America's Fading Glory, Part 157,917...

They seem to come in waves, these assertions of the ongoing demise of the West (by which the writers always mean the US -- funny how Europe is still going to be a star player despite its already moribund economies, its coddled, idle populations, and its complete lack of military anything).

Here's yet another, by Martin Jacques from The Guardian. This one is particularly idiotic on at least two points. The first is in his comparison of America with Europe:

This was something that Europe learned the hard way: two world wars, the rise of the United States and the Soviet Union, and the anti-colonial struggle have taught our continent the limitations of its own power. That is why Europe today, with the partial exception of Britain and France, and exemplified by Germany, is so reluctant to use military force. The United States, of course, is the opposite. It measures its power not by its relative economic and technological prowess, which would suggest restraint, but its military unassailability, which implies the opposite.

Nor is this attitude simply a product of the neoconservatives. It also draws on something deeper within the American psyche. The birth of the United States and its expansion across the American continent - the frontier mentality - was an imperial enterprise, involving, most importantly, the subjugation and destruction of the Amerindians. This is lodged in the national genes, it is part of the American story, and it helps to inform and shape its global strategy and aspirations.

What a sick joke. No, Martin, it is not some deep wisdom gained by Europe that leads to its refusal to use force. It is the fact that Europe has no force, and no backbone. This is not a recent phenomenon. In the World Wars, Europe had the backbone but not the military might to throw off its potential conquerors, and it was left to the Americans alone in the First, and America and the Soviets in the Second, to come to Europe's rescue (though in the case of the Soviets, they were also a third set of potential conquerors.)

During the Cold War, most of Europe's remaining military might dissolved, and its backbone disappeared entirely. The waning years of the Cold War saw Europeans cozying up with the Soviet conquerors of its Eastern reaches, and protesting against the American military power that preserved its freedom. The Soviets lost nonetheless, but the hangover of that long conflict (perhaps unavoidable) is an entire continent that continues to rely on the US for its defense, while explaining its weakness away as a superior understanding of the world. How absolutely pathetic.

Finally, for a European to assail America for its imperial ambition is jaw-droppingly bold. It's also incorrect, insofar as Jacques explains it. The conquering of what is today the contiguous 48 states was not imperial; Manifest Destiny, for all the apt criticisms it might attract, was a program of creating a political continuity on the continent. This is not empire. Indeed, Jacques's critique here smacks of a sad projection.

The second is in his discussion of the rise of Asia, particularly India and China. This passage comparing China with the US is telling:

The contrast between China and the United States could hardly be more striking. The former dates back thousands of years, the latter not much more than 200; the former is a product of an ancient civilisation, the latter an invented nation whose citizens bear allegiance to a political document, the constitution. It is little wonder that Americans constantly need to reinvent themselves: the Chinese, unsurprisingly, have no such problem, they know exactly who they are. The profound cultural differences are already being played out in a cinema near you: Hollywood versus the new breed of popular Chinese films. This is just a taster for the future, the beginning of what will later come to dominate the 21st century. American - and western values - will find themselves contested like never before.

Jacques's assertion that somehow China, because it's an "ancient civilization," has been firmly unchanging in its culture and its politics while the immature America has blown in the wind is inconceivably daft, and betrays a profound lack of understanding of what makes a country tick. China's recent history in particular has been a comedy of political and cultural cluelessness, with its Communist Party grasping feverishly at one program after another to keep its grip on political power and keep the masses from revolt. America, meanwhile, has certainly rolled with the changes -- but its fundamental politics have remained amazingly constant, Jacques's sneering at us as "an invented nation whose citizens bear allegiance to a political document, the constitution" notwithstanding. (By the way, Mr. Jacques, it's Constitution. But then to expect any respect from you is a tad silly.)

India and China are succeeding today primarily to the extent they adopt those values that the US will continue to instill wherever she can: free speech, free enterprise, and the rule of law. China in particular, its ancient civilization notwithstanding, has radical changes yet to make if it's not to suffer the same ignominies as Japan. But Martin Jacques certainly will never understand any of this.