United States Politics Thread 47

[Travis B.]

They're Trumpists -- what do you expect. It is one thing to try to convert people who are on the fence, but even arguing with dyed-in-the-wool Trumpists is a lost cause. A better approach is to show everyone else how idiotic these people are.

[MacAnDàil]

Leftist media is supposed to be for the working masses. If it's fringe or for educated people, there's something wrong with its priorities. It needs to feature more exclusives on wrestling, strip shows or whatever until gutter rats are seen reading it. You can either appeal to school marms or the electorate. Pick a lane.

There are high-brow left, high-brow right, low-brow left and low-brow right. Both low-brow and high-brow have their place.

Trump is (sadly) as much an imperialist as any other POTUS before him.

Someone who proposes annexing his closest ally and the largest part of another? That's more attempted imperialist and incoherent than I've seen anyone.

Trump is (sadly) as much an imperialist as any other POTUS before him.

He simply realizes that the world has changed and the US cannot afford to fight Russia and China at the same time. So he wants to roll up the US pet project in Europe and redirect the resources to fight China.

I don't see any evidence of that. He's not going to war with China. He's not courting new allies in Asia— in fact SE Asia is, like Europe, starting to plan a non-US future. He's not going to break up the Russia-China entente. It's doubtful he'd intervene if China invades Taiwan. I have no idea what he does think he's getting with Russia; it's no substitute for Europe. Russia has taken the last year to advance like ten miles in Ukraine, what the hell is it going to do against China?

I think, as Raphael says, he just likes dictators.

Where you're right is that US presidents like to be able to project power. What all of them till now have realized is that, to project power, you need forward bases. To have forward bases you need allies. I don't think he's going to get bases in Russia.

Yes, indeed. If it were the case that Trump wanted to fucs on fighting China, he would have kept harder trade restrictions on China than on Europe or Canada. He also would have kept the TikTok ban immediately.

If the US is lucky, US global hegemony can be extended by 5-10 years and the fall of the US from the position of the global hegemon can happen on US terms.

I think you're conworlding here. Trump is doing nothing to extend US power; quite the reverse.

As a rising power, what's in China's interest is maintaining the status quo. Hopefully Xi realizes that and doesn't actually try to grab Taiwan. In any case it seems like the magic has gone out of China's growth.

It's in China's interest, as with the rest of the world, to reduce the climate crisis: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3rx2drd8x8o https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66043485 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56761344

Preserving the "unipolar moment" has been the goal of every US administration since then. It's the same for Trump, only the means have changed.

I'm honestly not sure. there's a certain chilean sociologist that defends the notion that trump is, rather, adapting to the end of that unipolar moment, and it's not absurd: like, he's rolling back some of the apparatus of the overseasempire, picking which allies to keep and which allies to let loose, leaving europe to fend for itself, his focus on bilateral deals. a reasonable middleground seems to be that he's trying to prepare the us for the transition from only big dog to biggest dog in a pack with other big dogs.

That would be incoherent with his whole MAGA rhetoric. While it would not be unsurprising from Trump in general, there do not seem to be indications that his hidden views are different on this point.

[Torco]

fair enough, i agree it's not a slam dunk but then again, why dismantle the apparatus of empire?

[MacAnDàil]

fair enough, i agree it's not a slam dunk but then again, why dismantle the apparatus of empire?

Because of ideology. It's a mix of neoliberalism, libertarianism, fascism and Christian fundamentalism. Especially relevant are the first two parts that say "Big Government is Bad". That is of course contradictory with the third part that says "Leader = Party = Government = Country" and the contradicitons come out of the wood when they want to establish authoritarian control and simultaneously dismantle the apparatus that would allow it.

[rotting bones]

Maybe they are, but at the moment the federal government is being turned into a disaster zone by corrupt and stupid oligarchs. Being in a blue state is a little bit of protection; it'd be nice if it was even more so.

It could be an effective strategy if it can be implemented in the short term.

In the long term, it seems to me that the causally relevant features are things like the profit motive, a lack of education and a lack of institutions that promote solidarity. I don't understand why, out of all the properties these governments have, centrality is the one that gets picked on. The local government in my home state of West Bengal may not be literally Hitler yet, but it's getting there, and it's already more corrupt and incompetent than Modi's BJP. Our chief minister got caught laundering money by auctioning her paintings in public. The highest bidder would be a man who runs scams and supports her financially by paying ridiculous amounts for paintings that our chief minister drew herself. She presents herself as a patroness of Bengali traditions of art. Meanwhile, West Bengal, alongside Nigeria, has become one of the scam centers of the world. This was the alternative to the Communist Party's plans for industrialization. I don't think this choice is a peculiarity of West Bengal. Under the global capitalist system, the choice presented to every community is industrialization vs. scams. Nowadays, the "progressives" oppose industrialization. Hence the worldwide rise of the far right, the ideology of scams. The real alternative is to oppose the profit motive.

Overall, I don't think decentralization is a stable plan. Once you divide everything into smaller plots, they will be reconquered by the most ruthless one. Same with libertarian dreams of land redistribution: You can give everyone small plots of land, but they will soon be recentralized if everyone plays by the profit motive. Given the economic system, certain levels of centralization are more efficient than others, as are certain levels of scamming.

[rotting bones]

getting fined up the wazoo has that effect on some. what surprises me (kinda) is that the reaction is to do lawsuits for Republicans since they can't do pro bono or other lawsuits for Democrats...instead of doing lawsuits (pro bono or otherwise) for non-Republicans and non-Democrats.

Some firms are now standing up to Trump, I hear.

[zompist]

Maybe they are, but at the moment the federal government is being turned into a disaster zone by corrupt and stupid oligarchs. Being in a blue state is a little bit of protection; it'd be nice if it was even more so.

It could be an effective strategy if it can be implemented in the short term.

In the long term, it seems to me that the causally relevant features are things like the profit motive, a lack of education and a lack of institutions that promote solidarity. I don't understand why, out of all the properties these governments have, centrality is the one that gets picked on.

Probably because we have 200 years of political theory about both the benefits and the horrors of centralized power.

We're in the middle of a power grab, where the executive is trying to achieve dictatorial control at the expense of the legislature, the courts, and the states. Yes, decentralized states can be corrupt too. But centralized power is right in front of you showing how bad it can be.

BTW, two of the alternatives you mention are decentralizations of power. Educating the masses makes them a counterweight to the state. "Institutions that promote solidarity" cannot do so unless, in fact, they have power that the center cannot ignore.

The real alternative is to oppose the profit motive.

¿Por qué no los dos?

[rotting bones]

Probably because we have 200 years of political theory about both the benefits and the horrors of centralized power.

We're in the middle of a power grab, where the executive is trying to achieve dictatorial control at the expense of the legislature, the courts, and the states. Yes, decentralized states can be corrupt too. But centralized power is right in front of you showing how bad it can be.

BTW, two of the alternatives you mention are decentralizations of power. Educating the masses makes them a counterweight to the state. "Institutions that promote solidarity" cannot do so unless, in fact, they have power that the center cannot ignore.

My proposal has centralized accounting with decentralized decision-making. E.g.: viewtopic.php?p=88044#p88044

One benefit that's commonly mentioned in favor of centralization is that because Islam divides property among sons (and less among daughters) instead of giving the lion's share of the inheritance to the eldest son as in the medieval and early modern West, Islamic societies didn't develop the concentrations of capital that led to snowballing development like in the West. At the same time, I want the capital concentrations to be used to actually benefit the people instead of monarchs. Hence the decentralized decision-making.

¿Por qué no los dos?

I lived most of my life under a horrifyingly corrupt local government. Embarrassingly, we think our chief minister got the public money laundering idea from this detective movie for little kids: https://youtu.be/Wa-Bb_RZtmE (Didn't check the link. Scared to find out what the subtitle writers did to my childhood.) I've been waiting years for another leader to top this stunt. Maybe Trump will be inspired by something clever Noddy did?