The Speculist

I'd describe most of Europe - particularly France - not as passive as much as passive-aggressive.

True, they're not about to take up arms against us, but they don't shed many tears when others do.

Exactly.

We don't need a world that likes us or that is like us. A world full of people who never shed a tear if someone takes up arms against us is fine — as long there's nobody who's actually going to take up arms against us.

What makes this scenario interesting is that we can achieve exactly what we want/need in the world, and (if we're smart) we can ride there on a wave of anti-Americanism. Of course that won't be easy and it won't be quick. But I think it might be easier and quicker than any of this "hearts and minds" nonsense.

Maybe there is a third possibility. Instead of Weenieism, or "hearts and minds," how about wallets? Countries that are fully integrated into the global economy are less likely to be a danger because it's hard to hate people that are making you money. It's these crazed loner countries like Iran and North Korea that worry me the most.

Trade hasn't turned China into a capitalistic democracy, but perhaps it has kept the country from cutting itself completely off from the world. Ditto India.

The Arab states are another matter. We do business with them, but mostly that involves just paying the ruling class for exploiting their country's resources. The wealth doesn't trickle down and the masses get restless. So the rulers let the religious leaders blame us and the Jews. There has to be a better way of dealing with those people.

But picture a world full of pacifists.
It's not that hard to do
Sung to the tune of "Imagine."

I think it will take a long, long, time for this scenario to emerge. Arab states aside, there are too many other pesky little nations threatening to make nukes or spawning terrorist cells. Stephen is right that the answer is economic. Which leads to this random thought. Can you think of a country that was established under a monarchy or a dictatorship, and was liberated to build a democracy, that has been truly successful in creating freedom and opportunity for its people? I'm not trying to by cynical, I'm just wondering if the success of democracy in the United States is an anomaly because we weren't entrenched in another system when we won our freedom.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Kathy:

The U.K., Germany, and Japan could perhaps be considered as examples of what you're talking about.

Of course Germany and Japan had capitalistic democracies imposed upon them. The U.K. evolved into a constitutional monarchy (which is now the functional equivalent of a capitalistic democracy) over centuries.

Maybe there is a third possibility. Instead of Weenieism, or "hearts and minds," how about wallets? Countries that are fully integrated into the global economy are less likely to be a danger because it's hard to hate people that are making you money. It's these crazed loner countries like Iran and North Korea that worry me the most.

Saudi Arabia is about as integrated into the global economy as you can get.

Question: How am I doing on my policy about not getting into politics on The Speculist? This is still just a future scenario, right? :-)

Wallets alone won't do it. Money is a huge part of it, of course. It certainly helped grease the wheels of transition from facism to democracy in Germany and Japan. What is ultimately required is restructuring of civil societies. In arguing for capitalism and democracy you guys also seem to assume that that's the case.

I'm just saying that if the captitalism and democracy that the rest of the world adopts is considerably "toned down" from what we have, and if America is still everybody's favorite whipping boy, it's okay. Let the rest of the world be a bunch of left-leaning America-blaming cheese-eating surrender monkeys. As long as they're opposing us via Weenieism rather than building nukes or cutting off people's heads, it's a good end game.

For me, the breakthrough is that we can end up with most of the world against us and still have won.

BTW, I don't assume that this achieved easily or that it comes cheap. That's where Glenn's comment about "one quagmire at a time" comes in. We had to open up a can of whoopass twice on Germany before they decided to become weenies. I hope there's some way to get China into the weenie camp without a war. And, as I see it, the war we're currently fighting is all about turning as much of the Arab and Muslim world into weenies as we can.

But that's actually good news, because it's going to be a lot easier to turn them into weenies than it would be to turn them into, say, us.

Phil:

I've probably been the worst about bringing politics to The Speculist. It seems I've grown more political as the election draws closer.

"I'm just saying that if the captitalism and democracy that the rest of the world adopts is considerably "toned down" from what we have, and if America is still everybody's favorite whipping boy, it's okay. Let the rest of the world be a bunch of left-leaning America-blaming cheese-eating surrender monkeys. As long as they're opposing us via Weenieism rather than building nukes or cutting off people's heads, it's a good end game."

I agree (this ain't no popularity contest afterall). But I think such a result would be unsustainable economically.

Part of weenieism is the socialistic/welfare society. European socialism has nearly bankrupted France and many of the other countries where it's been tried. It wouldn't work at all if these countries were paying the bill for their own defense.

I guess in your senario there would be no need for defense because all countries are weenies. Human nature being what it is, I just don't see that happening.