The apocalypse of the United States as the leading world power (and the emergence of a new world order).

AS WE ENTERED this new millennium the most important economic question facing the United States was how the nation was going to spend its surplus. The most important political issue revolved around President Bill Clinton's sex life. At that point, facing no serious political crisis and fresh with economic abundance, the United States reached its peak.

Since then the administration of George W. Bush, forgetting the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," has systematically diluted the country's democratic institutions, unduly enriched big corporations and wealthy individuals, shortchanged the poor and middle classes, and significantly widened the gap between rich and poor. The administration's ultimate objective is to completely dismantle the reforms of the New Deal and eliminate the safety net that has moderated the swings between boom and bust in business cycles. American society is quickly being transformed from a democracy to an oligarchy: freedom and justice for the few, but not for all. Greed in the extreme, under cover of religion, will soon create another banana republic that will lead to the demise of the United States as the most powerful nation the world has ever known.

Let us examine this depressing yet very real scenario from four interrelated perspectives, beginning with an economic point of view:

Each tax cut by the Bush administration has resulted in a huge handout to big corporations and wealthy individuals at the expense of the poor and middle class. As an example, a top executive earning $1,000,000 in salary and an additional $500,000 in dividend and capital gains income would actually pay a lower overall income tax rate than a middle class employee earning, say $90,000. If you factor in the effects of sales taxes and cuts in governmental services, which mainly affect the lower classes, the spread becomes even more evident. This is unconscionable.

Corporate welfare doesn't create jobs. If, instead, the money were placed in the hands of the poor and middle classes, it would immediately be spent, thereby increasing production and creating jobs. Giving money to the rich doesn't stimulate demand since the rich already have sufficient resources to buy whatever they want.

Congress is just now passing legislation to increase the federal minimum wage from a shameful $5.15 per hour. It should be more like $10 and pegged just above the poverty level with annual adjustments. This is only fair. The argument that jobs would be lost isn't valid. On the contrary, demand would increase and therefore more jobs would be generated.

Economic statistics and the stock market have shown growth during the past two years. The only problem is that the major beneficiaries have been the inner circle of big business and very wealthy individuals. The middle class doesn't feel much better off and poor people will soon be destitute. The prospect of worsening inequality is truly frightening and can only lead to the demise of democracy together with economic stagnation and, eventually, social revolution.

George Akenlof, 2001 Nobel laureate in economics, has stated, "The Bush fiscal policy is the worst policy in the last 200 years.... And within the next 10 years, we're going to pay a serious price for such irresponsibility." Bob Herbert of the New York Times put it this way: "The era of shared sacrifices is over. This is the era of entrenched exploitation. All sacrifices will be made by working people and the poor, and the vast bulk of the benefits will accrue to the rich."

The second perspective can be considered historical, as it relates to Latin America, which has been experimenting with democracy, so-called, over the past twenty years. For the most part this has failed and the general population is no better off now than it was before. A legitimate democracy was never really established. Instead, wealthy families continued to control the means of production, and the result was an oligarchy--the same scenario that is unfolding in our country today.

Leftist and left-of-center governments have since gained control in Latin America. Leftist leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Tabare Vazquez in Uruguay have come into power, and for good reasons. When excessive greed sets in, the emergence of a leftist oriented quasi-dictatorship is made possible. Additional unrest is also emerging now in Peru, Nicaragua, and Mexico.

However, this essentially center-left movement in Latin America is different from previous leftist socialist movements. It strives for a new order--a combination of free market capitalism with a social consciousness. It stands a better chance of elevating the poor and the disenfranchised into the mainstream than unrestricted capitalism, which has only further enriched the wealthy and left the rest of the population in poverty.

The United States would do well to learn from, and not antagonize, these new order governments. It is the way of the future. What is needed is a truly benevolent, democratic, capitalist world order with a large middle class and without widespread poverty. It is the only scenario that can result in long-term stable government. One must be willing to allow some of the benefits of prosperity to filter down.

Throughout the world since the 1980s, in places where unrestricted capitalism exists, the spread between rich and poor has widened considerably. It must be stopped, and in fact reversed, if we are to have a benevolent future that is less greed oriented, with minimum unrest and without inevitable social and military revolution.

The third perspective is that of morals and ethics. The Bush administration claims it is attempting to establish a secular democratic government in Iraq, when here at home a theocracy is slowly but surely being established (and an oligarchic one at that). Americans are becoming more medieval in their philosophical thinking, and the rift between the scholarly and religious worlds is becoming increasingly antagonistic.

Religion remains central to American life, more so than in any other industrialized nation. Eighty-three percent of Americans say they believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Intelligent Design is considered science on a par with evolution. Fifty-eight percent of Americans think it is necessary to believe in a god to be moral. Other developed nations overwhelmingly believe this isn't necessary. In France only 13 percent agree with the American view. In the United States you must believe in ghosts and mysticism to be accepted as a moral and trustworthy person.

Before leaving office, President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans to beware of the emergence of a very powerful military-industrial complex--something that wouldn't bode well for our future. Now we must add religion to that threat. Beware of the military-industrial-religious complex. If we allow big corporations and religious extremists to continue to gain more control of American society, it will certainly lead to the demise of American democracy as we have known it.

Enough has already been said about the folly of going to war in Iraq. I'll just add one item. Iraq is made up of three religious factions who have never gotten along, and this won't change in the foreseeable future. Only a strong leader like Saddam Hussein could keep such a country together. The so-called democracy (aka "occupation") imported by the West can't work there at present. Once the invading forces are out of the country I could visualize a Saddam Hussein Party emerging with a revolutionary leader gaining control. I wouldn't doubt the possibility of Hussein escaping from prison and taking asylum in Syria or elsewhere, then attempting a return to power. Bottom line--with the United States losing its credibility around the world, anything is possible.

The fourth perspective is an Eastern one. The potential implosion of the United States is predicated upon the emergence of Asia as the focal point of future world leadership. Anyone traveling through China, Korea, India, Vietnam, Thailand, and the region in general can appreciate the rapid progress taking place. China should emerge as the next world leader, surpassing the United States in virtually all areas. That nation's industrial, technological, and biological revolutions have just begun. Capitalism is just now taking root and there exists a huge local pent-up demand for the goods and services it can provide. And the Chinese aren't hampered by a medieval religious ideology that would only stifle progress. While the United States is heavily influenced by fundamentalism at home, Asia looks to a more secular future.

In summary, the apocalypse of the United States as the leading world power is a very real possibility. And it could happen sooner than we think. Like a heavyweight boxer who has been knocked to the canvas for the count of nine, it is exceedingly difficult to regain momentum.

Many will consider this an extremist view, and some will even declare it un-American. But it is our responsibility as Humanists and Americans living in a democracy to speak out and express our views on key issues, no matter how controversial or unpopular they may be. It isn't only our right but also our duty if democracy is to survive.

by Louis J. Appignani

Humanist Business Leader Awardee

Louis J. Appignani is a longtime Humanist, successful entrepreneur, and the founder of the Appignani Foundation whose mission is to spread humanistic values through secular activities and organizations such as the Appignani Center for Bioethics at the United Nations and the Appignani Humanist Legal Center in Washington DC. This article is adapted from his speech in acceptance of the Humanist Business Leader award at the 65th Annual Conference of the American Humanist Association held May 11-14, 2006.