@SvenSvensonov
I've given your article a lot of thought, and I believe the crux of our different perception is in terms of focus. In other words, your analysis (and most analyses) looks at our military, economic, political, and cultural power and uses those four bases to support our Superpower status, but I believe that there is really one deterministic factor--the economic factor--that drove us (and the British before us, and the French before them, etc.) to develop the necessary military, political, and cultural power that caused us to become a Superpower. I think it's useful to examine the question through the lens of economic power instead of the stark "Are We Still a Superpower?" question, as you have already pointed out that, on a relative basis, the party's coming to an end. That is to say, we are no longer
the Hyperpower, but we will remain
a Superpower no matter what China is able to achieve. I agree with your analysis that the US is still a Superpower, but I would like to come at the question from a different angle and focus on the issue of relative influence more than the absolute title.
I hope you don't mind, but this will be far less quantitative than my usual long-form posts, because I think we can all agree on the basic metrics to which I will refer (e.g. the US has been economically dominant for a century, China will soon be economically dominant). Apologies that this is so long, I hope it's not too tangential to the type of discussion you wanted. (On a side note, I am always up for this kind of high-level strategic discussion on PDF, it's the incessant "mine is bigger than yours" repetitive topics in defense, economics, and politics that I am desperately trying to avoid).
Pax Americana and the Balance of Power
All Power Flows from Economic Power
I would assert that our military, political, and cultural power is only possible because we became an economic hegemon first. A strong economy buys a lot of training and weapons, and indeed, can purchase a lot of political influence as well. The British Empire built itself in order to secure trade routes, the colonies largely started as private charters granted to entrepreneurs, and the British East India Company essentially governed India as a private business enterprise for centuries. It wasn't out of a sense of glory-seeking that the British Empire was made, but rather out of an economic imperative. Indeed, it was the decline of this economic imperative (i.e. the death of mercantilism) that sowed the seeds for the destruction of the British Empire.
At the same time, it was the rapid industrialization of the US that led us to joining the ranks of the Great Powers. What our enemies feared in WWI and WWII was our industrial might, not our military prowess. I am not a military expert, but from my shallow , it was the ability of the Allies to pour wave after wave of resources into the war efforts that bought us the time to refine our weapons and strategies enough to win militarily, and it was similarly resource exhaustion (people, materiel, funds) that led us to disappointing outcomes in the Korean War and Vietnam War (and Afghanistan and Iraq?).
It was our economic power than enabled us to outlast (and outspend) the USSR. Similarly, it will be China's economic dominance that reduces our influence in the world, as China's resources outstrip ours, and their ability to purchase influence in other countries leads to a virtuous circle of increasing resources and influence.
It's no coincidence that if we look at the periods of economic dominance, we can broadly see that they are coincident with each Power's period of dominance.
Major economies from 1 AD to 2003 AD according to Angus Maddison's estimates. (Wikipedia)
The sheer economic might of the US coming out of the wreckage of WWII enabled us to shape a world order that will surely outlast our Superpower status, so in that respect, we did well to consolidate our gains. But it's unlikely we will ever again control such a large percentage of world economic output, and since all power is essentially economic power, our relative decline is assured. For the same reason, I think all agree that China is an economic superpower already, and it's not unreasonable to call the 21st century the Chinese century.
Economic Success Breeds Diplomatic Success
As I alluded to previously, the US used its economic might to shape the liberal order that dominates the world today. Whether that's through concrete institutions like the UN, IMF, World Bank, GATT/WTO, etc. or soft cultural concepts like a concern for human rights and a preference for devolution of power (let's not say democracy in order not to confuse the issue), we created a system that suited our needs, and with ourselves at the center of that system, we benefited enormously.
Large markets lead to economies of scale, which leads to efficiency and lower prices, which feeds back into economies of scale. The United States had the necessary resources, land mass, and population to afford to focus solely on our own market while developing, and still create products that would be competitive worldwide. Unlike the fragmented markets of Europe, we had a natural advantage with our in-build customs union, monetary union, banking union, and political union. China also possesses all of these characteristics, so it's natural that China would be able to achieve a similar result.
Remember that before WWII, the United States only had a peripheral interest in Europe, nothing like our deep integration with them today. But it wasn't our altruistic aid to the Free World in fighting the Nazis that created this willingness to adhere to our system. It was our economic embrace, especially the Marshall Plan. Europe was economically exhausted after the war, and it was an easy transition for our war machine to transform into an export machine that would re-supply Europe with the products and capital equipment it would need to get back on its feet--and when they were buying with our aid money, it is not a leap to suggest that American industry further benefited from the rebuilding of Europe.
The tantalizing prospect of repeating this elsewhere in the world unfortunately smashed against the reality of a closed Communist sphere of influence, so we were unable to truly globalize our system in the aftermath of the war. But again, this was because our economic ties to China and the USSR were largely severed. Where we were able to exert influence (Western Europe, Japan, SK, etc.) we bound countries to our system and spread prosperity.
It's natural that countries which were open to our influence would seek to imitate and be associated with a winner. It would be difficult to claim that the spread of our cultural influence (entertainment, clothes, humanistic principles, etc.) did not stem from our economic influence. Can you think of a power with a failed economy that developed such a profound cultural influence on the world? The USSR tried to export Communism, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of its relationship were economic in nature (usually through the supply of weapons). When we think of "Soviet culture" today, if we're able to think of anything at all, we usually think of bread lines, cinder-block housing estates, and a legacy of bureaucratic incompetence and corruption.
Japan's products were also, once upon a time, thought of as cheap trash, but with their economic development (and improvement of quality that a higher place on the value chain allowed them to achieve), the perception of Japanese quality also changed. Concordant with Japan's economic rise was the rise of its cultural reach. It speaks volumes that words like kaizen became familiar to English-speaking business-people, or seeing Charlie Sheen make sushi in
Wall Street was accepted as a sign that he had become a sophisticated individual.
And I need not say anything about Anime and J-Pop other than mention them to describe Japan's cultural influence.
(She's big in Japan... and the rest of the world)
South Korea achieved similar cultural influence once its economy rose (I understand that K-Pop and Korean Dramas are big in Asia), and I would expect that China will achieve a similar cultural influence--on top of the foundational impact its culture has had across Asia, I mean. It can even be argued that in Asia, no country will ever exert a stronger cultural influence than China, and having such an influence over Asia certainly qualifies China as a cultural superpower. Hollywood's increasing focus on China as a primary market means that Chinese cultural influence on the US is certain to increase as well (I guess we'll do their work for them).
Indeed, we see that China's efforts today to create the SCO, the AIIB, the BRICS Bank, and other international institutions are clearly modeled on the American precedent of leveraging economic power into diplomatic power. And with China's trade partners scrambling to participate, it is clear what is driving their interests. In short, China is now stamping its own influence on the world, and this is possible because of its growing economic might. Our cultural influence won't necessary disappear (as Italy's, France's, Britain's, etc. have not) so much as be out-shined by China's.
A Tale of Two Countries
Most analysts appear to be divided into one of three camps:
Continued American Hegemony
Cold War 2.0
American Decline, and Demotion from Superpower to Great Power
I tend to take the Cold War 2.0 view, not because China and the US are destined for hostile relations, but ironically because China and the US have so much in common, although not quite enough. We are both pragmatic, business-minded, multi-ethnic societies, but there are important differences that lead me to believe that our relationship will continue to feature coopetition, rather than pure cooperation:
1) America controls its own continent, China does not. China will never feel as secure in its sphere of influence as the US does in our sphere of influence. On the other hand, the US has used this sense of security to divide the globe into six geographic commands in order to project our influence. Because we believe we are (and have the responsibility to be) a global actor, we must divide our resources across the world, whereas China can concentrate its resources in its own sphere of influence.
2) The "American Dream" is actually a universal set of principles (work hard, get rich, play fair, etc.), but the "Chinese Dream" is reserved for the Chinese people alone. Thus, the American Dream will always be an attractive global force and enable us to form alliances, but the "Chinese Dream" is, by definition, adversarial and zero-sum (China wins, someone else loses).
3) America is an immigrant society with an adaptive, melting-pot culture, another reason why we appeal to the world--everyone else can see an aspect of themselves in us. China only has this level of cultural influence on Asian countries that have integrated Chinese culture into their own systems over the centuries.
4) The United States, as a capitalist power, venerates competition. This manifests itself in our open economy and relatively small government (compared to most advanced economies), but also politically, with our by-design adversarial system of checks and balances. We have a market for products, but also a market for ideas. China has historically been a centralizing power, as decentralization has often led to disintegration in its past. The way China's economic liberalization proceeds (if it proceeds) will determine how the rest of the world interacts with it over time, because China's protection of its own industries while expecting access to markets abroad is an unsustainable position. Will China also systematically embrace competition?
5) The United States strives for the rule of law, clean government, and transparency. We're not always successful, and the process is not always efficient, but generally speaking, contracts are honored, the law is enforced, and citizens are treated equally. I don't want to speak beyond my shallow knowledge or start a flame war, but I think we can agree that whatever the US has achieved as far as the rule of law, clean government, and transparency, China has achieved far less. The lack of a shared governing ethos has already created frictions (democracy, human rights, openness about military capabilities, etc.).
6) The optimistic nature of Americans gives us a long-term advantage. It may go against economic orthodoxy to say so, but savings is not a virtue in today's world, because we are already awash in excess capital. Demand is a precious commodity, and American optimism ("we're doing well today, but we'll do even better tomorrow, so let's spend!") powers global demand. Without our gigantic trade deficit, absorbing the exports of the rest of the world, the global economy would be dealt a death-blow. If the links of globalization start to fail, and economies become more insular, it will be a fairly simple matter for the United States to supply a market to our companies. It will not be so easy for other, export-led economies, including China.
What Does the Future Hold?
Just kidding. Or am I?
Nothing lasts forever, so we should not take our decline personally, or interpret it as an attack of American prestige or power. As I pointed out before, it is the relative economics that undergird power, and we simply do not, and will not, have the same kind of relative economic power that we did in the past. China itself once stood astride the world (as it knew it) for centuries before being displaced by the emerging European Great Powers, and now China is returning to its historical role as a Superpower. We should not be surprised, as China has long had all of the prerequisites to be a superpower, but has been cursed by about two centuries of incompetent and malevolent leadership. The "century of humiliation" was a century of humiliatingly incompetent leadership, with the rest of the world merely exploiting such leadership.
@Chinese-Dragon often points out that China's main goal at the moment is to attain a state whereby such humiliation is no longer possible, but as before, that's essentially an internal Chinese matter. The main reason why I oppose the CCP is the reason why I instinctively oppose any monopoly--they lead to complacency, inefficiency, and corruption (CIC). As long as the CCP governs China wisely, China will prosper; but as long as the CCP holds a monopoly on power, there exists an outside chance that the CIC disease will afflict China once more. But the metric that everyone is watching in order to judge the CCP is the economy.
China's long history of meritocracy in government, from the mandarin exam system to the current CCP vetting and promotion system gives me hope that China will eventually accomplish what it needs to in order to return a sense of security and satisfaction to the Chinese people, which may lead to a brighter future between the US and China, and avoid the Cold War 2.0 scenario. But I believe that moment is still a few decades away, so we should be prepared for a great rivalry once more in the interim.
Post Script
There is one other possible outcome that I should mention, since it's in vogue these days among certain circles. American multi-national corporations dominate the global economy, but because of their multi-local nature, they have developed a worldwide managerial class of the American school of thought. Charles Murray has often spoken of "assortative mating" in explaining the class divide in the US, but it might also be thought of globally. An elite businessman or politician in China often has more in common with an elite businessman or politician in the US than he does with his fellow working-class Chinese citizen (and the same in the US). It's entirely possible than in this era of post-nationalism, this new "global elite" will work together across borders to smooth out tensions, because it's bad for business. Such a model would make talk of superpowers irrelevant, because the power would lie not in governments, but in corporations.
Just wanted to throw that out there, although it's a bit too left-wing and comes a bit too close to "new world order" or "world banker" talk for my tastes.
