Social challenges and the shifting global role of the US

Speculation has increased about the future role of the US, globally, amid the domestic social movements and protests the country is experiencing. Some go as far as to suggest the country might face a secession crisis or some kind of implosion.

Such claims seem to be highly exaggerated and very unlikely. Indeed, the current situation seems similar in some ways to the unrest of the mid-1960s. Is it a coincidence, or a historical cycle, that the US is beginning a new chapter in space exploration at the same time as the nation is rocked by major protests, just as it was back then?

In the late 1960s, the US was still embroiled in the Vietnam War, and sad events such as the Detroit riots and the Orangeburg massacre were happening around the same time as the first moon landing. Now, as SpaceX gets the US back in the space exploration game by sending two astronauts to the International Space Station, the country is once again facing riots and protests.

As happened in the 1960s, social unrest and the conquest of space are once again happening at the same time. It might seem like the two things have nothing in common, but they are highly symbolic of the way the US operates as a country. Even when facing severe internal difficulties it continues to advance and face challenges beyond its borders. It seems to be a defining characteristic of the US that it is able to experience extreme pressure while at the same time conquering new frontiers, fight wars and still find a way to push forward.

Tensions often seem to rise in the run-up to a presidential election, which is another way in which the current unrest can be compared with events in the 1960s. The Democratic convention of 1968 was overtaken by protests against the Vietnam War, raising tensions and sparking massive protests throughout the country. It also came soon after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., which highlighted issues of poverty and racism, which are again in the spotlight now.

The situations of all communities have obviously improved greatly since the 1960s and poverty has been reduced, and so the intensity of the current protests is not comparable to those that took place five decades ago. However, the glare of social media does intensify how the current situation is perceived by a global audience.

This quick comparison of then and now serves to indicate that the approach of the US to international issues will not be affected by its current domestic challenges; it is, rather, guided by strategic decision-making. So, whether or not the US decides to withdraw from a region or shift its focus to another, for example, will not be affected by the protests.

In the Middle East, it is clear that despite a strong commitment, the US focus has been shifting for more than 15 years. This was not caused by domestic US issues but by a strategic decision to be less dependent on energy from the region, as well as the necessity of refocusing on the challenges in Asia.

This provides a small indication that any suggestion the US might break apart or be forced to disengage from the global scene seems to be misplaced, and that domestic tensions will probably ease after November’s presidential election. There might be even greater domestic instability in the next five months, like there was at the time of the 1968 election, but the US will undoubtedly pull through.

Social challenges and evolving social pacts are not the sole preserve of the US. Similar issues seem to be increasingly emerging around the world and might be linked to the global economy. Here, again, we find some similarities with the 1960s.

The immediate aftermath of the Second World War marked the emergence of the consumer market, which unleashed growth on a scale never before seen, especially in the US and Europe. It was a “first-acquisition” market: Households were buying their first fridge, their first TV, their first car and so on. This marked a period of rapid growth, with low unemployment.

The mid-1960s marked the beginning of a plateau and slowdown, with a shift toward a replacement market; most households had everything they needed and now were only replacing items that failed (or, in the case of more privileged individuals, buying a second one).

This shift had consequences on a social level, as it was an indication that a peak had been reached. It was accelerated by a major geopolitical incident: The oil embargo of the early 1970s. However, the economic slowdown was not caused by the oil crisis, it was caused by the shift in the dynamics of the market that preceded it. The protests of the late 1960s were, in fact, a precursor to this.

So have we now reached a similar situation, with the technology market shifting from first acquisition to replacement? It seems as if almost everyone has a tablet, a mobile phone, a flat-screen TV and most other gadgets, after all, so have we reached peak tech growth? And is COVID-19 the 2020 equivalent of the oil shock that pushed the world into “stagflation” (persistent high inflation, high unemployment and stagnant demand in an economy)?

These changes affect not only the US but all big economies, including China, the EU and, ultimately, the global economy. Yet, just as the oil shock of the 1970s paved the way for new political movements and new business sectors, such as the green economy, it seems that COVID-19 has, in a way, opened the door to the next phase for political movements and businesses.

It is unclear, however, whether this phase — which includes new technology that is mostly being created in the US and China, such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, robotics and unmanned vehicles — will, like every industrial revolution before it, create new employment opportunities, or be a destroyer of jobs.

It seems that many people feel the latter is more likely as, beyond other considerations, the common denominator in every protest happening globally is that people are demanding a new social and economic pact.

This is entwined with particular domestic demands in each individual country, such as the sovereignty of the state in Lebanon and Iraq; the refocusing of resources for the benefit of the people in Iran; or the greater social protection demanded by the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) in France.

However at the heart of every protest lies “FOLO,” or fear of losing out. This is the fear among many people that the door to the pursuit of prosperity is being closed to them. This is the biggest threat to stability, not only in the US but worldwide, as it is motivating both the populist voices of the right and the “cancel culture” of the left, exacerbated by social media.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the CEO of Eurabia, a media and tech company. He is also the editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.