I see a lot of claims lately that 'woke politics' are the reason the US has let itself crumble and underperform for decades (relative to its potential), but 'woke politics' is a fairly new thing, and progressives generally aren't against infrastructure spending or universal healthcare or investing in education/science/tech, so I don't see the connection. The 'woke'/progressive politicians actually tend to favor this type of major investment/public spending more than the right does.
However, the adoption of critical theory does play a significant role in bringing about the decline of western society since it leads only to deconstruction of existing structures without providing functional alternatives.
You could just as easily say that the internet is the reason the west is in decline because it allows loud minorities, corporations, and bad actors to amplify their voices and promote their agendas, sow division and discord, spread misinformation, and more. Which is also overly simplistic and not the sole reason for decline.
Venice in the 1400s,
London in the 1685-1700
Paris 1875-1914
vienna 1890-1914
London in the 1960s
All of these cities flourished because they were progressive.
If you compare the treatment of jews in venice, parts of the ottoman empire were a haven. Spain's loss was the ottoman's gain.
In no way can you place the blame for the rise of identity politics squarely on progressives. I get the feeling that most people opposed to a more fair and equitable society are the ones currently benefitting the most from inequity.
Crossing into personal attack and name-calling is particularly not cool. No more of that, please.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Big reach. I think it's much less controversial to say it's in decline because of mindless consumerism, declining education budgets and corporate takeover of governance, which are hardly progressive.
The US military is a money pit.
But we are not willing to conduct such indiscriminate brutality. We tried to fight ethical anti-insurgent wars with our hands tied behind our back in order to preserve life and cling to our values. But pushed too far, that restraint could drop. So it IS a credible threat.
People who are living in their homelands are more willing to fight and more entrenched than foreign invaders, especially when they've been at war long enough that you can't simply target a couple of places to bring them to their knees. The US military is not a credible threat. They're simply another invader who will get tired of the conflict and go away.
We're not going to war with Russia or China. We didn't do it when Russia annexed Crimea, or when they targeted US troops in Syria, and we aren't going to do it when China puts its boot on the neck of Taiwan. It's a stupid political game to pretend otherwise.
Like I said, the military is a money pit.
Yes, but it's a very visible money pit. Its purpose is to discourage any other country from throwing their own money into a similar pit by competing.
It's in many ways even less useful than Historical Marxism. (Which is a damn low bar to fail to clear.)
also, your account is screwed. These are not the sort of opinions one's allowed to have connected to their real name
Logic being: having & maintaining the dollar as a reserve currency created a context where it becomes more economically efficient to offshore labor & production, causing broken domestic feedback loops.
History demonstrates that Empires do not last forever. The contexts that lead to the rise of the host nation/entity taking on the mantle of Empire and the host nation/entity of the Empire change.