The question of should the United States seek to remain the “indispensable” country? Creates discussions for former U. S. Senator Hilary Clinton and published scholar and fellow member of the Cato Institute, Ted Galen Carpenter. Each orator discusses their position with reasons supporting their stance on the matter. In brief, Hilary Clinton proposes that the United States should remain the central power and continue its role as the world’s indispensable country.
She claims that without the central power regulating the affairs, the result will be chaos and conflict (p. 1). She expresses her plans of how to maintain the role by utilizing all levers of powers. Her approaches include the use of technology, nonproliferation, economics as well as development and human rights. In contrast, Ted Galen Carpenter disagrees claiming that the United States does not have the resources nor the will to maintain the role as the indispensable country. He concludes that the United States would suffer from finical consequences as well as policy failure (p. 11).
He proposes finding an alternative rising global power or multiple smaller global powers to assume the role. He proposes that democratic Europe would be a worthy contender (p. 22). Even though both arguments are driven by their opinions there are facts to support their reasons. Hilary Clinton facts include the accomplishments the United States had pertaining to global affairs such as elevating the G-20 during finical crisis and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (p. 14) or ratifying free trade agreements with panama and Columbia (p. 15).
These facts reminds the audience of the successes the United States reached, so that we can continue being the global power. Another fact is how seven out of ten fastest growing economies are located in Africa (p. 15). Even though this fact may not be known by most, the fact supports her idea to develop the economies in other countries. However, two blatant opinions in her speech include how the United States defends its words with action (p. 16). There will be people who would disagree and list examples of times where we could not fulfill a promise.
Lastly, when she states in the beginning of her speech, about how the United States’ home front is stronger, the United States is more respected globally and the United States’ global relationships are deep-seated (p. 12). This is an opinion because the flaws can be pointed out, thus ruining the idea that the United States should remain the global power. Ted Galen Carpenter’s argument contains facts which includes how America sacrificed 6,500 lives and 1. 5 trillion dollars pursuing “nation-building chimeras” in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan (p. 21).
Accurate numerical numbers support his claim that the United States has monetary consequences and gives reason to believe pursuing it further could worsen the finical status. In addition, he had a historical fact about Britain. After World War II London had to abandon its responsibilities to Africa and the Mediterranean (p. 24). This fact reinforces the idea that a country considered a global power could no longer carry the burden of responsibility. However, two obvious opinions include how Russia or China will not be tempted to assume control over Central Europe or East Asia (p. 2). The intention was to calm the fears about the wrong country assuming the global power. However, there is no evidence, or statement from either authoritarian capitalist country stating they are satisfied with the current system. Lastly, how the United States is involved in too many conflicts (p. 21). There is no limit to how many conflicts a country can get involved in. It is always up for debate whether or not the United States is involved too much or too little in global affairs. The response can vary by person, by topic or by country.
Propaganda is inevitable and both parties are guilty of having their discussion contain it. Hilary Clinton uses Pseudo solutions as well as Pathos. When discussing her approach to maintain the different levers of powers in this new world, she gives us a brief summary that only sounds promising, but does not explain the specifics, costs or risks. For example, she wants to use technology and translators who are fluent in Urdu, Arabic, Punjabi, and Somali, to exploit the contradictions of al-Qaida on social media (p. 14).
She does not discuss specifics about how they are going to monitor the media, or keep the information from being leaked. She does not explain the actions al-Qaida might do in response. In addition, she proposes the idea of aiding developing countries expand their economies. Even though developing countries are continually improving, undeniably it is a slow gradual process. She plans to make investments and partnerships with private sector, women and better governance (p. 15), but fails to explain the amount of money being invested, the amount of time it takes to get the specific country at a stable economy.
Lastly, the overall tone of her speech appealed to pathos. It was sentimental, and shown pride or patriotism towards the United States. She claims our power due to the size of the economy, strength of the military and influence in diplomacy, remains unrivaled (p. 14). She states we are the indispensable nation because of our force for progress peace and prosperity (p. 17). All words are prideful or positive and builds up our nation’s character. Ted Galen Carpenter is a guilty of Pseudo solutions.
He claims Democratic Europe is the best option because of the democratic values it shares with the United States. However, Europe consists of many smaller countries. He does not explain if there are any specific countries that could assume the role, or is it Europe as whole. Also he focuses on how the candidate would have similar democratic values, which I agree is a main component, but he does not explore other factors that make them a global power. He does not reveal if or how reliant Europe is on the United States.
He does mention in his defense that the countries needs to be looked at case by case (p. 23), but not having more support other than democratic values weakens his case. An argument can be made that he made a faulty analogy, because he groups Russia and China as authoritative capitalist, says both benefit from the current system, and so concludes both will not try to take over the international order (p. 22). Even though Russia and China have similarities, they have their differences so one country may try to become the global power for their own personal gain and one may not.
After reading both sides arguments multiple times, I have support to believe that Hilary Clinton’s argument was the most biased. Not only does it contain Pseudo-solutions, as discussed in the previous paragraph, but pathos which was expected due to the circumstances that were happening when her speech was given. She was leaving her position as the U. S. Senator and I am fairly certain she did not want to leave on bad terms by saying the United States can no longer be the global power.
Instead she said her farewell with the intention of leaving the citizens with hope and the hope that is to come with the man taking over her position. More concrete support is by analyzing Ted Galen Carpenter’s argument and pointing out why it is not as biased. Throughout Ted Galen Carpenter’s discussion, he acknowledges the opposing side’s arguments. One example is the excerpt from Kagan which explains the two possible consequences if the United States did not resume its role. “If American power declines… t will be replaced by some other kind of order, reflecting the desires and the qualities of other world powers. Or perhaps it will simply collapse” (p. 20). He further explains the two countries being inferred are China and Russia and then continues with his explanations. In summary Hilary Clinton did not acknowledge the opposing side’s arguments and the situation occurring when she gave her speech made it more biased Now that I reviewed the materials, I side with Ted Galen Carpenter.
Even though he does not a have a specific alternative country to take on the role of the new indispensable country, he does have a general idea, and acknowledges candidates are to be analyzed case by case for the best match. Hilary Clinton gave the speech as she was leaving, but I have no idea if her successor would carry out the plans she had in in mind. Even though the lever of powers she wanted to obtain will correct the issues we see in the word such as underdeveloped countries, human rights and monitoring terrorist attacks I need to have more information about what the plans will entail.
Extensive research needs to be conducted on other countries that would be candidates, as well as how they would be better or not be better. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject or global affairs, so I personally need to also research the United States and its contribution on regulating affairs. If I were to professionally vote on the subject I need to have accurate information and not be fooled by propaganda.
