Yes and no.
Now before you think me an arrogant Yank, let's go ahead and consider some things. Part of what started the fires populism in Europe was Merkel's policy of austerity. Simply put, a lot of the working class chosen James over in Europe wound up losing their jobs, and losing a lot of her stability, because, despite the fact that the European Union had proved that you can have many social programs and a good economy, Merkel decided she wanted to bring austerity. The result was completely disastrous, and yes the fact that she took a stand on Syria, was very laudable, but the European reaction to it showed that the EU had been polishing their halos for way too long.
Now, I can see America losing a lot of "soft power." Indeed, the problem is that a lot of America, especially middle America, hated the very idea of soft power, this implies that you have to talk to people instead of just barking orders and shooting people. For all the soft power America once enjoyed, if forgot that a lot of it was gained by immigrants who moved over here and made a better life for themselves, as well as the sort of people that came from middle America, but were not welcome in their hometown. It is apparent in the Trump election that a large part of middle America does not want any soft power or influence; by that I do not mean geography, I mean the middle, mediocre, too dumb to realize they are not all that smart people., It pains me because America has produced some of the very best people in the world, but for every one artist, scientist or even left-wing politician, it seems to sprout two Archie Bunker's, Klansmen, and Fox News aficionados.
However, is Germany really ready to take the ball? Let's face it folks, the whole reason the EU was talked about as a serious idea was because most people in Europe have certain scars from when Germany tried to take it over twice. It sure does not help that the person who would be waving the flag of liberalism is of course the woman who weighed the flag of austerity.
China? Yes they have done a lot lifting 70 million people out of poverty. They have turned villages to glowing neon cities, complete with high-speed rail, and they have taken the crown of manufacturing giant from both Europe and America. On the other hand, the Internet, while very fast, is laden with spies and government informants who will make sure you only see what Beijing wants you to see, and you keep looking, they have no problems making sure that your eyes get plucked out. Let's not even mention the smog and the ecological pollution which will show what America will look like without an EPA.
Russia? There is no doubt that Russia has regained its position as a nation that influences other nations. They actually have learned to get some "soft power" albeit it is from far right movements everywhere from France to Alabama. It is a real comic thing to see the KKK actually endorse the flag that the Russians put over the Crimea, because lo and behold it looks almost like the stars and bars. You actually have races to praise Russia as the "new Rome", which of course is meant to stroke Russian egos, as they frankly consider themselves Roman empire back about upstart Charlemagne was crowned by the Vatican as holy Roman Emperor, as in that empire that was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Let's face it, for all the bright shiny faces on Russia today, it's very clear that Russia still knows how to rough a face up, and let's not even comment about the fact that they have endorsed a lot of religious bigotry, as the ladies in Pussy Riot can tell you.
As a Latino, part of me was looking at Latin America, seem folks like Chavez did in Venezuela, or seeing Dilma Rouseff take power in Brazil. However, this Bolivarian dream seems to have flopped. Brazil got the World Cup, the Olympics and nothing to show for it but more debt, and Brazilian fans calling their president or racial word, followed by supporting her impeachment. Maduro is of course no Chavez, who will like to have followed that first act? As for Cuba, all I can say is that I pray that they do not get caught between Trump's ego on the one hand, and the Chinese hunger for goods on the other. If China have regularly bulldoze his neighborhoods that were around before Christ was even in his cradle, what he thinks going to happen old Havana? UNESCO landmark, yeah like that will stop them. As far as America goes, the last main Havana will need are a bunch of corporations who have already made well laid plans to change Havana into a suburb of Miami. Oh you know Marco Rubio is drooling, but Trump will make sure he gets a tower put in, and a casino.
So while I will gladly admit that America has finally given in to the illness that was linked in it from its very birth, and which is flared up every generation or so whenever a good white Christian folk thought they could get a leg up on the even liberals. However I'm going to be blunt, I do not see any power that is either ready to be a leader, and most importantly, that deserves to be a leader. At this point, I don't even put much faith in the UN, considering its main job is to rubberstamp what be "permanent Security Council members" want, or somehow manage to go to Haiti and bring a cholera epidemic which kills almost as many people as the earthquake does. I realize there is a need for UN, indeed if we want to be really blunt, we should be at the point where I UN security force would be able to tell Moscow, Beijing, and almost certainly hell yes Washington, to step off or deal with a well armed UN police force! However, what we have as a UN is not that, and is not even wanting to be that.
Elmore wrote the book V for vendetta, which despite some good acting, really did not have the punch of the book. Now after V sets up anarchy, he says that there is a period in between the end of old regimes in the beginning of new ones that he calls "true order", where people that have made associations to survive actually make a series of relationships that replace the nations. I have a feeling that's what were going to be looking forward to. Yes, there is something nice about belonging to people that you actually want to associate with, as opposed to the fact that you are under a certain flag. I'll be the first row to go ahead and say that that picture is not as rosy as Moore paints it, namely the fact that we have corporations, corporations which are so big and so thorough they have become not just the new nation states, but very possibly the new religions, and they are willing to go ahead and back any sort of primitive craziness as long as their budget winds up being good. After all, why do you think that for all the turban wearing that Isis people do, they all know how to work a cell phone, Internet pages, satellite phones and all the weapons of Silicon Valley.
I may dislike the idea of nation-states; they waste a lot of resources, both natural and mental. People who should be friends, partners what the very least fellow citizens of the planet Earth wind up wasting time in the name of whatever flag or book is used by the powerful to stay rich. On the other hand, I know that a strong nation-state is what keeps the roving bands at bay. Anarchy might seem poetic in the initial state, but sooner or later what happens is that a bunch of people realize if they unite under one idea, they can get bigger, stronger and can take whatever they want from anyone else. What is really frightening is, we have not seen the worst of it; what do you think China is going to do after it's Walmart economy has to admit that they don't have enough food and water to feed themselves? Do you think Russia, Europe, or America will really have that much to say about it, that the EU, US and Russia's population is still short of China by about 300 million? Let's not even get to India, which has a serious desire to wage war with the Islamic world. For that matter, what you think might happen in America, or Canada once global warming make cities sink, and changes the way crops are grown?
There will be a little bit more of the anarchy more idolizes, but frankly the way the future is looking, it is not a matter of who will replace the nations of the world as leaders, it is a matter of the fact that we better change the way that we find leaders and get them into place now, so that what our grandchildren are having to clean up the mess that we in the 20th century made, they will have some help..
= new reply since forum marked as read
