Hacker News Reader

"Would it be beneficial to the developing nations of the world for the U.S. to abdicate its hegemony, leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China?"

The US is not limiting itself to keeping Russia and China in check, and that is the problem. Hardly anyone would claim that the US should abandon Taiwan to its fate. Yet at the same time, why is the US military being used to expand the reach of US businesses? Why are we in the business of support cruel dictators, and even overthrowing democratic governments in favor of dictatorships? Why continue the embargo on Cuba? Why do we ignore the UN when it suits us, then use the fact that a country ignores the UN as a pretense to attack it?

The answer is that we shouldn't be doing these things, but that the 50 years that have elapsed since the peak of the Cold War, in which both the Soviets and the US had influential voices espousing preemptive nuclear strikes, is in world-historical context the blink of an eye, and it's going to take time and effort for us to shake off the strategies and positioning we (often foolishly) adopted to win that war.

Except for the UN thing. While I agree that the UN is used (on all sides) as a fig leaf, we haven't waited for countries to disobey the UN as an excuse to attack them, but rather used the UN fig leaf as part of a justification for wars that had already been decided on. In the case of Iraq II, that was a grave mistake on our part, but the mistake has little to do with respect for the UN. The UN is simultaneously important and undeserving of much respect.

So you believe might makes right? Or that right doesn't matter, so long as you are on the side of and can benefit from might?

What justifies American hegemony is not the mere fact that the U.S. has the power to impose itself as a hegemon. What justifies it is the fact that it is by far the most benevolent hegemon in the history of the world.

"Right" and "wrong" have no place in international politics. Nations exist, among themselves, in the state of nature, and in nature there is only power: the ability to do. It is irrelevant whether it is "right" for a nation to impose itself as hegemon. It is inevitable that some national will. The only topic of discussion is: would you like some other hegemon better than the one we have?

We are not the first generation outside of history. You cannot look at say Western Europe and see the decades of peace and cooperation in that region, after centuries of bloody violence, and conclude that it's because modern Europeans are better and more noble people than the ones that lived just a few generations before. No, the world that exists, where France doesn't bulk up its military in response to Germany doing the same, exists because of American hegemony. That is what justifies the exercise of American power.

In other words, you do believe might makes right, or at least there's no point in doing right if you can't do it for very long.

I am not so cynical. But neither am I naive. I believe (as possibly you may also) right is right, and it is not defined by winning (but you feel right is pointless unless without wining). Right is not defined as the ultimate outcome of geopolitical darwinism. But I also believe in self-fullfining prophesies. The world ultimately reflects us. We get the world we deserve.

Imagine if the United States unwaveringly played by the same rules internationally as it must domestically, per our Constitution. Rather than gaining power by leveraging the corruption and self-interest of foreign politicians, we'd gain influence by winning hearts and minds, and push the world by example rather than at the end of a bayonet. Idealistic? Perhaps. But it is a fallacy that idealism contradicts realism.

The literal definition of "cynicism" is "the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest." I do not believe myself to be a cynic, nor do I think my viewpoint requires any cynicism. I would instead say it's empiricist. You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so.

Your point about "playing by rules" suffers from a basic conceptual problem. The very concept of "rules" is meaningless without someone to enforce them. Otherwise, it totally rational to break the rules. In such circumstances, the party that doesn't break the rules usually doesn't win, so the system rapidly degenerates into nobody following the rules.

> You can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so.

You also can't look at the facts and conclude that there isn't - you can only conclude that there hasn't yet been such an equilibrium. We have been running more or less democratic systems of governments more or less successfully for some number of years now, but there was a point in time before that where you could have said "you can't look at the facts, the history of the world as we know it, and conclude that democratic systems of governments can be successful". Making conclusions about the future based on the past doesn't work, all you can do is hypothesize.

I suppose you probably meant that the odds of a stable peaceful equilibrium seem very low based on historical evidence, and I'm just being pedantic.

> it [is] totally rational to break the rules.

Not in an absolute sense. Whether it is rational depends entirely on what you value. It may be rational for some people to resort to cannibalism to survive if stranded and starving to death, and absolutely not for others.

> conclude that there is a stable equilibrium where nations cooperate peacefully without anyone making them do so.

> The literal definition of "cynicism" is the belief that people are generally selfish and dishonest.

Yes, I'm pretty sure you are cynical. :)

> What justifies it is the fact that it is by far the most benevolent hegemon in the history of the world.

What you call "American hegemony" is about 60 year old, so this is not exactly the history of the world.

Right, but the history of the world is the history of hegemony, regional or global, and the US is by far the most benevolent.

> the US is by far the most benevolent.

This is debatable. Roman hegemony has created 400 years of peace whereas US has been involved in wars since WW2.

I am not a us citizen but I don't have a problem with US trying to improve the life condition of its own citizens first (everybody does it). However, believing that US is completely fair to the rest of the world is too naive. The article actually identify several unfair behaviors: [...] A double standard on torture, a near indifference to casualties among non-American civilians, the gross expansion of the surveillance [...].

Rome did create 400 years of peace, but it did so by outright conquering a vast swath of the known world and creating vassal states. And it's not like it didn't protect that peace through war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana ("The Legions patrolled the borders with success, and though there were still many foreign wars, the internal empire was free from major invasion, piracy, or social disorder on any grand scale.").

> However, believing that US is completely fair to the rest of the world is too naive

Sure, but asserting that the U.S. is the most benevolent hegemony in history does not require believing that the U.S. is "completely fair to the rest of the world."

"by far the most benevolent hegemon in the history of the world" - I dunno....Great Britain/the commonwealth did a few good things. Pax Romana wasn't too bad. The mongols were pretty benevolent and accommodating.

>"Right" and "wrong" have no place in international politics. Nations exist, among themselves, in the state of nature, and in nature there is only power: the ability to do. It is irrelevant whether it is "right" for a nation to impose itself as hegemon. It is inevitable that some national will. The only topic of discussion is: would you like some other hegemon better than the one we have?

The realist in me appreciates this point, but the parts of me which are more hopeful think that this idea is the last justification available to people who are unwilling to investigate alternatives. Even if you accept that in nature there is only power: the ability to do, there are many ways to exercise that power. What if that power came from a legitimate belief that the people in the world who aren't US citizens are equally as important? American hegemony does prevent potential worse situations, but that's not its purpose. It's to protect Americans and money.

I would recommend reading _The Creature from Jekyll Island_.

The US is certainly not benevolent, even if it were "the most benevolent in history".

How exactly do you attribute peace in Europe to American hegemony? How do you at the same time ignore the conflict and oppression that is certainly the result of American hegemony in other parts of the world?

The hypocrisy is that the US claims to be noble, morally superior and fighting for justice when that just isn't the case.

The US isn't looking out for anyone else interests except its own. International order is incidental to its objectives : Any positive outcome cannot be attributed to moral behavior.

> If the cost of maintaining that power is some hypocrisy...

Don't be stupid. The cost of maintaining "that power" is not hypocrisy, even though the article implies that it is. The cost is better represented by $700 billion per year in military spending (plus the $50 billion in foreign aid), and the only reason why this is sufficient is that the system is indeed "legitimated by liberal ideas" (if it was say Islamic law that had to be maintained, the costs would be much higher). Hypocrisy detracts from the acceptance of these ideas, and increases the cost of maintaining the system.

> then I say: there is nothing wrong with hypocrisy.

Well at least you are not hypocritical.

The article directly addresses your point: "This system needs the lubricating oil of hypocrisy to keep its gears turning. To ensure that the world order continues to be seen as legitimate, U.S. officials must regularly promote and claim fealty to its core liberal principles; the United States cannot impose its hegemony through force alone."

The U.S. "claim[ing] fealty to its core liberal principles" is a necessary part of keeping the world order running smoothly. Thus hypocrisy decreases the cost of maintaining the world order, because the alternative would be to give up on espousing those liberal principles.

I don't see the connection. What does spamming our diplomatic contacts with RIAA propaganda do for us? Look at the Wikileaks diplomatic cables. They are full of "spam diplomacy." You are imagining a trade-off where none exists.

"the rule of law, democracy, and free trade"

All corruption begins with the corruption of language.

The rule of law? The rule of whose law? Democracy? Does that mean the right to vote for politicians who will continuously invent new laws and further restrict your freedom?

But then again, it is "free trade", that is the biggest joke. Does that mean: "free", as long as you don't trade in bitcoins?

Continuously inventing new laws is kind of the job description for congresspeople and senators.

The lesser of all evils, and, conveniently, probably also the least of all evils for you in particular since you're an American (or live there).