But the core premise of the "American social contract" seems to be that the US remains the global arbiter and police. Does the US: * Have the moral standing t

But the core premise of the "American social contract" seems to be that the US remains the global arbiter and police. Does the US: * Have the moral standing to do this anymore? * Have the actual economic resources to do this forever? * Have the actual understanding of other countries' needs and histories to do it in a constructive way? You could make some modest case for the US hegemony in 1946. There was no other major power that was fully industrialized, not massively damaged by on-site war, and politically and economically stable. They could be the stable, mature voice in the room to help lead the newly peaceful world to progress and prosperity. Is that necessary in 2023? We have multiple stable, strong economic powers. Indeed, there is value in moving towards a "disagreement of equals" when it comes to global challenges: there may be problems where we may need to look at a Chinese, Russian, or European model for the best solution. As for "aggressive authoritarian countries"-- I've always wondered: if democracy is so self-evidently wonderful, why doesn't it automatically win? From an optimistic perspective, I suspect it's a matter of democracy being a fragile system, requiring a lot of social and economic preconditions to survive, so maybe we need to be building those conditions first, even if it means "supporting authoritarian regimes" today, so when the time comes, democracy can take hold and survive. From a pessimistic one, I wonder if maybe authoritarianism is valid in and of itself-- it's efficient and capable of making the unpopular choices elected officials hide from. But the West sure loathes it because it undermines the individualist "I am the main character, my decisions and opinions matter" mentality.