This is the response I posted to The Economist's monthly debate: "This House believes that Brand America will regain its shine."

--

Dear Sir, America's economic shine has long been the work of immigrants at every level of the production chain. Recall that US Steel was founded and run by Carnegie, the son of an immigrant family. As long as America remains hostile to immigrants and its economic recovery bills call for protectionism (witness the anti-foreigner sections of the bail-out and the buy-american proposals regarding building materials), the United States will not be as competitive as it ought to be. Suffering along with competitiveness will be the pace of American innovation and the quality of American innovation.

America yet has a role to play in international affairs. But America lost its moral impetus when it expanded Guantanamo Bay. Whether or not that is justifiable is not the point; that American influence is less justified in the third world, is. America probably feels and will continue to feel increasing resistance in Africa and in Asia to American calls for more human rights; that resistance will be based around accusations of hypocrisy. America is still influential and still a power to be reckoned with. But the brand, that of the moral champion, has been tarnished.

--

Of course, what I did not add was that America has pursued policy that seems to run counter to its moral impetus. Supporting the Diem regime in Vietnam in the mid-twentieth century or support for anti-communist dictators in South America and the Middle-East, for example. America bounced back in the '90s in the years Mr Clinton was in office. Brand America, economically with the tech bubble and in foreign policy with its anti-terrorist and human rights mini-campaigns, did regain its shine.

The difference, perhaps, between now and then, is the possibility of alternatives. The Cold War international stage was polarized; alliances were, out of necessity, dichotomies -- NATO or Warsaw Pact. The us or them rhetoric that Mr Bush employed rang hollow then and still rings hollow now: the them are non-nationals, as this blog has consistently pointed out. And who are we? A college essay worthy question, to be sure, but a question worth asking. The third world can look to China for aid and, more importantly (to them, anyway), investment; nations in need of weapons can look beyond Europe and America, and access Russian stores. Countries in need of cheap goods can look east not only to China, but also to India and Vietnam. Even if we are not "them," we -- that is, "we" -- are factionalized.

I argue that Brand America existed in the last century out of necessity -- that Brand America had shine, despite the dents and smudges, because the other Brand, the Soviet choice, was absolutely black and shine-less. Brand America has its flaws, and so does Brand China, Brand Russia, and Brand EU; but it is precisely because all the choices are similarly flawed but no longer the color pitch that we notice America's so much more. Brand America may never regain its shine simply because American shine hasn't grown or waned -- there's nothing to regain. Lady Liberty just looks a tad less appealing because her competitors did some spit-and-polish and underwent a facial.