13 ms·

He was chaotic and ineffectual and mostly focused on dumb peeves. But I do think he got some good ideas through the conventional “wisdom”. His execution on ever

He was chaotic and ineffectual and mostly focused on dumb peeves. But I do think he got some good ideas through the conventional “wisdom”. His execution on everything was poor. Good new ideas: Focus on China as an existential threat to US hegemony. Just freaking get out of the Middle East already. Globalization has not been good for the working and middle class.

01100011 6y ago
I'm looking forward to Trump's caustic personality leaving the equation so we can finally talk about these things in a more neutral way. A lot of people, myself included, cannot look past Trump's obvious flaws despite some of his ideas(at least the overall direction, maybe not the execution) being worth considering.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  You think this will happen? The political right have openly embraced demagoguery, authoritarianism, disinformation, and a scorched-earth, because-we-can style of politics. The media have embraced the outrage-factory model for improving as revenues. The electorate have committed to becoming single issue voters. And finally, who benefits the most from this quagmire? The corporate elite who fear the threat of government intervention in free markets.
dantheman 6y ago
Depends on where you draw the line on the working class; if anything the working class worldwide has exploded as more people have left poverty in the past 20 years than in the past 100.
- api 6y ago
  Globalization has been awful for the working class in the developed world.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Not disagreeing but curious what metrics you’re using to gauge progress
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Outsourcing manufacturing from a country with labor and environmental regulations to a place where they treat workers like slaves and treat the environment like a trash can would be an example.
      - bumby 6y ago
        Saying it’s immoral is one thing that I can agree with. But that’s different than objectively showing how it makes their lives worse. I’m looking for actual metrics like a decline in life expectancy, income, etc. Just to be clear I’m not on one side or the other because I’m relatively ignorant on the topic. Just looking for evidence
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Losing your job because it was outsourced is pretty objectively bad. You can go try to find another job in the same industry but all the competing companies are going to be looking at doing the same thing because they have to compete on margins and their competition just reduced their labor cost by a factor of 2 to 10. I don't know what evidence for this would look like except for all the goods that are manufactured overseas that used to be manufactured domestically. I'm not making a statistical argument. I'm making an argument based on life experience and inference. Although life expectancy in the US is declining. Wages are stagnant but that's an aggregate over the population. If a 30-year-old worker loses their job and an 18-year-old worker gets hired in a different industry for the same "real wage" then that looks like no change from the perspective of population statistics.
        bumby 6y ago
        Yes, but that’s talking to the original point I thought you were attempting to refute. I think there’s a lot of case to be made that globalization is a net negative for US workers, but the point being made was that it may also be a net positive for non-US workers. I (perhaps wrongly) assumed your comments about exporting pollution etc. was that it was a net negative in the non-US as well
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It's not the purpose of the elected representatives of the US to advance the interests of people outside the US to the detriment of US citizens.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    Think about this: countries when during elections riot on the streets happen, the incumbing foment a civil war and refuse to admit he's lost the elections, are usually bombed by USA.
    - solidsnack9000 6y ago
      They usually are not bombed by the USA. Most countries sort out their own affairs in these kinds of things (witness Brazil) -- in the absence of extended disorder and open warfare.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
        They didn't need to, they have their men there and hid many former Nazi officials > The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état (Portuguese: Golpe de estado no Brasil em 1964 or, more colloquially, golpe de 64) was a series of events in Brazil from March 31 to April 1 that led to the overthrow of President João Goulart by members of the Brazilian Armed Forces, supported by the United States government.The coup put an end to the government of Goulart (also known as 'Jango'), a member of the Brazilian Labour Party [...] although a moderate nationalist, Goulart was accused of being a communist by right-wing militants, he was unable to take office [...] The coup brought to Brazil a military regime politically aligned to the interests of the United States government. This regime lasted until 1985, when Neves was indirectly elected the first civilian president of Brazil since the 1960 elections. The usual same old story. It's the same thing they did to Lula. But you're right, bombed was an exaggeration on my part, they usually invade or send weapons and cavalry
        solidsnack9000 6y ago
        So I am not sure what you are suggesting here for the USA...that other countries should help us by inserting infiltrators or something like that?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Presumably "the US working class". Globalization has enriched the wealthiest Americans and the global poor at the expense of working Americans, and that's a pretty awful charity program IMO.
cecja 6y ago
You really can't blame a globalization for the raid of the upper class on the middle class.
silvestrov 6y ago
Also: He didn't start yet another new war.
- adamsea 6y ago
  He did however through incompetence and neglect see more Amerians die from Covid during his tenure than a whole lot of wars.
  - gjs278 6y ago
    the iraq body count is in the millions. unless you consider americans just worth more in general.
  - rtx 6y ago
    As a brown person we are thankful for not being bombed.
    - lghh 6y ago
      You must not live in Yemen.
    - dlp211 6y ago
      The Trump admin has performed more drone strikes than the Obama admin. The difference is transparency. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...
  - nostromo 6y ago
    American death rates are similar to many Western European countries. Lower than the UK and Spain, a bit higher than Italy and France.
    - cptnapalm 6y ago
      Given New York City's very high rate, how would a person find out what the US w/o NYC compares?
adamsea 6y ago
None of those ideas are new, and, he didnt really do anything constructive in any of those areas. But yeah those thoughts are worth thinking :)
URfejk 6y ago
US hegemony is already gone.
- bumby 6y ago
  Who has replaced the US in this regard? I think you can make a strong case US hegemony may be in decline, but it’s harder to claim it’s gone
  - sterlind 6y ago
    China's Belt and Road program seems to be establishing a competitor hegemony in the eastern sphere of influence, rather than directly replacing the US. They're building a lot of infrastructure in Africa, expanding their already massive supply chain and working effectively towards surviving a disconnection from the West. I agree that US hegemony isn't gone yet, but we've lost so much of our manufacturing and materials sourcing that we'll soon need them more than they need us.
    - socmedia99 6y ago
      Perhaps you’re seeing hegemony that is only there given repetition of certain words and really it’s just people.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Who has replaced the US in this regard? Why do you assume it was/will be replaced? It could go back to the laissez-faire system that was present when all the European powers were running around basically doing anything they wanted. (It should be noted that the US wasn't as isolationist as the propaganda would have you believe: how else did they get pre-revolution Cuba, PR, Guam, Hawaii, etc.?)
    - bumby 6y ago
      I think these systems align to a certain power dynamic. Because of national sovereignty, its already as close to a laissez faire approach as you can get, yet there’s a hierarchy across virtually any dimension you want to measure. So if the US loses, for example, its economic hegemony another country will take its place. Same with military or any other measure. I don’t think the US has been isolationist since before the Spanish American war.
mullingitover 6y ago
Globalization has lifted billions from poverty. While it didn't benefit the US middle class in a direct, more money in their pockets way, it did likely prevent horrific wars that ravaged the world in the last century. It's bad business to nuke your customers. So the US middle class did benefit from not being drafted into the global mega-conflicts we avoided. Also, why is US hegemony a good thing? What good is it for the 96% of the world that is not the US? Does it even benefit anyone outside the US ruling class?
- laverya 6y ago
  > Also, why is US hegemony a good thing? What good is it for the 96% of the world that is not the US? Does it even benefit anyone outside the US ruling class? As you alluded to in the previous paragraph, it's good for people because it means we're not participating in the kind of horrific wars that ravaged the world in the century before. And the US has been far less extractive than previous global hegemons. (So in that sense it's worse for US citizens, but better for the rest of the world) Now, everything is a tradeoff, and perhaps this particular tradeoff hasn't been worth it. But there are most certainly good things that US hegemony has given the world.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    Is it true? https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-trump-brought-home-the-endless-war https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-trump-brou... Trump brought war on US soil, Americans VS other Americans, is it better?
    - laverya 6y ago
      I have no idea how this is relevant to a comment on US hegemony. Is this the comment you meant to reply to? If you mean to say that BLM in the US is comparable to the great wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, I'd say that you're off by a factor of a million in deaths.
      - romanoderoma 6y ago
bawolff 6y ago
I'm not sure those are new ideas, people have wanted to get out of the middle east since even the bush era, and china has been increasing its sphere of influence and on the road to be second super power for a while now. Similarly whether or not globalization is good for the working class or just makes the rich get richer has been publicly debated the entire time i have been alive. I think the main difference is that trump decided to take tactical action on these positions without regards for the strategic long term consequences, which other presidents have been unwilling to do (except the globalisation point, i think most previous really liked globalisation and werent just worried about the consequences)
- aksss 6y ago
  A dimension we under-appreciate is how much fail we’ve been tolerating for decades. The quest to keep NK from going nuclear started decades ago and spanned administrations from both parties, and finally failed miserably and objectively before Trump got into office. This, despite all best efforts from the best minds. The status quo was hardly a defensible glide path. Similarly, we’ve been after real change in the Mideast for decades across multiple admins from both parties. We’ve never had movement. I’m not saying that the Abraham Accords fix everything, but getting four nations to finally recognize the right of Israel to exist and engage in trade and cultural exchange is certainly visible change. Energy independence also helps lessen our conflict of interest there. That’s visible change that was seemingly unobtainium for decades. Circumstance and technology have their role in this, but there are also specific policy and regulatory frameworks that will make or break this new path over coming years. China.. I think there’s consensus that Kissinger’s laissez faire approach to opening China has not produced the intended outcome. Basically we’ve taken a totalitarian and repressive state and made them a rich totalitarian and repressive state. So point being that the status quo - the unmovable track our foreign policy was on for decades regardless of president - was due for a shake up. It will be interesting to see what Biden does - revert to old paths, or take advantage of the new paths?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > Similarly, we’ve been after real change in the Mideast for decades across multiple admins from both parties. We’ve never had movement. Have to go back a little further than that, the romans also wanted change in the middle east and didn't have much luck. > Basically we’ve taken a totalitarian and repressive state and made them a rich totalitarian and repressive state. I'd say under trump we have taken a rich toltalitarian and reppressive state and turned them into a rich toltalitarian/reppressive state with new friends in high places. Just because something is a change does not make it a change for the better. Maybe the previous policy was trying to hold back the tide and failing. Opening the floodgates is a change, but i'm not sure its a good change, even if holding back the tide was a failure on slow motion.
romanoderoma 6y ago
The end of US egemony could be good for the middle class outside of the US, especially South America and the Middle East. Not saying it will, but that during the unrivaled US egemony after the end of the cold war things have been worse for the middle/poor segment of society, especially in the west. Could be a coincidence, could be bad luck, could be a correlation.
elindbe2 6y ago
True, it's important to remember that every president for the last couple decades except Trump has involved us in some new armed conflict, mostly with poor results for the country. I hope that Biden will continue on this front where Trump left off.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- idoh 6y ago
  I hope it is true but doesn’t seem likely. Biden did support war with Iraq, and seems cut from the same cloth as Obama / Clinton / etc.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Doesn't mean much to me. We, the public (including people like Biden, and allies of USA) were deceived by the Bush government and its lackeys (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) concerning WMDs in Iraq. That not only deceived the American public; the deception included Congress as well. My government (The Netherlands) got lied to as well about WMDs. We ended up with our right-wing government supporting the war in Iraq politically, but not military. I remember protesting against this war, on the streets in Amsterdam. Something I hardly ever did in my life, btw. For reference, see the movie Vice (2018) which is basically a third party account on Dick Cheney's biography. Scooter Libby, who got sentenced due to Plamegate due to leaking Plame's name while she was an active CIA asset on foreign ground (a retaliation move), as well. He got his sentence commuted by Bush and got fully pardoned by Trump. Why? I don't believe there's a valid justification. Nepotism 101. Btw, while Obama did a fair amount of drone strikes, was vigilant on leaks, and probably knew all about NSA's ops before Snowden leaked, he did inherit a mess from Bush. After Obama, Trump did an ample amount of drone strikes (tho we need to put both into context as drone strikes are a new technology), and while Trump did not start a war in the traditional sense he escalated enough foreign relations including NATO and other treaties like WTO, Middle East (ISIS being partly a mess USA made with Iraq invasion), China (trade conflict), Iran (killing of Suleimani). Trump was a nationalist, and an egocentric one at that, who did not follow conventional scientific consensus on e.g. climate change. I'm all for freedom and opinion, but denying an important truth which is going to affect all of humanity if we don't act Soon (tm), is dangerous. Especially for people like me who live under the sea level (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). I'm so utterly relieved that Trump is gone. Senate isn't decided yet AFAIK, but I am not anti Republican by definition, and I believe dialogue is the way forward. Dialogue based on rationalization, facts, and science though; ie. not lies, denial, deception.
hedora 6y ago
Many of your goals could be accomplished by transitioning to a carbon-negative (positive?) economy that captures more carbon than it emits. Energy independence helps us avoid relying on chinese solar panels and middle eastern oil. Building carbon capture infrastructure in the US means the jobs would be here. Delaying means eventually pumping unprecedented amounts of money into whatever other country gets there first (probably China).
crimethink352 6y ago
> Focus on China as an existential threat to US hegemony. Phrasing it that way is unfair. Trump held China accountable for its mercantilist trade practices.
throwaway6734 6y ago
>Globalization has not been good for the working and middle class. This seems overly simplistic. Globalization has led to a drop in the cost of many goods as well as multiple new markets for US industries. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the spoils of globalization have not been shared as fairly as they should of, but imo that's way more linked to other policies (like tax rates & spending)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cm2012 6y ago
Except number of troops in the middle east is the same. Just moved from Iraq and Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia.
lghh 6y ago
> Just freaking get out of the Middle East already. I think this is the biggest place where he said one thing, then immediately did another. We are involved in the Middle East as we ever were, and much much more so with more disastrous effects in places like Yemen. The US' involvement in Yemen should be enough to laugh Trump offstage any time he talks about "getting out of the middle east". Please please please don't let him off the hook for this by saying he had "good ideas" here when he was talking out of one side of his mouth while civilian families are being slaughtered.
- hgoury 6y ago
  You could also point out that he has abandoned the kurds in Syria (Rojava), where they are losing ground against the turkish army and their jihadist mercenaries. They are about to ethnically cleanse the region, with dramatic consequences for the autonomous zone that has developed a seemingly fair democracy. The military branch of the PYD party was crucial during the fight against ISIS. Leaving them to die in Erdogan's hands is tragic.
- aksss 6y ago
  “As we ever were” - I’m not sure what you mean by that. We’ve been involved in the Middle East substantially since oil exploration there started showing results. Energy independence from the ME is a reliable quality by which the US (and others) will care less about the region. But this also means leaving the regional developed powers to manage the area with greater and greater autonomy (e.g. Israel and SA). To that end, we are arguably less “involved” today. Our dependence on that oil and our direct action involvement there are directly related. By the numbers, we are less involved than in, say, 2005 if the US body count is the metric. If civilian deaths are the metric, Iraq’s numbers have fallen off a cliff since 2017 [0]. I would guess the same for Syria but don’t have data at hand. It’s tough to want it both ways - asking the US to intervene for peace but not spill any blood. If the ME tells us anything, it’s that peace does not come from doing nothing - it is not the region’s default state given the cultural animosities. Stability seems the best chance for civilian peace there. The US is increasingly delegating or abdicating that role to the most friendly options available. How would you prefer that the trajectory change? More direct “peacekeeping” involvement? Total abandonment while watching a regional death match play out? [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civili...
dlp211 6y ago
> Focus on China as an existential threat to US hegemony This was already being done. That was the whole point of the end of the Obama admins shift to Asia strategy. > Just freaking get out of the Middle East already. Troop levels are the same today as they were in 2020. And I also don't think this is a novel idea, everyone wants out, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't leave us in a worst situation than just staying, and that is ridiculously hard. Nature abhors a vacuum. > Globalization has not been good for the working and middle class. This is a mixed bag. Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America. We live safer, cleaner lives. What we don't feel is security, which is a consequence of 40 years of treating the government as an entity that is the problem, and not an entity that can be the solution.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Thanks for the link. I guess I was born in a time (early 80s) where populism was on an all time low. However, the Cold War did exist, and that caused FUD as well (though that term partly unfairly de-legitimizes the realistic fear). So populism, it has been on the rise ever since I became an adult. I wasn't around yet, but what I believe happened was Reagan. War on Drugs. Reaction to the counter-culture, by marginalizing these minorities. If you remember Adam Curtis' series The Power Of Nightmares, already a new threat was on the verge when the Cold War was over. And that threat was exploited on for greed and profit, at the expense of the common men and common women (the soldiers).
- redisman 6y ago
  > Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America Funny, my whole generation has basically given up on basics like owning a house completely. But we got cool tech gadgets so it all evens out?
garmaine 6y ago
Also space policy. Trump-Pence space policy has been tremendously successful.
hef19898 6y ago
Wasn't the previous admin already focused on China / the Pacific region already? I do have to agree on the last point, so. And I say that as a globalist, free trade proponent and a supply chain guy. So in a sense, globalization is my job. And while a lot of people, also in developing countries, have profited from globalization, we all have to find ways to adopt the way we do things to get of the less than good parts. I do think that a lot of people had these things on their agenda already. We didn't need Trump to come to these conclusions. Because he might have gotten the issues right, but didn't really understand them nor did he care about solutions. Also, he didn't get out of the Middle East, he just picked a side. Not sure what that means for the region.
- lumost 6y ago
  Not a fan of the current (soon to be previous) admin, but I have to acknowledge that a direct approach on China has been more effective than the last 3 decades of Asian pivots ( Bill Clinton tried focusing on China as well ). American politics has brief focus windows, direct action has more impact than vague "pivots" or "focuses" which last about as long as the next crisis.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Short term, sure. But as we saw, US admins and foreign policy changes fast enough, max after 8 years. Being they only super power carries the responsibility to keep things stable. That means consistency, direct action of one single admin can very well the opposite of that. Especially when the other party plays the long game. I would be inclined to agree, if Trump had any strategy behind that. His policies, or rather lack thereof, don't support that. I'd say he just stumbled around and got lucky once. And even that has to be seen.
wonnage 6y ago
The US hegemony exists because we have projected military force across the world, and our companies are the primary driver of globalization. Leaving the Middle East would end any dream of bringing those regions under the western umbrella (as has been successfully done in S. Korea and Japan). Ending globalization would end the thing that has made US corporations uniquely successful, and which makes US economic sanctions so strong. And focusing on China as the new red scare would (is already?) simply result in a new Cold War, to nobody's benefit. I personally don't think the US has any business being hegemon (feel free to check my post history), but if your primary interest is maintaining the position of the US from ~1992-2016, then your best bet is to maintain the foreign and economic policy of those times, which is basically what Biden is promising to do.
downandout 6y ago
It appears that we will go from "chaotic and ineffectual" to just ineffectual. Assuming that Republicans maintain control of the Senate, he can suggest all the leftist ideas he wants, but nothing will get done. What concerns me is that just as Trump's election encouraged the proliferation of racism, Biden's election will encourage the proliferation of cancel/woke culture, which will lead to even more division than we have under Trump.
matwood 6y ago
I agree that Trump is right that something more needed to be done with China. But like most of what he did, his execution was terrible. His need to take credit and inability to work with anyone wouldn’t let him get out of his own way. Hopefully Biden takes the idea and works with legislation and our allies to put more pressure on China. Globalization and isolation have two sides, neither of which is all pro or con.
maxerickson 6y ago
The much maligned TPP was aimed right at China. It was big business friendly, but it also encouraged the other large economies in the Pacific to align themselves with the US instead of China.
koolba 6y ago
> He was chaotic and ineffectual and mostly focused on dumb peeves. But I do think he got some good ideas through the conventional “wisdom”. His execution on everything was poor. Ineffectual? I’d argue he’s one of the most consequential Presidents of the past 100 years. He reshaped the federal bench, confirmed a 6-3 majority on the SCOTUS, overhauled the tax code, negotiated multiple Middle East peace deals, repealed and replaced NAFTA, and didn’t start a single foreign war. His impact on the US political system will be felt for generations. Compare that to 8 years of Obama that can’t point to any meaningful accomplishment.
wyldfire 6y ago
Globalization is demonized but it's a natural consequence of technology. It's easier than ever to work with production facilities around the world. We can't stop businesses from exploring more efficient production. But we can and should level the playing field. One contributor to the difference in wages for manufacturing employees is the lack of regulations and protections for workers in countries like China. Treaties that support trade are one way to level the playing field. TPP had a bunch of bad stuff in it too, so perhaps not a net win.
jtitor 6y ago
Actually, focusing on attacking china is a big mistake of this admin. It accelerates the decline of US hegemony as we know it. The best strategy for US is to maintain the current world order with China. Only the weaker countries "behind" US/China, e.g. India/Japan/Vietnam/Taiwan, would want the two countries to fight it out so they can benefit. And there are people in the US who believe a trade and technology war with china is easy to win, which are proven wrong.

01100011 6y ago

I'm looking forward to Trump's caustic personality leaving the equation so we can finally talk about these things in a more neutral way. A lot of people, myself included, cannot look past Trump's obvious flaws despite some of his ideas(at least the overall direction, maybe not the execution) being worth considering.

DSingularity 6y ago
You think this will happen? The political right have openly embraced demagoguery, authoritarianism, disinformation, and a scorched-earth, because-we-can style of politics. The media have embraced the outrage-factory model for improving as revenues. The electorate have committed to becoming single issue voters. And finally, who benefits the most from this quagmire? The corporate elite who fear the threat of government intervention in free markets.

dantheman 6y ago

Depends on where you draw the line on the working class; if anything the working class worldwide has exploded as more people have left poverty in the past 20 years than in the past 100.

api 6y ago
Globalization has been awful for the working class in the developed world.
- bumby 6y ago
  Not disagreeing but curious what metrics you’re using to gauge progress
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Outsourcing manufacturing from a country with labor and environmental regulations to a place where they treat workers like slaves and treat the environment like a trash can would be an example.
    - bumby 6y ago
      Saying it’s immoral is one thing that I can agree with. But that’s different than objectively showing how it makes their lives worse. I’m looking for actual metrics like a decline in life expectancy, income, etc. Just to be clear I’m not on one side or the other because I’m relatively ignorant on the topic. Just looking for evidence
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Losing your job because it was outsourced is pretty objectively bad. You can go try to find another job in the same industry but all the competing companies are going to be looking at doing the same thing because they have to compete on margins and their competition just reduced their labor cost by a factor of 2 to 10. I don't know what evidence for this would look like except for all the goods that are manufactured overseas that used to be manufactured domestically. I'm not making a statistical argument. I'm making an argument based on life experience and inference. Although life expectancy in the US is declining. Wages are stagnant but that's an aggregate over the population. If a 30-year-old worker loses their job and an 18-year-old worker gets hired in a different industry for the same "real wage" then that looks like no change from the perspective of population statistics.
        bumby 6y ago
        Yes, but that’s talking to the original point I thought you were attempting to refute. I think there’s a lot of case to be made that globalization is a net negative for US workers, but the point being made was that it may also be a net positive for non-US workers. I (perhaps wrongly) assumed your comments about exporting pollution etc. was that it was a net negative in the non-US as well
solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's not the purpose of the elected representatives of the US to advance the interests of people outside the US to the detriment of US citizens.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Think about this: countries when during elections riot on the streets happen, the incumbing foment a civil war and refuse to admit he's lost the elections, are usually bombed by USA.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    They usually are not bombed by the USA. Most countries sort out their own affairs in these kinds of things (witness Brazil) -- in the absence of extended disorder and open warfare.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      They didn't need to, they have their men there and hid many former Nazi officials > The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état (Portuguese: Golpe de estado no Brasil em 1964 or, more colloquially, golpe de 64) was a series of events in Brazil from March 31 to April 1 that led to the overthrow of President João Goulart by members of the Brazilian Armed Forces, supported by the United States government.The coup put an end to the government of Goulart (also known as 'Jango'), a member of the Brazilian Labour Party [...] although a moderate nationalist, Goulart was accused of being a communist by right-wing militants, he was unable to take office [...] The coup brought to Brazil a military regime politically aligned to the interests of the United States government. This regime lasted until 1985, when Neves was indirectly elected the first civilian president of Brazil since the 1960 elections. The usual same old story. It's the same thing they did to Lula. But you're right, bombed was an exaggeration on my part, they usually invade or send weapons and cavalry
      - solidsnack9000 6y ago
        So I am not sure what you are suggesting here for the USA...that other countries should help us by inserting infiltrators or something like that?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway894345 6y ago
Presumably "the US working class". Globalization has enriched the wealthiest Americans and the global poor at the expense of working Americans, and that's a pretty awful charity program IMO.

cecja 6y ago

You really can't blame a globalization for the raid of the upper class on the middle class.

silvestrov 6y ago

Also: He didn't start yet another new war.

adamsea 6y ago
He did however through incompetence and neglect see more Amerians die from Covid during his tenure than a whole lot of wars.
- gjs278 6y ago
  the iraq body count is in the millions. unless you consider americans just worth more in general.
- rtx 6y ago
  As a brown person we are thankful for not being bombed.
  - lghh 6y ago
    You must not live in Yemen.
  - dlp211 6y ago
    The Trump admin has performed more drone strikes than the Obama admin. The difference is transparency. https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-do...
- nostromo 6y ago
  American death rates are similar to many Western European countries. Lower than the UK and Spain, a bit higher than Italy and France.
  - cptnapalm 6y ago
    Given New York City's very high rate, how would a person find out what the US w/o NYC compares?

adamsea 6y ago

None of those ideas are new, and, he didnt really do anything constructive in any of those areas. But yeah those thoughts are worth thinking :)

URfejk 6y ago

US hegemony is already gone.

bumby 6y ago
Who has replaced the US in this regard? I think you can make a strong case US hegemony may be in decline, but it’s harder to claim it’s gone
- sterlind 6y ago
  China's Belt and Road program seems to be establishing a competitor hegemony in the eastern sphere of influence, rather than directly replacing the US. They're building a lot of infrastructure in Africa, expanding their already massive supply chain and working effectively towards surviving a disconnection from the West. I agree that US hegemony isn't gone yet, but we've lost so much of our manufacturing and materials sourcing that we'll soon need them more than they need us.
  - socmedia99 6y ago
    Perhaps you’re seeing hegemony that is only there given repetition of certain words and really it’s just people.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > Who has replaced the US in this regard? Why do you assume it was/will be replaced? It could go back to the laissez-faire system that was present when all the European powers were running around basically doing anything they wanted. (It should be noted that the US wasn't as isolationist as the propaganda would have you believe: how else did they get pre-revolution Cuba, PR, Guam, Hawaii, etc.?)
  - bumby 6y ago
    I think these systems align to a certain power dynamic. Because of national sovereignty, its already as close to a laissez faire approach as you can get, yet there’s a hierarchy across virtually any dimension you want to measure. So if the US loses, for example, its economic hegemony another country will take its place. Same with military or any other measure. I don’t think the US has been isolationist since before the Spanish American war.

mullingitover 6y ago

Globalization has lifted billions from poverty. While it didn't benefit the US middle class in a direct, more money in their pockets way, it did likely prevent horrific wars that ravaged the world in the last century. It's bad business to nuke your customers. So the US middle class did benefit from not being drafted into the global mega-conflicts we avoided. Also, why is US hegemony a good thing? What good is it for the 96% of the world that is not the US? Does it even benefit anyone outside the US ruling class?

laverya 6y ago
> Also, why is US hegemony a good thing? What good is it for the 96% of the world that is not the US? Does it even benefit anyone outside the US ruling class? As you alluded to in the previous paragraph, it's good for people because it means we're not participating in the kind of horrific wars that ravaged the world in the century before. And the US has been far less extractive than previous global hegemons. (So in that sense it's worse for US citizens, but better for the rest of the world) Now, everything is a tradeoff, and perhaps this particular tradeoff hasn't been worth it. But there are most certainly good things that US hegemony has given the world.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  Is it true? https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-trump-brought-home-the-endless-war https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-trump-brou... Trump brought war on US soil, Americans VS other Americans, is it better?
  - laverya 6y ago
    I have no idea how this is relevant to a comment on US hegemony. Is this the comment you meant to reply to? If you mean to say that BLM in the US is comparable to the great wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, I'd say that you're off by a factor of a million in deaths.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago

bawolff 6y ago

I'm not sure those are new ideas, people have wanted to get out of the middle east since even the bush era, and china has been increasing its sphere of influence and on the road to be second super power for a while now. Similarly whether or not globalization is good for the working class or just makes the rich get richer has been publicly debated the entire time i have been alive. I think the main difference is that trump decided to take tactical action on these positions without regards for the strategic long term consequences, which other presidents have been unwilling to do (except the globalisation point, i think most previous really liked globalisation and werent just worried about the consequences)

aksss 6y ago
A dimension we under-appreciate is how much fail we’ve been tolerating for decades. The quest to keep NK from going nuclear started decades ago and spanned administrations from both parties, and finally failed miserably and objectively before Trump got into office. This, despite all best efforts from the best minds. The status quo was hardly a defensible glide path. Similarly, we’ve been after real change in the Mideast for decades across multiple admins from both parties. We’ve never had movement. I’m not saying that the Abraham Accords fix everything, but getting four nations to finally recognize the right of Israel to exist and engage in trade and cultural exchange is certainly visible change. Energy independence also helps lessen our conflict of interest there. That’s visible change that was seemingly unobtainium for decades. Circumstance and technology have their role in this, but there are also specific policy and regulatory frameworks that will make or break this new path over coming years. China.. I think there’s consensus that Kissinger’s laissez faire approach to opening China has not produced the intended outcome. Basically we’ve taken a totalitarian and repressive state and made them a rich totalitarian and repressive state. So point being that the status quo - the unmovable track our foreign policy was on for decades regardless of president - was due for a shake up. It will be interesting to see what Biden does - revert to old paths, or take advantage of the new paths?
- bawolff 6y ago
  > Similarly, we’ve been after real change in the Mideast for decades across multiple admins from both parties. We’ve never had movement. Have to go back a little further than that, the romans also wanted change in the middle east and didn't have much luck. > Basically we’ve taken a totalitarian and repressive state and made them a rich totalitarian and repressive state. I'd say under trump we have taken a rich toltalitarian and reppressive state and turned them into a rich toltalitarian/reppressive state with new friends in high places. Just because something is a change does not make it a change for the better. Maybe the previous policy was trying to hold back the tide and failing. Opening the floodgates is a change, but i'm not sure its a good change, even if holding back the tide was a failure on slow motion.

romanoderoma 6y ago

The end of US egemony could be good for the middle class outside of the US, especially South America and the Middle East. Not saying it will, but that during the unrivaled US egemony after the end of the cold war things have been worse for the middle/poor segment of society, especially in the west. Could be a coincidence, could be bad luck, could be a correlation.

elindbe2 6y ago

True, it's important to remember that every president for the last couple decades except Trump has involved us in some new armed conflict, mostly with poor results for the country. I hope that Biden will continue on this front where Trump left off.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
idoh 6y ago
I hope it is true but doesn’t seem likely. Biden did support war with Iraq, and seems cut from the same cloth as Obama / Clinton / etc.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Doesn't mean much to me. We, the public (including people like Biden, and allies of USA) were deceived by the Bush government and its lackeys (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) concerning WMDs in Iraq. That not only deceived the American public; the deception included Congress as well. My government (The Netherlands) got lied to as well about WMDs. We ended up with our right-wing government supporting the war in Iraq politically, but not military. I remember protesting against this war, on the streets in Amsterdam. Something I hardly ever did in my life, btw. For reference, see the movie Vice (2018) which is basically a third party account on Dick Cheney's biography. Scooter Libby, who got sentenced due to Plamegate due to leaking Plame's name while she was an active CIA asset on foreign ground (a retaliation move), as well. He got his sentence commuted by Bush and got fully pardoned by Trump. Why? I don't believe there's a valid justification. Nepotism 101. Btw, while Obama did a fair amount of drone strikes, was vigilant on leaks, and probably knew all about NSA's ops before Snowden leaked, he did inherit a mess from Bush. After Obama, Trump did an ample amount of drone strikes (tho we need to put both into context as drone strikes are a new technology), and while Trump did not start a war in the traditional sense he escalated enough foreign relations including NATO and other treaties like WTO, Middle East (ISIS being partly a mess USA made with Iraq invasion), China (trade conflict), Iran (killing of Suleimani). Trump was a nationalist, and an egocentric one at that, who did not follow conventional scientific consensus on e.g. climate change. I'm all for freedom and opinion, but denying an important truth which is going to affect all of humanity if we don't act Soon (tm), is dangerous. Especially for people like me who live under the sea level (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). I'm so utterly relieved that Trump is gone. Senate isn't decided yet AFAIK, but I am not anti Republican by definition, and I believe dialogue is the way forward. Dialogue based on rationalization, facts, and science though; ie. not lies, denial, deception.

hedora 6y ago

Many of your goals could be accomplished by transitioning to a carbon-negative (positive?) economy that captures more carbon than it emits. Energy independence helps us avoid relying on chinese solar panels and middle eastern oil. Building carbon capture infrastructure in the US means the jobs would be here. Delaying means eventually pumping unprecedented amounts of money into whatever other country gets there first (probably China).

crimethink352 6y ago

> Focus on China as an existential threat to US hegemony. Phrasing it that way is unfair. Trump held China accountable for its mercantilist trade practices.

throwaway6734 6y ago

>Globalization has not been good for the working and middle class. This seems overly simplistic. Globalization has led to a drop in the cost of many goods as well as multiple new markets for US industries. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that the spoils of globalization have not been shared as fairly as they should of, but imo that's way more linked to other policies (like tax rates & spending)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cm2012 6y ago

Except number of troops in the middle east is the same. Just moved from Iraq and Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia.

lghh 6y ago

> Just freaking get out of the Middle East already. I think this is the biggest place where he said one thing, then immediately did another. We are involved in the Middle East as we ever were, and much much more so with more disastrous effects in places like Yemen. The US' involvement in Yemen should be enough to laugh Trump offstage any time he talks about "getting out of the middle east". Please please please don't let him off the hook for this by saying he had "good ideas" here when he was talking out of one side of his mouth while civilian families are being slaughtered.

hgoury 6y ago
You could also point out that he has abandoned the kurds in Syria (Rojava), where they are losing ground against the turkish army and their jihadist mercenaries. They are about to ethnically cleanse the region, with dramatic consequences for the autonomous zone that has developed a seemingly fair democracy. The military branch of the PYD party was crucial during the fight against ISIS. Leaving them to die in Erdogan's hands is tragic.
aksss 6y ago
“As we ever were” - I’m not sure what you mean by that. We’ve been involved in the Middle East substantially since oil exploration there started showing results. Energy independence from the ME is a reliable quality by which the US (and others) will care less about the region. But this also means leaving the regional developed powers to manage the area with greater and greater autonomy (e.g. Israel and SA). To that end, we are arguably less “involved” today. Our dependence on that oil and our direct action involvement there are directly related. By the numbers, we are less involved than in, say, 2005 if the US body count is the metric. If civilian deaths are the metric, Iraq’s numbers have fallen off a cliff since 2017 [0]. I would guess the same for Syria but don’t have data at hand. It’s tough to want it both ways - asking the US to intervene for peace but not spill any blood. If the ME tells us anything, it’s that peace does not come from doing nothing - it is not the region’s default state given the cultural animosities. Stability seems the best chance for civilian peace there. The US is increasingly delegating or abdicating that role to the most friendly options available. How would you prefer that the trajectory change? More direct “peacekeeping” involvement? Total abandonment while watching a regional death match play out? [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civili...

dlp211 6y ago

> Focus on China as an existential threat to US hegemony This was already being done. That was the whole point of the end of the Obama admins shift to Asia strategy. > Just freaking get out of the Middle East already. Troop levels are the same today as they were in 2020. And I also don't think this is a novel idea, everyone wants out, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't leave us in a worst situation than just staying, and that is ridiculously hard. Nature abhors a vacuum. > Globalization has not been good for the working and middle class. This is a mixed bag. Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America. We live safer, cleaner lives. What we don't feel is security, which is a consequence of 40 years of treating the government as an entity that is the problem, and not an entity that can be the solution.

jessaustin 6y ago
Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. I guess I was born in a time (early 80s) where populism was on an all time low. However, the Cold War did exist, and that caused FUD as well (though that term partly unfairly de-legitimizes the realistic fear). So populism, it has been on the rise ever since I became an adult. I wasn't around yet, but what I believe happened was Reagan. War on Drugs. Reaction to the counter-culture, by marginalizing these minorities. If you remember Adam Curtis' series The Power Of Nightmares, already a new threat was on the verge when the Cold War was over. And that threat was exploited on for greed and profit, at the expense of the common men and common women (the soldiers).
redisman 6y ago
> Look around and tell me that the general middle class American is worst off than they were in any other decade of modern America Funny, my whole generation has basically given up on basics like owning a house completely. But we got cool tech gadgets so it all evens out?

garmaine 6y ago

Also space policy. Trump-Pence space policy has been tremendously successful.

hef19898 6y ago

Wasn't the previous admin already focused on China / the Pacific region already? I do have to agree on the last point, so. And I say that as a globalist, free trade proponent and a supply chain guy. So in a sense, globalization is my job. And while a lot of people, also in developing countries, have profited from globalization, we all have to find ways to adopt the way we do things to get of the less than good parts. I do think that a lot of people had these things on their agenda already. We didn't need Trump to come to these conclusions. Because he might have gotten the issues right, but didn't really understand them nor did he care about solutions. Also, he didn't get out of the Middle East, he just picked a side. Not sure what that means for the region.

lumost 6y ago
Not a fan of the current (soon to be previous) admin, but I have to acknowledge that a direct approach on China has been more effective than the last 3 decades of Asian pivots ( Bill Clinton tried focusing on China as well ). American politics has brief focus windows, direct action has more impact than vague "pivots" or "focuses" which last about as long as the next crisis.
- hef19898 6y ago
  Short term, sure. But as we saw, US admins and foreign policy changes fast enough, max after 8 years. Being they only super power carries the responsibility to keep things stable. That means consistency, direct action of one single admin can very well the opposite of that. Especially when the other party plays the long game. I would be inclined to agree, if Trump had any strategy behind that. His policies, or rather lack thereof, don't support that. I'd say he just stumbled around and got lucky once. And even that has to be seen.

wonnage 6y ago

The US hegemony exists because we have projected military force across the world, and our companies are the primary driver of globalization. Leaving the Middle East would end any dream of bringing those regions under the western umbrella (as has been successfully done in S. Korea and Japan). Ending globalization would end the thing that has made US corporations uniquely successful, and which makes US economic sanctions so strong. And focusing on China as the new red scare would (is already?) simply result in a new Cold War, to nobody's benefit. I personally don't think the US has any business being hegemon (feel free to check my post history), but if your primary interest is maintaining the position of the US from ~1992-2016, then your best bet is to maintain the foreign and economic policy of those times, which is basically what Biden is promising to do.

downandout 6y ago

It appears that we will go from "chaotic and ineffectual" to just ineffectual. Assuming that Republicans maintain control of the Senate, he can suggest all the leftist ideas he wants, but nothing will get done. What concerns me is that just as Trump's election encouraged the proliferation of racism, Biden's election will encourage the proliferation of cancel/woke culture, which will lead to even more division than we have under Trump.

matwood 6y ago

I agree that Trump is right that something more needed to be done with China. But like most of what he did, his execution was terrible. His need to take credit and inability to work with anyone wouldn’t let him get out of his own way. Hopefully Biden takes the idea and works with legislation and our allies to put more pressure on China. Globalization and isolation have two sides, neither of which is all pro or con.

maxerickson 6y ago

The much maligned TPP was aimed right at China. It was big business friendly, but it also encouraged the other large economies in the Pacific to align themselves with the US instead of China.

koolba 6y ago

> He was chaotic and ineffectual and mostly focused on dumb peeves. But I do think he got some good ideas through the conventional “wisdom”. His execution on everything was poor. Ineffectual? I’d argue he’s one of the most consequential Presidents of the past 100 years. He reshaped the federal bench, confirmed a 6-3 majority on the SCOTUS, overhauled the tax code, negotiated multiple Middle East peace deals, repealed and replaced NAFTA, and didn’t start a single foreign war. His impact on the US political system will be felt for generations. Compare that to 8 years of Obama that can’t point to any meaningful accomplishment.

wyldfire 6y ago

Globalization is demonized but it's a natural consequence of technology. It's easier than ever to work with production facilities around the world. We can't stop businesses from exploring more efficient production. But we can and should level the playing field. One contributor to the difference in wages for manufacturing employees is the lack of regulations and protections for workers in countries like China. Treaties that support trade are one way to level the playing field. TPP had a bunch of bad stuff in it too, so perhaps not a net win.

jtitor 6y ago

Actually, focusing on attacking china is a big mistake of this admin. It accelerates the decline of US hegemony as we know it. The best strategy for US is to maintain the current world order with China. Only the weaker countries "behind" US/China, e.g. India/Japan/Vietnam/Taiwan, would want the two countries to fight it out so they can benefit. And there are people in the US who believe a trade and technology war with china is easy to win, which are proven wrong.