4 ms·

>Do you think people in Sweden or Denmark are upset their countries aren't hegemons? Funny that you chose those two countries. Denmark is a founding member of

>Do you think people in Sweden or Denmark are upset their countries aren't hegemons? Funny that you chose those two countries. Denmark is a founding member of NATO. Sweden is one of the two most recent admitted, almost a year ago. My point is that it's U.S. hegemony that has protected its own democracy and that of liberal democratic Europe to a large extent. Sweden and Denmark haven't been hegemons because they haven't needed to be.

svara 2y ago
> Sweden and Denmark haven't been hegemons because they haven't needed to be. That's exactly right, and I used nearly exactly those words in a recent comment. Important to note: The free world - economically advanced democracies excluding the US - is the largest economy in the world, larger than the US by about 30%, with an even larger population. These countries have a historically unprecedented incentive to work much more closely together now, and there is a massive void to fill.
- pastage 2y ago
  That is not how it works, many of those countries will need to align with China or be conquered.
  - svara 2y ago
    We're long past the point where we can say "how it works" from how it used to work. The incentive is there now, when it wasn't before. Cooperation emerges under external pressures, almost as a rule.
  - Hikikomori 2y ago
    Align with China so they can protect us against the US?
t-3 2y ago
U.S. hegemony has also destroyed and subverted democracies and propped up very illiberal dictatorships. Protecting democracy for white countries only isn't exactly what I think of when I think "world protector of liberal democracy".
- unclebucknasty 2y ago
  The U.S. hasn't been perfect, but I'll take it over the alternatives. And, I'd say protecting democracy for "white countries only" is a simplification. If you're talking about Europe, then we have to consider that the U.S. has also pretty famously fought against European nations and that our subsequent "protection" there was to serve as a bulwark to maintain a world order that benefited the U.S. and democracy. And, you have to consider that we later "protected" the non-white Japan, Korea, and Vietnam at great cost. In some of the countries wherein the U.S. could be said to have propped up dictators, there tended to be other geopolitical realities. For instance, many of these were in the Middle East and the U.S. elected to align with the most pliable of the available alternatives. And, in spite of this, the U.S. has also promoted democracy in the region. You have to also consider the sentiment in many of the countries or regions is/was decidedly anti-American and the choice to support regimes less hostile to U.S. interests is a practical one. Many do not want democracy and the alternative for the U.S. is frequently to topple regimes and attempt to stand up completely new governments (i.e. nation-building). This is an extraordinarily costly endeavor with a high failure rate. And, all of this in the context of adversarial nations doing the same to promote their own interests. Again, we're not perfect but the world is a messy place.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    > Many do not want democracy and the alternative for the U.S. is frequently to topple regimes and attempt to stand up completely new governments (i.e. nation-building). This is an extraordinarily costly endeavor with a high failure rate. Yes, and this is one of the stupidest things about American foreign policy. Every european democracy spent hundreds of years as an authoritarian regime first, while it developed the underlying infrastructure of state and civil society. America repeatedly trying to short-circuit that process by toppling authoritarian regimes is in the long run bad for the people in those countries. Those countries are not ready for democracy and the fledgling democracies that the U.S. has tried to install, like in Iraq, have led to horrors.
  - t-3 2y ago
    Coups in Haiti, supporting gangsters and strongmen, overthrowing democratically elected presidents multiple times - supporting Democracy! Pushing fake candidates in Venezuela - supporting Democracy! Ousting left-leaning governments in Australia - supporting Democracy! Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, returning it to authoritarian monarchy - supporting Democracy! Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile, installing a dictatorship - supporting Democracy! Supporting the overthrow of democracy and establishment of a military dictatorship in Brazil - supporting Democracy! And so on and so forth, with plenty of logistical and moral support for mass killings, disappearances, assassinations, and political imprisonment mixed in to boot. We have never promoted democracy, we've only ever promoted the interests of American corporations and opposed socialism.

svara 2y ago

> Sweden and Denmark haven't been hegemons because they haven't needed to be. That's exactly right, and I used nearly exactly those words in a recent comment. Important to note: The free world - economically advanced democracies excluding the US - is the largest economy in the world, larger than the US by about 30%, with an even larger population. These countries have a historically unprecedented incentive to work much more closely together now, and there is a massive void to fill.

pastage 2y ago
That is not how it works, many of those countries will need to align with China or be conquered.
- svara 2y ago
  We're long past the point where we can say "how it works" from how it used to work. The incentive is there now, when it wasn't before. Cooperation emerges under external pressures, almost as a rule.
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Align with China so they can protect us against the US?

t-3 2y ago

U.S. hegemony has also destroyed and subverted democracies and propped up very illiberal dictatorships. Protecting democracy for white countries only isn't exactly what I think of when I think "world protector of liberal democracy".

unclebucknasty 2y ago
The U.S. hasn't been perfect, but I'll take it over the alternatives. And, I'd say protecting democracy for "white countries only" is a simplification. If you're talking about Europe, then we have to consider that the U.S. has also pretty famously fought against European nations and that our subsequent "protection" there was to serve as a bulwark to maintain a world order that benefited the U.S. and democracy. And, you have to consider that we later "protected" the non-white Japan, Korea, and Vietnam at great cost. In some of the countries wherein the U.S. could be said to have propped up dictators, there tended to be other geopolitical realities. For instance, many of these were in the Middle East and the U.S. elected to align with the most pliable of the available alternatives. And, in spite of this, the U.S. has also promoted democracy in the region. You have to also consider the sentiment in many of the countries or regions is/was decidedly anti-American and the choice to support regimes less hostile to U.S. interests is a practical one. Many do not want democracy and the alternative for the U.S. is frequently to topple regimes and attempt to stand up completely new governments (i.e. nation-building). This is an extraordinarily costly endeavor with a high failure rate. And, all of this in the context of adversarial nations doing the same to promote their own interests. Again, we're not perfect but the world is a messy place.
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Many do not want democracy and the alternative for the U.S. is frequently to topple regimes and attempt to stand up completely new governments (i.e. nation-building). This is an extraordinarily costly endeavor with a high failure rate. Yes, and this is one of the stupidest things about American foreign policy. Every european democracy spent hundreds of years as an authoritarian regime first, while it developed the underlying infrastructure of state and civil society. America repeatedly trying to short-circuit that process by toppling authoritarian regimes is in the long run bad for the people in those countries. Those countries are not ready for democracy and the fledgling democracies that the U.S. has tried to install, like in Iraq, have led to horrors.
- t-3 2y ago
  Coups in Haiti, supporting gangsters and strongmen, overthrowing democratically elected presidents multiple times - supporting Democracy! Pushing fake candidates in Venezuela - supporting Democracy! Ousting left-leaning governments in Australia - supporting Democracy! Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran, returning it to authoritarian monarchy - supporting Democracy! Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Chile, installing a dictatorship - supporting Democracy! Supporting the overthrow of democracy and establishment of a military dictatorship in Brazil - supporting Democracy! And so on and so forth, with plenty of logistical and moral support for mass killings, disappearances, assassinations, and political imprisonment mixed in to boot. We have never promoted democracy, we've only ever promoted the interests of American corporations and opposed socialism.