Saturday, February 21, 2009
A shot in the arm for "national greatness" conservatives
In case it is not obvious, I'm something of a "national greatness" conservative, a euphamism of sorts for "nationalist," which is a bit déclassé in today's interconnected world. (In other words, we use the word for pretty much the same reason that liberals now call themselves "progressives.")
Anyway, it is a tough moment for us NGCs. Our economy is in the tank, and the transnational progressives control the cultural agenda and are basically running the show, even in the American capital. So, for your Saturday afternoon antidote to all this gloom, listen to George Friedman of Stratfor when he tells you that the American epoch is just beginning.
I have bought but not read his new book, The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Feb 21, 06:10:00 PM:
I see many citations from Stratfor and I understand that its reports are subscription based. Since Mr. Friedan is in the business of making forcasts, 1-10 years, what can be said about his track record in calling future trends?
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Sat Feb 21, 07:11:00 PM:
Um. Mixed.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 21, 07:22:00 PM:
1. Technology.
How many blue-eyed white faces do you see in science classes at universities? How many African-American faces? How many Hispanic faces? How many Turkish faces? How many Asian faces?
2. TH, you seldom mention "transnational Republicans." (In most cases they are libertarian Republicans.)
Transnational Republican businessmen were largely responsible for the global marketplace. Few liberals could afford the plane tickets in those days.
However, pragmatic transnational Republicans generally favored more trade over economic integration. Why? Because they recognized the inevitable culture clashes on the horizon.
Sadly, other people, mostly idealists, moved too fast. They created a mess in the developing and undeveloped world. It's the same old routine:
A. Liberal American NGOs, politicians, and bureaucrats tell people in other cultures to change their behavior.
B. People in the other cultures get pissed off.
C. The American liberals run for their lives.
D. The American conservatives have to fight the wars.
I noticed Hillary tried to break free from that in China. From a Voice of American news report today: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the United States and China are working to strengthen their bilateral relationship by focusing on areas of cooperation, not contention."
P.S. TH, please stop using the word "progressive" to describe liberals. Liberals adopted the word "progressive" because they ruined the word "liberal." It's the same old slop under a new brand name.
I can't believe conservatives allowed liberals to hijack the word "progressive."
The most progressive Americans in my circle of friends are libertarian Republican businesspeople.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sat Feb 21, 08:24:00 PM:
To DF82,
I just had a chance to click on your link. You took him down with one shot.
By Escort81, at
Sat Feb 21, 11:11:00 PM:
I enjoy reading the excerpts from Stratfor that TH posts from time to time. Funny that those posts seem more oriented to a short-run time horizon and are really more of a tactical analysis.
I have to agree with DEC, generally speaking. No doubt TR would not like the hijacking of the term "progressive." Nor, come to think of it, would Henry Wallace. I am guilty of that usage and I'm not sure how to break out of the habit.
As to the video, Mexcio as a significant politcal power at the end of the century? Huh? It goes from a nearly failed state / narco-state to a major world player? It's awful hard to extrapolate that result forward from very little beginning foundation.
Solar power from orbiting collectors sounds pretty cool. Is the power wheeled to earth by powerful (Dr. Evil makes quote signs with his fingers) "lasers?" Or do we run a big frickin' cable? Throw me a bone here, people.
Nice link, DF, war with Japan in the 1990s? Eh, maybe not.
I would say that I am a believer in American Exceptionalism, in the sense that the Declaration and the Constitution represent the first codification of Enlightenment principals as it relates to the start-up of a nation-state.
If I am a believer in large G greatness, it is because America (at least from an economic standpoint) is a place that has largely looked past the confines of birthright/class and tribe that restrict and stifle so many other nations and cultures. DEC doesn't care whether you are a Senegalese woman or half-Quito male from South America -- if you have an aptitude for selling aircraft parts, he'll hire you and you'll make money and he'll make money. (Note that this is the opposite core belief as compared to German national greatness believers of the middle of the last century). There is a reason so many talented foreigners still come to the U.S. to live here and work here and do business. That there is perhaps less of a melting pot effect -- immigrants don't assimilate into some notion of an American ideal or social structure to the extent they did several generations ago --may relate more to easy and relatively cheap international air travel and incredibly cheap instantaneous telecommunication, so that an immigrant can logistically be part of both worlds (though clearly it has something to do with the dissing of the American ethos inside the academy). I say that as the son of both an immigrant (though my mother was not tired, poor, or huddled in 1937) and also of many generations here, predating the Declaration.
I am not sure I am quite as optimistic as George Freidman. I think that there is a great deal lacking in the political leadership of both parties. We are not getting even B teamers into the House and Senate, not that you can blame capable people for avoiding Washington. Who wants to play in a spoils system that is so unproductive? What used to be a bug of the system is now a feature. Most importantly, though, is whether the willingness of skilled and creative people to take prudent risks and both fail and succeed -- in business and in other venues -- will remain present in the American creed, or wheter that spirit will diminish over time.
By SR, at
Sun Feb 22, 01:11:00 AM:
E81,
It is often said by Democrats that government is necessary for the free market to work by setting and enforcing the rules.
This current government seems bent on trashing one set of rule, and that is as you mention rules about failing and succeeding following prudent risk taking.
When the rewards are decoupled from the risk(or worse yet, decided by a spoils system), there is no such thing as a prudent risk.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Feb 22, 10:33:00 AM:
Erata:
1. In this case, DEC, my use of the word "progressive" was precisely to point out that it has been adopted as a euphamism by liberals, just as you say. (The analogy being "national greatness" conservatives who are reluctant, for similar reasons, to refer to themselves simply as "nationalists," which is really what we are).
2. It really does not matter whether George Friedman or Stratfor has a great record of forecasting. I've been a subscriber for five years, and I would say that it is better on geopolitics than on the economy (it admits to having bungled the economic forecast this year, grading itself "F" in its annual review). That said, the value of Stratfor is in its way of thinking about the world. It defines the interests of global actors very well. Now, in my opinion Stratfor tends to over-attribute those interests to the motives of actors and under-attribute other motives (such as greed, corruption, or genuine religious aspiration), but that does not mean that it is not a valuable way of looking at the world. There is no question that Friedman is a very creative thinker, but like all forecasters he is far from perfect.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Feb 22, 10:41:00 AM:
"Now, in my opinion Stratfor tends to over-attribute those interests to the motives of actors and under-attribute other motives (such as greed, corruption, or genuine religious aspiration)"
Spot on. I've had that very conversation. Apparently, it's deliberate.
By , at
Sun Feb 22, 12:26:00 PM:
We have problems of our own making. As long as money and power keep flowing to DC, and our overlords are two disfunctional political parties ... we won't hold our place on the world stage.
It's not inevitable. But that's the path we're on.
Link
By Escort81, at
Sun Feb 22, 02:11:00 PM:
Tigerhawk, I like that you subscribe to Stratfor and share their thinking in your posts every once in a while. I think their analytical framework is interesting and usually thought provoking, I just don't know if it is "valuable" in an economic sense if what they are in fact selling to subscribers is advice or politcal and economic forecasting that is intended to help subscribers take or not take specific business or investment actions. So my comment is made somewhat out of ignorance (as usual) in that I don't know exactly what Stratfor sells to its subscribers and what the intended use is, and what subscribers expect in return for their subscription money. Furthermore, there is some ambiguity on Stratfor's website and it is not clear that Stratfor knows precisely what it is selling: on the front page of its website, it states under the lead headline "This document is not a forecast, but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, as well as suggestions on areas for focus." Then, clicking through the link on the lead headline (in this current case, "Intelligence Guidance, week of Feb. 22, 2009), there are three bullet points at the bottom:
Our members get:
Situational Awareness - real-time reports of key events - no fluff.
Analysis - what events really mean - without ideology or spin.
Forecasts - rigorous predictions of what will happen next.
(emphasis added)
Maybe the "value" is in the first two bullet points.
I don't mean at all to be overly critical, but if someone is selling forecasting services (for weather, interest rates, stocks, Ivy League basketball, pro football), then I will judge that service on its track record. If what is being sold is a general analytical framework without predictions, then the framework can be a good tool in the toolbox of the user if he is wise. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference (since the framework itself will inevitably result in some bias regarding forecasts), but it seems relevant here.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Feb 22, 02:13:00 PM:
Well, Escort, I sort of look at it like security analysis: The information can be useful, even if its predictive value is not so much.
By RPD, at
Mon Feb 23, 12:32:00 PM:
I read the book DF82 linked to. I was on deployment in the Navy at the time and it good for killing a whole lot of hours.
His arguments were pretty interesting and well backed, but based on the assumption that Japan's economy would continue growing.
By , at
Mon Feb 23, 11:40:00 PM:
DEC,
Solar power satellites have been around, in detailed concept for years -- since the 70s, I believe. One of the holds ups has been so little progress on lowering launch costs (thanks NASA -not).
Power is beamed down by microwaves. With large antenna arrays, the intensity at any point is not that great. Some space-based experiments on the power transmission side have actually been performed.
By , at
Tue Feb 24, 02:51:00 PM:
Something is missing in this video.
There's no mention of India or China. These countries both have much bigger populations than the US and despite bearing the brunt of huge impacts from the recent recession, they have economies that are continuing to grow.
I predict the US will forget the very reasons for its success; it's politicians will become more authoritarian and apply strategies that call for more politically correct rules to govern its once free economy. Strangled by a self-imposed bureaucratic noose, the US economy will slow right down - the US may even follow the European nations on their long and slow path into socialist inspired oblivion.
In the second half of the 21st century, when space, not the sea, becomes the focus of the military stage, India and China will be major players. This will become more obvious when both of them have landed men on the moon (maybe before 2030).
