Charles Krauthammer's Essay: Decline is a Choice

[Jae Onasi]

I really like Charles Krauthammer. He's conservative, just so you know where he's at on the political spectrum. He's brilliant, has an amazing wealth of knowledge about history and politics, and is well-spoken. He's not afraid to call it like he sees it if he thinks politicians and especially conservatives are screwing up, and watching him on Fox news is always a treat. If you want an understanding of American politics, especially the conservative side, read his columns or watch him on Fox. His predictions/insights are usually on target. He'll explain how he got to the that point, and then he'll explain if he thinks that is a good or bad thing.

 

Anyway, he recently wrote an article called "Decline is a Choice". It is not light reading, and if you'd like to discuss it, please read the article in its entirety. You'll miss a lot of important points if you tune out after the first few paragraphs. You'll also miss a tremendous amount of subtlety in his use of language if you skim through it.

 

So, is America in decline? Is "New Liberalism" the cause? What implications will this have for the rest of the world? If the US relinquishes its role as superpower, and we trust the rest of the world to meet us in good faith as fellow world citizens, is that a reasonable thought, or is it naive? Can we trust other countries to put forth the same good faith effort that liberals in the US are hoping for? There is so much more Krauthammer touches on in this essay, so feel free to discuss whatever jumps out at you as particularly important, unusual, thought-provoking, or even something that makes you angry.

[Hallucination]

With a name like Krauthammer I have to wonder if he bashes Germans a lot.

 

 

 

Just saying.

[Ten-96]

He's not afraid to call it like he sees it if he thinks politicians and especially republicans are screwing up, and watching him on Fox news is always a treat. If you want an understanding of American politics, especially the conservative side, read his columns or watch him on Fox. His predictions/insights are usually on target. He'll explain how he got to the that point, and then he'll explain if he thinks that is a good or bad thing.

 

I, too, enjoy hearing Krauthammer's points of views on many different issues. He is a conservative genius as far as pundits are concerned. I did make on slight change to your original post. He doesn't think that conservatives are screwing up, he thinks it's republicans that are screwing up - the republicans whom are currently in Congress. Not all republicans are conservatives and not all conservative identify as republican. Ideologically, conservatives and republicans are often in agreement on many things but not everything.

[jrrtoken]

He's definitely not prone to complete ignorance, and actually fills his words with logic and reason, but that is where his differences from his peers ends. I don't know about you, but he came off as quite imperialistic when speaking about the post-WW2 world and it's repercussions concerning America's "rise to superpowerdom". He also still seems to think that Russia is a legitimate threat, placing the nation at the same level as N. Korea and Iran. Additionally, I find his dread of lessened military spending and increased education funds to be laughable and ultimately despicable.

 

So, yes, he's not quite different from his respective colleagues at all; he just has some sense of reason in his words.

[Darth InSidious]

He also still seems to think that Russia is a legitimate threat

Russia is still a threat - to Europe. You aren't sitting on their doorstep, so maybe you don't get to see the extent of their gangsterish foreign policy. Google 'Georgian invasion', then Google 'Gazprom'.

[jrrtoken]

Russia is still a threat - to Europe. You aren't sitting on their doorstep, so maybe you don't get to see the extent of their gangsterish foreign policy. Google 'Georgian invasion', then Google 'Gazprom'.

I'm well aware of their actions, past and present, and I still contend that they are no more aggressive than the U.S. is to Iraq, and Israel is to Palestine; they maybe overprotective and prone to military quagmires, but that doesn't make it a despot-run totalitarian nation a la N. Korea or Iran. Corrupted, yes, but not inherently evil per se.

[Jae Onasi]

He's definitely not prone to complete ignorance, and actually fills his words with logic and reason, but that is where his differences from his peers ends. I don't know about you, but he came off as quite imperialistic when speaking about the post-WW2 world and it's repercussions concerning America's "rise to superpowerdom". He also still seems to think that Russia is a legitimate threat, placing the nation at the same level as N. Korea and Iran.

I grew up during the Cold War, and I still think Russia is a threat. In fact, I consider them far more of a potential threat than NK or Iran. They have massive resources in materiel (they sit on more oil than the Middle East, for instance) and people than NK and Iran put together, and they have a ton of nukes and the ability to wipe out the entire world if they so desire. If a dictator takes over in that country, which is not impossible, we'll see another version of the USSR. Their corruption problem is huge, and the fledgling democracy hasn't been in power long enough for people to have gotten used to freedom. I believe this state could revert to a de facto dictatorship at any time given certain conditions, and then it would become a huge threat to us, given their past history of dealings with us. Krauthammer's and DI's concerns are not misplaced.

 

America, like it or not, is a superpower. Who gets called in major disasters after hurricanes or tsunamis or famine in third world countries? The US. Who does NATO depend on heavily to protect its interests? The US. Russia and China, and the combined EU, are not too far behind, but the US is still the 'go-to guy' for many things. The question is if we want to abdicate that position, or hold that position responsibly.

 

Additionally, I find his dread of lessened military spending and increased education funds to be laughable and ultimately despicable.

I didn't read it that way at all. He was pointing out that funding to education was increased 100% while defense spending was frozen. I believe he was arguing not that education should be sacrificed, but that if you're going to increase education, especially that much, shouldn't defense also get an increase? He pointed out this spending discrepancy was proof of Obama's view of the US military and the change in foreign policy. I don't believe it wasn't meant to be Krauthammer's personal views on education.

[Web Rider]

I didn't read it that way at all. He was pointing out that funding to education was increased 100% while defense spending was frozen. I believe he was arguing not that education should be sacrificed, but that if you're going to increase education, especially that much, shouldn't defense also get an increase? He pointed out this spending discrepancy was proof of Obama's view of the US military and the change in foreign policy. I don't believe it wasn't meant to be Krauthammer's personal views on education.

No, because that's downright silly. The US education budget, Local, State, and Federal has been cut down to unbelievably useless levels over the past 50 years. Conversely, the US military budget has grown like a weed with an IV drip of liquid gold. We spend nearly 50% of our budget on defense-related expenses, while our education budget runs somewhere in the range of 4-7%(depending on which numbers you look at). While it's true that jets are more expensive than books, I would stand to argue that books are more important than jets.

 

The US military could do just as well with a lot less, and they will do just fine with their current budget. All else fails, we'll build two less battleships this year.

[mur'phon]

Bleh, exam time kills off kavars time, so I'll respond to the CHarles article later.

 

In fact, I consider them far more of a potential threat than NK or Iran. They have massive resources in materiel (they sit on more oil than the Middle East, for instance) and people than NK and Iran put together

 

They also have an economy as good as a USSR car (not to mention a demographic crisis), and a military that will have a hard time attacking even Sweden, look to the Georgian war (or Chechenya) and you'll see just how efficent the Russian army is.

 

If a dictator takes over in that country, which is not impossible, we'll see another version of the USSR.

 

If? While Medvedjev/Putin would almost certainly win a fair election, until that happens, I have no problem saying Russia is a dictatorship. I wouldn't worry about a new USSR though, Russia simply can't aford it.

 

I'm not arguing Russia can't, or won't, hurt the US (or its allies), however, expect the pain to be of the non-military kind.

 

And to keep DI away, I, unlike you live on the doorstep:xp:

[jrrtoken]

I grew up during the Cold War, and I still think Russia is a threat.

Emphasis mine; not to so sound condescending, but almost everyone that has been raised in Cold War-era America has been religiously raised to believe that the Soviet Union was a bastion of pure evil, whilst the US was the utmost personification of all-things-good. This isn't a behavioral analysis, nor is it criticizing one's own opinion, it is simply stating the fact that the depiction of the USSR by American media & government was outright propaganda, and in that environment, anyone could believe anything, even it meant eschewing the truth.

In fact, I consider them far more of a potential threat than NK or Iran. They have massive resources in materiel (they sit on more oil than the Middle East, for instance) and people than NK and Iran put together, and they have a ton of nukes and the ability to wipe out the entire world if they so desire.

Russia may have all of assets for a nuclear holocaust, but they simply lack the framework or the gall to do such a thing. On the other hand, the US has had the possession of a nuclear arsenal on constant standby for the past several decades; I'd be much more worrisome of the consequences of my own country MAD'ing the world than a crippled former archenemy doing the like.

If a dictator takes over in that country, which is not impossible, we'll see another version of the USSR. Their corruption problem is huge, and the fledgling democracy hasn't been in power long enough for people to have gotten used to freedom.

It's definitely a possibility, and is certainly one to be wary about. This, however, hasn't happened yet, and to discount Russia as totalitarian as N. Korea or Iran is foolhardy, especially when the US has the diplomacy to curtail such a thing.

I didn't read it that way at all. He was pointing out that funding to education was increased 100% while defense spending was frozen. I believe he was arguing not that education should be sacrificed, but that if you're going to increase education, especially that much, shouldn't defense also get an increase?

Taking into account what WR said prior to this, I will also add that I feel that a generation of forsaken and ignorant children is a greater threat to national security than Russia mustering the power to perform a laissez-faire nuclear deployment.

[Web Rider]

Russia IS still a threat, I spend much of my free time studying it. But Russia is not the same kind of threat that say, N Korea is. Russia will not be some rogue nation that will do stupid things in order to get fame and attention. Russia is not seeking concessions and foreign aid while they secretly amass nuclear weapons. N Korea is the same kind of threat as the local gang, they'll make a lot of noise, tag a lot of walls, and now and then, make life suck for a few people. Russia is(not to make an ironic comparason), a lot more like organized crime, they know the power they hold, they know where their influence is, and they know what they can get away with.

 

Nobody is going to go over to Russia and say: "If you don't keep in line, we'll go to war with you!" Because Russia, even though it's not as powerful as it was while it was the Soviet Union, is still one of the most powerful players in the Europe-Asia sphere. Few countries have the same ability to project power, both economic and military, in the same way they do, save maybe China and India. Which puts them in a small circle of players who should NEVER be treated lightly.

 

Additionally, Russia is NOT our friend. They may be our ally, but being our ally and being our buddy are two totally different political positions. Russia's state-controlled media is mandated to paint the US as an enemy, and many people still regard it as such. Many people, both citizens and politicians, hold a high level of regard for the Soviet Union and the power that it gave to their country. Putin and Medvedev have pushed through many changes that have pushed Russia closer to the way it was before the fall of the USSR. They are not people that by any measure could be thought of as having dreams of a truly democratic state.

 

In any case, while Iran and N Korea may present a more immediate, military threat, Russia poses a more long-term, political, economic-rival threat potential. Much in the same manner that China does, though Russia, unlike China, doesn't own our soul. Russia should not be discounted as "not a threat" simply because they are not saber-rattling and threatening to nuke us if we don't give them their cookie.

[Arcesious]

To agree with a point made already, I present a quote that pretty much sums things up for me:

 

"'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs?" - Friedrich Nietzsche.

 

I think that MAD pretty much makes the decision of using a nuke to not be an option in war anymore. Firing a nuke at anyone would be a hollow victory. Because you'd most likely be dead a few minutes after pressing the button that fired the nuke.

 

Considering this, I think that we shouldn't worry about any nukes, but rather the other parts of the militaries of different 'threatening' countries - naval, air, ground, and all the weapons that aren't nukes.

 

And as for the talk about 'new' liberalism... I think that it's a good thing. I would rather extend a two hands of friendly peace, understanding, and embracing diversity, letting my guard down to show good faith, than a shaky hand of compromised peace with the other hand holding a gun behind my back.

 

I would be willing to bet that the majority of earth's human population, regardless of nationality, would very much so prefer to do whatever necessary to avoid fighting on a nuclear level.

[Totenkopf]

With a name like Krauthammer I have to wonder if he bashes Germans a lot.

Just saying.

 

Or maybe he's just a German hammer. Just saying....

 

Re: article, Krauthammer makes a slew of good points. The reason the Europeans and Japanese were able to focus more on domestic issues (economy, national health, etc..) was b/c they didn't have to allot as much of their resources to their own defenses, thanks to America.

 

As far as the military goes, it could do with a lot less IF it were used for a lot less. We spend tons of money per student on education and consistently place much lower than other countries for elementary and high school. BO will no doubt go the route that Clinton did re the service. Cut them to pay for his promised cornucopia of "social goodies". As to the miltary's share of the budget, 25-33%. Bulk of budget goes to SS/MC and interest payments on debt.

 

What's maddening though, is how many lemmings in this country walk down the garden path on "global warming"/eco issues that prevent us from making good on our own energy independence and paying down our debt (Unless you happen to think hyperinflation is a good way to pay down the face value of that debt) on account of dodgy "science".

 

@Arc--It's naive to blindly trust others in the hope they will do you no harm. Better to approach warily and build trust than just to give it to anyone who comes your way. BO is gonna learn that the hard way. Trust but verify.

 

Also, Russia is a threat. There are many ways to create mischief beyond a full frontal assault. Via resources w/EU, diplomatic stumbling block (Iran), making nice w/America's enemies and supplying them weapons (didn't just stop w/'end of Cold War). I'd even agree that it is a defacto dictatorship w/Putin pulling Medvedev's strings.

[Arcesious]

 

@Arc--It's naive to blindly trust others in the hope they will do you no harm. Better to approach warily and build trust than just to give it to anyone who comes your way. BO is gonna learn that the hard way. Trust but verify.

 

Yes, however I still think that diplomacy would work far better if the guns were put away.

[Jae Onasi]

"'Evil men have no songs.

Right. I'd love to see the proof on that.

I can't believe Nietzshce believed this and actually made commentary on it.

[Arcesious]

Right. I'd love to see the proof on that.

I can't believe Nietzshce believed this and actually made commentary on it.

 

I think that the first part was metaphorical... The point that Nietzsche was trying to make is that the people of countries we consider enemies, and then derogate as being 'evil' are actually normal, people just like us.

[Totenkopf]

Well, in some cases he'd be right and not so much in others. Often those people may not be remotely alike except in terms of being human beings.

[Tommycat]

Right. I'd love to see the proof on that.

I can't believe Nietzshce believed this and actually made commentary on it.

 

I believe there is a whole genre of music that negates that theory. Heavy Metal. Death metal to be precise.

[Point Man]

Krauthammer is right on the money. The liberal establishment in the US government is going down the avenue of dropping our position as the world's leading economic and military power in order to sit back home and pay everyone to be less productive while the world is less safe. I do not believe that is a good trade.

 

@WebRider--We spend much more per child on education now than we spent 50 years ago. Your premise is dead wrong.

[Web Rider]

@WebRider--We spend much more per child on education now than we spent 50 years ago. Your premise is dead wrong.

 

We have more children now. We have more operating costs. Inflation. When my dad was a kid 50 years ago, it cost a nickel to buy a candy-bar. It costs me anywhere from 75c to a buck now. Welcome to the economic world of inflation.

 

Spending more money on things has ALWAYS been America's problem. No matter who's in charge, the answer is always to spend MORE money. The situation hasn't improved. Perhaps we should try a new strategy? Like, spending less money, and making things more efficient, paying the people closest to the students the most, instead of the people farthest from them. Like making the military smaller, lighter, and better, instead of just filling our numbers with under-trained grunts.

 

How about we stop covering every nation's ass and tell them to make their own army and protect their own country. America comes first. We fix America, then we can go out and fix the world. If we can't fix America, then there's nothing we can do to help the world.

[Point Man]

We have more children now. We have more operating costs. Inflation. When my dad was a kid 50 years ago, it cost a nickel to buy a candy-bar. It costs me anywhere from 75c to a buck now. Welcome to the economic world of inflation.

 

Spending more money on things has ALWAYS been America's problem. No matter who's in charge, the answer is always to spend MORE money. The situation hasn't improved. Perhaps we should try a new strategy? Like, spending less money, and making things more efficient, paying the people closest to the students the most, instead of the people farthest from them.

First, you say it's bad that we have cut spending on education. I point out we actually spend more per child now than in the past, and you say that is bad. Make up your mind.

Like making the military smaller, lighter, and better, instead of just filling our numbers with under-trained grunts.

Unless you have first-hand knowledge of military training, please refrain from making ill-founded comments like this. The US military is the best-trained force in the world, bar none. I know because I am a soldier.

 

How about we stop covering every nation's ass and tell them to make their own army and protect their own country. America comes first. We fix America, then we can go out and fix the world. If we can't fix America, then there's nothing we can do to help the world.

The only thing that needs fixed in America is for people to get of their couches and work for what they want, instead of relying on the government to provide it for them. While it would be nice to tell the world to take care of itself, it is hopelessly naive to believe they will stop those who wish to do us harm. We ignored the warning signs for eight years under a liberal president, and look what it got us: 3000 civilians killed.

 

Face it. There are evil people in the world who will not listen to reason. They will only be surrendered to or defeated. I prefer not to surrender.

[Arcesious]

I have to agree with Point Man to a certain degree here. We do have a really good military, and I have to agree with what Atris says in TSL, "Some evils must be confronted, and isolation is no defense"

 

I suppose that idealy we'd use diplomacy and get this country out of the buisness of other countries until we're stable, but it probably isn't that simple.

 

But don't take this as a change to a cynical opinion, because I still think that 'the glass if half full'. I think that its important to, even in the midst of all these problems, stay optimistic.

[Totenkopf]

Nothing wrong with wanting to be optpmistic, so long as you are realistic as well. Diplomacy is toothless if not backed by both force and the will to use it (especially in the eyes of your opponents). Remember the maxim "$$ talks, BS walks".

[jrrtoken]

First, you say it's bad that we have cut spending on education. I point out we actually spend more per child now than in the past, and you say that is bad. Make up your mind.

I think that what WR was trying to say was that despite cost-of-living and inflation corrections, education is still ridiculously underfunded. If the federal budget doesn't convince you, then feel free to look at any state or local budget reports; you'll see that education funds are constantly being trimmed.

Unless you have first-hand knowledge of military training, please refrain from making ill-founded comments like this. The US military is the best-trained force in the world, bar none. I know because I am a soldier.

Not to bring about offense, but you are subject to bias with that statement.

The only thing that needs fixed in America is for people to get of their couches and work for what they want, instead of relying on the government to provide it for them.

Please don't bring up the "Poor=Lazy" social Darwinian argument; we both know that that's not representative of anything that the government can control.

We ignored the warning signs for eight years under a liberal president, and look what it got us: 3000 civilians killed.

The "Blame it on liberal Clinton" tirade is quite droll, especially when one considers that the CIA alone was the agency that had the supreme authority on whether or not to recommend a preemptive assassination of bin-Laden to the president.

[Totenkopf]

I think that what WR was trying to say was that despite cost-of-living and inflation corrections, education is still ridiculously underfunded. If the federal budget doesn't convince you, then feel free to look at any state or local budget reports; you'll see that education funds are constantly being trimmed.Not to bring about offense, but you are subject to bias with that statement.Please don't bring up the "Poor=Lazy" social Darwinian argument; we both know that that's not representative of anything that the government can control.The "Blame it on liberal Clinton" tirade is quite droll, especially when one considers that the CIA alone was the agency that had the supreme authority on whether or not to recommend a preemptive assassination of bin-Laden to the president.

 

Problem w/education spending is that we have little to show for what we do spend, and it's still more than most (if not all other) countries. Perhaps what's needed there is more accountability for the money that is doled out, just like what would be demanded of any govt agency (yes, including the Pentagon). Perhaps pull the govt out of education altogether. It does a pretty bad job there compared to private schools.

 

PM is right about people here in general. Besides, he didn't say poor=lazy, you made that jump for him. There are a lot of middle class people, even rich, that are pretty lazy. It's not a question of rich or poor. If people quit looking to the govt for handouts and excuses, they might make something of themselves, besides an albatros on everyone elses' necks. There may always be something of a need for an emergency safety net for some people, but there's no reason to build an entitlement class (for business or individual). Afterall, when you can no longer feed the thralls.....

 

You may feel that PM is inherently biased as he's a soldier, but what do you base your own questionable allegation on or is it just a form of rhetoric?