Not so fast, sport. Via Instapundit, Drezner disagrees. Anything that starts like this deserves to be read:
Let's face it, there's a general anxiety about the future of America. There's Tom Friedman's column today, which my doctors have now forbade me from critiquing in order to keep my blood pressure down.
Thanks for the warning. I'll tend to my health and avert my eyes from even a glance at whatever drivel Friedman has come up with.
Anyway, Drezner writes:
So, America is doomed, right?
To be honest, this sounds like a lot of pious baloney. As Michael Beckley points out in a new article in International Security, "The United States is not in decline; in fact, it is now wealthier, more innovative, and more militarily powerful compared to China than it was in 1991."
Huh. Not doomed. I keep writing that. And recently warned about believing we are doomed so we are relieved of the responsibility of working hard to defend our lead.
An interesting article by Drezner. But let's get to the Beckley piece. Basically, in measures of wealth, innovation, and military power, we are extending our lead and not losing it. China is surely better off than China was before, but that isn't the same as saying they are going to pass us by. While you should read the paper, let me cut to the conclusion:
The first step toward sound strategy is to recognize that the status quo for the United States is pretty good: it does not face a hegemonic rival, and the trends favor continued U.S. dominance. The overarching goal of American foreign policy should be to preserve this state of affairs. Declinists claim the United States should “adopt a neomercantilist international economic policy” and “disengage from current alliance commitments in East Asia and Europe.”161 But the fact that the United States rose relative to China while propping up the world economy and maintaining a hegemonic presence abroad casts doubt on the wisdom of such calls for radical policy change.
And here's something from Beckley relevant to assessing the US-China balance:
One can argue that it is unfair to compare defense budgets because America’s military resources are dispersed across the globe while China’s are concentrated in Asia. China, however, does not devote all, and perhaps not even a majority, of its military resources to contingencies involving the United States. China shares sea or land borders with nineteen countries, ªve of which fought wars against China within the last century; its northern and western borders are porous and populated by disaffected minority groups; and its government faces a constant threat of domestic rebellion. As a result, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) devotes substantial resources to internal security and requires 300,000 troops just to police China’s borders.
Yes, there is that aspect.
Beckley's measure of military power ignores nuclear weapons, which I think is right for this level of analysis.
So we aren't declining relative to China and aren't doomed to second place. As Beckley wrote, perhaps there is some advantage to believing we are doomed as long as enough people react by trying harder rather than giving up. So far, in the face of other prophets of doom, we've dispatched our supposed rivals whose threats to pass us by and bury us were said to be imminent. As long as we regain a correct view of the actual balance before we or China do something stupid in the false belief that China is about to become the dominant power on the planet, it will be a helpful delusion.
But the idea that we are doomed is a delusion. Don't be so quick to write America off just because a number of smart people (they say so themselves!) think we are doomed.
