As a country of immigrants, where millions of disadvantaged people were able to find peace with a chance to start a new life, the U.S. has its own special place in history. Its democratic system, which can be difficult to understand for those outside of it, has actually followed a route peculiar to itself and evolved and gained meaning through its unique historical framework. It is also a considerable opportunity for the world that the U.S. is the most significant cradle of democracy and the world's center of gravity. However, there are serious doubts over whether this opportunity is being optimally used in proportion with the economic and military power the U.S. wields. A Democrat U.S. citizen probably has the same concern as well.
Obviously, the U.S. has been the top figure that has shaped the 21st century so far and will largely determine where the world will go over the rest of the century. I do not think that the U.S. will shrink to the level of an average country or turn into a total evil within the next 50 years. Consequently, the political and intellectual choices of those within the U.S. have great importance. And, of course, this duty and power will be shared with rising countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and India. The U.S. has to preserve and improve its democracy while competing with these countries.
One of the most crucial tests awaiting the U.S. is its policies regarding the Middle East. Its approach to the Middle East and the relations it has with Palestine and Israel will draw a thin line between maintaining its power as the world's leading country and not losing its assurance of democracy. In the event that the U.S. wishes to preserve its power by making concessions to democracy or does not preserve itself from drifting to that side, it could turn into a major weak point that adversely affects the fate of the country.
The U.S.'s democracy has been consistently been undermined by their spectator status during the mass murder of 300,000 people in Syria by President Bashar Assad. When should the U.S. stand up and be strong? At the times when it acts as a guardian of peace and human rights or just when it watches wars? Which U.S. is more precious? The one struggling against Ebola or the one ignoring Syria?
Could the sectarian problems that began with the Sykes-Picot Agreement and triggered by the Arab Spring, the superfluous and anti-humanitarian Iraqi invasion and supporting the Taliban for the collapse of the Soviet Union contribute to the U.S. in this sense? In an era where U.S. foreign politics is pledged to Israel, could the U.S. even govern its own foreign policies according to its own interests, let alone the humanitarian side of things? If the U.S. directly pioneers the formation of democratic governments in the Middle East, wouldn't it be both ethical and advantageous for itself?
The greatest lie told in the 20th century is that human-centric realpolitik is not possible and sacrificing the rest of the world is a requirement for economic development. However, this mindset is now producing nothing but problems. The acquisition of such evil strategies from the 20th century are false. Their price is now being paid with various complications such as ISIS and immigration issues. Isn't it time to abandon a method of natural selection that has proved to be a failure?
The U.S. is a significant and esteemed country. But it is regarded as the sole power in charge of the problems in the world's aggrieved communities with the policies it implements - particularly in the Middle East - and the humanitarian acts it avoids. Even though we acknowledge a part of this as not being fair, it is still required to investigate the causes of this view. For instance, if the U.S. had reacted against Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi's military coup in Egypt or it had adopted a sharper attitude against the massacres in Gaza, what would have it gained or lost?
These are critical questions. Since the answers to them will determine the 21st century, the choices made by the U.S. concern the entire world.