You may never know how much that expression of gratitude will mean. Twenty-five years ago, I went to visit my eighth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Virgilius, for the first time since high school. I thanked her for all she had done for me and for being compassionate enough to tell me about my deficiencies when I was in the eighth grade. I told her that I assumed that after more than forty years of teaching, I was among a long list of students who had come back to thank her. She said, “No, you’re the first.”

One additional word about her. On one of my recent visits to her at the retirement convent in New Jersey, she showed a friend and me her tiny room. It had a small bed, a bureau, and a chair. While telling us about her room, she listed the items to be given away after her death. She’s almost ninety-five years old now. A rosary to her niece; a prayer book to the Franciscan sisters. There was a large photo of her and me on her bureau. Lovingly embracing it, she said, “This goes in my coffin with me.”

Take a few minutes today to say thank you to anyone who helped you get here. Then try to live your lives as if you really appreciate their help and the good it has done in your lives. Earn the right to have been helped by the way you live your lives.

Next, remember that life is not easy for any of us. It will probably not be fair, and it certainly is not all about you. The gray hair and wrinkles you see on older people have been earned the hard way, by living and dealing with the challenges of life. When I was a young adult and labored under the delusion of my own omniscience, I thought I knew more than I actually did. That is a function of youth.

With the wisdom that only comes with the passage of years, the older folks warned me presciently and ominously, “Son, you just live long enough and you’ll see.” They were right; oh, so right. Life is humbling and can be hard, very hard. It is a series of decisions, some harder than others, some good and, unfortunately, too many of them bad. It will be up to each of you to make as many good decisions as possible and to limit the bad ones, then to learn from all of them. But I will urge you to resist when those around you insist on making the bad decisions. Being accepted or popular with those doing wrong is an awful Faustian bargain and, as with all Faustian bargains, not worth it. It is never wrong to do the right thing. It may be hard, but never wrong.

Each of you is about to begin a new journey. Whatever that may be, do it well. If you are going to a new job or the military or to graduate school, do it to the best of your abilities. Each year at the Court I hire four new law clerks. They are the best of the best. The major difference between them and most of their classmates is self-discipline. By self-discipline, I mean doing what you are supposed to do and not doing what you aren’t supposed to do.

Though there are many enticements and distractions, it is up to each of you to take care of your respective business. Remember, the rewards of self-indulgence are not nearly as great as the rewards of self-discipline.

But even as you take care of business, there are a few other necessities for the journey. At the very top of the list are the three F’s—faith, family, and friends. When all else fails and we feel like prodigal sons and daughters, they will always be there, even if we don’t deserve them. Having needed them, I know they will always be your saving grace.

Trustworthiness and honesty are next. If you can’t be trusted with small matters, how can you be trusted with important ones? It may be hard to be honest, but it is never wrong. For my part, I can only work with honest people. I need to be able to trust them, and so will you.

Conscientiousness and timeliness are invaluable habits and character traits. As I tell my law clerks, I want my work done right and I want it on time. No matter what you do, do it right and do it on time. My brother used to say that he hurried up to be early so he could wait. Not a bad idea.

Stay positive. There will be many around you who are cynical and negative. These cause cancers of the spirit and they add nothing worthwhile. Don’t inhale their secondhand cynicism and negativism. Some, even those with the most opportunities in this, the greatest country, will complain and grieve ceaselessly, ad infinitum and ad absurdum. It may be fair to ask them, as they complain about the lack of perfection in others and our imperfect institutions, just what they themselves are perfect at.

Look, many have been angry at me because I refuse to be angry, bitter, or full of grievances, and some will be angry at you for not becoming agents in their most recent cynical causes. Don’t worry about it. No monuments are ever built to cynics. Associate with people who add to your lives, not subtract; people you are comfortable introducing to the best people in your lives—your parents, your family, your friends, your mentors, your ministers.

Always have good manners. This is a time-honored tradition and trait; it is not old-fashioned. Good manners will open doors that nothing else will. And given the choice between two competent persons, most of us will opt to hire the one with good manners. For example, no matter what older adults say about calling them by their first names, don’t. Believe me, they remember, and not as kindly as you might think. I thank God my grandparents made me put a handle on grown folks’ names and taught me to say “please” and “thank you.”

Finally, the Golden Rule that is virtually universal—treat others the way you want to be treated. Indeed, when others hurt you, you may well be required to treat them far better than they treated you and far better than human nature would suggest they deserve. Be better than they are.

Help others as you wanted and needed to be helped. If you want to receive kindness, respect, and compassion, you must first give them. But to do that, you must first have them your- selves to give. Almost thirty years ago, a janitor in the U.S. Senate with whom I often spoke pulled me aside. I must have looked like the weight of the world was on my shoulders; at the very least, I must have looked despondent, not an uncommon look for a young man with common difficulties and hoping to make some difference in the lives of others. In sober, measured, and nearly toothless diction, he counseled me, “Son, you cannot give what you do not have.” He was right, and merely echoed what I had heard throughout my youth in South Georgia.

My grandfather would look at the fields late in the summer and make the point that we could not give to others if we had not worked all summer to plant, till, and harvest. As a child, that meant little; as a man, I know he was right.

There are no guarantees in life, but even with all its uncertainties and challenges it is worth living the right way. As you commence the next chapter in your young lives, I urge you to do your best to be your best. Each of you is a precious building block for your families, your university, your communities, and our great country. It is truly up to each of you to decide exactly what kind of building blocks you will be.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It really doesn't matter which dunderhead the Americans elect to be "the most powerful person in the world," (s)he will be a f'ing eunuch because Americans have spent themselves into a HUGE crisis and they can do SFA until they grow up and fix their budget problems. Grand strategy is a meaningless idea when you are broke and a deadbeat.

See this blog post and this video for at least one idea about what must happen if America, in 2045, is not to look like Britain in 1945: poor, weak and dependent on the charity of friends.

 

[pbi]

Justice Clarence Thomas gave a commencement address which stresses many of the values that used to define America and Americans. Much of what Justice Thomas has to say should not be surprising, the values of community which he extols are the same as the ones that were outlined by Alexis de Tocqueville in De la démocratie en Amérique. Much of the "Culture Wars" have been about uprooting and transforming that sense of communities ("America is a nation of associations", according to de Tocqueville) into something else entirely:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/life-lessons-from-justice-thomas.php

Thucydides: thanks for posting a truly excellent speech. These are words of advice we should all follow: I'm quite certain that if more people heeded the Justice's words, more problems would be solved, or perhaps prevented altogether. His words have added value as they come from a person who knows what it is to struggle.

That said, I don't see how that the Justice's message "belongs" to the social conservatives, or to any other faction or "ism" for that matter. I would be willing to bet that many Canadians of all political stripes would agree with the Justice, and would say that they try to lead their lives in this way. Concern for family, community and character are most definitely not the premise of the social or political right: they are common sense values held by anybody who has lived enough of life to get knocked around, and wants to bring up their families in a decent society.

Take me, for example: I guess that by comparison to a lot of folks on this site, I hold some pretty left of centre views, maybe even "progressive" (thunder, scary organ music). I suspect that you and I would probably not agree on much otherwise, but I am 100% in support of all that the Justice says. I also agree that academia is (and has, and always will be...) sometimes the source of utter, smarmy BS.

The destruction of societies and communities is constant, and horrifying. I do a bit of volunteer work in our city, and I see some of the results. But I can assure you that some of the things that destroy communities are not the sole premise of the left, nor of "progressives", by any means. Rampant, unchecked consumerism, disrespect or outright rejection of education and science, attacking and undermining of public education, and predatory capitalism can all be toxic to communities, but we are disingenuous if we try to blame all of those things on "lefties" alone.

So, great post, and thanks again for it. But don't assume the Right has the corner on wisdom, common sense, or care for community. It doesn't.

 

[Kirkhill]

pbi:

As is often the case I find you and I agreement even though you define yourself left of centre and I define myself right of centre. (Maybe that says as much about how we define centre as anything else).

But.

You and I grew up in the same era.  You must remember how our parents norms were derided by our peers and older siblings, how our parents "civility" was rejected as hypocrisy, how we were encouraged to "let it all hang out" and "express yourselves".  The rationale, if that is the right word for people who identified themselves by their feelings, was to uncover all those latent "isms" at which point they, like MacArthur and the old soldiers, just fade away.

Justice Thomas's article is a simple restatement of the ancient code of hypocritical civility: a code based on the premise that a person's feelings  and beliefs are their own and that, in the interests of a functioning society people should be judged on their deeds and nothing else.  They can control their deeds.  They can't control their feelings and thoughts.  And just to make my position clear: they are responsible for not just the actions of their fists and their feet but also for the words that they speak or put to paper.

It shouldn't matter if a person believes in Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler or Marx, or none of the above, so long as they conduct themselves in a civil manner.  But that would be hypocritical....

Civil -  "Latin civilis "relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen," hence by extension "popular, affable, courteous;" alternative adjectival derivation of civis "townsman" "

Dictionary.com, "civil," in Online Etymology Dictionary. Source location: Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: May 31, 2015.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Telegraph is about the impact of America's strategic choices on Britain bit it also could be applicable in The Chinese Military, Political and Social Superthread, because there is a lot of focus on Sino-American relations, and even in Making Canada Relevant Again - The Economic Super-Thread, because the choicers which American straegy offers/forces on Britain will be similar to some that those American strategic choices offer or force on Canada:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11640302/Exclusive-interview-Ian-Bremmer-says-America-is-no-longer-indispensible-and-thats-bad-news-for-Britain.html

Exclusive interview: Ian Bremmer says America is no longer 'indispensable', and that's bad news for Britain
The foreign policy guru and author of "Superpower" speaks with Peter Foster about American retrenchment, the rise of China and what it means for Britain's future

By Peter Foster, Washington

30 May 2015

After six decades serving as the global policeman, the United States is now signalling its retreat from the world.

With the Middle East engulfed by the flames of sectarian conflict, Europe’s borders menaced by the threat of war and China starting to flex its muscles in Asia-Pacific, it is clear the world has entered a new period of volatility.

That uncertainty begs tough questions for Britain: how should we respond to this new American pragmatism? And as our traditional ally turns inward, what should that mean for British foreign policy?

Ian Bremmer, the American foreign policy guru who coined the phrase “G-Zero” to describe this new and unstable world, is the author of ‘Superpower’, a best-selling new book that explores America’s options as a superpower in the 21st century.

Here he talks exclusively to Peter Foster about the strategic choices now facing America - and what they could mean for Britain in the decades to come.

    PF: In ‘Superpower’ you outline three possible courses for American foreign policy: 1) keeping faith with the old “Indispensable” America that underwrites global stability 2) adopting a “moneyball” approach where the US pursues its narrow economic
          and security interests, or 3) an “Independent” America where the US gives up trying to solve the world’s problems, but seeks instead to lead by example by investing in America’s security and prosperity at home. While you invite readers to choose
          for themselves, you personally plumped for the “Independent” strategy – why?

IB: “I went for ‘Independent’ because America needs a strategy that doesn't just last for three months or a year, but for a generation. And the world is moving in a direction where the promises of an ‘indispensable’ America are going to be increasingly hard to fulfil. We see that in terms of how much leadership there isn't in Europe, the challenge posed by a rising China, the implosion of the Middle East, the rise of terrorist organisations and even things like quantum computing which are going to undermine the power of nation states. So for all these reasons I think ‘indispensable’ is deeply problematic.

“But the problem with the hard-nosed ‘moneyball’ approach, is that ultimately America is not a corporation. ‘Moneyball’ may well get the most return on investment for Americans, but the difference between a corporation and the United States is if you're a corporation and you make a bunch of bets and one doesn't work, you go bankrupt. The United States can't afford to go bankrupt. I also think we cannot just jettison the idea of the exceptionalism of the United States. Maybe this is my American bias coming out, but I really do believe that America stands for a lot more than, ‘we're going to be like any other country’. I believe the values that the United States was created with actually do matter.

“Which is why I argue that if the ‘independent’ America approach is done right, then the United States will become the ultimate ‘too big to fail’. And the way that you get the Chinese to align with America is not by containing them. It’s by creating the most robust American economy and democracy you possibly can that the Chinese will really want to invest in - because ultimately that's what's going to make them want to change their system in a way that is more aligned with the United States.”

    PF: Isn’t it naïve to think that China will decide to remake itself in America’s image, just because – as you say in the book – America builds “better schools in Ohio and better hospitals in Arkansas”?

IB: "I don’t think so: the largest number of immigrants into the United States no longer comes from Mexico - as of 2014, it comes from China. And that means we are educating an entire generation of Chinese elites to understand that there is actually a very different kind of system out there. We ultimately defeated the Soviets, in my view, not through an arms race. We ultimately defeated the Soviets through the power of things like Radio Free Europe, through the ideas that America were standing by.

“I completely agree with you, in the next 5-10 years [the Chinese president] Xi Jinping and his cohort are not suddenly going to change stripes over this policy. But I don't think there's an answer for the next 5-10 years. I think we are headed into a period of profound and long-term creative destruction geo-politically. So this is really not about the next five years, this is about setting us up for the next generation. And there, I think China could change an awful lot."

    PF: As we enter this period of post-Cold War instability, is the current US disengagement good or bad for what comes next?

IB: "It's not good, but let's be clear- engagement cannot be half-assed. Engaging doesn't mean telling people you're going to engage and then screwing them over. It means really engaging. It doesn't mean setting a red line, and then backing off. And if you asked me if I believe it is credible right now to take big bets and tell the Europeans ‘we're really there for you', and the Japanese, 'we're really there for you', and the Gulf States 'we're really there for you', then the answer is ‘no’.

Are we going to get presidents that are going to consistently get behind that and really support an American-led world order? It's possible, but I doubt it.”

    PF: So is playing the ‘indispensable’ Superpower role essentially beyond the capacity of America now? Fiscally, militarily?

IB: “No, there are absolutely things we could be doing that would be ‘indispensable’. America has money, interest rates are low, and if we want to print money, we can. If we want to support allies, we can. But indispensable doesn't just mean, 'oh we're going to do drone strikes against Isis'. It means actually going to develop the kind of support that would, over the long-term, build economic opportunities for all these disenfranchised people across the Middle East.

“We're the only country in the world that could put the resources on the ground that could actually fix the Middle East. We're the only country in the world that can create global architecture, global alliances. We're the ones that created Nato. Even if our allies like the Brits say ‘we don't want to spend as much’, we still have to stick with it - because the absence of that is chaos. That’s what the ‘indispensables’ would argue."

    PF: But right now the American public won’t buy into that?

IB: “I don’t think so. ‘Indispensable’ America is now an increasingly extreme sell, domestically, for any American president.

“Americans have gotten disillusioned with the inauthenticity of their own leaders, and the politics and politicians in Washington. After living through the 2008 financial crisis, Bush vs Gore, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib - all of this stuff – and now we’re facing a $5 billion dollar election campaign where the most recognisable names are another Bush and another Clinton - you can't ignore the disillusion.”

    PF: So what does a retreating America mean for Britain? We’ve long ridden on America’s coat-tails, but it seems clear now that those strategic coat-tails are shrinking fast.

IB: “America's coat-tails are shrinking, you’re right, but Britain's arms are shrinking even faster. People got mad at me recently for saying that Britain's greatest global influence today has basically fallen to what The Economist manages to write every week. I love The Economist, but we've come to expect more from Britain historically.

“The post-war world order was built on the back of an incredibly strong transatlantic relationship. That relationship is now at the weakest point we've seen in well over a generation."

    PF: So is it time Britain faced facts and accepted a new reality as a middle-ranking power on Europe’s northern fringes. Aspire to be Norway, say, or the Netherlands?

IB: “In part it depends on what America chooses. If America really does ‘indispensable’ then the Brits want to have your referendum on the EU as soon as possible. You want to win it for Europe. And you want the Brits and the Germans, hopefully with a new French government as well, to become true leaders of a stronger Europe. You want to move the TTIP transatlantic trade deal. You want to reinvigorate the transatlantic alliance, and you want to actually take back some leadership.

But if US foreign policy continues to be incoherent - as appears likely - then the Brits need to hedge like crazy. They need to say, 'we're not really going to be a part of Europe, we're not part of the United States, so we're a really interesting global player with a pretty good economy and a lot of people who want to be here with our inviting tax rules. Let's take advantage of that. Let's not stick with the United States on Russia. That's stupid - we don't want to be a place where the Russians can't continue to come and do business. We want to bank them, we want to house them. Same thing with the Middle East."

    PF: So in that world, with America stepping back, Britain takes a ‘moneyball’ approach?

IB: “Invest in relations with America, but not at the expense of relations with China, India, Germany, the Saudis and other emerging players. Embrace your relationship with the Saudis because they're wealthy and they don't have any friends. What else can you do to differentiate yourself? Stop doing geopolitics. You're not building your military, you're not going to project force any more. Be much more like the Germans.
Say, 'we're not going to talk about the Dalai Lama, let's have a special relationship with the Chinese so we can focus on where our industrial and commercial relations can be more aligned’. Do the same thing with the Indians while you're at it. That's a very different choice for the Brits. But given what we are seeing right now in the United States I think it's a smart play.”

    PF: In the book you criticise the Obama administration, above all else, for failing to take a long-term, strategic approach. What does that mean for China as it emerges as a rival superpower?

IB: "In the past 35 years there's only been one geopolitical constant in the entire world. Only one. And that's the rise of China. What's really dangerous is that China is the only country of size right now that has a global strategy. We should not pretend that that's not true. They have money, they're spending it. They're building architecture and infrastructure. They're trying to align countries more with their long term strategic and economic interests as they see them. The fact is the Americans, by far a greater power than China in every aspect, have nothing to respond to that with. That's ludicrous.

“I think we massively underestimate the Chinese. We spend virtually no time thinking about them. There's no question that China has very real problems, and those problems are going to affect them a great deal over the long term. But they understand what they need to do to resolve them; they are taking very significant steps both domestically and internationally. And we're not. It's one thing to cede space to the Chinese out of a strategy. We're ceding them space that we haven't even considered.”

    PF: Britain is to have its promised referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017. You have said that the Euro crisis is the top global political risk for 2015. So, should we be in, or out?

IB: "To be a part of the EU on balance is advantageous for Britain because of the uncertainty over what happens with Scotland if the Brits go out, as well as the uncertainty for London as a global financial centre if the Brits leave. Having said that there's really no need for Britain to take a leadership role within Europe the way the world is going, and there's certainly no reason for Britain to argue for more integration with Europe.

"It would also be good for Britain to have certainty around the Eurozone one way or the other. Britain should aim to continue to be an attractive financial destination and support its own strategic industries, whether it's pharmaceutical, finance or aviation and arms technology. There are still a few areas that the Brits still do very well in from a global competitive perspective. They should continue to do well in those not just with Europeans but with everybody."

    PF: In so many areas, the geopolitical outlook seems bleak. The US has a general election coming up in 2016, is it too late already to make a difference?

IB: “No. As the world's only superpower, with the world's reserve currency, with all the advantages America has and with the power that a US president has over foreign policy, if an American president really decided they wanted to go with ‘indispensable’ they could. So there's actually a moment here where there's a real debate. Where a Rand Paul vs a Marco Rubio vs a Hillary Clinton vs a Jeb Bush actually matters.

“Ultimately, the real danger is not that US foreign policy will continue to be incoherent, but something much more dangerous than that: that it will continue to be incoherent until the next 9/11, and then the US will respond massively without a strategy in a world where the US is much weaker in terms of its influence.

“The September 11 attacks came when US was at the peak of its international power. So even if the United States massively screwed things up it still had all sorts of ability to align the rest of the world behind it.
But if you have that kind of reaction in five or ten years when China is the world's biggest economy, that could be a hit that America doesn't come back from. That could really change the world order in a dangerous way. I don't think anyone is thinking about that - and that worries me.”

Now, I need to reiterate my well established (I hope) positions:

    1. America cannot afford the Indispensable America option; and

    2. There is no such thing as "American exceptionalism," so even if America decided to "go for broke" and try to be indispensable there is a very, very good chance that it would fail.

That leaves America with two rational and one irrational choices:

    1. Moneyball America, which would be, immediately and directly, bad for Canada but would force us to take advantage of other trade opportunities that might (in my opinion, would) be good in the mid to long term; (rational choice)

    2. Independent (Isolationist) America, which would have somewhat less economic impavct on Canada, because America would, likely want to maintain very close economic ties, but might, actually, threaten our sovereignty because the
        United States might decide that it needs a continental socio-economic base to prosper; (rational choice) or

    3. Incoherent America (what Dr Bremmer and I agree we have now) which means that we need to seek new socio-economic 'partners' in the world. irrational choice

My bet is on 3, 1 and 2, in that order, for the near to mid term, and then 1, for a while, followed by 2, in the mid to long term.

I believe that America has been adrift, strategically, since about 1960. I'm not blaming any one president (not even Kennedy who I think was vacillating and foolish) nor one group (not even the baby boomers) nor even one attitude (not even the deeply flawed belief in American exceptionalism) for America's problems, but the combination of a half century of weak, foolish leadership and flawed (statist) socio-cultural structures has, I fear, fatally weakened our best friend, good neighbour and protector.

 

[pbi]

pbi:
As is often the case I find you and I agreement even though you define yourself left of centre and I define myself right of centre. (Maybe that says as much about how we define centre as anything else).

Kirkhill: I actually try not to define myself as anything, but perhaps "Red Tory" possibly comes closest. I am left of centre on some issues, but probably quite over on the right on some others (such as capital punishment, a capable military and the importance of individual responsibility). I think that one should reason out what one thinks about something, rather than say "I am an "X" therefore I think "Y". That, in my opinion, is dogma rather than thinking.

However, I'm not sure I understand what you mean here:

Justice Thomas's article is a simple restatement of the ancient code of hypocritical civility: a code based on the premise that a person's feelings  and beliefs are their own and that, in the interests of a functioning society people should be judged on their deeds and nothing else.

Why is that kind of civility hypocritical?

But I am fully with you here (except, again, the hypocritical bit):

It shouldn't matter if a person believes in Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler or Marx, or none of the above, so long as they conduct themselves in a civil manner.  But that would be hypocritical....

and here:

Civil -  "Latin civilis "relating to a citizen, relating to public life, befitting a citizen," hence by extension "popular, affable, courteous;" alternative adjectival derivation of civis "townsman" "

Which is to a great extent what I have in mind when I think of a "civil" or "decent" society.

 

[Kirkhill]

pbi: the hypocritical bit comes from my peers in the 60s and 70s.  They were of the opinion that if you disliked someone you should tell them in no uncertain terms your feelings towards them.  They felt that being polite, shaking their hand, carrying on a civil conversation was being hypocritical.

I guess I could understand their rationale so I came to accept that being civil demanded a degree of hypocrisy.  But for me, the importance of civility always outweighed that concern.

I prefer the "hypocrisy" of Harper shaking Putin's hand while politely telling him what he thinks of him, as compared to a mob yelling at a recently elected British MP "Tory Scum!"

 

[pbi]

...Now, I need to reiterate my well established (I hope) positions:... 

    2. There is no such thing as "American exceptionalism," so even if America decided to "go for broke" and try to be indispensable there is a very, very good chance that it would fail....

This idea would be a very hard sell with many of the Americans I've met. I think that this is almost an article of their national faith, and certainly a very big part of how they see the world. You may make the logical case that the US can't "exempt" itself from the realities and entanglements of the world, but I doubt very much that many Americans would agree.  There is no saying that the political culture of a nation has to be driven by logic, or even facts. Instead, I think, it tends to reflect how people at home perceive things.

My bet is on 3, 1 and 2, in that order, for the near to mid term, and then 1, for a while, followed by 2, in the mid to long term.

You are probably right, but I don't see much useful progress on anything until American political culture can reach some firmer, more moderate ground that produces useful discourse and compromise (both hallmarks of American political history, as I understand it), instead of dogmatic shrieking and "culture wars". As Abraham Lincoln observed, "a house divided against itself cannot stand".

I do agree, ultimately, with this view of America, whether I like it or not:

but the combination of a half century of weak, foolish leadership and flawed (statist) socio-cultural structures has, I fear, fatally weakened our best friend, good neighbour and protector.

I am not a huge fan of everything the US has ever said or done, but they are all we have, and in the long run we have not done badly by them.  I would much, much rather have America on its worst day, than China or Russia or some other bunch of totalitarian nasties on their best day.

 

[pbi]

...I guess I could understand their rationale so I came to accept that being civil demanded a degree of hypocrisy.  But for me, the importance of civility always outweighed that concern.

I prefer the "hypocrisy" of Harper shaking Putin's hand while politely telling him what he thinks of him, as compared to a mob yelling at a recently elected British MP "Tory Scum!"

And I do too. I think that more gets done that way. I don't know about you, but I don't do my best work with people screaming insults at me.

Unless, of course, I'm on the parade square. (Which is, fortunately, a part of my life behind me now)

 

[Brad Sallows]

Civility implies a degree of hypocrisy.  We wouldn't need to emphasize its practice if it was simply a matter of course, just as freedom of speech / expression isn't a principle intended to protect that with which nearly everyone already agrees.

 

[a_majoor]

This could have been posted in many palces (the Russia, China and ISIS threads are pretty obvious), but the real question shoudl be how the American led West is going to respond?

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/06/05/the-war-of-the-green-men/?print=1

The War of the Green Men
Posted By Richard Fernandez On June 5, 2015 @ 9:33 pm In cyberwarefare,Russia,War | 120 Comments
What if the world were at war and didn’t know it?

Such an idea seems preposterous.  Shouldn’t we know if we were in one? But the last major war in human memory was World War 2, which, as this visualization shows [1],  was so obviously devastating it actually constituted one of the “peak” catastrophes of  the human species. It’s an outlier. To use The Big One as the semantic threshold would be to filter out the majority of conflict in history.

Since the ability to attack without actually triggering a response confers a distinct advantage, Russia has actually designed a form of warfare to evade the threshold of cultural psychology and avoid the detection of legalistic minds like President Obama’s.  The approach is called hybrid warfare [2]. ”Hybrid warfare is a military strategy that blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare and cyberwarfare. … By combining kinetic operations with subversive efforts, the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution.”

The Kremlin has already employed this mode of conflict in the Ukraine. Recently, Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite [3] warned the West to be on the lookout for “little green men”.  He needs to say this or Washington might not notice.


Lithuania held a simulation in May of separatist groups attacking installations near Russia’s enclave of Kaliningrad, a base of Moscow’s Baltic fleet which is connected to the rest of Russia by a train line through Lithuania.

The exercise was modeled on last year’s capture of Crimea by Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms, who came to be known as the “little green men” when Moscow denied their identity until the takeover was complete.

“We need to learn lessons which we learned in Crimea, which we partly see in the east of Ukraine. Any possible attack, in any form, needs to be taken seriously,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite told Reuters in May. “What makes sense for us is to be prepared for anything.”

Once the World War 2 high pass filter is removed, a plethora of events will readily jump out at the observer. Chinese government hackers [4], for example, have stolen the personal details of 4 million current and former federal employees, possibly in order to identify individuals who can be corrupted, blackmailed or pressured into working for Beijing.  The problem of classifying this event is vexing the administration right now.  Chances are that since they can’t categorize the hack, they’ll throw the fact away.


It was the second major intrusion of the same agency by China in less than a year and the second significant foreign breach into U.S. government networks in recent months.Last year, Russia compromised White House and State Department e-mail systems in a campaign of cyber­espionage.

CNN [5] wrote “the massive hack that may have stolen the personal information of four million federal employees appears designed to build a vast database in what could be preparation for future attacks by China against the U.S., cybersecurity experts advising the government told CNN Friday afternoon.”  Attack is not a word in the administration’s dictionary unless it comes on December 7, 1941.  And even then, maybe not.  China [6] casually announced “that Beijing could set up an air defense zone above disputed areas of the South China Sea if it thought it was facing a large enough threat, according to Chinese news media.”

In November 2013, to the dismay of Japan and the United States, China declared an air defense identification zone over disputed waters in the East China Sea. Chinese military aircraft began requiring all other aircraft flying through the zone to identify themselves, and commercial airliners complied, though the United States sent B-52 bombers through the zone without advance warning to challenge Beijing.

In late May, Chinese officials told the United States to stop sending surveillance flights near land formations that China claims as its territory. American officials say the flights have been over international waters.

What they’ll do beyond observing the fact is problematic. Iran, with whom the administration is in negotiations, undertook to “freeze” its nuclear stockpile and then promptly increased it by 20% [7]. “With only one month left before a deadline to complete a nuclear deal with Iran, international inspectors have reported that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations, partially undercutting the Obama administration’s contention that the Iranian program had been ‘frozen’ during that period.”

They will probably continue the negotiations notwithstanding because “a bad agreement is better than no agreement.” The Associated Press [8] describes the president’s touching faith in pieces of paper:


JERUSALEM — U.S President Barack Obama reached out to a skeptical Israeli public in an interview aired Monday saying that only an agreement, not military action, can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. …

“A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it,” he said in excerpts from his interview with Israeli Channel 2 TV’s investigative program “Uvda.”

The architects of hybrid warfare knew paper would be their friend.  They understood that the liberal West was controlled by lawyers operating under the concept of a “rules-based international order” [9]. This legalistic system could only “see” certain facts and was blind to the others. In May 2013, President Obama [10]  demonstrated this selective vision by claiming victory in the “war on terror” (which he soon declared at an end) based on the belief he had degraded “core al-Qaeda”.

He said, “their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us.”  Asked about other terror groups, he took shelter in definitions.  But as Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post [10] wrote, Obama’s claim was a distinction without a difference. And indeed, within a few months, the “less capable” al-Qaeda affiliates — the “jayvee team” as Obama called them — had eclipsed the original and taken over large swaths of Syria and Iraq.

An unbroken sequence of evacuations, alliance collapses and the capture of equipment including the abandonment of whole countries like Yemen were described as mere “setbacks” in an overall record of stunning success.  It was as if the administration could not see certain things at all.  The Washington Post’s Liz Sly [11] wrote that “while nobody was looking, the Islamic State launched a new, deadly offensive” against the remaining US backed rebels in Syria. Many US backed rebels are throwing in the towel [12] in dismay.

But it wasn’t that “nobody was looking.” The raw intelligence data [13] was probably there and the military could “see” the raw facts, but their superiors couldn’t recognize its significance.  They stuck in the high pass filter and voila, no signal.


Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command said … F-22 flew surveillance missions tracking fighters on the ground, used its advanced sensors to redirect other aircraft and call for additional strikes, passed along data on its missions and escorted bombers to their targets.  …

Since August, coalition forces have conducted about 4, 200 strikes and dropped 14,000 weapons, Carlisle said. About 13,000 enemy fighters have been killed, and about 25 percent of territory has been retaken. Carlisle’s optimistic statements come, however, as Islamic State fighters have been able to retake other ground, like the Iraqi city of Ramadi, and is still able to heavily recruit to their ranks, both locally and internationally.

The narrowness of the body-count like metrics speaks to the insularity of the administration’s thinking. They can only detect objects within a limited range of frequencies. Everything else is discarded. Foreign Policy [14] noted this on display at a recent summit of Gulf allies.  The adminstration vow that “the security and sovereignty of the GCC states constitutes a red line for the United States” was almost completely obviated by what he said next. FP wrote:

And short of an outright attack? Well, that’s where things got a bit more interesting. Truth be told, the odds of Iran launching a conventional assault across the Gulf are low, all things considered. Why risk triggering a direct confrontation with a vastly more powerful U.S. military, after all? The far more likely scenario: covert penetration and interference, subversion, sabotage, terrorist attacks, and local proxies instigating destabilizing acts of civil unrest and low-level violence. Those are Iran’s preferred tools. Where possible, its modus operandi has generally been to keep its hand hidden, its role plausibly deniable.

So what will the U.S. do when the Shiite-majority cities and towns of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province — i.e., where all the oil is — erupt in wide-scale protests against the royal family, with Iranian media, politicians, and clerics agitating them on? While the issue was certainly not addressed directly at the summit, in his introductory presentation Obama made an unsolicited point that caught his guests by surprise and left them somewhat bemused. He told them fairly bluntly that the United States would find it very hard to intervene on behalf of their regimes should they one day wake up and find themselves in a showdown with large masses of their own people. The message: Absent a smoking gun of Iranian interference, the Gulf monarchies will be on their own in the face of any domestic uprising that threatens their rule.

The administration’s visual limits are painfully obvious: it can only “see” conventional war. When al-Arabiya asked President Obama [15] why he has been so passive in preventing the Syrian civil war, Obama answered like a lawyer. To act would have been in violation of “international law”.


Q So forgive me, Mr. President, when people rise and they demand their rights, they look up to the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q They don’t look to any other country. And especially after President Assad used chemical weapons, people felt they’ve been let down. The civil war did not start from day one. They felt that you could have done something in the beginning and you didn’t.

THE PRESIDENT: But if you look at the history of the process, essentially what they’re arguing is that we should have invaded Syria and overthrown the Syrian regime — which, by the way, would be a violation of international law, and undoubtedly we would then be criticized for that, as well.

None of this has escaped Russian, Chinese or radical Islamic notice.  They have got the president’s obvious limits down pat. Obama’s approach to aggression is to give proxies a bunch of weapons and training at arms length, then “run out the clock” [16]. The administration’s preferences were exemplified by Bill Gertz’s recent story on the secret Presidential Study Directive-11 [17], which apparently believes Islamic extremism can be headed off by throwing US support behind the Muslim Brotherhood.


President Obama and his administration continue to support the global Islamist militant group known the Muslim Brotherhood. A White House strategy document regards the group as a moderate alternative to more violent Islamist groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

The policy of backing the Muslim Brotherhood is outlined in a secret directive called Presidential Study Directive-11, or PSD-11. The directive was produced in 2011 and outlines administration support for political reform in the Middle East and North Africa, according to officials familiar with the classified study.

Efforts to force the administration to release the directive or portions of it under the Freedom of Information Act have been unsuccessful.

That’s why ISIS is now exterminating Obama’s Syrian rebels.  Once they chop off his timid little tentacles, they are home free. The administration’s inability to perceive hybrid warfare coupled with its penchant for secrecy has created an extraordinarily impotent foreign policy. The world stands, according to security pundit Bruce Schneier [18], on the brink of a global cyber-war, of which China’s attacks are but the opening salvos. But so what?

In the meantime, Putin’s “little green men” are poised to go on the offensive for a second straight year. Michael Weiss [19] asks, “can anyone stop Putin’s new Blitz? A shaky cease-fire in Ukraine was shattered Wednesday morning with a new offensive by Russian-backed troops. How will the White House respond?”

How will they respond? Simple. By doing nothing. By giving a speech. By increasing domestic surveillance. By denying there’s anything to respond to, that’s what. Beware the combo of little green men from the Kremlin and the small-minded men from Chicago.  It’s the perfect storm.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the idea that current political structures and institutions are increasingly irrelevant in today's social, economic and demographic climates. Current political parties are "doubling down" with current plans and programs because they truly do nnot understand the new environment and why their programs are not working (WRM has done a similar job talking about the death of the "Blue model" in "The American Interest). The problem is that the change isn't going to be a graceful drawdown, but more like an implosion (Imagine Detroit happening across the 20 "Blue" States as their unsustainable pension liabilities come due), and the people who benefit from the current system are determined to fight to the last taxpayer to keep it running:

http://pointsandfigures.com/2015/07/11/want-to-know-how-to-stop-a-centralized-bureaucracy-math/

Want to Know How to Stop a Centralized Bureaucracy? Math.
Posted by Jeff Carter on July 11th, 2015

My friend Mark Glennon runs Wirepoints. He was on a radio show recently talking about public pensions.

Public pensions have bankrupted the state of Illinois, counties, and virtually all municipalities in Illinois. Bill Gurtin of Gurtin Fixed Income has said he would decline buying the public debt of two places: Puerto Rico and anywhere in Illinois.

Often, we think of the monolithic corporation as being a danger to freedom in America. It’s a pretty easy seed to plant with people that have to deal with companies like Comcast and ATT everyday. But, behind that monolithic corporate giant is an out of control larger monolith. The government. The government regulates corporations, but who regulates the government?

It’s easy to say, “the voters”. But, in states like Illinois every district over every geographic square inch has been gerrymandered to death. Kingmakers have cut up voters to make sure certain things happen. Tammy Duckworth has decided to run for Senate in Illinois. Democrats aren’t worried about her House seat-the election won’t be competitive. A Democrat is virtually guaranteed to replace her.  Last week, there was a primary to replace Aaron Schock in Peoria.  Republicans aren’t too concerned since the district has been drawn to guarantee Republican domination.  In certain parts of the state, there are severe social consequences to going against the local Machine. In the city of Chicago, it’s tougher to be an out of the closet Republican than it is to be gay!

At least corporations have competition that keeps them honest.  Even Comcast has a couple of competitors in the regulated oligarchy they have helped their government pals set up.  Innovation is creating new competitors that weren’t envisioned when they set up their oligarchy.  The real danger to the free, open, capitalistic society the Founding Fathers set up isn’t the mega corporation.  It’s the mega government that enables the mega corporation.

The only thing that will upend the carefully crafted apple cart the political bosses have set up is math.  The math that Mark talks about in the Soundcloud clip I posted is rapidly becoming a reality in states like Illinois.  The answer from Democratic politicians has been to look for ways to increase taxes and fees to keep the shell game going.  None of them have cut the size and scope of government.  None of them have deregulated anything to allow more choice and freedom for people.  Interestingly, the United States federal budget allocates 62% of all spending to entitlements, and the number will rise dramatically with Obamacare.  It’s totally unsustainable but the crony capitalists in Washington don’t care about it.  They’ll be fine.

Or society is transitioning from the old centralized industrial model to a network model of infrastructure.  It’s time to rethink the way we govern.  America 3.0.  It’s time to rethink entitlement spending and create the climate where private networked models can efficiently produce goods and services for people instead of government.  Network models push choice to consumers and make them free.  They set up, disband, flow and change to suit the needs of the people in the network.  Networks work better for individuals and end users most of the time.  What’s a bigger threat to a company like Uber?  Competition from similar companies or government?

Companies like Streamlink Software can provide transparency and accountability to governments.  They can also help governments lower costs dramatically.  Did you know it costs the US federal government $200 billion to manage $500 billion in grant money?  What a money suck.

When the math tells governments their time is up, they are forced to make some really tough decisions.  Society can break down.  Look at Detroit.  Look at Venezuela.  Look at Argentina.  Look at Greece.  At least if you live in a state like Illinois, or a city like Chicago, you can move away and avoid the math.  But what happens when it’s the United States?

 

[a_majoor]

Looking at the "Blue" side of the divide. The resistance to change even under the enormous debt pressure sounds familier, but as Instapundit often says "Things that can't go on, won't":

http://city-journal.org/2015/eon0712ar.html

Chicago’s Financial Fire
The city faces trouble from every direction.
12 July 2015

After years of warnings, financial reality is hitting home in Chicago, clouding Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s hope for a transformational legacy. In March, Moody’s downgraded the city’s credit rating to junk, but Chicago’s financial hole long predates its ratings slide. The trouble began emerging at least as far back as 2003, albeit under the radar. Then, as the Great Recession pummeled municipal budgets around the country, former Mayor Richard M. Daley engaged in dubious deals, such as the city’s parking-meter lease. In 2010, as Daley’s tenure neared its close, Crain’s Chicago Business published an exposé on the troubling levels of debt that the mayor’s administration had accumulated. In 2013, after Daley had left office, the Chicago Tribune ran a series further detailing the city’s questionable debt practices, such as “scoop and toss”—that is, rolling over debt at higher cost as it came due, rather than paying it off. Chicago’s pension woes, along with Illinois’, started attracting media coverage—as did financial can-kicking by agencies like the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), which drained its reserves in 2012 and created a 2015 budget showing 14 months of revenue (“loopy,” said the Tribune). So for several years now, the media have been telling Chicagoans that there’s a financial crisis. But it hasn’t really felt like one, at least not in the booming Loop and on the North Side.

The Moody’s downgrade triggered termination clauses in swaps contracts that the city and CPS had been using as part of their financial juggling act, creating a liquidity crisis. To deal with the downgrade fallout, the city plans to issue $1.1 billion in long-term bonds. While some sort of refinancing may be required, the proposed debt issue contains maneuvers similar to those that helped get Chicago into trouble in the first place—including more scoop and toss deferrals, $75 million for police back pay, $62 million to pay a judgment related to the city’s lakefront parking-garage lease, and $35 million to pay debt on the acquisition of the former Michael Reese Hospital site (an architecturally significant complex Daley acquired and razed for an ill-fated Olympic bid). The debt-issue proposal also includes $170 million in so-called “capitalized interest” for the first two years. That is, Chicago is actually borrowing the money to pay the first two years of interest payments on these bonds. In true Chicago style, the proposal passed the city council on a 45-3 vote. Hey, at least the city is getting out of the swaps business.

Even with no further gimmicks, Emanuel will be six years into his mayoralty before the city can stop borrowing just to pay the interest on its debt. And without accounting for pensions, it will take the full eight years of both his terms to get the city to a balanced budget, where it can pay for the regular debt it has already accumulated.

Then there’s the crisis engulfing the city’s schools, which are facing 1,000 layoffs and numerous other cuts to avoid running out of cash. Forced by a state mandate to start paying its pensions, CPS coughed up $634 million as required last week. A recent Ernst & Young report said that even if CPS got another five-year pension-contribution holiday, it would still rack up an additional $2.4 billion in accumulated deficits by 2020. Meanwhile, the Chicago Teachers Union, hostile to any reform that would affect teacher salaries and benefits, says that the district is “broke on purpose.” And CPS has no permanent CEO in place after Barbara Byrd-Bennett resigned last month amid a federal investigation into no-bid contracts.

Emanuel wants Springfield to pay for Chicago’s teacher pensions going forward, as it does for every other school district. He has a legitimate gripe here, but the state is in a deep financial hole of its own, with its teacher-pension fund in even worse shape than the city’s—and a government shutdown looming over the failure to pass a budget.

It’s not just the teachers’ pensions that are in trouble in Chicago; pensions for all municipal workers are woefully underfunded. (Separately, Cook County plans to raise its sales tax by one percentage point to start dealing with its own yawning pension gap.) Emanuel is willing to raise taxes by instituting a $175 million annual pension levy for the schools, but even his best-case scenario for pensions leaves a structural deficit in the CPS operating budget. And an Illinois Supreme Court ruling puts the previously negotiated city reforms in jeopardy. The court struck down state-level pension reform, saying that even future pension accruals for public employees can’t be reduced—a ruling that triggered the Moody’s downgrade. Emanuel denounced the Moody’s decision while strongly defending the legality of his reform. He makes good arguments, but he’s up against an extremely pro-union court. Perhaps recognizing this, he isn’t even trying to reform the police and fire pension funds. Instead, he proposes simply to defer and extend payments. If adopted, it would mean that the city wouldn’t be on track to funding its pensions until 2021—a decade after Emanuel was first elected. Even so, Crain’s projects that this would raise the city’s slice of property taxes next year by 31 percent—and by more than 50 percent if the deferrals aren’t approved.

Add it up and Chicago residents face another five to six years of pain just to get into a position where they might begin climbing out of the hole. This surely isn’t where Rahm Emanuel envisioned himself back in 2011. One wonders whether he fully understood the true financial condition of Chicago when he decided to pursue the mayor’s office—or grasped the lack of power even the most autocratic mayors have compared with the president or a governor.

Even if all of Emanuel’s reforms go through, the best that he could hope for is that after nearly a decade in office, he will have put out Chicago’s financial fire. There is one thing he can do, however, truly to change the trajectory: partner with Illinois governor Bruce Rauner to get legislation passed requiring that all future local-government employees get 401k-style defined-contribution pensions. This would make it much harder for future administrations to create another pension disaster.

Of course, getting such a law passed wouldn’t be easy, which is precisely why a tough guy like Emanuel should take a shot at it. If he succeeded, he could yet leave a legacy that future generations of Chicagoans would look back on with gratitude.

Aaron M. Renn is a City Journal contributing editor and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow.

 

[a_majoor]

America's "Greece". Many other "Blue" jurisdictions are facing similar pressure, or indeed have already gone under into bankruptcy (Detroit is perhaps the largest city, but multiple cities in California have gone this route in the past) and the looming unfunded liability crisis with government pensions in most of the "Blue" states is also on the near horizon (Unfunded public pension liabilities are estimated to be between 2 and 4 trillion dollars at the Municipal and State level).

Just like in Greece and th EUZone, Americans are going to have to make some pretty hard choices in the future as unsustainable financial liabilities come home to roost. Massive bond "haircuts", restructuring of government contracts and rethinking the scale and scope of the role of government will all have to be on the menu soon; at some point you can no longer kick the can down the road:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/03/puerto-rico-has-defaulted/

Puerto Rico Has Defaulted

It’s all over the wires: Puerto Rico has defaulted on its $58 million payment to creditors of its Public Finance Corporation, which was due by the end of day. San Juan’s treasury only managed to scrape together some $628,000 towards the total. The government had tried to argue that the PFC bonds were of a different category—and had a different legal status—than general obligation debt. Credit rating agencies rejected the argument. “Moody’s views this event as a default”, Moody’s analyst Emily Raimes said in a statement, according to Reuters. “This is a first in what we believe will be broad defaults on commonwealth debt.”

What now? A whole lot of mess, more than likely. WRM wrote at length on Friday about what needs to happen next, in case you missed it. The kicker from his piece:

The United States faces some serious issues as the 2016 election cycle begins; the blue model meltdown is bigger and in its way more toxic than anything that happened at Chernobyl. Reporters and voters should be asking candidates what they plan to do about it.

The Republican debates start this week. We hope the fourth estate will be rising to the occasion.

 

[tomahawk6]

Puerto Rico's democrats have brought this on themselves.Now the US tax payer will have to step in.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article, which is reproduced under thew Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Foreign Affairs, is a few days old but, since Sen Rubio is a viable candidate for president of the USA I think it deserves a look:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-08-04/restoring-america-s-strength

Restoring America’s Strength
My Vision for U.S. Foreign Policy

By Marco Rubio

August 4, 2015

America’s status as the greatest and most influential nation on earth comes with certain inescapable realities. Among these are an abundance of enemies wishing to undermine us, numerous allies dependent on our strength and constancy, and the burden of knowing that every choice we make in exercising our power—even when we choose not to exercise it at all—has tremendous human and geopolitical consequences.

This has been true for at least 70 years, but never more so than today. As the world has grown more interconnected, American leadership has grown more critical to maintaining global order and defending our people’s interests, and as our economy has turned from national to international, domestic policy and foreign policy have become inseparable.

President Barack Obama has failed to recognize this. He entered office believing the United States was too engaged in too many places and that globalization had diminished the need for American power. He set to work peeling back the protective cover of American influence, stranding our allies, and deferring to the whims of nefarious regional powers. He has vacillated between leading recklessly and not leading at all, which has left the world more dangerous and America’s interests less secure.
It will take years for our next president to confront the residual effects of President Obama’s foreign and defense policies. Countering the spread of the self-declared Islamic State, for example, will require a broadened coalition of regional partners, increased U.S. involvement in the fight, and steady action to prevent the group’s expansion to other failed and failing states. Halting Iran’s regional expansionism and preventing its acquisition of a nuclear weapon will demand equal urgency and care.

The Middle East, however, is far from the only region with crises. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing’s attempts to dominate the South China Sea, resurgent despotism in South America, and the rise of new threats—from devastating cyberattacks to challenges in space—will all require the careful attention of America’s next president.

Each challenge will be made more difficult by President Obama’s slashing of hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget, which has left the U.S. Army on track to be at pre–World War II levels, the U.S. Navy at pre–World War I levels, and the U.S. Air Force with the smallest and oldest combat force in its history. Our next president must act immediately on entering office to begin rebuilding these capabilities.

Physical strength and an active foreign policy to back it up are a means of preserving peace, not promoting conflict. Foreign involvement has never been a binary choice between perpetual war and passive indifference. The president has many tools to advance U.S. interests, and when used in proper balance, they will make it less likely that force will ever be required and will thus save lives rather than cost them.

My foreign policy would restore the post-1945 bipartisan presidential tradition of a strong and engaged America while adjusting it to meet the new realities of a globalized world. The foreign policy I propose has three pillars. Each can be best described through an example of a challenge we face in this new century, but they all reveal the need for all elements of American power—for a dynamic foreign policy that restores strength, promotes prosperity, and steers the world toward freedom.

A STRATEGY OF STRENGTH

The first and most important pillar of my foreign policy will be a renewal of American strength. This is an idea based on a simple truth: the world is at its safest when America is at its strongest. When America’s armed forces and intelligence professionals, aided by our civilian diplomatic and foreign assistance programs, are able to send a forceful message without firing a shot, the result is more peace, not more conflict. Yet when the United States fails to build or display such strength, it weakens our global hand by casting doubt on our ability and willingness to act. This doubt only encourages our adversaries to test us.

The Obama administration’s handling of Iran has demonstrated this with alarming clarity. Tehran exploited the president’s lack of strength throughout the negotiations over its nuclear program by wringing a series of dangerous concessions from the United States and its partners, including the ability to enrich uranium, keep the Arak and Fordow nuclear facilities open, avoid admitting its past transgressions, and ensure a limited timeline for the agreement.

How did a nation with as little intrinsic leverage as Iran win so many concessions? Part of the answer is that President Obama took off the table the largest advantage our nation had entering into the negotiations: military strength. Although the president frequently said that “all options are on the table” with regard to Iran, his administration consistently signaled otherwise. Several senior officials openly criticized the notion of a military strike, and the president himself publicly said that there could be no military solution to the Iranian nuclear program. This was underscored by a historic reluctance to engage throughout the Middle East, from pulling troops out of Iraq at all costs to retreating from the stated redline on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

President Obama became so publicly opposed to military action that he sacrificed any option that could have conceivably raised the stakes and forced the mullahs into making major concessions. Iran recognized that it could push for greater compromise without fear that the United States would break off the talks. The president’s drive for a deal caused him to forsake a basic principle of diplomacy with rogue regimes: it must be backed by the threat of force. As president, I would have altered the basic environment of the talks. I would have maneuvered forces in the region to signal readiness; linked the nuclear talks to Iran’s broader conduct, from its human rights abuses to its support for terrorism and its existential threats against Israel; and pressured Tehran on all fronts, from Syria to Yemen.

It is true that Iran, in response to these displays of strength, may have broken off negotiations or even lashed out in the region. History, however, suggests that even if Iran had created more trouble in the near term, increased pressure would have eventually forced it to back down. That is exactly what happened in 1988, when Iran ended its war with Iraq and its attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf after the Reagan administration sent in the U.S. Navy. More recently, after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran halted a key component of its nuclear program.

It’s not too late to mitigate the damage of the administration’s mishandling of Iran. By rescinding the flawed deal concluded by President Obama and reasserting our presence in the Middle East, we can reverse Iran’s malign influence in this vitally important region and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The security of the region, the safety of Israel, and the interests of the entire world require an American approach toward Tehran marked by strength and leadership rather than weakness and concession.

OPEN FOR BUSINESS

The second pillar of my foreign policy is the protection of an open international economy in an increasingly globalized world. Millions of the best jobs in this century will depend on international trade that will be possible only when global sea-lanes are open and sovereign nations are protected from the aggression of larger neighbors. Thus, the prosperity of American families is tied to the safety and stability of regions on the other side of the world, from Asia to the Middle East to Europe.

That is why Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty is much more than a question of where lines are drawn on the maps of eastern Europe. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and efforts to sow instability in eastern Ukraine were sparked, in no small part, by the decision of a sovereign Ukrainian government to seek closer political and economic ties with the European Union and the West.

Russia’s actions are a historic affront to the post–World War II global order on which the global economy depends, and they set a disturbing precedent in a world of rising powers with surging ambitions. Our halting and meager response sends a message to other countries that borders can be violated and countries invaded without serious consequences. The threat of this precedent is profound. America should never have to ask permission from a regional power to conduct commerce with any nation. We cannot allow the world to become a place where countries become off-limits to us as markets and trading partners because of violence, uncertainty, or the blustering threats of an autocratic ruler.

Russia’s actions are emblematic of a larger global trend. From the Strait of Hormuz to the South China Sea, authoritarian states increasingly threaten recognized borders and international waters, airspace, cyberspace, and outer space as a means of gaining leverage over their neighbors and over the United States. Since the end of World War II, the United States has prospered in part because it guarded those critical pathways, and U.S. engagement has a distinguished record of increasing the well-being of other countries, from Germany and Japan to South Korea and Colombia. By failing to maintain this devotion to protecting the lanes of commerce, the Obama administration has exposed international markets to exploitation and chaos.

I will also isolate Russia diplomatically, expanding visa bans and asset freezes on high-level Russian officials and pausing cooperation with Moscow on global strategic challenges. The United States should also station U.S. combat troops in eastern Europe to make clear that we will honor our commitments to our NATO allies and to discourage further Russian aggression.

If that support is coupled with more robust support for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a willingness to leverage America’s newly gained status as a leader in oil and natural gas by lifting the ban on U.S. exports, we can help guard our European allies from Russia’s attempts to use trade and energy dependence as a weapon. This will also assist our efforts to help Ukraine’s leaders modernize and reform their economy and ultimately consolidate their independence from Moscow.

By preserving Ukraine’s freedom and demonstrating that the United States will not tolerate such threats to the global economy, the United States can begin to deter other potential aggressors from bullying their neighbors, including an increasingly ambitious China.

DEFENDING FREEDOM

Our approach to China in this century relates to the last pillar of my foreign policy: the need for moral clarity regarding America’s core values. Our devotion to the spread of human rights and liberal democratic principles has been a part of the fabric of our country since its founding and a beacon of hope for so many oppressed peoples around the globe. It is also a strategic imperative that requires pragmatism and idealism in equal measure.

Members of the Obama administration have signaled a disturbing willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hope of appeasing the Chinese leadership. In the administration’s early days in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that human rights “can’t interfere” with other ostensibly more important bilateral issues, and in the months before Xi Jinping ascended to China’s top leadership post in 2012, Vice President Joe Biden told him that U.S. support for human rights was merely a matter of domestic political posturing.

As we have fallen silent about the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government has stymied democratic efforts in Hong Kong, raided the offices of human rights organizations, arrested scores of activists, redoubled its efforts to monitor and control the Internet, and continued repressive policies in Tibet and other Chinese regions, all while rapidly expanding its military, threatening its neighbors, establishing military installations on disputed islands, and carrying out unprecedented cyberattacks against America. China’s actions reveal a basic truth: the manner in which governments treat their own citizens is indicative of the manner in which they will treat other nations. Beijing’s repression at home and its aggressiveness abroad are two branches of the same tree. If the United States hopes to restore stability in East Asia, it has to speak with clarity and strength regarding the universal rights and values that America represents.

The best way for the United States to counter China’s expansion in East Asia is through support for liberty. The “rebalance” to Asia needs to be about more than just physical posturing. We must stand for the principles that have allowed Asian economies to grow so rapidly and for democracy to take root in the region. Only American leadership can show the Chinese government that its increasingly aggressive regional expansionism will be countered by a reinforcement of cooperation among like-minded nations in the region.

As president, I will strengthen ties with Asia’s democracies, from India to Taiwan. Bolstering liberty on China’s periphery can galvanize the region against Beijing’s hostility and change China’s political future. I will also back the Chinese people’s demands for unrestricted Internet access and their appeals for the basic human right of free speech. I will engage with dissidents, reformers, and religious rights activists, and I will reject Beijing’s attempts to block our contacts with these champions of freedom. I will also redouble U.S. support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and ensure that, once the trade deal is concluded, additional countries are able to join, expanding the creation of what will be millions of jobs here at home as well as abroad.

China will likely resist these efforts, but it is dependent on its economic relationship with the United States and, despite angry outbursts, will have no choice but to preserve it. President Ronald Reagan proved through his diplomacy with the Soviet Union that having a productive relationship with a great power and insisting on that power’s improvement of human rights are not conflicting aims. If the United States can pursue this agenda with China even as it continues its economic engagement, it will demonstrate that America remains committed to the cause of freedom in our time. I believe that when true freedom for the 1.3 billion people of China is finally attained, the impact will fundamentally change the course of human history.

FROM DISENGAGEMENT TO LEADERSHIP

These are only three examples of the challenges the United States will face in this century. They are all examples of problems that will require deft, multifaceted leadership. In addition to existing and emerging threats, we undoubtedly will be confronted with unexpected crises in the years ahead. These unknowns highlight the importance of establishing a fixed set of principles and objectives to guide American leadership. After years of strategic disengagement, this is the only way to restore global certainty regarding American commitments.

By making retrenchment his primary objective, President Obama has put the international system at the mercy of the most ruthless aggressors. They are constantly seeking to undermine the basic principles of the post-1945 world by challenging American military primacy, threatening the global commons, and undermining liberal values. That Iran, Russia, and China are each challenging the United States in these spheres at the same time demonstrates their mutual desire for a departure from the postwar order.
Related Tweets


The authoritarian rulers of these nations find an open international system deeply threatening to their exclusive grip on domestic political power. They cannot simply be reassured or persuaded, and they will push their agendas with whatever tools we give them the latitude to use. We cannot assume that these states will negotiate in good faith or see it in their interest to come to an agreement. If we allow the continued erosion of our military, economic, and moral strength, we will see a further breakdown in global order cast a lengthening shadow across our domestic prosperity and safety.

Retrenchment and retreat are not our destiny. The United States, by its presence alone, has the ability to alter balances, realign regional powers, promote stability, and enhance liberty. Only we can form coalitions based on mutual investment and mutual sacrifice. Our sole goal has never been to remain the world’s preeminent power. We will encourage and assist the rise of more powers when their rise is benign or noble. We wish to be a fraternal force rather than a paternal one.

This principle has marked the bipartisan tradition of U.S. foreign policy for the last 70 years. Our recent departure from this tradition has brought only violence, chaos, and discord. By advancing the three pillars of my foreign policy, I intend to restore American leadership to a world badly in need of it and defend our interests in what I’m confident will be another American century.

The first pillar of Sen Rubio's proposed foreign policy is the restoration of American military strength ... fair enough, but he doesn't say how he (or America) can and will provide the financial means necessary. On that issue, alone, Sen Rubio must be measured as a policy lightweight.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Economist, that newspaper takes a critical look at the state of America's Asian Pivot:

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21660552-america-struggles-maintain-its-credibility-dominant-power-asia-pacific-70-year?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/The70yearitch

The 70-year itch
America struggles to maintain its credibility as the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific

Aug 8th 2015 | From the print edition

STILL on crutches after a cycling accident, and with less good news to report than he must have hoped when his speech to a university in Singapore was scheduled, John Kerry, America’s secretary of state, was this week a study in embattled optimism. Ministers from the 12 countries, including his own and Singapore, which are negotiating a much-vaunted trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), had just failed to clinch an expected deal. And China was refusing even to discuss its controversial island-building in the South China Sea at a regional summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur. Mr Kerry’s speech was defiantly upbeat. But America’s prestige in the Asia-Pacific has been dented of late. On the 70th anniversary on August 15th of Japan’s surrender and the end of the second world war, the American-led order in place since then looks rather brittle.

America itself has turned the TPP into the gauge by which its leadership in the region is measured. Officials and politicians from President Barack Obama down have portrayed it as the most important aspect of America’s “pivot” or “rebalancing” to the Asia-Pacific, and of its determination to help set the rules there rather than let China write them. Mr Kerry spoke positively of the progress made at the TPP talks in Hawaii, conceding only that “there remain details to be hashed out.” Ministers at the talks claimed that the deal was “98%” done. But the devil is in those details, and in any complex negotiation, the last bit is the hardest.

What appear to be the main remaining bones of contention are varied and tricky. Canada, where an election has just been called for October, does not want to open up its market for dairy products—a priority for New Zealand, one of TPP’s originators a decade ago. Liberalising Japan’s agricultural market, notably for rice, remains acutely sensitive politically. Mexico objects to the amount of content from countries not in the TPP that Japan wants allowed into its exports of lorries. America protects its sugar producers. And it wants its pharmaceutical firms to enjoy 12 years of patent protection on new biologic drugs, which most of the other 11 countries find several years too long.

Yet hopes had been high that the Hawaii talks might bring this marathon negotiation to the finishing line. They were the first between ministers since the American Congress narrowly voted to give the president “fast-track” Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), meaning that Congress could no longer unpick a trade agreement clause by clause, having to approve or reject it as a whole. Without TPA, other countries had been unwilling to make their best offers. Now, however, some speculate that, in the intense haggling to secure passage of TPA through Congress, the administration made promises that have hamstrung its negotiators. Another reason for believing the Hawaii round might be crucial was the pressure of the American political calendar. The administration has to give Congress at least 90 days’ notice before signing a trade agreement. So time is already running out if TPP is to be sealed before becoming embroiled in next year’s presidential election campaign. Even some of the most optimistic TPP supporters think a deal may now not happen until 2017 at the earliest.

After losing one battle in economic diplomacy to China by failing to persuade some close allies to reject China’s invitation to join a new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, America needs the TPP. Without an economic leg, other aspects of America’s rebalancing towards Asia, such as its military role, would become even more important. Many countries in the region are alarmed by what they see as an assertive, bullying China. They welcome America’s military might, and its willingness to project it across Asia. But China’s frenzied construction spree in the South China Sea presents America with a dilemma, even if, as China’s foreign minister said this week, the reclamation has now ended. America says it takes no position on the many overlapping territorial disputes there, the most active of which pit China against the Philippines and Vietnam; and it insists on asserting the “freedom of navigation” including of its navy and air force. Under the law of the sea, the artificial islands China has built on rocks and reefs that are submerged at high tide have no territorial waters.

Yet China is behaving as if they do—and so, perversely, is America. China insists the series of bilateral disputes in the South China Sea is none of America’s business and is not a topic for discussion at regional forums such as a 27-country one just hosted by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kuala Lumpur. America, of course, disagrees, and has the backing of much of ASEAN for that. But it knows that if it does start testing Chinese resolve by sailing into or flying over China’s notional territorial waters, it could soon be seen as reckless and provocative, and find its regional support evaporate. So America’s inaction makes China’s new facts in the water look even more permanent and fosters the notion of relative American decline.

A TiP-ping point

That impression is heightened by the sense that America is less strident than it was in upholding its values of human rights, freedom and democracy. Cynics have always suspected that these ideals were subject to political exigencies. Last month they pointed to new evidence of this when the State Department promoted Malaysia from the bottom tier of countries listed in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TiP) report. It insisted this was because Malaysia was indeed cracking down on traffickers. Most Malaysians (and Thais, whose country was denied a similar upgrade) saw it as political: under American law a bottom-tier ranking would have meant that Malaysia would have to be excluded from TPP. The perception that TPP is so important to America to lead it to such distortions is damaging. It makes it look as if “the stable, transparent and rules-based” order Mr Kerry said America was promoting 70 years on from the war is one where America not only sets the rules, but twists them when they get in the way.

Much as I remain convinced that both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are weak, vacillating straws in the wind, I believe that they have (accidentally, no doubt) stumbled upon the right strategy for America at this time:

    First, pursue America's financial best interests with skill and vigour. Nothing much else of strategic importance can happen until America's fiscal house in put in order. Republicans can dream all they want about "restoring America's
    strength," they are talking about doing it with money borrowed from China; and

    Second, bluster at China, they don't mind ~ in fact they actually welcome it, they can use America-Japanese-Vietnamese blkuster for their own internal propaganda ~ but stay well clear of direct, physical confrontations.