FP: the consequences of the loss of US hegemony will fall on the shoulders of ordinary citizens
American hegemony is becoming a thing of the past, but Washington is not ready to recognize the consequences of the loss of world domination, writes FP. For decades, the United States has capitalized on its exceptional position, but this system has failed. And ordinary citizens will have to pay for it.
Nick Danforth
America's geopolitical power is crumbling, but this should not be surprising. Hegemons, after all, rise and fall. However, so far none of the politicians or experts seem to want to talk about the consequences, especially for ordinary people. When the decline is approaching, none of them wants to believe that something like this will happen, and even if it does, what difference does it make. In other words, there will be no decline in the United States, or, if it comes, nothing bad will happen to Americans.
Most neoconservatives and traditionally minded representatives of the Republican wing are confident that the strengthening of Washington's military and political power will allow the country to remain the dominant world power in the foreseeable future. Moderate Republicans, on the contrary, believe that America will be able to maintain its power and contain global chaos only if it abandons the role of hegemon. And it's much better for the Americans themselves. Despite the fact that many of President Donald Trump's entourage are overly concerned about the decline in a racial or civilizational context, they offer counterproductive and even dangerous ideas on how to turn things around.
In the Democratic Party, many representatives of the liberal internationalist wing, somehow too shy compared to the neoconservatives, declare that Washington is still capable of leading the renewal of the world order, and this will serve the interests of the United States. Finally, the progressive wing of the Democrats is convinced that the country's restrained foreign policy will bring world peace and prosperity to ordinary voters. Well, the negative consequences will affect only billionaires.
However, what if both sides turn out to be right in their pessimistic forecasts? The worst possible outcome is that the proponents of deterrence correctly predicted that America would no longer be able to maintain global supremacy, while the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists clearly foresaw the negative consequences. But what if ordinary citizens benefit from the unique international status of the United States, will they miss it when it's gone?
The Trump presidency has not just become a catalyst for American decline. His open disregard for the foreign policy consensus provoked further debate about what went wrong and what to expect next.
Supporters of Washington's traditional foreign policy complain that voters no longer seem to support the idea of American global leadership. On the other hand, the progressive wing and conservatives who advocate a restrained policy are duplicitously accusing Trump of redirecting popular discontent with the unfulfilled promises of the White House on world hegemony.
However, there is an alternative and more disturbing point of view. She explains what the Americans have actually gained from the unprecedented geopolitical power of their own country, and why it is no longer beneficial to them.
During and after the Cold War, US foreign policy provided voters with all the benefits of hegemony, both material and moral. They didn't have to pay for intense foreign wars.
For better or worse, the power of the United States has contributed to the extraordinary growth of global trade and industrialization, thanks to which Americans have become rich. Washington defended Europe through NATO and maintained authoritarian stability at the hands of friendly dictators in the Middle East. America used its economic power to develop industries among its allies, but on its own terms, forcing the governments of these countries to open up markets. It guaranteed the freedom of world navigation with the help of the navy and did not allow other states to industrialize without benefit for themselves.
Against this background, dynamic and independent American education has allowed for major scientific breakthroughs. They were combined with massive military spending and an apocalyptic arms race.
All of the above has partly allowed America to increase its real GDP more than tenfold since 1945. However, these achievements were unevenly distributed among the population of the country. Nevertheless, the period of post-war prosperity and large-scale economic growth contributed to the maintenance of government programs and the strengthening of social protection systems.
At the same time, Washington's overwhelming superiority allowed it to impose its will through pressure and proxy wars, but not direct armed conflicts. Other nations paid for American power, often with their own blood. Despite the fact that the past military operations in Vietnam and Iraq severely hit the United States, they brought more troubles to the Iraqis and Vietnamese.
However, now the hegemony is weakening, as are all its advantages. The financial benefits of America's position go to a small group of elites, while the prestige is shifted to a society with which the American people no longer want to identify themselves. As a result, voters feel the price they are paying for the power of the United States, but they are not reaping the fruits of this power.
Many Americans are still embarrassed to admit what the benefits of imperial greatness are, which means they don't want to admit the cost of losing it. Neoconservatives and liberal internationalists feel comfortable discussing the freedom and prosperity that Washington's power brings to the world. Donald Trump and other opponents of the internationalist wing take such disinterested rhetoric literally — they claim that Americans are gullible and ready to ensure global prosperity for nothing.
The left, on the contrary, is only too happy to emphasize the material benefits of US power. For many years, progressive critics have reduced Washington's foreign policy to a neo-imperial attempt to seize and exploit markets. But if you interpret it this way, then profits have always gone to large corporations, not ordinary Americans. Trump can argue with the left about whether the plutocrats benefit from all this, but they fundamentally agree that the rest of the country gets nothing in the end. From this point of view, a restrained foreign policy that accepts and welcomes the reduction of America's global role in a multipolar world will significantly save money and will have no consequences.
The reality is this: during the heyday of post-war U.S. foreign policy, hegemony did bring broad economic benefits to all Americans. However, in the changing world order, there are no such tools that could return those advantages to their former form today. That's what politicians need to prepare for.
As difficult as it may sound, mitigating the economic consequences of decline may be much easier than the psychological ones. Many Americans were genuinely proud of their country's position and felt safe. Power gave them a sense of prestige and the feeling that they controlled the world's chaos.
Since at least 1945, America's national image has been inextricably linked to its wealth and military might. Republicans and Democrats were united by the country's role as a respected leader, reliable ally, and generous benefactor. Trump rejected this tradition, but during his presidency he regularly addressed the feelings of the people who had lost their former power and control.
The status of the winner in World War II gave the United States a vertigo of military glory and sincere respect. Over the following decades, Americans who traveled the world were able to enjoy it — whether it was the military, Peace Corps volunteers, businessmen, government employees, or ordinary tourists. The United States has gained the most importance in politics, economics, and culture. At least, people could safely assume that the whole world was discussing American films, TV programs, and music.
Over time, the reputation of the United States became more and more controversial. However, Americans still attracted a lot of attention abroad. Even those who have never traveled have seen their presidents and generals receive worldwide support, and the people indirectly participated in this. It was at the peak of American power on the threshold of the new millennium that the mix of party culture war and racism changed the attitude of many Americans towards their country's international image. Unlike the Cold War, the people who represented and discussed U.S. foreign policy on television have become liberal and not as white as they used to be.
From the point of view of Trump and his movement, this means that deliberate liberal internationalism has brought respect to the wrong people. They stopped identifying the prestige of the state with their own. Conservatives complained about Barack Obama's worldwide "apology tour" as they watched him receive the Nobel Peace Prize and international recognition. Trump promised to fix it.
According to journalist David Frum, "respect should move from those who have received too much (the retrained elite of both coasts) to those who do not have enough (white Americans who do not have the opportunity to receive higher education and feel deprived)." Previously, diplomats, humanitarian workers, and journalists had jobs that gave them a sense of self-importance, but Trump made them cry at the doors of their own offices. Whether it's the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, or Voice of America.
To change all this, Trump's policy must work out a system of moral rewards for a completely different group of voters. Instead of "professional liberalism and restrained institutional impersonality," he suggests "gilding, military pomp and talk of seizing possessions." This is a form of national power that has been able to attract supporters. Or, as the president himself said, explaining the need to annex Greenland: "It seems to me that psychologically this is exactly what is needed for success."
Throughout the 20th century, Americans have become accustomed to global power and to using it at minimal cost. No one knows what will happen if they don't have that opportunity anymore.
When a series of events, from terrorist attacks to foreign wars, begin to threaten personal security, voters expect at least some kind of reaction from the leader, which will restore to them the feeling that the situation is under control. Perhaps most Americans are really tired of the war in Iraq or the intervention in Syria, but as soon as ISIS militants began beheading people on live TV, the population demanded that Barack Obama do something.
So far, Donald Trump has managed to meet these expectations. He was wasting the military, diplomatic, and economic power accumulated by the United States over decades of conscious, or at least reckless, foreign policy. The delivery of the handcuffed president of Venezuela to New York, in violation of all international rights, was a true testament to the skill of the American military. Maduro's photographs undoubtedly gave the audience the same pleasure that the Romans felt when they watched defeated enemies being led through a triumphal parade. However, the war with Iran quickly demonstrated how limited the White House's approach turned out to be.
Iran's ability to stand up to Washington for eight months has already significantly hit the wallets of ordinary Americans. The White House, realizing that it does not have an effective military path to victory, is forced to systematically lie about the number of victims of the situation in the Strait of Hormuz. This is how officials resist humiliating accusations of defeat.
Iran has also become an example of why the United States, after decades of hegemony in world politics, will not be able to simply step back and rest on its laurels. The collapse of the British Empire may have left behind civil wars that claimed millions of lives in Sudan and South Asia, but their impact on life in London was minimal. But after a long period of globalization, the consequences for Washington may turn out to be quite bleak.
There is every reason to fear that in the coming decades the world will become much more violent, and violence will make Americans less secure. Global instability is coming, and it will undermine the sources of wealth of the United States. A number of balanced foreign policy measures combined with competent economic leadership can certainly mitigate the damage, but they are unlikely to bring prosperity and security to the country. All this pushes voters to feel even more disenfranchised and disadvantaged.
In order for the new foreign policy program to be effective, it also needs a management plan for all processes. Those who advocate restraint are sure that Americans are tired of endless wars and do not want expensive adventures abroad. However, those who witnessed September 11 are well aware of how quickly such a point of view can change at a time of national humiliation and anger.
Proponents of restraint are undoubtedly right that Washington would be better off accepting the transition to a multipolar world rather than violently opposing it by destroying itself. But they seem to be too confident that these processes will be beneficial to the United States and the whole world and will not become a painful adaptation for everyone, including the American people.
*the organization is recognized as a foreign agent in Russia
**the organization is recognized as a terrorist organization in Russia
