United States Politics Thread 47

[zompist]

I think Zompist was being sarcastic

That's often a good bet, but in this case I really don't know. According to Wikipedia, some Republican states or parties have tried it-- Utah, Virginia, Indiana. It does seem more popular in blue states, which may be enough for deep red states to hate it.

At least so long as two parties dominate in the US, the effect would I think mostly be to allow people to vote for minor parties while not handing the election to the major party they dislike. On the whole that should have bipartisan appeal: lefties can vote Green or whatever, righties can vote Libertarian. Possibly the Republicans would have won in 1992 with ranked choice voting.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Has anyone else noticed how fast things are now changing with regards to western unity?

The Collective West which 3 years ago seemed to be a unbreakable monolith is now more divided than at any point after ww2. And it started happening already before Trump's inauguration.

[Travis B.]

I think it's a great idea. It's used in various places in the US. Kind of amazingly, 11 states have banned it— all heavily Republican states. No idea why they're against it.

It's because Republicans are against anything that is good.

I think Zompist was being sarcastic

I know he was being sarcastic ─ but fundamentally it is yet another example of Republicans being against good things because, well, Republicans are against anything good.

[keenir]

The Collective West which 3 years ago seemed to be a unbreakable monolith is now more divided than at any point after ww2.

I'm not sure The West was ever an unbreakable monolith except in the speeches of North Korea...and I'm not sure what The Collective West is at all.

[keenir]

To paraphrase Ben Miller's character in _Primeval_, "So now its Gaza as well?" (it was 'so now its the future as well?')

So now we're supposed to use the entirety of the USA's military on both our northern and southern borders, while also using it to all the illegals and probably-not-illegals from throughout the 48 (50?) States, while also using military aircraft to deport the illegals and probably-not-illegals who got rounded up.

...AND using our military to handle all the people in Gaza (and West Bank?) as well.

I realize that the Department Of Defense is the largest organization in the US Government...but thats what we call "time and a half" aka overtime, because yes, all those soldiers are going to want to be paid.

[Linguoboy]

So now we're supposed to use the entirety of the USA's military on both our northern and southern borders, while also using it to all the illegals and probably-not-illegals from throughout the 48 (50?) States, while also using military aircraft to deport the illegals and probably-not-illegals who got rounded up.

...AND using our military to handle all the people in Gaza (and West Bank?) as well.

No, because "No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed!" (Exact quote.)

This is, btw, one of the ways in which you know this isn't a realistic proposal. Sources differ on whether he's just too dumb to know this or whether it's a distraction of some sort, either to get folks talking about something else besides Elon Musk's cybercoup or (in the most generous analysis of all) red meat for the Israeli rightwingers to gnaw on while he seeks to do a deal with Iran.

[Torco]

The Collective West which 3 years ago seemed to be a unbreakable monolith is now more divided than at any point after ww2.

I'm not sure The West was ever an unbreakable monolith except in the speeches of North Korea...and I'm not sure what The Collective West is at all.

the west is a very broadly used concept, i'm surprised it elicits confusion even though it has fuzzy edges. the uk is clearly part of it, as is the us, france. italy is a bit less central, but still obviously western, as is sweden and portugal. is latin america part of the west? I have friends who say no, though i tend to think that yes. is australia part of the west? clearly. is slovakia? that's less clear, but still yes by some measures. japan is not the west, though, nor is china, singapore, turkiye or afghanistan. it's admittedly a weird name: from where i stand, most of it is to the north-east but okay. there's no essence to the west, no one core definition that subsumes the concept: but then again, that's true of most concepts (possibly all?), including "chair", so we shouldn't hold that against it.

and the west *was* kind of a monolith, though it may be more difficult to see this if one isn't a westerner. of course there's always disagreements, but when push comes to shove, it was a settled question for all of the nineties and two thousands which side of any international conflict most if not all western countries would be on. the french have some differences with the americans, but they sent their boys to die for them in afghanistan anyway. no one questioned the us's role as leader of the "free" world, and now people do. now the white house openly discusses invading denmark. this was my prediction from the start, that a trump win would mean a less cohesive west. i don't think i'm wrong thus far.

then again, the people who pointed out that trump would probably be as ravenously zionist and enthusiastic for the genocide as any democrat were also correct, but at least the fact that the project is to remove the ethnic palestinians to give those lands to the israeli ethnic jews (which is genocide, though i suppose we'll soon hear why it's not from the west) is obvious and out in the open now, as opposed to something everyone knew but only said in whispers and dogwhistles. plus, at least there's been a ceasefire, some prisoners have been exchanged, and the rate of killing has slowed.

[keenir]

The Collective West which 3 years ago seemed to be a unbreakable monolith is now more divided than at any point after ww2.

I'm not sure The West was ever an unbreakable monolith except in the speeches of North Korea...and I'm not sure what The Collective West is at all.

it's admittedly a weird name: from where i stand, most of it is to the north-east but okay. there's no essence to the west, no one core definition that subsumes the concept: but then again, that's true of most concepts (possibly all?), including "chair", so we shouldn't hold that against it.

thank you for clarifying that. the "collective" part was a head-scratcher for me.

this was my prediction from the start, that a trump win would mean a less cohesive west. i don't think i'm wrong thus far.

In that case, I think we're almost on the same page here...when I see the term unbreakable monolith, I think of something that doesn't have any cracks or fissures -- visually, think of the object from 2001. Thats why I remarked above, that I doubted anyone short of North Korea would see The West as that sort of a monolith.

[keenir]

So now we're supposed to use the entirety of the USA's military on both our northern and southern borders, while also using it to all the illegals and probably-not-illegals from throughout the 48 (50?) States, while also using military aircraft to deport the illegals and probably-not-illegals who got rounded up.

...AND using our military to handle all the people in Gaza (and West Bank?) as well.

No, because "No soldiers by the U.S. would be needed!" (Exact quote.)

wait, the bit from him that I heard, was that we'd send our military over to Gaza.

O.O
has Trump realized that the US military has more than just soldiers in it? *gasps*

[zompist]

the french have some differences with the americans, but they sent their boys to die for them in afghanistan anyway.

France has always insisted on a certain independence, sometimes stupidly (e.g. the Suez crisis), sometimes more provocatively (e.g. recognizing Mao's China in 1964). France left Afghanistan in 2012 (while Obama was president). It refused integration into the US-led command structure of NATO from 1966 to 2009, without leaving the alliance.

At one point there were 120,000 non-US troops in the country. I don't know if Europeans ever did any soul-searching on the failure of the mission, as at least some Americans have. Or Canadians— Canada provided 1/3 of those troops.

this was my prediction from the start, that a trump win would mean a less cohesive west. i don't think i'm wrong thus far.

This isn't exactly a bold prediction, when Trump was crystal-clear in his first term that he saw no value in NATO and wanted to cozy up to Putin instead. His provocations on Canada, Greenland, and now Gaza should disabuse you of the notion that Trump will somehow be good for world peace. He wants to bully other countries without allies and without repercussions.

then again, the people who pointed out that trump would probably be as ravenously zionist and enthusiastic for the genocide as any democrat were also correct,

Again, I don't know why anyone would doubt this. I'd point out two things though. One, Israel's war led to Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia recognizing Palestine as a state... joining 142 other countries. Two, reflexive support for Israel didn't become the overwhelming US position until the 2000s. Clinton applied pressure for a peace deal, and even the Republicans in Nixon's day tried not to support Israel too openly. (And frankly, when Arab nations were overtly starting wars with Israel, the good guy/ bad guy distinction wasn't so obvious.)

[bradrn]

this was my prediction from the start, that a trump win would mean a less cohesive west. i don't think i'm wrong thus far.

This isn't exactly a bold prediction, when Trump was crystal-clear in his first term that he saw no value in NATO and wanted to cozy up to Putin instead. His provocations on Canada, Greenland, and now Gaza should disabuse you of the notion that Trump will somehow be good for world peace. He wants to bully other countries without allies and without repercussions.

Not to mention Panama…

[Ares Land]

the west is a very broadly used concept, i'm surprised it elicits confusion even though it has fuzzy edges. the uk is clearly part of it, as is the us, france. italy is a bit less central, but still obviously western, as is sweden and portugal. is latin america part of the west? I have friends who say no, though i tend to think that yes. is australia part of the west? clearly. is slovakia? that's less clear, but still yes by some measures. japan is not the west, though, nor is china, singapore, turkiye or afghanistan. it's admittedly a weird name: from where i stand, most of it is to the north-east but okay. there's no essence to the west, no one core definition that subsumes the concept: but then again, that's true of most concepts (possibly all?), including "chair", so we shouldn't hold that against it.

Western Europe is definitely part of the West; it's just that the West is less of a monolithic bloc than people assume.
I'd say personally Japan is part of the West (however odd it may seem, geographically speaking).
Generally I would define it as wealthy countries with a certain committment to democracy and capitalism (mileage may vary on the last one.)

Has anyone else noticed how fast things are now changing with regards to western unity?

The Collective West which 3 years ago seemed to be a unbreakable monolith is now more divided than at any point after ww2. And it started happening already before Trump's inauguration.

I wouldn't say a monolith; there have long been a certain amount of tension and disagreements. (Trump's first mandate, Brexit, the Iraq War)
There's a lot of distrust right now but honestly I'd give it a year before making any pronouncements. Trump is being erratic on an unprecedented level, but still he's not the first erratic and nasty Western leader.

[Torco]

This isn't exactly a bold prediction, when Trump was crystal-clear in his first term that he saw no value in NATO and wanted to cozy up to Putin instead. His provocations on Canada, Greenland, and now Gaza should disabuse you of the notion that Trump will somehow be good for world peace. He wants to bully other countries without allies and without repercussions.

true on all counts. and the guy's being a lot more unhinged about it than his last term. i've laid out my reasoning before but it's not that he's going to be in the short term good for world peace, quite the contrary, it's just that to the degree that the us loses its position as sole hegemon that, in the long run, is good for many things, including peace but also stuff like zero policies other than fundamentalist neoliberalism being politically viable for politicians who don't want a CIA coup to oust them.

One, Israel's war led to Spain, Norway, Ireland, and Slovenia recognizing Palestine as a state... joining 142 other countries. Two, reflexive support for Israel didn't become the overwhelming US position until the 2000s. Clinton applied pressure for a peace deal, and even the Republicans in Nixon's day tried not to support Israel too openly. (And frankly, when Arab nations were overtly starting wars with Israel, the good guy/ bad guy distinction wasn't so obvious.)

this is true as well. I wonder why the unconditionality of this support has increased.

I'd say personally Japan is part of the West (however odd it may seem, geographically speaking).

i mean... both japan and south korea are structurally western, in that their regimes were established by americans in their own image. so i suppose if being what people call "a democracy" means you're in the west they qualify. kinda like old byzantium would have been greek without being a part of greece.

[Otto Kretschmer]

Trump was "cozying up to Putin" - but that was before the war and only as a means of breaking Russia's alliance with China.

Other than this, Trump is as much s supporter of (supposed) US exceptionalism and global hegemony as any other Tom, Dick or Harry in the White House. Perhaps not in the same way as the Dems, he's not championing LGBT rights or abortion or anything like this - but he still wants the US to be the top dog, even if his version of the US differs from that of his political enemies.

And he'll do anything just to extend US global dominance by even a decade.

[Ares Land]

i mean... both japan and south korea are structurally western, in that their regimes were established by americans in their own image. so i suppose if being what people call "a democracy" means you're in the west they qualify.

Yes, precisely so... Though I'd add that wealth plays a part to some degree. Chile is a democracy, I would count it as Western, but as you said most of Latin America is an edge case.

[keenir]

Trump was "cozying up to Putin" - but that was before the war and only as a means of breaking Russia's alliance with China.

uh-huh, sure he was...so then why was he on such good terms with Putin, Xi, and Kim? the way I learned things, one breaks alliances by showing preference to one of a group, not to them all.

[Raphael]

Trump was "cozying up to Putin" - but that was before the war and only as a means of breaking Russia's alliance with China.

uh-huh, sure he was...so then why was he on such good terms with Putin, Xi, and Kim? the way I learned things, one breaks alliances by showing preference to one of a group, not to them all.

Frankly, I'm not at all sure that Trump is even really all that aware of the Chinese-Russian alliance. Part of his worldview seems to be that all the white people (except for the bad ones who oppose him) are on one side and all the darker-skinned people are on the other side, so that a tight alliance between a country ruled by white people and a country ruled by Asians Does Not Compute for him. That would explain why he was so often friendly with Putin and at the same time very hostile towards some of Putin's allies. I'm not ruling out that, if you told him that China and Russia, or, while we're at it, China and Iran, are close allies, he would shout "Fake News!" at you.

[Otto Kretschmer]

^Words are cheap. He can say whatever he wants. He can always say he's misspoken and really meant the opposite.

He used anti Chinese rhetorics throughout his entire election campaign and one of the first things he did was imposing tariffs on China.

A proper US president with a decent foreign policy and an adequate level of humility would say openly (not once but many times) that the US is just one power out of many and has no right to be the global hegemon. He would also condemn US atrocities like numerous CIA coups and the exploitation of workers in the Global South, among many other things.

[Raphael]

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction between

^Words are cheap. He can say whatever he wants. He can always say he's misspoken and really meant the opposite.

and

A proper US president with a decent foreign policy and an adequate level of humility would say openly (not once but many times) that the US is just one power out of many and has no right to be the global hegemon.

So, words are cheap, but it's really, really important that people say the right words? Not once but many times?

He would also condemn US atrocities like numerous CIA coups and the exploitation of workers in the Global South.

I'd say the exploitation of workers in the Global South is as much a crime of the current Chinese government as of the USA.

[Linguoboy]

And he'll do anything just to extend US global dominance by even a decade.

Except, of course, fund USAID or any other source of US soft power. He's never once considered holding out a carrot when there was a stick within reach.