Ensuring A New American Century

Remove all ads!

The 20th century saw a series of events that led to the world being dominated by two main groups, the United States and the Soviet Union. This led to both powers struggling to maintain influence and power projection around the world, resulting in an global influx of American (and to a lesser extent, Soviet) culture, economics, ideals and a web of alliances led by their respective powers. With the end of the Cold War the United States became the sole superpower and hegemon of the Earth. While others have no doubt tried to change the balance of power, the fact remains that to this day no other country or entity has the ability to project the same power and influence as the United States on a global stage. Not in terms of economic, cultural, political and certainly not military spheres.

My question for you is how can we ensure unipolarity, or at the very least, American dominance well within into the 21st century and beyond? I believe that while foreign policy and a strong military are important in this ever changing world, our primary focus should be on domestic politics. Internal factors almost always influence foreign affairs and cannot be ignored; in addition, by focusing (at least in part) on our domestic affairs, we will be more ready to compete on the stage, in both political and economic influence.

First lets take a look at how we can shape our foreign policy to better fit the 21st century. There have been several viewpoints on the direction America should take. The most commonly held belief is that America should retain it's position as the global superpower and often times invade other countries in order to "promote democracy," as we saw with the wars in Iraq and Libya. A more fringe idea has been promulgated by liberals and some libertarians, the idea that America should shut itself off to the world and give up it's status as a global superpower.

Despite this being one of the few areas in which the far-left (liberals) and the anarcho-capitalist right (libertarians) agree, they have very different views on how and why America should cede it's power. Liberals view America as "fundamentally bad" and believe that it is "unfair" and "wrong" for America (or any other country for that matter) to hold any more power or influence than others, and as thus, they want to cede all of our power to the United Nations and other international bodies. Libertarians on the other hand argue that American influence abroad isn't worth the perceive price of making ourselves a target for Islamist extremists; libertarians also argue that having a large military is "too expensive" and in some cases, possibly even unconstitutional. Unlike liberals, libertarians are opposed to ceding American sovereignty to international organizations, such as the United Nations and European Union.

Surely there is a middle-ground between constantly using our military to invade other countries and completely abandoning America's global hegemony? I believe that it is in the best interest of America and the world for us to pursue a policy of maintaining a strong military, close ties to our allies and many military bases (as well as naval fleets) around the world. In addition to this, however, I believe we should be very cautious of getting involved in more wars and conflicts overseas. That is not to say that we should turn a blind eye to all conflicts that do not directly pertain to the United States and our allies, but it is to say that we should only get involved if it is truly in our best interest and we have realistic expectations that can be met.

America has stood idly by for too long in the promotion of our ideals and the struggle for freedom. The global promotion of freedom in the 21st century will (for the most part) not be through military "liberation," but instead through working peacefully with other right-wing countries around the world. America needs to form a 'Conservative International' to rival the Socialist International and other left-wing internationals. This 'Conservative International' will be a cooperation of right-wing parties and organizations from all over the world that help each other and share ideas. This international would hold annual conferences where the best and brightest conservatives and libertarians around the world congregate and share ideas, including promoting American ideals such as freedom, gun ownership, free markets, military cooperation, etc.

The member parties of the 'Conservative International' would work together to build a right-wing alternative to the bureaucratic, ineffectual, anti-gun rights and left-wing United Nations. As these right-wing parties formed governments in their respective countries, their countries would leave the United Nations and join America's right-wing alternative. We could attract members of less developed nations (such as those in Africa), by promising to assist them with building stable nations and assisting them with becoming self-sustainable; as opposed to the left-wing United Nations which neglects it's less developed members. The United Earth Directorate would also launch a space program and begin colonizing other worlds.

In order to combat the rise of China as a potential counter to America's unipolarity, we would project power into Asia through our military bases and naval fleets to contain China's growing influence in Asia and Oceania. In addition, our new-found allies in Africa (through the 'Conservative International' and 'United Earth Directorate') would give us leverage to destabilize China's economic, political and military efforts in Africa.

As for combating the rise of Russia and it's fledgling Eurasian Union, I think we need to try a different approach. Unlike China, Russia has several allies in the region (mostly former Soviet states comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States) and I do not believe there is much of anything we can do to convince any of these states to side with the US and UED, barring Georgia. What we can do is work for better military cooperation with our European allies (many of whom are already NATO members), Turkey and Georgia. Doing this will project American influence in the region to combat Russia's rising influence and power in Eurasia.

Now let's take a look at how we can become more competitive on the world stage and better formulate our national ideology; and thus, promote said ideology. An important step in this process will be to have compulsory military service for all citizens. This will not only strengthen our national defense, but it will also strengthen the economy and help citizens be better prepared to fight against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic. Anyone wishing to immigrate to the United States will also have to serve in the military, after which they will receive full citizenship. After serving in the military, all citizens will be required to exercise their right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state (and a free people).

Our education system will be overhauled in favor if a system that promotes competition between students and institutions. We must end the policy of rewarding students who do not deserve it and should seriously consider the idea of having separate tiers of high schools and every student should be given an opportunity to make it to the top tier if they work at it. We will also put more emphasis on the study of civics, the ideals of the nation, history and the American political system. After serving in the military, citizens will have the ability to attend higher education institutions and their education will be funded by the state. We will also promote the idea of apprenticeships as a viable alternative to higher education, similar to the German model.

I imagine many of my fellow conservatives will think I'm jumping the shark on this one, but I believe that if we're going to have compulsory military service, then we should also have nationalized healthcare. This is of course only acceptable since every citizen will have served in the military (or will in the future if they aren't old enough to). This will eliminate the need for unsustainable programs such as Medicare and Medicare; we can also begin to phase out Social Security. Though we will offer "free" (tax-payer funded) healthcare to all citizens, we will promote the idea of private healthcare. Under this system, everyone would win. The people who choose private healthcare will have more freedom to make their own healthcare decisions and will receive higher quality healthcare. The tax-payers will benefit from people choosing private healthcare, as they will have to pay less taxes (as less people will be receiving government healthcare). And those who aren't very well off economically will still receive standard healthcare and with fewer people on the system (as people opt for privatization), they will receive better quality (as the government can afford to provide more healthcare). Of course we will not force anyone to choose private or public healthcare and the choice will be entirely up to them.

Another key factor in remaining a dominant world power is to invest in alternative energy. This doesn't mean we're going to start taking away everyone's freedom and national sovereignty under the guise of "global warming" or false-flag environmentalism, but rather that we're investing in eliminating our dependence on oil, and subsequently, other countries. This alternative energy could be nuclear power, it could be the so-called "green energies" that the liberals propose, or it could be something else entirely. It will be difficult to be a major economic and military player when your economy and military are almost entirely dependent on foreign countries.

Alright, so we have effectively eliminated poverty through military service, education and healthcare, now what? Now we need to take back our republic and encourage citizens to be more engaged in politics. We can do this by reforming our political system, namely electoral reform. If we implement an instant-run off voting system, or similar system, we can provide the people with a wider array of viable candidates and parties to choose from. In addition to electoral reform, I believe we should focus on campaign finance reform and implement publicly funded elections. In other words, all candidates who meet the criteria to be on the ballot will receive campaign funding from the state. This will give all candidates a chance to be heard and a chance to express their views the public. I believe these two key changes to our political system will help ensure that the citizens are engaged in political life. An armed, educated and politically active populace is the best defense against tyranny.

I believe that if America pursues these steps we will retain our global hegemony and improve the world at the same time. We will have built a world that we can be proud to live in and unlocked a universe of opportunities for both America and the human race. At home we will have restored our freedom, our republic and at the same time eliminated poverty and violent crime. We will have set in place a global political structure that truly represents freedom, gun ownership, republicanism and the future. The universe will be at our fingertips and there is nothing anyone could do to stop us. What are your thoughts on my proposals?

 

The US does not contain enough of the world's population to realistically retain its current status as superpower. This will take decades to lose and I'll be an old man by then probably. But I don't want today's Chinese to be telling their kids and grandkids that the West tried to keep them down when they were trying to take their rightful place in the world. International politics is a long game and it'd be best if we all started getting along so that we'll continue to be treated well even after we lose our advantages. It may not simply be the Chinese of course it will likely be a multi-polar world with India, Brazil and others. I wouldn't like to see America withdraw from the world militarily anytime soon. They mostly do a good job in actng as world policeman to keep the shipping lanes open and preventing mass scale wars.

The US Democratic party is much more right wing than most parties throughout the democratic world. Your "Conservative International" as postulated (gun control etc.) would not be attractive to many Western nations and I don't see how it's a runner as a global block without them. I'd also be surprised if it didn't turn out as UN mark 2 (or League of Nations mark 3). Big international political clubs pretty much turn out bureaucratic by default. I'd prefer to improve the existing UN as it is.

I don't get how forcing people into national service rather than doing productive work improves the economy and I'm sceptical of the merits of national service in peacetime anyway. Forcing immigrants into it is a terrible idea. All the best quality immigrants will just say "Sod that" and head off to England, Canada or wherever. Immigration is a two way street and the US needs to make itself attractive to high quality people.

Alternative energy will be vital in the future and will also help geopolitically. But it may take decades to come to fruition and nobody can afford to be at a disadvantage if they're using new fuels before they are efficient. This will require global accords (like those on climate change) and I'd particularly like to see a carbon tax implemented.

While I'm sure the US system can be improved every electoral system has flaws so I wouldn't pin too much hope over it. Even where many groups are on the ballot paper large parties will naturally form to dominate it. And the current primary system does actually give US citizens a good opportunity to elect those they wish. In many other countries who gets on the ballot gets decided by party apparatchiks so your real choice is limited.

 

Don't tell me the next presidential campaign is starting already? We've only just recovered from the last one

 

@Arctic Daishi, just for the record I think your proposals cover a range of issues too wide and complex to simply agree or disagree with (even strongly or mildly, et al). I would have voted but for that, and I suspect the dearth of votes in general may be a result of same.

 

Sorry about the confusion, you're right about that. To add some more content to this thread, perhaps other people can share their ideals on how America should go about remaining the dominant power in the world in the 21st century and beyond? Or perhaps even share a dissenting opinion; perhaps someone here thinks China should replace America the global hegemon?

 

Why do we need dominance?

Who (of any political importance) is stating America should become isolated?

What other "right wing countries" do you think actually exist?

"Conservative International" to give "gun rights" to the rest of the world? Do you really think we want to promote gun rights to radical Middle East countries and Africa war nations? Who else do you think would join that cause?

Another draft? Tell me you're not serious. Compulsory obligation in the military is not a solution. The volunteer force is quite capable of handling the US military's primary mission.

"Better prepared to fight against tyrants, foreign and domestic"? Really? Sorry, but there is not a chance in hell I believe we'll ever need to rise up against a domestic threat. The whole "I need my gun in case the Ruskies invade" is a fabrication and unrealistic.

"Combat the rise of China as a potential counter to America's unipolarity ... combating the rise of Russia and it's fledgling Eurasian Union." This is cold war rhetoric at its worst. We do not need to combat anything -- we need to work together to develop long lasting understanding and peace.

"The guise of "global warming" or false-flag environmentalism" ... please, just don't go there.

All in all I would say this is a recipe for a "New American Century" filled with fear and destruction ... our destruction.

 

Ah, who would have thought to see the day. T2 stepping in and picking up Ragusa's mantle!

 

LOL!

I just get a little riled when a far-right stance is being touted as mainstream conservatism.

 

I just find it both thrilling and horrifying to get it confirmed yet again that there are plenty of people out there who make you look like a proper pinky librul commie.

 

Couldn't agree more - considering T2B is one of the most mainstream moderate conservatives you'd ever want to meet. He's a white, middle-aged, former military, middle-class, fiscal conservative - it's about as standard mainstream Republican that you'll find.

And yet yes - he looks extremely liberal compared to others.

 

Whether we like it or not, we cannot ignore the world. If we ignore the world and do not promote American ideals, then the world will destroy America (and itself). It dates back to the early United States and the ideas of American exceptionalism and democratic peace theory. If we export our values and ideals, then countries will be less likely to go to war with us, and it will also ensure that our ideals will continue to exist; both in the sense that they have gone global and in the sense that foreign ideologies will not be able to supplant ours. Unfortunately, we're struggling against a foreign ideology right now, liberalism / social democracy.

Barack Obama, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders and countless others.

Switzerland and the Czech Republic for starters. Many Eastern European countries are also fairly right-wing or have powerful right-wing movements in them. Western Europe has seen a shift towards the right in recent years, as well as the growth of powerful libertarian movements.

Many Asian countries are very right-wing and often times far more free-market orientated than European countries. Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates are generally considered some of the best countries to do business in. Israel, much like the United States and Switzerland, also has a strong culture respecting gun ownership. Israelis know first hand how important the right to bear arms is, as they fought against the Islamists and even the British colonial regime.

A right-wing government was just elected in Canada and right-wing populism is, or at least was, at an all time high; as we saw with the rise of the late Reform Party. The new Canadian government has also taken a very pro-gun stance and struck down laws that required firearms be registered with the government.

In addition to the above listed, Africa holds many possibilities for the development of right-wing governments. Botswana and Ghana are two of the most democratic, free and stable countries in Africa and they have been ruled by right-wing governments. Nigeria, which is considered to be one of the most powerful countries in Africa and has a growing economy, also has a right-wing government.

There is so much more to it than just gun rights, why are you pointing out that one little aspect and ignoring the rest? This will be a gathering of conservative leaders, philosophers and activists from around the world. These people will share countless ideas with each other, yes gun rights will be one of them, but there's so much more to it than that. Have you considered that people living under oppressive governments need guns the most? I think you'll find many around the world, especially in Europe, to join our cause.

It's not about "being strong enough to combat our primary mission," it's to train the citizenry and ensure they are ready for civilian/militia life. Only those who are willing to risk their life for freedom, deserve freedom, no?

People like you are the reason we need to be armed. "Oh nothing bad can ever happen in 'murica or any other first-world country." The government has done nothing but continued to get bigger and bigger, we continue to lose more and more of our freedom and international bureaucracies around the world (EU and UN) are continuing to flex more and more of their anti-democratic and anti-freedom might.

That's right, because we live in a world where everyone loves and worships flying magical ponies and nothing bad can ever happen. You Europeans are much better off with American ideals than you are under communism and putinism. If you want to side with China or Russia, go right ahead, but don't blame me if you find yourself worse off than you did under America's wing. Besides, look at all of the great things the Cold War has brought us, from advanced technologies and the internet to space exploration.

You criticize me for adopting a policy that those on the far-left have been advocating for decades? All I meant by this is that we won't be stripping away our freedom under guise of global warming, which is happening around the world. I'm not saying that global warming isn't real, I'm only saying that some people are using "global warming" as a means to power.

---------- Added 0 hours, 4 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

Most of the policies I advocated for above are firmly in the realm of the far-left. Far-right? Ha! Let's take a look at that, shall we?

Fascism: "Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

Extreme right-wing? Over half the policies I advocated for would be firmly considered left-wing and socialistic.

Authoritarian? Nope, I'm a firm believer in republicanism and classical liberalism.

Intolerant views? I didn't touch on social issues at all, though I do strongly support civil rights, which in the modern sense means that I support gun rights and LGBT rights.



The NSDAP was far-right, the British National Party is far-right, Golden Dawn is far-right. I'm not far-right.

 

My first response is 'martaug -- how you doing?'

This is a fallacy and it was this kind of belief that gave us the McCarthy era.

Not even close with President Obama and you're really mischaracterizing the others -- non-involvement (not wanting to put our troops on the ground on foreign soil) is not isolationism.

I disagree with most on your list of 'right wing' countries. I will agree that right wing is more than letting people have guns. What you consider liberal (democrat ideals) is quite conservative to most of the world.

No. Just no.

You would not believe how many times I've heard this same argument. It ultimately turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy -- 'I need guns because my neighbor has guns and God know when those crazies at the police station are going to use their guns on us....' I find it ironic you're against 'international bureaucracies' and yet want to make ... another internation bureaucracy. Again ... how you doin' martaug?

Wow. This is really funny. I'll add to Aldeth's post and say I'm not just former military .. I'm retired military. I spent over 20 years defending the freedoms you enjoy using ... such as the freedom of speech. Don't tell me about the cold war and how great it was. I remember hiding under my desk at school and covering my eyes to practice for a nuclear attack. I've sailed around soviet ships and had bombers do 'practice runs' as we transited. I sat on a ship knowing if some old man decided he'd had enough I would never make it back because we (the US, not Europe) believed the forward deployed ships would be taken out in the first few days -- and those were acceptable losses.

I also brought back bodies of those who trusted some right-wing middle east country as our ally.

And then the trump with fascism....

I find it quite humorous when people point to fascism to defend their own positions -- "see I'm not that bad." That's like saying "I'm a better neighbor than John Wayne Gacy."

 

Surely Arctic Daishi has no idea who martaug is ...

 

Just with regards to China, was an interesting interview with Lee Kuan Yew (former Prime Minister of Singapore for 31 years) in Time, entire article is behind a paywall, but most of it mirrored here. Parts that stuck with me are, his thoughts on;

China’s strategy for becoming number one:

China will not reach the American level in terms of military capabilities any time soon but is rapidly developing asymmetrical means to deter US military power. China understands that its growth depends on imports, including energy, raw materials, and food. China also needs open sea lanes.

The Chinese have calculated that they need thirty to forty—maybe fifty—years of peace and quiet to catch up, build up their system, and change it from the communist system to the market system. They must avoid the mistakes made by Germany and Japan. Their competition for power, influence, and resources led in the last century to two terrible wars. I believe the Chinese leadership has learned that if you compete with America in armaments you will lose. You will bankrupt yourself. So, avoid it, keep your head down, and smile for forty or fifty years.

Major hurdles for China:

China will inevitably catch up to the United States in absolute GDP. But its creativity may never match America’s, because its culture does not permit a free exchange and contest of ideas. How else to explain how a country with four times as many people as America—and presumably four times as many talented people—does not come up with technological breakthroughs?

 

I think you hit it there Arkite, the issue is not military might or spreading the 'message of freedom' -- it's economic power. The US is a world power because of its economic might. We've already converted the vast majority of the world to capitalism -- we "won that war." China realizes the way to best the US is through GNP, not tanks and aircraft carriers. They know that the US must have free trade on the oceans, just as they do, to be financially viable and they are content to let us spend the money they loan us to keep the oceans safe for their trade as well. It's a nice gig they have there and unfortunately our politicians don't seem to realize what's happening.

 

Being from the country most frequently urinated on by the US, I don't see much need for them to continue their "domination" into the next century. The only upside is that a Chinese dominated world (economically speaking) would be a much less pleasant place than the current world regime.

 

I posted this as a reply to someone else on another site I go to.

 

What country is that, LKD? I've studied the Middle East most extensively, but also Europe and Asia to a lesser extent, and it seems to me that it is probably a very long list of countries whose citizens consider themselves to have been urinated on by the U.S. (And these are grievances of external states--let's not even discuss official and unofficial institutions erected against various internal minorities over the past 300 years). Just wondering.

Edit: Never mind, I just read in another thread that you are Canadian.

 

It is really important to have the right to bear arms because when the tyrannical government decides to come after you (and they will), you will be able to easily fight off their tanks, missiles, bombs, and drones with the ammo stash in your cupboard. I know, I saw something like it in "Commando"...... or was it "Halo"? Aaaaaaah, violent games are the answer!

 

Now, hey. I take personal exception to this.

We Americans think Canada is a wonderful country...

Spoiler

...FOR ME TO POOP ON!!