Welcome to world politics, Mr. Obama

Gov. Napolitano as DHS chief is a step in the right direction, to say the least.

I think this is very confused. No doubt, India and China are getting stronger, but it's odd that leaders in Germany and France somehow act as if that made them better off, and it's odd that IR professors act as if Germany and France were gaining something. They're not. Doesn't it seem that the most likely outcome of current trends is that Europe will fade into complete irrelevance, becoming sort of like Latin America, while India, China and the U.S. become the dominant powers?

Obviously, another likely outcome, based on history, is catastrophic civil war in China. That isn't really an IR question, and both the likelihood and the consequences are somewhat incalculable. Still, it's worth contemplating non-linear changes sometimes.

To be honest, I'll be skeptical about Chinese economic power until the day that their internal demand matches imports in terms of the driving force for their economy. Right now, the US could destroy the Chinese economy with a stroke of the pen, and while the US would suffer enormously for it, the Chinese would be on the rocks - particularly since their government is keeping the lid on various internal problems (such as social unrest in the cities, and the fact that the one-child policy is completely screwing up their demographics, giving them an aging population) by using economic growth to absorb these people and cushion the shocks.

That's the thing about U.S. dominance -while the US is weak in certain areas (like saving, educational and infrastructure spending - although the former is such because of enormous internal inequality in educational spending, and so forth), we seem to be sitting on an overall strong tripod of rule of law, strong military, very large economy (still bigger than China's and India's economies combined), and so forth.

The thing about world power is that it's all relative, and it's hard to predict how this global recession/depression is going to impact everyone, except that most likely the most nimble big economy, the US, will probably end up coming out the best, in a relative sense (assuming Obama doesn't send us into Latin-American style socialism). People like Startfor are now starting to talk seriously about the possibility of China imploding; we don't really know how 3-4% growth will play there, and whether that will be the spark that brings revolution. $40 oil is likely to solve a good deal of our problems in regard to some of our enemies. Russia may end up defaulting again.

The authoritarian model that has come in vogue over the past few years was built on high commodity prices as well as a healthy US consumer. And Europe, well, Europe is only really as important and powerful as we allow it to be, because it's powerless other than in economic terms, and so has to rely on multilateral institutions that are generally ignored by everyone outside Europe and the Anglosphere.

Of course, none of this really takes into account the possible societal disruptions that are possible within the US if this recession turns really nasty, but again, in a relative sense, it seems likely these will be smaller here than in most other areas of the world.

"What happens when you actually clamber to the top and find no one to share the view except other women and gay men?"

OH MY GOD IT'S BRITISH ACADEMIA! Can't we concentrate on what is important here!?!

Europe could be stronger - they have the technology and the money, but they just don't have the will (plus, why bother making your military into the Wehrmacht Mk.II if a big, giant country from across the sea is willing to cover your ass and let you do peacekeeping?).

Seeing that pan out would be a REAL test of the EU's integrity, by the way; if the Europeans redeveloped along individual lines, then the EU really is nothing more than a free-trade association a la NAFTA. But if they developed into a common army that can actually fight, then it's just a matter of time before you get the United States of Europe, in my opinion; once you have common, superceding laws, common governance, and common army, all you need is a common foreign policy and you're at the same level as the German Empire after the 1870s.

You people are swimming around in the undertow of past policy. You want revolutionary change which would provide explosive economic growth, reduce the power concentrated in DC, and signal the world that we are innovative and courageous? Pass the FAIR TAX. Go ahead, you policy wonks. Read up on it and present your objections in forums for healthy debate. It is the best idea for change since women's suffrage.

What Brett said about the "strong tripod." What we have today isn't so much a trend line as a "perturbation in the force." (I know, I know -- serious people dislike movie metaphors.) Ever since I stumbled over "soft power" two decades ago, I've felt that it's underappreciated inside the Beltway.

"States generated less respect, less influence, less goodwill, less standing, and less relative power in world politics than it did at any time during the post-Cold War era."

Less than, say the mid-70s which, in a short stretch of time, featured Watergate and Nixon's impeachment, the OPEC oil embargo, helicopters evacuating the embassy in Saigon, Squeaky Frome, Sarah Jane Moore, and Patty Hearst, Jimmy Carter's 'malaise', stagflation and the 'misery index'? Not to mention the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit and the BeeGees. This is the worst of times for the U.S.? Boy, I'm really not convinced.

Slocum: um, could you point me to a historical account in which the Cold War ended in the mid-seventies?

Slocum: um, could you point me to a historical account in which the Cold War ended in the mid-seventies?

Ah, sorry, read 'Post WWII' for 'Post Cold War'. In which case, yes, the U.S. world influence is lower now than when it reached is most recent zenith in the years following the end of the cold war and the U.S. tech-fueled boom of the 1990s. So, OK I'll buy that, "U.S. power and influence off its most recent peak".