3 ms·

Your response seems knee-jerk in consideration of the actor more than the action. If President Obama had made a statement saying, “Today we are taking the grav

by 300bps 6y ago

Your response seems knee-jerk in consideration of the actor more than the action. If President Obama had made a statement saying, “Today we are taking the grave but necessary step of withdrawing from the WHO due to their not being an effective advocate for their mandate.” would you have the same instant reaction? As a centrist myself, the country seems so hyper partisan with neither side willing to give a millimeter. Sometimes though it’s right to disband an organization if it isn’t doing the job it is meant to. I don’t know whether the WHO was or wasn’t but maybe this action isn’t anymore “so so stupid” than disbanding the League of Nations at the end of World War II. I don’t see any reasons for this being stupid in your post other than ad hominem attacks and namecalling against the actor.

czzr 6y ago
Yes, I would have exactly the same reaction. I’m also not American.
mcphage 6y ago
> If President Obama had made a statement saying, “Today we are taking the grave but necessary step of withdrawing from the WHO due to their not being an effective advocate for their mandate.” would you have the same instant reaction? What if: the fact that he wouldn’t have (and didn’t) do that is part of the reason he is so popular? Otherwise, what you’re saying is: “sure, maybe what he did was bad, but if someone else had done a bad thing, they would be bad, too!” Which, okay, but they didn’t, and imagining someone else doing something bad doesn’t excuse people actually doing bad things. > Sometimes though it’s right to disband an organization if it isn’t doing the job it is meant to. I don’t know whether the WHO was or wasn’t but maybe this action isn’t anymore “so so stupid” than disbanding the League of Nations at the end of World War II. Well, part of the problem is that, no matter how much you interpret the WHO to have bungled up things (maybe a lot!), our federal government has still bungled it up far worse. So a lot of the reaction is that, we’re replacing the WHO with a disaster.
loudmax 6y ago
In order to do their job effectively, the WHO needs access to populations that live under a dictatorship. You can very reasonably argue that the WHO should be more open and transparent, but they need to be very careful about how they operate inside of authoritarian states. China could simply pull out of the WHO and then the organization would lose visibility into a huge chunk of the world population. It's a difficult balance to strike. That's just realpolitik. Instead, the United States is doing China the favor of pulling out so China doesn't have to. This gives China more control over the WHO. Ultimately, as the US abandons its position of global leadership it allows China to take on the mantle. This is a boon to the Chinese communist party. If Obama had pulled out of the WHO during an epidemic I would think this is a supremely irresponsible decision. Though I will admit that if it were Obama making this decision I might suspect there could be factors that aren't known to the general public, rather than just narcissistic boneheaded idiocy.

by 300bps 6y ago

czzr 6y ago

Yes, I would have exactly the same reaction. I’m also not American.

mcphage 6y ago

> If President Obama had made a statement saying, “Today we are taking the grave but necessary step of withdrawing from the WHO due to their not being an effective advocate for their mandate.” would you have the same instant reaction? What if: the fact that he wouldn’t have (and didn’t) do that is part of the reason he is so popular? Otherwise, what you’re saying is: “sure, maybe what he did was bad, but if someone else had done a bad thing, they would be bad, too!” Which, okay, but they didn’t, and imagining someone else doing something bad doesn’t excuse people actually doing bad things. > Sometimes though it’s right to disband an organization if it isn’t doing the job it is meant to. I don’t know whether the WHO was or wasn’t but maybe this action isn’t anymore “so so stupid” than disbanding the League of Nations at the end of World War II. Well, part of the problem is that, no matter how much you interpret the WHO to have bungled up things (maybe a lot!), our federal government has still bungled it up far worse. So a lot of the reaction is that, we’re replacing the WHO with a disaster.

loudmax 6y ago

In order to do their job effectively, the WHO needs access to populations that live under a dictatorship. You can very reasonably argue that the WHO should be more open and transparent, but they need to be very careful about how they operate inside of authoritarian states. China could simply pull out of the WHO and then the organization would lose visibility into a huge chunk of the world population. It's a difficult balance to strike. That's just realpolitik. Instead, the United States is doing China the favor of pulling out so China doesn't have to. This gives China more control over the WHO. Ultimately, as the US abandons its position of global leadership it allows China to take on the mantle. This is a boon to the Chinese communist party. If Obama had pulled out of the WHO during an epidemic I would think this is a supremely irresponsible decision. Though I will admit that if it were Obama making this decision I might suspect there could be factors that aren't known to the general public, rather than just narcissistic boneheaded idiocy.