I think there's some clarification that needs to happen, though: what would it mean for "China to dictate the terms", and does that necessarily happen if the US "steps back" (and what does that mean?) In a charitable interpretation, the US remains an important trading, industrial, technological, and educational world power. Perhaps it might even keep the spending on worldwide surveillance (e.g. spy satellites). Geopolitical influence allows for many strategies.
Stepping back from enforcing post-WW2 world order means letting China, Russia, Iran to freely install their satellite and unfriendly-to-the-US regimes around the world, by force if needed. Which means access to the foreign markets will be curtailed for the US or otherwise "dictated" by other powers. It's hard to see how that leads to more prosperity for Americans, especially since the political forces trying to bring that about are also not very pro-"trading, industry, technology and education".
The GP says that they don't want to prop up foreign lifestyles because the middle class in the US is struggling but isolationism in the 21st century will not make things better for the US middle class. Nor for middle class of any other country really, although the GP doesn't care about those.
What do you mean by "post-WW2 world order", in this case? Without that, it's hard to even make claims about what happens when the US stops "enforcing it" with. Does the US simply stop pouring in development aid into countries? Does it stop attracting world-class talent into research institutions, and eventually industries? Does it stop having significant heft in trade negotiations because of that?
On one hand, there are specific things that the US _could_ stop doing: not selling arms left and right, and bombing third countries. Maybe you might not call that a meaningful change in the "post-WW2 world order" – but we'd argue that's the case, since it has been a consistent feature of the post-WW2 world order.
It's also a very big leap to assume that the middle class of any country would suffer after whatever is assumed here happens. Why would you assume that Russia and China not be interested in that? Moreover, why would you assume that Russia and China would _not_ want "trading, industry, technology and education" in the absence of great power competition?
>Stepping back from enforcing post-WW2 world order means letting China, Russia, Iran to freely install their satellite and unfriendly-to-the-US regimes around the world, by force if needed.
The US isn't going anywhere. In fact China has serious structural problems that may make all this conversation pointless. But there needs to be some sort of pathway for the global south to move forward. If that involves having China rise up and then countries accepting that all they can do is play the US and China off of each other to get the best deals out of them then thats still a step forward. If climate change comes to pass it may not even matter. The US and the West is the cause for the majority of the historical pollution yet its the unprepared global south that will bear the worst brunt of climate change. So the best I am advocating for is that the global south take one step forward and hope they don't end up five steps backwards in the long run.
>The GP says that they don't want to prop up foreign lifestyles because the middle class in the US is struggling but isolationism in the 21st century will not make things better for the US middle class. Nor for middle class of any other country really, although the GP doesn't care about those.
As to improving the middle class, we need to understand the structural reasons why they are sinking. Decades of erosion to US institutions has led to a situation that can only change if things get really bad and the citizens really demand change..or the US elite are challenged with some real competition. I dont see how it can happen naturally in the US anymore. Every time people get fed up, there is a "release valve" or a distraction in the form of crumbs offered to people so that enough settle down or fixate on something else. We saw it after the "Occupy Wall Street Protests" with the beginning of the culture wars as well as the passing of Obamacare which eliminated the most barbaric provisions of health care in the US. It is not meaningful change but it calmed people down. This method will lead to decades of the elite retaining their leverage. I dont want to see my life pass before my eyes and no real reform ends up happening.
In terms of the second method of having the elite being challenged, We saw in the cold war how the US system had to prove itself and that led to a strong taxation on the wealthy, good institutions, positive movement for the middle class, all to show the Russians that the US led system is the best. There currently is no forcing function to return to that situation at this time.
> We saw in the cold war how the US system had to prove itself and that led to a strong taxation on the wealthy, good institutions, positive movement for the middle class, all to show the Russians that the US led system is the best.
I don't think anyone sane thinks that Russians or Chinese masses have it better in economic terms. In fact, the message of Russian propaganda including its American extension is that everything sucks everywhere.
>I don't think anyone sane thinks that Russians or Chinese masses have it better in economic terms. In fact, the message of Russian propaganda including its American extension is that everything sucks everywhere.
Uh did I say anything of the sort?
When the Cold War was going on the communist system was initially out producing and out maneuvering the US but eventually the fallacy of a communist (and subsequently fascist takeover of the government) made it inevitable that it was going to fail.
However during this fight between the two powers, the US saw great advances in the prosperity and rights of its middle class. As the USSR started to fall, we saw the beginnings of corporate takeover of all layers of the US government and it really accelerated after the USSR fell. You are making this argument that the US had it so good while ignoring how it got so good and also failing to acknowledge why it has declined so much over the last few decades. If you don't buy my argument then I challenge you to provide an alternative explanation.
I am partial to that argument, at least in the interwar period the US masses and intelligentsia were enamored with the USSR for it was new and the atrocities were not widely known, so we got the New Deal. I don't think that applies to the post-WW2 period and the fact that the US was the only industrial nation left unscathed was the real prosperity driver.
But it is all moot in the world of today where the US competitors are not providing alternatives for people to strive for. Russian propaganda of "everything sucks" works wonders to keep Russians docile and it will work wonders to keep the US middle class down as well, ending Pax Americana will do nothing to change that.
I think his argument is more that threat of communism forced America to take many compromises for the common man. Once the great threat of USSR fell, that pressure practically no longer exists.
