The Current Election is Evidence That The United States is Crumbling

Thanks, Pro- I've managed to lose my composition this evening and have only minutes to reconstruct. Rather than forfeit, I'll give you a couple of rebuttals now and hopefully I can mix in some more considered counter-arguments in my conclusion in R4 I have to admit that as Pro's argument diffuses through the rounds the crux of thesis becomes a bit elusive. If Pro will forgive the oversimplification, I'll try to pare us down to the essential: Pro has concluded that the United States is crumbling and has offered a variety premises to support this conclusion. In R1, the current election was presented as evidence of a weak electorate and portent of a future dictator. My counter argument in R2 was that the candidates weren't all particularly authoritarian, that some authoritarian tendencies can be useful in leaders during a crisis and that the trick was reclaiming power after crisis. Besides, I countered, a future dictator does not necessarily equate to a nation in decline. In R2, Pro conceded that the US is at present economically and militarily dominant. Pro argued that the current state of immigration is evidence of our faltering economy, while recent folly in the Middle East is evidence of our faltering might. Pro also argued that the US is an oligarchy. In R3, Pro argued that American disconnection, irresponsibility and entitlement were further evidence of a US decline and recommended increased political discourse by way of solution. I suspect that the largest differences between Pro and Con are questions of degree and import and relative optimism: the evening news vs. the history books. Pro identifies some genuine challenges for the current generation and concludes a great unraveling is inevitable. Con agrees that the US faces challenges but because we have faced similar challenges before with remarkable success Con sees no justification for pessimism; because we have overcome more difficult perils and survived stronger Con is optimistic that the US might continue to endure. IMMIGRATION Less than 1% of Americans identify as exclusively American Indian or Native Alaskan, [1] which tells us that the overwhelming majority of the population is descended from some generation of immigrant population. Over 500 years, each generation with significant fluxuations in immigrant population mostly according to relative economic health. Waves of Irish, Italian, German, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican immigrants have immigrated, settled mostly in pockets of like nationality, struggled to synthesize, met resistance and eventually normalized- adding their culture, work, and children to great mix of Americans. Generally speaking, the ability to attract and synthesize immigrants is a sign of regional economic health. Con sees no reason to assume tha the same dynamic won't continue to apply. Yes, there is significant sharing and appropriation of American innovation, but that too has always been the case and the expansion of American technologies like the light bulb, the automobile, the television, the PC, the Internet, the smart phone has proved preponderantly beneficial to US economic dominance. Yes, it is possible that Americans will lose their technological edge but that is not yet so and needn't be so. In the coming decade, robotics, automated transportation, customized pharmaceuticals, sustainable energy solutions will transform every economy and require a complete redefinition of labor, health, energy. The US leads in all these technologies and has the capacity to maintain our role as leader during the coming redefinition or we can decide our nation is crumbling and let others take the lead. The choice is ours. MILITARY SETBACKS In the smaller, pessimistic picture, US ineptitude in Iraq, the rise of ISIS, etc can be seen easily portrayed as failures and harbingers of a more dangerous world. But in a larger sense, great powers are always losing smaller wars against entrenched regional powers. Think of how often Roman legions were overrun by Parthians, Celts, Dacians, Germans, Jewish revolts and civil wars. The strength of Rome was her willingness to return and impose her will. In the big picture, Iraq and ISIS are nothing new. We fought endless guerilla insurgencies during the Indian Wars, we suffered unwinnable asymmetrical struggles in the Phillipines, Korea, Vietnam, the Barbary Coast, which all shared with the Gulf War the assumption that a greater investment in destruction would have proved irresistible. But like the prior engagements the US had no vital objectives to achieve and walked away after spending more blood and treasure than was deemed worthwhile. Such adventures are expensive follies to be sure but we've survived many such follies before- why should Iraq prove especially fatal?