Collateral Damage: How the American Worker Got Left Behind

By the early 2000s, the U.S. had built a global trade system that promised peace and prosperity. But back home, in factory towns and rural communities, that prosperity was falling apart.

Automation was reshaping industries. Trade was hollowing out entire regions. And the people who lost their jobs weren’t just losing paychecks—they were losing their identity, their status, and their place in the national story.

And when they looked to Washington for help?

All they found was paperwork and platitudes.

The Fix That Failed: Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)

In theory, the U.S. had a plan to deal with the fallout of globalization. It was called Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA.

The idea:

• If your job was lost to foreign competition, you’d qualify for support.

• That meant retraining, extended unemployment benefits, maybe relocation aid.

In practice:

• The program was hard to access.

• Underfunded and poorly managed.

• Often didn’t lead to new, better jobs.

Many workers were told to retrain in fields that didn’t pay enough—or didn’t exist locally. Some were expected to leave behind homes, families, and decades of roots.

TAA helped a few. But for most, it was a dead end.

America vs. the Rest

The U.S. wasn’t the only country hit by trade and automation.

But here’s what makes America different:

We handled it worse.

Other nations—like Germany, Denmark, and Canada—paired globalization with:

• Robust worker protections

• Free or low-cost retraining

• Wage insurance and universal health care

• Stronger unions and labor representation

They cushioned the blow.
America let people fall.

More Than Economic Loss

Losing a job is devastating. But what many American workers lost in the 2000s was bigger:

• A sense of purpose

• Community cohesion

• Intergenerational opportunity

They were told the economy was growing.
That trade deals made everyone richer.
That robots were just “creative destruction.”

But in places like Dayton, Toledo, and Erie, people saw:

• Rising suicides

• Opioid addiction

• Shrinking schools and shuttered main streets

They didn’t just lose jobs.
They lost trust—in politicians, economists, and even the American Dream.

The Political Fallout

By the 2010s, that disillusionment boiled over into something more volatile.

Anger. Resentment.
A turn toward economic nationalism, populism, and deep mistrust of elites.

Many workers didn’t become anti-trade because of theory.
They became anti-trade because the system betrayed them—and no one came to fix it.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll look at how this backlash exploded into politics—how trade policy became personal, and how tariffs, slogans, and political realignment reshaped America’s economic identity.

Because when people feel abandoned, they don’t just check a different box on a form.

They vote to burn the whole system down.

Modern Authoritarianism in America: How the Playbook Is Being Used Now

The United States doesn’t look like Hungary. Or Turkey. Or India.

We have a different history, a different constitution, and stronger institutions—at least, we used to.

But modern authoritarianism is adaptable. It doesn’t require tanks or crownings. It works within the system—until it breaks the system. And right now, the U.S. is no longer just flirting with these tactics. We’ve elected a leader who is actively using them.

This isn’t speculation. It’s happening.

The Playbook Comes Home

Over the past decade, MAGA Republicans and their allies have adopted, echoed, or imported nearly every step of the authoritarian playbook:

• Discredit the press: “Fake news.” “Enemy of the people.” Mainstream journalists are vilified, while loyal media personalities become propaganda arms.

• Weaken the courts: Judicial appointments are politicized. Judges who rule against the administration are attacked personally. Independent oversight is dismissed as “deep state” sabotage.

• Undermine elections: Lies about 2020 have become doctrine in GOP circles. Voting rights have been rolled back in key states. Election workers face threats and harassment.

• Target minorities and scapegoats: From anti-immigrant rhetoric to attacks on trans people, the strategy remains the same: blame a marginalized group to rally political power.

• Centralize executive power: Trump has publicly vowed to fire thousands of civil servants, expand presidential authority, and use the military for domestic enforcement.

These aren’t isolated policies—they’re all connected. It’s the playbook. And it’s being followed.

What’s Happening Now (2025): The Authoritarian Turn

Since returning to office, Trump’s second-term agenda has been even more openly authoritarian. Just a few examples:

• Civil Service Purges: Trump has revived and expanded Schedule F, allowing him to fire tens of thousands of federal employees and replace them with loyalists. (Reuters)

• Retaliation Against Political Opponents: The administration has moved to strip security clearances from perceived enemies, including officials connected to previous investigations. (Axios)

• Destruction of Oversight: Trump has removed at least 17 inspectors general—watchdogs tasked with exposing fraud and abuse across federal agencies. (Wikipedia)

• Adopting Foreign Models: He has praised El Salvador’s authoritarian leader Nayib Bukele and his mass-incarceration tactics. His team is now reportedly exploring similar strategies for the U.S. (The Guardian)

• Suppressing DEI and Civil Rights Programs: The newly created Department of Government Efficiency has suspended or eliminated diversity initiatives across federal agencies, targeting staff and scrubbing content. (Wikipedia)

These are not partisan policies. They are steps toward authoritarian rule.

It’s Still “Legal” — Until It Isn’t

One of the most dangerous myths in American politics is that if something’s legal, it must be okay.

But authoritarians don’t always start by breaking laws—they bend them until they break, using the appearance of legality to justify actions that would otherwise be unthinkable. Once the guardrails are gone, new norms are established. And once enough people accept those norms, the system can be rewritten—or ignored entirely.

We’re already seeing this happen.

Take the Alien Enemies Act—a relic from 1798, originally intended for times of declared war. Today, it’s being used in peacetime to detain immigrants—including those with legal status or work authorization—and in at least one case, to deport them to foreign prisons outside U.S. jurisdiction.
By moving these individuals beyond the reach of our courts, the executive branch is deliberately bypassing due process, while claiming full legal authority to do so.

Another example: Schedule F, which reclassifies civil servants so they can be fired for political reasons. It’s technically within the president’s administrative powers—but it collapses the distinction between professional governance and partisan loyalty. This isn’t reform. It’s regime change by HR policy.

And when inspectors general—independent watchdogs—are mass-fired, the message is clear: oversight is only tolerated when it’s convenient. That’s not how checks and balances work. That’s how autocracies remove them.

These are not just policy shifts. They are systemic tests—trial runs to see how far the law can be pushed before anyone pushes back.

This Is the Pattern — and the Plan

This is no longer about warning signs. It’s about recognizing that the transition is happening. American authoritarianism has its own flavor—louder, more theatrical, and steeped in culture war—but it follows the same logic: consolidate power, silence dissent, change the rules, punish enemies.

The real question isn’t whether it’s happening. It’s whether we will face it in time.

Next: Breaking Down the Playbook, Step by Step

Tomorrow, we’ll lay out the seven key steps of the modern authoritarian strategy—so you can see how each part connects and why it’s so effective.

If you’re finding this series useful, please share it. Authoritarianism thrives in confusion and silence. Let’s break that.

The China Shock: When Trade Policy Hit Like a Freight Train

Yesterday, we explored how automation quietly eroded manufacturing jobs over decades.

Today, we turn to something faster, sharper, and far more sudden—a shock that hit American workers and communities like a freight train:

Trade liberalization with China.

While automation was a slow tide, the China Shock was a tsunami—and it swept away entire industries, seemingly overnight.

NAFTA and the Opening Shot

Before China, there was NAFTA—the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1994.

NAFTA removed trade barriers between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Supporters said it would boost efficiency and create jobs. Critics warned it would incentivize companies to move production to where labor was cheaper.

Both were right.

NAFTA accelerated offshoring, particularly in:

• Auto parts

• Textiles

• Electronics assembly

Tens of thousands of jobs, especially in the U.S. Midwest and South, were moved to Mexico. But NAFTA was just the warm-up.

The China Shock: WTO and the Aftermath

In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO)—with strong backing from the U.S.

This was supposed to be a win-win:

• China would embrace global norms.

• U.S. companies would access a vast new market.

• Chinese imports would lower prices for American consumers.

But the result was far more one-sided.

Over the next decade:

• Chinese exports to the U.S. surged.

• Dozens of U.S. manufacturing sectors were wiped out, including furniture, toys, shoes, apparel, and electronics.

• Millions of jobs vanished, concentrated in the Rust Belt and rural South.

This became known as the China Shock—a term popularized by economists David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson.

Their findings?

• The influx of Chinese imports caused up to 2.4 million U.S. job losses from 1999 to 2011.

• The impact was localized and intense. Some towns lost a third or more of their manufacturing base.

• And the people most affected never fully recovered.

Why It Hit So Hard

Unlike automation, which reshaped industries gradually, the China Shock hit fast and hit deep:

• No warning for workers or towns.

• No plan for retraining or transition.

• No real accountability for the political and business elites who pushed the policy.

And because China’s labor costs were so low, U.S. firms didn’t just lay off a few workers—they closed entire plants.

Sectors That Got Slammed

Some of the hardest-hit industries:

• Furniture: North Carolina lost tens of thousands of jobs almost overnight.

• Textiles: Southern states like South Carolina and Alabama were devastated.

• Electronics and appliances: Once made in Indiana and Ohio, now mostly built in Asia.

This wasn’t just about numbers. It was about identity—about communities built around factories that vanished in a single generation.

Trade vs. Technology—A False Choice?

Economists still debate how much job loss was caused by trade vs. automation.

But here’s the thing: it’s not either/or.

Automation was the background hum.
China was the earthquake.

And the U.S. government?
It pushed for these policies—then left communities to pick up the pieces on their own.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll examine those “solutions” politicians offered:

• Trade Adjustment Assistance

• Retraining programs

• Job transition policies

Spoiler: most didn’t work.

Because the problem wasn’t just job loss.
It was a system that prioritized efficiency over people—and profits over place.

Militarization Without Martial Law

Why Trump’s New Executive Order Demands Our Attention

On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Strengthening and Unleashing America's Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens." At first glance, the order frames itself as a straightforward effort to "support the police" and "enhance public safety." However, a closer look reveals something much more serious: this order dramatically shifts the balance of power between civilian governments and armed forces within the United States.

This executive order is not a declaration of martial law. Yet it builds the infrastructure that could enable martial law-like conditions if future emergencies are declared. This post will break down what the order actually does, compare it to historical patterns where democracies slid into authoritarianism, identify early warning signs we should all watch for, sketch a hypothetical timeline based on historical precedents, and offer a clear, empowering plan of action to defend democracy peacefully and effectively.

The goal is not to stoke fear. It is to raise awareness — and remind every American that vigilance, knowledge, and civic action are the best antidotes to authoritarianism.

Breaking Down the Executive Order

The executive order signed by President Trump does four major things:

1. Legal Protection for Police Officers:

• Provides federal legal support and private-sector resources to defend officers facing lawsuits over their conduct.

2. Militarization of Local Law Enforcement:

• Directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to expand transfers of military equipment, training, and even personnel to local police departments.

3. Weakening Civilian Oversight:

• Orders the Department of Justice to review and potentially rescind "consent decrees" that monitor abusive police departments, under the rationale that they "obstruct law enforcement."

4. Targeting State and Local Officials:

• Instructs the Attorney General to sue or otherwise punish officials who "obstruct" criminal enforcement or who allegedly engage in "discriminatory" DEI practices that hinder policing.

The language is careful. The order does not call for martial law, suspend elections, or outright federalize the police. But it erodes critical safeguards that prevent the armed enforcement apparatus of the state from becoming an unaccountable tool of political power.

Historical Lessons — When Democracies Erode

History offers clear warnings about how seemingly "normal" expansions of security powers can lead to democratic breakdowns.

Turkey (1980):

• Before the 1980 coup, the Turkish government ramped up militarization and allowed the military to "assist" policing. After months of rising violence, the military seized power, arrested tens of thousands, and suspended elections.

Poland (1981):

• General Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law to crush the growing Solidarity labor movement. Preparations involved legal shielding for security forces and demonizing activists as "dangerous to public order."

South Korea (2024):

• President Yoon Suk Yeol avoided declaring martial law outright but achieved similar control through mass militarization of police, expanded surveillance, and the targeting of protesters under "domestic threat" labels.

The pattern is clear: Militarization + emergency framing + weakened civilian oversight = a pathway to authoritarian rule — often without needing to formally declare martial law.

Early Warning Signs to Watch For

Here are key red flags based on historical patterns:

• National Emergency Declarations: Especially around crime, immigration, or protests.

• Federalization of Local Police: Local law enforcement subordinated to DOJ or DHS control.

• Targeted Arrests: Civil society leaders, activists, and journalists detained under vague pretexts.

• Surveillance Expansion: New domestic intelligence programs targeting political activity.

• Demonization of Groups: Immigrants, labor unions, or civil rights groups framed as security threats.

• Election Disruptions: Postponements, restrictions, or delegitimization of elections.

Not all of these would occur at once, but several happening together would be a major alarm bell.

A Hypothetical Timeline — How It Could Play Out

Month 0:

• Executive order signed. Public debate remains polarized.

Months 1-2:

• Major "crisis" (real or exaggerated) leads to a declared "national emergency."

• Federal task forces embedded in local police.

Months 2-3:

• Targeted arrests of organizers and activists.

• Dissolution of remaining federal oversight on police departments.

Months 3-4:

• Open militarization of city policing.

• Restricted zones and curfews introduced.

Months 4-5:

• State officials resisting federal power face lawsuits, loss of funding, or federal force deployment.

Months 5-6:

• Efforts to delay elections or restrict voting framed as "necessary security measures."

This hypothetical sequence is not inevitable — but it is drawn directly from real-world examples.

How We Can Stop It

Strengthen Local Democracy:

• Pressure local officials to reject federal overreach.

• Demand police accountability at the local level.

Support Independent Journalism:

• Subscribe to and share reporting from independent, investigative outlets.

Build Civic Networks:

• Connect with community groups, unions, churches, and activist networks.

• Prepare nonviolent rapid response strategies.

Defend Civil Liberties Legally:

• Support organizations filing lawsuits against unconstitutional actions.

• Demand transparency through FOIA requests and public records.

Protect Electoral Integrity:

• Volunteer for election protection programs.

• Advocate for robust, transparent election procedures.

Stay Calm, Stay Committed:

• Authoritarian regimes thrive on chaos and fear.

• Organized, peaceful, principled resistance is historically the most effective counter.

Conclusion

Trump’s 2025 executive order is not a coup. It is not a declaration of martial law. But it is a loud, flashing warning light.

We cannot afford to look away. By staying informed, strengthening our democratic institutions, building resilient communities, and defending civil liberties early and often, we can ensure that America’s future remains free, open, and democratic.

The time to act is not after authoritarianism becomes obvious. It’s now, while we still have the freedom to organize, speak, and vote.

Modern Authoritarianism Abroad: What Hungary, Turkey, and India Teach Us

Modern authoritarianism doesn’t rise in secret. It happens in plain sight.

Democracies across the globe have voted themselves into crisis—choosing strongmen who promise to restore pride, clean up corruption, or defend tradition. What follows is a pattern: leaders consolidate power, weaken oversight, attack critics, and change the rules to stay in control.

If it feels like what’s happening in the U.S. is unprecedented, it’s not. It’s familiar.
Today, we’re looking at three countries—Hungary, Turkey, and India—where democracies were dismantled not with a coup, but with applause.

Hungary: The Blueprint for Democratic Backsliding

In 2010, Viktor Orbán returned to power in Hungary with a supermajority and a message: Hungary would be “illiberal”—a democracy in name, but not in substance.

He moved fast.

• Rewrote the constitution to cement Fidesz party dominance

• Packed the courts with loyalists and curtailed judicial review

• Cracked down on independent media, cutting off funding and licensing to critical outlets

• Demonized immigrants and minorities as threats to “Christian civilization”

• Redrew electoral districts and changed voting laws to ensure continued power

Orbán didn’t hide it—he called it a new model of governance. Other leaders took notes.

Turkey: Purges and Presidential Power

Turkey’s slide began earlier, but accelerated dramatically after a failed coup attempt in 2016. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan used the crisis to declare a state of emergency, giving himself sweeping powers.

What followed:

• Over 100,000 civil servants, teachers, and judges were purged

• Thousands of journalists and academics were arrested

• Media outlets were shut down or bought by government allies

• The constitution was rewritten via referendum to expand presidential powers and eliminate checks

• Elections were increasingly tilted, with opposition voices silenced or criminalized

Turkey still holds elections—but they’re no longer free or fair in any meaningful way.

India: Majoritarian Nationalism and Institutional Erosion

India, the world’s largest democracy, has seen democratic backsliding under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP. Unlike the other two, India remains more pluralistic—but the warning signs are mounting.

Modi’s government has:

• Used religious nationalism to target minorities, particularly Muslims

• Pressured media and journalists, including through arrests and tax raids

• Weakened the independence of courts and electoral bodies

• Silenced dissent using sedition and anti-terrorism laws

• Created a chilling effect where open criticism of the government can lead to harassment, job loss, or imprisonment

The danger in India isn’t a dictatorship tomorrow—it’s the normalization of authoritarian tactics.

Why These Cases Matter

None of these countries became authoritarian overnight.
All of them held elections. All of them had constitutions.
And in each case, democracy was eroded step by step—through legal means, aided by fear, distraction, and public fatigue.

These examples matter because they show how democracy dies with a legal pad, not a gun.And they offer a chilling preview of what can happen when institutions are too weak—or too captured—to resist.

The Authoritarian International: CPAC and the New Global Right

These aren’t isolated cases. What we’re seeing isn’t just a coincidence—it’s a shared strategy.

Over the last few years, global right-wing movements have begun to collaborate openly, and CPAC—the Conservative Political Action Conference—has become their meeting ground. Originally a U.S. political event, CPAC has expanded internationally, hosting gatherings in Hungary, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, and elsewhere, inviting authoritarian-aligned leaders to share their vision.

• Viktor Orbán has been featured as a keynote speaker at CPAC, where he laid out his model of “illiberal democracy” and called for international cooperation among nationalists. In his speech, Orbán stated: “We must take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. We must find friends and allies in one another and coordinate the movement of our troops.” 

• Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, who sought to overturn his own election loss, has appeared at CPAC and continues to enjoy MAGA support.

• American conservatives, including GOP lawmakers and MAGA-aligned figures, have praised these leaders, echoed their talking points, and adopted their tactics—on immigration, press suppression, election integrity rhetoric, and more.

CPAC is no longer just a place to talk about tax cuts and gun rights—it’s become a hub for authoritarian ideologues to share tools, language, and strategy.

The MAGA movement isn’t just mimicking these regimes—it’s learning from them.
And in many cases, it’s helping export the model right back out to the world.

Coming Up: The Playbook Comes to America

Tomorrow, we’ll turn the lens back home.
The United States may have stronger institutions than Hungary or Turkey—but the same tactics are already being used here. And the guardrails are weaker than many Americans think.

Stay with the series. If you haven’t already, subscribe or share with someone who needs this context.

The Robot Slow Burn: How Automation Changed the Game

In the story of America’s vanishing factory jobs, trade usually gets the headlines. It’s easy to blame a closed plant on a company moving production overseas.

But there’s another story—quieter, slower, and harder to point at. It didn’t happen with a bang, but with a hum.

That story is automation.

Because even as manufacturing jobs disappeared, something strange happened: U.S. manufacturing output went up.

We didn’t stop making things.
We just stopped needing as many people to make them.

Do More with Less: The Productivity Revolution

Since the 1970s, American manufacturing has seen steady gains in productivity:

• Fewer workers produced more goods.

• Machines replaced repetitive human labor.

• Computers ran systems that once took teams of operators.

By the 2000s, it took far fewer people to build a car or cut steel than it did a generation earlier. And that trend hasn’t slowed.

For example:

• In automotive factories, robotics now handle welding, painting, and assembly-line work.

• In steel production, sensors and automation optimize smelting and cutting with minimal labor.

• In electronics, computer-guided systems assemble devices with extreme precision, 24/7.

These weren’t bad decisions.
They were smart business moves—if your goal was efficiency.

But for workers? It meant fewer jobs… or none at all.

The Disappearing Job—Not the Disappearing Industry

One of the biggest misconceptions is that U.S. manufacturing is “dead.”
It’s not.

We still make:

• Aircraft and advanced vehicles

• Industrial machinery

• Semiconductors

• Food, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals

What’s changed is who gets to participate in making those things:

• Today’s factory jobs require technical skills, not just physical labor.

• High-paying blue-collar jobs have shifted to high-tech plants concentrated in fewer locations.

• Routine, repetitive roles are increasingly handled by machines.

Automation hasn’t killed American industry—it’s just made it less accessible to the workers who used to rely on it.

The Slow Burn vs. the Sudden Shock

Unlike trade shocks, which hit fast and hard (like when China entered the WTO), automation was a gradual burn:

• It spread over decades.

• It was uneven—hitting some regions and sectors harder than others.

• It often went unnoticed, because there was no dramatic exit. Just fewer people getting hired.

And because it didn’t make headlines, there was less urgency to respond.

Not Just Technology—But Choices

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Automation isn’t some neutral force of nature.
It’s shaped by corporate decisions, government policy, and social values.

We could have:

• Invested in retraining and education for displaced workers.

• Slowed the rollout in communities without other job options.

• Spread the gains from productivity more evenly.

But instead, most of the gains went to:

• Investors

• Executives

• Shareholders

Workers were told to “learn to code” or move somewhere else.
Many couldn’t.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll shift from the slow burn of robots to the shockwave of offshoring—how trade deals and global supply chains accelerated job losses in very specific places, very fast.

Because while automation eroded the floor, trade sometimes pulled it out from under people entirely.

Modern Authoritarianism: How Democracies Die Step by Step

You don’t wake up one morning to find yourself in a dictatorship. That’s the oldest myth in the book.

In the modern world, authoritarianism doesn’t kick down the front door. It slips in quietly—through elections, headlines, executive orders, and court decisions. It looks like patriotism. It sounds like law and order. And by the time people realize what’s happening, it can be too late.

This week, in our Modern Authoritarianism series, we’re breaking down the Authoritarian Playbook—how democracies around the world have been slowly hollowed out from the inside, and how those same moves are unfolding here in the United States.

But before we talk about what’s happening, we need to talk about how it happens.

Authoritarianism in the 21st Century: A Different Kind of Coup

When people hear the word authoritarian, they picture tanks in the streets. Gulags. Military takeovers.

But the modern version is more subtle. It uses democratic systems to destroy democracy itself.

You vote for a strongman, and he promises to drain the swamp. He attacks the press, undermines the courts, and rewrites the rules. He tells you the other side is corrupt, dangerous, even treasonous. He wraps it all in flags and faith. And he does it all legally—at first.

This isn’t just theory. It’s happened in Hungary. Turkey. India. Brazil. Venezuela. In each case, the warning signs were there. In each case, the playbook worked.

The Seven-Step Playbook

Most authoritarian shifts follow a recognizable pattern—some faster, some slower, but the moves are shockingly consistent:

1. Discredit the press

2. Weaken the courts

3. Undermine elections

4. Target minorities and scapegoats

5. Centralize power and rewrite rules

6. Foster political violence

7. Use the law to punish dissent

This week, we’ll walk through how these steps have played out abroad—and how they’re playing out right now in America.

Why Authoritarianism Always Fails the People

It’s easy to think: Well, maybe a strongman would fix things. Maybe we need someone to clean house, get tough, take control. That’s how it always starts.

But authoritarian governments don’t fix corruption—they bury it.
They don’t bring order—they create fear.
And they don’t protect people like you—they protect themselves.

Here’s what actually happens when authoritarianism takes hold:

• Corruption gets worse, not better.
  Autocrats don’t drain the swamp—they fill it with loyalists. Bribery, nepotism, and abuse of power flourish behind closed doors with no independent press or courts to stop it.

• Instability increases.
  Crackdowns at home spark unrest. Foreign allies become wary. Authoritarians often pick fights abroad to distract from problems at home, dragging nations into conflict or isolation.

• Wealth is siphoned upward.
  The people at the top consolidate economic control. Oligarchs thrive. Ordinary citizens are left with fewer rights, fewer protections, and rising costs—while dissent becomes dangerous.

• Everyone becomes more vulnerable.
  Once checks and balances are gone, no one is safe. Today’s “enemies” might be your neighbors. Tomorrow, they could come for you. Authoritarian power protects no one but itself.

These regimes promise strength—but they deliver fear. They sell simplicity—but real solutions require accountability. Every country that’s gone down this road has paid a steep price, often for generations.

Why This Matters Now

We’re no longer speculating about what might happen—we’re living it.

The United States has elected a man who openly praised dictators, vowed to jail his political enemies, and declared he would be a “dictator on day one.” Now in office again, he’s following through. From purging civil servants to politicizing federal agencies, the authoritarian playbook isn’t a warning anymore—it’s a reality.

We’ll explore exactly how in the coming days. But this isn’t just about one man.

It’s about a movement that wants to roll back rights, silence critics, and concentrate power. And it’s testing whether America’s institutions—our courts, our press, our elections—can hold the line.

History suggests we shouldn’t assume they will.

What You’ll Get This Week

This series isn’t about fear. It’s about clarity.
Each post in Modern Authoritarianism will focus on a specific part of the authoritarian playbook:

• Day 2: What Hungary, Turkey, and India can teach us

• Day 3: How the playbook is being used in the U.S.

• Day 4: A step-by-step breakdown of the tactics

• Day 5: What’s still resisting—and why it matters

• Day 6: How other countries have fought back

• Day 7: What you can do to help defend democracy

If You’re New Here

This blog exists to ask hard questions and explore real answers. I don’t do doom. I do history, systems, and how we fight for better.

If that sounds like your vibe, subscribe or share this series with someone who needs to see it.

Day 2 drops tomorrow.
Until then, keep your eyes open. That’s where resistance begins.

The Great Disappearance: Where Did the Manufacturing Jobs Go?

At the dawn of the 21st century, America was still the world’s largest economy, and its factory towns were still humming—sort of. Steel was still forged. Cars were still built. Goods were still stamped “Made in the USA.”

Then, seemingly overnight, it all began to vanish.

Since the year 2000, the U.S. has lost nearly 5 million manufacturing jobs. That’s not a typo. It’s a transformation—a rupture. Entire regions, once defined by steady union wages and industrial pride, now struggle with unemployment, opioid abuse, and economic despair.

But here’s the thing: there wasn’t just one cause.

Was it trade?
Was it automation?
Was it politics? Policy? Indifference?

Yes. All of the above.

This week, we dive into the fallout from Pax Americana—not in Baghdad or Beijing, but in Buffalo, Akron, Flint, and Youngstown. Because while the U.S. was busy building peace and prosperity abroad, something was breaking back home.

The Vanishing Factory Floor

Let’s start with the numbers:

• Between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. lost over 5 million manufacturing jobs.

• In that same period, manufacturing as a share of total U.S. employment fell from 13% to just 9%—and it kept dropping.

• Entire industries—furniture, textiles, electronics—were gutted.

What once felt permanent—the union job with benefits, the factory shift that paid the mortgage—was gone. And it hasn’t really come back.

What Happened?

We’re often told it was trade deals:

• NAFTA in the 1990s.

• China’s entry into the WTO in 2001.

• Offshoring and outsourcing that moved production to Mexico, China, and beyond.

And yes—trade was a major factor. Economists call it the China Shock: when Chinese imports surged, U.S. manufacturing collapsed in regions that couldn’t compete.

But that’s only part of the story.

The other culprit? Automation.

Robots Don’t Unionize

Even as factories closed in the U.S., manufacturing output actually went up.

Why? Because we replaced people with machines:

• One robot could do the work of five welders.

• Computer-controlled systems replaced human operators.

• Entire production lines became fully automated.

This wasn’t new—it had been happening for decades. But in the 2000s, it accelerated. Technology made production more efficient, but it reduced the need for human labor.

So even the factories that stayed?
They hired fewer people.

And Then There Was Policy

Here’s what made it worse: the U.S. failed to prepare or protect its workers.

• Trade Adjustment Assistance programs were underfunded, confusing, and limited.

• Retraining programs often didn’t match available jobs.

• Other countries—like Germany—paired trade with worker protections and industrial strategy. America didn’t.

We left communities to figure it out alone.

So Which Was It—Trade or Tech?

Both.

• Automation explains the slow erosion of jobs over decades.

• Trade shocks explain the sudden collapse in certain regions and industries.

• Policy failure explains why it hit so hard—and why recovery never came.

This wasn’t a natural disaster. It was a man-made crisis, driven by choices.

What Comes Next

The rest of this week will unpack this fallout:

• Tomorrow, we’ll dig into the slow burn of automation.

• Then the shockwave of offshoring.

• And finally, how politicians tried (and mostly failed) to fix it.

Because if Pax Americana promised peace and prosperity, we need to ask: for whom?

Interdependence vs. Independence: Did Trade Really Prevent War?

One of the big promises of Pax Americana was that free trade would keep the peace.

This idea, often called liberal peace theory, says that countries tied together by economic interdependence are less likely to go to war. Why? Because war is bad for business—and countries with shared markets, supply chains, and investments have too much to lose.

And for decades, it seemed to hold up:

• No world wars since 1945.

• A massive drop in direct conflicts between major powers.

• Trade grew exponentially. So did global GDP.

But now, more than 75 years later, the cracks are showing.
So it’s worth asking: Did trade really prevent war—or just change the way conflict happens?

The Theory: Peace Through Trade

After WWII, the U.S. built a system that:

• Encouraged countries to trade with each other (and especially with the U.S.)

• Tied global markets together

• Created shared economic incentives

The logic was elegant: if your economy depends on your enemy, you can’t afford to fight them.

And to some extent, it worked:

• Germany and France went from centuries of war to peaceful neighbors.

• Japan and the U.S. became allies through trade.

• China and the U.S. became deeply linked despite deep political differences.

The Cracks in the System

But peace didn’t always mean harmony—and trade didn’t always stop violence.

Proxy wars

The Cold War didn’t lead to direct U.S.-Soviet war, but it did fuel bloody conflicts in:

• Vietnam

• Korea

• Latin America

• Africa

Trade didn’t stop war—it outsourced it to other regions.

Exploitation and inequality

Interdependence also meant dependency.
Many countries remained locked in resource-export roles, reliant on U.S. or Western markets.

That created resentment, unrest, and long-term instability.

Strategic backfires

• China grew into a strategic rival—powered by the very trade system the U.S. built.

• Russia traded freely with the West—until it didn’t.

• Sanctions became a tool of war-by-other-means, punishing civilians while elites adapted.

The Domestic Cost: A Tradeoff Too Far?

Here’s the twist: even as global conflict declined, internal tension in the U.S. grew.

• Entire industries hollowed out by offshoring.

• Middle-class jobs replaced with low-wage service work.

• Entire regions left behind by a system that was supposed to bring prosperity.

Trade may have stabilized the world—but it came with a bill.

And too often, American workers were the ones stuck paying it.

What Comes Next

Next week, we’ll turn the lens inward.

We’ll look at how this grand strategy—meant to spread peace, grow economies, and lift all boats—ended up capsizing industries and communities right here at home.

Because if Pax Americana was built on trade, the cracks in that system started showing not in Europe or Asia—but in places like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Friend or Market? Case Studies in Strategic Trade

By the late 20th century, U.S. trade policy had evolved into more than a tool for prosperity. It became a litmus test for political alignment.

If you played by Washington’s rules, you got access to the world’s largest consumer market, investment, and economic growth.

If you didn’t, you faced sanctions, embargoes, and exclusion.

Let’s look at how different countries experienced the American-led trade order—not just as economic participants, but as players in a larger geopolitical game.

Japan & South Korea: Allies by Access

After WWII and the Korean War, both Japan and South Korea were devastated. The U.S. stepped in with a clear strategy:

• Security guarantees (bases, treaties, and military aid)

• Massive economic support

• Access to U.S. markets to rebuild export-driven economies

These nations weren’t just helped—they were transformed:

• Japan became an industrial powerhouse by the 1980s.

• South Korea went from dictatorship to democracy, powered by manufacturing and trade.

In return, they aligned closely with U.S. interests throughout the Cold War.

Trade was the glue that held the alliance together.

China: From Outsider to Factory of the World

In the 1970s, China was still closed off from the global economy.

Then came Nixon’s visit in 1972, a historic opening. Over the next few decades, China:

• Gradually opened its economy

• Attracted foreign investment

• Was admitted to the WTO in 2001, with U.S. support

The result? China became the world’s manufacturing hub, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty—and deeply tying its fate to the global (and American) economy.

But it wasn’t just economics.
The U.S. believed that trade would lead to reform, liberalization, even democracy.

Spoiler: It didn’t.

But it did create a powerful competitor embedded in the very system America built.

Cuba, Iran, North Korea: The Cold Trade

Then there were the countries that didn’t play ball.

• Cuba: Sanctioned since 1960 after nationalizing U.S. property and aligning with the USSR.

• Iran: Cut off after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis.

• North Korea: A rogue state, heavily sanctioned and diplomatically isolated for decades.

These nations became examples—not just adversaries.
They showed the world what happened when you stepped outside the Pax framework: no trade, no aid, no access.

In a system built on prosperity, exclusion became punishment.

Trade as Political Pressure

U.S. trade policy wasn’t just about money—it was a foreign policy tool.

It rewarded alignment with:

• Open markets

• Liberal democracy

• U.S. geopolitical interests

And punished those who challenged the system, even if their people paid the price.

This wasn’t free trade.
It was strategic trade—a way to shape behavior, contain threats, and reward loyalty.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll wrap up Week 2 by asking:

Did all this trade really keep the peace—or just shift the pain elsewhere?

Because while trade tied the world together, it also left deep imbalances. And some of the biggest costs were felt not overseas—but right here at home.

Made in America, Sold to the World: Trade as Economic Diplomacy

When we talk about Pax Americana, we often focus on the military alliances, trade deals, and financial systems that kept the world in orbit around the U.S.

But just as important—maybe more—was something subtler, shinier, and often shrink-wrapped.

America didn’t just export products. It exported a way of life.

From Big Macs to microchips, from blockbuster movies to business software, the U.S. used trade not only to sell goods, but to spread influence, values, and identity.

Trade became diplomacy by other means—and American corporations became its ambassadors.

When Business Became Foreign Policy

Starting in the postwar boom and accelerating into the 1980s and ’90s, U.S. trade policy worked hand-in-hand with American companies to crack open foreign markets.

Sometimes through:

• Bilateral trade deals

• GATT/WTO mechanisms

• Or just raw economic pressure: “Buy our goods, or risk losing access.”

The U.S. government often acted as deal-maker-in-chief—lobbying for airlines to buy Boeing jets, pushing telecoms to adopt American standards, or supporting franchises entering new regions.

In effect, U.S. companies became informal agents of foreign policy—delivering capitalism in a cup, a car, or a credit card.

Consumer Culture as Soft Power

Think about the icons of late 20th-century global expansion:

• McDonald’s in Moscow (1990): A line around the block symbolized the collapse of the Soviet dream—and the rise of fast-food democracy.

• Coca-Cola in every corner store: A sugary emblem of freedom (or imperialism, depending on whom you asked).

• Hollywood blockbusters: Painting American life as loud, fast, and full of possibility.

These weren’t just brands. They were symbols—of prosperity, modernity, and American dominance.

To many, they represented progress.
To others, cultural invasion.

Either way, they worked.

Globalization, Made in the U.S.A.

As free trade expanded, so did the reach of U.S. companies:

• Microsoft and IBM built the world’s digital infrastructure.

• Nike and Levi’s clothed a global youth culture.

• Walmart, Starbucks, and Apple became everywhere.

These companies didn’t just sell things—they shaped norms, expectations, and even languages (ever heard “Google it” in another country?).

This was globalization—with an American accent.

Brands as Ambassadors

U.S. trade policy wasn’t just about shipping containers—it was about ideological packaging.

Buy American goods, and you buy into:

• Consumer choice

• Individualism

• Aspirational identity

That made American brands powerful tools of soft power—and sometimes, of political leverage.

Trade wasn’t neutral. It was a tool for shaping the global order, one Happy Meal at a time.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at case studies—countries that leaned into trade with the U.S. and those that resisted.

Because for all its global reach, Pax Americana wasn’t universal—and not everyone was happy living in a mall built by America.

From GATT to the WTO: Writing the Rules of Global Trade

If Pax Americana was a global game, then the U.S. helped write the rulebook—and one of the biggest chapters was trade.

From the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 to the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, the U.S. didn’t just participate in global trade.
It shaped how it worked, who got to play, and what the rules would be.

And while it was pitched as a win-win system of free trade for all, the reality was more complicated.

GATT: The First Draft

GATT was born in the aftermath of WWII, alongside the U.S.-led financial order created at Bretton Woods.

Its goal was simple in theory:

Lower tariffs. Reduce trade barriers. Grow the global economy.

In practice, GATT was a gentlemen’s agreement between major Western powers—especially the U.S.—to open up markets on their terms.

For decades, it helped expand trade and connect economies. But it also locked in advantages for countries that already had power, capital, and industrial might.

WTO: Globalizing the Game

By the 1990s, the world had changed. The Cold War was over. New economies were rising. And trade was more complex than ever.

Enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), launched in 1995.

Unlike GATT, the WTO had enforcement power. Countries could bring disputes to a global court. Rulings were binding. Compliance became mandatory.

And guess who helped design the system?

That’s right: the U.S., alongside European allies and a few emerging markets. They created the rules to protect:

• Intellectual property

• Corporate rights

• Global supply chains

But not necessarily workers, climate, or local industries.

Free Trade, American Style

The idea behind all this was that free trade brings peace and prosperity.
Open markets = more cooperation = less war.

And for many countries, it worked—especially export powerhouses like Germany, Japan, and (eventually) China.

But the U.S. also used the system to enforce its values:

• Free-market capitalism

• Deregulation

• Intellectual property protection

• Corporate-friendly dispute mechanisms

If you wanted access to the U.S. market, you had to play by its rules.

The Fairness Question

On paper, free trade sounds fair. But in practice:

• Wealthy countries kept subsidies that protected their farmers and industries.

• Poorer nations often struggled to compete and had little say in rule-making.

• Labor rights and environmental standards were usually left out of trade deals entirely.

For many, the system didn’t feel like a level playing field—it felt like a stacked deck.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll explore how U.S. companies used this system to expand globally—and how economic diplomacy became a powerful (and sometimes controversial) foreign policy tool.

Because trade wasn’t just about tariffs and treaties.
It was about shaping the world in America’s image—one container ship at a time.

The Marshall Plan: Cash, Capitalism, and the American Way

After the bombs stopped falling in 1945, Europe was in ruins—physically, politically, and economically.

But the war left behind more than rubble. It created a void—and the United States filled it, not with troops or tanks, but with cash.

The Marshall Plan, launched in 1948, wasn’t just a recovery package. It was a strategy. A strategy to stop the spread of communism, rebuild friendly nations, and lock in U.S. economic dominance for a generation.

Rebuilding Europe—with Strings Attached

Officially called the European Recovery Program, the Marshall Plan sent over $13 billion (roughly $160 billion today) in aid to Western Europe between 1948 and 1952.

It funded:

• Rebuilding roads, factories, and cities

• Stabilizing currencies

• Restoring confidence in capitalism and democracy

But it wasn’t pure generosity.

In exchange, countries had to:

• Align politically with the U.S.

• Open their markets to American goods

• Stay out of the Soviet sphere of influence

Economic recovery was the reward. Political loyalty was the price.

The Real Goal: Containing Communism

The fear in Washington was that poverty, chaos, and hunger would drive Europeans into the arms of communism.

So the U.S. took a gamble:

If capitalism could deliver jobs, stability, and food—it would win hearts and minds.

And it worked.
Communist parties lost ground. U.S. allies flourished. And Western Europe was locked into Pax Americana—economically, militarily, and ideologically.

Aid First, Trade Later

The Marshall Plan didn’t just stabilize Europe—it created customers.

As factories reopened and cities revived, Europe started buying:

• American steel

• American grain

• American machinery

• American movies, music, and ideas

It was a closed loop of growth:

• Dollars flowed out through aid.

• Goods and influence flowed back in through trade.

This was the first major proof of a new kind of power:
Economic diplomacy.

Not a Handout—A Loyalty Program

Think of the Marshall Plan like an elite credit card rewards program:

• Spend with America, and you get stability, security, and access.

• But if you default—or align with the Soviets—you lose those benefits.

It wasn’t charity. It was a strategic investment in a world order designed by and for the U.S.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll explore how the U.S. wrote the global rulebook through trade agreements like GATT—and how that system eventually became the WTO.

Because giving aid was one thing.
Writing the rules of trade was how America kept the house edge.

Remembering Pope Francis

Pope Francis passed away today at 88. He died in his Vatican residence, just one day after Easter. His final public words were a blessing for peace — fitting for a man whose papacy was defined by compassion, humility, and care for those often forgotten.

Born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he made history when he became the first Latin American pope in 2013. But what really set him apart was how deeply human he remained in the role. He rejected the palatial papal apartment in favor of a guesthouse. He rode in a Ford Focus. He kissed the feet of refugees, washed the feet of prisoners, and reminded everyone — especially church leaders — that power should serve, not dominate.

He preached a Gospel rooted in mercy. He told us not to judge people for being gay. He welcomed divorced and remarried Catholics back to the table. He called for civil unions long before it was safe to do so in church circles. He said the death penalty has no place in a modern, moral world. And he warned against what he called a “globalization of indifference” — where people become numb to suffering.

He challenged the rich and powerful too. In Laudato Si’, his climate encyclical, he called on all of us — especially governments and corporations — to protect our planet and prioritize the poor. In Fratelli Tutti, he laid out a vision of solidarity and social friendship, one that didn’t rely on borders or tribes but on shared human dignity.

Was he perfect? No. No pope is. He faced resistance inside the Vatican. Some of his reforms were incomplete. But he opened doors that had been shut for centuries. And he changed the global conversation — not just within the Church, but beyond it.

Pope Francis reminded us that faith, at its best, means showing up for others. Listening more than speaking. Walking with the wounded. Being brave enough to choose love over fear.

That legacy matters. And it will live on — not just in Vatican halls, but wherever people are still trying to live with kindness, humility, and hope.

Rest in peace, Pope Francis. You were the shepherd we needed.

The Bretton Woods Blueprint: Building the Global Economy

If Pax Americana had a blueprint, it was drawn in 1944 at a quiet resort in New Hampshire.

There, while World War II was still raging, representatives from 44 Allied nations met to answer a big question:

How do we keep the global economy from collapsing again—like it did in the 1930s?

Their answer was the Bretton Woods system. And it changed the world.

What Was the Bretton Woods Conference?

The conference created a new postwar financial order designed to:

• Prevent another Great Depression

• Stabilize currencies

• Encourage global trade

• And—let’s be honest—keep the U.S. in charge

Two major institutions were born:

• The International Monetary Fund (IMF): to stabilize currencies and help countries in crisis.

• The World Bank: to fund reconstruction and development.

Both were headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Both gave the U.S. an outsized role.
And both became tools of U.S. influence in the decades to come.

The Dollar as the World’s Anchor

Bretton Woods created a system of fixed exchange rates:

• Other countries pegged their currencies to the U.S. dollar.

• The dollar, in turn, was pegged to gold.

That made the dollar the anchor of global trade—and gave the U.S. enormous power.

If you wanted to trade, you needed dollars.
If you needed to borrow, you turned to the U.S.-dominated IMF or World Bank.

It was a kind of economic orbit, with Washington at the center.

Stability with Strings Attached

The goal was global stability—and for a while, it worked:

• Trade grew.

• Currencies stayed stable.

• Developing countries got access to credit and aid.

But U.S. leadership came with conditions.

Countries had to adopt free-market reforms to access funds.
They had to align with Western economic models—and often Western politics.

And while this order helped rebuild Europe and Japan, it sometimes trapped poorer nations in cycles of debt and dependency.

Bretton Woods Wasn’t Just Finance

It was about creating a rules-based global order that served two purposes:

1. Prevent chaos, depression, and currency wars.

2. Preserve U.S. influence—without needing direct rule or military occupation.

Instead of controlling territory, the U.S. controlled the flows of money.

It was empire without colonies. Power through balance sheets.

What Comes Next

Tomorrow, we’ll look at one of the most powerful expressions of this system in action:
The Marshall Plan—when the U.S. spent billions to rebuild Europe… and win its loyalty.

Because sometimes the best way to control the world isn’t through war—it’s through investment.

SCOTUS Issues Emergency Order to Stop Trump Migrant Deportations

In a rare and powerful move, the Supreme Court stepped in to block one of the Trump administration’s most extreme actions to date—an attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants to a prison in El Salvador before they had a chance to challenge their removal.
Slate

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration.

This decision offers a glimmer of hope in a time when democratic norms are under daily assault. It shows that even now, the rule of law can prevail—and that the courts can still act as a check on power when it matters most. For those fighting for justice and humanity in our immigration system, this moment is a reminder: the fight is not over, and we are not alone.

Trade as the Quiet Superweapon of Pax Americana

We tend to think of power in terms of armies, alliances, or nuclear weapons.

But in Pax Americana, one of the United States’ most powerful tools wasn’t loud—it was economic.
Trade wasn’t just about business. It was a strategic weapon, a way to shape the world without firing a shot.

The U.S. didn’t just build military bases. It built markets.
And those markets became the glue that held together its version of global peace.

Trade as Diplomacy

After WWII, the U.S. offered more than just protection—it offered access:

• To American consumers, hungry for goods.

• To investment and capital, fueled by U.S. banks.

• To rules and stability, enforced through institutions like the GATT and later the WTO.

In return, countries aligned with U.S. interests.
Not out of fear—but because it paid to play by America’s rules.

Trade became a form of economic diplomacy:

• Rewarding allies with access, aid, and favorable terms.

• Punishing adversaries with sanctions, embargoes, and isolation.

Markets Over Missiles

Where previous empires conquered territory, the U.S. integrated economies.

Need an example?
Just look at Japan, Germany, or South Korea. After WWII, the U.S.:

• Helped rebuild their economies.

• Welcomed their exports.

• Turned former enemies into capitalist allies.

Each country became part of the American-led global supply chain—and the price of rebellion was high.

This wasn’t about generosity. It was about building a world system where war became less appealing and interdependence made everyone think twice.

Trade as a Source of Control

When you run the world’s largest market, you get leverage.

• The U.S. could pressure other nations by threatening to cut off access to American consumers.

• It could enforce policy preferences through trade deals.

• It could pull strings using institutions like the World Bank and IMF, both headquartered in Washington, D.C.

And with the dollar as the global reserve currency, every transaction came with a connection to U.S. financial power.

Peace Through Prosperity—on America’s Terms

This wasn’t just about economics—it was about order.
Free trade wasn’t a feel-good slogan. It was a strategic doctrine.

If countries were making money through the U.S.-led system, they were less likely to rock the boat.
Global peace, Pax-style, was built not just with weapons—but with contracts, supply chains, and shipping routes.

What Comes Next

This week, we’ll unpack the trade tools of Pax Americana:

• How the U.S. designed the global economy to reinforce its power.

• How free trade became a geopolitical weapon.

• And eventually, how the very system that created peace abroad began to create unrest at home.

Tomorrow, we start at the blueprint level—with Bretton Woods, the financial architecture that started it all.

Why Pax Americana Still Matters—Even If It’s Cracking

For nearly 80 years, Pax Americana has defined how the world works.

It shaped borders, trade routes, alliances, and even the stories we tell ourselves about peace and power. Whether you were born in Kansas or Kenya, chances are your life has been shaped in some way by the world America built after WWII.

It wasn’t perfect. Far from it.
But for a long time, it felt permanent.

Now, that era may be fading.
So before we move forward, let’s pause and ask: What did Pax Americana actually give us—and what did it take?

What the Pax Gave the World

Let’s start with the wins:

No world wars.

Since 1945, we’ve avoided another all-out conflict between global superpowers. That’s no small feat. The Cold War was tense, but it didn’t go nuclear. And that’s largely because of deterrence, alliances, and the sheer dominance of U.S. military power.

Economic integration.

Trade flowed. Businesses globalized. Supply chains stretched across continents. Former enemies became economic partners. Billions of people were lifted out of poverty (especially in Asia), thanks in part to open markets and global finance.

Relative stability.

The U.S. created and led international institutions like the UN, World Bank, IMF, NATO, and WTO—structures that, despite their flaws, kept the global system from collapsing into chaos.

For decades, this system worked well enough to maintain peace, grow wealth, and project American ideals around the world.

But It Came at a Cost

Behind the headlines of prosperity, there were cracks forming.

Inequality rose.

The benefits of globalization didn’t reach everyone. While corporations and investors got richer, working-class communities in the U.S. and elsewhere lost jobs, security, and identity.

Forever wars and overstretch.

From Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, the U.S. tried to manage peace through force—often with devastating results. The cost in lives, treasure, and trust has been enormous.

Environmental damage.

The growth model supported by Pax Americana—endless consumption, fossil fuel dependency, global shipping—has helped drive the climate crisis we now face.

Trust frayed.

The institutions America built have lost credibility. At home, Americans have grown skeptical of the system they once led. Abroad, allies are hedging their bets. Rivals are rising.

If the Pax Is Cracking… What Comes Next?

The signs are everywhere:

• Russia is testing the system with force.

• China is building its own rival order.

• The U.S. is more divided at home, less predictable abroad.

But the Pax was never just about military bases or blue jeans.

It was also about trade—and that’s where we go next.

Teasing Week 2: Trade as the Real Engine of Power

Next week, we’ll dive into the silent lever that held Pax Americana together: trade.

• How the U.S. used access to its markets as both carrot and stick.

• How global capitalism became the glue that held allies close—and adversaries in check.

• And how the very system that promised peace and prosperity eventually helped hollow out the American middle class.

Because behind the culture and the carriers was a quieter force—the spreadsheet diplomacy of supply chains, tariffs, and open markets.

Winners and Grudging Participants: How the World Lived Under the Pax

Not everyone wanted to live under Pax Americana.
But once the U.S. built its global order—military, economic, and cultural—most of the world had to decide: join, resist, or try to balance both.

Some countries became true allies. Others played along for the benefits. And a few stood apart, resisting or challenging American influence outright.

Let’s take a look at the winners, the reluctant participants, and the rivals that made Pax Americana anything but simple.

The Winners: Western Europe, Japan, South Korea

After WWII, much of the democratic West fell into lockstep with the U.S.—and it paid off.

Western Europe:

• Got billions in U.S. aid through the Marshall Plan.

• Was protected by NATO from Soviet aggression.

• Rebuilt into wealthy, stable democracies with strong trade ties to the U.S.

Japan:

• Occupied and reshaped by the U.S. after the war.

• Given access to U.S. markets and technology.

• Rose from destruction to become the world’s second-largest economy by the 1980s.

South Korea:

• Protected by U.S. troops after the Korean War.

• Turned from a dictatorship into a thriving democracy and tech superpower.

• Became a key ally in Asia—militarily and economically.

In these cases, American support helped fuel stability and prosperity, and in return, the U.S. gained loyal allies and strategic footholds.

The Reluctant Participants

Not every country loved the Pax—but many still played the game.

Latin America:

• Saw frequent U.S. interference—backing coups, toppling leftist governments, supporting right-wing regimes.

• Many leaders cooperated to keep trade flowing and receive aid, but resentment grew over time.

Middle East:

• Some governments aligned with the U.S. (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt).

• Others (like Iran post-1979) rejected U.S. influence outright.

• U.S. military bases and oil politics made the region a constant source of tension.

India:

• Tried to walk a non-aligned path during the Cold War.

• Accepted U.S. trade but resisted Western-style alliances.

• Eventually warmed to the Pax in the 2000s as ties with China and Russia shifted.

These nations often acted as frenemies—cooperating for practical reasons while keeping their distance politically or culturally.

The Resisters: Soviet Bloc, Maoist China, and Beyond

Of course, not everyone bought in at all.

The Soviet Union:

• Built its own rival order: Pax Sovietica—a world of command economies, satellite states, and ideological control.

• The Cold War was the defining battle between these two visions of global peace.

China:

• Initially part of the communist bloc, then broke away.

• Spent decades resisting U.S. influence—until it entered the global economy (and WTO) in the early 2000s.

• Now stands as a challenger to the Pax, offering its own model of order.

Cuba, North Korea, Iran:

• Reject the U.S.-led order entirely.

• Face sanctions, isolation, or proxy pressure as a result.

Why Most Still Played Along

Despite the critics, many countries found Pax Americana more useful than not:

• Access to U.S. markets and loans.

• Protection under the U.S. security umbrella.

• Stability in a world that had just survived two world wars.

For all its flaws, the Pax created a sense of order—and for many, the alternative seemed worse.

What Comes Next

Next time, we’ll zoom out and ask: What did Pax Americana really give the world?
A long peace between superpowers, sure.
But was it fair? Was it sustainable? Was it worth the cost?

And more importantly—what happens when that order starts to break down?

The Dollar Empire: How the U.S. Made the World Bank on It

You’ve probably heard the phrase: “Follow the money.”

Well, if you follow it far enough across the 20th and 21st centuries, it almost always leads back to the United States.

Pax Americana wasn’t just about military might or cultural influence—it was also about monetary power. In fact, much of the global system the U.S. built after WWII rests on a single, simple truth:

The world runs on the U.S. dollar.

Let’s unpack how that happened—and why it still matters today.

The Dollar as Global Reserve Currency

After WWII, the U.S. helped create the Bretton Woods system, which set the dollar as the central currency of global finance.

Back then:

• Other currencies were pegged to the U.S. dollar.

• The dollar was pegged to gold.

• The U.S. became the anchor of the global economy.

Even after the gold standard ended in the 1970s, the dollar stayed on top. Why? Trust. Strength. Stability. And because… everyone else was already using it.

Today:

• About 60% of global currency reserves are held in dollars.

• Most international trade, including oil, is priced in dollars.

• Countries stockpile dollars to stabilize their economies or pay debts.

In other words, the U.S. doesn’t just use money—it makes the money the world uses.

Petrodollars and the Oil Loop

One key moment in this story: the rise of the petrodollar system.

In the 1970s, the U.S. struck a deal with Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations:
Sell oil only in dollars.
In return, the U.S. would provide military protection and political support.

This meant every country that needed oil (i.e., every country) also needed U.S. dollars.

So oil exporters—like the Saudis—ended up recycling those dollars right back into U.S. banks, real estate, and government bonds.

It was a closed loop that kept the dollar strong, demand high, and American influence steady.

The Fed: Central Bank to the World

The U.S. Federal Reserve doesn’t just affect interest rates in Kansas or California. Its decisions ripple across the entire planet.

Why?

• Global borrowing is often done in dollars.

• Emerging markets watch the Fed to decide when to raise or lower their own rates.

• During financial crises (like 2008 or 2020), the Fed becomes a lender of last resort—not just to U.S. banks, but to foreign central banks too.

This gives the U.S. massive influence over the global economy, without ever firing a shot or signing a treaty.

Control Through Capital

Being the issuer of the world’s reserve currency gives the U.S. power few other countries have:

• It can impose sanctions by cutting off access to U.S. banks.

• It can track money flows and pressure foreign governments.

• It can borrow more cheaply, because everyone wants U.S. bonds.

In short: it can use money as a weapon—and often has.

The Empire of Spreadsheets

So while Pax Americana was backed by aircraft carriers, it was enabled by spreadsheets.

Military alliances kept the peace.
Cultural exports built goodwill.
But the dollar quietly made sure everyone stayed connected to the U.S.—willingly or not.

And that financial power became just as critical to the global order as any warship or diplomat.

What Comes Next

Next time, we’ll look at how different countries experienced this system—some as partners, some as clients, and some as outright critics.

Because not everyone was thrilled to live under the American-led world order—even if they were cashing its checks.