United States Politics Thread 46

[masako]

Anyone who engages is bothsidesism with regard to the upcoming election here in the US is either an ignorant fool or an enemy of humanity. There is an objectively better choice and an objectively worse one here, and anyone who thinks that they are the "same" favors the worse one.

I saw a meme late last night from the Handmaid's Tale of the women dressed in their required garb with a word bubble that said "I didn't like Biden's debate performance."

While the alarmism on either side is a bit of the dramatic tone, you're right that the bothsidesism borders on aggressive idiocy. Personally, I think Joe was too old even in 2020, but, the DEMs have this weird notion of tradition, seniority, and "next-in-line" that they allow to stiffle real change within their party. The GOP has similar hang-ups, but seemingly not to the extent that the DEMs do.

I'd vote for a wet sponge before I supported DJT for local dogcatcher. But, the reality is that most Americans vote based on gut, or more accurately, on optics. I do think though that if there is a second debate, things will happen a bit differently, and that SCOTUS continues to give the DEMs fodder for the final push...so all hope is not lost.

There's a list of all the things DJT has done and/or been accused of, and that alone should make people want to vote for anyone but him...unfortunately, the tendency for folks to vote against their own self-interest is an undying historical feature.

[Torco]

Do you think Trump would be better, or that Biden and Trump are somehow equivalent?

not that i think i'll convince anyone but, again, better for whomst? a biden outcome is obviously better if we're measuring things like personal ethics, or the morality and desirability of their domestic policies etcetera. on the other hand in some others they're the rather equivalent. we've had this convo here many times, my take can be summarized as i care about more than just who i agree more on the usual issues; i also care about multipolarity and the reduction in the sole superpower status of the us: a process that is already underway and on the details of which much depends: a divisive, embarassing, firebrand and deeply incompetent man in washington will increase that. very real problems with this position include that the incompetent, even though he will make the us's prestige and quality of relations with allies decrease, will exert us power in ways which are worse for everyone such as vis a vis climate change, or effecting a worldwide normalization of fascism. I figure -and hope- that the harm reduction from the first factor will, in the final calculation, outweigh the evil caused by the second.

cause history and geopolitics and the world... it's complicated right? in electoral politics we tend to think in terms of who is best, and by best we mean things like what i say above: a candidate is worse if his discernible political goals are morally abhorrent, for example (and by that metric, trump is vastly worse than biden). Even so, for we outside the US this is not an electoral thing: we don't get to vote on the potus (even though who wins affects us, obviously), we're not american citizens after all: we mostly only get the effects of us foreign policy: we get couped, austeritied, sanctioned, structurally adjusted, privatized and prevented from pursuing this or that policy -mostly good ones- via any of a million levers washington can and does pull, and we're mostly pulled by those levers, called us foreign policy, in the same deeply destructive directions either way, so the less leverage those levers have the better. better for most of the planet, I mean.

[Travis B.]

Do you think Trump would be better, or that Biden and Trump are somehow equivalent?

not that i think i'll convince anyone but, again, better for whomst? a biden outcome is obviously better if we're measuring things like personal ethics, or the morality and desirability of their domestic policies etcetera. on the other hand in some others they're the rather equivalent. we've had this convo here many times, my take can be summarized as i care about more than just who i agree more on the usual issues; i also care about multipolarity and the reduction in the sole superpower status of the us: a process that is already underway and on the details of which much depends: a divisive, embarassing, firebrand and deeply incompetent man in washington will increase that. very real problems with this position include that the incompetent, even though he will make the us's prestige and quality of relations with allies decrease, will exert us power in ways which are worse for everyone such as vis a vis climate change, or effecting a worldwide normalization of fascism. I figure -and hope- that the harm reduction from the first factor will, in the final calculation, outweigh the evil caused by the second.

cause history and geopolitics and the world... it's complicated right? in electoral politics we tend to think in terms of who is best, and by best we mean things like what i say above: a candidate is worse if his discernible political goals are morally abhorrent, for example (and by that metric, trump is vastly worse than biden). Even so, for we outside the US this is not an electoral thing: we don't get to vote on the potus (even though who wins affects us, obviously), we're not american citizens after all: we mostly only get the effects of us foreign policy: we get couped, austeritied, sanctioned, structurally adjusted, privatized and prevented from pursuing this or that policy -mostly good ones- via any of a million levers washington can and does pull, and we're mostly pulled by those levers, called us foreign policy, in the same deeply destructive directions either way, so the less leverage those levers have the better. better for most of the planet, I mean.

Seeking the exacerbation of the global spread of fascism to achieve one's goals is called accelerationism, regardless of one's goals, whether they are bringing about teh Revolucion, teh White ethnostate, or teh much-vaunted "multipolar world", and will only result in vast amounts of harm globally, while probably not resulting in the goals you seek. And even if what you seek is somehow achieved, said "multipolar world" will almost certainly be exchanging one hegemon for another ─ and however bad America is, at least it is a (flawed) liberal democracy, while its would-be replacement as hegemon, the People's Republic of China, is a personal dictatorship, and I assure you, anyone who thinks that it somehow is more benevolent than America is a complete and utter fool (just ask a Uighur, Tibetan, Hong Konger, or Taiwanese person as to whether the PRC is benevolent).

[Torco]

said "multipolar world" will almost certainly be exchanging one hegemon for another ─ and however bad America is, at least it is a (flawed) liberal democracy, while its would-be replacement as hegemon, the People's Republic of China (...)

Not at all, china is much much weaker: even if the us disappears -magically- china cannot exert half the power over this new world that the us can the old: they're the second-biggest power after the us, but by a lot. and the us won't disappear overnight in the real world... china has a big land army, granted, but so does north korea. china could probably -with great, great effort- take over taiwan, but in terms of power projection it's probably on par with, say, France. What you would get instead is the same structure that's been the norm throughout history up until colonization: a few nucleuses of power, each with its periphery: china can't exert much influence in amsterdam but it can in kandahar, for example, and germany can in amsterdam but not in kandahar.

Of course, this state of affairs is shit: it'd be much better if people didn't make empires, and hell, a post-state world would be nice, but as long as we're running on nations states, I'd prefer the us nation state didn't run the world forever, thank you. that the us is a liberal democracy is a good thing, of course, but mostly for us citizens: liberal democracies explicitly exclude non-citizens from the democracy part. and as long as we're not included in the decision making process I haven't seen the chinese doing coups, or forcing their vassals into austerity, privatization, etc. I don't mean to say china is like... good, of course. but there are no good guys, here. china is fucked up, it oppresses its ethnic minorities, disappears and imprisons dissidents... but then again, so do the us and its allies, often with scandalous impunity. and, crucially, no one can do anything about it.

[xxx]

once again, democracy is limited by the choice
of politics, and men, decided by political parties...
the constraints that weigh on this choice mean that its outcome
always seems crazy to the point of caricature,
in relation to what is at stake,
and pushes voters at best to calculate the least worst,
to abstain or, at worst, to vote out of emotion...

abroad, nothing good comes of it,
even if the Republicans tend to carry less weight than the Democrats on the rest of the world,
the cynical machine of US foreign policy, with its big clogs, making it an ally worth your worst enemy...

[zompist]

not that i think i'll convince anyone but, again, better for whomst? a biden outcome is obviously better if we're measuring things like personal ethics, or the morality and desirability of their domestic policies etcetera. on the other hand in some others they're the rather equivalent. we've had this convo here many times, my take can be summarized as i care about more than just who i agree more on the usual issues; i also care about multipolarity and the reduction in the sole superpower status of the us: a process that is already underway and on the details of which much depends: a divisive, embarassing, firebrand and deeply incompetent man in washington will increase that. very real problems with this position include that the incompetent, even though he will make the us's prestige and quality of relations with allies decrease, will exert us power in ways which are worse for everyone such as vis a vis climate change, or effecting a worldwide normalization of fascism. I figure -and hope- that the harm reduction from the first factor will, in the final calculation, outweigh the evil caused by the second.

Preferring fascism makes you a fascist. Since I have nothing against Chile, I won't wish for your country the destruction you wish for mine. But if you think a fascist world will somehow stop at Chile's borders, you're not just a nasty person, but a foolish one.

[xxx]

Preferring fascism makes you a fascist. Since I have nothing against Chile, I won't wish for your country the destruction you wish for mine. But if you think a fascist world will somehow stop at Chile's borders, you're not just a nasty person, but a foolish one.

um, yet that's what USA did to Chile when a condor flew by......
we must keep our cool...

[zompist]

Preferring fascism makes you a fascist. Since I have nothing against Chile, I won't wish for your country the destruction you wish for mine. But if you think a fascist world will somehow stop at Chile's borders, you're not just a nasty person, but a foolish one.

um, yet that's what USA did to Chile when a condor flew by......
we must keep our cool...

Yeah, go look up what your country did to Haiti. No country's hands are clean. (Not even Chile; ask the Bolivians.)

Is that how you want international politics to go, though? Wars, coups, and fascists until everyone's grudges have been vindicated once?

[xxx]

Yeah, go look up what your country did to Haiti.

it has been "decolonized" since 1804, great harm done to it...

Is that how you want international politics to go, though? Wars, coups, and fascists until everyone's grudges have been vindicated once?

the export of American democracy
has always been an excuse to set the world on fire...
but that doesn't mean
that it couldn't have been less worse otherwise,
just that Manichean moral arguments
should always be taken with a grain of salt...

[zompist]

Yeah, go look up what your country did to Haiti.

it has been "decolonized" since 1804, great harm done to it...

1804? Are you playing games, or you conveniently forgot the reparations Haiti was forced to pay to France for 122 years?

[Raphael]

I'm all for the multipolar world Torco claims to support. However, I think that to a large extent, we already have that world. Torco claims that the USA currently rules the world, but if that were true, the Russian and Chinese governments would reliably do whatever the USA tells them to, which is clearly not the case. India isn't always on board with the USA, either, and even the various European countries keep squabbling.

On the other hand, a Trump/Xi/Putin alliance might actually end up ruling the world, with no squabbling being tolerated any more. So the thing Torco supports in the hope of getting a more multipolar world will, in fact, bring us closer to an actually unipolar world.

[xxx]

1804? Are you playing games, or you conveniently forgot the reparations Haiti was forced to pay to France for 122 years?

as America was for Louisiana...
but of these 122 years, the last 76 years have been made to US investors,
with even an American occupation and a transfer of their funds to the USA...
in short, a regime not far from that of other decolonized countries...
with the difference that there were no longer any natives,
rather as if the Southern States had been sold to their former slaves...

[Ares Land]

i also care about multipolarity and the reduction in the sole superpower status of the us: a process that is already underway and on the details of which much depends: a divisive, embarassing, firebrand and deeply incompetent man in washington will increase that. very real problems with this position include that the incompetent, even though he will make the us's prestige and quality of relations with allies decrease, will exert us power in ways which are worse for everyone such as vis a vis climate change, or effecting a worldwide normalization of fascism.

The first part doesn't work. The US as a superpowers deals with embarassing idiots just fine; remember Bush Jr, Reagan, Newt Gingrich even.
We shouldn't underestimate the other points you mention: when it comes to climate change, this will hurt (especially since the next ten years will be critical). The normalization of fascism is a worldwide disaster in progress, and the American elections has always set the stage for elections in other countries.

[MacAnDàil]

Islam, like all religions, is not a problem,
it is the political use of Islam, Islamism,
that is, exploited from abroad and relayed by the far left...

I'm talking about :
the rise of Islamist dress, up to and including the burqa
(not brown or black shirts),
imported imams promoting outlaw views
(not the German Nazis of the past),
massive raising of troops in our regions for Isis
(no Waffen SS for the Ukraine),
mass terrorist attacks committed by residents on our soil
(no exactions by Petainist militiamen),
slitting teachers' throats as they leave class
(no washing out their mouths with castor oil)
agit-prop pro Hamas at the National Assembly with the flag of Palestine
(no Reichstag fire)...

1° Frenchwomen have worn headresses for millenia.
2° ISIS was so last decade
3° teachers have also been attacked by people without "religious" motives or race mentioned but the cases are less well known. https://www.parismatch.com/actu/faits-d ... ire-237963
4° It's pro-Palestine, not pro-Hamas. https://www.nouveaufrontpopulaire.fr/

[MacAnDàil]

Do you think Trump would be better, or that Biden and Trump are somehow equivalent?

not that i think i'll convince anyone but, again, better for whomst? a biden outcome is obviously better if we're measuring things like personal ethics, or the morality and desirability of their domestic policies etcetera. on the other hand in some others they're the rather equivalent. we've had this convo here many times, my take can be summarized as i care about more than just who i agree more on the usual issues; i also care about multipolarity and the reduction in the sole superpower status of the us: a process that is already underway and on the details of which much depends: a divisive, embarassing, firebrand and deeply incompetent man in washington will increase that. very real problems with this position include that the incompetent, even though he will make the us's prestige and quality of relations with allies decrease, will exert us power in ways which are worse for everyone such as vis a vis climate change, or effecting a worldwide normalization of fascism. I figure -and hope- that the harm reduction from the first factor will, in the final calculation, outweigh the evil caused by the second.

cause history and geopolitics and the world... it's complicated right? in electoral politics we tend to think in terms of who is best, and by best we mean things like what i say above: a candidate is worse if his discernible political goals are morally abhorrent, for example (and by that metric, trump is vastly worse than biden). Even so, for we outside the US this is not an electoral thing: we don't get to vote on the potus (even though who wins affects us, obviously), we're not american citizens after all: we mostly only get the effects of us foreign policy: we get couped, austeritied, sanctioned, structurally adjusted, privatized and prevented from pursuing this or that policy -mostly good ones- via any of a million levers washington can and does pull, and we're mostly pulled by those levers, called us foreign policy, in the same deeply destructive directions either way, so the less leverage those levers have the better. better for most of the planet, I mean.

Some things are more important others. Life is the prerequisite for all else. For life, there must be reasonable climate, fresh enough air, other living beings etc. Biden is better on all of that and so better overall.

[bradrn]

4° It's pro-Palestine, not pro-Hamas. https://www.nouveaufrontpopulaire.fr/

…in theory. In practise, you get people like Rima Hassan calling October 7 a ‘legitimate action’. Even Mélenchon himself has yet to condemn Hamas, as far as I can tell. Speaking as a Jew in France, I’m almost as afraid of LFI as I am of RN.

(Yes, I know that the NFP isn’t just LFI. The other parties don’t look nearly so bad, and I would happily vote for them if I could vote. But we all know that LFI has the most influence.)

[Travis B.]

Even Mélenchon himself has yet to condemn Hamas, as far as I can tell.

What would you say if a Jew were criticized for having yet to condemn the actions of the State of Israel? That'd be anti-Semitic, right? And this very thing has happened (google Matisyahu, for instance).

So... condemning someone just because they haven't explicitly criticized group X is itself questionable. Yes, Mélenchon is not a Palestinian, but this same logic applies to many people who are condemned, as Palestinians, for not having vocally criticized Hamas.

[xxx]

to legitimate their attack is not precisely to haven't explicitly criticized it...

[Ares Land]

…in theory. In practise, you get people like Rima Hassan calling October 7 a ‘legitimate action’. Even Mélenchon himself has yet to condemn Hamas, as far as I can tell. Speaking as a Jew in France, I’m almost as afraid of LFI as I am of RN.

Rima Hassan's an idiot and so is Mélenchon.
Both did condemn Hamas though.

I read the Times of Israel regularly -- there's not enough useful info in French media to follow the Israel-Palestine conflict. But their views on France or French politics are dead wrong... Reading them, you'd think we're an Islamist theocracy. Perhaps relatedly, French Israelis voters are very far right. What they see in the RN, I don't know.

[bradrn]

Even Mélenchon himself has yet to condemn Hamas, as far as I can tell.

What would you say if a Jew were criticized for having yet to condemn the actions of the State of Israel? That's be anti-Semitic, right.

I will respond to this in three parts:

• Position matters. As an influential politician, Mélenchon regularly speaks out on all kinds of matters. He’s regularly and voiciferously criticised Israel, for one thing. I would certainly expect him to comment on Hamas’s shocking brutality… and yet he carefully does not.
• It’s not simply the absence of condemnation alone. Mélenchon has a long and well-known history of antisemitic comments, and this fits right in with that.
• As for condemning Israel… well, I don’t think the actions of Israel can be equated with those of Hamas in the first place.