relax. there's no hegemonic transition going on, just at most a possible mild descent into what Huntington called a uni-multipolar world. Even that won't be as problematic as people think, I bet, because the winds of history are blowing in a progressive direction. modernization theory is basically correct over the medium to long term, economic development will eventually lead to corresponding political development, the democratic peace will largely hold, and US military power will continue to undergird global stability. Zakaria is correct to characterize what's going on as "the rise of the rest," not the decline of the US, and he's correct to see it as a good thing. The world is better off now than it's ever been, and will keep getting better with each decade thanks to ever more human potential being unlocked from poverty and tyranny and being allowed to be put to good use. Aside from a few real but minor-in-historical-perspective problems, the real danger is that the US public and leadership won't embrace the world that's actually aborning and screw it up somehow, like a parent being unable to accept their kid growing up and being somewhat independent.

lc

Sure, if military power and economic growth count for nothing US hegemony may be in decline. But over the last five years, the American economy has grown faster than that of Germany, France, the UK, and Italy, and its lead in military capabilities, already stunning, even larger.

This may well end up being the century of Asia. But that's to project decades ahead. As of now, India's economy is a third or less the size of China's, and China's less than a quarter the size of the United States.

And the United States arms budget is now about half the size of the budgets of all the nations of the world combined. Except for China, no country spends a tenth as much on arms as does the United States.

The United States is not an imperial power; Rome ruled its world in a way the United States never has or will. But in the history of the post-Westphalia state system, only since 1991 has its structure been unipolar. It still is, and will remain so for decades to come.

A few decades hence, of course - you're giving Bush too much credit for permanent damage.

Well put, Cranston. Hopefully, people can have a more balanced perspective like Cranston does.

The biggest problem for the US currently is the entitlement crisis - even more fundamentally, the notion that Americans are entitled to cheap health care, well paying pensions, constantly increasing wages etc.

Social Security needs to be privatized more than ever before. At the very least, people need to be given a choice when they enter the workforce if they want to contribute 6.2% to SS taxes(along with matching employer contribution) or if they want to invest it themselves - if they choose to take the money, they are out of the system and will get zero SS benefits on retirement.

Medicare is going to be even more painful and costly to reform. And these two programs are going to take up a good chunk of the Federal Govt budget for decades to come. And even more terrifyingly, these costs are far greater than the Iraq war - which is showing signs of significantly winding down.

Here's a link to "Where does the Money go"? http://publicagenda.org/wheredoesthemoneygo/ which details the problems with the current entitlement programs and attempts to devise solutions to them.

BTW, thanks for getting the comments section back and changing to WordPress - this new look and feel is pretty darn neat !

If you actually want to determine when American hegemony ended you'd have to make it quantifiable. Which is difficult!

To take out one aspect: As you know, at the current exchange rate the eurozone economy is nominally larger than the US economy (with a comparable population). The net worth of the eurozone will also be larger. And that's not even the entire EU.

The market dominance of the US ended in early 2004 with the enlargement of the European Union by 10 states. The dollar dominance ended in the first quarter of this year. Even the US' status as the largest emitter of climate pollution got passed last year by China!

The European Union has a low potential of translating this economic equality into political clout outside of the trade arena. Soft power is all good and well, but it exists largely as a passive process rather than something the EU actively uses.

There never was US hegemony. The American government had, and still has, a tremendous amount of power to "kill people and break things." But the US government never had a tremendous amount of power to make foreigners--in or out of government--do what it wanted.

The Iraq war has made this obvious. But it has only cleared away some of the smoke and mirrors and wishful thinking.

Identity consciousness does not usually diminish with material advancement and education. If predictions of future world harmony turn out to be true, they will be true because an advancing world decides not to repeat the mistakes of the twentieth century.

For other countries to diminish US power may not require matching us in defense spending or capabilities. Ballistic missiles that can target an aircraft carrier over the horizon, for example, may be a better investment for an Asian country than trying to duplicate America's own fleet ship for ship. Asymmetrical spending should be judged by whether it meets the asymmetrical needs of the spender.

But the problem in the not too distant future will be whether the rest of the world can get along with itself, not just whether we can get along with the rest or the rest with us. Greater equality will make it easier for other countries to assume greater responsibility for the welfare of the planet. The example we set may have a lot to do with whether this happens.

From the perspective of a person living in a third world country, I would say it is not hegemony the US has lost, rather credibility and leadership. Despite its recent problems, the US is still the richest and most powerful nation in the World. Sadly, it has made poor decitions when it comes to World leadership, and this has caused much of the World to stop looking up to the US as the "Leader of the Free World" but rather as a five year old with a very big magnifying glass.

The US is still fully capable of re-arranging its Economy and maintaining its world hegemony. As many others have said here, there is no real threat nor any real contestant to the "throne". However, the reputational damage is already done, and it would take a much larger effort to restore the World's confidence in its most powerful nation than the US would probably be willing to do. To what degree will this mistrust affect the US abbility to influence other nations is yet to be seen. But so far, several nations have begun to "revolt" doing things and maintaining strong postures against US advice, even when they recognise US Economic and military dominance.

Time for a new word/concept. Hegemony is too vague and getting to sound way old fashion (like "the Masses" or "sustainable this-or-that."

AGD says the US can "regain its hegemony" if it does what other people want it to do.

That's like saying, "I am your slave and must follow your orders, unless I disagree with you."

That's not slavery, and that's not hegemony.

My main point is precisely that the US has not lost any hegemony (the abbility to influence other states in a predominant way), I never said it had to regain it. What I said is that the concept that other States have of the US no longer is that of a hegemon they can trust -at least to a certain degree- but rather a more double-stantarded one.

The hegemon must maintain itself within a delicate balance of admiration, fear and hatred. It cannot be loved by all at all times, nor can it be hated by all. Thus the US, while remaining the hegemon, can be disliked by a certain number of countries without losing its condition of hegemon. Of course, it is the US choice whether to incurr in actions that will increase admiration or increase fear or even hatred. But these actions will not be costless. Hegemony does not mean you can get away with absolutely everything. There are limits as to what the hegemon can do without incurring in at least some reputational costs.

My conclussion is that these reputational costs could have an impact on US hegemony in the future, not because the US had to please everybody in order to keep being the hegemon, but rather because there is a limit as to how many countries the US can dissapoint without diminishing its abbility to influence on them.

I agree with Nagarajan Sivakumar.

America's biggest problem right now is that americans feel they are entitled to a better-than-third-world lifestyle.

As our standard of living sinks, we start to wonder why we should spend so much on our military. What's in it for us?

But over time that will settle down. As people see that the only reliable way to a middle-class income is government service, and the military is the only way to get there without a prior college education, they will gladly support a large military.