The fear is not “obviously racial,” although those who do see the world through a racial lens will think it is.
The fear is really about “enlightenment values,” or things like individual liberty, which underlies the principles of market economies, free trade, and democratic politics. Democratic politics can be justified on a numer of grounds, my own preferred justification being that it is the political system most (albeit not 100%) compatible with the protection of individual liberties. There are also arguments about how information and knowledge is disseminated in democratic systems vs authoritarian regimes and how this contributes to things like technological and economic innovation, as well as more fair and just socieities (by making it possible to identify failings and therefore take action to correct them).
Democracy is by no means perfect in this way, and in some sense, civil liberties are probably more important than the more traditional democratic elements of elections and accountability, but not more important than rule-of-law. The stuff that came up in the thread on Chinese executions is very interesting in this regard, because it does suggest that China has come a long way to improving the rule-of-law so that judgments are not completely arbitrary and based on the whims of the governing elite (corruption is still a problem, though).
So the real question is whether things like individual liberties and economic openness are likely to continue as the US declines in power. And of course the problem is as much internal to the US as external, because when power and wealth get excessively concentrated, then the representativeness of representative democracy starts to go down the toilet. The US has had times in its history when representativeness was as bad or worse than it is now (the guilded age, the 1920s-30s, the pre-civil rights era in the racial sphere). So there are threats from within and without.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
The US doesn’t maintain most of its political influence through military means. It’s through economic action. If country X gives US unfavorable trade terms, the US doesn’t respond by sending troops - they increase levies on that country’s exports. Plus, even if the US isn’t the most powerful economy in the future, second biggest is still really, really big. Other countries will still need to suck up to the US as a major “customer”. Just because Apple is biggest doesn’t mean Foxconn can say “fuck you” to Dell.
I don’t get this “in cahoots” argument. What does that even mean? The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan, but then we are suddenly their buddies since 1945? Kuwait is “in cahoots” with the US because, again, the US is a big customer (they have economic bargaining power) and pays Kuwait money (through foreign aid). Not because they have a big military. If you take a survey of every country in the world and ask why they care about the US, 99.99% will say it’s for economic reasons, not because “they might nuke us”.
Re: bchadwick. For many people, China/India evokes a racial, or at least culturist reaction. Why is China different on an international level due to their different standard for civil liberties? Is the US democratic when it comes to foreign relations? Does the lack of “execution vans” in the US determine the price of agricultural imports? Does an authoritarian country mean that they will not value free trade? What about Singapore? Or Hong Kong (part of China), for that matter?
Ohai, those are good questions. I have responses to them, but they will take pages and pages to write, and they deal with how democracies tend to relate to each other; how conflicts originte and are resolved internationally; the challenges of acting within democratic frameworks internationally; how state-state, state-nonstate, and nonstate-nonstate interactions happen in the international sphere; how the size of the economy and hegemonic security guarantees affect the feasibility of an economically liberal but politically authoritarian regime that is stable; how democracies tend to prefer to interact with democracies and authoritarians with authoritarians (though there are circumstances where dems like to work with auths (like cold war US and developing countries) and auths like to work with dems (like Nazi Germany at the Munich conference)).
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
Kuwait is “in cahoots” with the US because, again, the US is a big customer (they have economic bargaining power) and pays Kuwait money (through foreign aid). Not because they have a big military.
You cannot be serious…
“Some people make shoes. Some people make houses. We make money and people are willing pay us a lot to make money for them.”
Re: bchadwick. For many people, China/India evokes a racial, or at least culturist reaction. Why is China different on an international level due to their different standard for civil liberties? Is the US democratic when it comes to foreign relations? Does the lack of “execution vans” in the US determine the price of agricultural imports? Does an authoritarian country mean that they will not value free trade? What about Singapore? Or Hong Kong (part of China), for that matter?
Not only racial, there is also a significant religious component to it as well. In the case of China and India, not only are the nations racially different, but religiously don’t follow an Abrahamic faith, and I think the rise of brown/yellow skinned men, previously seen as inferior (and to some extent effeminate), who are now militarily assertive and expansionist strikes deep into the Western psyche. Keep in mind, how have “Abrahamic” cultures historically dealt with those who don’t follow an “Abrahamic” faith?
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
The fear is not “obviously racial,” although those who do see the world through a racial lens will think it is.
The fear is really about “enlightenment values,” or things like individual liberty, which underlies the principles of market economies, free trade, and democratic politics. Democratic politics can be justified on a numer of grounds, my own preferred justification being that it is the political system most (albeit not 100%) compatible with the protection of individual liberties. There are also arguments about how information and knowledge is disseminated in democratic systems vs authoritarian regimes and how this contributes to things like technological and economic innovation, as well as more fair and just socieities (by making it possible to identify failings and therefore take action to correct them).
Democracy is by no means perfect in this way, and in some sense, civil liberties are probably more important than the more traditional democratic elements of elections and accountability, but not more important than rule-of-law. The stuff that came up in the thread on Chinese executions is very interesting in this regard, because it does suggest that China has come a long way to improving the rule-of-law so that judgments are not completely arbitrary and based on the whims of the governing elite (corruption is still a problem, though).
So the real question is whether things like individual liberties and economic openness are likely to continue as the US declines in power. And of course the problem is as much internal to the US as external, because when power and wealth get excessively concentrated, then the representativeness of representative democracy starts to go down the toilet. The US has had times in its history when representativeness was as bad or worse than it is now (the guilded age, the 1920s-30s, the pre-civil rights era in the racial sphere). So there are threats from within and without.
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
The US doesn’t maintain most of its political influence through military means. It’s through economic action. If country X gives US unfavorable trade terms, the US doesn’t respond by sending troops - they increase levies on that country’s exports. Plus, even if the US isn’t the most powerful economy in the future, second biggest is still really, really big. Other countries will still need to suck up to the US as a major “customer”. Just because Apple is biggest doesn’t mean Foxconn can say “fuck you” to Dell.
I don’t get this “in cahoots” argument. What does that even mean? The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan, but then we are suddenly their buddies since 1945? Kuwait is “in cahoots” with the US because, again, the US is a big customer (they have economic bargaining power) and pays Kuwait money (through foreign aid). Not because they have a big military. If you take a survey of every country in the world and ask why they care about the US, 99.99% will say it’s for economic reasons, not because “they might nuke us”.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Re: bchadwick. For many people, China/India evokes a racial, or at least culturist reaction. Why is China different on an international level due to their different standard for civil liberties? Is the US democratic when it comes to foreign relations? Does the lack of “execution vans” in the US determine the price of agricultural imports? Does an authoritarian country mean that they will not value free trade? What about Singapore? Or Hong Kong (part of China), for that matter?
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Ohai, those are good questions. I have responses to them, but they will take pages and pages to write, and they deal with how democracies tend to relate to each other; how conflicts originte and are resolved internationally; the challenges of acting within democratic frameworks internationally; how state-state, state-nonstate, and nonstate-nonstate interactions happen in the international sphere; how the size of the economy and hegemonic security guarantees affect the feasibility of an economically liberal but politically authoritarian regime that is stable; how democracies tend to prefer to interact with democracies and authoritarians with authoritarians (though there are circumstances where dems like to work with auths (like cold war US and developing countries) and auths like to work with dems (like Nazi Germany at the Munich conference)).
You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???
Studying With
You cannot be serious…
“Some people make shoes. Some people make houses. We make money and people are willing pay us a lot to make money for them.”
Not only racial, there is also a significant religious component to it as well. In the case of China and India, not only are the nations racially different, but religiously don’t follow an Abrahamic faith, and I think the rise of brown/yellow skinned men, previously seen as inferior (and to some extent effeminate), who are now militarily assertive and expansionist strikes deep into the Western psyche. Keep in mind, how have “Abrahamic” cultures historically dealt with those who don’t follow an “Abrahamic” faith?
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
Pages