Three articles in the Wall Street Journal, one published on
May 26, 2015, and the other two the next day, tell the story of America, the
superpower of the day, going through a period of nostalgia about a glorious
past that its population now realizes cannot be perpetuated for ever.
On May 26, the editors of the Journal published: “Rise of
the Regional Hegemons,” a piece that also came under the subtitle: “Russia , Iran
and China are advancing as
the U.S.
retreats.” The next day, William A. Galston published: “Don't Blame Trade for
Slow Growth,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “The North American
Free Trade Agreement's track record tells us little about today's concerns.” On
that same day, Michelle Flournoy and Richard Fontaine published: “Economic
Growth Is a National Security Issue,” an article that also came under the
subtitle: “Policies on trade and energy that foster prosperity also strengthen America 's
military and political power.”
When it comes to opinions as to how and why America got to
this point, the writers of the articles are all over the map, and they speak of
a public that is also all over the map. For example, speaking of regional
hegemons, the editors of the Wall Street Journal look through the political
lens, and see that their own President, Barack Obama, is responsible for the
rise of authoritarian regional powers such as Russia ,
Iran and China .
They stand on a number of historical occurrences to show
that Obama is to blame, and then get into a discussion on what to do about the
new realities. They tell of some readers who say: “So what?” and push back
against this view by opining that: “These emerging regional hegemons reject
democratic values and post-World War II liberal world order. They view the U.N.
and other institutions as a means to check U.S. power not adhere to global
norms.”
Right there and as usual, like the clumsy bomb thrower that
explodes the bomb he is making in his face before getting to where he is going
with it, the editors of the Journal blow their own argument to pieces by saying
in the same breath that the hegemons are using the UN and the global norms it
sets to check American power by not adhering to global norms.
And so, they conclude that “this is the dangerous new-old
world that Mr. Obama is leaving his successor.” Okay, you say, fine. But you
want to know what their wisdom is telling them the next President should be
doing. And you find in the article what it is they recommend: “The next
President will need an urgent strategy to contain and counter the rising
threats.” Okay, so you look to the next paragraph for a hint on what that
strategy should entail. But ... next paragraph? What next paragraph? There is
no next paragraph. The editorial ends here with a suggestion that echoes that
of hundreds of other “opinion makers” whose opinions sound more like the bark
of another dog in the pound than the voice of a thinker contributing something
useful to the debate. Too bad.
The next day, Flournoy and Fontaine come to the rescue. They
say, and they show that national security is tied to the health of the economy.
They assert unequivocally that: “A bright economic outlook is a powerful
counter to the narrative of American decline.” They suggest an agenda that includes
trade and investment, energy and international institutions; all of which they
discuss intelligently whether or not you agree with them. They also mention
something very important: “Congress should stop holding up reappointment of
voting power at the International Monetary Fund.”
You know what, my friend? This is an example which shows it
is American legislators – influenced by bomb throwers such as the editors of
the Wall Street Journal – who are threatening the world order, not the rise of
what the editors call authoritarian regional powers.
Finally, there is the contribution of William Galston which
makes the point that free trade is good for world prosperity, therefore for
American prosperity as well. Whether you agree with him fully, or you have
caveats to add to those views, you must respect the fact that he came up with
several new points, some of which were drawn from personal experience and
observations.