North America
Potential indicators of future instability for the United States have been in the news lately. They are all weak signals of future trouble, but each has at least a low probability of becoming significant, and they are also all potentially mutually reinforcing:
- Americans increasingly see themselves as divided between haves and have-nots, according to a new Pew study. Crucially, twice as many (34%) see themselves as have-nots than did 20 years ago, a significant departure from the American vision of a broadly middle-class society.
- Income inequality is increasing, and wealth is increasingly concentrated at the very top of the income pyramid, meaning that the elite can more easily disengage from the rest of society.
- At least in some local jurisdictions, Hispanics are feeling threatened by the anti-illegal immigration campaign now playing out (and the anti-immigrant sentiment that underlies it), and are uniting in the face of the threat. This drives exactly the kind of scenario of unified, estranged Hispanics that anti-immigrant groups fear.
- Actual secessionist groups, albeit fringe groups, met this month to discuss possible secession by both “red” and “blue” states.
Earlier this month Lee Kuan Yew, who effectively created the nation of Singapore based on his personal vision, suggested to the New York Times that the United States–unlike China–was not effectively preparing for the future in Asia:
One of his concerns now, Mr. Lee said, is that the United States has become so preoccupied with the Middle East that it is failing to look ahead and plan in this part of the world. “I think it’s a real drag slowing down adjusting to the new situation,” he said, describing what he called a lapse that worries Southeast Asian countries that count on Washington to balance the rising economic and diplomatic power of China. “Without this draining of energy, attention and resources for Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, there would have been deep thinking about the long-term trends — working out possible options that the U.S. could exercise to change the direction of long-term trends more in its favor,” Mr. Lee said. As the United States focuses on the Middle East, Mr. Lee said, the Chinese are busy refining their policies and building the foundations of more cooperative long-term relationships in Asia. “They are making strategic decisions on their relations with the region,” he said.
Mr. Lee also notes a pattern that suggests Singaporean cultural power vastly disproportionate to its small size: China’s ministers meet with Singapore’s twice a year “to learn from their experience,” and “50 mayors of Chinese cities visit every three months for courses in city management.”
Last week Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post wrote that he would “bet on America” when forecasting the dominant world power of 50 years from now.
He recites the “declinist” case, but argues that
The evidence for our nation’s downward spiral isn’t sufficient to rule out the very opposite possibility: that the United States will become, in purely geopolitical terms, even stronger in coming decades. The mistake we make is not so much overestimating our problems, but underestimating the problems of our potential rivals.
Achenbach notes the weaknesses of potential rivals:
- China’s economy is currently much smaller than that of the US, and the country is beset by environmental problems. It’s population is aging rapidly, and it “will be the first country to get old before it gets rich.”
- Russia, Japan, and Germany also all face demographic decline; Russia is already shrinking.
- The European Union lacks a level of unity basic to an effective nation-state.
The US, meanwhile, has completely unrivaled military power.
Achenbach does suggest these caveats:
- The American “machine for wealth creation has also been a machine for income inequality;” “geopolitical dominance doesn’t guarantee that we’ll have a country we can be proud of.”
- “Globalization may make the nation-state increasingly irrelevant.”
- As Joseph Nye Jr. puts it, “by traditional measures of hard power …. the United States will remain number one, but being number one ain’t going be what it used to be.”
Achenbach is correct the the US has the strongest shot at remaining number one for decades.
European nations and Japan are under fundamental constraints. China–and India too, though it is unmentioned in this article–are both more likely to stumble or even melt down than is the United States.
But 50 years is a long time. By 2050, some models project the Chinese economy to be considerably larger than that of the United States. India may have caught up by then as well.
Power follows economics. For those sure of America’s perpetual ascendancy, consider a statement at the start of the 20th century by the First Lord of the Admiralty of a then-dominant Britain, as he observed economic trends: “The United Kingdom by itself will not be strong enough to hold its proper place alongside of the U.S., or Russia, and probably not Germany. We shall be thrust aside by sheer weight.” (Quoted in Paul Kennedy’s The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, p. 229.)
The Washington Post today covered travel destinations threatened by climate change. They include:
- Glacier Bay, Alaska
- the reefs of Belize
- Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
- Scott’s hut, Antarctica
- the low-lying Maldives islands
- the Great Barrier Reef, Australia
- Arctic polar bears
- the glaciers of Glacier National Park, Montana
- the Outer Banks barrier islands, North Carolina
- Chan Chan archaeological site, Peru
The Washington Post yesterday reported on another example of sub-national governmental action on climate change (seen also at the state/province level).
Some 522 mayors representing 65 million Americans have signed a climate change agreement in the face of federal foot-dragging on the issue.
One driver: a third of Americans in an April poll now say that climate change is the world’s most serious environmental problem, double the number from 2006, the Post reports.
City-level action is particularly striking given that climate change is a global issue, beyond the reach of even national governments to manage on their own.
In a further sign that the United States may shift its stance on climate change, a Washington Post poll reveals widespread concern about the phenomenon:
- 70% of Americans want the federal government to do more about global warming, with 49% saying “much more”
- 33% say that global warming is the world’s “single biggest environmental problem,” up from 16% a year ago
- 59% trust the Democrats more than President Bush on the issue
Addressing this post about immigration and the environment, Brishen Hoff comments:
Canada’s environmental integrity is inversely correlated with its population growth. Canada is grossly overpopulated based on what we believe to be a healthy balance between human numbers and biodiversity. Canada’s natural environment is being damaged at an unprecedented rate. Since immigration is main agent of Canada’s population growth, we advocate a complete moratorium on immigration to Canada. We also support an end to: child birthing incentives, natural resource exportation and economic growth.
Curtailing immigration and reducing Canada’s already-low birthrate further will intensify Canada’s future demography-driven problems. However, some of these problems — reduced economic growth, more constrained consumption — Hoff would seemingly view instead as solutions. This is a values-driven question that cannot be resolved rationally, as it depends on the arbitrary weight given to humans or the rest of nature.
Such policies are also at odds with Canadian opinion: most Canadians favor immigration.
An alternative approach might acknowledge that richer countries are better able to protect the environment than poorer ones. Canada is projected to be a great deal wealthier in a few decades: if that were the case, it could dedicate much more money to preserving and restoring the environment while maintaining standards of living.
The WP reported today that the leaders of California (an American state) and British Columbia (a Canadian province) are discussing cooperation in alternative energy and climate change initiatives, with BC talking about pursuing ambitious green goals.
This is interesting from a couple of angles:
- It is an example of regions having more in common across borders than within them — evocative of the “Nine Nations of North America” concept.
- It reinforces the concept that the US and now perhaps Canada will be led forward on certain environmental issues by sub-national units. As the premier of BC put it, “If you wait for a whole continent to come along together, sometimes it takes too long.”
Recent articles highlight a potentially dangerous combination.
US cities and states are increasingly pursuing anti-immigrant measures, enforcing federal laws and checking immigration status in the course of other police business.
These measures are targeted against growing Hispanic immigrant populations, and are clearly motivated in part by a basic hostility toward difference.
Widespread adoption of these policies might in fact discourage immigration, but also heightens the danger of creating a separate and hostile foreign population on American soil.
That danger could be made more acute by another development, now in its early stages: Hispanics are turning to Islam in growing numbers. The Muslim Hispanic population is estimated to be 200,000 now.
More alienated Hispanics could find the extreme ends of Islamic fundamentalism attractive, and serve as an American vector for terrorism.
Though still a low-probability outcome, the two trends might achieve a dangerous synergy.
A recent poll indicates that Canada is unusually receptive to immigration.
Three-quarters of Canadians see immigration as having a positive effect on their country. This is far more positive than the nearly equal split seen in the United States and Western Europe on the issue.
A continued influx of immigrants will aid Canada in staving off demographic aging.