Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Does the United States Know How to Balance Power?
While reading Richard Holbrooke's monthly column in the Washington Post ("The End of the Romance"), I was struck by an awful realization: the United States has never played the peacetime diplomatic game known as The Balance of Power with more than two players, and, as such, we are completely unprepared for how to conduct our foreign policy in today's multi-polar world.
Before World War I, the United States stood behind the Monroe Doctrine and maintained a disengagement from the affairs of Europe. Therefore the best model for the current state of world affairs (pre-WWI Europe) is known to U.S. policymakers and the American consciousness only through history and myth. We have no national, collective memory of that experience, nor are there principles and examples to be followed.
(When I compare the world today to pre-WWI Europe, I am mainly refering to multiple regions or countries with competing interests. I identify the U.S., the EU, Russia, China, and India as the five dominant powers. Strangely, the Middle East holds the same potential power as a pre-unification Germany possessed in the 19th century. If an economic union ever took hold and progressed toward defense agreements, the resulting regional dynamics would almost certainly lead to conflict on all sides).
After WWI, the United States entered the world stage for a brief moment, at Versailles, and Wilsonian ideals (strikingly similar to Bush the Younger's ideals) made a claim for world influence. Faced with the prospect of engaging with the wider world through the League of Nations on Europe's balance of power terms, the United States returned to isolation for the next two decades.
After WWII, the United States faced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the two behemoths traded jabs and feints for the next 45 years in the Cold War. Other powers, though recognized, were used as pawns or at best semi-feudal partners during the conflict.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States had a chance to return to the American tradition of isolation, but remained on the world stage, unsure of itself at times, boldly confident at others. Globalization promised the end of history, but religious and civil conflicts continued to warn of an eternal curse over humanity's chances for peace.
The biggest change over the last 15 years, however, other than the United States' return to Wilson through Bush, is that the other world powers have begun to adjust and adapt to the changing circumstances. China grows in power and dominance daily, with unknown consequences for the Asian rim and U.S. control of the Pacific. The EU engages in Middle Eastern diplomacy while participating in trade wars with the U.S. Russia bullies its neighbors while alternating between ally and irritant (opposition to the invasion of Iraq). India's poverty may hold it back from being a world-class power, but China's poverty led to its industrialization, which could provide a model for India.
(Note: North Korea's war-mongering could trigger a re-armament of Japan, which would introduce drastically different circumstances, including Japan's re-entry as a Great Power and a potentially deadly future confrontation with China. In fact, China's eventual military strength may prompt Japan to consider its own defenses without reliance on American support, especially since few in the U.S. consider China to be a geo-political threat.)
Still, the world revolves around the Middle East. Its weakness invites incursion, with unknown consequences. Napoleon's nationalistic armies marched across Europe, but while they returned to France the nationalism remained. What will we leave in Iraq?
The EU's ambivalence toward Turkey could cause that country to turn to Russia or toward fellow Muslim states: Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, or Iraq. Pakistan may decide it needs allies against India. If the Central Asian nations resist Russian (or Chinese) encroachment, will the Muslim nations to the south answer a call for help? A Middle Eastern economic free-trade zone would mean that the leaders of the Middle East know that they have more to fear from outsiders than from each other.
Yet few in this country understand the need to play a multi-player game of balance of power. Idealists still wax eloquent about globalization's promises and the future of worldwide cooperation and trade. Rather than maturely playing powers off each other and eliminating disagreements with natural allies (the EU, India, Japan?), the U.S. coddles Russia and China and sows discontent and distrust in the Middle East. We seek to eliminate small and medium-sized tyrannies, while ignoring the elephants in the corners.
I would encourage the reader to begin to view the world through a different lens: that of pre-WWI Europe. Multiple powers, shifting alliances, and an understanding of the need for economic as well as military superiority are all present. The American voting public, especially, needs to understand the need to think strategically, not idealistically, about the world and about our place in it. The 1990s are gone, and it's about time we started acting like it.
Before World War I, the United States stood behind the Monroe Doctrine and maintained a disengagement from the affairs of Europe. Therefore the best model for the current state of world affairs (pre-WWI Europe) is known to U.S. policymakers and the American consciousness only through history and myth. We have no national, collective memory of that experience, nor are there principles and examples to be followed.
(When I compare the world today to pre-WWI Europe, I am mainly refering to multiple regions or countries with competing interests. I identify the U.S., the EU, Russia, China, and India as the five dominant powers. Strangely, the Middle East holds the same potential power as a pre-unification Germany possessed in the 19th century. If an economic union ever took hold and progressed toward defense agreements, the resulting regional dynamics would almost certainly lead to conflict on all sides).
After WWI, the United States entered the world stage for a brief moment, at Versailles, and Wilsonian ideals (strikingly similar to Bush the Younger's ideals) made a claim for world influence. Faced with the prospect of engaging with the wider world through the League of Nations on Europe's balance of power terms, the United States returned to isolation for the next two decades.
After WWII, the United States faced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the two behemoths traded jabs and feints for the next 45 years in the Cold War. Other powers, though recognized, were used as pawns or at best semi-feudal partners during the conflict.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States had a chance to return to the American tradition of isolation, but remained on the world stage, unsure of itself at times, boldly confident at others. Globalization promised the end of history, but religious and civil conflicts continued to warn of an eternal curse over humanity's chances for peace.
The biggest change over the last 15 years, however, other than the United States' return to Wilson through Bush, is that the other world powers have begun to adjust and adapt to the changing circumstances. China grows in power and dominance daily, with unknown consequences for the Asian rim and U.S. control of the Pacific. The EU engages in Middle Eastern diplomacy while participating in trade wars with the U.S. Russia bullies its neighbors while alternating between ally and irritant (opposition to the invasion of Iraq). India's poverty may hold it back from being a world-class power, but China's poverty led to its industrialization, which could provide a model for India.
(Note: North Korea's war-mongering could trigger a re-armament of Japan, which would introduce drastically different circumstances, including Japan's re-entry as a Great Power and a potentially deadly future confrontation with China. In fact, China's eventual military strength may prompt Japan to consider its own defenses without reliance on American support, especially since few in the U.S. consider China to be a geo-political threat.)
Still, the world revolves around the Middle East. Its weakness invites incursion, with unknown consequences. Napoleon's nationalistic armies marched across Europe, but while they returned to France the nationalism remained. What will we leave in Iraq?
The EU's ambivalence toward Turkey could cause that country to turn to Russia or toward fellow Muslim states: Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, or Iraq. Pakistan may decide it needs allies against India. If the Central Asian nations resist Russian (or Chinese) encroachment, will the Muslim nations to the south answer a call for help? A Middle Eastern economic free-trade zone would mean that the leaders of the Middle East know that they have more to fear from outsiders than from each other.
Yet few in this country understand the need to play a multi-player game of balance of power. Idealists still wax eloquent about globalization's promises and the future of worldwide cooperation and trade. Rather than maturely playing powers off each other and eliminating disagreements with natural allies (the EU, India, Japan?), the U.S. coddles Russia and China and sows discontent and distrust in the Middle East. We seek to eliminate small and medium-sized tyrannies, while ignoring the elephants in the corners.
I would encourage the reader to begin to view the world through a different lens: that of pre-WWI Europe. Multiple powers, shifting alliances, and an understanding of the need for economic as well as military superiority are all present. The American voting public, especially, needs to understand the need to think strategically, not idealistically, about the world and about our place in it. The 1990s are gone, and it's about time we started acting like it.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Adam's Thinking on Social Security ... by Laura Thomas
I've been trying to enunciate the words that accurately describe how I'm feeling about the whole idea of Social Security reform. I don't mind the option of "personal" accounts, but I'm also not worried about myself, I'm worried about lower-income food-service workers who might not get a 401(k) through work and who may not be able to put aside money for retirement. If they get personal accounts, and the stock market doesn't perform well, or they choose wrong, then they are screwed. There are no guarantees.
Also, I am completely opposed to borrowing money now to pay for this thing. The responsible thing, in my mind, is to finance government expansion of programs with higher taxes, not borrowing money. If Bush wants to make sure current recipients receive the same benefits, he can raise taxes to pay for it. Don't borrow money that my generation will have to pay off in 20-30 years.
If Bush really cares about my generation, then he won't borrow money. But I don't think he really cares. I think this is an elaborate scam to get a lot of government money into the stock market and to make financiers rich.
But Laura Thomas of the Washington Post also does a good job explaining how my generation thinks about Social Security reform, so read what she has to say.
washingtonpost.com
Who's Counting on Social Security? Not We Twenty-Somethings
By Laura Thomas
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page B03
People my age are as likely to believe in Social Security as they are in Santa Claus. And, if you ask me, it would be equally naive for a twenty-something to believe in either one.
As I watched bits of President Bush's State of the Union address last Wednesday night, I couldn't help but think back to this past Christmas Eve with my large, loud and lovable Italian family. Somehow I found myself debating Social Security's future with some of my older relatives. It started with them asking me about my job -- my first real job -- but soon veered close to violating the family rule against discussing politics at the dinner table.
It seemed as though my family (a mixture of partisan extremes, from Rush Limbaugh fans to passionate antiwar protesters) saw Social Security's troubles as a small matter -- contrary to the president's description last week. Whether the impending collapse of Social Security is a myth or not, I shouldn't be relying on Social Security to take care of me when I retire anyway, they said. I was taken aback by their mistaken impression that I had a sense of entitlement to Social Security, just as I was amused during the State of the Union speech to hear that Bush thought I was expecting to receive it.
I didn't want to stir up a Christmas Eve brawl, but I nonetheless felt compelled to explain that never in my life had I assumed that Social Security was coming to me. Every time I see that somewhat shocking Social Security dollar figure subtracted on my pay stub, I choose to look at it as giving back to my older family members who've been known to drop random checks in the mail to their poor, desperate niece or granddaughter.
By the time we finished the antipasto, we decided that we were all more or less on the same side: Start saving now, because Social Security, if it still exists when you're older, will only be for people on welfare or those who didn't have the foresight or willpower to save (which will not be you, Laura).
"As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers," said the president. "And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts."
I will be 62 in 2042, the exact year the Social Security Administration forecasts that the system's trust fund will run out of money, and benefits will be cut to match cash flow from tax payments, unless a fix is made earlier. Some say that Social Security is fated to be a distant memory by then, while others say it will be alive and kicking. Either way, I'm looking out for No. 1.
What Bush's "deal" looks like to me is exactly the same "deal" most of my twenty- and thirty-something friends already have. To borrow Bush's language from the State of the Union, I just opened a personal account called a 401(k) that I will pay into every two weeks, building a "nest egg" for my future. My money will grow tax-deferred, it will provide for my retirement and I'll be able to pass it along to my loved ones when I die. Right now, I'm also paying into Social Security every two weeks to help my grandma, not myself.
But these are two separate tabs, as I see it. On one hand, I'm willing to do my part to help people, young and old, have a roof over their heads, food in their tummies and clothes on their backs; so I'm not opposed to paying Social Security. On the other, when it comes to my retirement money, I don't want anyone else touching it, especially the government, which has done such a dandy job of handling retirement funds so far.
I see a pitfall to this so-called privatization. Is it really private if the government's involved? Isn't it possible that kids entering the workforce will think: "Hey, the government is putting money in my retirement fund, I don't need to open up another account until later. Now where is that BMW dealership?" Sure, some money will be taken from our paychecks and put in private accounts courtesy of Uncle Sam, but how much? A percentage? What percentage? Into which stocks and bonds? Who's choosing them? Do I have a say? What if those of us in our mid-twenties live to be 120 years old? Will there be enough money to live that long comfortably? These questions keep this 25-year-old holding onto her retirement fund, one the government can't tamper with. Better be safe than sorry, Mama always said.
The president's "deal" will ensure that everyone , which is supposed to include low-income Americans in his "ownership society," saves for retirement. But why can't low- and high-income Americans do it on their own? If Bush passes his deal into legislation, the money's still coming out of those paychecks, whether any of us like it or not.
My generation and our government need to figure it out: Should we all save together or save separately? I've never been one for labels, but I think the logic goes: Democrats and liberals lean toward saving together in case we all don't or can't save separately, and Republicans and conservatives lean toward saving separately because the only helping hand is the one at the end of your sleeve. Or something like that.
Politics notwithstanding, my logic goes like this: It's time to "prepare and plan" for the future as the president put it Tuesday. That's why last week, as soon as I hit the one-year mark at my job and became eligible for a 401 (k) plan, I signed up -- much to the relief of my family, I'm sure. And I don't think other people my age are just sitting in the dark waiting for a glimpse of Santa Claus, or tossing their money up the chimney while counting on Social Security.
Author's e-mail: thomaslaura@washpost.com
Laura Thomas is a news aide in The Post's Style section, assisting with the "Out & About" column and coordinating classical music reviews.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Also, I am completely opposed to borrowing money now to pay for this thing. The responsible thing, in my mind, is to finance government expansion of programs with higher taxes, not borrowing money. If Bush wants to make sure current recipients receive the same benefits, he can raise taxes to pay for it. Don't borrow money that my generation will have to pay off in 20-30 years.
If Bush really cares about my generation, then he won't borrow money. But I don't think he really cares. I think this is an elaborate scam to get a lot of government money into the stock market and to make financiers rich.
But Laura Thomas of the Washington Post also does a good job explaining how my generation thinks about Social Security reform, so read what she has to say.
washingtonpost.com
Who's Counting on Social Security? Not We Twenty-Somethings
By Laura Thomas
Sunday, February 6, 2005; Page B03
People my age are as likely to believe in Social Security as they are in Santa Claus. And, if you ask me, it would be equally naive for a twenty-something to believe in either one.
As I watched bits of President Bush's State of the Union address last Wednesday night, I couldn't help but think back to this past Christmas Eve with my large, loud and lovable Italian family. Somehow I found myself debating Social Security's future with some of my older relatives. It started with them asking me about my job -- my first real job -- but soon veered close to violating the family rule against discussing politics at the dinner table.
It seemed as though my family (a mixture of partisan extremes, from Rush Limbaugh fans to passionate antiwar protesters) saw Social Security's troubles as a small matter -- contrary to the president's description last week. Whether the impending collapse of Social Security is a myth or not, I shouldn't be relying on Social Security to take care of me when I retire anyway, they said. I was taken aback by their mistaken impression that I had a sense of entitlement to Social Security, just as I was amused during the State of the Union speech to hear that Bush thought I was expecting to receive it.
I didn't want to stir up a Christmas Eve brawl, but I nonetheless felt compelled to explain that never in my life had I assumed that Social Security was coming to me. Every time I see that somewhat shocking Social Security dollar figure subtracted on my pay stub, I choose to look at it as giving back to my older family members who've been known to drop random checks in the mail to their poor, desperate niece or granddaughter.
By the time we finished the antipasto, we decided that we were all more or less on the same side: Start saving now, because Social Security, if it still exists when you're older, will only be for people on welfare or those who didn't have the foresight or willpower to save (which will not be you, Laura).
"As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers," said the president. "And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts."
I will be 62 in 2042, the exact year the Social Security Administration forecasts that the system's trust fund will run out of money, and benefits will be cut to match cash flow from tax payments, unless a fix is made earlier. Some say that Social Security is fated to be a distant memory by then, while others say it will be alive and kicking. Either way, I'm looking out for No. 1.
What Bush's "deal" looks like to me is exactly the same "deal" most of my twenty- and thirty-something friends already have. To borrow Bush's language from the State of the Union, I just opened a personal account called a 401(k) that I will pay into every two weeks, building a "nest egg" for my future. My money will grow tax-deferred, it will provide for my retirement and I'll be able to pass it along to my loved ones when I die. Right now, I'm also paying into Social Security every two weeks to help my grandma, not myself.
But these are two separate tabs, as I see it. On one hand, I'm willing to do my part to help people, young and old, have a roof over their heads, food in their tummies and clothes on their backs; so I'm not opposed to paying Social Security. On the other, when it comes to my retirement money, I don't want anyone else touching it, especially the government, which has done such a dandy job of handling retirement funds so far.
I see a pitfall to this so-called privatization. Is it really private if the government's involved? Isn't it possible that kids entering the workforce will think: "Hey, the government is putting money in my retirement fund, I don't need to open up another account until later. Now where is that BMW dealership?" Sure, some money will be taken from our paychecks and put in private accounts courtesy of Uncle Sam, but how much? A percentage? What percentage? Into which stocks and bonds? Who's choosing them? Do I have a say? What if those of us in our mid-twenties live to be 120 years old? Will there be enough money to live that long comfortably? These questions keep this 25-year-old holding onto her retirement fund, one the government can't tamper with. Better be safe than sorry, Mama always said.
The president's "deal" will ensure that everyone , which is supposed to include low-income Americans in his "ownership society," saves for retirement. But why can't low- and high-income Americans do it on their own? If Bush passes his deal into legislation, the money's still coming out of those paychecks, whether any of us like it or not.
My generation and our government need to figure it out: Should we all save together or save separately? I've never been one for labels, but I think the logic goes: Democrats and liberals lean toward saving together in case we all don't or can't save separately, and Republicans and conservatives lean toward saving separately because the only helping hand is the one at the end of your sleeve. Or something like that.
Politics notwithstanding, my logic goes like this: It's time to "prepare and plan" for the future as the president put it Tuesday. That's why last week, as soon as I hit the one-year mark at my job and became eligible for a 401 (k) plan, I signed up -- much to the relief of my family, I'm sure. And I don't think other people my age are just sitting in the dark waiting for a glimpse of Santa Claus, or tossing their money up the chimney while counting on Social Security.
Author's e-mail: thomaslaura@washpost.com
Laura Thomas is a news aide in The Post's Style section, assisting with the "Out & About" column and coordinating classical music reviews.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
