12 ms·
Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order (2019)
- Zigurd 5y agoMearsheimer likes Putin, hates China, and thinks the future is nationalism. He structures his analysis around that narrative. He opposes arming Ukraine. He can't stand that the revolution in Kazakhstan could thwart Putin rebuilding a rump Soviet empire. He seems to be aiming to become a Great Thinker of Trumpism 2.0.
- barrkel 5y agoI reckon it's more that he thinks that nationalism and economic self-interest are more stable than liberal democracies pursuing policies with enlightened self-interest (e.g. supporting immigration and free trade). He appears to view the world along a stable / chaotic axis, where stability requires an umbrella of hegemony structured in opposition to another hegemony. It's certainly a hypothesis, but I think it's more descriptive than prescriptive, but he risks turning a bit circular: arguing that a certain model of the world is the only stable model, while simultaneously arguing that other models should be torn down because they're not stable - adding to the instability.
- throwawaygal7 5y agoI think it's obvious that the policies you highlight as being 'enlightened' are not universally popular, and also create instability. Off shoring and massive immigration are never popular with the working and lower classes, these are popular with the higher classes who desire cheap labor for their rent seeking operations. This behavior is neither liberal nor democratic and is rarely the product of a broad base democratic effort; its not as though the immigration politics of the modern west emerged after popular outcry- they are entirely top down efforts. In this regard we can say that they might be enlightened from a certain perspective but are they really democratic?
- Zigurd 5y agoBashing immigrants has been an effective advertisement for nationalism. But is nationalism an effective cure for any problems?
- throwawaygal7 5y agoBashing immigrants and bashing immigration are different ; Usually accusations of the former serve to allow the later. I would point to China as an example of nationalism paying dividends.
- denton-scratch 5y agoThe author presents nationalism as an ideology that is ever-present; but that is amplified by hyperglobalisation. I think he's right about that. In fact I think nationalism is a reasonable response to damaging interference from foreign powers and international institutions. What else can people do, when they lose their jobs to offshoring and trade agreements, and find that everyone in their neighbourhood is now talking in foreign and competing with them for housing? All they can do is demand that foreign interference and immigration be brought to a halt. I'm not advocating nationalism; that way lies war. But hyperglobalisation has failed, and needs to be reversed.
- barrkel 5y ago> Off shoring and massive immigration are never popular with the working and lower classes, these are popular with the higher classes who desire cheap labor for their rent seeking You simultaneously mischaracterize what I wrote and assume that you speak for multiple classes of people, universally, world wide. You're wrong about what I wrote and you're wrong in your assumption of the universality of your opinion. I didn't say anything about off shoring or massive immigration. There's majority support for lots of qualified categories of immigration, and it's not based on rent-seeking higher classes. Sometimes it's mutuality (e.g. EU free movement), sometimes it's competitive (e.g. football players), sometimes it's self-interested (e.g. doctors), sometimes it's ethnocentric, etc. Please don't pattern-fit what you read to your pet trigger phrases.
- 8bitsrule 5y agoThis * is stability? *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_and_royal_dynasties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kingdoms_and_royal_dyn...]
- bobthechef 5y ago
- everybodyknows 5y agoNeeds (2019) added to title.
- atemerev 5y agoPerhaps I am too old fashioned, but I still believe in the future without borders and nationalism. Perhaps there is still time.
- bobthechef 5y ago
- hirundo 5y agoThat seems like a future with one all inclusive, inescapable nation.
- argsv 5y agoI am afraid that severe climate change might lead to a future with fewer or no borders. Not having borders isn't necessarily going to be great. Nationalism will not go away as long as there are humans. We may have different labels for it but the effect will be the same.
- yalogin 5y agoI see a lot of people predicting the decline of democracy. The US is the pole that is crucial to the world order as I cannot imagine how the world will be if China is the sole power. The last few years as shown how flimsy our systems and safeguards are and that most of them work on honor system rather and someone can definitely do a lot of damage if they wanted to. It feels like the next 2-3 yrs are going to be very critical. I don’t have a very good feeling about the 2024 elections and that might bring by about chaos. What do people think here?
- heresie-dabord 5y ago> how flimsy our systems and safeguards are Democracy is the best of a set of troubled types of social order. Elected politicians, for better or for worse, are indeed a representation of the people. Democracy is as flimsy as the citizenry's understanding of and commitment to education, civic duty, and justice.
- narag 5y agoI see a lot of people predicting the decline of democracy. It's funny. A few years ago, when the Arab Spring, the sentiment was the opposite.
- sedan_baklazhan 5y agoThat was before results of the Arab Spring became obvious, perhaps.
- Breazy 5y ago[dead]
- sedan_baklazhan 5y agoI certainly think that model of democracy - as it was applied (or attempted to) to Libya and Syria, is not going to win a lot of support in a lot of countries which don't have the democracy "yet".
- 5y ago
- throwawaymanbot 5y ago
- throwawaygal7 5y agoThe 'liberal order' was very happy to open up China and then enriched themselves selling off industry and manufacturing to China and elsewhere. They seem to have thought that this would liberalize China, and that failed miserably . I don't know if they were sincere, since this belief has little historical support - I think they just wanted to make some money and came up with some justifications to sweeten the bitter medicine. That generation is passing away, and their ability to control global geopolitics is passing away too. It remains to be seen if the whole world will ever be 'liberal' or 'democratic' and it sure seems like much of the world would rather opt out.
- curiousllama 5y ago> I don't know if they were sincere Just because someone's wrong, doesn't mean they're evil. The USSR had literally just liberalized after similar policies. You telling me that wouldn't have been compelling evidence 30 years ago?
- throwawaygal7 5y agoI never called anyone evil, but if you think we liberalized the USSR by making them a major trading partner and moving our industrial base to the communist block... well, all I can say is I don't believe that's what happened, but you can if you'd like to. I'm not even sure it's fair to say the fall of the USSR was entirely due to external influence, I do think the pressure the west put was a factor but I think internal events like chernoybyl and the quirks of the leadership sucession in the 80s had as much to do with it.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> seem to have thought that this would liberalize China, and that failed miserably Most evidence suggest it was sincere. That it was one of the most major policy failings of the West is now admitted, even by its architects. That sort of remorse isn't common with conspiracies.
- throwawaygal7 5y ago
- gfykvfyxgc 5y ago[flagged]
- nvelty 5y agoIt's interesting to hear you say this, as I hear similar sentiments from friends on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you - though directed at their own leaders (including Trump). It seems everyone is getting rather annoyed at the ineffectiveness of the federal government - I imagine we'll see more political flashpoints at the state level going forward.
- InfiniteRand 5y agoHere’s a question, if you have certain goals for a government like defense, education, etc. and you create a bureaucracy to recommend the best researched policies for these goals, what is the role of democracy? Just checking for errors from the bureaucracy?
- denton-scratch 5y agoTo prevent the bureaucracy from charging off to pursue goals they weren't asked to pursue.
- specialist 5y agoNot much to criticize in this thesis. Contains nothing new or original. Just a rehash presented as insightful. Author claims Liberalism lasted until 2019. Although hyperglobalization is mentioned, author does not acknowledge Neoliberalism (aka Thatcherism & Reaganomics, roughly coinciding with "capitalism" defeat of "communism"). Modern Liberalism (post WWII) was the West's response to nationalism; an effort to curtail the endless wars. Today we have new challenges. Of course we need new arrangements. What could that look like? Like this OC, I have zero idea what's coming next. As in no clue. Unlike this OC, I do have hope and optimism. That said, I keep chewing on two ideas. Of all the dystopian novels I've read, too many to list, I most believe the social arrangements imagined in Octavia Butler's Parable of the Sower. A cautionary tale. Basically how corporations pivot to become the new feudal lords, no different than the robber baron's company towns. How taking a job is choosing serfdom. What it may be like to opt out, to create something new, like Butler's protagonist does. What we might call "mutual aid society". Of all the notions for a successor to representative democracy, the most exciting to me is "phyles" from Neal Stepheson's The Diamond Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age#Phyles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age#Phyles How each social movement is decoupled from geography, strives to be self consistent, and has to negotiate intra-social arrangements. I haven't yet read Robinson's The Ministry for the Future. It might have some notions worth considering. I don't recall ever reading sci-fi treatments of possible left-libertarian (aka anarchist) social arrangements. It recently occurred to me to seek out stories about pirates (from their own point of view) and the Iroquois (and adjacent) from before contact with Europe.
- denton-scratch 5y agoI just read the whole of that. It took me all afternoon. I thought it was a balanced and interesting essay.
- m0llusk 5y agoIt is strange that this analysis goes into so much detail and yet skips over so much. The spread of democracy has caused a great deal of chaos as well documented by Amy Chua in her book World on Fire. If we are counting on democracy as a foundation for progress and it causes instability then this concept of world order is bound to destroy itself. The more interesting problem is why democracy not only fails to contribute to stabilization but in fact destabilizes nation states.
- refurb 5y agoI’m not sure why you wouldn’t expect democracy to destabilize non-democratic nation states. You’re moving from an authoritarian system that can squash legitimate grievances and desires (e.g. Yugoslavia) that would otherwise need to be addressed under a democracy. If you look at history, a jump from authoritarian systems to stable democratic systems seems to happen in either countries had some quasi-democratic system prior (e.g. Poland) or a strong national identity to unite the population (e.g. Japan). Most other democracies transitioned through decades of instability and non-democratic government when given independence (e.g. South Korea, Taiwan).
- pirate787 5y agoJapan, Germany, Italy, and South Koreas transition to modern democracy required US military occupation (indeed United States occupying forces wrote Japan's constitution)
- enkid 5y agoThis is a strange conclusion considering non-democratic political changes cause plenty of chaos. Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, the Protestant Reformation and accompanying violence, the Boxer Rebellion, all come to mind. Of course changing political systems will cause violence. Look at Kazakhstan. The current protests have very little to do with democracy in their cause. People would have been protesting high gas prices without the goal of having democracy. But autocrats will blame the political side of things when the cause is purely economic. The real question is what happens once democracy has taken hold.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- roenxi 5y agoAny post that tries to link Trump and geopolitics is suspect. He was in for 4 years and that isn't very long. The only thing Trump is good for in that context is a reminder that there is a big gap between what paid talking heads believe and many voters accept as true. Also - everything collapses, every world order and every regional power either has collapsed or will collapse. The Roman Empire collapsed with a thousand-year gap between the last breath of the east and west wings. The fact that something is currently collapsing doesn't tell us much except that it hasn't collapsed yet.
- ARandomerDude 5y agoAgreed. The thinking is societal collapse = bad; Orange Man = bad; so Orange Man = societal collapse. Honestly, it's exhausting at this point no matter what you think of Trump.
- ahartmetz 5y agoIf more than 40% of US citizens believe the IMO blindingly obvious lie that the last election was stolen, there is a real problem. A society needs trust to work. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/america-biden-election-2020-poll-victory https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/05/america-bide...
- t-3 5y ago> A society needs trust to work. Does it? Seems to me that most people don't, and never have trusted each other.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> Does it? Seems to me that most people don't, and never have trusted each other Most people don't need to trust each other. The elites certainly do, at the very least, to respect the peaceful transfer of power. Democracies have, by design, lots of elites, so the coördination problem becomes (intentionally) more difficult.