My name is Russell Newquist. I am a software engineer, a martial artist, an author, an editor, a businessman and a blogger. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy and a Master of Science degree in Computer Science, but I'm technically a high school dropout. I also think that everything in this paragraph is pretty close to meaningless. I work for a really great small company in Huntsville, Alabama building really cool software. I'm the owner and head instructor of Madison Martial Arts Academy, which I opened in 2013 less to make money and more because I just really enjoy a good martial arts workout with friends. I'm the editor in chief of Silver Empire and also one of the published authors there. And, of course, there is this blog - and all of its predecessors. There's no particular reason you should trust anything I say any more than any other source. So read it, read other stuff, and think for your damn self - if our society hasn't yet over-educated you to the point that you've forgotten how.
There are no men like me. There is only me.
As I mentioned at the end of yesterday’s post, I believe Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic party’s presidential nomination. I also believe that Donald Trump will win the Republican nomination. That second prediction isn’t much of one given the polls of the last few weeks. So let me add another one: I believe he’s going to have a much larger victory margin than current polls show. I believe each race will feature a massive preference cascade.
What is a preference cascade? The classic example involves totalitarian states – say, the Soviet Union or Iraq circa 2002. Residents in the totalitarian state really, really dislike their government. But the secret police abound, and anybody who doesn’t like the current regime suffers terrible consequences: imprisonment, torture, execution of themselves or their families. Saying you don’t like the current regime carries terrible consequences. If you have half a brain you lie about it, and tell everyone that you love it.
The thing is, your family, friends, and neighbors all hate it, too. But they’re also afraid to tell everyone about it, and for all the same, good reasons that you are. So everyone tells each other that the current regime is wonderful and amazing. Meanwhile, they secretly all hate it. But if you took a poll in the society, it would look like you have 97-99% approval ratings of the current regime (some people are too stupid to live, apparently).
But then a funny thing happens. The regime gets some cracks in it. The government starts collapsing losing its power as the Soviets did in the late 1980s; or the US invades and promises to kill your dictator, as in Iraq in 2003. It’s not quite so dangerous to voice how much you hate the regime anymore. So a few people get a little braver and speak out. Then their family, friends, and neighbors notice that those people didn’t get sent to Siberia, and they get a little braver, too. Then it grows, and grows some more, and eventually nobody’s afraid anymore and everybody’s telling each other how much they hated that evil regime the whole time.
That’s a preference cascade.
I think we will see two of them in this primary season. First, Donald Trump. I keep hearing people say that they don’t understand how he’s doing so well in the polls because they don’t know any Trump supporters. I see it in the news, from the typical left media types who don’t actually know any conservatives. But I also see it in my Facebook feed.
The thing is… I know a lot of Trump supporters, both personally and online. And I also know that a great many of them are afraid to admit it. I’m pretty confident that once it becomes clear how many others are also Trump supporters, they’re going to start speaking out more. I also think these people are afraid to tell even pollsters about it. They’re not afraid they’ll go to Siberia – they’re just afraid they won’t have any friends anymore. Scott Adams claims that Trump will persuade huge majorities by the end. I think he already has, at least of Republican voters. They’re just afraid to admit it still.
I think Hillary Clinton is in the opposite situation. The Democratic party consists of voters who are strongly feminist. They want to support a female candidate. But even more strongly they want to be seen supporting a female candidate. Hillary’s the only one they’ve got. And this time around, they can’t deflect criticism by supporting a minority candidate, either. It’s her or the old white dude.
Yet Clinton is a lying liar and they know it. She’s one of the most untrustworthy people ever to enter politics. Her politics are cold and calculating, shifting with the wind. Perhaps worst of all, the set of people who actually like her, even among strongly Democratic voters, basically consists of my sister and… my sister.
But Democratic voters are afraid to admit that they aren’t supporting the feminist cause, so they’re telling everyone they’re for her. All the while, her poll numbers keep slipping… and slipping… and slipping. Check out the chart below from the Washington Post. Hillary’s poll numbers are falling faster – and earlier – in 2016 than they did in 2008.
Looking at current poll numbers, Hillary might still pull out the win in Iowa. If she manages it, expect a repeat of 2008: a long, hard fight for the nomination that carries on almost to the end before it becomes mathematically impossible for her to win.
I’m skeptical, though. I think Sanders just might pull it off in Iowa. He’s within spitting distance, and his polls are moving in the right direction (hers aren’t). Centrist democratic voters are afraid of the S-word (socialism). A caucus environment is the perfect one for them to lose that fear, as their friends start standing for Bernie – and their more conservative friends are across town at the Republican caucus, and won’t see them.
If Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then look for the preference cascade to hit fast. Expect him to get a huge boost heading into the Nevada caucuses – enough to enter that state in a position very similar to where he now finds himself in Iowa. If he pulls that one out, too, then expect Hillary’s support to break, and to break hard.
Trump, meanwhile, will be riding his own preference cascade straight into the Republican nomination.
There is a principle that I teach my martial arts students: don’t play by your opponent’s rules. Your opponent will try to set the terms of an encounter such that they favor him. Don’t let him. Change the game
Inside our dojo there’s a very easy example. We practice a full range martial art that combines the grappling and throws of jujitsu with the kicks, punches and other strikes of kickboxing and karate. With the explosive growth and popularity of MMA, this is a lot more common than it used to be. Even so, the majority of martial artists still heavily emphasize one portion of this curriculum, ground work, takedowns or upright striking, over the rest.
It is usually quite easy to determine at the start of a fight which of these ranges your opponent wants to be in. If he’s a ground fighter, he will try to get you to the ground very quickly. If he’s an upright fighter, he will try to keep at an optimal range for his preferred strikes (kicks or punches). If he’s focused on takedowns, he will position accordingly.
The key is to deny him his preferred zone. If he’s a ground fighter, force him to stay upright. If he’s an upright fighter, take him to the ground. If he’s focused on takedowns, keep him at bay with your strikes or take him to the ground with you. In any case, don’t play by his rules. Change the game.
The example here is easy and clear. Most of life isn’t. Yet you see this happen outside the martial arts all the time. It happens in sports, when a team develops a new kind of offense or defense. It happens in war, when one side develops groundbreaking new technology and/or tactics. It happens in business, when one company develops an entirely new business model.
GPS changed the game for American soldiers in the early 1990s. Saddam Hussein believed his army safe because no army had ever crossed the open Iraqi desert – ever. Navigation is tricky when you’re surrounded by nothing but sand. Yet GPS allowed the US Army to cross it with ease, catching him completely off guard.
Amazon changed the game for global retail. The ability to buy nearly anything from the convenience of your own home, coupled with timely delivery and affordable shipping revolutionized commerce. To be fair, if they hadn’t gotten there first, someone else would have done it. Yet they were the ones there, making it happen. Later they changed the game again, revolutionizing the book industry with e-books.
I’m not generally a sports guy, so don’t look to me for the sports analogy here. But it exists, I promise.
Often, people try to change the game and fizzle out. A great many web companies died in the crash of 2000 because they were unable to change the game the way they wished to. Sometimes the change comes slower than desired. A great many companies tried software subscription models a decade ago. The world wasn’t ready for it. Yet today, Adobe, Microsoft, and others are having great success with it.
Donald Trump is trying to change the game in politics. Scott Adams likes to say that he brought a flame thrower to a knife fight. At the moment, every sign indicates that he’s been successful. But the real proof comes next week in Iowa. We will find out if Mr. Adams is correct, or if Mr. Trump brought a knife to a gunfight.
If Trump succeeds, the game will change forever. Politicians from here forward will study his campaign and try to emulate it – just as every Presidential candidate now tries to emulate Jimmy Carter’s Iowa-then-New-Hampshire-momentum victory strategy. The next candidate to follow his lead will be less successful precisely because of Trump’s success; his opponents will also be following Trump’s lead.
Iowa will be the most interesting test. Everybody assumes you need a killer “ground game” to get out the vote in Iowa and win. Trump thinks he can win it a different way, with a different campaign. He is either right or he is wrong. Looking at the recent poll numbers, however, I think he might well be correct.
Given the commanding lead he carries in New Hampshire – a state with a primary rather than a caucus, and hence less dependent upon a get-out-the-vote operation – if he wins Iowa, it’s hard to see how he doesn’t go on to absolutely dominate New Hampshire. And given the way voters tend to latch on to the winner, it’s hard to see how he doesn’t run the table and win every single state in the primary.
As of today’s polls – and more importantly, the direction that they’re changing in – I strongly believe that Trump will win Iowa. And I think he will continue on to run the table. I also think that come November he will beat Bernie Sanders like a drum, carrying 40+ states in the biggest landslide since Reagan v. Dukakis in 1984.
Tomorrow: why I think Hillary will lose the Democratic nomination.
Nate Silver first made a name for himself by using statistics to make sports predictions. But like most, I became aware of him after he accurately called 49 out of 50 states in the 2008 Presidential election. His fame rose when he called the 2012 election accurately as well, despite many on the right not quite having faith in his numbers.
The core of his technique is nothing magical, although neither will I shortchange him by calling it “obvious” as so many people are wont to do after somebody clever does something new. It’s obvious in hindsight; it wasn’t so obvious before he did it. He’s published a general outline of his methodology after every Presidential election, and you don’t have to be an actual statistician to follow what he’s doing. You do, however, need to have a basic understanding of the underlying statistical methodology. Any undergraduate stats course should let you follow along – conceptually, at least, if not in the details.
Before I dive into my main point, let me emphasize that Mr. Silver’s methodology will work brilliantly the vast majority of the time. His methodology is just about as truly data driven as it’s possible to be. He uses the best data that’s out there. And given his reputation, he can now get access to that data easily. He also uses standard and sound statistical methods.
However, the day will eventually come when Nate Silver will fail – and when it does, he will fail big.
To understand why, we first need to have a basic understanding of his methods. A decade or two ago, somebody had the keen insight that although any individual poll taken during an election season had to be taken with a huge grain of salt, if you average all the polls together you end up with numbers that are pretty reliable. I’m not sure who had the eureka moment first, but Real Clear Politics popularized the concept with their RCP poll average in the early 2000s and it’s been a staple of politics ever since.
Mr. Silver took the concept even further and improved upon it in several ways.
First, he realized that in Presidential politics it was the state polls that mattered – not the national polls. So he computed polling averages for each individual state.
Second, he did historical analysis of each polling company and concluded that some were more reliable than others. He quantified this using standard statistical techniques, and then adjusted his averages by weighting each poll according to its historical reliability. This alone is a big improvement to the RCP model, and its validity shouldn’t be discounted.
Third, he added other factors into his model: the general state of the economy and how it favors the incumbent; endorsements; experience of the candidate; and several other factors. The predictive value of these factors is less, so they’re weighted less in his model – but their value counted.
Fourth, he improved the whole thing by running Monte Carlo simulations. This is also a giant improvement over the RCP average. Basically, it works like this: you write a simple computer program that takes the poll numbers given and, using the model you’ve devised (in this case, points 1 through 3 above) you simulate a given election. With the polls, endorsements, etc as given, you also account for some randomness in the actual results. To do this, you account for the historical error of the polls – if a candidate is polling at, say, 45% then history might suggest that his actual vote could be anywhere from 40% to 50%, and you can compute a probability curve that matches that range.
Then you run this simulation – a lot. Thousands of times or tens of thousands of times. Let’s say you run it ten thousand times, and out of those ten thousand times, Candidate A wins the election five thousand times: exactly half. You then say that candidate has a 50% chance of winning the election.
The methodology is pretty sound. But it has some serious flaws, and because of these, eventually Nate Silver will fail. Here are the problems.
First, the model requires that the input polling data be good. If the polls aren’t good, then Silver’s model isn’t any good either. Note that it doesn’t require any individual poll to be perfect. But it does require a few things. Each poll should be generally within or close to it’s historical margin of error. The polls should be canceling out each others’ errors. In other words, if one poll gets Candidate A’s share of the vote too high, the competitor’s poll should get it too low. If both polls are wrong in the same direction then averaging them doesn’t help.
There is strong evidence – even documented by Silver himself – that the polls are getting worse. Indeed, the polling companies are having so much trouble that Gallup has stopped polling the Presidential races altogether. There’s also evidence that the polls have started to weight their data so that they match more closely to other polls. That skews their value and makes them less reliable. So the polls themselves are a problem – and a growing one.
Second, polling long before an election is hugely inaccurate. Accuracy increases greatly the closer a poll is taken to the actual election. This is why Mr. Silver’s 2008 and 2012 predictions weren’t magic: the “predictions” relied on polls taken within days of the election. With respect to Mr. Silver, this accomplishment isn’t as big as many made it out to be. At that point, the polls are generally pretty accurate. His achievement was simply to look at the right polls.
To be fair to Mr. Silver, he’s quite aware of this problem and has discussed it at some length. He refrains from even making predictions before certain points in the campaign, and he’s the first to tell you that they’re of little value even when he begins them. However, having his predictions become accurate only days or a very few weeks before the actual election robs them of much of the value of a prediction. It doesn’t make them worthless, mind you, just of small utility for most of us.
But the real problem isn’t even those issues, as bad as they might be. The real problem is that the map is not the territory. Mr. Silver has constructed a wonderful model of elections. But it’s just that: a model. It is not the reality.
The biggest area where this will eventually bite him is in the non-polling factors that he includes. For instance, months ago Mr. Silver was claiming that Donald Trump’s low favorability ratings put a cap on the support he’d manage to get at the polls. He made the claim in several places, but this piece from July 2015 is the one I managed to find with a few seconds of Googling. In it he claims that candidates with Trump’s net favorability ratings rarely grow beyond 20 or 30% of the vote. As of this writing, the RCP average has Trump at 29% in Iowa (about to break that ceiling), 32.2% in New Hampshire (broke the ceiling) and 34.8% nationally (shattered it). A poll released today shows that he’s nearing 50% in Florida.
What happened? Trump’s favorability changed – a lot. Gallup last week showed him at +27% among Republicans, up 23 points from where Silver had him in the July piece listed above. That’s yuge.
Again, as I noted above – the map is not the territory. Silver’s model, as good as it is, doesn’t account for this kind of thing to happen. Now, it’s easy to say, “let’s update the model to allow for the off chance of someone increasing his favorability.” Fine. But the underlying problem is that favorability doesn’t directly predict anything. It’s a proxy.
Think of it this way: there’s no ironclad law of physics that says that a candidate with low favorability ratings can’t win. Mr. Silver has merely observed that so far, in the election’s we’ve seen, this hasn’t happened. It seems to have a strong correlation with the winner. But correlation does not equal causation. In this particular case, the variables are probably weakly linked. That is, how favorably the electorate views a candidate probably does have some impact on how they eventually vote. But it’s not a perfect match.
Mr. Silver will readily admit this, and that’s why the value is weighted relatively small compared to other data. But the problem is that all of Mr. Silver’s data is intrinsically a proxy, including the actual polling data. How people say they’ll vote is not the same thing as how they’ll actually vote. The correlation is high, but it’s not a causation.
Someday we’ll hit a point in the territory where the map doesn’t agree with it. For that case, we’ll have no choice but to conclude that the map is wrong. As they say in sports, there’s a reason they play the games.
There’s good reason to suspect that this election cycle may be it. Mr. Silver has been giving Mr. Trump roughly 5% odds of winning the nomination, based mostly on his model. Personally, I think his model is wrong in this specific case. “This time is different” is called a lot and is rarely true. But… sometimes it’s true, this time really is different. By all outside appearances, this election certainly seems to be one of those cases. I believe that Mr. Silver has too much invested in his model for him to be able to step back and honestly admit that it may not cover this case. Again, to be fair to Mr. Silver, I don’t believe this is a conscious choice. But I think it’s real.
But this may not be the time, either. It may well be that this time Mr. Silver is right again and I am wrong. I fully accept that, and I’ll admit it here if it’s the case. But even if this time isn’t the one, sooner or later Nate Silver will fail – and it will be yuge.
Donald Trump is often accused of being inconsistent in his political views, and of only “discovering” certain issues now that he’s running for President. However, if you check the actual history of what he’s actually said, you quickly find that this narrative falls apart.
The following video is an interview that Mr. Trump did with Oprah Winfrey all the way back in 1988 – nearly thirty years ago. Let’s take a look.
The protectionism that he advocates now? Check, it’s right there on his sleeve. And in both the modern case and the 1988 case, he’s correct. The nations he’s named are dumping cheap goods on the American market while simultaneously making it very difficult for American companies to sell in their markets. In the 1980s, it was heavily protectionist Japan that made it nearly impossible to sell American products there. Today, Japan has somewhat liberalized its trade – but China is pulling the same trick.
He is 100% correct to note that if it’s not reciprocal, it’s not free trade.
Note also his response when asked if he was running for President: “no, but if things get bad enough I might.” The premise of his modern campaign? Things got bad enough.
The man is far more consistent than he’s given credit for. It’s just that his views don’t completely align with Republican views. But then, I’m Roman Catholic – my views don’t align with Republican or Democratic views, either. But Mr. Trump and I are both nationalist, in an age when the other candidates mostly aren’t.
I’ll take that.
(H/T Mike Cernovich for the video)
The time has long passed to indict Hillary Clinton. From that bastion of conservative media fondly known as CNN:
Two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton’s server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on “special access programs,” which are above “top secret” in classification level.
Quite a few people out there have no idea what “special access program” actually means – as evidence by the fact that even CNN gets it wrong in the quote above. There is no level of classification that is above Top Secret. However, within Top Secret, there are extra levels of security that are sometimes applied. Special Access Programs are one of those.
Anything classified Top Secret is handled with a lot of care to begin with. First, just because you’ve passed the grueling background check to earn a Top Secret level clearance doesn’t mean you can get access to anything you want that’s labeled Top Secret. You still have to demonstrate that you have what they call “need to know.” For anything classified as “Secret” this is relatively easy to do (assuming you have a Secret level clearance). For anything classified “Top Secret” it’s actually kind of hard. You have to show not just that you have “need to know” for the program in general, but that you “need to know” that specific piece of information. And you have to truly demonstrate it. Top Secret is already locked down pretty well.
Special Access Programs (SAPs) are even a level beyond that. First, you have to have that Top Secret Clearance. Then you have to be one of the people on the very short list that has been approved for the program (hence the name – special access). It’s not uncommon for that list to be only a couple of dozen people in the country, and on occasion that list might number in the low single digits. Records kept on the topic are sometimes sparse, detailing only what actually has to be recorded for the program. Very often, people who aren’t on the approved list won’t even know that the program exists.
To protect intelligence sources, often even the President isn’t briefed on the fine details of these programs – and sometimes isn’t even told of them.
The penalty for revealing classified information is up to ten years in jail – and revealing SAP information would be enough to qualify for the maximum sentence if any of us mere mortals did it. Just based on what we currently know to be true, any normal civilian with a security clearance would already be in prison, and they’d have thrown away the key. Secretary Clinton is not a target because she’s a politician – that’s the only reason she’s been protected so far.
The failure to indict Hillary is proof that law and order in the US no longer apply. If you’re a big enough fish, you can break the law at will. I say that this is unacceptable. Law and order must apply to all.
Indict Hillary now.
Oil has been artificially overpriced for quite some time. The recent plunge in oil prices represent a correction of highly distortive market forces. Unfortunately, the correction is unlikely to last – in no small part due to the effects caused by lower oil prices themselves.
Eighteen months ago, oil was trading for over $100 a barrel. At that point, it had been above $80 a barrel for nearly five years. For the five years prior to that it had mostly stayed over $60 a barrel. All of these price points are far higher than a simple business analysis tells us they should be in an ideal market.
A little bit of napkin math makes this clear.
The US Energy Information Administration figures for oil consumption are out of date, but only by a little bit. They list 93 million barrels a day of global consumption. Let’s round that up to 100 billion barrels a day, both for easier math (we’re doing estimates here, we don’t have to be perfect) and to account for the numbers being a few years out of date. The US Energy Information Administration estimates total annual consumption for 2011 (chosen to match most closely with the Wikipedia consumption stats) at 88.5 million barrels a day. [Note: Wikipedia doesn’t provide a good measure of this or I’d use their numbers for consistency.]
Let’s grant that both of these are estimates and likely not quite perfect, but they’re probably close. What we see is that global production doesn’t quite meet global demand. But… it could.
Let’s look at the breakdowns of oil production. The US leads the pack with nearly 14 million barrels per day, followed by Saudi Arabia at 11.6 million barrels per day. We’re going to skip a bit down the list, but not too far, and note a few others. Iran and Iraq, both sitting right around 3.4 million barrels per day, occupy places 6 and 7 on the list. Venezuela, at roughly 2.7 million barrels per day, is number 12.
Every country that I’ve named has producing oil at rates far below their capacity for years (probably several other nations as well, but let’s stick with what I can speak on reliably).
Iraq’s oil production has been hampered for two and a half decades by geopolitical realities: sanctions, then the first Gulf War, then another decade of sanctions, then the 2003 invasion, then years of internal civil war. Iraqi oil production has finally surpassed their peak production prior to the 2003 invasion. But does anybody think their production couldn’t be 10-20% higher – or more – if they hadn’t had their infrastructure ravaged by decades of sanctions and war?
Iran is in a similar boat, only it might be more drastic. [Iraqi production might be as drastically low a Iran’s, but we can’t prove it the way we can with Iran.] Iranian oil production is nearly half what it was at its peak – in the late 70s! That’s right – Iran’s production tanked after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. But that’s not because they don’t want to produce it or because they lack the means. It’s because international sanctions prevent them from selling it. [Sidebar: this is why the “war for cheap oil” argument never made sense; if we wanted cheap oil, all we had to do was lift sanctions on Iran.]
It’s unclear exactly what sanctions are being lifted on Iran as part of the deal that went into full effect this weak, but it’s at least allowing them to sell more oil than they have been. But we know from historical data that they could feasibly double production if they chose to.
Venezuela’s production is off its peak because socialist dictator Hugo Chavez, spectacularly mismanaged their oil industry. They’re down nearly 30% from their peak.
Saudi Arabia has the opposite issue. It’s been underproducing oil for years – by conscious choice, in order to keep prices high. Note that in the last few years they’ve substantially raised their oil production – specifically to manipulate the price of oil and to try to claim market share from competitors. Note however that Saudi Arabia hasn’t made major new investments in oil production in decades. They haven’t wanted prices to go down. Until now they do for some reason [more on that tomorrow].
Then we get to the US – the world’s largest producer of oil. We use a lot of oil, but we produce a hell of a lot of it, too. But we could be producing more – much more. We have oil reserves all over the country that aren’t being tapped. But it’s not for international reasons or price manipulation. Here, it’s all about environmental regulation. [Note that for the purposes of this post, I’m not arguing for or against this; merely stating that it is reality.]
Now, let’s look at that. Iran alone could be putting out another 3 million barrels per day in an ideal world. Iraq could probably be putting out half a million to a million more. Venezuela could be putting out a million more. The US… let’s guesstimate that they could be putting out a million more (I’d be willing to bet that we could go much higher than that).
That’s a grand total of around 6 million barrels per day – or nearly six percent of total oil production – that is simply missing.
Now, we know from modern economics that the effects of changes in supply or demand on a market’s price are non-linear. A small change in supply or demand causes a small change in price, but a big change in supply or demand results in a huge change in price. In a commodity market like oil, six percent is a huge change in supply.
In an efficiently operating commodities market, the average price should be price just a bit higher than the marginal price. In other words, it should be right around (but probably a tad higher than) the highest cost to produce. Right now that’s fracking oil in the US, which costs around $40 per barrel to produce. So in a fully undistorted market, we should be seeing oil prices hovering below $45 per barrel.
However, that’s not the whole story. Because in a market with 6% higher supply, fracking might not make sense anymore. Saudi oil costs around $20 per barrel to extract, and much of the middle east is the same. So the undistorted market price might be somewhere closer to $25 a barrel. It’s hard to say exactly where it should be without… letting the markets figure it out.
What we’re seeing in the market today represents a price much closer to where oil actually should be (although the current prices might be a tad low, and in need of upward adjustment now; it’s hard to say). This is a direct result of Saudi Arabia ramping up their production.
Unfortunately, today’s low prices will probably not last. Oil is likely to become once again artificially overpriced. But that’s a topic for a later post.
Nate has signed and sealed the death certificate of the United States.
Seems a bit early to be writing this… but the fact is the history is already written. The nails are in the coffin. Its already happened. The US is down 34 to 10 and there are only 2 minutes to go. There is no time for a come back.
If you saw the post last night or heard the show you know our friend Rycamor brought a great essay on the life cycle of nations. This essay is called The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. It is written by Sir John Glubb.
I first read the essay Nate refers to several years ago, based on a thread at Vox Popoli. It may well have been Nate who posted the link, or it might have come from Vox himself. It’s been long enough that I honestly don’t recall. It’s a powerful essay, and it’s well worth the read. It’s also quite simple and easy to follow. On the whole, the essay makes a very strong case. But I do have a few issues with it, and I think they’re important.
First, the Sir John’s decision to split the Roman period is a glaring data point. Indeed, the author notes this himself:
(3) The division of Rome into two periodsmay be thought unwarranted. The first, orrepublican, period dates from the time whenRome became the mistress of Italy, and endswith the accession of Augustus. The imperialperiod extends from the accession ofAugustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius. Itis true that the empire survived nominallyfor more than a century after this date, but itdid so in constant confusion, rebellions, civilwars and barbarian invasions.
I am hardly the first person to note the parallels between the modern United States and ancient Rome. The comparisons are so obvious that my college history professors had to push people away from making the too-easy notes and force them to look deeper. Yet they are there, and they are real. In looking deeper, we must not forget that they exist. But more than anything, I’d like to call attention to point #4 on my list above.
As the US declines, nobody else is ready to take up the mantle.
The fact remains: on the open battlefield – be it land, sea, or air – no other military on earth can touch ours. Every other military is at least one full generation of technology and doctrine behind. That includes our western European allies. During the initial invasion of Afghanistan, our allies offered their aid. In most cases we either turned it down or imposed limits on it because their generation-old tech made it too difficult to integrate them effectively.
No other nation can even come close to the logistical capability that the US provides. It is often pointed out that we spend many multiples of the Europeans on our defense budget. It is equally often forgotten that they can spend so little because our European allies completely rely on the US for logistical capabilities. Indeed, this was official NATO doctrine for decades.
Economically, we remain in a similar boat. Our economy dwarfs everyone. The US still provides 14% of world GDP as of 2014, despite having only 5% of the world’s population. That’s well down from our peak, but not because our GDP has declined – it’s because China and other developing nations have actually been playing some catch up. Yet even though they passed our GDP as a percentage of world GDP in 2014, China did so representing 20% of the world’s population – five times ours.
Yes, 4th generation warfare is a real thing and the US sucks at it. This causes real problems to our military dominance.
Yes, our logistical capability is much more fragile than is often realized, and has also been in decline.
And yes, our economy is built on a foundation of debt that will likely soon prove to be catastrophic.
But the reality is that every other nation on Earth fares worse on at least two of these same scores, most on all three. China’s economy has been growing like mad for the last 15 years, but there are increasing signs that the house of cards is about to come down. Russia and the Middle East have built economies that rely on oil staying at quite high prices – prices that look increasingly like they’re not long-term viable. And Europe is too dependent upon the US. If our economy collapses, theirs goes down even further.[Side note: I’ve believed for quite a long time that the price of oil was artificially high; recent events back up that opinion. But that’s another post for another day.]
In the comments, Nate’s post already start down the road to this when commenter Susan asks what other countries are ready to step into the void. Nate responds – not incorrectly – that there doesn’t need to be anybody to step into the void. But prior to that, his response that ISIS refugees are the ones conquering territory leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a long way from “conquering territory” to “launching a new empire.”
Where am I heading with this? The short version is this. I agree with both Nate and Sir John – the time of the American Republic is just about up. But I disagree with Nate about what comes next. My personal prediction is that the true American Empire arises from the ashes. Yes, I’m well aware of how much we already resemble an Empire. And yet there are certain lines that our nation has not yet crossed.
This is more fodder for another post on another day, but for now, suffice it to say… we will cross it. The historically literate will recognize its passing when a figure very reminiscent of Augustus Caeser comes to power in the American scene. He will probably retain the outward forms of the American presidency, and most notably the title (Augustus’s official title was neither “king (rex)” nor “emperor” nor “caeser” – it was “consul,” just as the countless Republican leaders before him had been called). The most obvious distinction? When we have a President who serves for life, you will know that the line has been crossed.
The time is not yet ripe for Americans to choose to elect that man (remember: Augustus was elected to his first term as consul). But it is coming. The right man has not yet presented himself for the post. But he will.
The US is declining, but not into nothing. We are falling into empire.
Wind of Change is one of the highest selling singles of all time – and still holds the record as the highest selling single by a German artist. When the single was released in January 1991, the world was, to be blunt, crazy. The Berlin wall had come down not even a year and a half earlier. The Soviet Union was in turmoil and, though none of us knew it yet, it was about to collapse. Less than six months earlier, Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army had invaded Kuwait. Three days prior to the song’s release, the US had started the precision bombing campaign that would shortly lead to a ground invasion of Kuwait.
Listening to the wind of change
A few months later, I joined a group from my school that was scheduled to travel to the Soviet Union that fall (September, if I recall correctly) to watch a Soyuz launch. We didn’t go that year, because in August of 1991, there was a coup attempt against then-President Mikhail Gorbachev. Our teachers, wisely, concluded that taking a bunch of middle-schoolers into the midst of that mess wasn’t wise. We did eventually get to go, though. The trip was finally rescheduled for March of 1992. By the time we got there, the Soviet Union didn’t exist anymore.
Listening to the wind of change
I have a vivid memory of sitting on a Moscow subway train with a small group of Americans as a Russian man came into our car carrying a guitar, sat down near us, and played and sang this song. It was awkward – not only because his guitar playing was mediocre and his English was terrible, but because of how much raw emotion he put into the song. He felt it.
I was thirteen that day. I was hardly an expert on international geopolitics, but I was pretty current on what was going on and just how major it was. The song’s peak of popularity in the US had already come and gone, so we all knew it, of course. And as Americans of that era, we had interpreted the song with a huge degree of optimism. The Soviet Union was gone. Saddam Hussein may not have been gone, but he’d been soundly defeated. Eastern Europe was freed from the grasp of tyrannical, oppressive governments held in check by the Soviet boot. The “end of history” was nigh.
This song hasn’t gotten a lot of airplay in a good while. But over the last few months, I’ve heard it on the air repeatedly. It’s not on all the current stations, of course, but it’s getting quite a bit of time on the classic rock stations. I’ve always enjoyed the song. But twenty-five years after its release, I finally recognize the true beauty of it. The optimism I saw in the song as a child is definitely there. It’s real. As an adult, looking at a different world and listening with different ears, what I also hear is the fear. The world was changing, and to that Russian man on the subway, it was terrifying and hopeful all at the same time.
As I said, the song is getting a lot of airplay recently. And for good reason. ISIS is on the rise. Iran and Saudi Arabia are bombing each others’ embassies and expelling diplomats. Russia and the US are fighting proxy wars over Ukraine and Syria. Terrorism is breaking out in Europe and the US again. The economy is shaky, and western power seems to be waning.
The future’s in the air
I can feel it everywhere
Blowing with the wind of change
I finally had a chance to finish all of the stories by my co-authors in There Will Be War: Volume X. With apologies to my other co-authors, I didn’t actually receive my author’s copy until about 24 hours before it went live on Amazon. Then the holidays hit. And then John C. Wright sent me a manuscript, and I got a little sidetracked.
I must say, though, I am blown away by this collection. I am absolutely honored to have my own piece set beside these other contenders. There is not a single weak piece in this collection. Seriously. I make a few nitpicks about some of them below. This should not be taken in any way to mean that I didn’t enjoy them.
I did definitely enjoy some more than others – but I can almost guarantee that your experience will be different. Ever story in here is strong enough that somebody will consider it to be his favorite. Heck, two poor, deluded souls even thought my own story was the best in the collection, for which I’m very grateful but I ask you to please stop smoking crack.
Below the fold are my own thoughts on the individual stories for any who would like to read them. There are no huge spoilers here, but neither is it fully spoiler free. Proceed at your own risk.