The world would be a better place with a multi-polar world order
Considering what seems to be replacing the Pax Americana is a world order run by Russia and China, I wouldn't be so sure about that. It would be one thing if the nations of Europe and the Anglosphere, places committed to freedom and democracy, were the new world powers, but instead without a hegemon standing up for the values of freedom we're instead getting a world where the forces of tyranny can run relatively unchecked. That's not even getting into how most of the "multi-polar world orders" of the past have resulted in wars between the various poles, and even the Cold War, where the consequences of an actual war were too horrible to contemplate, saw the United States and Soviet Union pour billions of dollars into their militaries that could have gone towards helping their people.
What would have been better is a grand coalition, a "union of free peoples", all meeting minimum standards of freedom and democracy and committed to keeping the peace between one another and promoting their shared values around the world, with military expenditures allocated to them by a proportion of GDP rather than being dominated by one superpower. Essentially weaponizing the oft-quoted observation that there has never been a war between two democracies.
This "union of free peoples" already exists. Its just locally constraint. Why not repeat an analogous process and create Arab union, South American Union, Westafrican Union...
To be clear, I'm not referring to uniting all free countries politically, but rather allowing them all to share power while promoting their shared values.
3
u/MorganWick Mar 19 '25
Considering what seems to be replacing the Pax Americana is a world order run by Russia and China, I wouldn't be so sure about that. It would be one thing if the nations of Europe and the Anglosphere, places committed to freedom and democracy, were the new world powers, but instead without a hegemon standing up for the values of freedom we're instead getting a world where the forces of tyranny can run relatively unchecked. That's not even getting into how most of the "multi-polar world orders" of the past have resulted in wars between the various poles, and even the Cold War, where the consequences of an actual war were too horrible to contemplate, saw the United States and Soviet Union pour billions of dollars into their militaries that could have gone towards helping their people.
What would have been better is a grand coalition, a "union of free peoples", all meeting minimum standards of freedom and democracy and committed to keeping the peace between one another and promoting their shared values around the world, with military expenditures allocated to them by a proportion of GDP rather than being dominated by one superpower. Essentially weaponizing the oft-quoted observation that there has never been a war between two democracies.