Obama, McCain & the waning American... - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Ma'ake · 02-10-2008, 02:09 PM

Empire.

Item: The addage of "when American sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold" is quickly being pushed aside as our struggles with the effects of a sugar high likely won't have a fundamental impact on the economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia & other emerging markets.

Item: Not counting Iraq & Afghanistan, we spend more on defense than all the rest of the world combined. (This can't help our economic position globally... or domestically. The most recent budget estimates are pushing the deficit toward $800B, or more than 25% of the total budget of $3.1T Who argues this isn't a poor position to be in, especially considering our persistent deficits during boom times?)

Item: The conservative's conservative, Ron Paul, believes our military empire is spread too far, works against our long term global interests.

As Americans we're going to have to grapple with the idea that America will not inevitably be the pre-eminent global economic, ideological & military power indefinitiely. All things change, and just as the "sun never sets on the British empire" was once the proud adage of a previous world power, our role as the world's policeman will almost certainly diminish, over the long term.

McCain represents maintenance & expansion of a most robust American military prowess, while Obama has pushed the idea that we need to more positively engage other nations. Which approach is more sustainable long term?

As for the early stages of a waning American empire & role as the sole superpower, it isn't all bad. Compared to the Brits, we're more likely to remain very strong on the world stage, and even when comparing the US & Britain, all is not so bad. According to at least one index measuring "standard of living", the Brits recently passed us... if only marginally. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece

(Granted, our ability to produce & reside in 5000 square foot mini-castles isn't factored into this type of standard-of-living comparison.)

Realistically, I think the future is not all bad, even if our position as the unquestioned, pre-eminent nation will likely diminish.

02-10-2008, 02:09 PM	#1
Ma'ake Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: SLC Posts: 441	Obama, McCain & the waning American... Empire. Item: The addage of "when American sneezes the rest of the world gets a cold" is quickly being pushed aside as our struggles with the effects of a sugar high likely won't have a fundamental impact on the economies of China, India, Brazil, Russia & other emerging markets. Item: Not counting Iraq & Afghanistan, we spend more on defense than all the rest of the world combined. (This can't help our economic position globally... or domestically. The most recent budget estimates are pushing the deficit toward $800B, or more than 25% of the total budget of $3.1T Who argues this isn't a poor position to be in, especially considering our persistent deficits during boom times?) Item: The conservative's conservative, Ron Paul, believes our military empire is spread too far, works against our long term global interests. As Americans we're going to have to grapple with the idea that America will not inevitably be the pre-eminent global economic, ideological & military power indefinitiely. All things change, and just as the "sun never sets on the British empire" was once the proud adage of a previous world power, our role as the world's policeman will almost certainly diminish, over the long term. McCain represents maintenance & expansion of a most robust American military prowess, while Obama has pushed the idea that we need to more positively engage other nations. Which approach is more sustainable long term? As for the early stages of a waning American empire & role as the sole superpower, it isn't all bad. Compared to the Brits, we're more likely to remain very strong on the world stage, and even when comparing the US & Britain, all is not so bad. According to at least one index measuring "standard of living", the Brits recently passed us... if only marginally. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3137506.ece (Granted, our ability to produce & reside in 5000 square foot mini-castles isn't factored into this type of standard-of-living comparison.) Realistically, I think the future is not all bad, even if our position as the unquestioned, pre-eminent nation will likely diminish. Last edited by Ma'ake; 02-10-2008 at 02:19 PM.