Too Much Thinking

[mishalak]

I wonder if in 1895 any writers had speculated about the end of the British Empire. I doubt the endless self-examination and criticism of empire is a feature of our age alone. So I guess there would be, but did any of them get it right? Would they have seen that two cataclysmic wars would bleed the empire dry of men and money? That at that point there would be no will left to use the sword and lash to keep it unified and so it would quietly pass into history with the fig leaf of the commonwealth to save British pride. Or would the commentators of that age assumed that if the empire came to an end it would be by defeat by another empire rather than in pyrrhic victories?

Perhaps there is a lesson in such thoughts for those who assume that the end of American Empire will come much the same way as the end of the British one did. Certainly prior empires fell that way, but often history does not repeat itself. Often people of the present see the mistakes of the past and do not repeat them. Instead they make new mistakes. Perhaps it will be the overspending on health care that does us in rather than overspending on wars. Or any number of other things and then our descendants will look back and wonder, "Did not any of them see it coming? It is so obvious that it was all going to come apart." Or perhaps 2005 is rather more like 1765 where there were troubles ahead, but also a renewed empire with a different focus just around the corner.

If there is anything history ought to teach us it is that there is no end of prognosticators predicting the future. Most of them will be wrong and only the few that happen to get it right, by actual foresight or the more likely pure chance, will be remembered.

Comments

[tharain.livejournal.com]

I've always thought the Empire Of the United States would end more like (in screamingly simplistic terms) the fall of Rome: rot and decadence in the government within, moral and physical exhaustion on the part of the populace, rigidity in laws and social constructs, and small niggling attacks that ought not harm the leviathan, but finally hasten its collapse.

Nero = Bush

Or maybe Caligula. Who knows.

But he's definitely up there for Evil Caesar.

The result: a balkanization of the nation into smaller states; Conatantinople and Rome, so to speak. In this case, the Northeast, the Southeast, the West Coast, and the Middle, and this areas not corresponding precisely along existing state lines. Further fracturing possible, of course.

How have you been, buddy?

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

There have been at least five presidents who were worse, if not more, and one of them was in charge in living memory. Evil? He doesn't even rank up there with Mussolini in terms of evil. He's not even in the same league as Nero or Commodus. He might barely be in the same league as Didius Julianus.

[tharain.livejournal.com]

Color me corrected.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I just think that words like evil shouldn't be casually used. I mean Nero and Caligula were borderline psychotics ruling military dictatorships. Sure Bush the Lesser isn't good, but he's not that bad. If this were the Roman Empire he would be part of that long line between Commodus and Diocletian who were largely forgettable and indifferently bad to indifferently good.

[tharain.livejournal.com]

Color me completely corrected.

And I don't use that word lightly. I believe he is evil. I'm not talking about his performance.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I'm going to just have to disagree with you on that. I would only put him down as bad on a personal level.

[tharain.livejournal.com]

You're right, of course.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Not always. I am humbled by how often I am wrong.

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

You must be mind reading, I've been kicking around posting on this general topic.

From reading I've done, it appears that much of the thinking about threats to the Empire and England during the last quarter of the 19th century were in terms of invasion, mostly by European rivals although occasionally by the US. The perceived US threat increased after 1890 and on into the first few years of the 20th century. Outside of a few 'marvelous invention' stories, akin to the matter duplicator SF of the mid-20th century, most fiction was concerned with military defeat.

I haven't read much that showed much awareness or interest in the economic rivals of England, although it was rapidly losing ground to Germany and the US. Nor have I noticed much speculation on possible impact of independence movements, even though the only loss of empire had been the result of such a movement in North America, and the possibility of a second such occurrence resulted in large changes in the governing of Canada. Perhaps it was thought that the case of Canada showed that England knew how to address the problems of independence movements; perhaps the issue was lost in 'white man's burden' thinking, as the US and Canada were "essentially populations of Englishmen".

The Long Depression may have been another factor, my readings found concern about markets, and the importance of colonies to provide new markets, but little on what the changes might mean; it seemed to be attempting a return to the conditions of the previous decades rather than considering that fundamental changes were afoot. I may have been reading in the right places, but I saw very little concern that economic changes might undermine the Empire.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I forgot the bit about the depression, good point. Basically they collectively didn't want to change and the pound being the world's reserve currency let them get away with pretending things had not changed until quite late in the day.

It is just that I got to wondering today if all our speculation about China, India, and draining wars in the Middle East might not be looking in the right direction. Just because that's how we came to power (the rise of a new financial power unnoticed in combination with a draining series of wars and a depression) doesn't mean we're going to go down that way too. Though we could.

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

Your first paragraph could be recast for the dollar, some in the oil business have worried about the stability of the dollar as the reference currency.

Some have argued that even the early Clinton years deficits, Fed and BoT, wasn't a great concern because it was more related to investment and infrastructure. The current situation is more of consumer borrowing and simple underfunded government spending; the argument that reduced taxes will result in increased investment is a few years away from being resolved, there are indications that increases in investment are outside of the US and not really helping the US.

Trying to do historical comparisons is difficult, in part because only the British Empire existed in anything resembling current economic conditions. Prior to that the industrial sector was a much smaller part of economies, most goods didn't travel as far.

An alternative treat might be one similar to what happened in China during the rise of Neo-Confucianism. That lead to an increasing focus on metaphysics, turning away from more things physical and external to China. The segment of the US that is loosely labeled as Fundamentalist might be playing a similar role, with the aid of some other social trends. I've looked at some of the homeschooling programs of some of those groups, the science potion is rather simplistic and off center, the history was even more so. In the sciences, the creationist tilt is leading away from current biology and could result in the US falling behind in biotech and medicine. But even in the physical sciences the classes tend to be rather rote and at times inject too much of 'God's design' into the subject in a fashion to discourage questioning.

here's a admittedly biased take on that
http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/lesson_from_history.htm

this looks to be interesting, if in the more or less mainstream
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/obstfeld/KN_Obstfeld.PDF


So what other areas, besides competition from China, India, Brazil, &ct, deficit spending, and the cost of maintaining a far flung military might be trouble for the US? You mentioned health care, perhaps in more general term entitlements (bread and circuses - another empire).

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I honestly think that television is the thing that will be our undoing. It is the ultimate circus, one people do not even have to leave their homes to take part in. I love television myself; it has produced some great entertainment. But I think there is such a thing as having too much entertainment; too much spectacle. I think we will become inward looking and totally focused upon entertainment and ignore the physical world to our detriment.

I think the fundamentalists have lost. It will look like a near run thing for quite some time yet and there will be a lot more battles to fight, but I think the moment when they might have seized the day at the gates of Moscow is gone. Now they will be forced inexorably back until the last few do their own versions of the last days in the bunker.

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

you might enjoy this

http://cagle.com/working/051026/boligan.gif