Professor John J. Mearsheimer | This House Welcomes The Decline of America

Professor John J. Mearsheimer speaks as the second opposition for the motion in the Debating Chamber at 8pm on Thursday 31st October 2024.

In the run-up to the hotly contested US presidential elections, America is at the forefront of international discourse. This debate will examine America’s role as a superpower, alongside other superpowers, and ask whether we should welcome America’s decline.

Cambridge Union Society Debate Info:

In The Chair: Alessio D’Angelo

Taking the Minutes: Leonas Pausch

- The Debate Motion title is always preceded in context by the phrase “This House Would”, “This Would Believes”, or simply “This House”.

- The Debate motion is typically phrased in Proposition of the argument prior to any votes or speeches, regardless of controversial nature.

- Six 10 minute speeches are given, alternating between each Proposition & Opposition speaker of the Debate Motion.

- The Chair governs authority over interjections, time limits, and any discretions/arrangements agreed between speakers and/or CUS.

- There are two ways interjections can be made by audience members; a Point of Information (upon acceptance from the speaker) or a Floor Speech. (Interjections are not to be interpreted as Audience Questions and can be denied or ignored at discretion of the Speaker or Chair)

- Points of Interest cannot be made during the first & last minutes of any speech, they also must be under 30 seconds and maintain relevance.
(As a result it is impractical to provide microphones for Points of Interest and apologise for any issues with audibility)

- Floor speeches are made by audience members at intervals during the Debate discussing support for Proposition, Opposition or Abstention.
(The Union rarely publishes Floor Speeches due to Release Form arrangements within membership contracts)

- At the end of the Debate, all Speakers and audience members cast their vote as they leave the Debating Chamber through doors labelled “AYES” & “NOES”, with the central door exit representing Abstentions.

- The Chair calls an announcement shortly after the Debate to confirm the votes.

Results:
Ayes - 91
Abstain - 67
Noes - 223

Full: Debate:

............................................................................................................................

Thumbnail Photographer: Nordin Catic
............................................................................................................................

PROFESSOR JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER

John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He has written extensively about security issues and international politics and published seven books. In 2020, he received the American political Science Association’s James Madison Award.

............................................................................................................................

SUBSCRIBE for more speakers:
............................................................................................................................

Connect with us on:

[waldenli]

Two fundamental issues with Mearsheimer’s views and philosophy:

1. Not everyone invades and violates the weak. The Chinese were in direct contact with southeastern Asian countries, Japan, Korea, and even African countries, way before the Westerners came. People in the countries would tell you: when the Chinese came, all they did was trading. When the Westerners came, they colonized us.

And there’s a reason why the Chinese don’t like to colonize. A reason that’s somehow so hard for a Westerner to understand. But if you don’t learn from Chinese history and culture, maybe learn from your own history: why did the British empire collapse? Why did the Great Britain eventually have to let go of its rich colonies?

Colonialism happened for resources and market. The paranoia today is that when China becomes strong, it may also colonize. Well, for what? China has its way to get resources and market - it already is doing that! And the crazy thing is that it can be done through this long-term, sustainable, mutually beneficial way, called TRADING! Have some respect for others. Have some god damn wisdom like a great country should have.

2. The great US spent so much efforts exerting its dominance. How has it benefited its people? I lived there for years. It’s the most messy and dangerous place I’ve ever lived, and I have no plan to go back. How much of your power and dominance is about adolescent childish hormone, and how much of it is about serving your own people and their long-term well-being? Do you really think that it makes you safe by dominating over and bullying others? People don’t kill by default. Don’t give them too many reasons to.

What people in Washington don’t understand is something that people in China, Japan, Scandinavia take for granted: it pays to create an environment where everyone takes care of everyone. The best way to live a lovely life is not by dominating over others, but by creating a lovely environment where you treat others with respect, and everyone treats you with respect, where neighbors live in peace with each other, help each other, wish each other well. That’s a higher level of wisdom that Washington does not get.


Update: I appreciate the support of these simple points, and the debate it generated. We are talking about long histories, and human nature, some of the most complex things, and there will be no absoluteness but full of nuances. I invite us to look at the BIGGER picture.

And I add two fundamental points about the deepest topic - do human beings kill strangers when they see one, or live with them in peace?

1. Game theory. In a lecture a few videos before this one on Cambridge Union, Jefferey Sachs brought up this point, unprompted, likely because he had realized how fundamentally relevant this is for how people treat each other. It was explored in depth in Sapolsky's Behave as well. The problem posed by this discipline, as in Prisoner's Dilemma, is: if two people are to betray or cooperate with each other, where betrayal leads to small gain or both being killed, and cooperation leads to great mutual gain, what should people do? Different scenarios lead to different outcomes. Here I give you the brightest scenario, which is when people are playing infinite games where they have to deal with each other indefinitely, - the scenario closest to the global reality: cooperation is the clear best choice. Because cooperation builds trust, which breeds long-term cooperation.

Two important additions: 1) What strategy to start with, when starting the game off where you don't know each other? Turns out, you want to start with cooperation, and assumption of trust. This gives the chance for trust and cooperation, while starting with betrayal sets you off for infinite betrayal. 2) In real world, there will be miscommunication, where betrayal or cooperation could be mistaken as the opposite. How do we cope? Again, the best is to assume misunderstanding the first time you detect betrayal. Only reciprocate after this is repeated strongly enough.

2. Human nature. Do human strangers kill or cooperate with each other. Both can be argued about human beings. One the one hand, we are tribal. We used to assume danger about those from a different tribe. On the other hand, human beings became the most successful species, and are so capable today, because we cooperate. We are social animals. Ask yourself who made the device you are using. Who built the foundational science for this to happen. It was based on thousands of years of cooperation, now at a global level.

The distinguishing standard, in the primitive sense, turned out to be whether we recognize a person as belonging to the same or opposite side. "Us vs them" judgment. Are you one of us, or one against me? Both can be argued. Human beings are all different, and differences can and have always been used as the basis for deciding they are not one of us, until we realized otherwise: skin color, thoughts/religions, cultures, clothing styles, ...

But we have reasons, stronger than ever, to believe that we are all in this together, as one. 1) We now know that we are ONE SPECIES. Our apparent differences are so superficial. We feel similarly, with the same instincts, and we can reproduce with each other to make wonderful children. 2) We face common enemies beyond whatever is between us - climate change, environmental and ecological deterioration, technology development, ... All of these require us to WORK TOGETHER. No one country or pact can solve it alone without full commitment from the others. As Kishore Mahbubani said, our little boats are now connected into this big ship, and it is sinking. Closing our doors, or worse yet, focus on sinking other's boat now, would be the stupidest thing to do, when we should be taking care of our collective future.

I live in Denmark these days. Along the streets are signs I haven't seen elsewhere: drawings of little children playing, with words "PAS PÅ MIG" - TAKE CARE OF ME. Shouldn't we do that?

[jacobsolace]

i've been a full-time independent political consultant/journalist since 2010. My Voting Bloc of 3, 500 is doing everything it can to make sure that we outlaw all PACs, including AIPAC AND reducing significantly the influence of money in politics.

[sarareloaded]

His argument promotes colonialism! Having power isn't inherently wrong, but abusing it to colonize people worldwide, exploit their natural resources, and offer nothing in return is unacceptable. This includes committing genocide and other atrocities. In contrast, China's foreign policy prioritizes fair trade, not colonization or genocide." In that sense, countries of the Global South, after centuries of humiliation, welcome the decline of such abusive power. Western power is like a knife in a child's hands, recklessly harming others! This power is dangerous and must be stopped.

[Wilson]

In a jungle, a man wants to be strong so no one can bully him. A bully wants to be strong so he can bully others. John should state clearly which he thinks US is.

[somecallmeviki]

I love Mearshimer, but I disagree with the idea that, for us to be strong, we must contain and/or beat down other countries. People and countries should have relationships that are mutually beneficial and friendly

[zetristan]

"I'm loaded with nuclear weapons, but I still endlessly need more security..." promoting a futile arms race forever.

[shaunehuolohan]

Western countries brought this on themselves, China has invested enormously in their own people, especially for poor and lifting 800 millions out of poverty, Chinese growth and power is based on solid foundation. US strength is built on trickle down economy.

[maggieadams]

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace” Jimi Hendrix
My kind of American.

[YehMichell]

I hit $113k today. Thank you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started last month 2024. Financial education is indeed required for more than 70% of the society in the country as very few are literate on the subject.

[mahmaebahmed]

$80k every 4 weeks! I now have a good house and can now afford anything and also support my family 😊

[ESuccessMasters]

He’s completely wrong about pivoting. Why doesn’t the US including Europe just concentrate on their own economies and infrastructure which is falling apart

[aaniikettt]

You cannot give the example of Ukraine as "one of the mess US created" and then say, we (US) are the biggest and baddest that's why we tried expanding NATO to Ukraine despite Russia's asking of not to do so. In the arrogance of being the global dominator or "the biggest and baddest kid on the block", Prof Mearsheimer/US can't just destroy countries (whether its Ukraine/Russia conflict or Israel/Gaza conflict). Another thing is, he is praising China for understanding the importance of being a dominant power and blaming the last century's treatment of China by the rest of the world for it. Well, major blame for the mistreatement of Russia and China in the last century lies on the US.

[walentystankiewicz]

I love Professor Mearshimer, but his preaching doesn't make sense. The US and Great Britain are not the most important countries in the world, every country is important. The world as a whole rejected the USA and British hegemony, and he still is living in colonial past thinking.

[AdamCherad-gw]

Mearsheimer appears to (perhaps unwittingly) embody several contradictions in his core arguments. On one hand, he acknowledges that we are now in a multipolar geopolitical landscape, yet he also expresses a preference, as an American, for maintaining American dominance. He argues that in the absence of a single universal power, there is no entity to turn to for help in the event of an invasion. At the same time, he condemns the genocide in Gaza, asserting that the United States is complicit due to its support of Israel through arms, funding, and technology. This support is enabled precisely by the US’s dominant position, which allows it to back Israel unchallenged.

The contradiction lies in Mearsheimer’s moral stance against genocide, while simultaneously advocating for the continuation of American supremacy. If the US’s dominance enables actions like the support of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, how can he reconcile his opposition to genocide with his desire for the US to retain its status as the world’s most powerful nation? The question thus arises: if Mearsheimer is genuinely opposed to genocide on moral grounds, how can he justify the pursuit of American dominance that, in his view, contributes to enabling such atrocities?

[luklauw]

The only thing prof Mearsheimer lack was the understanding of Chinese way of thinking.

[dumbfoundedinDeutschland]

Well, we are ready for the US to leave Europe. As you said, there is no threat here. You need to focus on your own country now.

[Odetofreedom]

Well the reality is that nothing last forever. Doing a simple analogy, you don't expect a child to never grow up. And if you were raising a kid under terror (as the US does with the world), the moment that kid is a grown up, get ready to suffer the anger that has been consuming him. Once his fear is gone your power is over.
I just hope for the good of everyone the US change his foreign policy and accept that they are not an hegemony anymore, otherwise, the results for the world and specially for them are going to be catastrophic. There are not good or bad guys in a geopolitical game, everyone just want to survive, and Im absolutely sure we can all survive, but greed and power have consume the US from its roots, and that is going to end up really bad.
A peacefully world is possible, hopefully it will be achieved in less than a 100 years.

[jerryrn]

As an American, we can not go back to where we were. It cost too much money and there is non left. We ran our coarse. We can still be one of the powerful countries, but need to come to our truth, we need to prepare for the new economies and stop making wars. We can survive a depression, rebuild and we have everything we need here. But we can not come back from a nuclear exchange! Europeans will be fine without us, they are smart, resourceful, innovative, peaceful. They are ready to thrive on their own. Us Americans need to move beyond cold war verbiage, come to our reality, and join the whole world in peace and cooperation!

[MrPleiadian]

This is the true face of the USA, the man doesn't mince his words, Unfortunately the old man forgets one thing!! A country that pushes other countries around and exploits them has to pay the price at some point, and the price is the country's downfall. That's exactly what's happening to the USA right now. But one thing still needs to be said, his words are the same words that German politicians used back then before World War II broke out, this one just uses them a little differently, more contemporary I would think. But basically everything he says is irrelevant, the real power has no country or only one person, He knows exactly who has this power, would he tell us ?? No, he wouldn't... death would be the Consequence.

[simonfarrugia]

Europe's best interest is to build itself, not to rely on the US to survive. FYI, Europe will still not survive with US support. EU does not have the right mindset & leadership to do what it needs to be done to build back Europe as a major economic power.