Wish I'd said that

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, September 1, 2009 - 4:29 PM Share

Riffing on Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan nails it:

Late empires are known for several things: a self-obsessed, self-serving governing class, small over-reaching wars that bankrupt the Treasury, debt that balloons until retreat from global power becomes not a choice but a necessity, and a polity unable to address reasonably any of these questions -- or how the increasing corruption of the media enables them all.

Obama is, in some ways, a test-case.

He was elected on a clear platform of reform and change; and yet the only real achievement Washington has allowed him so far is a massive stimulus package to prevent a Second Great Depression (and even on that emergency measure, no Republicans would support him). On that he succeeded. But that wasn't reform; it was a crash landing after one of the worst administrations in America's history.

Real reform -- tackling health care costs and access, finding a way to head off massive changes in the world's climate, ending torture as the lynchpin of the war on terror, getting out of Iraq, preventing an Israeli-led Third World War in the Middle East, and reforming entitlements and defense spending to prevent 21st century America from becoming 17th Century Spain: these are being resisted by those who have power and do not want to relinquish it -- except to their own families and cronies.

Nepotism is part of the problem; media corruption is also part; the total uselessness of the Democratic party and the nihilism of the Republicans doesn't help. But something is rotten in America at this moment in time; and those of us who supported Obama to try and change this decay and decline should use this fall to get off our butts and fight for change."

Wish I'd said that. And it makes me wonder: would Obama agree with the above (meaning he is a reluctant prisoner of well-entrenched interests), or is he is part of the problem too?

GABRIEL BOUYS/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:CULTURE, MEDIASPHERE, POLITICS, CORRUPTION, CULTURE, ECONOMICS, MEDIA, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(12)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

NORWEGIAN SHOOTER

6:34 PM ET

September 1, 2009

Don't worry, you nail plenty of subjects

Great thought to wonder, but don't ask Obama it outright, unless you have Wonder Woman's lasso.

How about asking Obama if he dropped his commitment to transparency in health care negotiations?

GOEDEL

7:53 PM ET

September 1, 2009

So happy with Mr Walt's last paragraph!

Is Obama a prisoner of entrenched interests, or is he a part of the problem, too?

That, as Hamlet said, is the question!

Clearly, he has thrown his lot with the ruling elite and is part of the problem, a big part. He reversed himself so many times that his integrity must be a fading illusion, even among his truest believers.

REDWELL

9:20 PM ET

September 1, 2009

Facile comparisons to fading

Facile comparisons to fading empires and "the worst administration in American history" are about as well-conceived as a land war in Southeast Asia.

BLUE13326

12:30 AM ET

September 2, 2009

Those are essentially the

Those are essentially the ramblings of an immature child; this utopian notion that if we just build the state up big enough we can solve all our problems, without any assessment of the likely outcome of our policy decisions, is in large measure why our country is such a mess, our finances at the breaking point. I sincerely hope Obama does not share these views.

And the notion that anyone who tries to speak out against the growth of the state is some sort of evil entrenched interest, or, even better, when the growth of the state ends up making things worse, then this can also be blamed on those evil entrenched interests, is why this kind of thinking generally results in nasty murderous dictatorships.

CLINT

3:53 PM ET

September 2, 2009

I agree we should cut down on

I agree we should cut down on the State -- let's begin with the over-bloated military sector of our government.

Then, with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ saved, we can do plenty of other things.

BRETT

1:27 AM ET

September 2, 2009

Who are these "late empires"

Who are these "late empires" Sullivan is referring to? The only other truly "global" empire in human history was the British Empire, which fell into decline not so much due to massive internal problems and debt so much as the fact that everyone else passed them by, and it became too much to hang on to their empire.

GRANT

3:22 PM ET

September 2, 2009

There were also the French,

There were also the French, Dutch, Spanish, and German; even if they weren't all called empires.

BRETT

4:42 PM ET

September 2, 2009

Referring to them as "global

Referring to them as "global empires" is generous - they controlled pieces of territory around the globe, but they had little sway in terms of a worldwide empire in the way Great Britain and then the US did (to the point where IR Theorists argue that the latter two were "hegemons").

Even then, does the point apply? The French lost their empire in part due to devastation from World War 2, not because of staggering debt and corruption. The Dutch lost sway twice - once in the 17th century and again with what empire they had in the 20th century - but both times it was due to stronger enemies, not because of internal weakness. The Spanish had the same issue, plus (as I mentioned), they fell into the condition the British did, where other states were equaling them and then passing them by. The Germans never really had a "global" empire to speak of, with some possessions in Africa being it.

Truth be told, recent history doesn't really support the "internal weakness" meme. Most of the empires that fell in the twentieth century fell because they got surpassed by other states for various reasons (not necessarily due to internal weakness - ask Great Britain, which got passed by the US, Germany, USSR, and so forth). The exception is probably the USSR, although without the US as a far stronger external enemy actively rolling back its influence around the world it probably would have just limped onwards.

GRANT

6:30 PM ET

September 2, 2009

Referring to them as "global

I'll grant you that point. The problem with predicting the future of political systems is that for most part we're constantly working under the assumption that the current system is the way it always is. Nationalism as we know it didn't really exist until the 19th century, and who I ask could have possibly predicted that it would be so attractive during the final crisis of the Soviet Union that it would largely create the end of the Soviet Union?
Further, who knows how long the trend will last until powers either start expanding outwards in imperial fashion or inwards to something like a city-state.

Maybe we can measure the trend in power with this question, "If an order is given by the de facto executive of a state, how far can that order actually be enforced throughout the regions that theoretically are loyal to the state?"
and
"If the executive of a state applies pressure to another executive to do something, how often will they do it?"
If the answer is less than what it was ten or twenty years ago I would say that this would be a good indicator of a system in decline, though that doesn't mean that it cannot be revitalized.

GRANT

1:30 PM ET

September 2, 2009

All of this may be true, but

All of this may be true, but I would like to remind the readers that we generally have very little idea of whether an empire is about to crash or not until it actually happens. If we went by circumstances, then there really isn't that much difference between today and 1973.

TGGP

4:55 PM ET

September 2, 2009

References to "late empire"

References to "late empire" generally come from people who don't know what they're talking about. It's not like Sullivan went out and did some research to run regressions of various pol-sci variables ("increasing corruption of the media", sure that's just what did the Romans in). He's basically the same hyper-ventilator he was as a booster of the Iraq war, and his faith in Obama is based on the same foundation of evidence-free hope.

JJH722

7:52 PM ET

September 2, 2009

more scared of change than they are of status quo

there is also something about the attitude and intellect of the american people. Anybody who believed that "death panels" claim--which I think was about a quarter of our budding gerontocracy--needs have their end of life counseling privileges revoked. Congress is the real problem, because that's where the interests--i.e., people and organizations with interests--exercise the vast share of their influence. The main reason the executive deals with the "interests" is because Congress is beholden to them. Healthcare can be derailed with scare tactics aimed at the elderly who love "their" medicare, climate change by the coal producing and high-cost energy states, and the peace process by the most obvious culprit to point to on this blog--the Israeli lobby. A terrorist attack here or elsewhere in the Western world would also help the crazies here bat down a peace deal. Netanyahu will only hope for such a reprieve.
For Obama himself, I think the financial sector reform will be the best test case. He could sell as tough a financial reform package as he wanted--if he takes it to the people and relentlessly sells it. People know it is directly related to our current disaster. I think that should have happened before this healthcare deal--now he's lost credibility with the gullible folks. I think he should split that bill up into two and pass half of it with reconciliation--there were some reports indicating that approach recently. And if he's really going to take on the defense establishment in a major way, he's going to have to do it slowly, and mostly in his second term (is that overly optimistic?). The GOP's incessant quoting of Obama's term "empathy" for Justice Sotomayor is a pretty good display of how they will approach his use of moral arguments for health care. People with insurance aren't going to buy those arguments right now because they're scared enough about their own future. It shouldn't be the centerpiece of the push--he should focus on cost control in a way that makes sense to people. His agenda is massive. If he doesn't get it passed, can you really fault HIM?