| Summary: | "Most discussions of US decline in global politics couch their arguments and evidence in the most contemporary context. But US systemic leadership is not entirely novel. The United States follows a global lineage that has been emerging and evolving for centuries. From this perspective, systemic leadership is based not so much on executive personality, clever diplomacy, or randomness as it is on a pecking order established by leads in technological innovation, energy, and global reach. When these leads falter, the ability to engage in systemic leadership becomes more difficult, regardless of whoever occupies the American presidency. The context that facilitates systemic leadership does not determine what chief executives will attempt to do, but it does play an important facilitative or non-facilitative role. Similarly, the people who compete for and win the presidency reflect that systemic and sub-systemic (domestic politics) context. Thus, the interactions among global and domestic contexts and politicians are more complex and yet more shaped by long-term history than is commonly accepted. The ultimate irony is that as it becomes clearer how these variables interact, the possibility that the processes are undergoing fundamental transformation cannot be ruled out. The real policy question is not whether the United States is ahead or behind China but, rather, will it be possible for a single state to lead the global system as in the past? As technological innovation, energy consumption, and global reach capability become less concentrated, the prospects for systemic leadership shrink-even as global problems become more complex and acute"--Publisher's description.
|
|---|