Outside the Box

The Unintended Empire

John Mauldin

December 22, 2011

A new year is almost upon us, so now seems like a perfect time to step back from the (many) crises at hand and take stock of the big picture. According to my friend & fellow thinker George Friedman, the big picture of the next 10 years is this: America will dominate, and the American president will have to figure out how to act as global emperor without admitting that's what he is.

George's newest book, The Next Decade, comes out in paperback in January; and he's graciously agreed to let me send you the first chapter, which backs up the bold statements above. We don't always agree, but I have to give George credit. He's an expert at constructing an argument.

If the first chapter whets your appetite, you can <<get a free copy of the book>> when you subscribe to STRATFOR, a geopolitical intelligence company founded and led by George. It is the publication to read if you're interested in foreign affairs. Plus, OTB readers can get a hefty discount.

Your really glad I'm not a global emperor analyst,

John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box

Like Outside the Box?

Then you'll love John's premium publication, Over My Shoulder. Each week, after sorting through vast amounts of economic, political, and investing news, John sends Over My Shoulder subscribers his pick of the week's most important commentary and data.

It's your opportunity to get the news John thinks matters most to your finances.

Learn More About Over My Shoulder

The Unintended Empire

By George Friedman, STRATFOR

The American president is the most important political leader in the world. The reason is simple: he governs a nation whose economic and military policies shape the lives of people in every country on every continent. The president can and does order invasions, embargos, and sanctions. The economic policies he shapes will resonate in billions of lives, perhaps over many generations. During the next decade, who the…

Discuss This

20 comments

We welcome your comments. Please comply with our Community Rules.

Comments

Page 1 of 2  1 2 > 

Sinziana Dobrescu

Jan. 6, 2012, 4:54 a.m.

Is mr Friedman tweaking the data to make his point? By no available measure is US GDP 3.3 times that of China… it is 2.5 times at best in nominal terms (by CIA’s published measure), less according to the World Bank or IMF, and in PPP terms, needless to say considerably less, or under 1.5x…

Don Braswell

Dec. 28, 2011, 10:08 a.m.

This piece should be balanced by two other competing historians and their point of view.  One is Victor Davis Hanson (who advised Bush among others) at http://www.victorhanson.com/ and his concept of an anti-empire.  The other is Thomas Friedman of the NY Times and author of the World is Flat (who is advising Obama) and his vision of a converging world.  At a minimum, the USA is certainly an enigmatic empire.  Probably our best model is the British Commonwealth, held together by the figurehead of the Monarchy (ours is the President), a common language (most of the world is now learning English) and the “common government” of the United Nations.  We can certainly expect far less harmony and congeniality than the UK government receives from Australia. 

For those expecting a NWO anytime soon, I would simply point to the EU as an example.  Here we have relatively few (17-29) nations each with an almost common history and almost common language (based on Latin and German).  As the monetary union is finding today - they are still 17-29 nations each with their own national interests.  I do not expect the democratic EU members to cede more power to the newer, stronger EU any more than I expect the dictators of the world to relinquish any power to some NWO in the distant future.  In general, folks is folks, and folks don’t like to give up power freely. The USA will have to navigate that sort of world using the tools available…

Joe Buhler

Dec. 27, 2011, 4:14 p.m.

Having read this piece, I have a feeling this might be a reason for the hacking of the Stratfor website by folks who surely have a totally opposite idea of how the world should look like going forward and the U.S. position in it.

David Stephens

Dec. 27, 2011, 2:43 a.m.

Friedman’s piece reminds me of a remarkable lecture delivered to us grad students in philosophy at Boston University 52 years ago by Dr. Bertocci:  It was an intended defense of philosophical idealism that, through a clever bit of legerdemain, ended up as a defense of philosophical realism!  When confronted by the fact, he simply shrugged it off with a dismissive comment.

Friedman asserts that the US has become, unwittingly and unwilling, a de facto empire.  From this he envisions the POTUS as the de facto emperor of the world. He draws upon Rome and Britain as examples of empires that rose by default rather than design, and
makes a case that the US is another.  His posture is clearly Machiavellian and affirmative thereof, using Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan as worthy exemplars of how our now and future presidents must behave to fulfill their imperial role in world and local affairs.  While he recognizes that war has always had a degrading effect upon the viability and destiny of empires, he also affirms that economic interlinking of nations enhances the likelihood of warfare. 

Yet, he subtly slides into an analysis that implicitly discounts the potential resident in the developing global economic debt and monetary crisis for precisely the global disarray that will undermine precisely the imperial policies he envisions as essential to the future success of American Imperialism.  With that subtle move, he changes the paradigm set by the Roman and British empires:  Instead of the ruthlessness of those empires, he envisions a benign tyranny of the POTUS and America in international relations that must characterize the mature imperialism of America over the world.  In effect, he endorses Obama’s “make them like us” policy in foreign affairs, at which Obama has notably failed—a policy that, perhaps, would echo Teddy Roosevelt’s “Walk softly and carry a big stick”—the first clear expression of Progressivism in US foreign affairs.

In short, Friedman finds American Imperialism a necessity borne of circumstances that requires a disguised Machiavellian posture in the name of moral necessity!  A finer expression of the policies of the biblical Antichrist has seldom been so clearly articulated on a truly global scale.

This tour de force by Friedman derives, in part, from the fact that all prior empires from ancient times to the present have not been global.  The New World Order is explicity and determinedly global and its adherents have shown little intention of departure from the ruthlessness characteristic of those prior empires.  Their appeal is also made upon dubious grounds of necessity, not design.  Friedman’s shallowness in this regard as well as the ruthlessness of contemporary NWO advocates derives from the same source:  the implicit presupposition of the essential integrity of mankind as an essential implication of the primacy of the self.

Friedman sees the reaction of Americans against this incipient/actual imperialism as a vain resistance against necessity, and his argument is a subtle denial of the responsibility of those in power for the imperial impulse in human affairs.  Nietzsche’s will to power is alive and kicking in this assertion and defense of the will to dominance by contemporary rulers.  Friedman is simply making a defense of the supposed necessity of American Imperialism in a world of global war of all against all.

Interstingly, given the fallen nature of Man and its denial by the egocentric, naturalistic humanism of Modernity, what he sees may well be a valid vision of the future—as far as it goes.  Friedman’s hopeful idealism, however can only resolve itself, on those terms, in the ruthless realism that has characterized the history of humanity’s dreams of empire.  (Bertocci was right, on those same terms.)

Something for you to chew on as you and our POTUS contemplate Obama as the Emperor of the World.

Eli DeSouza

Dec. 26, 2011, 9:13 a.m.

It appears Friedman loss touch with real history justifying anti-democratic presidential actions reflecting good outcomes. I would use extreme caution in relation to suggestioning the use of America’s military power to secure economic interests which translates in the real sense of reckless empire mentality. In the realm of laissez-faire environment the approach was quite contradictory to the suggested use of government; but if it is in favor of powerful corporations, let’s use the government! I would like to see a new president for this empire utopia to be exactly the opposite: moral values based on restoring the decency of the American people instead of big corporations’ interests.

dennis smith

Dec. 25, 2011, 1:47 p.m.

I thought it was spot on.One world government will appear if not already here.Which probably makes the world population and food supply not to mention energy,water and environmental concerns more of a headache than politics as usual can withstand within this decade.A massive pullback within borders will not last long and is unsustainable unless? Well we cannot talk about unless yet.  Unless what? A massive world wide deflationary depression calling for all countries to live within their means?That would seem to put the USA in a very pressingly uncomfortable position.But not as uncomfortable as China,India,Japan, Korea,Russia, England Eroupe,the middle East.In the western hemisphere The Usa is the most populated and the largest consumer of resources largely because of its infrustructure paid for in advance.The thing about infrustructure is it has to be maintained eventually,updated occassionly,and sometimes torn down and rebuilt in a areas. So what’s new? The life expectancy of humans is new. The old world (past) is gone and the change is more challenging and the games are more dangerous along with the technology used to cope with systemic problems.Walls are built to hide the implications and media is a source of programming the populace.Truth in what is known as fact in our infrustructure is not known to the masses and is top security. Therefore it is obvious what the problem is but the solution is not obvious but an on going threat to peace the way that it appears to have worked out so far. Could have been born a wolf would it be different?Or how about a tree.

Alan Harris

Dec. 25, 2011, 10:34 a.m.

I thought this was the season of Jingle Bells NOT jingoism

Andrew Guinosso

Dec. 25, 2011, 12:03 a.m.

Andrew J. Guinosso, President of the Leadership Diamond, Reno, Nevada.  I have skimmed Mr. Friedman’s article and I submit that he has outlined some interesting points.  The writing is structured well but I think the conclusions are flawed.  Let me comment on those that immediately occur to me.  First, in my opinion, the concept of balance of power does not apply to every region of the world, and it certainly will not in the coming decades.  The British used it to great advantage and effect in the Middle East, and it probably still has relevance there today, but in North America, South America, the European Union, and even Asia, for example, I think not.  Second, Mr. Friedman expects the American President to be able to deal with the complexities of the future world by presenting one face to the world and acting behind that face with a significantly different strategy.  I do not think that is doable.  President Roosevelt and President Reagan both opted for a strategic vision that was compelling for them, and perhaps, with the clarity of hindsight, it was the right thing to do.  I am not sure that President Obama and whoever comes after him will have the luxury of such a simple “good versus evil” scenario.  Moreover, I am not sure that President Obama and his immediate successor has (or would have) the necessary skills and bandwidth to deal with these complexities, given what we have seen in the last three years and the prior eight years under President Bush; the one skill that comes readily to mind and that is critical is the ability to think strategically, five to ten years out and across competing interests.  Third, the domestic issues of the United States are of such consequence that it will take a veritable magician with a great understanding of history and the cultures of the world to balance the domestic issues and global ones over the next decade.  In my opinion, the most important focus is that of our domestic issues in the near term, the next three to five years.  The one domestic issue that must be at the top of the list is to recreate a productive economy.  Whoever is President must see that the Federal Government steps aside and ensures that the entrepreneurs and the start-up companies are provided a business-friendly environment in which to grow their companies and create jobs.  Finally, the idea of Pax Americana may have made sense for a limited period of time right after the end of the Cold War as a way to ensure stability, but it is clear that the United States cannot afford such an extended empire, nor should it want to.  The idea of empire contravenes the founding principles of our country and is clearly not in the best interests of our country, nor in reality the best interests of the world.  In my opinion, the 21st Century must be a century of a different kind of thinking than is exemplified by Mr. Friedman.  Globalization has demonstrated that the world has become smaller and smaller, and that the strategic objectives of the family of nations are more closely aligned than we ever thought possible.

James Craig

Dec. 24, 2011, 9:05 a.m.

Canadians bask in the wealth and friendship of the United States.
In return, we give up certain freedoms, such as not joining military alliances with the US when we consider them immoral or immaterial to our own destiny.
Encouraging the US to be the bully on the block has already influenced the carrying out of fruitless wars in such countries as Iraq and Afghanastan, millions dead and injured, countless homeless and starving, uncounted new enemies.
Does the US want power or peace?  They are not necessarily compatible.

Amy Andreasen

Dec. 23, 2011, 9:36 p.m.

Wow!  This article is a prime example of the overinflated ego of some Americans that makes other countries cringe and gag.  Any Americans not nodding their heads in agreement with the author should be worried by the ‘let’s lie to the public and trample their rights to get what we want’ tone. 

Apparently we, the American general public and all foreign nations are pretty dense and easy to manipulate.  Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner!  We could have already been well on our way to the ‘death of the American empire’.

Page 1 of 2  1 2 > 

© 2013 Mauldin Economics. All Rights Reserved.

Outside the Box is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert, John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.MauldinEconomics.com.

Please write to subscribers@mauldineconomics.com to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote brief portions only, please reference www.MauldinEconomics.com.

To subscribe to John Mauldin's e-letter, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe

To change your email address, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/change-address

Outside the Box and MauldinEconomics.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin's other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin Economics, LLC. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) member FINRA, SIPC. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important disclosures at the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing relationship with products and services mentioned in this letter for a fee.

Note: Joining The Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and its partners at www.MauldinCircle.com (formerly AccreditedInvestor.ws) or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. You are advised to discuss with your financial advisers your investment options and whether any investment is suitable for your specific needs prior to making any investments. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Capital Management Group; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management; and Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.

PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor’s interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.

All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs may or may not have investments in any funds cited above as well as economic interest. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.