The U.S. is the global hegemon power — it alone has the power to lay down the law to a multinational coalition of “the willing” who serve its absolute vision. This overwhelming authority has been called more than a superpower; it is a hyperpower, in the eyes of the French. The Chinese are nowhere near close to overturning the established order, either. Their economic miracle is stalling as all the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, and their military reach is limited to their own backyard, using tools and technologies stolen from Russia and the West but incompletely understood. The U.S. remains the sole hyperpower.
I would argue that the U.S. is not only the undisputed hegemon, but the best possible hegemon for the position, a role it has never really coveted and taken up with the reluctance of a Cincinnatus.
When asking yourself whether the U.S. is a benevolent hegemon or not, it is helpful to contrast it to how others would behave in its position: Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or Communist Russia. The U.S. is overwhelmingly positive to most of the world by contrast with these three prototypical states. Nazi Germany would have oppressed the world according to its racial hierarchy model, with Germans at numero uno position; the Imperial Japanese would have made a mockery of their “Co-Prosperity Sphere” by siphoning off all available resources to the home islands; and Communist Russia would have reduced personal freedom to rubble, causing the untold deaths of millions in their pursuit of the New Man’s utopia. By contrast all America tries to do is to uphold the rule of law, provided such law is fair and doesn’t get in the way of their overriding mission.
The U.S. is no longer an expansionistic power consumed by Manifest Destiny. They have enough land and a whole Sun Belt to develop. Now they want to use their military force and moral suasion to create a mutually beneficial compact that will reward all good actors in the One World System (Bush Sr’s “New World Order” — you have to picture it in his nasally speech) and punish deviants who break window glass in the House of the Neo-Liberal Saints.
Slavery, for instance, is banned worldwide because of the influence of the United States. Apartheid in South Africa fell because America disapproved of it. The U.S. does not have to send in the troops to signal its approval or disapproval; common cultural industries such as Hollywood and the television networks’ offerings combine to present a unified picture of a desirable world social order which everyone can, and subtextually should, follow.
What are the main themes of American culture industries’ penetration?
- Personal Freedom is Good. The government should not get involved with your bedroom privacies or the materials you read in your own spare time. This is an inviolate rule.
- Private Markets Make The Most Sense. Government should be limited in its interference of the operation of the private sector, stepping in only to prevent clear abuses, and staying out of the way when the path is uncertain.
- Elections are Paramount. The People must be given the chance to take to the ballot box at regular intervals and to vote for parties they feel would best represent them. After World War 2, this involved de-Nazification of German core territories and the substitution of dissidents from the camps and from exile abroad.
The support of the cultural industries is enshrined in the daily activities of the international banks, which are dominated by Americans, and the international trade rules, including GATT. America has a vested, selfish interest in maintaining this order, it is true, but there is an idealistic nobility to the construct, as well, that has served it highly.
As hegemon, it is America’s right to decide who the rogue states are. Nations such as North Korea and Iran continually flout the common good of the world, and must be put in check. (I am not being sarcastic here; this is plain reportage.) When North Korea speeds development of its missile and nuclear warhead programs, the U.S. chokes it with restraints. Likewise, Iran. These countries become desperate for a release from a sanctions regime that threatens their very survival. And yet there is no reprieve unless they approach the hegemon on bended knee. Like a German leader of the medieval ages going to the Pope to make penance, the leaders of Iran and North Korea have to show their sincere desire not to meddle with the peace and prosperity of other, more fortunate nations. They have to show that they buy into the neo-liberal international order.
Cuba is an example of a failed state. It has a Communist economy that just doesn’t work. Its prisoner release programs have sent thousands of criminals to South Florida shores. It would attack the American presence at Guantanamo Bay if that base (awarded according to long-term lease from generations ago) weren’t prepared to fight back. Cuba is as backward as it is evil.
The efficient use of the island would be for Cuba to become an American state and for English to substitute for Spanish as the lingua franca of the land. But Americans hesitate to take this logical step, for they are a reasonable and logical hegemon. Cuba could be an island paradise housing many of America’s cold-weather state elderly citizens. Instead, its climate and its terrain are wasted resources, with toxic tobacco growing consuming valuable land and soaking up employable persons to make cigars, of all things. (One of the tropes of modern culture is that cigar smoking is bad, and a foul habit of low born people.) Cuba can do better, the argument goes, and under the winds of the American system will do better.
What is the likely scenario for the Cuban republic? When we drill down and look at the situation there, we can decide whether America is a fair hegemon or not.
Cuba will become capitalistic, but much of its economy will remain locally owned & controlled. Even in Canada, a subsidiary branch plant economy of the American colossus, there is considerable local economic power in everything from Canadian Tire to the five big banks. Cuba can be expected to follow the same pattern, albeit with some foreign ownership.
Cuba will continue to speak Spanish, although English will be a hugely popular language to learn as the broadcast airwaves from the English-dominant mainland continue to wash ashore the island. America could extend its English influence by domineering means, yet it will allow personal choice to dictate how far and how thoroughly the locals will speak English.
Cuba will become democratic. Local elections will follow the European centrist-left-right model, not the American two-party system of politics. As with Canada, there will be a number of parties to choose from, something for almost everyone’s taste.
America the Hegemon will be a generous big brother to little Cuba. The Cuban people, like the Mexicans, come from an inferior economic system (the Iberian Peninsula in Europe, which produced warlike people but not great merchants and managers) that hamstrings the potentiality of its citizens. Mexicans want American wealth and Mexican culture, not seeing that American culture is what makes that wealth possible. Cubans will be the same. Therefore, they will go on being Cuban, while never being as rich as their Miami-based cousins in the Anglosphere. This will be allowed, and cheered by America’s liberals.
The compact between America’s liberals and conservatives has held since the end of the Cold War. For administration after administration, during that twilight struggle with the Soviets, America’s two parties have juggled and balanced the needs of the world against America’s own needs. Sometimes they overthrew foreign governments, but they tried to be as fair as they could in the struggle. Now that we have entered a New Global Situation, the liberals and conservatives are cooperating once again. In the common interests of all, they have restricted malcontents, suppressed terrorists through drone attacks, and hemmed in China through a network of alliances from the Philippines to Vietnam to Japan to Australia and onward. The benevolent wisdom of American policy can be seen in the fact that the NATO alliance is still holding steady, and European members panic when Americans talk of not protecting them because they aren’t paying their 2% of GNP on defense. Europe wants a strong America. Southeast Asia wants a strong America. Even China and Iran want a strong America, for it is in their own best interests. In the end, America is the hegemon everyone loves to hate and hates to not have around.
Dark Sport 
I am more cynical and jaded than you, Greg. I fear America exists to project American interests and rose-colored blinders across as wide a swath a territory as it can get its grubby hands on.
If America has stopped sending the Marines to Central America every time the fruit growers beckon, it’s only because it’s bad P.R. — it looks bad. With the world changing to a softer gentler place, and with television showing the brutality of war, Americans have been hesitant to screw with more benighted countries. But sure as the Apache helicopter fires a Gatling gun, America will still screw with you if you pester it enough. That’s all it can do, given its true nature.
LikeLike
Greg, you are very good at this sort of thing; you argue calmly, persuasively from a logical, historical power base —
LikeLike
I find it difficult to agree with the premise that China is attempting to become the global hegemon in the way you describe. From what I have read, from authors familiar with the country and from people who live there, China does not seem to have this ambition. One of the clearest signs of this is its monetary policy: keeping its currency undervalued to maintain export competitiveness rather than seeking global financial dominance. Similarly, China does not impose sanctions on other countries unless provoked, as seen in its response to U.S. actions. As far as I understand, China’s foreign policy adheres to the principle of national sovereignty, meaning they do not care whether a country is capitalist, communist, or anything else, they just want to do business and ensure their own territorial integrity remains intact.
Regarding the U.S. “rules-based order,” that claim is questionable at best. The U.S. has historically imposed authoritarian and oppressive governments in Latin America and the Global South. In Brazil, for instance, they backed a military dictatorship that lasted over 20 years. And that case was relatively subtle, as the dictatorship had internal military and elite support. In Chile, it was far more blatant. The U.S. directly orchestrated a coup, overthrowing a democratically elected government out of fear of “communism”.
As for the so-called universal values, this must be a joke. “Personal freedom” is meaningless when people are overworked, homeless, and unable to afford healthcare. Freedom to consume fast food and die of heart disease at home because an ambulance ride is too expensive? That is not real freedom.
The idea of a “free market” is another myth. If the U.S. had a truly free market, the Pentagon and other government entities would not pour billions into private companies like Boston Dynamics. If the U.S. government actually believed in market forces, it would not have bailed out the banks in 2008, nor would it be preparing massive investments in AI now. The “free market” is just a tool to force developing countries to privatize their resources and sell them to American, Canadian, and European corporations.
Democratic elections? Again, what is democracy? If democracy is just choosing a president every four years, then I don’t think it’s real democracy. Let’s take my own experience as an example. This year, my street was repaved. Neither I nor my neighbors had any say in this decision — it was made by an elected city official. This form of representative democracy does not allow us to decide on the issues that actually impact our daily lives. Meanwhile, in systems like China, Vietnam, or even Cuba, where people do not elect the national leader, they do participate in local assemblies that directly influence their communities. That makes far more sense. My mother-in-law, for example, is an elderly woman with no knowledge of macroeconomics but is still expected to vote on a president every four years. However, she knows everything about her neighborhood and its needs, yet has no voice in local governance because there are no community assemblies. Of course, things are more complex than this, but it’s an example of why the U.S. model is deeply flawed. The constant cycle of elections every four years leads to instability. New leaders dismantle previous projects, resulting in inefficiency. That is neither democracy nor effective governance. I support democracy, but a real democracy, not this theatrical game where the winner is the one with the most campaign money within the only two viable choices.
This is not to demonize the U.S. There are many great people and great things about the country. But believing that U.S. hegemony is the best possible outcome for the world is simply naive. The U.S. does not defend global progress; it defends its own progress.
In that sense, China’s non-interventionist, more peaceful international policy is preferable. It aligns with Brazil’s historical stance of respecting national sovereignty and cultural autonomy. We should not impose our way of life on others. Forcing ideologies onto other nations only breeds resistance and leads to groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. As Baudrillard said, these groups understand death as a form of symbolic exchange, because they have been subjected to this kind of violence for so long.
The anti-imperialist struggle and global resentment toward the U.S. stem from this belief that it alone represents “progress.” You should read more about Vietnam and Cuba, but from their own perspectives. If you did, you would see that the values you praises — U.S. democracy, freedom, and free markets — are often just justifications for war, massacres, and global exploitation. These ideas fuel a domestic population (and even outsiders, given that the you are Canadian) that still believes in “Manifest Destiny”, a foolishly expansionist ideology that inspired Trump’s recent imperialist ambitions and even influenced Nazi Germany’s concept of “Lebensraum” (living space).
If we want a truly better world, we should be more critical of these narratives and more open to alternative models of governance.
LikeLike
A long comment from you — applause. Where to begin with my reply?
I think China would be happy being the hegemon of the world, and I think they would do a terrible job at it. The bias in favor of the Han Chinese ethnic group would be tremendous. I also think China has a second-rate culture that it would try to make the world emulate. For such a large country with such a long history, it has a poor record in the Arts, which is what I admire as a rule.
Local democracy on issues such as paving streets is not needed — that’s an administrative function of a big city, and rightfully belongs to the bureaucracy itself. The fact is, a civil engineer is more qualified to pass judgments on the condition of the street than is some ignorant resident who just happens to live there. Besides, there’s such a thing as too much democracy. All this democratic apparatus has to be maintained and upgraded. That costs money and intellectual capital — the mindspace that is so precious for intelligent men, something to be guarded against overexposure at all costs.
There is much talk about America being an “empire,” but in fact it remains a republic with a republic’s limitations. The “anti-imperialist” struggle against America resembles the temper tantrums of a child that cannot get its own way. The U.S. is used to it. It calmly, strongly continues its way as the leader; and what a leader it is!
LikeLike
Greg, your comment is a masterpiece of intellectual insecurity wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-sophistication.
Let’s dissect it, shall we?
First, your take on China reeks of the same tired, old supremacist nonsense that has been used to dismiss non-Western cultures for centuries. “Second-rate culture”? Really? You’re talking about a civilization that produced Confucius, Daoism, classical poetry, calligraphy, the Great Wall, some of the most intricate philosophy and art ever created, and, oh yeah — was pioneering technology while Europe was still figuring out how to bathe. If China’s cultural legacy is “second-rate,” then I’m dying to hear what you consider “first-rate” beyond Renaissance paintings and Shakespeare.
Then, you segue into some weird anti-democratic rant where you argue that regular people shouldn’t have a say in decisions that affect their daily lives — because, of course, “intelligent men” (read: people like you) shouldn’t have their precious “mindspace” cluttered with trivial matters like, I don’t know, democracy? The sheer elitism here is laughable. You’re the type who loves to talk about “meritocracy” when it benefits you but conveniently ignores that real governance requires engagement with the people it affects.
Finally, your take on American hegemony is the cherry on top of this misguided manifesto. The idea that resistance to imperialism is just a “temper tantrum” is peak colonialist delusion. It’s easy to mock anti-imperialism when you’re sitting comfortably in the empire’s lap.
In summary, your comment isn’t just ignorant — it’s also embarrassingly arrogant. If this is your idea of intellectual discourse, then perhaps it’s not democracy that’s the problem, but rather your own fragile worldview.
LikeLike