Substance of this post aside, Captain America could still beat up Europe. He could also best them at Scrabble.
"Why did the United States become the leading economic power of the 20th century?" Asks David Brooks today. "The best short answer is that a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom."Is that really the best short answer? Jules Jusserand, France's ambassador to the US from 1902 to 1925, once explained American power this way: "On the north, she had a weak neighbor; on the south, another weak neighbor; on the east, fish; on the west, fish." Add in a tremendous amount of arable land and natural resources, and you have the conditions for a kingdom able to focus on education and personal betterment and growth, rather than constantly working to defend its wealth and resources from nearby aggressors. But reshuffle the board a bit, place America next to Germany during the 20th Century, make it a combatant rather than a deus ex machina in the two World Wars, and you're probably looking at an extremely different balance of global power. The rest of Brooks' column is a fairly non-controversial argument about the problems posed by declining educational outcomes, but much of it relies on this argument that Europe is, weirdly, closing the gap with the US. But that's exactly what you'd expect as the continent ceased being roiled by massive wars and having to rebuild its infrastructure every few decades. Americans don't have any particularly unique commitment to education, work, or growth -- but for a long time, they were in a position where they were better able to maximize what commitment they did have. America's complete preeminence in the 20th Century, however, is probably not reproducible going forward. It relied on the twice-over destruction of the previous global leaders, and extremely low levels of development among populous, resource-rich nations like China and India. Broadly speaking, it's good for everyone, America included, that those conditions are lifting. And if it spurs America to more investment on education and competitiveness, that's positive. But folks have to be careful that this doesn't tip into the neoconservative argument that the post-War American dominance is the norm, and the only path to true global stability, and so we should understand the development and assertiveness of other large nations as something akin to a hostile act.Photo used under a Creative Commons license from RichT. 
