Deep Dive with Shawn C. Fettig

Stability or Chaos: Can the US Keep Leading the World? (w/ Professor Edward Goldberg)

• Sea Tree Media

Share episode

In this episode, we question the future of American leadership and its crucial role in maintaining the liberal world order. Could a second Donald Trump presidency shift the balance of power, allowing authoritarian regimes like China and Russia to gain prominence? Professor Edward Goldberg - expert on globalization, and author of the book The United States as Global Liberal Hegemon: How the US Came to Lead the World - joins Deep Dive to consider these pressing questions, offering keen insights into the historical and contemporary factors shaping the U.S.'s position as a global leader.

Professor Goldberg argues that the United States is the global liberal hegemon, a stabilizing force since the aftermath of the World Wars and, furthermore, that the world needs the United States to remain in that role. We discuss the U.S.'s unique advantages—secure borders, natural resources, and strategic alliances—that have cemented its leadership in fostering global cooperation and democracy. With a thoughtful examination of international institutions like the UN and NATO, we assess the strengths and limitations of these organizations in managing conflicts amidst the rise of power rivalries. 

As polarization in the United States deepens, Trumpism takes hold, and isolationism becomes a real possibility in a second Trump presidency, the potential repercussions of a significant pivot in U.S. foreign policy are all too real. We explore the possible consequences of a diminished American role, contemplating the risk of increased global instability and authoritarian aggression. Reflecting on past and present geopolitical landscapes, we emphasize the importance of sustained U.S. influence in mediating conflicts and reinforcing democratic norms. With this pivotal election approaching, the stakes for global stability are higher than ever, and Professor Goldberg's insights offer a critical perspective on the future of American global leadership.

-------------------------
Follow Deep Dive:
Instagram
YouTube

Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com

Music:
Majestic Earth - Joystock



Professor Goldberg:

And we've now gone from the manufacturing age to the human capital age. I think the US, by the personality of its people, by its entrepreneurial spirit, by having the freedom freedom of the internet, which you don't have in a place like China to share ideas, I think the US is in an unbelievable position in the new world. So no, I don't think we are losing our hegemonic position. I think it's actually been strengthened. I also think it's been strengthened with the dollar being the reserve currency and the dollar being the currency that most of world trades in. The Federal Reserve now has become almost like the World Central Bank or the World's Firehouse. Now, I think the one thing that could seriously change this is if Donald Trump becomes elected.

Shawn:

Welcome to Deep Dive with me, se C Fettig. Since the end of World War I, and especially World War II, the United States has been the anchor of the liberal world order, shaping international institutions, promoting democratic values and driving economic globalization. This role, often referred to as that of a liberal hegemon, has been critical not only for maintaining relative global peace, but also for establishing a framework of international cooperation, trade and diplomacy. It's a role that has cemented American influence, both soft and hard power, across the globe. But what happens if this leadership falters or takes a sharp inward turn? What if the United States no longer even wants to lead? Under the presidency of Donald Trump, we saw a glimpse of what a withdrawal from international alliances and multilateral agreements could look like. His America First doctrine intended to pull the US back from its leadership role, fostering a form of isolationism at odds with nearlya century of American foreign policy. Now, with the possibility of Trump's return to power, his stated objectives, his positions against our allies, against NATO, against Ukraine, and with anti-democratic chaos agents—Russia's Putin and Hungary's Orban—were really left to wonder what this could mean for the global order. What happens when a liberal hegemon the liberal hegemon turns its back on the very system it helped build.

Shawn:

My guest today is Professor Edward Goldberg of New York University, expert on US foreign policy and global economics and author of the book the United States as Global Liberal Hegemon how the US Came to Lead the World. We discuss the importance of US leadership, how the global order might change without it and the consequences for both America and the world under a potential second Trump presidency. All right, if you liked this episode, or any episode, please give it a like, share and follow on your favorite podcast platform and or subscribe to the podcast on YouTube. And, as always, if you have any thoughts, questions or comments, please feel free to email me at deepdivewithshawn at gmailcom. Let's do a deep dive, edward. Thanks for being here. How are you?

Professor Goldberg:

Great Thanks for having me, Sea.

Shawn:

Absolutely. I've been thinking a lot lately about the global order. You know how it was established, what it's meant for stability in the world or maybe to some degree some instability in the world how it's maintained and I suppose, if the current structure is a good thing and it feels like we might be living through a time when not only is that order threatened but does feel like it could actually change, that the balance of power could shift and that would mean away from the United States and maybe to some extent Europe and I think, on its face, absent any context. That doesn't necessarily have to be bad, but with context, when we consider who fills that vacuum and their motives and their governing systems and their values etc. You know we're thinking about maybe China, maybe Russia to some degree. You know that is something to be concerned about. So I'm glad to have you here to talk through some of this with me.

Professor Goldberg:

Yeah, no, I appreciate it.

Shawn:

So you've written about and you've talked about, you know, the current global order as being dominated by, and actually probably needing, the United States as a liberal hegemon, and I think maybe what we should do is start by defining what this means. So what is a hegemon? What's a liberal hegemon? And then, why does the world need it?

Professor Goldberg:

Well, first let's go to the terms. In my book I say the United States. The title is the United States is the global liberal hegemon how the US came to lead the world. A hegemon comes, obviously it's a Greek word. It comes from actually the rivalry of the city states. It's the political power at the time as a hegemon.

Professor Goldberg:

And liberal is an interesting word because it has nothing to do with the way it's used today. Today it's used back and forth like a ping pong to imply that someone's either a socialist or communist, a liberal Through political science and definitely in international relations. Liberal comes the meaning is from the Enlightenment period in the 17th and 18th century and it means someone who is an individual, who believes in individualism, is as important as the government and should be given respect. So when we talk about a liberal hegemon, when we're talking about a power that believes in the rights of the individual, believes in the rights of the rule of law and actually believes in a free enterprise system, it's basically totally back to the Enlightenment definition, not the definition of the talking heads today.

Shawn:

When you say that the world needs the United States as a liberal hegemon, is it because of that liberal component?

Professor Goldberg:

Well, no, actually it's interesting. When I first began to write the book, the original title was who Anointed America? I'm a child of the Vietnam War and I'm thinking to myself why are we, the liberal hegemon? What good do we do in the world? Who needs us and who said we should be in this position? I came to the conclusion that there's no one else. We're in this position by default. The world's natural order, because of geography, because of culture, because of history, is chaos, and someone needs to rein in that chaos a bit. I don't think it can rein it in 100%. Sadly, someone needs to rein in that chaos a bit. I don't think it can rein it in 100%. Sadly, someone needs to rein in that chaos a bit. And then, if you look at who that could be, only the United States is in that position.

Professor Goldberg:

We're in that position for several reasons. One, because we are definitely the lucky country when it comes to geography. We have the oceans on both sides, which gives us a very big sense of security. We have two friendly neighbors as our neighbors on the border. The biggest problem we have with our neighbors is our southern border. Everybody wants to come to live here. Every other country would love to say that's the only problem with their neighbor.

Professor Goldberg:

And you look at China and Russia. Russia is surrounded by enemies. China, except for North Korea, is surrounded by unfriendly countries. We're very fortunate that we have these two neighbors. Then we look at our geography. Unlike other countries, we're totally food self-sufficient. Now we're energy self-sufficient. We have a great river system. I know we just had a hurricane down south this week, but on the whole we have a temperate climate. We're really, really the lucky country here.

Professor Goldberg:

There's no other place with that advantage. China, most of its products and most of its energy, has to come through on the Straits of Macau, which is really a narrow, narrow body of water right below Singapore. Once again, we're free of that problem. Once again, we're free of that problem. So with those respects, we become the natural place. Added to that, unlike our adversaries if you could call them adversaries, russia and China we have allies, which they really don't have. Of course you can say Iran's an ally of Russia. Of course you can say Iran's an ally of Russia and China is. I don't know whether you would call it an ally of Russia or whether Russia is a vassal state of China. That's a debatable point but we have allies, which is really, really important. So another advantage in these allies recognize us as the hegemonic leader. It's not that we force them to recognize us, they choose to recognize us and this is another very important factor.

Shawn:

So the current global order hasn't always existed. It isn't always been that the US has been a dominant force or chosen to play that role in the United States. A lot of this was born out of the aftermath of World War I and then particularly the aftermath of World War II, this consolidation of allied powers around this idea that peace needs to be maintained at all costs, and then that evolved into a battle between democracy and some type of autocracy, I suppose. But as what was born out of that was this US hegemonic position, so could you maybe help me understand, or help us understand, how that was born out of the I suppose, the ashes of World War Two, and what the trajectory has looked like.

Professor Goldberg:

Well, I think it's actually born out of the ashes of World War I. Okay, yeah, you know, the US decided not to join the League of Nations. You know, we came in, we did our bit in World War I and we went home. You know it was the age of US unique engineering the Edisons and the Fords and like good engineers, we went in and thought we fixed the problem and then we went home. That, of course, by definition, made the League of Nations weak if the largest economic power of the time was not in it. So consequently, we get to World War II.

Professor Goldberg:

By the way, franklin Roosevelt always realized that that was a major mistake and it was always in his mind that the US should have not withdrawn from the League of Nations. In fact, in the 20s he went around the country giving many, many speeches on it. So now then we have the Great Depression and of course then we have World War II. And in the middle of World War II, roosevelt administration does an amazing thing which one could actually say is not only probably the beginning of US being the hegemon, but it's probably the beginning one could even trace it as the beginning of our age of globalization. In 1944, the Roosevelt administration called a global finance economic conference to deal with world trade in Brentwoods, new Hampshire. It's interesting when they called this it looked like we were winning the war but we still hadn't won the war and it was to revitalize the international financial system, which many people blame for the economic conditions that were, one could say, nails on the coffin that led to World War II. Out of Brentwoods we have the IMF, we have the WTO, we have the World Bank, but we also have, most importantly, the US becomes the world's reserve currency. So we now almost are economic power, which before World War II we were in a period of isolationism. Now we're saying openly we're going to economically be the power, and that was a very important thing.

Professor Goldberg:

So I think we could trace our entry to being the hegemon, both in the entry, the beginning of world war ii, where roosevelt talks about the four freedoms, in our, our goals, even before we enter the war. We are actually and we have to look at I'm jumping around here a little bit Lend-Lease, which happened before we entered the war. But Roosevelt said we are going to be involved protecting our allies. We are going to ship them armaments under this very convoluted arrangement to get around the Congressional Neutrality Act, but still, we're going to ship the UK, we're going to ship the Soviet Union and China. Actually Anyone else that we see as our friend that's being attacked, we're going to help them. So that was the beginning of this Weird. Then later, brent Woods.

Shawn:

So you mentioned WTO, you mentioned World Bank, and I think these are just a handful of institutions that were designed to, you know, both administer and maintain this new kind of global world order, with the United States as the tip of the spear, I suppose, but there are others, right, the United Nations and then NATO, of course. Yeah, and I think, if we don't parse out the differences and we just take this as a package of institutions that were designed to create and maintain a certain type of world order, there's two tracks I want to take here. One is you know this, you know not to sound too tropey here, but with great power comes great responsibility, and I guess I wonder to your mind it sounds like the road's about speech.

Shawn:

Well, hey, I'll take that.

Professor Goldberg:

Right.

Shawn:

But, you know, I do wonder, if we think about this as a trajectory, how well the United States has performed in living up to those responsibilities, but then also how the institutions that were designed to maintain this order have performed over time.

Professor Goldberg:

Interesting, interesting question. So where do we begin here? Yes, I have to add to the World War II institutions NATO and the UN. The UN is, you know, in some ways a fantastic organization, in some ways a problematic organization. It was never really solidified in its formation how it would deal with big power rivalries. So the UN has been a fantastic institution in dealing with non-big power rivalries around the world. It's been a fantastic institution in dealing things with part of its subsidy organizations, like the World Health Organization, which I know had some problems under COVID, but it's generally a very well-operated organization and does really benefits the world scene. Same with its law of the seas. All these subsidy organizations have done wonderful things. But its problem is the big power rivalries.

Professor Goldberg:

The Security Council is, by definition, a failed system actually. So you know, we look at the big conflicts since World War II, whether it's Vietnam or whether it's Afghanistan or any of these places or Ukraine. Today the Security Council is neutered, it can't do anything because of the veto rights of the big power. So that's where it's failure. And if we look at why the world needs a hegemon and we begin, let's say, all the way back to 1648, to when the Westphalian treaties were signed in Europe, 10 to 30 year war and the concept of sovereignty involved and the concept of one country should not invade another country. Who guarantees that? After the Westphalian treaties we had the Congress of Vienna, which Henry Kissinger wrote a lot about, which ended the Napoleonic Wars, and the Congress of Vienna, which Henry Kissinger wrote a lot about, which ended the Napoleonic Wars. And the Congress of Vienna, as Kissinger described, was based on peaceful come about by a balance of power. So then we have the balance of power concept really fell apart in World War I concept really fell apart in World War I. And then we have the League of Nations concept, which really still doesn't work because of the big power issue.

Professor Goldberg:

Then during the Cold War we get, as you might know, the great mad theory. Mad that came from John von Neumann in string theory is the idea that we won't nuke the Soviets because they'll immediately nuke our cities. So mutual sure destruction became the peacekeeper, that's one. We no longer have a Soviet Union. You know you need basically two mutual powers for MAD. But also now what we found is big powers operate just to the level below MAD. So we know Russia invades the Ukraine, but we can only do so much because we'll get to the level of mad. So Biden's limited. For instance, he can't say to the Ukrainians use whatever armistice you have to hit stockpiles outside of Moscow, weapons stockpiles, because we're afraid then of Russia being nuclear.

Professor Goldberg:

So, looking at all these events and historic events, you have to say, well, who's going to set the rules? There has to be someone somewhere that says back to Westphalia, nations can't invade other nations. Who's going to be the rule setter? And that's the reason for the liberal hegemon. Does it always work? Absolutely not.

Professor Goldberg:

Have we been going off on adventures? Absolutely. Have we done things for our own domestic politics? Absolutely, have we been caught up in history and been haunted by history and therefore made horrible decisions? Absolutely. I mean there's all this documentation. How, in the early Vietnam, on LBJ and Dean Rusk, I mean, they kept on thinking Munich. That's when they came into maturity, that was what was in their mind. They were trapped by history. So does this happen? Yes, because you know, we're not Plato's, you know eidistic idea of a leader, we're human beings. So, yes, we've made some tragic mistakes, but we've also done some wonderful things, whether it was the Marshall Plan, whether it was NATO, you can go on and on this massive economic country. We protected its trade routes. We believe in freedom of the seas, and China's economy more or less grew under our military umbrella.

Shawn:

You mentioned the war in Ukraine, and this might be a little afield, but I want to follow this thread a little bit because you mentioned. In a world in which we adhere to the concept of mutually assured destruction, you know that Biden is somewhat constrained to some degree as a rational actor, or at least his actions and his decisions are. But on the other side of that equation is Putin right, and we would assume then that he is constrained by the same things, and in that sense then I guess the battle becomes brinksmanship, like just how close you are to bring us to that.

Professor Goldberg:

I think absolutely, I think absolutely.

Shawn:

And so my question is, as it relates to the madness of the actor Putin versus Biden, I guess here maybe even Zelensky to some degree we have to assume some rationality. But to your mind, in a world of mutually assured destruction, do you think that is as constraining today to somebody like Putin in a way that should give us some comfort? Or do you think that we live in a different world now, with a shifting hegemony that might make this more dangerous?

Professor Goldberg:

I don't honestly think we have a shifting hegemony at this time, but I think it would. It makes it more dangerous. You know, it's interesting what happened on the man. We believe that these ideologues the Soviets right, total ideologues our system will conquer your system. You know, total believers in their ways or your system. You know total believers in their ways Bad work because we believe they were rational actors. I always thought that was interesting and somewhat ironic. I don't know if it's any different now. You know we have to believe that they're rational actors and they don't want to kill their population, that they are not true, true, true ideologues. Iran this afternoon now this could change in the next five minutes. Okay, what I'm saying. Iran today was a rational actor. It fired a retaliation against Israel, but it was like it was all PR and no, you know, major, major, major attack. You know, either they don't have the ability to do it or they were just saying you know, for our population, we have to show that we have the ability to do something.

Professor Goldberg:

But, they appear to be very much of a rational actor, and these are definitely a group of men that are totally ideologues.

Shawn:

Right, and so, just for our listeners, what you're talking about is we're recording this essentially at the same moment that Iran is firing missiles at Israel. Correct, exactly, yeah, so this is a little off book, but I do want to bounce something off of you, because this is what I worry about A scenario in which have you ever been in a room of sane people and then there's one person who's pushing the boundary, and it's almost like that person knows they can go a little crazy, because everyone else will maintain sanity. Of course, and that worries me. That that's the game Putin is playing, is that he could even perhaps, you know, even if it's some low-grade nuclear weapon employ use of that strategically and assume that nobody else will want to escalate and respond in kind.

Professor Goldberg:

Oh, you know, he could. I assume and hope that our intelligence services, you know, have done different studies on Putin's psyche. You know, I assume they have. I assume there are all types of psychological profiles that our leaders see on Putin. I hope they're correct, you know, but obviously we just don't know. And of course, then what is our position if he does something like that? I don't think we're going to advertise that either. But let's get back to once again how do you limit the chaos? You can't stop the chaos, okay, but how do you limit it?

Professor Goldberg:

And that's, I think, the role today of the global liberal hegemon. Look, I think Obama, who I think was really a very good president, made one major foreign policy mistake. He gave this when Syria used gas on its citizens. He gave a wonderful speech on national TV about how this is absolutely violent. It's all international law. It's been a part of international law, a treaty, a convention, since the end of World War I. You don't use natural gas, and Assad did. It. Would have been very easy for then for Obama to launch several missiles not many, several missiles into Damascus to show this is a violation of the rules.

Professor Goldberg:

For whatever reason, after this great speech, obama didn't follow through. I think that set a bad precedent for the role of the hegemon, because the policeman needs to give out tickets. If the cop doesn't give out tickets, the cop loses all authority. Cop loses all authority. Biden's position in the Ukraine is a much, much tougher position than Obama's because obviously Syria was not going to harm us if we gave them a ticket. Biden's problem in the Ukraine is we can be harmed by giving out the ticket. It's a much more difficult calculation but on the other hand, biden did and I have to give Biden a lot of credit for this. Biden did organize this great allied Western response on the invasion of Ukraine and I think this is a tremendous job on his part.

Shawn:

So I feel like you answered this question earlier, but I guess I just want to poke at it a little bit. Do you think that the current global order, with the United States as the liberal hegemon, is in flux or in danger of collapsing? And I suppose, if so, what would bring that about or what could cause that?

Professor Goldberg:

You know, I honestly I was accused the other day by someone on the Council of Foreign Relations being an optimist. I actually, since don't think it's so much in danger. I think we have to be very leery about, you know, looking at the forest and the trees and not just looking at the headline view of the world. I think that, in principle, the United States with its allied relationships, especially with the European Union countries, has gotten stronger. The attack on Ukraine has made that stronger, has gotten stronger. The attack on Ukraine has made that stronger. China's aggressiveness in the South China Sea and in Asia has made our relationship with the Japanese and the Filipinos and Vietnam and those countries stronger. So I think once again back to the fact that in today's world the allies decide to give the permission for one country to be the hegemon. I think that we've cemented our strength.

Professor Goldberg:

I also see China having tremendous economic problems between aging population, between debt and now an increasingly deflation. I see China not in a healthy position at all, which, sadly, could make it more aggressive. That's another story, but I don't see it. It's not the model that everyone thought it was eight years ago. I see the United States' ability, especially in a world where manufacturing has really declined in value and human capital. We're in a new age. It's like going from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and we've now gone from the manufacturing age to the human capital age.

Professor Goldberg:

I think the US, by the personality of its people, by its entrepreneurial spirit, by having the freedom freedom of the internet, which you don't have in a place like China to share ideas, I think the US is in an unbelievable position in the new world. So no, I don't think we are losing our hegemonic position. I think it's actually been strengthened. I also think it's been strengthened with the dollar being the reserve currency and the dollar being the currency the most of the world trades in. The Federal Reserve now has become almost like the World Central Bank or the World's Firehouse. Now, I think the one thing that could seriously change this if Donald Trump becomes elected, then I think you know we have to look at it totally differently. But at the moment, since Harris is ahead, two, three points I realize that's nothing. I think we'll stay as the global hegemon for a while.

Shawn:

So I'm glad this is where you're going, because I don't want to stand in opposition to you.

Shawn:

I appreciate your optimism, but I have anxiety and it is for this reason, which is, you know, I think, when we talk about the ability of the current global order to survive and not just survive but thrive we think about what our potential challenge is to it, exogenously.

Shawn:

So you know, from the outside, and you've talked about that and maybe you've neutralized that right, but you know, this specific, I suppose, to Trump is this, this endogenous component to it that makes me very nervous, and that is. There's a number of prongs, but the two prongs that concern me are we're becoming increasingly polarized and to like to the point that we're becoming our own worst enemies, that we can't legislate, we can't govern ourselves, we don't seem to present a united front, and all of these are vulnerabilities that can be exploited by bad actors. But the other is, while Harris is up, two or three points, we are kind of staring down a coin flip here on who the president's going to be. And if Trump poses a truly grave threat to the United States' role in the global order, then that 50-50 seems like a scary percentage or a scary ratio.

Professor Goldberg:

Yeah, I can't argue with you there. You know I have no idea what's going to happen on Election Day. To take this out of the world of international politics and back to the domestic politics. You know my thought is looking at it from a historical perspective. The polls are sliding off and Harris is further ahead because of the power of the female vote.

Professor Goldberg:

You know, historically, I think it's very important to remember here that the amendment for women to vote was passed throughout 1919, 1920. And shortly after we had prohibition passed as a constitutional amendment. That was all done on the women's vote Because, not all, but a great deal of it, because at that time people were consuming much more alcohol than they do now in the United States and there was a tremendous, tremendous amount of, basically, wife beating. So prohibition was driven by the women's vote and women got the vote and they went out and did something with it. I think we might be in the same position now. Now, you know, we'll see if I'm wrong in four weeks. You know if I'm crazy or not, this I can't, you know, judge, but I think it would. I think we're under counting the women's vote. You know the silent women's vote, even the silent Nikki Haley vote on this issue. So, yes, we are poor.

Professor Goldberg:

You know, in general we are polarized and you know if we have a problem being the hegemon, it's that polarization. You know that in fact it goes back to. You know, in the beginning of our conversation I mentioned the word liberal comes from the Enlightenment. Well, we're the only major country born in the era of Enlightenment where the individual Enlightenment philosophy could be considered more important than the community, than the community, and so we have part of our philosophy.

Professor Goldberg:

You know, what right do you have to tell me to wear a mask during a pandemic? What right does the government have to do this? Right? Right, does the government have to tell me to get an injection against this, against the pandemic? That's part of our individual beliefs and that individual beliefs has been fantastic for entrepreneurialism, which I mentioned before, which makes us, I think, basically almost unstoppable economically. But the other side of that coin is the hindrance. We're really bad at community unless we have a solid leader that can organize us in an effort. But if we were just left to ourselves, we're anti-community. And in today's world, where the next pandemic can be in three weeks or two weeks, where we could have just based on Chinese deflation and how bad that gets. Another economic crisis where we need community, we're not so good at that.

Shawn:

I want to circle back to this the threat of something like a pandemic in a few minutes. But before we get there, I want to follow up on something else you said, which is the future of the United States as the global liberal hegemon. Before we get there, I want to follow up on something else you said, which is the future of the United States as the global liberal hegemon. It's a different story if Trump is elected, and I guess I'm wondering, given Trump's, you know at least what we can parse out from what his policy preferences seem to be, what he said you know related to trade and NATO and our allies, and then also what he's done in his previous presidency, and also how he has transformed the Republican Party to be acquiescent to all of this. How do you envision this threatening the US's role as a global hegemon, were he to be reelected, and what does that look like? Or what could that look like?

Professor Goldberg:

Okay. Well, you're talking to a person here who famously on Bloomberg Radio shortly after Trump was elected, say look, I realize he's very conservative, but he's a pragmatic New York business person, so I don't know if we have anything to worry about.

Shawn:

How'd that work out.

Professor Goldberg:

That was a great comment of mine, you know. I think it's a definitive problem. Mitch McConnell, on hegemonic foreign relations issue, was the person that blocked Trump's isolationist position in the Senate. We're not going to have that man around anymore. I'm not saying Mitch McConnell's a superstar star in my beliefs of what a senator should be but on these issues he really neutralized Trump's position. It's a problem, it's going to be. We have to see, you know, what the Senate will turn out to be, whether, if you know, the Democrats hold the Senate, maybe they'll be able to neutralize his position. I think that's all. We have no idea at the moment.

Professor Goldberg:

I know it's not healthy. It would be easier for it to be simpler and it would be easier, honestly, for us to go back to the Cold War, understanding where American partisanship stops at the seas.

Shawn:

At the sea. Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about that lately, that this feels like a horrible thing to say, but I would almost prefer the Cold War, where it felt like the actors were. You know, as you had previously said, much more pragmatic, you know, but that's getting back.

Professor Goldberg:

That's make America great again, because yesterday always looks better. There's this great story about when Ed Koch was running for mayor of New York and he walked along the broad walk in Coney Island. In these older residents sitting on, you know, on the park benches would say Mr Mayor, please make it like it used to be, you know. So it's the same thing. One of the problems we have, actually, is that the change is so rapid that people can't have difficulties in just adjusting to it and therefore they want it to be like it used to be. And I believe that's part of Trump's support that we're changing so rapidly that it's very difficult to adjust to it.

Shawn:

This is actually something we talked about on last week's episode, which is this concept of nostalgia, kind of throwing a shroud over reality, right yeah.

Professor Goldberg:

Yeah, so yes, the Cold War does look simpler, but yet I remember being in school and having practice to go under my desk Me too In case we'd be nuked.

Shawn:

Yep, I remember that too. This is a little afield as well, but like one potential green shoot I see is I feel like it won't happen. So there's this glimmer of hope that I have that, even if Republicans hold the Senate and or the House, that they may shift a bit, knowing that Trump is kind of lame duck.

Professor Goldberg:

We have no evidence that Vience is pragmatic or rational. Oh yeah, no, I agree. So I mean we'll see. I mean once again for you, for your listeners, tonight's the night of the vice president's debate, so we'll see more tonight. But so far in Vance's previous statements have not been rational or very pragmatic. You know, we just don't know or very pragmatic.

Shawn:

You know, we just don't know. I also wonder if Vance has the same fervor of a fan base as Trump does, and I think that's what threatens Republicans so much is that he can turn out this fan base against them. But yeah, like you said, we'll see.

Professor Goldberg:

Right, yeah, I mean, if I, by the way, if I was on Harris, I would run a campaign. Well, once again, depending what happens in the debate tonight, but I would run a campaign saying you know, Trump is, you know, an older man. Do you want Vance as your president?

Shawn:

Yeah, I was thinking that earlier today Like I wonder if that's coming down the pike or if they're just missing the boat here, but I think they could highlight much more the role that Vance could be playing.

Professor Goldberg:

Correct. So I think possibly the thing that would maybe also check on Trump would be the international business community. That could put pressure on Trump and check him. Although the other day he went after Google, I was surprised.

Shawn:

Well, I'm not surprised anymore. The guy does not seem particularly rational. But hey, so you mentioned the pandemic and the you know very real possibility that we could experience another one at. You know the drop of a hat at any time. Also, you know the hurricanes that are occurring with much more frequency attributed to climate change, and these things global health pandemics, climate change also can influence the global world order, and so I guess I wonder how much thought you've given to those types of things as impacting.

Professor Goldberg:

Well, it's interesting, I think. First, I have to say I think one of the more solid institutions in the United States is the Pentagon more solid governmental institutions and the Pentagon has done tremendous, tremendous work on the impact of climate change in the world and what will happen, you know, in terms of how it will change America's position in the world, and I have to give them a lot of credit for it. You know, I would assume that all these Congress people who vote for the Pentagon budget have no concept that they're doing these studies and plans right Else they would not right but fortunately they don't have a concept, and so the Pentagon has been a very excellent player on this. Now, that doesn't mean it's going to stop climate change, but then making preparations. How the US position, you know, where are we going to be when cities are underwater, for instance, around the world? What's that going to mean to the United States? And I think those types of scenarios are very important.

Shawn:

I guess I want to pin you down a little bit on, not in the context of the United States as a fading power, but just given what we know about the current state of affairs globally, and it does feel like maybe it, you know, maybe it is no different from any other era, but it does feel like we are living through an era of time that is very unstable and that doesn't have to be negative just like that. We're going through quite a few significant changes to governing styles, to alliances and relationships in the world, and migration and climate change etc.

Professor Goldberg:

Oh, I agree, you know you reference going back to the Cold War days. I mean, look at the Eisenhower period. Domestically, you know, domestically of course, we buried a zillion issues. We buried civil rights, we buried women's rights, we buried gay rights issues. It was all buried, very much so. But if you looked at the country, it was very Pacific at the time. If you looked at the country, it was very Pacific at the time and you didn't feel, if you were a white, middle upper class male especially, you felt everything's okay. But once again, I think, yes, we're going through back to the changes in the world. Just look to what's happening in the Middle East now. We're the liberal hegemon but we can't control the Mideast. There are now so many independent actors. A bigger threat to our hegemony to a certain extent, not to our hegemony, but the ability to control chaos, I think is not China or Russia, but the development of individual actors.

Professor Goldberg:

Such as Such as Hezbollah or.

Shawn:

Hamas oh right, right, right, right yeah. Or what's going on in Yemen, like the non-state actors.

Professor Goldberg:

The non-state actors. This is much more problematic. And of course, then getting back to climate change, I mean how this affects the world is tremendous. I mean, look at Egypt. I mean Egypt is getting drier and drier and, interestingly enough, its revenue source on the Suez Canal is being it's being used less because now ships going from Asia find it shorter sailing time to go above and go through the Arctic Circle, because now that pass is open for a good part of the year, so you don't have to go through the Suez Canal. So that deprives Egypt of revenue and so, between it getting hotter and less revenue, this country could easily, very much eventually, slip into crisis.

Professor Goldberg:

The Pentagon did a study several years ago as an example, that the Syrian civil war was partly caused because of climate change, because the small Syrian farmers weren't able to get their crop yields, and it's amazing what happened. So you have the Syrian civil war. What happens? It threatens our closest ally and our largest trading partner, the European Union, because these people go to immigrate there. So everything becomes connected and then adds to the chaos.

Shawn:

So, if we package all of this and consider all of this to your mind, what are you looking for as it relates to the future of the global order in the next decade or so?

Professor Goldberg:

Basically, I want to be back to being a Westphalian. I want countries should not invade other countries' stability. I think stability is the best you could ask for in a time of rapid change.

Shawn:

Is there anything that particularly concerns you, or do you just remain an optimist?

Professor Goldberg:

No, the effect, as I mentioned, the effects that climate change can have on nation states, is a tremendous problem. Us politics, I believe, is a tremendous problem. I'm an optimist, but I'm not a 90% optimist. I'm a 52% optimist.

Shawn:

Hey Harris will take that.

Professor Goldberg:

I know, exactly, exactly, good point.

Shawn:

Okay, final question. You ready for it? Yes, what's something interesting you've been reading, watching, listening to or doing lately? It doesn't have to be related to this topic, but it can be.

Professor Goldberg:

Okay, so a couple of good books. For those who love detective books and who love international economics, there's a great new detective book called the Wealth of Shadows by a writer, Graham Moore. Believe it or not, it's a detective story about Brent Woods in 1944. And it's really superb. It has all the major characters. Like John Maynard Kane really describes him extremely well. It's a great book. It's fun. I'm in the middle of reading a kind of difficult but fascinating history called how the West Was Made by Dr Josephine Corey Quinn, about how different cultures from prehistoric times came to make up what we now call Europe. She's very much saying that historically we think Europe went from Athens to Rome to what we know as Europe, and she's saying no, there's so much more involved. I just finished a great history called Demons of Unrest by Eric Larson about the period in America from the time Lincoln was nominated to the beginning of the Civil War. Fascinating, fascinating cultural study. Very much relates to that today. So that's what I've been reading.

Shawn:

Sounds like you and I kind of swim in the same pool of genre. I've got Demons of Unrest on the table right next to me. Oh, it's wonderful. And I just looked up Wealth of Shadows, you know, I just got back from Berlin and it looks like there's a whole Nazi Germany component to this.

Professor Goldberg:

Yes, slight Nazi Germany component. Yes.

Shawn:

I've been finding that really fascinating. It's also like to me like kind of studying history, and how it all played out has been a bit of a comfort blanket. As you know, I worry about this election, right yeah, that's right up my alley right now, so thanks for that.

Professor Goldberg:

No it's really a great read. I mean, it's really fun and, as I said, everyone has a particular nonsense. I really spent a lot of time reading about and studying Brent Woods, and his description of the characters are just really fantastic, so I think it's a fascinating story.

Shawn:

And it's a fascinating time.

Professor Goldberg:

Where were you in Berlin?

Shawn:

Well, I was just in Berlin, but I stayed in near Potsdamer Platz. Do you know?

Professor Goldberg:

it Vaguely. Yes, I was only there once. I loved it.

Shawn:

I really loved it too. It's a fascinating city. Germany has such a. The 1900s were particularly interesting for germany, but there's just so much history at every turn I agree, I, I, I totally totally agree, I totally agree like. You don't have to leave that city. I spent a week there and I didn't leave the city once and had plenty to do every day. Plenty to do and see Right.

Professor Goldberg:

And then, when you think about it, in the 1920s it was one of the intellectual capitals of the world. Yep In the Weimar Yep Amazing place.

Shawn:

Yeah, and my family actually comes from there. My mom's maiden name is Brandenburg.

Professor Goldberg:

Oh, okay, like the gate.

Shawn:

Yeah, so that was kind of I don't know.

Professor Goldberg:

It was a little bit special to be there Do you have any family, or they all left or were all killed.

Shawn:

I have ancestry there, but I don't know any of them. Okay, everybody I've talked to that's been to Berlin even once has said they loved it.

Professor Goldberg:

Also the art scene. It's unbelievable.

Shawn:

It is. Yeah, it really is, and not just really refined art Right, no.

Professor Goldberg:

I know Right, yeah it really is. And not just really refined art.

Shawn:

Right, no, I know Right. Yeah, it's amazing, edward, thanks for being here and also for the conversation. I think it's super apropos to the time and I enjoyed it.

Shawn:

Okay, I appreciate it I appreciate you listening to me pontificate. The United States has been the cornerstone of international stability for decades, promoting peace, democracy and economic growth through its leadership. But with the possibility of a significant shift in American foreign policy under a second Trump presidency, the future of that leadership is at risk. A diminished United States on the global stage could lead to profound instability. Without American influence to mediate conflicts, reinforce international law and support democratic norms, the world could see a rise in authoritarian regimes, unchecked aggression and economic uncertainty. Authoritarian regimes, unchecked aggression and economic uncertainty. The alliances and institutions that have helped keep peace for the past 70 years could fray. They could collapse, leaving a power vacuum that authoritarian powers like China and Russia would be more than eager to fill, are eager to fill. They've already positioned themselves to exploit vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

Shawn:

The consequences of this shift wouldn't just be felt abroad. They would reverberate back to American shores. A less engaged United States could mean weakened security, increased economic vulnerability and the erosion of democratic values here at home. So, as we head into this incredibly consequential election for a whole host of reasons, it's crucial to recognize that one of those reasons is the importance of sustained American leadership and to understand that global stability hinges on a strong, engaged United States. And that's all at risk, all right. Check back next week for another episode of Deep Dive Chat. Soon, folks, thank you, thank you.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Shawn C. Fettig

Host