The U. S. Will Not Dominate the World of the Future and Neither Will China

The Era of American Domination of World Trade is Over

The United States will never again be as powerful as we we were in the years after World War II, but China will not replace us. We will never be as powerful as we used to be because the conditions that allowed us to be so powerful no longer exist. China will not replace us because today's world is not the world of 1945.

Our Power Was Due to Unique Circumstances

We became uniquely powerful at the end of World War II because we were the only major, industrial power left standing at the end of the war. The others had been pretty thoroughly flattened and/or bankrupted by the war. We produced more than half of the industrial production in the world, and unlike all of the other major, industrial countries, we were a creditor nation. That situation allowed us to dictate the terms of world trade in the post war economy.

The U. S. is No Longer in Control

People who are over 40 today grew up in the world that the United States created after World War II. We are used to thinking of the world as united under the leadership and control of our country, but the world has changed. The world that we grew up in no longer exists, and we are no longer in control. We no longer produce the bulk of the world’s manufactured goods. There are many other successful manufacturing countries. The most important of them is, of course, China, but others are growing in importance. We are also no longer a creditor nation. We are a debtor nation, and servicing our national debt is the second largest item in our federal budget succeeded only by Social Security. The annual cost of the interest on our national debt now exceeds our military budget.

So, our power has declined, and we can no longer dictate the terms of the world’s economy. Moreover, other countries no longer have to conduct their foreign trade in dollars, and that makes them less dependent on us. They have alternatives. The dollar will continue to be important internationally for a long time, but changes are coming. Oil can now be purchased in Chinese yuan instead of dollars, and China has developed a system called “CIPS” that allows countries to use yuan instead of dollars to settle international accounts. Other countries are also developing systems that bypass the dollar.

We still have the world’s largest military forces, but military power cannot really substitute for economic power because we cannot go to war every time someone does something that we do not like. So, our power is waning. There is nothing that we can do about that because the decline in our power is due to causes that are outside of our control. We must adjust to living in a world that we cannot dominate.

China Will Not Replace Us

Many people believe that as our power declines, China will take our place, but that will probably not happen. China will be a major economic power - perhaps the most important in the world - but China will not dominate the world as we did for many years. The reason is that China faces a world that is very different from the world that we faced in 1945. 

In 1945, we were able to dictate the terms of international trade because we were the only major, industrial power still standing at the end of the Second World War. China has no such advantage in today's world. Today, there are many, strong industrial nations pursuing their own interests. China cannot wave a magic wand and eliminate the dollar from world trade. The dollar will continue to be used, and the United States will continue to be important even if it cannot dominate the world. China cannot eliminate the growing manufacturing power of countries like Brazil or India. Nations like Japan, Canada, Germany, Mexico and the BRICS countries will insist on pursuing their own interests, and they will wield significant power to do so.  Canada's leader Mark Carney is actively pursuing alliances that will allow what he calls the "middle powers" to retain their economic independence from China and the United States. At the same time, the European Union is working to strengthen its military and economic power.  So, China will not be able to dictate the terms of world trade as we did for many years. China will have to get used to living in a world with many economic powers, and so will we.

Increasing Antisemitism Will Strengthen American Zionism and Weaken American Society

 Open Antisemitism Rears Its Head

Open antisemitism is becoming more and more common in the United States. The extreme political right has always included neonazis, White Christian nationalists and other antisemites. The extreme left has trafficked in ideas like the idea that the economy of our country is controlled by Jews. Now, the legitimate opposition to Israel's brutal and extreme actions in Gaza has had the side effect of bringing American antisemitism into the open. Jews in the United States who have never been afraid are afraid now.  This open antisemitism has created a big rift among American liberals and progressives and threatens the Democrats' ability to win control of Congress in this year's general election. In addition, the increase in open antisemitism will have the perverse effect of strengthening American Zionism and will also weaken the solidarity of American society. 

Zionism Was From Its Beginning a Response to Antisemitism

Zionism emerged in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century as a response to antisemitism there. Judah Pinsker’ pamphlet Autoemancipation was written in response to the pogrom in Odessa in 1882. The pamphlet argued that Jews could never be at home in countries that were not their own, and he founded a society to promote settlement in the Land of Israel.

Theodor Herzl wrote his best-known work Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) and founded the modern Zionist movement in response to the antisemitism displayed during the Dreyfus Affair in Paris in the eighteen nineties.  There he saw mobs in the streets calling for “Death to the Jews,” and he felt that if that could happen in Paris, the world’s most enlightened city, there could be no hope to escape antisemitism anywhere except in a Jewish homeland. 

After World War II, the State of Israel was created, and refugees from the Holocaust as well as Jews who fled from the countries of the Islamic world went to settle there. However, few American Jews have been interested in moving to Israel because antisemitism - while it has existed here – has not been a serious threat to American Jewish communities.

Now, the situation has changed. On the political right, we have seen neo-nazism and other forms of overt antisemitism. On the left, we also see a range of antisemitic views. We see denial of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and we see a revival of older antisemitic tropes that say that the world is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) or that Jewish wealth controls the economy. There have been attacks on synagogues, and many Jews who had always been very comfortable in the United States have now become afraid. Synagogues all over the country have invested in improved security. This can only strengthen the Zionist cause among American Jews. As in the past, many people will say that Jews can never really be safe outside of their own homeland. This will be a tragedy.

American Solidarity is Based on Acceptance of All Our Citizens as Real Americans

A second effect of rising antisemitism will be to weaken the solidarity of America society. People from all over the world have made their homes in the United States, and we have built a unique society and a unique polity. The United States invented the idea of citizenship as a voluntary commitment rather than an expression of ethnic identity. A person who becomes an American citizen is an American by the only definition that we have, and that definition is the basis of American solidarity.

That solidarity is rooted in the fact that a person can be an American by choice. In a congressional hearing Fiona Hill  said that she was “an American by choice.” She is English by birth, but now, she is American. No one could say that he/she was “an Englishman or Englishwoman by choice.” A person can become a citizen of the United Kingdom, but a person cannot become a English. One must be born English. There is no other way to become English, and most countries are like the U.K. in that respect. But not the United States.

The fact that people - including Jews - can become American is and always has been a source of strength for us. Immigrant workers powered the development of American industry. The American army in WWII was full of soldiers – including Jewish soldiers - who were the children of immigrants, and they fought valiantly for the country they saw as theirs. If we give up that inclusiveness by excluding Jews, we will have given up a part of the core of what it means to be American. 

Moreover, we should not kid ourselves. The exclusion may begin with Jews, but it will not end there. Already, we have J. D. Vance saying that only Christians can be Americans. Along with Jews, he would exclude the millions of Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims who are part of the fabric of our society. His attitude, if it is accepted by most Americans, will break our society. It will destroy the solidarity of our people and the greatness of our country.

Trump, Hegseth and "Sixteen Tons"

 The Mighty Man of Sixteen Tons

In the nineteen-fifties, Tennessee Ernie Ford sang a song called Sixteen Tons that perfectly captures a certain kind of masculine ideal. The song’s protagonist is a mighty man with a grievance. He is stronger and tougher than anyone can imagine, but he is trapped in a system that exploits him. The song says,

If you see me comin’, better step aside.

A lota men didn’t and a lotta men died.

One fist of iron the other of steel,

If the right one don't get you, then the left one will.

This man can load sixteen tons of coal in a day, an unheard-of amount, but the system does not reward his strength, which gets him nowhere. He knows that he is trapped. He says,

You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?

Another day older and deeper in debt.

Saint Peter don’t you call me ‘cause I cain’t go.

I owe my soul to the company sto'.

He is proud of his strength. In fact, he embodies a certain ideal of manhood. He is strong and independent. He stands on his own two feet with no help from anyone. He is feared by those around him, but at the same time, he is trapped in a system that exploits him. He understands that. He knows there is nothing he can do about it, but he stands tall.

The Price of Being a Such a Man

A man can build a life in this way, but it exacts a price. Such a man must continually validate his status as the toughest of the tough and the strongest of the strong. He has to get into fights that have no purpose except to maintain his honor and his reputation as a man who is stronger and tougher than anyone around him. He can never back down from a challenge.

He Should Never be a Leader

This kind of man should never be a leader. He must be either a loner whose decisions affect only himself or a subordinate who uses his talents in the service of a “boss” who keeps him from getting himself or his organization in trouble. We see a memorable portrayal of a mighty man as a subordinate in the film, The Irishman where Robert de Niro plays a mob hit man.

Such a man should not be a leader because he cannot be counted on to make decisions for the benefit of his followers. He is always focused on his need to maintain his honor, and he is likely to lead his followers into conflicts in which they have no stake and in which they suffer and sometimes die for no reason except to maintain the honor of their leader.

Trump and Hegseth Portray Themselves as Men of This Kind

Trump and Hegseth portray themselves as such men. They stand tall and thumb their noses at “the system” and “the elite.” That pose is one of the sources of Trump’s power. Millions of Americans admire that kind of manliness, and they say, “Right on!”  

Unfortunately, however, Trump and Hegseth are led by their pose to approach international conflict in a dangerous way. They see an international conflict in the way that the hero of Sixteen Tons would see a bar fight: it provides them with an opportunity to uphold their manhood and their reputations. To Trump and Hegseth, war is not - as Clausewitz famously said - "policy carried on by other means." War, in their view, is a way for them to demonstrate their strength and their valor and to uphold their honor. In their eyes, they become heroes like Roland at Roncevaux, where he and all his men died in a battle against the Saracens - a battle that served no purpose other than to demonstrate Roland's knightly honor.

Now we find ourselves in a war with no national purpose in Iran. People are being killed, and American treasure is being wasted to demonstrate Trump and Hegseth’s manhood. They get to show unbending resolve, and they are able to make awful, theatrical threats to destroy Iran completely. They parade their “warrior ethos” before the world, while we pay the price for having such men as leaders. Let us hope that the price does not include a third world war.