Importance of Hegemony

There is a belief in the world of international conflict that states that conflict or war between states is less likely if the world is either bipolar or multipolar rather than unipolar. Now, to understand the logic behind these assertions, one must understand the arguments behind these assertions.

According to the theory that a bipolar world is more stable, if two countries are competing in power with each other, and given the fact that on a strictly economical basis, war is more often than not irrational, states will avoid conflict in order to not provoke the rival power.

According to the theory that a multipolar world is more stable, the powerful states hold each other in check, and this decreases the likelihood that war will break out.

Now, these theories are much more intricate than the humble explanations that I just provided, but for the sake of brevity, they will have to do.

I'm sure no one will doubt that the world is and has been, since the fall of the Soviet Union, a unipolar nation. And to use the parlance of the discipline, we, the United States, are the hegemon.

Now, I believe that we have earned this status. By the grace of God, we are the most powerful and most influential nation on the globe, and only through policies that show the rest of the world that we are the hegemon will we maintain this status.

National might is measured by GDP and military capabilities. We are the world's most powerful nation because we have the world's largest GDP, and we have the most powerful military of any other state.

As I said before, there is a group of political thinkers that believe that the hegemony of the United States should be dissipated in order to create a multipolar world. Here is the big question though. How do they plan to create a more equal power distribution among nations? Judging by the way national power status is measured, there are only three possible methods to achieve this goal.

1. The nations that trail the hegemon increase national GDP and increase military capabilities. Once these criteria are elevated to the hegemon's levels, the hegemonious status of the super power is eliminated and the world becomes a multipolar power balance.

2. The hegemon decreases its GDP and cuts back its military to the levels of the trailing nations. This also creates a multipolar world once the top few nation are relatively equal in these two criteria.

3. A combination of methods 1 and 2 are carried out and an equillibrium is met somewhere in the middle.

Now. What do we see happening around us? Are we implementing policies that increase our GDP? No. Every policy that Congress has passed and President Obama has signed fights the very principles of free market capitalism, and capitalism is the means by which we increase our GDP. What about the military? Are we implementing policies that will help make our military stronger and more able to keep us safe? No. President Obama has already made plans to cut military funding.

Does the name Taepodong-2 ring any bells? It should. North Korea has already been testing these missiles which could supposedly reach Alaska and are able to carry nuclear warheads. President Obama has not shown any backbone opposing North Korea's nuclear weapons program. We've already seen that he is sympathetic to Iran's aspirations for nuclear capabilities.
And by the way, nuclear capabilities are heavily weighted in the grading rubric for military might.

It's becoming obvious to me that the President is in the camp with the "multipolar world is a safer world" thinkers. With his "world community" and "citizen of the world" rhetoric, he fits right in with those guys.

Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist. And I'm not saying that Obama is trying to make the
United States a target to be hit. But what does concern me is the fact that he has already apologized for "America's arrogance" toward the rest of the world. His very rhetoric suggests that this nation, who has bled for the freedom of its own and the freedom of other nations and by doing so has earned its place by the Grace of God at the top of the global totum pole, should back off and dim down its beacon of liberty that shines on other nations around the world. (Though that could be because he wants us to leave a smaller carbon footprint, because I'm sure that beacon uses too much electricity.)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds an awful lot to me like he is trying to decrease the United States' power while encouraging, or at least allowing, other nations, including our enemies, to catch us in the global power struggle. And, I don't know about you, but I'm not cool with that. I don't like the idea of Iran, North Korea, or any other revisionist state rivaling us in power. Granted, it's not like Iran and N. Korea are coming up in our rear-view mirrors. They still aren't even remotely close to us in any type of comparison. But with enough time and appeasement, it's not unfeasible.

I hope in 2010 and 2012 enough people will see what is happening and what will continue to happen if we don't use our vote to corral this destructive and irresponsible mindset that too many politicians and political thinkers have.

We are the world's most powerful nation because we cherish human liberty and trust that the governed has more sense than the government. But we are not guaranteed this position in the global pecking order. If we abandon our principles, our status in the world will fall, but we also have to realize that, if we lose our status in the world, we become prone to lose our freedom. This is the most important thing that we have to protect in our society, because, without it, our society fails as well.