Have the days of US global domination come to an end? Conventional wisdom seems to believe that it has. A recent Rasmussen poll showed only 32% of Americans believe America's best days are yet to come. 62% say today's children will not be better off than their parents, up 15% since the beginning of 2009.
As a student of history, I've decided to look at historical theories on the causes of an empire's decline and assess the degree to which these theories apply to the present day US. Today, I will consider the theory of tolerance put forth by Yale Law School professor Amy Chua in her 2007 book Day of Empire.
Chua argues one of the driving forces behind the rise and fall of a hyperpower--a global, unchallenged hegemon--is tolerance of people. Chua argues that religious, ethnic, and racial tolerance (relative to other nations) is indispensable to becoming a hyperpower. Furthermore, a hegemon's power will decrease as its tolerance decreases.
The British Empire
Chua traces the root of the British Empire back to 1689, when a new tolerance for Jews, Huguenots, and Scots brought new skills that built the foundation of Empire. In 1689, France rather than England was the most likely successor to the Netherlands as Europe's greatest power. France had a much bigger population, a stronger economy, and a bigger military, but England eventually triumphed because of its human capital.
One crucial aspect was finance. Jews and Huguenots brought modern finance to England, transforming London into the undisputed financial capital of the world by 1815. Jews from Holland brought the Dutch exchange system, complete with puts, calls, and even forward curves. This exchange, the London Stock Exchange, founded and run by Jews, funded Britain's wars and industry. From 1740 to 1763, England's national debt almost tripled to 121 million pounds. Huguenots, who needed a place to park assets away from France, bought one fifth of this sum.
While the Jews and Huguenots brought financial innovation, the Scots contributed the technology for Britain's industrial revolution. By the 1830s, Scotland was the leading producer of iron in the world. A Scotsman also invented the Watts steam engine, the World's first source of independent power.
But Great Britain's human capital advantage decreased as tolerance grew in other countries. Its greatest failure was to make its colonies enemies rather than partners. Britain never treated colonies as it treated the Welsh, Scots, Jews, and Huguenots. As a result, Britain missed out on the massive human potential in these countries.
India is perhaps the best example of where Great Britain dropped the ball. India was an incredible source of power and was aptly named "the crown jewel of the empire." But from as early as the East India Company, the English mistreated the Indians terribly and built a lasting mistrust. This mistrust weakened the empire substantially. For example, a Scotsman invented the Enfield rifle that could fire twice as fast and twice as far as other guns, giving British soldiers a huge advantage. However, Sepoys (Indian soldiers fighting for England) wouldn't use them because they heard a rumor that the cartridges were greased with a mixture of cow and pig fat, against Muslim and Hindi tradition. The mistrust was so great, the Sepoys thought the Enfield rifle was an "insidious missionary plot" to impose Christianity on India.
The United States
The US really only became tolerant after World War II, which is ironic given the emphasis on equality in the US constitution. For much of US history, immigration was open, but treatment was far from equal. Immigrants often faced horrendous discrimination upon arrival. As late as 1924, Congress passed an immigration law to end the "indiscriminate acceptance of all races" in favor of a "homogeneous citizenry." The 1924 bill established an immigration quota for each nation which allowed almost no Asians or Africans into the country. In 1939, a bill came up in Congress to admit 20,000 Jewish refugee children into the US. This bill was never voted on amid calls that "20,000 charming children would all too soon grow into 20,000 ugly adults."
During World War II, the influx of Jewish scientists made the US the new intellectual capital of the world, while also providing useful gifts such as the nuclear bomb. After the war, a new liberalism changed views on race and national origin, which widened America's advantage in finance, academics, and technology.
Now that we've discussed the theory, let's turn to the present. If Chua is right and America is a hyperpower because it has out-tolerated the rest of the world, then what is the likelihood of an American decline?
There's really two parts to this answer. One part is assessing tolerance in the United States today. As other countries have developed, the US' tolerance gap has narrowed, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union. The US is far from the only place for an aspiring businessman or academic. This change is reflected in simple metrics such as the percentage of international universities in global rankings. Some of the best technological colleges are now in India and some of the best business schools are now in Europe. Since 2003, China passed America as the top recipient of FDI. Protectionist labor trends (such as international work limitations attached to TARP) and tougher immigration laws after 9/11 are potentially the US' greatest threats. But another point to consider is the position of the US relative to its rivals, especially China. China is still far behind in education and ethnic stability. And, as Chua points out, China doesn't have the assimilation properties of the US, because 92% of the population is Han Chinese. A foreigner in China will never be Chinese.
The second part to this question on American decline is whether the US can continue to pull people around the world into its orbit. Rome prospered because it offered an attractive cultural and economic package for conquered states. It was desirable to be a member of the club. For the US it's a little different. People around the world still listen to American music, wear American clothes, and watch American movies, but they don't necessarily want to be Americans.
There is a tremendous benefit to being viewed as a moral power. People generally do not think of the British Empire as a moral empire, considering the atrocities that occurred in India, Ireland, and Kenya. However, at its peak, Great Britain was viewed as perhaps the most moral of all great powers. Its legal system protected the rights of the common people more vigilantly than any nation. It was the fist nation to abolish the slave trade in the 1830s, even though it was still extremely lucrative. As historian Linda Colley puts it in Britain: Forging the Nation, "Successful abolitionism became one of the vital underpinnings of British supremacy in the Victorian era, offering--as it seemed to do--irrefutable proof that British power was founded on religion, on freedom and on moral caliber, not just on a superior stock of armaments and capital." The US has recently taken steps to restore America's moral advantage, for example closing Guantanamo Bay.
Chua emphasizes that tolerance in itself is not enough to be a hyperpower; Tahiti will never be a great power no matter its tolerance. But without tolerance, it is impossible to become the mecca of innovation necessary to be a hyperpower. I am less sure about tolerance as a determinant of an Empire's decline. Decrease in tolerance would be better described as a symptom of a larger problem. Tolerance is a progressive issue, meaning advanced nations tend to be the most tolerant. If a nation's tolerance decreases relatively to other nations, it is likely a sign that the country is behind other countries in other fields as well. Therefore, it is useful to track changes in tolerance between nations, maybe not in itself, but as a proxy for greater trends.
According to Chua's theory on tolerance, the US is not declining anytime soon. The tolerance gap has narrowed over the last eight years, but America is taking steps to address this. I would keep an eye on two factors: one is America's attitude towards Mexican immigrants, the second is Chinese education rates. It should make for an interesting decade.
