The Tides of History
We live in an era of change. Of that, I remain convinced. The geopolitical realities of a bipolar or colonial world have been shattered, but we still live with the consequences. Those consequences shape the world we live in now and will pave the way to a new political era. Change inherently means instability. I like to consider myself a realist. Instability is the bane of a realist while he strives to maintain stability. This will be a challenge, but how we respond to it will determine future global structures and the empowerment or oppression of billions around the world.
The Middle East cannot remain in its time warp forever: its oil reserves will eventually run dry and the monarchies and religious fundamentalism of the region will be swept up by the forces of modernism and technology. Israel and Palestine may have to be settled eventually and the Kurdish dilemma will have to be addressed. Europe will have to make a decision, either collectively within the EU or individually, of its place in the world: will it be a center of global institutions that the rest of the world can reliably turn to, or will it descend into bureaucracy or fascism with this new wave of immigration and bad economics? It will also have to decide whether to integrate East Europe and Russia; for a strong Europe to be possible, there must be a conscious effort to do so. India is slated to become the most populous country and one of the biggest economies of the world: it may be able for it to continue along its path, although it will have to do something about its environmental policies, lest we all suffer (and barring any calamity with Pakistan, which I do think is remote). China will have to make a very serious decision sooner rather than later about its continued economic growth in relation to its citizens’ repression: will it continue repressing individual human rights regardless of growth, or will it fulfill its promise of the “modernizing authoritarian” regime? This is particularly significant because how China answers this question may define an entire era of Chinese history, along with all the geopolitical and economic ramifications that the world’s current largest country entails. Several individual African countries are projected to be among the fastest growing in the 21st century, which is great, but there are many throughout the continent who report that liberalism and democracy are actually on the decline. Those growing African economies (Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, [Rwanda?] etc.) may gain enough leverage to set the political discourse for the continent and will be in a position to develop other, less fortunate African countries.
And then there is the United States. We are also at a pivotal moment in our own history. Immigration will change the face of this country like never before and we have the opportunity to keep ourselves economically vibrant and relevant to the world because of it. I have always viewed the anti-immigration backlash and the Tea Party as the final push against the forces of change by the leading, white majority. I had thought, or rather wanted to believe, that this last push would result in failure because demographics and history would intersect to forge a new destiny for this country. I know that I’m right with regards to how this country will look by 2050 (Asian, African, Caribbean, Hispanic immigration). But if the current political and economic structures within the country don’t open the floodgates to higher power for these new people, then meaningful change for how this country operates may not occur. Economic power must be less concentrated along a single racial group, especially as that one group is actually shrinking; that’s just a recipe for disaster. Political power must also be diffused among the different minority groups, but I believe that the economic empowerment of minorities is perhaps even more important (e.g. the success of Chinese and Jewish Americans). Ultimately though, I think we need more representation along every sector of society. We need an Asian Chairperson of the Federal Reserve; we need a Hispanic President; we need successful black American tech leaders; we need black women held up as ideals, even standards, of beauty; we need more gay business executives; we need a Muslim Secretary of State; we need more black Africans in the most prestigious universities. We declare ourselves a meritocracy, but if most of the positions of power are filled by a singular group in such a diverse society, then something is clearly wrong. Either there is a structural problem in the system that we declare a meritocracy, or it is not possible for these other groups to attain such heights. The latter is obviously untrue, so the former must be it. Addressing the shifts of our era in this manner is to regress; this is a problem facing the United States and other countries around the world. History is set to change the world we live in; we need to face it head on. If I’m going to be working in this kind of global environment, then I want to at least be able to affect the changes to come for the better.
P.S. I also think history is a cycle. Just because I think the world is set to undergo radical changes over the next century doesn’t mean there won’t be parallels to previous eras.
