Does the U.S have to change or do we need another country leading the "free world"?

[PurpleTree]

There have many great things come out of the US but...

 

In the US they still has the death penalty.

Wage wars all the time.

Generally extremely materialistic.

Car country

So many homeless

Gangs, violence, guns

Kind of dog eat dog, the strongest survives mentality

All about strength

A racist jail system etc...

 

Realistically only the US can lead the West because of their Army, Intelligence services, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Population size etc.

Can the US change? Or would the West be better if it was led by a country like Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada etc.?

Or are those countries just peaceful because they're not as big and important on the world stage as the US.

Would we be eaten in a month by countries like China and Russia with let's say New Zealand at the helm, or would the world progress and move into a better direction?

 

[Leo Gura]

Leadership is rarely done by the wisest and most peaceful. Leadership is usually done by the strongest and most ambitious.

The problem with those other countries you mentioned is that they lack the ambition and power necessary for leadership. You must want to lead and you must be willing to crack some skulls in the process. You don't lead by asking nicely.

[mandyjw]

America's rise to power was purely accidental. 

"Have to" and "Do we need" comes from a voice of volition. Who is we? 

[Preety_India]

The world needs a God and a godfather. 

 

[Hello from Russia]

1 hour ago, mandyjw said:

America's rise to power was purely accidental. 

Not sure. Imo it required some balls to go from "comfy" Europe to go explore New World. Early American people had been taken huge risks and they paid off

[Late Boomer]

@Hello from Russia

I think where chance plays in we were isolated from Europe so that most of the damage from the world wars happened there. What we essentially did was negotiate with Britain to take on their leadership role in the world since they were too war damaged to hang onto it. 

[vizual]

Leadership =/= having the most blunt power. Even if that blunt power is economical and political. Is the USA "leading the free world" ? I don't think so, even though they would like the world believe that they do.

As consciousness evolves we will see governments and businesses focussing toward other goals than sheer profit and political power. Sustainability, innovation, technology, cooperation, durability etc. But at the moment the US has no interest in going toward that direction because they aren't the front runners in many of those areas

[Late Boomer]

@PurpleTree My prediction is our empire will collapse and somebody else will fill the power vacuum. 

[DocWatts]

Ideally the United Nations would be filling the role that the United States (dishonestly) markets itself as: that of a global peacekeeper. Unfortunately that organization is so rife with structural limitations which render it incapable of fulfilling its intensed role, that it will remain a largely toothless organization. (Of course that's not to say the UN isn't valuable in other ways).

As it stands, there's no reason to believe that whatever nation eventually fills the power vacuum left by the United States will act any more ethically than the US did during its tenure as the world's supreme imperialist power.

Edited September 22, 2021 by DocWatts

[Willie]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Leadership is rarely done by the wisest and most peaceful. Leadership is usually done by the strongest and most ambitious.

Reminds me of an assignment I had in my first year of college. There was an either/or choice between The Prince by Machiavelli or Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu for which we considered the best method of leadership. The overwhelming majority of the class went with Machiavelli.

[mandyjw]

1 hour ago, Hello from Russia said:

Not sure. Imo it required some balls to go from "comfy" Europe to go explore New World. Early American people had been taken huge risks and they paid off

That's true, but I'm referring to the aftermath of WWII not the origin of the US. That's when the US really gained its power as we see it today. We did not intend to join the war, but ended up mostly unscathed amongst a world where many powers and once strong infrastructures were devastated. In addition to that the war revived the US economy. All these circumstances were accidental. I was not taught this perspective in school and didn't understand it until later in life, even though both sets of my grandparents intimately lived it. 

[snowyowl]

@mandyjw Interesting, I hadn't thought of it like that before. Then after WW2 it became obvious that the USSR was expanding its communist empire in Europe and elsewhere, atomic weapons were proliferating etc, so the capitalist powers urgently needed strong leadership. 

[PurpleTree]

4 hours ago, mandyjw said:

Who is we? 

Other western countries, Europe, other countries in general, humanity

basically everybody who thinks that the US isn't a "good leader"

 

 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Willie said:

Reminds me of an assignment I had in my first year of college. There was an either/or choice between The Prince by Machiavelli or Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu for which we considered the best method of leadership. The overwhelming majority of the class went with Machiavelli.

Because normies are too unwise let the highest wisdom lead them. They need something cruder, like a mule needs a whip. You can't lead a mule with philosophy.

[Willie]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Because normies are too unwise let the highest wisdom lead them. They need something cruder, like a mule needs a whip. You can't lead a mule with philosophy.

Yup. It’s the whole “democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people...but the people are retarded” Osho quote. 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Willie said:

Yup. It’s the whole “democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people...but the people are retarded” Osho quote. 

And it could not be otherwise.

Consciousness is always the bottleneck of everything.

This is why we can't have nice things

[Fleetinglife]

On 9/22/2021 at 4:45 PM, Preety_India said:

The world needs a God and a godfather. 

 

What about a godmother and a godfather - fitting for a multipolar world? The one teaches grace, sensitivity, and compassion, and the other strength, conscientiousness, and willpower. The U.S. can become a godmother and China the godfather for example in the future. An idealistic, utopian, and hopeful outlook from my perspective.

[Terell Kirby]

The US being the "leader of the free world" is contextual.

Americans should be asking themselves if they'll continue to regress into nationalism, or be on the side of progress and embrace globalization.

This requires our government and it's citizens to become more compassionate, accepting and systemic-oriented.