Is United States international leadership status deteriorating?

Conservative — Leadership waning because of morality lapse
 

Brian Cuaron

America’s international leadership status; how is it to be evaluated? First, let us agree on how not to rate it.

International leadership is not determined by how well a nation morally conducts itself. What is moral for America is immoral in Europe. Moreover, what is acceptable in California may be detested in Texas and vice-versa.

Unless we are willing to submit to a universal morality, we cannot measure our strength through it. Despite what asinine liberals tell you, morality cannot be had without a God giving it the proper authority. Seeing as how liberals despise true religion, I doubt they would be willing to do what it takes for us to grade our international leadership status through morality.

International leadership should not be assessed by how loudly Europe and the rest of the world cheer our leader. Barack Obama can get all the European crowds he wants. Unless that translates into more meaningful troops for Afghanistan, however, the adoration does little more than boost the “Chosen One’s” ego.

I propose a practical grading system in which we gauge America’s international leadership by how much we are able to bend other nations to our will. Based on this method, we can say America’s influence among her allies, competitors and enemies is as great as it was under George W. Bush.

For example, Obama wanted from NATO thousands of more troops for Afghanistan. What he got was 500 to 700 troops from the United Kingdom, which was far fewer than the 2,000 troops the British military was earlier planning on sending. Belgium’s promise of 35 military trainers and Spain’s promise of 12 makes Obama’s Afghanistan coalition look like Bush’s Iraqi “coalition of the willing.”

Making matters worse, the British troop surge will only be for a four-month period in response to Afghanistan’s upcoming election.

In addition, Europeans remain against America’s use, or even threat, of sanctions against Iran in regard to that nation’s nuclear program. Even North Korea fired a missile — despite later international and U.S. protests.

Considering how Europeans blame America for the global economic downturn, the view of America’s international standing gets even dimmer. Obama’s need to “tamp down” our nation’s support of a missile shield in deference to Russia, and his promise to talk with a nation whose leader supports the destruction of Israel, none of this illustrates our international strength.

This is not to say Obama cannot improve our international standing. I am sure he can and perhaps may. But let us not be fooled by adoring European crowds or their leaders captivated by Obama’s presence. Rather, let us focus on the results of these things, which have yet to amount to anything significant.

Brian Cuaron is a junior English major and the video editor for the Daily Forty-Niner.

Liberal — U.S. not losing status but could soon

Christopher Herrin

The United States is not losing its international leadership status, however, there is a very realistic chance of doing so in the future. Clearly, the world has become a much more competitive place than it was in years past. One problem is that U.S. tax revenues are not proportionate to government spending, risking the kind of fiscal crisis that turns superpowers into second-rate powers.

First, international competition necessitates teaming with international partners for trade and diplomacy. For example, crucial to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is an international coalition that includes Russia, Iran’s principal trade partner.

It will also be necessary to include Pakistan’s main trade partners — China and Saudi Arabia — in stabilizing that country. If we do not exercise this “soft power,” then China or another nation will. As we learned in Iraq, someone always comes along to fill a power vacuum.

China, which is not a military superpower — at least not yet — has through its international business relationships become the world’s second most powerful nation.

According to Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria, for the past two decades China’s economy has grown at approximately 9 percent a year and the United States at 3 percent. Due to the economic slowdown, for the next few years American growth will likely be 1 percent and China’s, by the most conservative estimates, 5 percent.

China’s economy was growing three times faster than the United States, but will now grow at least five times as fast. Furthermore, China’s enormous surplus monetary reserves compared to America’s massive debt burden do not suggest a return to sole American dominance.

Another weak point for the U.S. is our attitude toward taxes. We are somewhere near $11 trillion in debt because we do not bring in enough money to pay for the services we expect. This money is borrowed from countries such as China and Saudi Arabia and it is unsustainable.

I have to ask conservatives: How is going into debt with foreign creditors better than raising taxes? And if higher taxes are so bad for wealth, how come the wealthy did so well during Clinton’s presidency, when taxes were higher?

Conservatives look back to Ronald Reagan who lowered taxes in 1981. But they forget that he subsequently raised taxes drastically when he realized that he had lowered them too much.

Today, just over 40 percent of the federal budget goes to the entitlement programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. As the population ages, however, these programs will overwhelm the budget, becoming more than 100 percent sometime after 2050.

Our long-term viability is contingent upon evening out government expenses and tax revenues. This means that a happy medium must be found that results in the maximization of tax revenues, while simultaneously aiming at 100 percent employment.

That makes sense, right?

Christopher Herrin is a graduate Religious Studies graduate student and a columnist for the Daily Forty-Niner.