The Second American Revolution

 The collapse of the checks and balances which should control the executive power in America continues with incredible speed. Also, the influence and guidance of the president from government, experts and administration is minimal. The majority of the American legislative are reduced to puppets, and even media and knowledge are under attack. Presently you get the impression that the only independent still functioning part of the formerly so effective power-sharing is Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

 

On the international scene Donald Trump has been very successful in bullying the EU and some other countries in and beyond the American spheres into uneven trade deals supposedly benefitting the economy of the United States.

 

Thus, the power of the Supreme President looks enormous. But there are limits. Trying to influence the judicial system in allied countries is extreme and this even more so in countries where the courts as opposed to the American Supreme Court are independent. Such interference will be normal and effective procedure some decades from now, but in the present conditions it is premature and counterproductive. As long as there are more than one superpower with overlapping spheres, a such treatment will only push the affected countries into the arms of competing powers. The same goes for high tariffs used solely as political pressure or punishment.

————

 

Nevertheless, the sudden changes in the political system and its behavior in America are remarkable. How has this incredibly quick transition away from mature modernity with power-sharing and democracy been possible?! Here it is useful to think about a revolution. By this I am not talking about a de facto coup d’état where a group or an individual seizes power like in the communist ‘revolution’ in Russia in 1917. A true revolution is a process by which the organization of society and politics change in a time span which is short compared to normal gradual development. Such a quick transition results 1) if development has been held back by conserving forces, and the resulting tensions cause a quick correction or adaption, so that the organization and leadership of a nation again corresponds to the developmental level of society. The archetypal example is the French Revolution. Another opposite possibility is 2) if the leadership of a country has pressed organization and thinking forward before society is ready. In this case we see an opposite correction. A good example is the Iranian Revolution.

 

We can see the present developments in the United States as a revolution. The changes are so quick because they were long overdue. Society had already for more than two decades left the phase of mature modernity and entered declined modernity. The corresponding change in organization and style of rule had been held back by mature politicians and presidents from both parties and indeed by the complicated system of power-sharing and controls and administration, the so-called deep state.

 

The current presidency of Donald Trump is the revolutionary correction. Hence the speed of the present changes. But have things then settled down?

Probably not. The problem is that the conflict between mature and the now victorious declined positions has been coupled to the extremely polarized conflict between left and right. This means that the current revolution is not only a correction of old forms, but also a sharp turn to the right in many fields, not least distribution of wealth. This radical right-ward turn can result in a new revolution, this time not so much for a restoration of mature modernity, but for a redistribution of incomes. This may cause a new counter-revolution etc etc. In the end these shifts will be more and more about personal power. This is visible already now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaza

 

Large-scale manmade humanitarian disasters like destruction, death and hunger inflicted on innocent civilians must be condemned no matter framework and political views and no matter where and by whom and why.

 

That fear of the opinion of voters and supporters can prevent leaders from putting an end to such suffering is one of the greatest failures of democracy. Only a visionary supreme leader can have the will to intervene and have the ability to convince or fool his electoral base and followers to accept that he orders a close ally to change its course.

 

Bifurcation 2.0

  

At a time there was much talk about a bifurcation between the United States + followers and China + followers. Later this was called decoupling.

In this post I will use the term bifurcation in another more overarching meaning: the emerging fundamental difference between more and less politically declined nations and two corresponding ways of viewing the world. The post is about world development, but mostly about the working of this blog.

 

I will commence with the latter. If somebody reads my posts, he or she should be aware that my comments are on three levels. They have different rooms for discussion, criticism and revision both from me and from the audience:

 

1} The basic theory, often described in earlier posts, can simplified be stated this way:

• Different civilizations with lifetimes of at least 1500 years develop in parallel with homologue stages and developments, just displaced in time from each other, some earlier, some later.

• Every civilization has its own character or culture.

 

• Coincidences and contexts co-shape the development of each civilisation.

These basic assumptions can hardly be doubted.

 

2} The next level is my analysis, that is the application of the theory on specific developments and events in one or more civilizations, often in the form of comparative analyses.

Such applications can be challenged, and others can be proposed.

 

3} On the last level are the attitudes expressed in this blog.

 Here the reader is absolutely free to have other opinions.

 

Obviously, other analysts can make significant contributions to our understanding based on other theories. In practical terms, I like others often mix analysis and attitude.

 

So far so good. We have three categories of statements with different degrees of truth. But the bifurcation introduced above adds two further categories. Half of the world is in one condition or phase of historical development, an earlier but sustained one. The other half is in the next phase. The phases are of course ‘mature’ and ’declined’ modernity respectively. This is what constitutes the new bifurcation. It does not in any way challenge the basic theory. On the contrary, such differential developments are easily understood and predictable. As argued in earlier and recent posts, rule-based countries with sharing and controls of power from East Asia to Europe and elsewhere belong to the mature world. Countries where such systems are broken down and executive power is being concentrated in one authoritarian or autocratic leader belong to the declined world. They are everywhere. That the United States has joined this club is of enormous historical importance. If we have a leader of this type in a major power, he can be called an overlord. Of course, the picture of the division of the world is more complex. Many nations are somewhere between mature and declined or shift between the positions following elections.

 

This bifurcation makes a big difference on the levels of application and attitude. It results in a doubling of these. In the present time we have two frameworks within which to analyze and relate to developments, events and politicians.

The world has become a split personality. So has this blog.

If you see things through the glasses of declined modernity, they look very different from what you see looking through the glasses of mature modernity.

 

Both viewpoints or frameworks are predictable parts of the present time. They are both valid in the corresponding parts of the globe. One framework can be used to relate to its own corresponding part of the world or to evaluate the other part. As an analyst I must always be aware of which framework I use and for what. We all must.

 

Thus, presently we have two cultures of politics and analysis on Earth. It is essential for commentators and actors to bear this in mind. Too often, politicians and the media try to understand phenomena in the other part of the world as if they were in their own part. If these phenomena go against the way the world ‘should function’, then they are seen as wrong and dangerous. Most typically, people in the old mature world try to evaluate and handle politics and decisions in the declined world in the old manner. They often see these new developments as the end of the world or as transient anomalies or as mere results of the psychology of a president. Surely, the good old days and ways will soon return. They will not.

 

 

To return to the categories through which we can relate to the world, they can be summarized in this figure:

 

 

 

p

Frame	Mature	Declined
Attitude
Analysis
Theory

 

 

 

Note that the bifurcation or dichotomy has nothing to do with political left vs right. These wings exist in both parts.

 

As said, the two frameworks characterize two different parts of the present world and the corresponding two ways of analyzing and judging events and politics. As the basic theory is difficult to challenge seriously, it is the common foundation, not only for the two present frameworks, but for all developments in all civilizations. Therefore, it is marked in black in the table.

 

Thus, there are four possible ways in which I can comment events and developments, and which may be challenged and revised:

Mature analysis and attitude

Declined analysis and attitude

 

These ways characterize different portions of politicians and populations on Earth. And indeed, they apply to any commentator. But the latter must know which category of viewpoint he currently uses to see things. And he should lift himself above them and try to make a synthesis.

 

As stated above, both frameworks are legitimate. It is okay that JD Vance views rigid old Europe with contempt. It is just as okay that Europeans see the current presidency in America as a disastrous attack against rule, order and power sharing. Correspondingly, I may criticize the destruction of controls of the executive. I can also praise the pragmatic approaches of an overlord. To understand what is going on and to where it is leading, we must see both political cultures.

 

 

 

What marks the difference between the mature and the declined framework is primarily the lack in the latter of respect of ideals, true politics, rules, traditions and organizations. Personal will replaces rules.

 

But despite the split between the two types of rule and viewpoints, certain goals exist which are common for them: Every country must be governed well and consistently. People should become united, and suffering be reduced.

Also for leaders without ideals and rules, these goals are important in order to strengthen and sustain their nations and their own power.

This is the common denominator which can be used to comment both mature and declined phenomena.

Peace vs a presumed truth

 Aeschylus is credited with the saying:

 

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

 

This is obviously correct, and it is condemnable when lies are used to justify cruel wars and suffering.

 

But let us not forget that peace can also depend on certain versions of the truth. And this is acceptable if the purpose is the higher goal of creating peace and ending suffering.

Who is Overlord?

 Clearly, Donald Trump’s major competitor for overlordship in the American world is neither Gavin Newsom nor Elon Musk, but Benjamin Netanyahu.

What kind of historical legacy do you want?

  

“What if only ten righteous people can be found in the city?”

God answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

 

As often explained, a odernity is a phase in a civilisation, which is characterised by rational thinking, cultural and scientific innovation, experimental thought, political ideas and pluralism, but also by conflicts, revolutions and wars. We see high levels of humane thinking and politics, but also shockingly inhumane acts and meaningless bloodshed and suffering. Examples of modernities are: in the First Chinese Civilisation roughly 500-200 BC, in the Greco-Roman 300-0, in the Second Chinese Civilisation 900-1300 and in our case 1800-2100.

 

The judgement of a modernity changes radically with time, especially with the shift from this phase to the time after. The new thinking which during a modernity was hailed as liberation, is now difficult to understand and perceived and criticised as immoral. This is evident already under the rule of Augustus which marked the end of the Greco-Roman modernity.

 

The violence and attrocities which as said, also characterise modernities are praised by the contemporary victors and condemned by not only the defeated. After the modern phase such acts are broadly condemned and the perpetrators go down in history as criminals and murderers. Their legacy is tainted and bloody.

 

Examples are Sulla who proscribed thousands of opponents and others in Rome in 82 BC and Bai Qi who in China in 260 BC slaughtered 400.000 soldiers after they had surrended. Our civilisation has also witnessed several people who might have been heroes of the day for some, but were butchers for others. After the end of their modernity such people in all civilisations were and will be generally condemned. One of history’s worst examples is of course Adolf Hitler who as deserved is condemned by almost everybody already in the present modern phase. Compared to what he and his followers did, the other excesses in the use of violence and suffering in our civilisation, past or ongoing, may seem less significant. But nevertheless, such acts have caused and causes tens or hundreds of thousands or even millions of lost lives. The crimes of Nazism do not nullify them. Neither do the crimes of terrorism. Not in the eyes of contemporaries and certainly not for future historical judges.

Who is playing by the rules?

The readers must forgive me for recent inconsistencies. It is difficult to predict the exact details of developments of which we only know the overall parallel picture in older civilisations. And as history despite obvious overall similarities does not follow a law, the details can be affected by new events. Two such recent developments have influenced our path:

a} Changes in America which I had expected would take two decades, have been accomplished in only a few months. The legislative power is on it‘s knees. The judicial system, the media and the states are next in line. In foreign politics close  allies are viewed and treated with shocking contempt.

b} But in response Europe has stood up in a remarkably decisive manner.

 

In the broader perspective the internal and global developments over the next eight decades can be predicted. But when it comes to the details, events like the two changes make short-term predictions more difficult.

 

In addition to this comes a theoretical modification. In one of my recent posts I have talked about the world being taken over by overlords like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Despite cultural differences the latter is another overlord. But Putin is clearly far more skilled and well-considered. He may split the world, but as opposed to Trump he does not bring his own country close to civil war.

 

I wrote that leaders like Trump would seize more and more executive power. They wouldn‘t care about internal or external traditions and constitutions, and they could easily abandon established alliances and rules. I assumed this development to affect the whole civilisation, i.e. the whole world.

 

 But during the work with the analysis in my most recent text-post, Save the EU,  I have modified this point of view. As usual drawing on historical parallels, I have nuanced this idea of only one possible path into several possible routes: The described overlords do not have to be the destiny in all parts of our global civilisation. In the East Asian Civilisation the Southern Song Dynasty  succeeded in avoiding this scenario for long periods of time. As written, it can be argued that the same possibility exists for parts of our civilisation. Further, it can be argued that even if all parts of a civilisation do move in this direction, it can happen with different degrees and different speeds.

 

In our case it is clear or should be clear, that America and  Russia are leading the development towards overlords with no shame. And as written in the earlier post, the EU is presently continuing the more mature modernity with it‘s political systems, order and traditions.

 

But this is also the case for present China. There has been much talk about the liberal democratic western countries as being representatives of a “rule-based” world. Russia and China were seen as revanchist and expansionist opponents of these rules. Obviously, the United States has now left the club of self-declared rule-governed nations.

 

But it is important to make a distinction between 1) those who want a one-time correction of existing delimitations between spheres of interest, but otherwise want respect of rules. And 2) those who act against rules as such in order to change the global architecture in a fundamental way,  even by prematurely annexing territories and countries. Trump and Putin seem to belong to the latter type.

 

China seems to belong to the first type. Because of the tremendous growth of it’s economic strength, China sees a discrepancy between an enormous global weight and a sphere which in some aspects is limited. This causes Beijing to want a correction. But this does not imply a general disrespect of rule-based behavior.

 

In fact, when it comes to respect of rules per se, the world is divided between a) the anarchic United States plus Russia and b) the orderly Europe and China. This is also a difference between those powers which destabilise and those which stabilise the globe.

 

Thus, despite differences between political systems, Europe and China have much in common and share their conception of a stable world. Besides, as written elsewhere, the European and the Chinese civilisation have many cultural similarities, like the veneration of history and respect of science just to mention a couple.

 

In a world where Europe as vividly illustrated in the picture in my last post, is threatened by the powers of chaos, it is absolutely necessary that the EU does not turn against a possible valuable ally. In foreign politics the Europeans must dampen their ideological principles and make a strategic alliance with China.This would be based on shared global views and interests. The two powers should resolve their trade conflicts and work together. In order to deal with overlords not playing by the rules, you must be adaptable and dynamic.     

 

Obviously, the idea is not that two of the major world-forces should make an alliance against the other two. Instead, all four should agree on and respect their spheres. Europe - not necessarily all of the EU and not only the EU - must play  an active part in the game and not be reduced to a puppet or a victim.

 

 

Note

The Russian leader may be an overlord in the context of the Second European, now global Civilisation. In an East European context he is something else.