NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears to me in recent years(mainly since the Bush admin. has been in power) that the status of the United States is declining. In large part directly due to the actions of President Bush such as the Iraq war which has left the US military vulnerable and less able to project power and increasing trade and economic issues with China leaving the US vulnerable to well, China. It's somewhat shocking and sad to see how one administration can be slowly bringing the down the country.

My question is two part. 1st do you believe US hegemony is in decline and 2nd, if it is, is it a good or bad thing overall.

God knows what China will do if they replace the US as top dog.

American hegemony won’t dissipate much, at least in everywhere apart from East Asia, until the IMF, World Bank and WTO stop being subsidiaries of the US Treasury, and the make-up of the UN Security Council is drastically altered.

As to your second question, of course the potential downfall of US hegemony is a good thing; no dominance of one nation over most of the world can ever be good.

Hell no we're not going anywhere. Why? Because, we simply assimilate all the world's talent with cash incentives! The minute India produces a brilliant chemist, we buy him up cheap, and so on. :p

Hell no we’re not going anywhere. Why? Because, we simply assimilate all the world’s talent with cash incentives!
Deficit, much? :p

I pretty much agree with Chumblywumbly, except that I think the fading of US hegemony might be inevitable because it is based on 19th-20th century modes of politics and business and in a very literal sense, the world doesn't work that way anymore. The propping up of the institutions CW names will only delay what must occur as forms of carrying on business shift. Also I think it will be good -- for the US -- at least for several decades, not to be in the world's driver's seat. We have serious internal troubles that must be addressed before they get more serious. A tiny dose of isolationism (not too much, though) will be just the thing, imo. (I'm from the US, btw.)

Of perhaps greater importance though is that the decline of US hegemony will not mean the decline of hegemony. China is determined to be the next superpower, and I'm not sure that will be especially good for any country.

Yes, I'd say we are starting to decline, not much though, but I feel its good. We should stick to our own borders. The rest of the world can run themselves.
Although, I think if we do want to remain a hegemon, we should give it the all. State it loud that we're nuber one, crush all opponents and possible threats, take what we need. But, I don't really think we should be a hegemon. We should be isolationist. The world can deal with their own problems, and we can deal with ours.

This of course, is assuming people agree with the concept of countries/states/nations, whatever you want to call them. I don't. People can live happily on thier own in small groups. But, I think nations are going to remain for the forseeable future, so I'm all for isolation.

Deficit, much? :p

Nah, the private sector handles foreign acquisition quite nicely. :p

America failing is surely not a good thing. If America loses power a country like China or North Korea could take over, and I'm sure that would be worse then the problems we face now.

America failing is surely not a good thing. If America loses power a country like China or North Korea could take over, and I'm sure that would be worse then the problems we face now.

... North Korea? :confused:

North Korea is a poorer candidate for world domination than Liechtenstein.

America failing is surely not a good thing. If America loses power a country like China or North Korea could take over, and I’m sure that would be worse then the problems we face now.
It’s not about the US ‘failing’ in some duty or role, but about the hopeful decline of the institutionalised dominance of the US, via the UN, WTO and all the other Bretton Woods fiascos.

There’s nothing ensuring there has to be any hegemony on he world stage.

America failing is surely not a good thing. If America loses power a country like China or North Korea could take over, and I'm sure that would be worse then the problems we face now. They don't necessarily have to take over. Instead of a multipolar, or unipolar world, there could be no superpowers.

America failing is surely not a good thing. If America loses power a country like China or North Korea could take over, and I'm sure that would be worse then the problems we face now.

I'm sure they could. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Korean_peninsula_at_night.jpg)

Holy shit, I'm a Galaxian Warrior! Kickass.

I'm sure they could. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Korean_peninsula_at_night.jpg)
All that shows is that they're siphoning all their energy into a gigantic electrical... laser... thing... which they're going to use to take over the world.

All that shows is that they're siphoning all their energy into a gigantic electrical... laser... thing... which they're going to use to take over the world.

Actually, they have a secret mirror satellite that will focus the sun's radiation down onto any point on the earth.

Actually, they have a secret mirror satellite that will focus the sun's radiation down onto any point on the earth.

Argh, I didn't understand that. They shot a missile at it, and then the missile got vaporised, and then they were all like 'OMG NO WE CAN'T DESTROY IT!' Ever thought of, y'know, maybe launching more than one missile? It took about four seconds to destroy it and it was about to hit very soon! :mad:

[/nitpicking rant]

Argh, I didn't understand that. They shot a missile at it, and then the missile got vaporised, and then they were all like 'OMG NO WE CAN'T DESTROY IT!' Ever thought of, y'know, maybe launching more than one missile? It took about four seconds to destroy it and it was about to hit very soon! :mad:

[/nitpicking rant]

No kidding ... I mean, it can only rotate so fast, just launch a hundred missiles from every direction. All you need is for one to get through.

No kidding ... I mean, it can only rotate so fast, just launch a hundred missiles from every direction. All you need is for one to get through.
How much does Bond get paid? Is he even more cost-effective?

How much does Bond get paid? Is he even more cost-effective?

Well, he's probably cheaper than a few dozen ICBMs. Those things have got to cost a lot of money.

Well, he's probably cheaper than a few dozen ICBMs. Those things have got to cost a lot of money.

Ehh, considering how often he wrecks MI6 gear, particularly vehicles, not to mention globe trotting, and all those bribes to hush up the unusual explosions and British agents caught leaving the scene in big flashy cars/helicopters/jetpacks/rocket ships, you'd think MI6's budget could fully arm a host of 3rd world nations into 1st world levels.

Loving the results of the poll mind:p

Anyway, America you say. Yes they may have been top dog for the post-war period but now the countries that are developing are coming through as industrial giants; china, korea etc.

These countries are experiencing booms in economy, population and industry. Maybe the American government feels that to keep its hegemony it must act as a "big brother" to these countries and help them along when in reality these countries will do just fine on their own.

Britain lost it's visage as a world dominator after the second world war when everyone realised that America did have a rather large army. However the same seems to be happening to America. Soon they will probably find themselves sitting back and pretending to have a say in world politics like Britain does, but being another countries lapdog as we are for America

US hegemony peaked in the late 1940's; never again have we possessed the kind of influence we did then. Our position at that time was so dominant that the rest of the world combined couldn't challenge us; we controlled over half of its economic output and our military was the strongest on the planet. Even the Soviet Union was far from ready to challenge us and wouldn't be at least until the early 1950's, after it had recovered from wartime damage and had its own nuclear weapons.

It's been downhill ever since then as the rest of the world recovered from WWII and began to assert itself more and more against our dominance. Honestly, the post Cold War era just marks the next phase in that decline.

I am just proud to hang out with people online who know how to use words like hegemony.

Lmao, yes, although I had to look it up first. I had a vague idea but I thought it was a governing body of the world :p. oh well :)

Actually, they have a secret mirror satellite that will focus the sun's radiation down onto any point on the earth.

:fluffle:
If it's a secret how do you know you numpty?!

US hegemony peaked in the late 1940's; never again have we possessed the kind of influence we did then. Our position at that time was so dominant that the rest of the world combined couldn't challenge us; we controlled over half of its economic output and our military was the strongest on the planet. Even the Soviet Union was far from ready to challenge us and wouldn't be at least until the early 1950's, after it had recovered from wartime damage and had its own nuclear weapons.

It's been downhill ever since then as the rest of the world recovered from WWII and began to assert itself more and more against our dominance. Honestly, the post Cold War era just marks the next phase in that decline.
*Agrees*

Nevertheless, until other countries can match the strength of NATO in conventional terms (China, I think, still comes short) and institutions like the UN are reformed to give a more representative system of world 'government', America is still going to be in quite an advantageous position.

It appears to me in recent years(mainly since the Bush admin. has been in power) that the status of the United States is declining. In large part directly due to the actions of President Bush such as the Iraq war which has left the US military vulnerable and less able to project power and increasing trade and economic issues with China leaving the US vulnerable to well, China. It's somewhat shocking and sad to see how one administration can be slowly bringing the down the country.

My question is two part. 1st do you believe US hegemony is in decline and 2nd, if it is, is it a good or bad thing overall.

are you sure? seems to me that American culture is spreading far and wide...and with culture comes $$...

are you sure? seems to me that American culture is spreading far and wide...and with culture comes $$...

The spread of American things like food and music is to be expected in many ways as America is the driving force behind globalisation. This doesn't change the fact that the power of the American military and its economic are in decline when it really shouldn't have to be. The decisions made by this administration has seem to speed up the process.

The spread of American things like food and music is to be expected in many ways as America is the driving force behind globalisation. This doesn’t change the fact that the power of the American military and its economic are in decline when it really shouldn’t have to be. The decisions made by this administration has seem to speed up the process.
However, the US dominates all major international economic institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank) as well as holding veto power on the UN Security Council; granting it large military and diplomatic power.

True, institutions like UNCTAD and the Group of 77, and the many faces of the Global Justice Movement, are challenging US hegemony, but there's a loooong way to go.

:fluffle:
If it's a secret how do you know you numpty?!

You're a noob, so what you say is worthless. However, you used a fluffle in your first post, which is cute, so I'll deign to respond this once. See, there was this one time when Kim Jong-Il was totally smashed at a party (the Workers' Party of Korea, in fact) and attempted to call his ex-girlfriend. He accidentally called Papa John's pizza instead while I was working there, and inadvertently bragged about his brand new super-satellite, and begged me to come back to him from my exile in Japan. Naturally, I told him he had No Dong, he couldn't hope to ever be in a lasting relationship, and I was tattling to MI6 on him.

God knows what China will do if they replace the US as top dog.

What can they do that the U.S or any other country can or cannot do?

Juggle? Play the violin?

Ehh, considering how often he wrecks MI6 gear, particularly vehicles, not to mention globe trotting, and all those bribes to hush up the unusual explosions and British agents caught leaving the scene in big flashy cars/helicopters/jetpacks/rocket ships, you'd think MI6's budget could fully arm a host of 3rd world nations into 1st world levels.

...and don't forget the obscene ammount of child support he must be paying. ;)

What can they do that the U.S or any other country can or cannot do?

Juggle? Play the violin?
Hu Jintao can make some kick-ass balloon animals.

Who? Hu, that’s who.

*chuckles*

Anyways, for China to ‘replace’ the US, it would have to somehow take the dominant place in a large number of US-led military and economic institutions, treaties and pacts, which is nigh-on impossible.

Many of these institutions’ constitutions give the US veto power over any change to said constitutions. So China would have to make sure that, at least, the WTO, IMF and World Bank became obsolete.

Which would remove not only US hegemony, but also destroy much of the framework that allows any hegemony of any nation in the first place.

If China does become the dominant power in the world, it will have to be in a very different way to how the US gained so much power.

Hu Jintao can make some kick-ass balloon animals.

Who? Hu, that’s who.

*chuckles*

Anyways, for China to ‘replace’ the US, it would have to somehow take the dominant place in a large number of US-led military and economic institutions, treaties and pacts, which is nigh-on impossible.

Many of these institutions’ constitutions give the US veto power over any change to said constitutions. So China would have to make sure that, at least, the WTO, IMF and World Bank became obsolete.

Which would remove not only US hegemony, but also destroy much of the framework that allows any hegemony of any nation in the first place.

If China does become the dominant power in the world, it will have to be in a very different way to how the US gained so much power.

Are you saying that a Chinese international dominance would be a power grab?

or

S.O.S just a different nation?

Perhaps there is something I've missed?...Would the world be extermely different than it is now with Chinese dominance in international affairs? What is the worse they can do that the U.S would have done?

Are you saying that a Chinese international dominance would be a power grab?
I’m saying that China couldn’t hold the exact position the US does today, as much of the power structure that US hegemony is based on was set up by the US itself during the post-war period.

It would be impossible for China to have dominance over the IMF, WTO, World Bank and UN Security Council (the power structure that supports US hegemony) without serious changes in those institutions’ constitutions, and the US has veto power over any changes to the UN, IMF or WTO constitutions. Thus, I don’t see China ‘taking over’ these institutions any time soon.

That’s not to say China couldn’t set up its own institutions, as the developing countries have in UNCTAD and the Group of 77. However, to hold dominance, the power of the WTO, IMF, World Bank and UN Security Council would have to dissolve, with the entailing problems outlined above.

Furthermore, nothing would guarantee that China could set up a similar system to the one currently used by the US; it was only because Europe was decimated and war-ravaged after WW2 that the US gained so much power.

Would the world be extermely different than it is now with Chinese dominance in international affairs?
Obviously.

What is the worse they can do that the U.S would have done?
Nowt much.

Umm...way to sound totally NOT like an insane radical with the title there.

Umm...way to sound totally NOT like an insane radical with the title there.
I suppose, but that’s a bit unfair.

It’s a fairly undeniable fact that a US hegemony at a global level exists; hell, the current US administration, and many Americans here on NS:G are proud of that fact.

I suppose, but that’s a bit unfair.

It’s a fairly undeniable fact that a US hegemony at a global level exists; hell, the current US administration, and many Americans here on NS:G are proud of that fact.

Umm...No, we aren't. The vast majority of Americans on here don't mind criticism of the US until it gets to "All Americans are stupid fuckers" levels.

Umm...No, we aren’t. The vast majority of Americans on here don’t mind criticism of the US until it gets to “All Americans are stupid fuckers” levels.
I’m not talking about criticism of America, I’m talking about US hegemony, and I understand there are many Americans on here who are very critical of their government.

However, there’s undoubtedly a large amount of American posters here on NS:G who are supportive of the US’ position as ‘world leader’, and argue that it’s a good thing.

I’m not talking about criticism of America, I’m talking about US hegemony, and I understand there are many Americans on here who are very critical of their government.

However, there’s undoubtedly a large amount of American posters here on NS:G who are supportive of the US’ position as ‘world leader’, and argue that it’s a good thing.
And it was -- for a while. But the world situation has changed, and the model of leadership epitomized by US hegemony is becoming less relevant by the decade. The decline is inevitable, regardless of whatever institutions the US may be propping up. I'm not saying it will happen soon or quickly, just that the way the world is organized is changing and eventually the whole notion of "superpowers" will be obsolete or radically redefined. I am not suggesting that the US will end up fading from the world stage or that it will never rise to a high level of international power again. I am saying that it will decline unavoidably until we learn to adapt our way of doing things to a new paradigm. And I think that's a good thing. We don't want to be the ridiculous and irrelevant symbol of a dead age.

God knows what China will do if they replace the US as top dog.

Oh god, they might not invade and violate peoples sovereignty.

However, there’s undoubtedly a large amount of American posters here on NS:G who are supportive of the US’ position as ‘world leader’, and argue that it’s a good thing.

It's always better that the world follows our example, instead of having it installed in a military fashion, but it's never bad when outside countries shift toward democracy, capitalism and Freedom. :) I don't think anyone complained when smallpox was eradicated. Same principle.

Oh god, they might not invade and violate peoples sovereignty.
Have you ever heard of this place called Tibet? Mountains? Dalai Lama?

Have you ever heard of this place called Tibet? Mountains? Dalai Lama?

Not to mention Taiwan; that is, if China had its way.

Oh god, they might not invade and violate peoples sovereignty.

Or they might, since they've done it before.

Have you ever heard of this place called Tibet? Mountains? Dalai Lama?

So your saying China is the same as it was back then?

Attempted annexation of Canada anyone?

So your saying China is the same as it was back then?

Attempted annexation of Canada anyone?
I'm not sure if this is news to you, but China hasn't actually withdrawn from Tibet. :rolleyes:

What's this annexation of Canada thing? I've never heard of it, and the last time I checked, Canada was still independent.

It's always better that the world follows our example, instead of having it installed in a military fashion, but it's never bad when outside countries shift toward democracy, capitalism and Freedom. :) I don't think anyone complained when smallpox was eradicated. Same principle.
Except, of course, that smallpox still exists. And that democracy, capitalism and freedom don't necessarily all come together in a package. And while it's not bad when countries shift towards that sort of thing in a general way, it's even nicer when they do it on their own and without the constant, condescending nagging of some upstart dipshit of a country that thinks they know something profound because they're rich and fat.

I'm not sure if this is news to you, but China hasn't actually withdrawn from Tibet. :rolleyes:

Alright bad example.
Hawaii, please withdraw.

So your saying China is the same as it was back then?
According to the Tibetans, yes they are.

Attempted annexation of Canada anyone?
So, now we only care if ... what?... white people get oppressed? Or relatively rich people? Or people who live in certain parts of the world? Or -- look, what does Canada have to do with whether China would be a good influence on world affairs or not?

Alright bad example.
Hawaii, please withdraw.
a) I wasn't aware of any movement among Hawaiians to win independence from the USA...
b) Hawaii was peacefully annexed. Tibet was, uh, invaded.

Alright bad example.
Hawaii, please withdraw.
Again, what are you talking about, please?

Except, of course, that smallpox still exists. And that democracy, capitalism and freedom don't necessarily all come together in a package. And while it's not bad when countries shift towards that sort of thing in a general way, it's even nicer when they do it on their own and without the constant, condescending nagging of some upstart dipshit of a country that thinks they know something profound because they're rich and fat.

Smallpox exists in a lab, but not among any population. It's the only disease ever completely eradicated by science. Not bad, I say. :)

Also, I already stated that I thought it better when countries Americanize voluntarily, rather than requiring coercive help - no disagreement there. :)

According to the Tibetans, yes they are.


So, now we only care if ... what?... white people get oppressed? Or relatively rich people? Or people who live in certain parts of the world? Or -- look, what does Canada have to do with whether China would be a good influence on world affairs or not?

Exactly. Also, even if China had never invaded anyone, the lack of democracy and free market opportunities would still be a good reason not to want to see them gain influence.

I believe that if China got into said position that they would be a positive benefit to the world, China's Communist Party claims to be still in a socialist transition, now while this is certainly debatable, socialism is neither complete capitalism or communism, but a mixed economy moving to communism. I think in such a position China would be a good force against the privatized/corporatist 'survival of the richest' outlook the US has.

Well, personally, I think that if China wants to become a legitimate world power, it will need to at least introduce some reforms so as to look less, well, evil. It might be better for your average Chinese person, at least.

'Socialism with Chinese characteristics' = authoritarian capitalism.

I believe that if China got into said position that they would be a positive benefit to the world, China's Communist Party claims to be still in a socialist transition, now while this is certainly debatable, socialism is neither complete capitalism or communism, but a mixed economy moving to communism. I think in such a position China would be a good force against the privatized/corporatist 'survival of the richest' outlook the US has.

Sounds pretty nutty, but to each his own. :)

And it was — for a while. But the world situation has changed, and the model of leadership epitomized by US hegemony is becoming less relevant by the decade. The decline is inevitable, regardless of whatever institutions the US may be propping up. I’m not saying it will happen soon or quickly, just that the way the world is organized is changing and eventually the whole notion of “superpowers” will be obsolete or radically redefined. I am not suggesting that the US will end up fading from the world stage or that it will never rise to a high level of international power again. I am saying that it will decline unavoidably until we learn to adapt our way of doing things to a new paradigm. And I think that’s a good thing. We don’t want to be the ridiculous and irrelevant symbol of a dead age.
I’d have to disagree on whether any hegemony is a good thing, let alone an American one, but I agree with you that decline is inevitable, and that the old Bretton Woods system of international institutions will, eventually, become obsolete.

It’s always better that the world follows our example, instead of having it installed in a military fashion, but it’s never bad when outside countries shift toward democracy, capitalism and Freedom. :) I don’t think anyone complained when smallpox was eradicated. Same principle.
What on Earth has smallpox eradication got to do with US hegemony? It was independent scientists and the WHO who eradicated the disease, not US foreign policy.

I’m particularly amused at your labelling of ‘outside’ countries. :p

And what, pray tell is ‘Freedom’, with a capital ‘F’ no less,? And why is the US the sole purveyor of such a commodity?

a) I wasn't aware of any movement among Hawaiians to win independence from the USA...
b) Hawaii was peacefully annexed. Tibet was, uh, invaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement

Of course most of these groups want something more akin to what Quebec has in Canada or what the First Nations there want to full independence, but there are still some separatists.

Hawaii may have been peacefully annexed, but it was under some extremely shady circumstances.

What on Earth has smallpox eradication got to do with US hegemony? It was independent scientists and the WHO who eradicated the disease, not US foreign policy.

It's comparable in that anyone with a full understanding of what it is will choose to accept it for their own well-being. Relief from a terrible condition (smallpox, Socialism, etc.) is clearly of benefit - it's just that many choose to remain undiagnosed or ignore their ailment. Americanization is quite analogous to smallpox vaccination in that way. Some inherit it from previous generations who were vaccinated, and some are still waiting in line, but we'll all get there by and by. :)

I’m particularly amused at your labelling of ‘outside’ countries. :p

I didn't mean to confuse. Simply countries outside our current sphere of influence. Everyone will have their day, though - it's a big tent!

And what, pray tell is ‘Freedom’, with a capital ‘F’ no less,? And why is the US the sole purveyor of such a commodity?

The U.S. isn't the sole purveyor, I suppose. But the U.S. is much like the Sun that lights our solar system, while a slowly reforming South American despot is more like the flicker of a dim candle. Freedom can grow without our influence, but not nearly as well as it could, and it wouldn't shine as brightly, to be sure! It's a refulgent flame, the torch of Liberty. ;)

incomprehensible trolling rant about torches and Chavez
So, your on the side of the goodies, yeah?

The U.S. isn't the sole purveyor, I suppose. But the U.S. is much like the Sun that lights our solar system, while a slowly reforming South American despot is more like the flicker of a dim candle. Freedom can grow without our influence, but not nearly as well as it could, and it wouldn't shine as brightly, to be sure! It's a refulgent flame, the torch of Liberty. ;)

Well, one particular problem we get when First World countries start sticking their fingers in Third World pies is the private sector moving in with branch plants and sweatshops, and such. Yes, the local yokels get work, and probably get paid better than they would on the farm (or wherever), but the big money is made by the guy in New York on the top floor of his office building. His market is his First World consumers, so he doesn't worry much for his Third World employees, so long as they keep the mills hot.

Contrast this with the homegrown business of a Third World entrepreneur. He hires his countrymen, and sells to his countrymen. His market is his own people; so he tailors his business to their needs. Furthemore, the money he makes *stays in the country*. He'll expand his business, or invest his money, locally, and his country is a bit better off because of it.

So, your on the side of the goodies, yeah?

Actually, Chavez isn't a reforming despot (like I mentioned earlier). If anything, he's dragging that country down into the mire, and farther away from Freedom. It's a sad state of affairs, but I always remaing hopeful! You have to count your blessings, in addition to helping others reform. :)

If anything, he’s dragging that country down into the mire, and farther away from Freedom.
You’ve yet to describe what this ‘Freedom’ is.

You’ve yet to describe what this ‘Freedom’ is.

I think you know what Freedom is. Though it is a large category, and no single definition will be all-purpose. Basic rights, for a start, are a good indicator that you have Freedom - the right to property, participation in a democracy, a large degree of personal autonomy where you haven't specifically denied yourself by criminal action, those sort of things. But I'm not a philosopher - I don't sit around agonizing over finding exact definitions. I only have instinct and a good moral compass. Freedom is the state of being free, and although some people can't handle it and are drawn into promoting Socialism or the like, those who desire more have a beacon in the U.S. to look up to. :)

I think you know what Freedom is. Though it is a large category, and no single definition will be all-purpose. Basic rights, for a start, are a good indicator that you have Freedom - the right to property, participation in a democracy, a large degree of personal autonomy where you haven't specifically denied yourself by criminal action, those sort of things. But I'm not a philosopher - I don't sit around agonizing over finding exact definitions. I only have instinct and a good moral compass. Freedom is the state of being free, and although some people can't handle it and are drawn into promoting Socialism or the like, those who desire more have a beacon in the U.S. to look up to. :)

Interesting (or bizarre) how you seem to think that "Socialism" (I'd also like to hear your definition of that) is the polar opposite of "Freedom".

Interesting (or bizarre) how you seem to think that "Socialism" (I'd also like to hear your definition of that) is the polar opposite of "Freedom".

It isn't the polar opposite. Communism, of course, is more extreme and more oppressive. It's just that Communism is rightly excluded from decent societies, while Socialism occasionally makes inroads. Sort of like, heroin abuse is terrible, but if 0.4% of the population is addicted to heroin, while 15% are hooked on crack, which is more dangerous? Which do you want your tax dollar spent on addressing? Both destroy people, just as Communism and Socialism do, but Socialism is seen as more palatable, which makes it more important to address. ;)

<trolly snip>
“Freedom is the state of being free”? Glad we cleared that one up.

“Freedom is the state of being free”? Glad we cleared that one up.

Come on now, I was more specific than that. ;)

Come on now, I was more specific than that. ;)
What, property rights and ¬Socialism?

What, property rights and ¬Socialism?

Those were examples of basic rights, sure. They're cornerstones of Freedom. The right to choose one's representatives, the right to personal property, and the right to personal autonomy where no action has been taken to strip those rights from the individual, just as a start. Sounds painfully simple, but a deplorable number of states lack these, even as basic legal guarantees.

I hope to continue this later - take care, for now! :)

Those were examples of basic rights, sure. They’re cornerstones of Freedom. The right to choose one’s representatives, the right to personal property, and the right to personal autonomy where no action has been taken to strip those rights from the individual, just as a start. Sounds painfully simple, but a deplorable number of states lack these, even as basic legal guarantees.
Sounds to me like the cornerstones of Liberal Democracy, not this abstract ‘Freedom’.

In what context? In terms of influence, military power, economic power or respect?

Far too vague a question to merit an answer.

In what context? In terms of influence, military power, economic power or respect?

Far too vague a question to merit an answer.
All the other posters seem to have managed fine.

US hegemony is taken to mean that the US, either through threat of force or economic sanction, is the dominant player on the world stage.

I believe, it is not necessary to explain in which matter the US dominates. It's mixed up all together. And, there some less potent states and governments do have their problems. Then, you can wish to break up US hegemony -e.g. Chavez- but you can't. Who should buy your products besides the US in the americas? Who supports you or who ignores you there. And, if your ecological spirit may bring you that far to theach the US how to deal with deforesting or CO2 production - they will ignore you and none is helped. You can install a much better welfare system than present in the US (not too difficult, is it?) - it is meaningless as the poor people in your land use the welfare as second solution. Their first ist still going to the US like gambling. Millionaire or nothing. You can install a better education system than present in the US (either a very hard job...haha). However, your intelligence move out due to a million salary that you cant give.
Hence, US hegemony is not only a nation problem as your indivual inhabitant reaches for his very personal chances.

The right to choose one's representatives, the right to personal property, and the right to personal autonomy where no action has been taken to strip those rights from the individual, just as a start.

All of those are permitted under socialism.

Indeed, the rights to democratic participation and personal autonomy are greatly expanded under socialism.

Anyone claiming that the US is a 'beacon' of anything remotely virtuous is just asking for trouble. Face it, blind patriots, the world just doesn't 'look on with awe at your shining example' anymore, if it ever did.

Maybe it's just me, but the idea of 'Americanization' makes my skin crawl. The world doesn't need or want this 'McFreedom'. Australia already seems to be bending over backwards to kiss America's ass these days, and enough is enough.

Also, this 'McCulture' must be stopped at all costs! If the end of US hegemony means that Australian Idol will finally die then the sooner the better!:p

Also, this 'McCulture' must be stopped at all costs! If the end of US hegemony means that Australian Idol will finally die then the sooner the better!:p

It could be worse. Here in France we have Nouvelle Star where kids mangle American pop songs with broken English.