Energy, Populism, And The Fall Of US Influence |
For decades, the world has borne the costs of the United States wars. These wars were fought not for collective security but for unilateral dominance. America has projected military power across continents while claiming moral superiority, yet its credibility has steadily diminished. The latest war on Iran is not an isolated plunge but part of a deeper pattern: a nation undermined by contradictions embedded in its very own nationalist approach.
These contradictions, such as fraught state behaviour, a nationalist energy vision, populism’s corrosion of democracy, and educational stagnation, are not passing flaws. They are intrinsic factors that have already eroded the legitimacy and credibility of the world order, and they weigh heavily not only on America’s standing but on the wider world.
The United States presents itself as the defender of democracy and global order. Yet its foreign policy is structurally dependent on militarism. Andrew Bacevich, a retired army colonel and author of The Limits of Power, has argued that American leaders operate with an inward-looking mindset, assuming exceptionalism while belittling other nations. This mindset is reinforced by the military-industrial complex, a term coined by President Dwight Eisenhower, which ensures war remains profitable.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), an independent institute based in Sweden, reports that American arms exports accounted for 40 per cent of the global total between 2019 and 2023. William Hartung, senior fellow at the Quincy Institute and author of Prophets of War, observes that the arms industry thrives on instability; without wars or tensions, its business model collapses. The contradiction is stark: a nation claiming to uphold peace and democracy is structurally dependent on conflict to sustain its economy and global influence. Instability abroad becomes essential for profitability at home.
This pattern is not unique to the United States. Britain before the Second World War faced similar contradictions: it claimed to uphold liberal values yet relied on colonial exploitation and military coercion. The Soviet Union too collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions: espousing equality while tolerating elite privilege, projecting strength while its economy stagnated. America’s contradictions today echo these historical precedents, suggesting that structural tensions, if left unresolved, eventually erode credibility beyond repair.
Energy policy reveals another tension. In 2017, the Department of Energy under President Trump declared a policy of “energy dominance”, aiming to expand oil, gas, and coal production, increase exports, and reduce reliance on foreign energy. The language of dominance reflects a nationalist mindset, but more deeply it reveals the structural dependence of the American economy on fossil fuels and the political capture of energy policy by domestic lobbies.
The world has paid dearly for American wars; it now demands accountability, respect, and peace
The world has paid dearly for American wars; it now demands accountability, respect, and peace
Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies and author of Resource Wars, argues that United States foreign policy is often shaped by the imperative to control oil and gas flows, ensuring domestic prosperity while sidelining global equity. By 2023, American petroleum exports exceeded 10 million barrels per day, reshaping global markets. Yet climate commitments lagged, with withdrawal from the Paris Agreement signalling that nationalist priorities outweighed collective responsibility.
This contradiction is not only about energy but about values: the tension between short-term nationalist gain and long-term global responsibility. Non-Western actors have taken note. China has invested heavily in renewable energy, positioning itself as a leader in green technology. The European Union, despite internal divisions, has pushed for climate neutrality by 2050. Even smaller blocs such as ASEAN have begun to integrate climate resilience into their regional frameworks. America’s energy nationalism, therefore, not only undermines its credibility but also cedes moral leadership to others.
Populism adds another layer of contradiction. Populist leaders frame themselves as the sole voice of “the people”, undermining checks and balances. Freedom House, a non-governmental organisation that monitors democracy worldwide, downgraded the United States’ democracy score in its 2025 report, citing political polarisation, attacks on electoral integrity, and declining trust in institutions.
Pew Research found that only 46 per cent of Americans trust elections to be fair, a sharp decline from 2016, while Gallup surveys show confidence in Congress and the Supreme Court at historic lows. Cas Mudde, a political scientist and author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction, notes that populism thrives on crisis; when the crisis narrative weakens, so does the populist leader’s hold.
The contradiction is clear: a system built on democratic resilience increasingly tolerates populist currents that disintegrate its foundations. The United States claims to embody the world’s strongest democracy, yet it structurally rewards populist politics. This contradiction is particularly damaging because democracy is the cornerstone of America’s global image; when its own institutions falter, its moral authority abroad is compromised. Allies in Europe and Asia have voiced concern, with surveys showing confidence in American leadership at its weakest since the Iraq War. In Latin America and Africa, where populist currents have also surged, America’s example no longer inspires but rather warns.
Education reflects a final paradox. The United States boasts world-class universities that produce Nobel laureates and global innovators. Yet mass education stagnates at home. According to the Census Bureau, 91 per cent of Americans aged twenty-five and older have at least a high school diploma, but only 38 per cent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher. Pew Research confirms that while American universities lead globally, the majority of the population does not pursue advanced education.
The Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, notes that educational divides are a key driver of political polarisation, with less educated populations more likely to support populist leaders. Such dynamics feed supremacist tendencies, as limited exposure to global perspectives fosters insularity and distrust of diversity.
Martha Nussbaum, professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago, warns that without a stronger emphasis on liberal education, democratic values will continue to erode. America’s paradox of elite excellence and mass stagnation, therefore, stands out as a structural weakness, widening the divide between its global image and domestic reality.
As Immanuel Wallerstein, sociologist and author of World Systems Analysis, and John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, remind us, hegemonies falter not suddenly but structurally, when contradictions outweigh strengths. The reckoning before the United States is therefore not only geopolitical but moral: power without responsibility corrodes legitimacy, and knowledge without humility breeds arrogance.
If America is to remain relevant in a multipolar world, it must confront these contradictions—rediscover humility, embrace cooperation, and abandon the convulsive mindset that looks down upon others. The world has paid dearly for American wars; it now demands accountability, respect, and peace.