America’s Invisible, Looming International Relations Crisis

America’s strength is built on the foundation of an educated and able populace, but the nation is failing to develop that important human capital.

The Roots of Global Strength in a Changing World

The United States is the world’s hegemon, a position it assumed somewhat reluctantly in the aftermath of World War II, then matured into as it vied with the USSR for ideological, military and economic dominance in global affairs. With the collapse of the Soviet system, the US emerged from the Cold War as the world’s preeminent power, and there was no challenger in sight.

Fast forward over twenty-five years, and that paradigm has changed. A number of lesser powers threaten US interests in regions around the world. A resurgent Russian regime seems intent on wrecking the global system that held its Soviet predecessor in check. And, most threateningly, China’s economic juggernaut has catapulted that nation into near-peer-competitor status with the US. China’s state-protected industries have leached technology away from the US for decades, and those industries have begun applying that technology in ways that threaten traditional US military dominance.

Each of these international relationships poses a unique threat to the US and the global system it oversees, and therefore each requires a unique response. But the means to address these threats rests on a shared foundation—a foundation that was once America’s ultimate strength and the bedrock of its ability to project that strength globally: a world class education system.

The importance of domestic issues is not lost on national security planners. Both the 2017 Trump National Security Strategy and the 2015 Obama National Security Strategy dedicate attention to economic concerns, noting that America’s international strength is tied to its economic health. However, neither document indicates that the respective administrations realize that economic health is tied to a strong education system. Though it receives little media coverage, the American public education system is crumbling. This is already having a profound domestic impact, and these effects will multiply once the failing education system begins to undermine US performance on the international stage.

The Reagan administration was aware of the implications America’s declining ability to educate students would have on its global power. In 1983, the President’s National Commission on Excellence in Education released its report, “A Nation at Risk.” The authors note:

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.

If the report generated urgency, it didn’t last. An opinion piece on the National Education Association’s website, marking the thirtieth anniversary of “A Nation at Risk,” concludes:

Overall, however, despite the initial fervor around A Nation at Risk, the report didn’t lead to many far-reaching changes. Many of the problems identified in 1983 remain unaddressed, and stagnant student achievement continues to challenge educators and administrators.

If anything, America has regressed academically. A 2015 Washington Post report notes that—for the first time in at least fifty years—the majority of US public school students are from families living below the poverty line. Data from the same year’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that the US is 40th in overall math achievement; 24th in overall reading achievement; and 25th overall in science achievement. The first score is below the OECD average, the latter two are just barely above it. These data hardly inspire confidence in America’s ability to govern itself, let alone confront the array of international relations threats it faces.

A Diversity of Threats

In order to determine how education must be reformed to address international threats, the nature of those threats must first be examined. There are three tangible foreign policy realms in which educated Americans must compete with their global peers: ideological, technological and economic.

As it is currently structured, the American public education system fails to prepare students for any of these areas. This results in domestic economic and political peril—and it also sets the US up for failure in the global arena and possibly invites conflict.

To highlight the peril an uneducated American populace faces from international foes, consider the three most serious confrontations the nation must handle: with radical Islamic terror and other forms of ideological violence; with expansionist Russian revisionism; and with the rise of a competent and capable China. What advantages do these foes have over an undereducated America?

With regard to Islamic jihadism and other forms of ideological terror, the United States must demonstrate to would-be terrorists that the nation is not at war against the religion of Islam. This makes the role of the home front more important than ever, as only a domestic and international display of American values such as tolerance, empathy and freedom of worship can possibly provide the ideological ammunition to help the US win the war on terror. If the American populace lacks an education that exposes it to different ideas, peoples and places, the nation will have failed to prepare the home front for its integral role in the war effort—an omission likely to result in vociferous nationalism and racism that will weaken the nation domestically, while pushing potential terrorist recruits closer to the open arms of the enemy. As more Americans express a narrow vision of American identity, they exacerbate social tensions that encourage disaffected young people to consider extremist views. If mimicry is the ultimate form of flattery, then this homeopathic response to repressive ideologies is a gift to the enemy, fueling their ideological fervor and prolonging conflict.

In the case of Russian expansionism, it is evident what the effects of Russian propaganda can be on an uneducated populace. While it is impossible to ascertain how effective Russian efforts were in swaying the 2016 American election in Donald Trump’s favor, it is evident that these efforts exposed a collective lack of critical analysis and discourse. Many Americans are very susceptible to fake news. The most extreme single example of this is the infamous Pizzagate Scandal, in which a man armed with an assault rifle showed up a at DC pizza restaurant after having read fake news articles that painted the establishment as part of a massive child pornography ring, run by associates of Hillary Clinton. Literally everything about the rumors was entirely concocted, and yet someone showed up to enforce vigilante justice. Whether it comes from antagonistic Russians, broke Macedonian teenagers, or just — as the president would say — a random obese guy hanging out in his bedroom, fake news is now part of the media ecosystem, and further democratization of social media will only exacerbate this trend. In a world in which everyone is a miniature news outlet, knowing how to analyze news and separate fact from fiction is more important than ever.

As for Chinese technological and economic developments, it should be quite obvious that a nation which cannot educate its populace will ultimately fail to keep pace in a race of innovation. America currently maintains an advantage over China in many technological realms, but that advantage is shrinking rapidly as China invests and reinvests in key technologies including, of course, the education and training that make the creation, maintenance and improvement of those technologies possible. If it continues on its current course. America will ultimately become a nation struggling to identify and develop disruptive new technologies to close the gap with China, while lacking the economic might to do so.

Education for a New Era

In order to prepare American citizens for the economic, ideological and technological challenges of the twenty-first century, the nation must commit itself to a drastic overhaul of its stagnant public education system. This must necessarily be a comprehensive process, encompassing even minutiae such as tedious adjustments to the academic calendar. However, the following elements are the most foundational for preparing American schools and students for the diverse challenges of the twenty-first century.

First, there must be a focus on civic engagement — “A republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin replied when asked what type of government the nascent American nation had been given by its founding fathers. Being able to keep it is the national obligation of each successive generation of Americans. In today’s interconnected global economy, the same underlying civic skill set is applicable not just to preserving democracy at home, but to building symbiotic international relationships. America’s ability to project strength abroad is meaningless if the country cannot govern itself, so civics should be a core focus of public education, regardless of its utility in the international arena. However, in a world in which seventy years of relative peace, prosperity and stability are being threatened by old enemies in new incarnations, America must rely on partners who share similar values and find ways to make new friends based on those same shared values. The current administration’s apparent lack of civic education highlights how important such a diplomatic skill set is for managing international crises and resolving them in America’s favor. Focusing on civic engagement strengthens democracy, while also producing leaders who will reaffirm America’s commitment to important international norms and promote the shared values and tolerance that have traditionally made the US a beacon of leadership.

Secondly, there needs to be an integration of STEM into all aspects of learning — Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) learning is the one element of education that might resonate with the body politic. Since Sputnik, there has been a tenuous, if oft overlooked, relationship between public education and the national security complex, a relationship initially focused on ensuring American students had the appropriate knowledge and skills to compete with the Soviet Space Program. After the demise of the USSR, that emphasis temporarily vanished, but has reappeared recently in the wake of China’s technological developments. However, even most proponents of STEM education have little understanding of what that actually means, beyond putting outdated PCs into unused high school classrooms and calling them computer labs. To reform STEM would take a robust emphasis on those disciplines, which would begin in early elementary school, and involve students learning to code as well as taking apart and rebuilding computers, smartphones and tablets. Beginning in middle and throughout high school, students should also take courses on the history and ethics of technology and begin to apply them experimentally in advanced classes.

American education would also benefit from more thorough, diverse curricula across all content areas. The curricula in today’s school schedules are nearly identical to those of past decades. Perhaps there is a bit more diversity in the offerings—arts, languages, tech classes—and fewer vocational courses—home economics, machine shop—but the curricula used in American schools have otherwise remained stagnant. A much larger focus on technology, foreign languages and a broader arts curriculum are all important. However, it is equally important to loosen the traditional curricula. From middle through high school, students are corralled into troughs for English Language Acquisition (ELA), math, science and social studies. With the exception of social studies, course offerings at most schools are limited, and, even within the social studies track, the choices aren’t many. These are usually limited to economics, government and a smattering of history courses. This is an era in which leaders must consider the implications of using intelligent weapons on populations half a world away, but schools are failing to prepare them to understand the technology required or the ethics of such actions. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony to Congress is a revealing and concerning example: both because of the elected officials, who were woefully unaware of how social media works, and because it revealed that Zuckerberg himself clearly hadn’t considered some of the underlying ethical concerns raised by his own creation.


The foundational cracks in American public education are already evident and sending shockwaves through the global power structure atop which America sits. A nation losing its technological edge, and whose population is susceptible to external propaganda at a time when it needs to be an ideological bastion of strength is not a nation which can sustain global leadership. Absent a profound and urgent reformation of its ability to educate children, the United States will not remain the world’s dominant power for much longer.

If you enjoy our articles, be a part of our growth and help us produce more writing for you:


  1. Hmmm, this is a muddled take, and I’m not quite sure what it has to do with my post. Even if you believe globalization is in retreat I’d imagine you would still want the US to be strong, which is what my piece is about. I happen to disagree with a lot of your analysis, starting with the fact that there is not really any such thing as a “globalist,” it’s certainly true that many of America’s foreign misadventures since the end of WWII have been nakedly self-interested, particularly in the Middle East. But the desire for a strong America atop a structured global system doesn’t necessitate those misadventures, and that structured global system, despite what I think you believe, has benefited America.

    Even the points about which you are correct, for example our status as an energy independent/energy exporter nation are wrapped up in what I think is a desire for autarky, but that has never truly been a thing and is exceedingly unlikely in a world with such a complex and interconnected economic system in which we rely upon so many things from elsewhere.

  2. “With regard to Islamic jihadism and other forms of ideological terror, the United States must demonstrate to would-be terrorists that the nation is not at war against the religion of Islam. ”

    Unfortunately, the religion of Islam is at war with the United States, and indeed with the entire rest of the world. This war is a foundational part of the religion, and can no more be effaced or reformed than can the idea of “sin” in Christianity be effaced or reformed. Regrettably, the ancient documents say what they do.

    1. Islam isn’t at war with anyone or anything. Islam is not an actor capable of doing things or being at war, and if you are citing “ancient documents” (I assume you mean the Quran) then that document certainly doesn’t say anything about being at war with the United States which was a millennia + way from existence. Some people who identify as Muslims and interpret Islam in a certain manner are at war with the United States (and others), but they are a small percentage of the world’s Muslims.

      With all due respect it is mindsets like this one we need to educate away.

      1. Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”

        Etc, etc, etc. Educate that away, why don’t you.

        1. I anticipated this response. It was your best effort, and it falls entirely flat. You’ve found a passage in the Quran that promotes violence. It’s not the only one. There are also passage that promote peace, but you’re treating the text like a salad bar from which you can pull the pieces that support your argument and ignore the rest. Of course it doesn’t work like that.

          It would be just a silly for me to pull a quote and use it as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. Of course as I’ve already pointed out – and as you cannot dispute – Islam really isn’t anything in that it isn’t an actor capable of “being” or “doing.” Islam is what the believer makes of it, which means Islam is multitudes since there are over a billion Muslims in the world who interpret it in many different ways, some violently, some peacefully.

          You’ve now committed two fallacies: reifying Islam and cherry-picking from the Quran to support your initial misconception. Your mindsets would be just as silly if you were here to convince me that Islam is “good” instead of “bad” but at least then you’d be trying to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

            1. That’s not my position at all. In one sentence you’ve made two errors.

              1. It is not my position – it is a fact – that Islam is not a tangible actor. You cannot touch Islam, shake hands with Islam, or go to the movies with Islam. Islam does not have agency.

              2. That doesn’t mean Islam “isn’t actually a thing.” It means Islam is a set of beliefs that different people subscribe to in different manners. These subscribers, Muslims, have agency. They are actors who can do things based on their interpretation of their beliefs: pray; give to charity; or commit terrorism, among many other actions a Muslim can take.

              So when you initially said Islam is at war with the United States, you simultaneously made two important errors.
              1. You ascribed agency to an ism, but ideas don’t take action, people do.

              2. You implied, by ascribing a motive to the entire ideology, that all Muslims are at war against the US. This is more than just a false attribution of actions to the intangible, it flies in the face of the evidence. If all of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims were at war with the US we’d have a much bigger problem on our hands. And that’s just one data point. Our “allies” in Saudi Arabia just ordered the dismemberment of a journalist. Saudi Arabia produces the ugliest strand of Islam in the world – Wahhabism, whose adherents ARE more likely to commit violence – and yet formally and diplomatically we are aligned with that nation.

              These are important distinctions if we are really going to address these problems.

  3. From the article: “Data from the same year’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that the US is 40th in overall math achievement; 24th in overall reading achievement; and 25th overall in science achievement.”

    What these kinds of summaries never tell you is that if you removed black and Hispanic students from these assessments, and measured only white and Asian students, the US would rank in the top fifteen in all of these measures. Unlike what this article suggests, poverty is not the main explanation for the poor overall US performance — low-income white kids typically score higher on educational assessments than middle-income black kids in the US, and in the NYC public schools low-income immigrant kids from China and Korea are easily out-performing much wealthier black kids.

    The reason for poor US performance isn’t poverty. It’s race.

    1. Hello, thanks for reading and replying. I agree that race is a bigger problem than poverty, but our education fails low income white students too. Certainly systemic racism and has abetted systemic poverty and makes the road more difficult for children of color, but we shouldn’t be content with the performance of schools in many rural, predominantly white areas either.

  4. “the US and the global system it oversees”

    We don’t WANT to be global overseer. Being controlled by globalists is a bad thing, and it needs to stop. We have their own lives, hopes, and dreams, but we are sacrificed in a maelstrom of violence, fighting wars we will never benefit from, and being thrown upon the Altar of Political Correctness for all time as kindling wood for the fire that will never heat us.

    We started this to win the Cold War and defeat Marxism. This was well and good, for Marxism is an evil ideology that destroys whatever it touches, and many people in America and Europe heartily wished it would take root in our societies. Even still today. But times have changed and if we don’t change with them, we’re doomed to failure.

    Follow me back to 1946. Europe is ruined, China is still a backwater. The USA puts together an alliance that allows everyone within it to trade goods into the US without significant trade barriers. This allows for Europe to export their way back to prosperity after WWII. It gives them room to grow their economies beyond what their somewhat depleted populations will allow. In addition to allowing the free flow of goods, the USA becomes the security guarantor of the free world by using our navy to police the world’s oceans and enable low risk (and hence low cost) global trade.

    But there was a condition. In order to deal with the US, you had to be on our side in helping to combat and contain the Soviet Union. Essentially the US traded some of its economic/manufacturing capacity for increased security and strategic assets to assist in the cold war. Only one problem: We won. The Soviet flag went down in 1991, and we didn’t really make any changes to the world order. George H. W. Bush tried to reinvent the system, and we booted him out of office after a single term. Since then, the people of the US have voted overwhelmingly for candidates who focus on domestic rather than foreign issues. The system limped along for another few decades, primarily because of the USA’s massive demand for oil and energy resources.

    Enter shale. Since around 2007 net US energy imports have been in sharp decline because we discovered how to process shale into oil and natural gas. And boy, do we have a LOT of shale. Within a year or two, the US will become a net energy exporter. Meaning we no longer give a fuck what’s going on in the middle east. Meaning we can bring our troops back (Noticed the institutional outrage over Trump pulling troops out of Syria? This is why. They’re terrified of the current world order collapsing.) To drive the point home, for the past half century or so, the USA has kept a naval carrier group in the gulf sea at all times in order to protect Saudi oil supplies. But more recently, the past few years, it’s only been there about 6 months out of the year.

    They only beat us on trade the past few decades because we let them. We’re not letting them any more. Globalization is over. Free trade is over. The rest of the world riding on America’s back is over. Atlas is shrugging. And to any Europeans here, I’m not trying to be mean, I don’t have anything against you. But you can’t expect a free ride to last forever. And you guys really, really shouldn’t have stopped having kids. Once your boomer equivalents retire and you don’t have the tax base to pay for their benefits or the young consumers to drive the economy, you’re looking at decades of stagnation, spending cuts, and tax increases. Incidentally, this is why the EU is importing migrants as fast as they possibly can. Gotta have someone to put on the bottom to keep the pyramid scheme going just a little while longer.

    I remember Jello Biafra shitting on the WTO in his spoken words album. I wonder if he changed his tune now that Trump is speaking against it. Trump is more punk rock than Jello, it’s weird. Didn’t he even have a band called No to WTO, or something like that? Do you all really have memories that short? Seattle *burned* over NAFTA.


Leave a Reply