Mead urges us to stop thinking we are in decline and instead work the problem:
The U.S. needs to build a similar network of relationships and institutional linkages that we built in postwar Europe and Japan and deepened in the trilateral years. Think tanks, scholars, students, artists, bankers, diplomats and military officers need to engage their counterparts in each of these countries as we work out a vision for shared prosperity in the new century.
The American world vision isn't powerful because it is American; it is powerful because it is, for all its limits and faults, the best way forward. This is why the original trilateral partners joined the U.S. in promoting it a generation ago, and why the world's rising powers will rally to the cause today.
That is, our relative decline in the 1970s (inevitable, I think, given that it took a generation for our artificially elevated dominance in 1945--from the near destruction of Europe in World War II--to fade as Europe recovered and Japan thrived) was met not with handing off power to someone else but by gaining the cooperation of those who benefited from the world we organized.
Even as the rest of the world continues to advance, we must use our diplomatic services to add to our ranks. Simply hoping that China will carry on our role on the assumption that they will surpass us and see the advantage of continuing our system rather than replace it with one that tilts to China's advantage is folly. If we can gain China's cooperation--that's great. But don't assume we have no choice but to hope for their good will.
Do you remember the 1970s? If we could adapt then and emerge stronger (other than debt) today, why can't we succeed now?
Remember that China's geography presents opportunities to America to check their dominance. And if China isn't the country to replace us, who is?
Mead writes:
The U.S. will still be a leading player, but in a septagonal, not a trilateral, world. In addition to Europe and Japan, China, India, Brazil and Turkey are now on Washington's speed dial. (Russia isn't sure whether it wants to join or sulk; negotiations continue.)
Indeed. Which is why I don't despair--even when I contemplate a second Obama term--about the world we will see in 2040:
For fun, let me toss off a scenario of the future from our point of view off the top of my head with absolutely no research whatsoever to support it.
It is a recurring theme in our country to predict our imminent fall from dominance. Fascism, Soviet Communism, democratic Socialism, Japanese planned economy, European socialism (again), and now China are projected as supplanting America as the dominant power. Yet we keep adapting. The United States remains the dominant economic and military power on the planet.
I think this will remain even though our portion of the global pie will decline as China and India continue to grow. And as we near mid-century, we will remain the dominant power and--lacking nearby foes that compel us to devote major resources to homeland defense--will have the most free power to help allies and oppose enemies.
As I admitted, my subsequent tour of the world of 2040 is hardly rigorous projections of trends. But more and more, voices contrary to the chorus of our doom are speaking up which makes me feel better about my refusal to panic.
Like anything, as I am wont to write, work the problem of the rise of the rest.
