"Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights, tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law, freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others to follow suit.

So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is “no.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/

Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any kind of model democracy.

Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index, low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance, military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and etc. All true.

Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom, especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with a list of evidence:

"The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a system of apartheid."

Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy wisdom.

But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.

With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?

On Friday, July 16, 2021 at 6:27:52 AM UTC-7, ltlee1 wrote:
> "Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights, tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law, freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others to follow suit.
>
> So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is “no.”
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/

The world already had a model of America's "way of life". The country is Liberia, a nation formed from America's ex-slaves. The "ex-slaves" enslave the natives the way they were enslaved in America!!!! the exact copy of America!!!!

>
> Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any kind of model democracy.
>
> Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index, low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance, military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and etc.. All true.
>
> Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom, especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with a list of evidence:
>
> "The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a system of apartheid."
>
> Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy wisdom.
>
> But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
> Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.
>
> With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?

No, US could not still lead the free world it wanted to. It has lost its
whiskers. People like Pence, Trump and many other American politicians are
anti-China.

They are willing to concoct fake stories to injure and hurt other countries,
simply thinking they still are the sovereign sovereign power of the world to
show the world.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:c73b0a8f-3edc-42b4-b715-bd82f9befb2fn@googlegroups.com...

"Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are
committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights,
tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law,
freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means
either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make
intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others
to follow suit.

So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a
good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its
policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially
with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is
“no.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/

Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any
kind of model democracy.

Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index,
low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration
rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic
inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance,
military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars
could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought
and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the
left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and
etc. All true.

Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom,
especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with
a list of evidence:

"The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle
East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere
ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the
United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values
and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list
includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch
and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a
system of apartheid."

Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of
model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy
wisdom.

But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of
Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.

With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?

On Monday, July 19, 2021 at 12:57:53 PM UTC-4, don wrote:
> No, US could not still lead the free world it wanted to. It has lost its
> whiskers. People like Pence, Trump and many other American politicians are
> anti-China.

Well, the "free world" means the world of liberal states, i.e. Western orthodox democracies.
China is not one of them.

> They are willing to concoct fake stories to injure and hurt other countries,
> simply thinking they still are the sovereign sovereign power of the world to
> show the world.

And under US leadership, West orthodox democracies are supposed to make a world safe
for them. Anti-China is an integral part of the undertaking.

>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:c73b0a8f-3edc-42b4...@googlegroups.com...
> "Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are
> committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights,
> tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law,
> freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means
> either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make
> intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others
> to follow suit.
>
> So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a
> good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its
> policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially
> with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is
> “no.”
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/
>
> Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any
> kind of model democracy.
>
> Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index,
> low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration
> rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic
> inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance,
> military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars
> could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought
> and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the
> left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and
> etc. All true.
>
> Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom,
> especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with
> a list of evidence:
>
> "The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle
> East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere
> ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the
> United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values
> and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list
> includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch
> and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a
> system of apartheid."
>
> Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of
> model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy
> wisdom.
>
> But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
> Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of
> Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.
>
> With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?

Posting what you said here "Well, the "free world" means the world of
liberal states, i.e. Western orthodox democracies.
China is not one of them".

US cannot lead the free world anymore as they have lost their standing due
to killing and sabotaging with lies of other countries.

Other countries with so-called communist system is powering ahead with their
economy opens to the world. They have gained strong traction with their open
economy system, so that for everyone can come to invest and profit and
prosper with their businesses.

Therefore, countries cannot accept US as leader of the world in free world.
The culture in the communist system is what US has been against in all their
years.. However, now, the communist system is just a brand only.

Henceforth, US is in their "dream world" and will be agonising very soon in
the missing the tree for the orest.

"ltlee1" wrote in message
news:c73b0a8f-3edc-42b4-b715-bd82f9befb2fn@googlegroups.com...

"Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are
committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights,
tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law,
freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means
either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make
intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others
to follow suit.

So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a
good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its
policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially
with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is
“no.”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/

Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any
kind of model democracy.

Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index,
low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration
rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic
inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance,
military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars
could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought
and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the
left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and
etc. All true.

Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom,
especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with
a list of evidence:

"The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle
East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere
ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the
United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values
and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list
includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch
and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a
system of apartheid."

Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of
model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy
wisdom.

But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of
Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.

With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?

On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 2:44:36 AM UTC-4, zizibong wrote:
> Posting what you said here "Well, the "free world" means the world of
> liberal states, i.e. Western orthodox democracies.
> China is not one of them".
> US cannot lead the free world anymore as they have lost their standing due
> to killing and sabotaging with lies of other countries.
>
> Other countries with so-called communist system is powering ahead with their
> economy opens to the world. They have gained strong traction with their open
> economy system, so that for everyone can come to invest and profit and
> prosper with their businesses.
>
> Therefore, countries cannot accept US as leader of the world in free world.
> The culture in the communist system is what US has been against in all their
> years.. However, now, the communist system is just a brand only.
>
> Henceforth, US is in their "dream world" and will be agonising very soon in
> the missing the tree for the orest.

Trump wants to make America great again. And America is considered in decline.
At present, the US is under new management. Hence Stephen Walt's question:
Could the United States Still Lead the [Free] World if It Wanted to?

Biden certainly wants to and his refrain is "America is back." The issue is whether America
is in decline and will continue to. Stephen Walt did not directly address the issue of decline.
But he is clear that the US is neither a model democracy nor wise to lead. If the competition
is between two individual nations, the US and China. The US is likely to lose. Of course, the
same question could be reframed.

Here come G. John Ikenberry. He is "a theorist of international relations and United States foreign
policy, and the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University. "
He reframes American decline as the decline of the US led liberal International world order. And this
liberal internationalism world order is in decline or in crisis because of its success.

In short, liberal international world order is an ecosystem developed and maintained by liberal
democracies per their liberal value. Under the US leadership, Western democracies contribute to
form a ecosystem of institutions and policies to assure the dominance of these Western democracies
economically and militarily. Of course, their enemy was the USSR.

Basically, it is a Cold War "us against them lose-lose system. But the USSR did implode. And Asian
countries especially China are benefited by this system. So, it is a success. But success has its problems.
Without the USSR as the big bad bear, the current world order has no unified social goal. The rise of China
also informs the world that there is another way of doing business. Liberal internationalism also loses its
authority. Hence the decline of the US led world order.

But the liberal international world order could be reinvented and reinvigorated. America could lead the world
as before and China could fall like the former USSR. The supposition is that the competition is ecosystem against
ecosystem. Chinese internationalism is not liberal and it is still developing. It can't possibly match liberal internationalism.

> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:c73b0a8f-3edc-42b4...@googlegroups.com...
> "Rather obviously, the term “free world” refers to those states that are
> committed to a set of familiar liberal institutions: individual rights,
> tolerance, accountability through free and fair elections, the rule of law,
> freedom of expression, and the like. Exercising “leadership,” in turn, means
> either being an attractive model for others to emulate or being able to make
> intelligent policy choices, implement them successfully, and convince others
> to follow suit.
>
> So the first question we need to answer is whether the United States is a
> good model for other liberal states. The second question is whether its
> policy judgments are ones that others should trust and follow, especially
> with respect to foreign policy. On balance, the answer to both questions is
> “no.”
> https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/15/could-the-united-states-still-lead-the-world-if-it-wanted-to/
>
> Stephen Walt gives a list of reasons in the article on why the US is not any
> kind of model democracy.
>
> Partial list: "flawed democracy" according to Economist's Democracy Index,
> low voter turnout, dismal public trust in government, highest incarceration
> rate in the world, low Social Progrss Index, highest levels of economic
> inequality among the developed world, use of torture, illegal surveillance,
> military commanders who could neither win wars nor "explain why these wars
> could not be won and should never have been fought," "freedom of thought
> and expression are now being threatened by extremists on the right and the
> left who seek to silence or marginalize views they disagree with..." and
> etc. All true.
>
> Stephen Walt also has serious doubt on US "collective political wisdom,
> especially when it comes to foreign policy." And he supports his view with
> a list of evidence:
>
> "The list goes on: Four consecutive administrations mismanaged the Middle
> East peace process, and its wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere
> ended in costly defeats and disaster for millions of others. Meanwhile, the
> United States continues to back a set of Middle East clients whose values
> and political behavior are sharply at odds with liberal ideals. That list
> includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which Human Rights Watch
> and the Israeli rights organization B’Tselem have declared to be running a
> system of apartheid."
>
> Stephen Walt is absolutely right on both: 1) America is not any kind of
> model democracy, and 2) America has yet to demonstrate its foreign policy
> wisdom.
>
> But he is also wrong. VERY wrong.
> Leadership unusually entails win-win. But in the Free and Funny world of
> Orthodox Western Democracy. Leadership can also mean lose-lose.
>
> With lose-lose as its goal, the US is uniquely qualified to lead. 舍我其谁?