What is the State of the World and What are the Options?
I have been struck by a couple of articles that I have read over the last few days. Struck in the sense that first, "Somewhere over the rainbow" from the January 26th - February 1st issue of The Economist, represents a view of state of the world that seems to be dramatically at variance with the view that one would form from reading and listening to MSM (main stream media).
"In a week of financial uncertainty we look behind the headlines to a world that is unexpectedly prosperous and peaceful"
This view is, and perhaps I'm too cynical here, not what sells newspapers and gets listeners to tune in to the talk shows. In a sense, MSM is becoming little more than a sophisticated set of fire engine chasers. That's not what we need. We need to better understand the world and MSM is not very helpful in that regard.
Second,"Waving Goodbye to Hegemony" in the January 27th New York Times Magazine postulates a useful, in the sense that it should stir thinking and discussion, alternative future.
'Just a few years ago, America’s hold on global power seemed unshakable. But a lot has changed while we’ve been in Iraq — and the next president is going to be dealing with not only a triumphant China and a retooled Europe but also the quiet rise of a ‘‘second world.’’'
This also seems to go against the grain of MSM thinking.
Reality bites (as those who have dabbled in synthetic investments are discovering), but must nevertheless be dealt with. Wishing doesn't make things true.
What is and will be true is function of the quality of one's ability to sense, interpret, decide, act, and learn. The responsibility for these abilities is increasingly falling to the individual.
James Drogan
2 Comments
Reader Comments (2)
The essay on the decline of US hegemony is a nice contrast - particularly since I fundamentally disagree with both its' premises and conclusions. It presumes that US hegemony is a perfect state of affairs. In fact, on-balance, the US has conducted itself for a long time as a primary supporter of a stable world system that encourages the kind of socio-economic, non-zero-sum progress that the first article highlights. No better example exists than the Marshall Plan as documented in the "Most Nobel Adventure" which details how serious were the dangers of post-WW2 European collapse,the role of America in re-shaping things and how the modern world was defined by those efforts. What we need is a similar effort that encourages everyone to be a responsible stakeholder in promoting a stable world system the allows and enables continued progress. And one that recognizes both differences in outlook and culture while still establishing a set of behavioral norms that responsible powers should adhere to. Our role in this won't be as the prime mover per se but as one of the key players. To the end of his days Napoleon found himself in awe and admiration of George Washington and admitted he never understood the choices he made. Our choices should be to encourage others rise while protecting our own interests. We may end up with a smaller slice of pie but the pie itself will be enormously larger. The real questions are a) how and b) what we do to protect ourselves and the systems from opportunists.