United States Politics Thread 47

[malloc]

So what does everyone think about the war in Iran anyway? It seems an obvious catastrophe, the only question is for whom. Obviously the Iranian people are already suffering greatly from the first wave of attacks, including a horrific bombing of a school that killed nearly two hundred children. Many people whom I follow online consider this a disastrous decision for Trump and predict that it will blow up in his face. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't share their optimism and predict that Trump will find some way to benefit from this. It seems quite likely, for instance, that this war will inspire significant reprisal from Islamic extremists that would play into his hands quite effectively.

[zompist]

So what does everyone think about the war in Iran anyway? It seems an obvious catastrophe, the only question is for whom. Obviously the Iranian people are already suffering greatly from the first wave of attacks, including a horrific bombing of a school that killed nearly two hundred children. Many people whom I follow online consider this a disastrous decision for Trump and predict that it will blow up in his face. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I don't share their optimism and predict that Trump will find some way to benefit from this. It seems quite likely, for instance, that this war will inspire significant reprisal from Islamic extremists that would play into his hands quite effectively.

The structure of every malloc political post:

1. Trump did something bad
2. ...
3. This will benefit Trump TRUMP IS UNSTOPPABLE TRUMP IS GREAT WORSHIP WORSHIP

You might need to develop your stage 2.

Trump is not playing 5-dimensional chess. Trump didn't foresee the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and gas rising 70¢ a gallon, you think he's strategizing cleverly? He can't keep straight for ten minutes what the war is about, whether it's over, or how soon he'll lose interest and attack Cuba instead. There's no rally-round-the-flag effect.

[Torco]

obstinate pessimism is not worship, no matter how many times someone says it is. it's not unthinkable that a right wing authoritarian might benefit, politically, from a war. many such cases. this of course wouldn't be good for the us as a whole, but hey.

[zompist]

it's not unthinkable that a right wing authoritarian might benefit, politically, from a war. many such cases.

It's not unthinkable that a right wing authoritarian might not benefit, politically, from a war. Many such cases.

[Raphael]

The last time a US President clearly benefitted politically from a war was when George W. Bush started the Iraq War, which was not only a generation ago, but also, of course, before the Iraq War had turned out the way it did, and therefore, before a lot of people in the US had ended up with a memory of how the Iraq War had turned out.

[zompist]

The last time a US President clearly benefitted politically from a war was when George W. Bush started the Iraq War, which was not only a generation ago, but also, of course, before the Iraq War had turned out the way it did, and therefore, before a lot of people in the US had ended up with a memory of how the Iraq War had turned out.

Narrowly true; but if you look at Bush's approval ratings, the war gave him only a 10% boost that lasted only 5 months. Compare to the 40% boost from the 9/11 attacks.

BTW, here's what happened to a few right-wingers and their wars.
Mussolini, WWII: shot by partisans.
Hitler, WWII: shot himself.
Tojo, WWII: hanged by the Allies.
Galtieri, Falklands war: lost power, imprisoned.
Hussein, conquered Kuwait: found hiding in a hole; tried and hanged.
Putin, Ukraine: ongoing, but his attempted walkover turned into a 4-year war with 1.3 million Russian casualties and a global blockade
Pinochet, coup and dirty war: house arrest in Britain, trial in Chile, died before it started.
Assad, Syrian civil war: ousted by rebels, fled to Russia.

And sure, many right-wing dictators hung onto power and died in bed. But being a dictator is a risky career choice. Ignoring the rule of law gives various #2s ideas. And preventing anyone from contesting your ideas means that, well, the dictator makes increasingly terrible decisions.

Trump is obviously in the latter situation: no one in his inner circle dares tell him no. It's not working out well for him: even the Republican Congress and Republican Supreme Court are handing him setbacks; his approval rating has plateaued at 40%; he's had to back off on his war on immigrants; and he just oversaw a huge increase in gas prices. American presidents don't get forced out in coups nor resign in disgrace [*], they just peter out into ineffectuality. Trump keeps pressing the "military" and "tariffs" buttons as if they will rescue him, but it's not working.

[*] With the exception of Nixon, but that was a different time. Republicans were then willing to ditch a scandal-ridden leader. Plus Democrats held both houses of Congress.

[zompist]

People who think Trump is a strategic genius should read this discussion between Paul Krugman and Philipps O'Brien.

In short: Trump did not know what he was getting into. It was all predictable, but again, his inner circle cannot say no. A telling anecdote from the convo: Trump likes to buy his cabinet officers shoes. He guesses at the sizes and they're wrong. So there's a photo of Marco Rubio wearing clown shoes, because you can't turn down a gift from the clown-in-chief. These are the 5th-dimensional chess players who are going to somehow turn this into a thousand-year reich.

Oh, as they mention, it's not just oil prices. Turns out a third of the world's supply of helium and fertilizer also passes through the Gulf. Helium is needed for, oh, semiconductors, which the tech industry depends on. Fertilizer is needed for obscure items like, oh, food. But never mind, these brilliant minds will wave a magic wand and make the inflation disappear.

[Raphael]

Oh, as they mention, it's not just oil prices. Turns out a third of the world's supply of helium and fertilizer also passes through the Gulf. Helium is needed for, oh, semiconductors, which the tech industry depends on. Fertilizer is needed for obscure items like, oh, food.

Interesting. I get the fertilizer, given how much of it is oil-based. But why helium?

But never mind, these brilliant minds will wave a magic wand and make the inflation disappear.

Perhaps not so much "brilliance" as "manliness". A lot of people on the right-wing seem to really believe that sufficiently Alpha Male-ish Manly Men (TM) can make any problems they might run into disappear by simply projecting enough Alpha Manliness. It would be funny if it wouldn't motivate them to murder and terrorize so much.

[bradrn]

Oh, as they mention, it's not just oil prices. Turns out a third of the world's supply of helium and fertilizer also passes through the Gulf. Helium is needed for, oh, semiconductors, which the tech industry depends on. Fertilizer is needed for obscure items like, oh, food.

Interesting. I get the fertilizer, given how much of it is oil-based. But why helium?

There’s not a lot of helium on Earth. That which exists is generally produced by radioactive decay, after which it can be trapped by the same geological structures which trap natural gas.

[Raphael]

That which exists is generally produced by radioactive decay, after which it can be trapped by the same geological structures which trap natural gas.

Ah, thank you!

[malloc]

Trump is not playing 5-dimensional chess. Trump didn't foresee the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and gas rising 70¢ a gallon, you think he's strategizing cleverly? He can't keep straight for ten minutes what the war is about, whether it's over, or how soon he'll lose interest and attack Cuba instead. There's no rally-round-the-flag effect.

Trump is no genius obviously, but he is cunning and understands that chaos and danger are his allies. People gravitate to authoritarian politics in dangerous times, instinctively counting on the tyrant to crush the threat. The fact that Trump himself is creating this danger in the first place hardly matters to our lizard brains. That effect will intensify if someone on the other side loses their cool and resorts to terrorism. It would only take one 9/11 scale attack to eliminate whatever PR problems Trump is facing.

Furthermore the politicians outside the MAGA fold seem remarkably bad at handling chaos and unprecedented situations. They are still following an old political script that assumes everyone supports liberal democracy and just disagrees on policy. The "end of history" mentality remains strong even as reactionaries seize power all across the world and global warming threatens us with extinction. This makes them especially vulnerable to blitzkrieg.

Obviously this does not mean that the Iran war will necessarily save Trump, only that it could and that he does have some strategy behind starting it. We really must avoid the temptation to dismiss our enemies as helpless buffoons. Time and time again, they have taken us by surprise with stunning victories.

[Torco]

it's not unthinkable that a right wing authoritarian might benefit, politically, from a war. many such cases.

It's not unthinkable that a right wing authoritarian might not benefit, politically, from a war. Many such cases.

very true. in general both are true: fachos and other right wing authoritarians tend to benefit from war in the short term, but end up fucked in the long term, as you listed above. they also tend to leave their country in a much weaker position, geopolitically, than they find it. then again, progressive center-left liberals tend to be very enthusiastic about proclaiming the absolute ineffectiveness of orange man and, just like he doesn't always succeed, he does not always fail either: you don't become the most powerful person in the planet twice without *some* skills.

there's plenty of more successful-in-the-long-term right wing authoritarians too, like putin, but those are much cleverer than orange man. it's probably gonna be the AI bubble popping that'll carry the trumpreich, as opposed to lawsuits.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that Trump is not a competent right-wing authoritarian. Look at his war in Iran ─ it is obvious that he has no plan to speak of, that he probably never really had a plan to speak of (whereas, say, Putin at least had a plan when his invasion of Ukraine set out), and that he was not planning for the side effects of his war (the drastic increase in oil prices certainly does not help himself).

[bradrn]

Trump is not playing 5-dimensional chess. Trump didn't foresee the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and gas rising 70¢ a gallon, you think he's strategizing cleverly? He can't keep straight for ten minutes what the war is about, whether it's over, or how soon he'll lose interest and attack Cuba instead. There's no rally-round-the-flag effect.

Trump is no genius obviously, but he is cunning

He really, really is not.

[malloc]

then again, progressive center-left liberals tend to be very enthusiastic about proclaiming the absolute ineffectiveness of orange man and, just like he doesn't always succeed, he does not always fail either: you don't become the most powerful person in the planet twice without *some* skills.

Quite. Sheer dumb luck can only go so far in explaining his success. We do ourselves no favors by denying Trump any competency and dismissing him as an abject failure. We must acknowledge that Trump and the wider reactionary milieu have scored some remarkable victories over the past decade and demonstrated undeniable talent for propaganda and political maneuvering. We made a grave mistake in underestimating them initially and now find ourselves overrun with ethnonationalists and Manosphere adherents.

[Travis B.]

then again, progressive center-left liberals tend to be very enthusiastic about proclaiming the absolute ineffectiveness of orange man and, just like he doesn't always succeed, he does not always fail either: you don't become the most powerful person in the planet twice without *some* skills.

Quite. Sheer dumb luck can only go so far in explaining his success. We do ourselves no favors by denying Trump any competency and dismissing him as an abject failure. We must acknowledge that Trump and the wider reactionary milieu have scored some remarkable victories over the past decade and demonstrated undeniable talent for propaganda and political maneuvering. We made a grave mistake in underestimating them initially and now find ourselves overrun with ethnonationalists and Manosphere adherents.

Trump has dismal popularity figures at this point, even though he has had only about a year and a couple months in office this term to attain such unpopularity, despite your claims of his success; at this point during their tenures in power Putin, Orbán, and Erdogan were much more popular.

[Raphael]

"Cunning" might not be the right word, but he does have a certain gut instinct for how well or poorly various things tend to play with the US public. Or he used to. His general decline might have had an impact in that regard. Perhaps if his gut instincts would still be as relatively "good" (for lack of a better word) as they were ten or even five years ago, this wouldn't be happening. After all, in his first term, he had four years to attack Iran and didn't.

The key thing is that Trump is not a competent right-wing authoritarian. Look at his war in Iran ─ it is obvious that he has no plan to speak of, that he probably never really had a plan to speak of (whereas, say, Putin at least had a plan when his invasion of Ukraine set out), and that he was not planning for the side effects of his war (the drastic increase in oil prices certainly does not help himself).

I guess it's not so much that he had a plan until he got punched in the face, and more like, he thought he wouldn't need a plan in the first place, because no one would dare punch him in the face.

[zompist]

then again, progressive center-left liberals tend to be very enthusiastic about proclaiming the absolute ineffectiveness of orange man and, just like he doesn't always succeed, he does not always fail either: you don't become the most powerful person in the planet twice without *some* skills.

Quite. Sheer dumb luck can only go so far in explaining his success. We do ourselves no favors by denying Trump any competency and dismissing him as an abject failure. We must acknowledge that Trump and the wider reactionary milieu have scored some remarkable victories

Both of you are simply straw-manning. I have not called Trump "absolutely ineffective" nor an "abject failure". You simply want to deflect from your unwavering admiration of the man. "Remarkable victories"? He should pay you for that.

I'm sorry that I have to add legalese disclaimers that should have been obvious: stupid and evil men can be extremely dangerous, and cause enormous amounts of death and destruction. No one is minimizing the possible pain, or the difficulty of the fight.

An eternity ago, Democrats noticed that their candidate was faltering and getting bad at campaigning, due to advanced age. They replaced him. It's evident that Trump is suffering even more, and the Republicans don't have the guts to get rid of him. The dude is not what he once was. He's not cunning, he's just cranky yet coddled.

[zompist]

By the way, which of these victories was "remarkable"?

1. Popular vote 52.9% to 45.7%; electoral vote 365 to 173.
2. Popular vote 51.3% to 46.8%; electoral vote 306 to 232.
3. Popular vote 49.8% to 48.3%; electoral vote 312 to 226.
4. Popular vote 46.1% to 48.2%; electoral vote 304 to 227.

I've purposely left out candidate names, and ordered them by popular vote.

Somehow only the fascist gets praise from malloc.

[Travis B.]

It is clear that Trump already wants out of the war he started, now that the consequences are becoming apparent, but cannot see an actual way out, as wars are generally much harder to end than to start. If he had had any real forethought he would not have started this war in the first place. If he had not surrounded himself with yes-men and women and if he really listened to anyone in the first place he would have known ahead of time what he was getting into. This is the opposite of the "remarkable victories" you purport. This is sheer incompetence and foolishness, as anyone in Trump's position who wasn't an incompetent and a fool would have known better to begin with.