Should the U.S. still TRY to "lead the world"?

[Ken Burch]

Seems a worthwhile question, given that even our "progressive" president still buys into the "world's ONLY superpower" thing.

Not sure what anyone here thinks of the concept...whether it ever could have been progressive or positive...whether it could still be now...whether the world can be "led" at all...whether or not we should just let the world lead itself for a change.

[lib2DaBone]

1. No more policemen of the world. No more nation building offshore.

Cancel NAFTA and all the other job-robbing treaties as well.

NAFTA gave us the SHAFTA.

[Cid_B]

2. Always... Military, social and economic...

[Lunabelle]

3. YES! But I mean lead by example

like we used to. We were ahead in everything like science,technology, education, civil and human rights. That is how America should lead. How sad that we have lost much of our success due to the top 1% insisting on much more than their fair share.

[Capitalocracy]

7. Took the words right out of my mouth. nt

[AverageJoe90]

4. We shouldn't be kicked off the world stage........

.....mainly because there are countries who could do FAR worse damage........but yeah, I'd like to see a better balance.

However, though, as Lunabelle stated, leading by EXAMPLE wouldn't be so bad. =)

[Liberty Belle]

5. Yes but in positive ways only--lead in solving global warming,

developing clean alternative fuels, setting a positive example of how to care for the least among us here at home. Regulate the financial institutions and stand up for ordinary people.

We're not doing any of those things, but we should be.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. size, population, economy and geography pretty much guarantee that America will be a major player

on the world stage for a very long time to come - whether it wants to or not. But this ever expanding global super power business is simply not sustainable and will bankrupt America if some serious downsizing of American imperium does not happen soon.

[HereSince1628]

8. I'd be satisfied with just being tied with Scandinavia

:shrug:

[xchrom]

9. no. stupid goal in the first place.

we should try to be the best america for americans we can be -- right along w/ 'by and for the People'.

[pampango]

10. The UN should "lead the world" not the US or any other individual country.

The UN is more representative of the world's population than any other institution.

[Lurks Often]

11. The alternatives seem worse

The United Nations is only marginally more effective then the League of Nations and the Security Council can never seem to agree on anything of significance. Can't even get a unanimous decision to condemn Syria out of them.

Europe has dragged us into 2 World Wars and they have been cheerfully killing each other for hundreds of years.

I don't trust either Russia or China

If we aren't a world leader, who fills the spot, because somebody will. So for those of you who feel the US should no longer be a world power, what is your alternative? History strongly suggests that another country will try to fill the role.

[marmar]

14. Goodness knows the U.S. has never started any bogus wars

[marmar]

12. I don't think the rest of the world gives a sh*t anymore.

nt

[Odin2005]

13. We should be first among equals, leading by example.

[Modern_Matthew]

15. Hell no. We can't even lead by example, let alone by military force. nt