The Alexander Hamilton Society (AHS) hosted a debate on the “Future of American Power” last Thursday in Levering Hall. The new campus group, which focuses on debating contemporary issues, hosted the event pitting Robert J. Leeber, professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown University against David Kanin, adjunct professor of European studies at the School of Advanced International Relations and former CIA analyst on a debate about the United States’s ability to protect its interests in a world in which it is increasingly facing challenges over influence.
Kanin set the tone immediately at the start of his speech by making it clear that his arguments weren’t going to be about the imperial decline of America as a world power, or even the rise of new leadership in the world. He was arguing, he emphasized, that in the future the United States will no longer be able to act unilaterally on issues or make diplomatic mistakes. “Permanently changing circumstances are constraining America’s margin for error,” Kanan said. “It’s not the question of whether the United States is in decline; it’s just that we no longer have as much of a margin for error.”
Explaining his position further, he described how the relative isolation enjoyed by the United States in its early years protected it from the blunt force of international conflict. To illustrate the importance of this, Kanin referred to the World Wars. “We were lucky enough to be left untouched twice in wars that destroyed most of the rest of the world. We will never have those conditions again,” he said.
“Also, the abundance of cheap labor, whether in the form of slaves or lower paid immigrants shored up the economy of the young country. But in a world where everyone else is better off, sources of cheap labor are bound to dry up. Additionally, it is no longer possible to remain detached from the rest of the world,” he said.
“We were able to develop our power basically unchallenged. Now not only is the world economy much more interconnected, but our own economic activity is much more intertwined with the rest of the world,” Kanin said while pointing out that economic isolationism is no longer an option.
Kanin repeatedly reiterated what he thought was one of America’s strongest traits — the vision of the United States as a benevolent power. “If [other countries] start thinking that the Americans don’t always know what they’re doing . . . that spells trouble,” he said, while suggesting that recent events in the Middle East — with countries that were formally under the umbrella of America’s clout shaking off its influence — could portend such a scenario.
He added that America needs to learn how to work with other countries. “That’s something that will have to change,” he said.
Professor Leeber countered Kanin by noting that the current wave of “declinism” was nothing new and that the kinds of conditions stated by Kanin were not dissimilar from what has been said before. “We’re living through the fifth or sixth wave of declinism since 1957,” he said, listing several examples from history to support his argument, including the launch of the first satellite. “After the launch of Sputnik, everyone was afraid that that the Soviets were more disciplined. They didn’t waste their time and energy on new brands of toothpaste or rock music. They graduated more engineers. Our math and science education was inadequate.” All these fears, he noted, proved to be unfounded. Similar fears remain at the top of the media agenda today — concerns he dismissed as likely to be defeated because of the fundamental strengths of the United States’s power.
Kanin responded to this suggestion by asserting that his fundamental argument — that America’s margin for error is limited in an era where its share of the world’s power is diluted — didn’t require that its power necessarily declined, just that a world exists where power is more evenly distributed.
Playing down the idea that American decline is inevitable, he quoted statistics regarding the share of US Gross Domestic product as part of world GDP. Referencing official government statistics, he said that since the fall in the United States’s share only declined by around three percent since 1980, it was not apparent that the United States is losing its leadership in the world economy.
He also de-emphasized the notion that the United States was preeminently powerful during the last century. Quoting thinkers during previous crises of confidence in America’s power — including Japan’s rise in the 1980s, the Korean War and September 11 among others — he built up the argument that American leadership doesn’t necessarily imply American invulnerability.
He ultimately remained confident of the country’s position. “The United States is one of the only countries with the resources, flexibility and adaptability which are unprecedented for a country of our size,” he said. Highlighting that the US was unique in that it is the only large country to remain at the top of the league tables for competitiveness, he mentioned several institutions that enabled the US to remain a major force in world affairs.
“Ours is the one country in the world that is both big and rich. Our resources remain unique. Our great research universities are an asset that no other country in the world possesses.” For all these reasons, he said, “[American] decline is not baked in the cake.”
Though not all of Kanin’s arguments were addressed in the rebuttal, the event was very informative and both participants agreed in principle on the importance of the AHS’s mission. “What you are doing is very important. There is a pressing need to encourage people to think broadly and deeply about American foreign policy,” Leeber said.
The AHS began this semester with the goal of diversifying foreign policy discussion at Hopkins. According to a document released by the AHS, foreign policy discussion has been dominated by liberal internationalist policy for the last several years. To counter this, the AHS plans to host debates that feature conservative foreign policy thinkers.
“Our goal is to promote foreign policy and intellectual discussion,” freshman Ari Schaffer, recruitment chair, said, explaining that the group will continue to host other events on campus designed to foster intellectual discussion pertaining to American foreign policy issues.
The organizers were happy with the turnout. “I think it was a good turnout, especially for our first event. We had some very good questions at the end, and it was a great debate,” Shaffer said, before adding, “Giving free food always helps.”
Alexander Alden, a Ph.D. student in the political science department and an advisor to the Hopkins chapter of the AHS said that the society was created to expose students to issues of national importance. “It is an attempt to bring the mainstream debate in Washington D.C. about policy issues to campus,” he said.
The audience generally agreed that the event was very timely. “It was very relevant to what we’re learning, and declinism is a major trend in American politics right now,” junior International Studies major Alice Laws said.
Junior Megan Siebolt agreed. “I enjoyed it. It was [an] interesting perspective from two different sides on America’s place in the world and where we’re going.”
