Bob Kolasky is the managing editor of IntellectualCapital.com. His e-mail address is bob@voxcap.com

As 1999 ended, I managed to have the television set on to commemorate the (perhaps pseudo) end of the millennium. The wall-to-wall coverage quickly became uninteresting; I was, however, struck by NBC anchor Tom Brokaw's passing remark early in the evening. To paraphrase Brokaw: We end the 20th century in an unprecedented time of peace and prosperity. Then he did a kind of double take, as if to reassure his viewers that it was so, and repeated himself.

In trying to make sense of the year ahead, Brokaw's statement is worth considering. True, it was the kind of big pronouncement network anchors are prone to make -- Brokaw, after all, currently is lining his pockets by proclaiming today's seniors the "greatest generation" -- but that does not make his musings irrelevant. Network anchors tend to have their fingers on the zeitgeist of the average American -- or at least the average upper-class American -- and his statement reflects the conventional wisdom in much of the United States: It is a good time to be alive.

As if to reiterate that mood, New Year's Eve came and went, providing nothing worse than a bad champagne hangover. The Y2K bug? It was the dog that didn't bite. Terrorist attacks? Maybe in India but not the United States. The biggest problems proved to be unseasonably restrained behavior by American partygoers.

Ain't nothing but a good time?

At first glance, it is hard to argue that times are bad:

• As President Clinton is fond of noting, the American economy is in the longest period of sustained growth in the 20th century.

• Technological innovation -- be it computers, medicine or biotechnology -- is fueling rapid wealth creation, improving the quality of life in the United States and teaching us all that the possibilities of innovation are almost limitless.

• The United States is the sole superpower in a global landscape, and a kind of Pax Americana has developed worldwide. Current armed conflicts tend to be small regional conflicts or civil wars rather than larger battles that threaten the world's stability:

• A number of social and cultural problems -- while far from solved -- are trending positively. "Crime is down sharply in the United States and other countries where it had become epidemic," Francis Fukuyama wrote in his recent book The Great Disruption. "Divorce rates have declined since the 1980s, and there are now signs that the rate of illegitimacy (in the United States, at any rate) has begun to level off, if not fall. Levels of trust in major institutions have improved during the 1990s, and civil society appears to be flourishing."

The Cato Institute's (and IC contributor) Stephen Moore sums up conventional wisdom at the end of the century. "1999 was probably as great a year as we've ever had, and 2000 should be similar," Moore said in an interview. An analysis in Stratfor.com, a Web-based news analysis service, dubbed the current period "a new golden age."

Peace and prosperity forever?

Is the United States amidst a golden age?

Is the burgeoning conventional wisdom to be believed? Is the United States amidst a golden age? Are we living in an unprecedented period of good times where we find peace and prosperity for all?

Maybe not -- at least as far as prosperity is concerned. Ruy Teixiera, a political economist at The Century Foundation, argues that while there are undoubtedly some positive economic developments, the notion that everyone is benefiting is misguided. "I think the statement that we are in some kind of unprecedented period of prosperity is laughable," Teixiera says. "If the economy didn't start until 1973, it might be true, but throughout history, [that statement] is just ludicrous."

Three particular countervailing trends demonstrate deep-seated economic problems in the United States, Teixiera notes. The first is income stagnation and wage decline. The numbers show that real wages and income among American families have grown at or below the pace of inflation since 1973.

The second is the heightened middle-class economic insecurity -- the fear of losing health care, questions about pensions and retirement funds, and the worry of corporate downsizing. And the third is the growing realization that because of an education and training gap, those left behind by the information economy will fall further behind in coming years.

Those factors, Teixiera argues, paint a less-than-rosy economic picture.

"Domestically, the lion's share of prosperity has gone to asset holders, not to service-end jobs," says Ted Halstead, president of the New America Foundation. "For those on the top, times have never been better; for those at the bottom, that is not the case," he continues. "This is not a wage boom."

What is it good for?

Things are equally complicated when it comes to international questions. On one hand, you have the unquestionable fact of America's international hegemony and immunity from attack. But beneath the peace lies a smoldering cauldron of global issues that must be addressed in coming years.

"The next decade will be a period of increasing disharmony both between nations and within nations," Stratfor.com predicts. "Underneath it all will be a singular political question: How will the international system cope with the growing power of the United States, and what will the United States do with its growing power?"

U.S. citizens are unsure what role the US should play in the international scene

The ongoing free-trade battle -- symbolized by the canceling of a new round of World Trade Organization talks -- as well as the growing chasm between internationalists and neo-American firsters (particularly in Congress) demonstrate that U.S. citizens are unsure of what role the country should play on the international scene. Should America be the engaged leader of a new global order or simply a benevolent superpower primarily concerned with domestic issues? As Joseph Nye, the dean of Harvard's kennedy School of Government, wrote recently in The New York Times, "Our current foreign policy debate is not over whether to retreat into isolationism but over how we should relate to the rest of the world."

While the internal debate heightens, the rest of the world is taking steps to become less reliant on the United States' whims. If history shows us anything, it is that the world will not let one country stand dominant on the international scene indefinitely. Already you can see the seeds of future challenges.

Europe is taking steps toward building a common defense to complement its common economic system. Japan is pushing for stronger intra-Asian economic cooperation. China and Russia are discussing shared interests. And a continuing legion of smaller countries, particularly in the Muslim world, are fostering anti-American sentiment.

Peace might be upon the United States, but it is a strange peace. After all, America was at war in Kosovo only eight months ago. And the 1990s have seen American troops deployed in international conflicts almost two dozen times.

Mourning in America?

Then there are the socio-cultural issues at the heart of the national fabric. Do the current cultural indicators in the United States point to a golden age? Most would say not.

Fukuyama is right to note some positive trends, but as he realizes, some unsettling truths lurk beneath those trends. The U.S. crime rate is still one of the highest in the world; the traditional American family is fraying at the seams; parts of most big U.S. cities are havens for nihilistic behavior; the public education system is hemorrhaging; and the national sense of community is forever changing.

As if to underline that, the 2000 presidential campaign paints a stark picture. All the candidates, even Vice President Al Gore, are running on messages that America's social structure is fraying, and that the next president must provide moral leadership to fix the problems threatening American life. There is little "morning in America" rhetoric among the candidates; instead, they choose to emphasize the fact that much in America, including the campaign-finance system, is broken.

But Halstead says there are few calls for real solutions. He complains that to the extent there are big ideas among the presidential candidates, they tend to be about fixing the "means" -- a la campaign reform -- rather than the "ends" This tendency, he says, has trickled throughout the political debate. "We are living in a period of momentary quiet in the battle of ideas," Halstead says.

Moore argues, however, that at least when it comes to politicians that quiet is largely a good thing. He believes political battles too often do more harm than good. "People are paying so little attention to Washington because their lives are good," he says.

In search of perspective

So is it fair to say we are living in a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity? Perhaps this is a case of shifting the old glass-is-half-full/half-empty debate. Maybe it is three-quarters full and one-quarter empty. It is undeniable that many of the most important trends in the United States are positive, but many people in America -- and the rest of the world -- undoubtedly wonder where their peace and prosperity are.

The end-of-1999, American self-congratulatory tour is over, and plenty of challenges remain to be addressed in 2000 and beyond.