It’s not that Luce’s argument isn’t convincing. Many things in ths country, from the stock market to public education to scientific discovery, seem to be getting worse. But in citing only very recent trends, Luce implies that if only we as a nation could address issues like education and business creation, then we all could be rich again. He acknowledges that this is unlikely—“one nagging concern,” he writes, “is that America’s obsession with what Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security advisor, calls ‘the politics of now’ will continue to divert Washington’s policymakers from domestic problems.” But Luce seems unwilling to take the next step and ask why are these things happening, and whether we can really correct them.
While Luce never comes to this point, he seems to demonstrate, by accident, that civilizational decline is more than just a matter of contemporary political dysfunction. A country’s downfall, like its rise, is apolitical. There’s something very risky about pointing to decline by citing only fleeting economic trends. So many pundits shout, write, and blog that “if the Obama administration would take the following few steps” we could fix this. As James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic in 2010:
The United States itself has the power to correct what is wrong. And a longer-term perspective would mean doing all we can to address the “75-year threats”—the issues for which we’ll be thanked or blamed two or three generations from now.
The country should, Fallows explained fix, its infrastructure, invest more money in research, and get serious about environmental degradation. Good ideas, but isn’t the real problem the fact that US policymakers can’t (or won’t) do these things?
Were there 75-year threats Gladstone could have addressed in the 1880s that would have kept Britain on top? Does it matter? Were there 75-year threats the Emperor Diocletian,, who split the Roman empire in two in order to try to preserve the institution’s power, could have addressed in the 290s?
Sure it’s time to “start thinking,” but, frankly, the time to reverse the decline trend might be over. Politicians have proven themselves, for thousands of years, unable to stop decline; they can only manage it.
Click here for a complete Page Views archive.
Psst! Here's an idea: DRAW BACK THE ____ING EMPIRE! STOP THE WARS! SAVE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, MILLIONS OF LIVES! FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! Seriously. Are "we" NOT seeing the common-sense remedies? Or are "we" such state-worshiping "liberal progressives" that "we" devilishly OMIT politically unacceptable truths? Everything is Control & Command for the we" crowd: Gosh! What can the govt ("we") do? Spend more! Tax more! Borrow more! Print more! Govern more! More, more more! Dupes... accomplices.. journalists.
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 11:01 AM
Re: Dan A.: read the review. The fact that our politicians don't do such such things is a symptom of decline. The unwillingness to take such actions is what happens when empires lose power. Always has been. Always will be.
#2 Posted by del2124, CJR on Thu 28 Jun 2012 at 11:17 PM
Either Daniel Luzer should take a basic course in grammar, spelling, and punctuation, or he should find himself a good proofreader. It's difficult to take seriously the criticisms of a reviewer whose writing contains so many errors.
#3 Posted by Daniel Bratton, CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 12:31 PM
Daniel-
"If the means be just, the conduct true, praise despite trivial faults is due"
Alexander Pope- Essay on Criticism
I'd note that editorial oversight has largely vanished along with journalism. Blame Craigslist for that. Alternatively you might consider watching a vapid but polished news source such as CNN. The writer probably lives at the poverty line.
This was a good review.
#4 Posted by J Masters, CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 01:20 PM
"Re: Dan A.: read the review. The fact that our politicians don't do such such things is a symptom of decline. The unwillingness to take such actions is what happens when empires lose power. Always has been. Always will be."
The review suggests that the govt is inept because the feds have not properly or adequately gathered and "invest[ed]" revenue in order to sustain national greatness. I'd say that the feds are thus too active, and too active generally: Congress and the president should undo things. They should cease to act, for a change. A nation with ever more laws and ever more-active leaders will be ever less-free and ever more-impoverished.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 29 Jun 2012 at 06:16 PM
This reviewer desperately needs some tidying. Was the copy-editor asleep?
#6 Posted by Sarah KT, CJR on Sat 30 Jun 2012 at 10:24 AM