Eliot and Eric welcome Michael Beckley, Associate Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, non-resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of Unrivalled: Why America Will Remain the World's Sole Superpower, and co-author, with Hal Brands of Danger Zone. They discuss his article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, "The Strange Triumph of a Broken America." They discuss the paradox of American power: Americans always think their country is in decline even when it is going from strength to strength economically and remains the most powerful and dynamic economy in the world. Michael recounts the many metrics that show that the American economy has vastly outstripped not only its autocratic rivals but its allies and the countries of the global south. They discuss the historical tradition of declinism in America and why it finds a ready audience. They also discuss America's great strengths --its geographical position, its relatively healthy demographics and its decentralized political institutions which have allowed the country to be a resilient source of innovation and dynamic economic growth. They also touch on how these strengths have also been, in a sense, liabilities. How they can lead to domestic political and social fragmentation as well as chronic strategic insolvency. They consider the danger of declining powers and how Russia and China fit into that framework, as well as relative versus absolute decline, what social psychology tells us about the propensity for risk taking when it comes to either holding onto what one currently has as opposed to seeking speculative gains as well as the degree of damage that the Trump Administration can do to the nation's traditional comparative advantages.
Michael Beckley's Latest in Foreign Affairs:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/strange-triumph-broken-america-michael-beckley
Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World's Sole Superpower:
Understanding America’s Contested Primacy:
https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/2010.10.21-Understanding-Americas-Contested-Supremacy.pdf
Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast cosponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.
Eric and Eliot, thank you for your podcast. I wait for it to land every week as a beacon of rational thought in these depressingly ignorant and incoherent times. Your interview with Michael Beckley was uplifting given the many dire predictions about America’s demise as the world's great power. It gave me hope we might just survive the current incarnation of American political folly (Barbara Tuchman's "March of Folly" particularly her analysis of how a succession of US presidents consistently acted against America's best interests and lost the Vietnam War is worth a re-read). Then I heard an interview with the authors of “The Rivalry Peril: How Great Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy” (Van Jackson and Michael Brenes). Have you read this book? It seems to take the exact opposite point of view from Michael Beckley and I’m curious how these two very different perceptions can be reconciled: America as a unipolar power that has no real close competitor economically or militarily and could prevail for decades (if one or the other political party doesn’t screw it up) vs an America in decline as the world becomes more multipolar, grasping onto primacy through a Cold War-style “great power competition” with China that will create a more dangerous and unstable world unless we stop taking an aggressive stance and pursue detente with China. Unless I’m misunderstanding their arguments, how can both be right?
So I'm curious about something and I think someone at the Bulwark probably knows the answer.
During the Cold War, all Western countries were under the potential threat of having their governments infiltrated, and maybe even taken over, by Russian aligned communists. Let's call this the Manchurian Candidate scenario, or the Amerika scenario for those who remember the 1980s mini-series.
Did some element of the security services or the military have a protocol for what to do in such a circumstance? In other words, was there a plan for a resistance or a government in exile?
And what would happen, for instance, to NATO under such a scenario where suddenly the US became a Russian aligned country. Is there a secret provision somewhere that would allow NATO to sideline or expel the United States or some other country in that situation?
Not that I know of anyone in such a situation...asking for a friend...
A defect of NATO is that it is hard to admit new countries, and there is no provision for expelling countries. As the anti-Russia Europeans come together to create a new security architecture, I hope they will learn from these problems.
I love Cohen and Edelman, and their guests are always illuminating. Thank you all.
What is the likelihood that DJT (the USA) will invade and take over (or try to) Canada within 18 months? I am seriously worried about this.
Terrific interview. Beckley is so sharp. But the question that Eliot Cohen asked--"How
much damage can the Trump administration do?"--was sort of left hanging, though my sense is that all three speakers thought the answer is: a great deal of damage.
The feeling of decline is because there IS decline for much of the middle class. The “average” income in the US is so high because of the vast wealth of a minuscule number of people. But the appalling income inequality means that the majority of the population can’t afford what used to be considered a middle class lifestyle.
Yet lower middle class people in the US still have higher incomes than middle class people in other countries. Our system might create inequality, but it also creates higher incomes for everyone. The illiberal left and the illiberal right encourage class-warfare thinking in order to create fake grievances that they can use to attack the system.
Equality of outcomes is not a legitimate end in itself.
I came here to say the same thing. The idea that most Japanese citizens are living a poorer life than most Alabamans is ludicrous. A few Jimmy Rane's living in that state raises the average, but much of the state is still living a destitute lifestyle. Given the fact that we don't tax billionaires the same way Japan or Germany do, we the poor folk also have lower quality education, healthcare, and public infrastructure.
The Reagan Revolution gave the rich a bunch of our wealth...it did indeed grow the economy, but the cost to America's poor and middle class has been tremendous. Per Capita GDP doesn't capture that.
I believe it was a setup, but I also believe Trump lost his temper. Zelenskyy, while decorous, will just not be subservient, and Trump cannot stand that.
agreed, it was designed to be a beat down and it went bonkers but the essential fact was Trump and crew were pressuring him for an almost immediate cease fire with the major details to be worked out later. Mostly to Ukraines detriment
Well, I disagree with you guys thanking Beckley for giving you “a little optimism” at the end of this fine discussion. It was a great conversation, but it definitely made me more depressed. I’m thinking what he said about war means we’re headed for WW3, which I already figured was coming, but Beckley pretty much confirmed it.
I for one would love an episode about Peter Thiel's techno monarchy/ Yarvin's neo-reactionary ideas from your perspective! I can't figure out how it can be viable if we strip jobs (via AI and recession) and healthcare from a large swath of the populace.
Their idea is that you privatize the government and the people that are losing their government jobs go get the same jobs as employees of the private corporations who replace the government agencies. Then as private employees they either get health insurance as a job benefit or pay for health insurance out of their private job salary, which is assumed to be going to be higher than the government salary was. Most of these government jobs have much lower salaries than their private sector equivalents. One of the nuclear engineers laid off and rehired by DOGE for the agency protecting the nuclear weapons said she could earn double her government salary in the private sector. Since she now had her federal job back, but thought it was now too unstable and she couldn’t count on it anymore, said she was going to job hunt and leave the federal agency as soon as she found a new job. More pay and more job security. That’s the plan, and that’s the message.
Their idea though is financially beneficial to them. Knowing what a contractor costs per hour vs a government employee salary, I don't see the cost savings to the US government. I *do* see the boondoggle for the privateers.
When my H was in the student loan business as the CEO of a finance agency, his agency was a conduit issuer of bonds where the proceeds were used for federal student loans and backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury. It cost the government nothing to issue those loans. The bonds raised the money to loan to the students and the loan repayments paid off the bond debt. The loans were guaranteed by the feds, but not funded by the feds. The fees generated from the bond sales paid for the salaries in my H’s agency, which had a very small staff. Each state had a similar agency. When this work was taken back by Obama, allegedly to “save money”, the number of employees needed to do the work inside the DOE almost tripled, and the interest rates for the students went up, all while losing the various state programs that had loan forgiveness for students getting degrees in thing like education and nursing and agreeing to work in underserved communities. Medical schools loans were forgiven for accepting jobs in rural communities and hospitals that had trouble recruiting doctors. The whole thing cost more and was far less efficient than when the semi-private state agencies ran it.
I understand that there will be an incentive for corruption if some things go to a contractor method, but my impression of what they’re going to do is to just offload certain activities from government altogether. You will pay the service provider yourself and not deal with the government at all. Privatizing Social Security, for example, was going to follow a setup much like an IRA. You would invest the money from your paycheck withholding and get back whatever that was worth when you retired. I’m not saying that’s a good idea, but that’s the argument.
The plan to get rid of FEMA, for example, is that the money being spent on FEMA would go directly to the states and the states would run disaster recovery however they want to. DOE funds for special education would go directly to the states and they would run special education programs however they wanted to. There would be no strings attached is my impression, and no DOE telling you what services you have to provide. I’m not sure how it would work with NASA and NOAA, that might be government contractor. Once again, not necessarily agreeing it’s a good idea. But I do know from being close to the industry that state agencies ran the student loan program 1000% better than the feds did.
Yes, I remember those days because I had those loans at 2% interest. I believe there is a long and successful history of public-private partnerships (such as NIH grants that go to medical schools for research). Interesting, I hadn't thought about the scenario where the individual would pay the service provider. Re: FEMA, isn't a lot of the service delivered locally anyway, with feds organizing and leading the project? And those local contractors are paid with FEMA dollars? FEMA is not sufficiently staffed to be the only responders. It would be interesting to hear how they might fund each state- by population numbers? Some states see very little disaster while others, due to geography, etc see significantly more. I don't trust the government to develop a non-partisan funding plan that is allocated equitably rather than equally.
I remain skeptical based on my experience as an accountant for the past 30 years, working in organizations that are the recipient of state and federal grants and contracts, many of which flow through the state as pass-through funds. I have no greater confidence in the states managing these activities than the federal government, even less actually. Particularly in states where there is not a lot of depth of expertise in the hirable population such as is the case in NH where I currently live. Not as much of an issue in MA where I came from.
My H, who ran the bond finance company, is an attorney and a CPA, which is why he was hired to be CEO. His company was heavily involved in the recovery of post-Katrina New Orleans (they did more than just student loans, all kinds of state and municipal bond financing - schools, hospitals, fire trucks, housing, etc). FEMA sends in lots of personnel and provided New Orleans with hundreds of those white “FEMA trailers”. It’s a manpower heavy, multi-leveled, and extraordinarily complicated recovery effort. FEMA personnel were temporarily housed in Baton Rouge for months following Katrina. And a skeleton crew of FEMA personnel stayed in the NOLA area for several years afterward. They didn’t do the actual reconstruction work, but they ran a bunch of stuff. My H had a lease-to-own housing project in the infamous 9th Ward, where everything was destroyed that needed coordination with FEMA to settle. He also did bridge loans for NOLA businesses due to the truly weird way that FEMA pays for recovery rebuilding. It’s a reimbursement program. You pay to rebuild your office, building, or factory, whatever, and FEMA reimburses you. Most people and small business owners don’t have the cash or credit to front those costs, so agencies like the one my H ran loan out or grant the upfront costs so the rebuild can happen and then the business gets their FEMA reimbursement and pays back the loan (or not if it was a grant). The whole thing is ridiculously complicated and frustrating beyond belief.
I’m not at all sure this would work well if left to the states, but what FEMA currently does needs reform. It’s too complicated for me to adequately explain, but my H is retired now, and wants to forget that the federal government even exists. So he’s not going to help me answer your questions. Fwiw, my cousin’s wife, newly retired from the Marines (as was my cousin) returned to New Orleans and she worked the logistics for FEMA for about 5 years post Katrina. She had been the main supply officer for the Southeast quadrant of the US as a Marine supply officer, so she was well suited for the job. Up close and personal, she didn’t have a lot of good things to say about FEMA. They were not as efficient as the Marines in her opinion.
Oh yes, the federal systems need an overhaul, no disagreement there. They make everything so difficult for a grantee. But as a taxpayer, I do appreciate oversight of use of my federal dollars. Each federal agency adheres to certain regulations, such as CFR (code of federal regulations), but their own internal systems are distinct and onerous to use. You need to manage a dozen different sites, with a dozen different logons, with a dozen different payment systems, etc. The Feds require the States to do sub-recipient monitoring, which at least in NH, has led to many grantees (not every state agency operates the same way either!) needing to copy every single damn receipt, payment, payroll detail, etc to the state every single month. That is not monitoring and increases administrative burdens on the recipients for which they only want to pay 15% indirect cost.
I have no experience with FEMA, professionally or personally. Knock on wood.
But where is the oversight now? I sent Bill Cassidy an angry email on Friday because Reuters announced that the CDC was starting a research study to find out if there’s any connection between vaccines and autism! Something Cassidy railed against in both RFK Jr’s hearing, and just this past week during Jay Bhattacharya’s hearing. Supposedly, Cassidy pounded his fist on the table that HHS should NOT waste a dime of taxpayer money on research into the settled science that vaccines do NOT cause autism. And in less than 48 hours the CDC says it’s going to do just that. So I let Cassidy have it on the “don’t you dare waste my tax money on redoing settled science” and “you pounded your fist in this issue in public - WTH???”.
The hypocrisy of this administration is mind blowing. And these appointees lie to these Senators to their faces, but get approved anyway. It’s a nightmare I can’t wake up from.
Theoretically yes but review the history of privatizing Government functions. They almost always end up pulling out money for the Heads and providing less good services. One recent example is Military Housing.
Biggest GDP but far from the best quality of life due to the obscene wealth gap.
That depends on your definition of quality of life. Did you not listen to the guest talk about how the European countries are basically broke? They can’t afford all their social welfare programs, they have huge housing problems, young people have to live with their parents because they can’t afford to move out, the NHS in the U.K. is practically bankrupt, their militaries are worthless and they can’t afford to rebuild them, electricity costs a bloody fortune, most people live in about half or less than half the square ft of house or apartment that US citizens are used to, and you’re only allowed to go to college if you were placed in a college prep track in middle school based on standardized test scores. In France, IF you pass the “Bac” at the end of high school, and IF they have enough room to take you at university, the government tells you which university you are allowed to go to after a selection process called Parcoursup. It’s an online process that takes forever and not everyone finishes it by getting a place in university. So if that’s how you want to live, feel free to move there.
It was the income tax with its high upper marginal rates that created our inclusive and extensive middle class that has been eroded by the GOP tax cuts for the rich since Reagan. We did very well under highly progressive taxation.
False. Highly progressive taxation was ended by JFK/LBJ. They cut the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. The cut raised revenue and increased growth. When Reagan reduced income tax rates, it once again improved growth. Rates were tweaked multiple times during his two terms, both up and down, because Reagan was a tax optimizer, not a doctrinaire tax cutter. Reagan ultimately signed the bipartisan Tax Reform Act of 1986, which is regarded by economists as a model of how to do tax reform.
Nope, true. Prior to the income tax and its high upper marginal rate the middle class was essentially those who could afford paid help in the home, rather small. However, after the income tax it grew tremendously to include no and low skilled workers.
We did very well under high upper marginal rates and 70% is still very high compared to that at Reagan, because it coerced the rich to invest in their businesses and workers rather than take themselves. Therefore, it has nothing to do with growth, as under low upper marginal rates profits flow to the capitalists, those who don't work, rather than the workers because they take the profits for themselves because a) the upper marginal rates don't penalize them for taking it and (b) the capital gains tax taxes working at a higher rate than not working.
All Reagan and subsequent GOP tax cuts did was increase the wealth gap, with more flowing to the top than the middle class.
The education in France is years ahead of ours in the US.
Liberalism is based on inherent rights, equality under the law, equal opportunity and consent to and participation in governance. That is preferred to conservatism that is the polar opposite.
Your definition of liberalism is correct. But your definition of conservatism is just a provocation. In the American context, "conservative" means dedication to the Constitution, which is an embodiment of liberalism. Meanwhile, "liberal" has often been applied to factions that embrace identity-based grievances and sympathize with foreign dictators, as long as they oppose capitalism.
I suspect you know all that are just engaged in trolling.
bullshit
Fact, dude. Before you post you should read a little, in this case about The Enlightenment and the French Revolution.
So, do you classify the French Revolution as liberal? In the end, it turned out to be inconsistent with liberal values. It had a tendency to embrace the anti-liberal ideology of Romanticism.
Yes. It was the expression of what in its day was anti-monarchist, founded on the ideals that I list above.
The "American context" clouds the issue as today conservative means nothing, with the GOP fully supporting anti-constitutional behavior such as the unitary executive in Trump's unconstitutional firings and executive orders into congressional areas of power.
"Liberalism" has been defined as you say by conservatives because liberal policies ended the infringement of rights by conservative states.
Regarding wealth inequality, it was the income tax with its high upper marginal rates created our inclusive, extensive middle class as otherwise wealth aggregates as proven by every other civilization that has ever existed or exists that didn't provide for wealth aggregation control. The GOP has been trying to aggregate wealth in the hands of their donors through their tax cuts for the wealthy. We need to get back to the taxes of the 1960s.
I think you mean the 1950s. JFK was the first to slash income tax rates, resulting in both increased revenue and increased growth.
If life is rosy and everyone is content, then there would be no need for change, which is what Thiel and Yarvin and the other people behind JD Vance are promoting. We must want change to allow these men to take a rototiller to our federal structure of three co-equal branches of government, along with a non-partisan, professional corps of federal workers.
Limbaugh, Carlson, and Pat Buchanan didn't spend decades convincing Americans that the relatively small inconveniences of progressivism were causing catastrophic damage to their lives only to be checked by their sense of honor and decency.
listening to you gents makes me smarter and more informed. keep doing what you're doing!
I understand what Beckley is saying, but where would you rather be poor: Japan or Mississippi?
I don’t know what life is like in Japan, so I can’t answer that question. I did watch the tv show “Sunny”, so based on that I vote for Mississippi. I hear they have a very high suicide rate in Japan. In fact, according to the NIH, suicide rates in Japan compared to the US are 2 times higher for men, and 3 times higher for women, and all of it based on “overwork”.
I lived and worked in Japan for 8 years and can attest to the fact that suicide and overwork are, sadly, widespread problems there. However, I don't think overwork is prevalent in all sectors, nor are the higher suicide rates entirely to blame on overwork.
And even given these issues, the question of which place you'd rather live in is still highly objective and complex.
The numbers sound strange. It reminds me of that Disraeli quote about three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Germany behind Alabama and Mississippi?
Really strange. Average debt to GDP is 270%??? Where is he pulling these numbers from? Greece is the worst in the EU at 158%. I'm just going to list the countries I've lived in recently: The Netherlands 43.2%, Ireland 42.2%, Germany 64%. The USA? 124%.
Came here to make the same comment, thank you! A lot of what he was saying makes sense but he sounds very sure about the future of China and Europe without considering plausible scenarios. It does not help that he gets such basic facts wrong.
Plus we all remember WW2 (at least at my age in my 40s) which is why Elons nazi salute was reported as such all over Europe and wasn't called "a Roman salute "
What if it’s not decline, but what comes after. America needs a rebirth of some sort, we just have to make sure we don’t give birth to a monster. Why not recommit to the constitution, and add more enhancements such as FDR’s second bill of rights, the ERA, term limits for all offices and permanently encoding civil rights and voter rights acts in the constitution.
I love your idea! Please add limits on corporate rights and campaign finance.
I think campaign finance reform/public funding of elections would take care of the term limits. You represent the people well, you can keep your seat. You get detached from them, you're out because you can't spend obscene amounts of money to trick the voters/keep serious contenders out of the race.