The Handwriting on the Wall

More Acceptance of Relative Decline

In the biblical story of Daniel, the Babylonian emperor Balshazzar, engaged in drunken revelry with his courtiers using goblets plundered during the conquest of Jerusalem, drinking toasts to the gods of gold and silver, is startled to see a hand appear on the wall of the banquet hall. (Daniel 5:5-7) The hand writes: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsim.

Some Bible scholars think these were words for coins circulating in the empire, or measures of metal used in commerce. (Tekel is the same as the Hebrew shekel.) So the message was something like, “Dollars, dollars, quarters, half dollars.”

What could it mean, wondered Balshazzar and his courtiers? The emperor’s advisors were mystified. So Daniel, a wise man among the Jews of the Babylonian Exile who enjoyed the favor of the court, was called upon to interpret the meaning of this amazing event.

Daniel explained that God was using clever puns involving money to foretell the empire’s doom. Mene (or mina) can mean “measured” or “numbered” as well as “judged.” Tekel (or shekel) can mean “weighed on the scales.” Upharsin is a coin one-half the size of a mene, but also is a pun for “Persian.” So Daniel told Balshazzar:

This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; TEKEL, you have been weighed on the scales and found wanting; UPHARSIN, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. (Daniel 5:25)

Indeed that very night the emperor was slain and a Mede (Darius) became ruler. Soon the empire was conquered by Cyrus the Persian.

The Book of Daniel was written in the second century BCE. It refers to rulers who lived four centuries earlier and shouldn’t be taken literally. The first half is an exquisitely written novelette in which Daniel “prophesizes” things that had already occurred. The Babylonian Empire had been succeeded by the Median, Persian, and then following the conquests of Alexander the Great, the Greek empire. (And then the Romans gradually build their empire, doomed to decline.)

Earlier in the Book of Daniel (2:31-45), the Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar asks Daniel to explain to him the meaning of a dream involving a statue with a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs from brass, legs of iron, and feet part iron and clay. Daniel explains that Nebudchadnezzar is himself the head of gold but “after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth.” These are often interpreted to mean the succession of Median, Persian, and Greek empires. The last was ruling the Middle East at the time this book was written. The author wanted to say that while the Greeks ruling Judea appeared powerful, they were fundamentally weak. (This is what the phrase “feet of clay” has come to mean.)

The whole point is: empires eventually fall. (Their decline and fall is just a particularly dramatic example of what Buddhists call “the law of impermanence.”) One doesn’t have to suppose that a deity oversees human events to acknowledge the historical fact that no empire is forever.

And the handwriting is indeed on the wall. This what the moving finger writes today, on walls in the halls of power all over Washington and on Wall Street:

Mene, mene. Your days are numbered.

Your dollar’s value is falling. Between 2000 and 2009 it fell by 33% in relation to the euro and 23% to the yen. And your share in the global GDP is declining. The EU now leads the U.S., according to IMF figures, at 28% of the total. The U.S. produces 25% and China and Japan together 17%. In 1945 the U.S. figure was around 50% of the total. It was over 30% in 2000. You must accept the inevitability of further decline.

Teke. You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

Poll after poll show that the world’s people find your government morally lacking—indeed viciously brutal in pursuit of its imperialist goals. There has been no change in policy between the Bush and Obama administrations. Your government slaughters civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, increasingly through the cowardly use of drone-fired missiles. You refuse to punish those responsible for cruel wars based on lies. You say you will pressure Israel to get its settlers out of the West Bank, then you back off, because of the power of the Israel Lobby. Your Congress actually congratulates Israel when it blitzkriegs Gaza or attacks an aid ship in international waters killing nine unarmed people including a U.S. citizen. Everyone knows you lie, and cover up atrocities. You have zero moral credibility in this world.

Upharsim. Your kingdom is divided.

Your society is deeply, bitterly divided. Income inequality has been increasing since the 1970s and is the highest in the industrialized world, resembling the situation as of 1929. The top 1% of households own at least 35% of all privately held wealth and the bottom 80% of households just 15% of the wealth. The poverty level is back to 1960s (pre-“War on Poverty”) level while the number of millionaires—many of them finance capitalists deliberately exploiting investors’ and home-buyers’ gullibility–soars.

Whether your country will retain its current borders, or split up like Balshazzar’s empire, remains to be seen. But the class division is very real, and the struggle of those most hurt in your society may help bring your empire down.

Such is the handwriting on the wall. “The moving finger writes,” wrote the great eleventh century Persian poet Omar Khayyam (who had read Daniel and was alluding to the story of the handwriting on the wall).

Nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.

The empire will fade and decline, like the Roman and Spanish and British and Soviet, and all other empires before it. Pious evangelicals and Harvard academicians can’t save it.


I thought about the Daniel story while reading an article in the most recent issue of the American Conservative. It cites a Chicago Council of Global Affairs survey that reported “a majority of Americans is taking a very sensible view of how activist and interventionist the U.S. should be in the future. There appears to be much more acceptance of relative decline in U.S. preeminence and the rise of more independent powers….”

Specifically, a large majority thinks the U.S. shouldn’t be the “world’s policeman,” shouldn’t try to “solve problems” unilaterally, and welcome the fact that countries like Turkey and Brazil are becoming more independent of the U.S. in the conduct of their foreign policy. They think that rather than trying to limit China’s power the U.S. should engage it and cooperate with it in a friendly way.

I find the report encouraging. Perhaps people are thinking: What is wrong with allowing others to emerge and share center stage? We’re tired of being in charge of the world.

The neoconservative strategy following the Cold War has been to allow no rival, to maintain global “supremacy” or “full spectrum dominance.” But how can you do that when China (a generally peaceful power, that happens to own almost a quarter of the U.S. national debt) threatens to surpass the U.S. in economic clout within 20 years?

Indeed what is wrong with becoming a Britain or a Spain, or a France or a Holland or Japan? Generally speaking, people in these countries don’t lament the decline of their empires. Few Japanese want to revive the empire that once extended from Sakhalin to Samoa. They’re content to live in a normal peaceful country that cooperates with others.

I don’t want to idealize any of these advanced capitalist countries. They remain imperialist in the Leninist sense. Their capitalists export capital in search of the highest possible rate of profit, and they seek to control markets and raw materials. They cooperate with the U.S. in its wars of aggression. They are governed by people whom we can judge seriously “wanting” and are all in need of radical change. But they have experienced “relative decline” and lived through it—as the people of this country can.

Early in this country’s history settlers identified with the ancient Hebrews led out of Egypt into the “Promised Land” of Canaan. They thought that (just as the Hebrews had taken the land of the Canaanites, annihilating them in the process at God’s command) so God had given North America to white Europeans. It was their right to take it from the native “savages.” At the time of the Mexican War, the vast expansion of the republic through military aggression was justified by the “Manifest Destiny” concept. Obviously it was the destiny of Anglo-Saxons to occupy the continent, from sea to shining sea—and it didn’t stop at the beach. Jingoists crowed that it was inevitable that the Stars and Stripes would be planted across the sea, on the soil of Asia. This of course was soon realized in the Treaty Ports of Japan, after Japan had been bullied into opening them by Admiral Perry’s threatening visits of 1853-4. And the flag was raised on the soil of the Philippines in 1898 when the former Spanish colony was seized by the U.S. There have always been plenty of (white) people of this country who’ve thought they were special and had the right to brutalize inferior peoples. Or at least tell them what to do.

But why not just realize and say: We’re just a country like other countries. Or we would like to be. We reached our peak half a century ago and are now in decline. And that is okay. During the period of peak prosperity U.S. military forces killed millions of Koreans and Vietnamese in order to maintain and expand the empire. This is nothing to be proud of. In our Cold War confrontation with the Soviet Union we armed and trained tens of thousands of Islamist warriors to wage jihad against a secularist regime in Afghanistan, creating in the process groups like the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

You can get thrown into the lion’s den for saying this, but the deeds of the U.S. have come back to haunt us. There are drawbacks to being an imperialist, bloodstained superpower.

Why does the U.S., protected by two vast oceans and peaceful borders with friendly nations, with no significant military rivals, need an empire of 700 bases in 130 countries? Why does it need to pretend to be “protecting” people (as in Okinawa) who haven’t asked for their presence and ask who’s protecting them from the U.S. troops? People who are asking them to please leave?

Why does the U.S. need to constantly topple regimes posing no threat to itself, always on the basis of lies? Why does it need to bully its allies (whose people want nothing to do with the Iraq and Afghan wars) to get support, or to maintain an alliance (NATO) that has long outlived its original Cold War purpose? Why must it insist on dominance? In whose interest is all this?

The U.S. ruling elite—including the neocons, the oil barons, the crooked traders, the Pentagon generals in arms with the arms industry, the idiot politicians who always vote the way AIPAC tells them to, the whole rung of top capitalists profiting from the bailout—are like the revelers at Balshazzar’s banquet. They are arrogant plunderers, drinking toasts to the gods of gold and silver in stolen goblets.

But maybe the party’s over. Fortunately, a system that is illogical and indefensible is also unsustainable. The Crash of 2008 suggests this, along with failure in two imperialist wars. I’d come over the years to doubt Marx’s conviction that the overthrow of capitalism was “inevitable,” but it remains my hope. And it will happen when people awaken to the fact that, as Engels once declared (in connection with German occupation of parts of Poland), a nation that oppresses other nations cannot become free. The “greater acceptance of decline” suggests that this truth is dawning on more and more people in this country.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsim.

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese history. He can be reached at: Read other articles by Gary.

2 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Gary S. Corseri said on September 24th, 2010 at 10:50am #

    I very much admire the way this article was constructed and presented, and the way both parts of it build and are integrated.

    I find the first part, with its classical, historic and Biblical allusiveness, more satisfying… but that may have something to do with my own predilections for wrapping things up into literary morsels.

    It’s the near-sanguine view of “things to come” in the 2nd part that gives me pause.

    Tom Englehardt recently posted similar views at Tom Dispatch (then re-posted at Truthout–“One and a Half Cheers for American Decline”). So, clearly, good, smart people like Leupp and Englehardt are thinking positively about U.S. decline–and there’s reason for hope in that, but….

    There are also flies in the ointment.

    With a couple of hours to utilize (not “kill”–I hate that expression–“killing time”!), I was in Politics and Prose bookstore in D.C. a couple of weeks ago, reading the NY Times best-seller, “The Next 100 Years” by George Friedman.

    Friedman’s view is that America is barely beginning as an Empire, and that we (North America, in general) are fated to control the planet for most of the next 100 years. (His analysis and projections have much to do with our control of the seas, the sky, Mackinder’s theories about controlling the “heartland”–now North America, not central Eurasia, as in his day.)

    I think Friedman’s logic is flawed in various ways–his conclusions–, but he did provide the statistics, the numbers, to back-up his claims. (His flaws, I believe, involve the near-impossibility of making accurate, probatory predictions about a world transforming in so many different ways as rapidly as ours. His flaws are algorithmic, and what one might expect when we have someone far less imaginative than an Aldous Huxley or a George Orwell extrapolating from the scientific evidence of the day.)

    The main problem I see in Leupp’s and Engelhardt’s “looking on the bright side” of US decline lies in this: The fact that Americans are losing confidence in our wars abroad and our economy here is not necessarily reassuring news about our future. (Didn’t Germans, with very good reason, lose all their confidence in the 20s and early 30s? Didn’t Adolf Hitler restore that confidence, and, incidentally, win the admiration of empire-builder and defender Churchill and others?) I think Professor Leupp overlooks the various ways the controllers here can spin bad news, turn things all around. Suppose there’s another 9/11 (or worse), for example? How might our “de-leveraged” masses respond?

    Generally, empires do not decline in nice, neat fashions, with the general populations wiping the sweat off their brows, sighing, “Whew… glad that’s over!”

    There’s another problem, and it has to do with this New World Order we are now confronting. With Bretton Woods (1944), the GTO, I.M.F., World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, GATS, etc., we’ve evolved (or degenerated) a system of global control and manipulation that far exceeds the power and reach of the nation-state and the flawed “democracies” that operated in the best of them. Whether the United States continues to occupy its present borderS, or splits regionally; whether “it” comes out of this Great Recession or not, the functionality of the military-industrial-academic-media-corporate complex here will continue to transgress and transcend its borders and work mischief in this world and the world of the foreseeable future. It is not only in the interests of the US–such as we the people know it–but in the interests of the EU, Japan and other members of the G-20 and other governing, transnational groups that the US continue to play its role as world bully.

    We are faced with realities not even the very prescient and brilliant Karl Marx could prognosticate: not simply classic capitalism, with nation-states destroying populations, building railroads and protecting sea lanes to extract the wealth of labor and natural resources; but, we now confront the extreme “financialization” of capitalism–money increasingly feeding on itself, on speculation, on debt, on fiat currencies–and all of this globablized and pretty much instantaneous.

    So… Americans and world citizens are going to have to digest a lot of gruel in the coming decade(s), and we’ll all have to be very alert to the changes in individual and collective psyches. Best put the balloons away. We’ve got a long, hard road to travel and much to learn before we can begin to cheer.

  2. teafoe2 said on September 24th, 2010 at 11:39am #

    alll very interesting but relatively superficial. James Petras is much simpler, clearer, and cuts to the chase much quicker. He clearly identifies the major contradictions at work.

    I do think his speculations about the future may tend to be a little optimistic, but I haven’t seen anybody describe the present conjuncture any better. Dr Alam in his “Zionist Dialectic” essay adds a great deal, but Petras supplies the basic framework.