Ensuring A New American Century

[Nakura Chambers]

The 20th century saw a series of events that led to the world being dominated by two main groups, the United States and the Soviet Union. This led to both powers struggling to maintain influence and power projection around the world, resulting in an global influx of American (and to a lesser extent, Soviet) culture, economics, ideals and a web of alliances led by their respective powers. With the end of the Cold War the United States became the sole superpower and hegemon of the Earth. While others have no doubt tried to change the balance of power, the fact remains that to this day no other country or entity has the ability to project the same power and influence as the United States on a global stage. Not in terms of economic, cultural, political and certainly not military spheres.

My question for you is how can we ensure unipolarity, or at the very least, American dominance well within into the 21st century and beyond? I believe that while foreign policy and a strong military are important in this ever changing world, our primary focus should be on domestic politics. Internal factors almost always influence foreign affairs and cannot be ignored; in addition, by focusing (at least in part) on our domestic affairs, we will be more ready to compete on the stage, in both political and economic influence.

First lets take a look at how we can shape our foreign policy to better fit the 21st century. There have been several viewpoints on the direction America should take. The most commonly held belief is that America should retain it's position as the global superpower and often times invade other countries in order to "promote democracy," as we saw with the wars in Iraq and Libya. A more fringe idea has been promulgated by liberals and some libertarians, the idea that America should shut itself off to the world and give up it's status as a global superpower.

Despite this being one of the few areas in which the far-left (liberals) and the anarcho-capitalist right (libertarians) agree, they have very different views on how and why America should cede it's power. Liberals view America as "fundamentally bad" and believe that it is "unfair" and "wrong" for America (or any other country for that matter) to hold any more power or influence than others, and as thus, they want to cede all of our power to the United Nations and other international bodies. Libertarians on the other hand argue that American influence abroad isn't worth the perceive price of making ourselves a target for Islamist extremists; libertarians also argue that having a large military is "too expensive" and in some cases, possibly even unconstitutional. Unlike liberals, libertarians are opposed to ceding American sovereignty to international organizations, such as the United Nations and European Union.

Surely there is a middle-ground between constantly using our military to invade other countries and completely abandoning America's global hegemony? I believe that it is in the best interest of America and the world for us to pursue a policy of maintaining a strong military, close ties to our allies and many military bases (as well as naval fleets) around the world. In addition to this, however, I believe we should be very cautious of getting involved in more wars and conflicts overseas. That is not to say that we should turn a blind eye to all conflicts that do not directly pertain to the United States and our allies, but it is to say that we should only get involved if it is truly in our best interest and we have realistic expectations that can be met.

America has stood idly by for too long in the promotion of our ideals and the struggle for freedom. The global promotion of freedom in the 21st century will (for the most part) not be through military "liberation," but instead through working peacefully with other right-wing countries around the world. America needs to form a 'Conservative International' to rival the Socialist International and other left-wing internationals. This 'Conservative International' will be a cooperation of right-wing parties and organizations from all over the world that help each other and share ideas. This international would hold annual conferences where the best and brightest conservatives and libertarians around the world congregate and share ideas, including promoting American ideals such as freedom, gun ownership, free markets, military cooperation, etc.

The member parties of the 'Conservative International' would work together to build a right-wing alternative to the bureaucratic, ineffectual, anti-gun rights and left-wing United Nations. As these right-wing parties formed governments in their respective countries, their countries would leave the United Nations and join America's right-wing alternative. We could attract members of less developed nations (such as those in Africa), by promising to assist them with building stable nations and assisting them with becoming self-sustainable; as opposed to the left-wing United Nations which neglects it's less developed members. The United Earth Directorate would also launch a space program and begin colonizing other worlds.

In order to combat the rise of China as a potential counter to America's unipolarity, we would project power into Asia through our military bases and naval fleets to contain China's growing influence in Asia and Oceania. In addition, our new-found allies in Africa (through the 'Conservative International' and 'United Earth Directorate') would give us leverage to destabilize China's economic, political and military efforts in Africa.

As for combating the rise of Russia and it's fledgling Eurasian Union, I think we need to try a different approach. Unlike China, Russia has several allies in the region (mostly former Soviet states comprising the Commonwealth of Independent States) and I do not believe there is much of anything we can do to convince any of these states to side with the US and UED, barring Georgia. What we can do is work for better military cooperation with our European allies (many of whom are already NATO members), Turkey and Georgia. Doing this will project American influence in the region to combat Russia's rising influence and power in Eurasia.

Now let's take a look at how we can become more competitive on the world stage and better formulate our national ideology; and thus, promote said ideology. An important step in this process will be to have compulsory military service for all citizens. This will not only strengthen our national defense, but it will also strengthen the economy and help citizens be better prepared to fight against tyrants, be they foreign or domestic. Anyone wishing to immigrate to the United States will also have to serve in the military, after which they will receive full citizenship. After serving in the military, all citizens will be required to exercise their right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state (and a free people).

Our education system will be overhauled in favor if a system that promotes competition between students and institutions. We must end the policy of rewarding students who do not deserve it and should seriously consider the idea of having separate tiers of high schools and every student should be given an opportunity to make it to the top tier if they work at it. We will also put more emphasis on the study of civics, the ideals of the nation, history and the American political system. After serving in the military, citizens will have the ability to attend higher education institutions and their education will be funded by the state. We will also promote the idea of apprenticeships as a viable alternative to higher education, similar to the German model.

I imagine many of my fellow conservatives will think I'm jumping the shark on this one, but I believe that if we're going to have compulsory military service, then we should also have nationalized healthcare. This is of course only acceptable since every citizen will have served in the military (or will in the future if they aren't old enough to). This will eliminate the need for unsustainable programs such as Medicare and Medicare; we can also begin to phase out Social Security. Though we will offer "free" (tax-payer funded) healthcare to all citizens, we will promote the idea of private healthcare. Under this system, everyone would win. The people who choose private healthcare will have more freedom to make their own healthcare decisions and will receive higher quality healthcare. The tax-payers will benefit from people choosing private healthcare, as they will have to pay less taxes (as less people will be receiving government healthcare). And those who aren't very well off economically will still receive standard healthcare and with fewer people on the system (as people opt for privatization), they will receive better quality (as the government can afford to provide more healthcare). Of course we will not force anyone to choose private or public healthcare and the choice will be entirely up to them.

Another key factor in remaining a dominant world power is to invest in alternative energy. This doesn't mean we're going to start taking away everyone's freedom and national sovereignty under the guise of "global warming" or false-flag environmentalism, but rather that we're investing in eliminating our dependence on oil, and subsequently, other countries. This alternative energy could be nuclear power, it could be the so-called "green energies" that the liberals propose, or it could be something else entirely. It will be difficult to be a major economic and military player when your economy and military are almost entirely dependent on foreign countries.

Alright, so we have effectively eliminated poverty through military service, education and healthcare, now what? Now we need to take back our republic and encourage citizens to be more engaged in politics. We can do this by reforming our political system, namely electoral reform. If we implement an instant-run off voting system, or similar system, we can provide the people with a wider array of viable candidates and parties to choose from. In addition to electoral reform, I believe we should focus on campaign finance reform and implement publicly funded elections. In other words, all candidates who meet the criteria to be on the ballot will receive campaign funding from the state. This will give all candidates a chance to be heard and a chance to express their views the public. I believe these two key changes to our political system will help ensure that the citizens are engaged in political life. An armed, educated and politically active populace is the best defense against tyranny.

I believe that if America pursues these steps we will retain our global hegemony and improve the world at the same time. We will have built a world that we can be proud to live in and unlocked a universe of opportunities for both America and the human race. At home we will have restored our freedom, our republic and at the same time eliminated poverty and violent crime. We will have set in place a global political structure that truly represents freedom, gun ownership, republicanism and the future. The universe will be at our fingertips and there is nothing anyone could do to stop us. What are your thoughts on my proposals?

[Deleted]

The only part I agree with is the free, nationalised healthcare part, the UK has the NHS, which is probably the best healthcare system in the world, and it works great.

However, in a civilised, first world country such as America, I do not believe that military conscription is necessary, that's for the more primitive countries such as Israel and North Korea(who even force their women to serve),who need all of the numbers they can get.

I strongly disagree with the part about every citizen being forced to own a gun, I mean that's just acting for trouble.

[Raiju]

North Korea(who even force their women to serve)

North Korea are ahead of us on the equal sexes curve? Wow we're slow.

[Nakura Chambers]

The only part I agree with is the free, nationalised healthcare part, the UK has the NHS, which is probably the best healthcare system in the world, and it works great.

However, in a civilised, first world country such as America, I do not believe that military conscription is necessary, that's for the more primitive countries such as Israel and North Korea(who even force their women to serve),who need all of the numbers they can get.

I strongly disagree with the part about every citizen being forced to own a gun, I mean that's just acting for trouble.

Ah yes, all of those "primitive countries" like Albania, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, Guatemala, Israel, Norway, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, etc.

"Acting for trouble," you say? How so? It's a fact that gun rights lower crime, but that's not why I support requiring everyone to bear arms. I support requiring the people to bear arms to stop and keep in check the worst murder of all time, government.

[Zhangfei]

The right wing is the part that has got America into so much trouble. Why do you think it's the solution?

Imposing American ideology of "right" and "left" on the world is also pointless. If you want people to side with you, it helps to understand them.

[Nakura Chambers]

The right wing is the part that has got America into so much trouble. Why do you think it's the solution?

Nope.avi

Liberalism and big government are what got America into so much trouble.

[Wildtree]

I am not so sure if the World wants a single super power. With that, I doubt that the USA's role as for what it is right now, is what the world wants.
As for economic reasons, I do not believe the USA can maintain that position for much longer. Sooner or later it will be outpaced by China, who's catching up rather fast.

[Zhangfei]

Nope.avi

Liberalism and big government are what got America into so much trouble.

We shall agree to disagree. Big(ger) government is what I consider pushed America into being a global superpower and stripping away some of its power to give back to the free market has crippled everything. This recession is proof.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Conscription is really dumb IMO.

[Reeve]

I'm a bit confused by your Conservative International part. Most of the rest of what you're talking about doing is either liberal or moderate in terms of character, so I'm wondering where the conservatism comes in.

[Arlon]

While i think this is a better alternative to the current system(Even if it is a little too authoritarian for my taste. Also, blah, guns.). You have yet to address the core of many of the current problems in US, corruption.(Especially between the congress and the banking sector). How could you realistically solve this whitout a civil war?

[DrStiglit]

Ah yes, all of those "primitive countries" like Albania, Austria, Brazil, Colombia, Finland, Guatemala, Israel, Norway, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, etc.

"Acting for trouble," you say? How so? It's a fact that gun rights lower crime, but that's not why I support requiring everyone to bear arms. I support requiring the people to bear arms to stop and keep in check the worst murder of all time, government.

Your ideas of a primitive country are very skewed.. How are Brazil, Austria, South Korea, Norway, Finland and Switzerland primitive?

[Pitkanen]

Completely deregulate the financial instituations, energy producers and chemical plants and I'm sure they'll do what is best for all americans, and all people of the world!

Side note, Educating people on Civics and how government works, kinda worthless when people are too ignorant to understand science. It isn't like scientists had figured out global warming long enough ago to push for the Kyoto Protocol 15 years ago... and just now the american public is like... ok it's real.

[Deleted]

"In order to combat the rise of China as a potential counter to America's unipolarity, we would project power into Asia through our military bases and naval fleets to contain China's growing influence in Asia and Oceania. In addition, our new-found allies in Africa (through the 'Conservative International' and 'United Earth Directorate') would give us leverage to destabilize China's economic, political and military efforts in Africa."
What right do you have to go around declaring war on Asia? "Contain China's growth"? If, France, lets say, magically became a superpower in the next 20 year would you come over here and try to "contain" them? Damn straight you wouldn't. "We will have set in place a global political structure that truly represents freedom, gun ownership, republicanism and the future". Good luck trying to enforce that on other countries. Also, "nothing can stop us"? You sound like a dictator. Also, may I ask you, WHY do you want to be world police? There is no beneficial advantages, and the ones that ARE advantages are advantages to peace-keeping anyway. You seem to talk about America as if they were the world. You're in for a big surprise.

Also, may I note this is my opinion, I've noticed some mods can be... overzealous with their infractions...

Also, DrStiglit, I think it was sarcasm, hehe.

[DrStiglit]

Also, DrStiglit, I think it was sarcasm, hehe.

Ah, I see! I didn't notice that primitive countries was in quotes.

[Purlina]

Economic power > Military power

Once everyone has nukes, who cares how many 3rd world countries you can conquer?

[skrump]

The only part I agree with is the free, nationalised healthcare part, the UK has the NHS, which is probably the best healthcare system in the world, and it works great.

However, in a civilised, first world country such as America, I do not believe that military conscription is necessary, that's for the more primitive countries such as Israel and North Korea(who even force their women to serve),who need all of the numbers they can get.

I strongly disagree with the part about every citizen being forced to own a gun, I mean that's just acting for trouble.

I dunno I think I actually like all the things you disagree with as they seem to work quite well for countries like Sweden.

Though I wouldn't say mandatory military conscription is necessary I do think that the only people who should be able to determine their countries future are those who are willing to lay down their lives to protect that country thus Enlistment should be required for the right to vote.

When it comes to every citizen owning a gun I don't think it should be mandatory as I think someone should have the right to willingly sacrifice their personal security by refusing to own one, with that said I think if it was assumed everyone had a gun the crime rates would go down.

As for the countries that have banned guns well the total number of gun related murders in those countries has gone down the number of actual crimes committed with guns has gone up (both due to criminals no longer having much reason to be cautious of their prey retaliating.)

But yeah Sweden is the perfect example, Every male owns a gun and has been properly trained to defend himself with it, I can think of no better deterrent to criminal activity.

[Kuntantee]

Your ideas of a primitive country are very skewed.. How are Brazil, Austria, South Korea, Norway, Finland and Switzerland primitive?

Irony in your post made me smile


About thread,

I am not sure how regular US citizen will benefit from US domination over world other than feeding their patriotic feelings. It will just make rich even more richer, you will keep getting whatever shit social service you are getting atm. I consider the time spent while considering this non-sense is pure waste.

[kleinlax21]

I like you on foreign policy, education, and the military.

However, nationalized healthcare and mandatory military service are some ideals I don't agree with. I also don't like the idea of joining a new UN for the conservative super kool kids.

I voted for "Somewhat Agree".

[Arlon]

I dunno I think I actually like all the things you disagree with as they seem to work quite well for countries like Sweden.

Though I wouldn't say mandatory military conscription is necessary I do think that the only people who should be able to determine their countries future are those who are willing to lay down their lives to protect that country thus Enlistment should be required for the right to vote.

When it comes to every citizen owning a gun I don't think it should be mandatory as I think someone should have the right to willingly sacrifice their personal security by refusing to own one, with that said I think if it was assumed everyone had a gun the crime rates would go down.

As for the countries that have banned guns well the total number of gun related murders in those countries has gone down the number of actual crimes committed with guns has gone up (both due to criminals no longer having much reason to be cautious of their prey retaliating.)

But yeah Sweden is the perfect example, Every male owns a gun and has been properly trained to defend himself with it, I can think of no better deterrent to criminal activity.

Sweden does not have conscription. And not "every male" owns a gun. Im not sure about the actual regulations, but i think they are something like in Finland.(You need to have a hunting licence or be in a club to own a gun)

The right to bear arms is a US thing, most other countries don´t have the culture needed to support such laws.