Americans worry that we are in decline. A thoughtful and frequent social media poster poses a question: “What is the US role in the world?” He lists a number of historical cases of US leadership in the world, from “alliance leader” to ‘economic engine” to “reserve currency” and beyond. We are, in his view, on the verge of losing, or have already lost, our leadership role in nearly all.
Aside from the benefits and conveniences that come with leadership, for instance the borrowing capacity conferred on us as issuer of the world’s reserve currency, do Americans care about “leadership” status? Should we?
Those points of leadership arise, or arose, from a vibrant, enterprising, growing society of unconstrained individuals, different from older societies bound by class prerogatives and top-down authority. Our 1776 secession from Britain renounced the old structures; this new People’s self-conception, as free individuals exercising our inherent and equally endowed rights, unleashed a whole population in their free pursuits.
Out of that liberation came expansion and invention; abolition of slavery however slow; near-universal access to electricity and indoor plumbing and education and air travel; ownership of autos and TVs and computers and cellphones. World leadership followed: industrial since before the Civil War; moral/political dating from the days after World War I; institutional from the years after World War II; technological, financial, and educational.
Underlying all our leadership is our leadership in freedom. Without delving into the case in this blog post, suffice to say that, whether or not we lead in anything else, the nature of our self conception made us the first, likely still the only, national defined in a principle. This “People,” conceived in 1776, named itself only as “We,” who hold certain truths, that all humans are equally and inherently endowed with personal rights, and the government exists to secure them, legitimized by consent of the governed. If we fail to sustain our society in fidelity to this creed, we have no national identity by which to exist – the signers of the Declaration seceded from their ethnic identity. If we do sustain our nation, as we have managed for 249 years, we exemplify the idea of free society, and enable forward-looking human enterprise, aspiration and hope.
Even a relatively poor, politically diminished America – so long as our people retain an ability to choose our lives, with free enterprise, civic rights, and an open culture – will be admired by humans who harbor the desire to live by their own lights. Authoritarian regimes will always have to manage restive populations, either to accommodate or to suppress humans’ exercise of free will. The rich will always have to compete with – or suppress politically – the enterprising spirit of billions. The greedy and the power hungry will always face the moral demands of those whom from whom they extract wealth or over whom they wield their dominance. Even if other regimes “lead” the world in every other measure of national achievement, America continues to pose a challenge, not to say latent threat, to all of them. We will even if we do nothing but endure. We need not care whether we lead the world in anything else.
This leadership role is not important because it might pose a threat to other regimes. It is important because, so long as a human being can gain fulfillment in her or his pursuits, then humanity has a perspective that looks to the future for its reward, whether in technology or tiddlywinks. Old regimes live by allegiances to past markers of identity – blood, soil, church, clan, tongue – and meeting the tangible needs of those peoples. In a word, by compliance with past standards. But the world now knows too much. Gene editing, quantum computing, AI, the Big Bang, all disrupt the rationales that sustain old regimes. People who can choose their fulfillments have a freedom to ascribe their own meaning to whatever the cosmos throws at them. This humanity can carry the future regardless of, or even because of, new disruptions ideas.
Do we care about “leadership,” about “primacy,” even “competitiveness?” In many cases, military or technological for instance, the field in question may be important to our survival in a dog-eat-dog world. In other cases, leadership, say in economic well being, might indicate good management in our core identity. But really, these ‘leaderships,’ in all the arenas of human and social activity, in all their complexity and sophistication, serve as means to our core ends – to live by, protect, and nurture free people in their rights.
America’s role follows from our self conception. It requires that we sustain it, in the national vessel in which we live. So long as we do that, we fulfill our purpose. And we lead the world in what counts. Anything else is gravy.
Common Conviction 