US vs China: "This Time It's Real"

Christopher Layne’s article “This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana” ( International Studies Quarterly, 2012) persuasively contends that the United States is fading as the pre-eminent global power and has been or will soon be usurped by China. Layne hangs much of his argument on his predictions of an American economic decline in a post-2007 “Great Recession” climate and the 1980 “Declinists” predictions that US strategies of military dominance and economic prosperity would collide. While the “Declinist” predictions certainly did ring true during the Bush/Cheney Administration and it’s aftermath, the economic circumstances of the 2007 collapse have not played out according to Layne’s dire predictions: while the US continues to suffer an sluggish economy, it is in a far better position in terms of national debt.Layne further asserts that ascending new world powers, including the growing economies in India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Turkey, will challenge US dominance. Robert Kagan “Not Fade Away: Against the Myth of American Decline” (Brookings) negates these assertions, contending that stronger economies in US-friendly countries strengthen US international position overall. While Layne relies strongly on economic evidence, including national debt, GDP, and the cost of US military action, Kagan hinges his contentions on narrative and anecdotal evidence, relaying incidents from recent history that illustrate global impressions of America’s political pre-eminence and world respect. I take issue with the weaknesses in both arguments, frankly. Layne’s predictions are dire: Kagan affectively challenges Layne’s contention that rising economies “threaten” US dominance by aptly pointing out that the rising economies of Turkey, Brazil, et al. enjoy positive diplomatic relationships with the US. Kagan further asserts that these countries do and likely will continue to compliment US global hegemonic power: it can be assumed that they have and will continue to benefit the US economically as emerging markets. Layne cites an Arnold Wolfers 1952 statement on the constitution of a “modern power:. “Modern Powers must be national security states AND welfare states, providing military capabilities to defend AND necessary public goods.( education, healthcare, pensions).” Layne’s focus on international policy is a politics argument, while Kagan cites US military strength with a nod to the vagaries of international perception basing his contentions primarily on foreign reception of Presidential visits. Clearly, the US continues to dominate militarily in terms of percentage of national budget allocated, size of military troops, and technologic sophistication; Layne does not challenge this. But neither Kagan nor Layne adequately address the current status of “necessary public goods” as evidence of rising or declining power; in fact, neither mention this topic at all. Neither article cites current conditions of “public good” in either the US or China, with the exception of a Layne reference to China’s economic might in consideration of its PPP, and Kagan’s statement that US citizens enjoy a higher GDP. Regarding domestic agenda and domestic policy, no evidence is presented in either article on life expectancy, quality of life, access to healthcare and education, evidence of opportunities for upward mobility, etc., all of which are, I believe, important indicators of existing and futur domestic stability, economic vigor, and national strength. No one would argue that the American middle class is not suffering. In fact, a recent Princeton study definitively identified the US not as a democracy, but as an oligarchy. Yet neither Kagan nor Layne adequately address evidence of US internal “weakening” vis a vis political infighting and the inability of the legislature to respond proactively and address substantive internal economic and domestic policy issues. I believe that the 2007 Recession combined with a dysfunctional Congress has caused to greater internal stresses and overall weakening of the US economy, as evidenced by policy gridlock, spiraling costs of higher education, middle class indebtedness, the housing crisis, etc. I further believe this “plague” is a crisis of vision, and crisis of confidence in leadership certainly affects international perception. On an international stage, the budget stalemate and other recent Congressional bumblings do not speak well for America’s domestic strength. Finally, both articles fail to cite what specific threats, if any, a “rising” China presents to the US or to international perceptions of US hegemony. By relying on anecdote rather than fact, Kagan’s argument against a “Myth of American Decline” fails to cite any reasoned argument regarding current US status as compared to China. Layne acknowledges Chinese investment in US, he does not and really cannot contend that this is evidence of US “weakening”. Clearly, China has gained strength as a global manufacturing and economic power. However, as a manufacturing center, it relies on a strong US economy as a source for its exports. So I contend that in fact, Chinese investment in US markets would seem to be evidence of a recognition by both powers that Chinese and American economies are complimentary and in many ways co-dependent, and are likely to remain so. My believe is that dynamics are changing, and those dynamics will require increased international cooperation, increased dialogue, and ever increasing opportunities for win-win global policies that preserve and protect the position of both existing superpowers and rising economies. It is my opinion that the three-pronged approach that Layne cites will likely continue to predominate as part of the balance of powers moving forward. That is, 1) The “benevolence” of US hegemony. International perception of US benevolence was negatively impacted during the Bush/Cheney years but has been diligently tended to by Obama/Biden/Clinton and is likely to continue in a Clinton 2016 climate. 2) The “Balance of Threat” argument. The US has just barely extricated itself from ill-conceived aggression in the Middle East. Many argue that the Iraq Invasion solved no problems and created many more. Extremism and terrorism are not going away, and the US and other international intelligence agencies will need to collaborate to continue to counteract attacks around the world. Certainly, if the US continues in its recent practice of more prudent intervention, it’s recently restored global perceptions as a peace-maker will remain intact and continue to garnish international approval. 3) “Soft Power”. The rising economies of India, Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, South Africa continue to be influenced by American cultural, business and academic ideologies, as have China, Japan, the rest of Asia and even, many would contend, Russia. I think the situation is neither as dire as Layne predicts, nor as dependent on anecdote as Kagan would have readers believe. I believe the US must continue to dominate not only militarily, but also diplomatically, and that the restoration of a vibrant internal US economy is a priority. Sustained US economic vigor would seem to be contingent on policies that restore an engaged, informed and upwardly mobile middle class. In the current crisis of leadership, this seems like a distant and nebulous reality.