This shit is why you are getting B. This is the only option that doesn't contain wishful thinking or contradiction with most of the population's shown preferences, so by elimination, the influential and the rich default to that.
a) A lot of you Americans want a "multipolar world", but few both know and are willing to take the consequences of a multipolar world.
I understand the consequences of a multi-polar world. And I want it.
Think major trade disruptions cutting 20-50% of your GDP, and actual large scale conflicts happening over the world. How many would be totally ok with that? 20%? 30%? Perhaps 40% if you really get sick with stupid wars. Good luck winning elections with these numbers.
Lol, 20-50%? By 2019, less than 12% of economy was based off trade. And half of that was in Nafta. Which we renegotiated. That's a whopping 6%. And with COVID, the US is already reworking its industrial base for PPE (well, already HAS, I should say, we did it about a year ago I think) and Trump spent most of his term locking in as many states with economic interests into bilateral trade deals. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Biden should finish up the UK. These aren't accidents.
Once those are locked in, the rest of the world could go to shit and it's not our problem. Especially AFTER this pandemic.
As things stand, the opinion makers and their target audience struggle to not DO SOMETHING about "women's rights in Afghanistan". Imagine what they would do if a proper war broke out, with millions dead in months, and somewhere more relevant.
Nothing? People don't care so much about women's rights in Afghanistan. Those that do are Liberal. Their own party leader just set those Afghani women adrift. What do you think a Republican, who is less compassionate, is going to do?
b) Are you running for a UN post or what? Countries are not moral actors, cannot be, much like corporations. And it is unwise for them to try. Because, among other reasons, there is no universally accepted moral standard for countries to act according to. The international arena is, in the end, mostly anarchy with dozens of separate moral systems and some actors who consider murdering you for your shoes a fine deal, with some slivers of order brought in with international laws, which in turn matter only due to backing through threat of economic and military force. A lot of both provided by USA. Allow yourself to get roped into stupid moralistic games, and you will end up doing ridiculous stuff one way (Libya intervention) or another (humanitarian superpower Sweden).
The US's major flaw as a superpower is that it has developed this dual approach of liberalism and realism. The liberals are really for the former, whereas the moderates lose interest after the cost and bodies begin to pile up.
c) One side of the divorce, consciously or not, downright cannot accept a peaceful divorce with all its implications. They are pretty clear about that. The much of the other side will struggle with such conditions too.
There will not be any divorce. The US is a civilization-state, not a nation-state. We aren't all going to get along like the French and British do within their own nation. We have about a dozen different set of moral values. Few of which can agree on what freedom is or means. Rather, the US is probably going to face an era of making the Federal level more effective at addressing local problems--or more likely, power will move from the federal to the state level. So closer to how we were around after or before the Civil War, just with (hopefully) less animosity.
www.washingtonexaminer.com
