[skh]

This is one positive aspect of Trump’s presidency. He has definitively shown Korea, Japan, and Europe that the Pax Americana can not be relied upon as much as it once was. Those countries will have to start leading more and have a stronger voice. They may not like the accompanying expense and tough choices this entails but I welcome it.

[huffmsa]

There are a lot of us Americans who no longer want to be a crutch for the rest of the world.

We'd rather be fixing our own domestic problems like our crumbling infrastructure.

Trump campaigned on that.

[rookonaut]

One viewpoint is that the USA are a crutch to the rest of the world.

Another viewpoint would be that this is based on self-interest.

The USA bombing Iraq because Hussein wanted to sell oil in another currency other than the USD and leaving the so called rest of the world with the humantarian crisis would be one counter example to the crutch-theory.

[sixQuarks]

You're on the right track, but the reason you gave for invading Iraq is very naive. Research "Project for the New American Century", whose founders were very high up in the GW Bush administration. You'll see that the strategies they outlined in 1997 plays out quite well. Toppling Iran has yet to happen, but Syria and Iraq have gone according to plan.

[skh]

From my perspective it has become a symbiotic relationship. The U.S. maintains the Pax Americana at great financial expense but does so for the benefits it provides. It’s not an altruistic act. Europe and Japan get benefits too. One of the benefits for Europeans is that they get to avoid the messy moral situations that come from wielding such power. Go back to the mess in former Yugoslavia in the 90s to see how the Europeans made a mess of things trying solve it on their own. I don’t want to get into a debate on the merits o that intervention but the situation wasn’t resolved to the liking of the UK, France, Germany, etc. until the U.S. got involved.

[huffmsa]

It's definitely a two way street, but there's less incentive now for the US to stay involved. We're a net petroleum exporter now, Texas of all places is adopting renewables like crazy (proving their viability), highly autonomous and mechanized manufacturing is almost comparable to outsourced production and we don't need soyuz for space launches (soon).

All of that combined, plus the growing need to address our own impoverished parts of the country is making a lot of people in the US think it's time to let Europe do it's own thing.

[laumars]

In what sense is the US a crutch for the rest of the world?

I totally understand wanting to focus on domestic problems but all too often campaigns based on that like to blame everyone but those who are responsible for domestic problems. We saw this with the UK's EU referendum (or "Brexit" as it's now known) where immigration was a key point. We saw this with a great many despots that come to power that blame other cultures corrupting their way of life. Even Hitler used the same rhetoric. And what good does it ever bring us? The US has had frequent shutdowns and regressions to universal health care and the growth of the UK's economy has slowed, cost of goods have gone up and jobs have and will be lost. We are all worse off for it!

Blaming everyone else for your own domestic problems wont help solve your domestic problems. In fact more often than not, you're only going to make them worse because you're just giving more power to those who actually cause those problems to begin with.

[rad_gruchalski]

I’m sorry but it’s not like the rest of the world simply voted or chosen that state of affairs.

[tw04]

>Trump campaigned on that.

Trump campaigned on whatever the audience of the moment was cheering for. So far he's cut taxes on the ultra wealthy to the point we can't afford to fix infrastructure if we wanted to. Gutted the EPA, refused to impose bipartisan sanctions on Russia, and is talking about stealing land and hurricane relief money to build a wall that nobody wants besides that painted-on-hair racist Stephen Miller.