Skip to main content

Barbarism and Decadence

 No one is quite sure which Frenchman in the 1920s suggested that "the United States is the only country that has gone from barbarism to decadence, with out the usual interval of civilization". It may have been a right wing French newspaper, it may have been Georges Clemenceau, though in any event it was treated as more a witty riposte to some US policy than a serious description of the then burgeoning power of the USA. The point was that the election of Warren Harding in 1920 had upended American foreign policy. Instead of joining the League of Nations- a body actually proposed by the Americans under Woodrow Wilson- the United States lapsed into a distant neutrality. The US "return to normalcy", left European, indeed global security without the worlds largest economy, without the pre-eminent power of the US armed forces, so recently the source of the allied victory in the First World War. 

With the hindsight of a century, the early 1920s have some significant parallels with the early 2020s and by no coincidence it was also a time of the last significant crisis of European-American relations. Harding lead a domestic administration that was by turns incompetent and corrupt. Until Watergate, the benchmark for American corruption scandals was the Teapot Dome scandal, where Harding officials corruptly took control over assets earmarked for the US military. Harding also fathered a child outside his marriage, which at the time was truly shocking. The combination of cronyism, incompetence, poor personal conduct and all the rest, left Harding as the single worst president in American history. Until, that is, the advent of Donald John Trump.

The truth is that unlike Harding, Trump is not merely a bad president, he is a bad man. His naked corruption, personal greed and thuggish absence of any wit mask a far deeper darkness. Trump simply has no conception of truth. He expects his outrageous lies to be believed because he has an utterly cynical contempt for humanity in general. Roy Cohn's avid pupil, Trump's every instinct is criminal. He has spent his whole life grifting and cheating and now his criminality can flourish unchecked on a global stage,

The problem is that this criminal has many accomplices to his crimes. More to the point, the American voters have chosen him twice, despite knowing who and what he is.

The Atlantic Alliance, built on principles of freedom, justice and democracy is now in the hands of a criminal.  The vile alliance that Trump appears to be creating, by siding with the war criminal Putin, is treachery of the worst kind.  The traitor-president, having undermined the constitution of the United States, is now set to undermine global peace. There is no going back.  The Atlantic Alliance is dead. Even if Trump were quickly replaced by a non criminal, the fact is that the United States has proven itself to be an untrustworthy ally.

The decadence of the American Empire is upon us, and the consequences will be dire, unless the EU can manage to secure the defeat of Putin without American support.  Quite possibly the USA may now seek to obstruct the Europeans in their attempts to bring Putin's murderous misadventure to a close.

That would place the Democracies of Europe in a terrible position, but despite the subversion of Russia, and now, potentially the United States, if the Europeans want to keep their freedom of action, they have no alternative but to defy Putin, and increasingly Trump.

The United States will face growing challenges, unlike a century ago it is not a growing power, but in relative terms, a declining one. Trumps actions are undermining so many sources of American power, that even if there were not challenges such as the rise of China and India and the consolidation of the EU, the Americans would be facing uncomfortable choices. In the 1920s the US version of splendid isolation led to the breakdown of European security. Now that risk is joined by new challenges to American security, as they can no longer expect former allies to help them in modernizing their weapons and accepting American policies. 

American voices will decline from being preeminent to being increasingly challenged.  

The interesting thing may be that in the long term Russia, post Putin, may end up closer to Europe than a United States that will remain locked out.  

It is far easier to forgive a former enemy that to forgive a treacherous friend.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...