Whims of a Weaver

American Century: At an End? May 18, 2010

“Throughout the 17th century and the 18th century and the 19th century, this continent teemed with manifold projects and magnificent purposes. Above them all and weaving them all together into the most exciting flag of all the world and of all history was the triumphal purpose of freedom. It is in this spirit that all of us are called, each to his own measure of capacity, and each in the widest horizon of his vision, to create the first great American Century.”

Henry Luce, the famous founder of Life, Fortune, Time, Sports Illustrated and other publications, famously announced that vision of an “American Century” in a 1941 article. This prescient idea would be mirrored in American attitudes and foreign policy through the rest of the twentieth century, with a decreasing number of people questioning America’s dominance in the century (especially after the final collapse of the Soviet Union). Now, almost seventy years later, many internal and external forces indicate the slow, dawning awareness of an idea that was once and may largely still be seen as heretical: the American Century has come to an end.

For me, this idea is not brand new. Over the past several years, I’ve espoused the view that the United States would do well to revert to the British model of rolling back empire after World War II. This view was echoed recently by foreign affairs author Chalmers Johnson. I think in the aftermath of Thomas L. Friedman’s Lexus and the Olive Tree, that a more global world is an increasingly evident reality. This also means that America’s tenure as the lone hegemonic power is rapidly dwindling.

Quick, name a war this past decade that wasn’t being fought by the United States. What? You didn’t come up with anything closer to a “war” than Russia vs. Georgia, did you? In a time that many people suppose is more violent, chaotic, and dangerous, why is it that no one other than the U.S. seems to be actually fighting a large-scale war?

If you saw $$$ signs, you are correct. No country, including the United States, has the money, and there is no Cold War division to funnel money to warring nations for ideological purposes. The people who can organize the most money the fastest are now large investment and banking groups, such as JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and similar corporations. War is not a prudent investment, and these groups are not funding militant projects, militant political groups, or investing in nations that get mired in war. Note how successful the United States has been economically over the past several years (although there are all sorts of additional factors that play into that) and how far the U.S. is plunging into debt and annual deficits.

Cheer up, Lloyd. It'll get better!

The United States is certainly not the fastest-adapting nation to this new world of globalization, which is unfortunate since it invariably affects us as much as any other country. New world, new rules. In the developing system of globalization, men like Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein are in, and dinosaurs like George W. Bush are going to be increasingly on the outside. Move on, Cold Warriors, and prepare your younger generations for a new way of finance and governance. Money matters, and foreign policy is almost all about money now, not military action.