Comparing the economic ‘SuperPowers’ of the ‘Pax Brittanicca’ versus the not so ‘Pax Americana’
(For the record, I hate the term ‘SuperPower’ s a military misnomer, but it serves a point here…)
I have been amused, and bemused, in the last few days of rioting and protests to see the pro-Republic set in Australia finally admit their shining beacon of hope is a blundering buffoon with feet of clay.
Whenever anyone points to the US as a political system greatly to be admired as somehow being superior to our nice safe Consttitutional Monarchy, I admit to stunned incomprehension.
99% of Republics have been applling disasters, with the mjority of even federal Republics falling ot dictatoship, civil war, and/or genocide of their own people, within 20 or 30 years of being established. But Presidential Republics like the US are by far the worst model. As one chareacter in the West Wing bluntly put it ‘only a few Presidential Republics make it even a few years…’
What is it that people imagine is worth copying from the appalling system of government of the Republic of the United States?
Is it a vague attraction to the idealistic fantasy of Rebellion/America Independence/Civil War number 1 - based on a combination of hanging on to slavery (that the Southern States wanted to keep while the British were trying to stamp it out), and subjugating the Indians (that the Northern States wanted to conquor but who had treaties with the British).
A Constitution written by a bunch of slave owners who hypocritically declared that everyone was equal (save yellow’s, reds and blacks.)
Or is it the idealistic fantasy of Rebellion/Confederate Independence/Civil War 2- based on a combination of hanging on to slavery (that the Southern States were trying to keep while the North were tyring to stamp them out), and subjugating the Indians (who the Northern States wanted to conquor while the Southern States were desperate to see no further creation of ‘anti-slave’ states as a result…).
Is it the ridiculous federal structure that keeps Peurto Rico and other places as unofficial colonies – literally no representation despite taxation - subjugated states in the same model as most of the origianl 13 colonies were pretending to complain about? (Note - the pre-War of independence parliament in Virginia had considerably greater power and rights than the current Peurto Riccan set up...)
Is it the written constituition with its idiotic and disastrous attempts to enshrine the courts as arbiters of power (leading ot endless politicla fights over and between political party partisan judges)?
Or perhaps the hopelessly anachronistic ‘right to bear arms?
Is it their unrivalled ability to lead the world from minor economic crisis to major Great Depression, or from imagined threats of weapons of mass destruction to major wars? (Fair is fair, I think that last was the correct decision given the uncertanties… but I am not the hypocrites who simultaneously want the idealised American Republic system, while decrying it’s practical results…)
Is it the race riots, the lack of universal health care, the AllanTown referred to by Billy Joel?
Or is it the unrivalled political leadership they manage to assemble, from George 'Dubya', and Bill ‘I did not have sex with that woman’ Clinton, to Donald 'pussy grabber' Trump?
What in God’s name would anybody want to copy about the US Republic?
The only practical answer of course is that it was economically successful for about half of the last century, and that this ‘American Dream’ represents some goal to strive for.
Of course the American Dream is really a combination of two things.
The first being that the US was – like Australia or indeed Argentina at the turn of the last century - a frontier society – with literally vast expanses of opportunity still to open. At least up until the last few decades. (Where it has quickly become apparent that the US is no different from any other society once the frontier is filled up, and that the fantasy of ever better living standards for the next generation is an unforgivable illusion).
Reality…
The other thing the American Dream really reflects, is the unexpected, and unrepeatable, bounty of reaping the harvest of a war that left everyone else on their knees.
The mythical Pax Brittanicca was the unexpected, but clear result of the Napoleonic Wars.
Britian’s experience during those conflicts led to a rapid expansion of industrialisation, fuelled by the war, and turbocharged by the concentration of capital available when Britain became the arsenal of all Napoleonic resistance to most of it’s erstwhile competitor states in Europe. Most of those states (including the US, which briefly and disastrously joined the conflict on Napoleon’s side in 1812), had their economies shattered by the Napoleonic war, leaving Britian with almost no competitioin while opening a march on it’s competitors that lasted most of the next century.
Similarly the mythical Pax Americana was very obviously the result of the World Wars.
The American experience during those conflicts led to a rapid expansion of industrialisation, fuelled by the two wars, and turbocharged by the concentration of capital available when the United States became the arsenal of all Fascist resistance - or ‘arsenal of democracy’ if you want to follow the fantasy a bit further - to most of it’s competitor states in Europe. Most of those states (including Britain, who suffered the full brunt of having been world policeman for over a century), had their economies shattered by the World Wars, leaving the United States with no competition while opening a march on it’s competitors that lasted a fair bit of the next century.
The brief period of exceptional opportunity that the US achieved post war, which allowed it to achieve such economic dominance post war, is directly comparable ot the similar experience Britain received the previous century.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the US system of government being superior to the British one.
In fact, arguably, the resulting period of 'dominance' was far less successful than the British example BECAUSE of the inferiority of the US system of government.
Britian, with a tiny fraction of the world’s population, managed to dominate the world both economically and militarily for most of century… despite her still evolving and somewhat chaotic system of government. The US, with a much higher percentage of the world’s population, and an even better starting point compared to potential competitors, failed to achieve even half as much for even half as long.
It might be drawing too long a bow to suggest that the American awakening of the true costs and horrors of being stuck as the world’s policeman took only a quarter of the time Britain’s did… After all it wasn’t just World War One that gave the British voting public the same distaste for having to do the hard stuff for everyone else that the US experienced in Vietnam… The South African, Sudan, and even Crimean campaigns had given the British ‘Korean like’ pre-tastes of what fun it wasn’t to take the blame for everything from everyone who likes to sit back and complain…
So it is possible to look at the current challenge to the fantasy that there is some sort of American Exceptionalism, and draw the inevitable conclusion.
Exceptional circumstances might give any system of government a brief and unrealistic boost above their competitors… but that is not necessarily a reflection of a superior system… in fact how fast it goes away again, might be more a guide to an inferior system.
(Taking bets on who might be the unexpected beneficiary of the next great global conflagration… India anyone? Or perhaps Brazil? i can absolutely guarantee it won't be China...)
Nigel, I have enjoyed your writings on military history. My knowledge of history is largely self-taught (in my youth I didn’t see the value in learning of it -- I was a whiz in math and the sciences, but most everything came very easily to me).
ReplyDeleteI didn’t become interested in history until I had children of my own and sought to learn about the lives of my parents when I was very young. This led to my readings of the war years (WWII) and spawned my great interest in military history, then political, and of course the sciences.
This as a preface to my remarks on this latest screed of yours.
So, point-by-point:
"Whenever anyone points to the US as a political system greatly to be admired as somehow being superior to our nice safe Consttitutional Monarchy, I admit to stunned incomprehension."
ReplyDeleteNice and safe? Sure didn’t look that way in 1942. You’re the military historian, tell us how Australia would have staved off the Japanese without America (and her lack of a sovereign).
"99% of Republics have been applling disasters, with the mjority of even federal Republics falling ot dictatoship, civil war, and/or genocide of their own people, within 20 or 30 years of being established. But Presidential Republics like the US are by far the worst model. As one chareacter in the West Wing bluntly put it ‘only a few Presidential Republics make it even a few years…’"
Ah, you’ve learnt your history by watching American teleplays. And our Hollywood is such a fan of America, too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that people imagine is worth copying from the appalling system of government of the Republic of the United States?
ReplyDelete“Is it a vague attraction to the idealistic fantasy of Rebellion/America Independence/Civil War number 1 - based on a combination of hanging on to slavery (that the Southern States wanted to keep while the British were trying to stamp it out), and subjugating the Indians (that the Northern States wanted to conquor but who had treaties with the British). “
Is this directed at Aussies who disagree with you? I’m certain no US officials have suggested Australia copy the US form of government.
The Brits were trying to STAMP OUT slavery? I thought it was the US thrashing the Barbary pirates. What did Britain do? And I think it was Britain that subjugated India (real Indians – with red dots). If you were more familiar with American history you’d better appreciate why the Indian wars were fought.
“A Constitution written by a bunch of slave owners who hypocritically declared that everyone was equal (save yellow’s, reds and blacks.)”
ReplyDeleteThe US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1805. And slavery was actually uneconomical and would have ended eventually (see British history) and, btw, the American Civil War (really, a rebellion) wasn’t fought to end slavery. The goal (Lincoln’s) was to preserve the Union. As Lincoln famously said, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...."
‘ the Southern States were desperate to see no further creation of ‘anti-slave’ states’
Ah, Nigel – this one you’ve got right (even a stopped clock …). This in fact was the cause of the rebellion. The southern states no longer saw the Union as advantageous to them because the more populous and prosperous north (remember, slavery made no economic sense) were outvoting them in Congress. Read up on the “Nullification Crisis” of thirty years earlier which nearly triggered secession then (save for Andrew Jackson).
"Is it the ridiculous federal structure that keeps Peurto Rico and other places as unofficial colonies – literally no representation despite taxation - subjugated states in the same model as most of the origianl 13 colonies were pretending to complain about? (Note - the pre-War of independence parliament in Virginia had considerably greater power and rights than the current Peurto Riccan set up...)"
ReplyDeleteFunny thing, if the people of Puerto Rico voted for independence, the US would cheerfully grant it. But they don’t want to go.
"Is it the written constituition with its idiotic and disastrous attempts to enshrine the courts as arbiters of power (leading ot endless politicla fights over and between political party partisan judges)?
Where in our Constitution are the courts given the powers you claim they have? (Of course, they’ve taken these powers onto themselves).
Or perhaps the hopelessly anachronistic ‘right to bear arms? "
Jealous, are we?
"Is it their unrivalled ability to lead the world from minor economic crisis to major Great Depression, or from imagined threats of weapons of mass destruction to major wars?"
ReplyDeleteYou’re the historian Nigel, but when has the US “led” the world into a major war?
“Is it the race riots, the lack of universal health care, the AllanTown referred to by Billy Joel?”
Australia has no racial problems? OBTW, America has had universal emergency health care for decades (we can debate whether anyone has a “right” to the government purse for food, shelter, entertainment (whatever), and OBTW, no matter how much health care you get, you still are certain to die.
The only practical answer of course is that it was economically successful for about half of the last century, and that this ‘American Dream’ represents some goal to strive for.
ReplyDeleteI’d date the emergence of America as an economic powerhouse to the end of the 19th century. But I’d be happy to debate this.
The mythical Pax Brittanicca was the unexpected, but clear result of the Napoleonic Wars.
I think British law had the most effect (property rights) and the emergence of capital markets plus being the center of the universe for a time.
It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the US system of government being superior to the British one.
In fact, arguably, the resulting period of 'dominance' was far less successful than the British example BECAUSE of the inferiority of the US system of government.
You’ve heard of the Marshall Plan, have you not? The US was never in the conquering (and holding) business – unlike the Brits and the European powers.
"It might b e drawing too long a bow to suggest that the American awakening of the true costs and horrors of being stuck as the world’s policeman took only a quarter of the time Britain’s did …"
The US has never aspired to be the world’s policeman.
BTW, what is your point, Nigel (besides railing against the US). The US has now lasted for nearly 250 years.