Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Irrelevant America
Just this weekend I was talking to another American about this, this eerie sense we both have that the United States is becoming irrelevant in a weird way that we would never have foreseen growing up. Josh Rogin describes this in Bloomberg View:
Europe is facing a convergence of the worst crises since World War II, and the overwhelming consensus among officials and experts here is that the U.S. no longer has the will or the ability to play an influential role in solving them.
At the Munich Security Conference, the prime topics are the refugee crisis, the Syrian conflict, Russian aggression and the potential dissolution of the European Union’s very structure. Top European leaders repeatedly lamented that 2015 saw all of Europe’s problems deepen, and unanimously predicted that in 2016 they would get even worse.
“The question of war and peace has returned to the continent,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the audience, indirectly referring to Russian military interventions. “We had thought that peace had returned to Europe for good.”
What was missing from the conference speeches and even the many private discussions in the hallways, compared to previous years, was the discussion of what Europe wanted or even expected the U.S. to do. …
During the first day of the conference, the U.S. role in Europe was hardly mentioned in the public sessions. In the private sessions, many participants told me that European governments are not only resigned to a lack of American assertiveness, they also are now reluctantly accepting a Russia that is more present than ever in European affairs, and not for the better.
I know lots of people here will say, “See? This was Obama’s secret plan all along.” But it goes beyond that. It’s the collective impression people are getting from contact with America — not just our foreign policy but our culture, our political debates, our newspapers, our tourists, our movies. Not negative. Just irrelevant — whether or not this is a rational belief. And it’s not.
This is something I’ve felt in a personal way, though I’ve had trouble describing it. Just a subtle difference in people’s speech and reactions. Most of my life, people have noticed that I look out of place, or heard an accent, and asked me where I’m from. And obviously, all my life I’ve been saying, “I’m American,” and until recently, this has generally inspired some reaction — positive or negative, often strongly misinformed, but almost always some opinion about where America is, what it’s like, who the president is, what Americans are like. Even if the opinion clearly comes from nothing more than watching American movies or listening to American pop music, most people have at least heard of America.
But growingly, I feel as if the conversations are headed this way:
Random Foreigner: Where are you from?
Me: I’m American!
RF: How nice! Where did you learn such good English?
Me: Shouldn’t I be asking you that? Americans speak English. It’s our native language.
RF: [Puzzled.] Really? Oh! Crocodile Dundee!
Me: That’s Australia. America’s in the northern hemisphere. Clint Eastwood?
RF: Is he your prime minister?
Me: Clint Eastwood? Muhammed Ali, Elvis, Michael Jordan, Henry Kissinger … Monica Lewinsky? … Tiger Woods? Michael Jackson? You’ve heard of Michael Jackson, right? Have you heard of Facebook? We invented Facebook … McDonalds?
RF: I’ve never been much of a map person, I’m afraid. Bet this weather’s a shock, eh? Is this the first time you’ve ever seen snow?
Me: No, look, we’re a superpower. Barack Obama, you heard of him? Donald Trump? [RF shrugs apologetically] … Star Wars? Darth Vader, you’ve heard of Darth Vader, right? What about Steve Jobs? Haven’t you ever used a phone?
RF: Oh yes, of course! Do you like the food here? It must be hard to get used to, you’re used to spicier food, I bet. All those nice spices there …
Me: No, wait. You’ve heard of the United States of America, I guarantee it. 9/11? The World Trade Center? Great Satan ring any bells? Man on the moon? The Internet? Tear down this wall? [I’m getting frantic] USA! USA! USA! Come on … racist, imperialist, down with America —
RF: Oh, yes, that was terrible. Nelson Mandela was a great man. You must be proud of him. [thumbs-up gesture] Amandla!
Me: You don’t even hate us? You’ve got to have heard about us. Everyone’s …
Published in Culture, Foreign Policy, General, History, Military, Politics
Points to consider:
1. There has always been an isolationist streak in America. Too many of us fled European oppression and don’t want anything to do with their problems. Libertarians couch this in terms of “American interest,” but it’s good old fashioned isolationism. However, all this does is advances the left who wants a weaker America.
2. The presence of US bases in Europe and the Pacific Rim is less about protecting those countries than it is about supply lines.
3. Socialism and American military protection is the price we paid to squelch communist parties in Western Europe after the war.
I remember millions protesting in the streets of Europe when Reagan was trying to protect them.
I remember Europeans saying Yankee go home, and American Imperialism and Ugly American, and You Americans are all fat and stupid and uncultured.
I remember Europeans celebrating a Nobel Peace Prize for this clown Obama.
Now they’re mad we’re not helping? Screw ’em.
Americans, if I may say so, like to win. Kobayashi Maru and all that. With the biggest international crises looking like no-win situations I can’t really blame voters who think disengagement is the most rational option.
In Syria, for example, a win in my opinion would be an end to the civil war with the majority of the country ending up under non-hostile government(s). I recognize that that is unlikely to happen; more importantly, I doubt a US intervention would even push the odds in that direction.
Also, nothing succeeds like success. Better outcomes in Libya and Ukraine probably would have provided a stronger hand for dealing with Syria. Rebuilding a perception of international relevance, if that’s what voters want, will take some time.
Good morning Claire! You have spent too much time in Europe, methinks. You need to visit “Flyover Country” in person (not virtually like you did Albia, Iowa) to get back in touch with real Americans who still live and love America’s historical Creed. Clinging to our “God and our guns”.
All we need is to put Justice Scalia’s favorite candidate in the White House and all will be good and right in the world again.
By the way, Cincinnati is nice in the Fall.
This seems to me true as well.
I believe you and Claire have nicely conceded my point. Most people in America do not want to subsidize consequence free European moral preening (courtesy of the U.S. military).
Embrace Irrelevance!
Can I get a bumper sticker?
I hereby grant you the rights to that expression. However, I get a lifetime supply of t-shirts, bumper stickers, golf balls, etc. . .
…and Prince Albert is still dead, as is the crazy German professor.
No one knows geography or history anymore. I had to explain to a young acquaintance that despite the name, the Warsaw Pact was not run by Poland.
I think we agree with your facts, to speak like Americans, but disagree with your conclusions. I will not speak further for Miss Berlinski, because she does not share my love of war. I have been trying recently to listen to your more famous generals speechify or even just talk in rather more reasonable conversations. I am shocked by how much they fear you & how much they love peace. No wonder every vet one encounters will speak about doing the job, professionalism, & all that…
I agree to a large extent, but there is no getting around the fact that without America Europe would have been Nazified, which is another kind of destruction than the one that occurred, which was brought by America. As opposed to the Great War, when Americans did remarkably little destruction compared to how high-handed they talked when the guns fell silent.
At any rate, I see things otherwise because my education is a concern with politics, & I am always aware I am about the only one on Ricochet, & I suppose most Americans are like you, not me. In 1945, America destroyed German power, took the better half of the continent under control & set about changing the world. That is why the responsibility is America’s. I do not moralize with you: What authority could I possibly summon? I speak as a political man–America was the actor, Europe was merely being acted upon.
It wasn’t over either. America threatened to destroy allied France & england in ’56 for the sake of helping the mother of terrorists in Egypt. & America forced decolonization, too. Moral leadership & all that…
Think, too, of saying: America did not destroy the USSR! It self-destroyed. America just watched.
Let me recommend to you Napoleon’s phrase: Glory is temporary, but anonymity is forever.
We may ascribe the American’s intense pacifism to a longing for eternity, no doubt-
On one hand I’m tired of the US solving Europe’s problems. On the other hand I know that without a strong Europe our economy would sink as well, and no way could we tolerate a resurgent Russia threatening the rest of Europe. The Europeans need us way more than they may realize. Otherwise let them start spending on their national defense like we do.
I don’t think that the “will to power” is any greater today than in the past. What has changed, however, is that the concentration of power in Washington is greater than ever. This means that gaining control over that power is worth more than ever, raising the stakes and acrimony with every new election and every new judicial appointment. Further, it means that a company can best invest its money purchasing congressmen rather than spending it on R&D.
Your observations are insightful and my comment over-simplistic.
The core fact remains that Europe has to either unify to meet their challenges or lose the ability to shape events to acceptable outcomes and fall apart.
If that can’t be done without the U.S. it is too bad for all of us because we have run out of the financial and moral wherewithal to lead.
Nope. Not anymore. Muslim fertility rates correlate very highly with female literacy rates, and as those rise the birthrate drops below replacement. The Shah got female education in Iran before the rest of the region, and it shows in their birthrates. Check the numbers if you don’t believe me. The Muslim world is facing an economic catastrophe in a few decades, and they’ve already started tearing themselves apart. I agree with David Goldman: the below-replacement fertility rate is a symptom of a larger problem.
That was not my serious intention, and I am very sorry to have come across insulting. Please accept my apology.
My point was: if you want to keep dominating the world, you need to keep paying in blood and treasure. That’s how empires work. Past sacrifices do not suffice the present.
You may be willing to do this, but a lot of Americans – even a not insignificant proportion of those here on Ricochet – are not that keen.
You’re coming across loud & strong. It’s empire or going to church & praying.
I don’t know that it was the Shah:
A case, you may agree, of unintended consequences to society, lower fertility being only one of many outcomes.
Though Azadeh Moaveni (of Lipstick Jihad fame) has an interesting on-ground (though dated) take.
Only because we’re too stupid to tax the living crap out of [excuse me, I meant charge a fair value] those in other countries who benefit from our military umbrella.
No. We destroyed them by standing against them. The USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up with us. With no America, they would have rolled over Europe.
Thing is, who pays says. So if they pay, they’ll want a say in how that military umbrella is deployed and to what ends.
Which raises the point: the US and its allies interests hugely overlap, mostly, but what about where they’re different?
I will accept the apology.
Of course it will take blood and treasure. And when needed, the American people will step up at the last possible hour and do it.
What we would like, is for the rest of the world to act like us:
Peaceful, secular traders.
Alas, the world is full of hate-filled, religious screw balls, atheist imperialists, and tin-plated dictators. None of whom will leave us alone.
That’s why I said “tax”.
But NATO allies in particular could start by meeting their minimum defense spending obligations, of which at last check something like 2 or 3 were actually doing.
Then, surely, you destroyed Europe far less metaphorically. Standing against is nice, but does it really compare to arming & equipping the Soviets? How about with firebombing cities?
This wouldn’t be a bad basic statement of our foreign policy aims. In fact, it’s about as economic a foreign policy doctrine as I’ve heard: This is what other countries must be like to coexist with us. Experience tells us that those who aren’t will never leave us in peace, so we can’t check out and retire yet.
This is not foreign policy. This is a global liberal empire where America has disarmed every last power & has removed sovereignty from every last political association. I am not sure how you do not see this To call it economic is too kind. It is worldwide tyranny in the name of liberalism. The world-state by other means. Perpetual peace provided by The Great American Father.
I recommend, instead of visions of paradise, war. It’s more serious & it would take seriously the fact that your countrymen are not infrequently slaughtered for political reasons. This world is a vale of tears.
Yes.
At least I’m reassured I’m not whistling in the wind, not to say shouting…, Miss Berlinski-
Yep. Americans, for the most part, operate under the illusion that the rest of the world wants this too. It does not. But, then, Clarie, I am preaching to the choir with you there.