5 ms·

And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’

And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off. Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.

refulgentis 2y ago
FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.
beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
[flagged]
- consumer451 2y ago
  The biggest beneficiary of Pax Americana is the United States, the second biggest is the entire world.
  - klibertp 2y ago
    Yeah, if only it didn't run on a "first past the post" system...
- knowaveragejoe 2y ago
  That is exactly what the US' adversaries would like you to believe is the case. By all means, carry water for the despots of the world as you turn inwards.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- phillipcarter 2y ago
  This is a very uncharitable view of how foreign policy works. It is absolutely in our best interest to not only maintain strong diplomatic ties with peoples and countries who share our values, but also cooperate in defense efforts and ensuring safety and security from military actions that would undo things we benefit from in the long term.
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Sadly America's politicians stopped explaining this and took the American public's support for granted expected us to see things the way the Greatest Generation did. Our allies took our support for granted and spent their money elsewhere, then started making fun of us for subsidizing their affordable healthcare. Our political class getting lazy and stopping doing the hard half of their jobs (effectively communicating and building national consensus) and instead adopting Jon Stewart levels of discourse and you get where we are today.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- justinclift 2y ago
  > playing world police Don't you mean schoolyard bullies? Because that's how much of the world, including your allies, view the US. Then again, seeing the state of the US police force, maybe that's why US people think bullying and policing is the same thing?
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
dangoor 2y ago
I don't think our allies felt quite so flung about until Trump came along. Sure, administrations might engage a little differently from one another, but fundamentally they could count on the US for a very long time. Presidents did not, before Trump, throw NATO under the bus, for example.
- spurgu 2y ago
  Reminding NATO countries to adhere to the 2% of GDP spending stipulated in the terms of the alliance is "throwing NATO under the bus"? Or did he do something else I'm unaware of?
  - electrondood 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Did you forget the first impeachment for withholding critical aid from a buffer country between NATO and USSR-hopeful in exchange for them investigating his political rival?
    - briandear 2y ago
      Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. If Poland were attacked, then there’d be something to discuss. As an American taxpayer, Ukraine is none of my business. Was Ukraine sending troops to help find Bin Laden when the U.S. was attacked? What strategic value does Ukraine have for the U.S.? Very little. It wasn’t like they were letting us put airbases or missile defense systems in their country. If Russia attacked Finland, Ukraine wouldn’t have done anything.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Its strategic value is exactly as described: a buffer state. It gives us months, if not years, of warning and can potentially totally rebuff an aggressive Russian state. To be confused about this at this point reveals either profound ignorance or extreme motivated reasoning.
dimitrios1 2y ago
I am not buying this argument. America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president. Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958. edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Arguably, the biggest wrinkle to this was Trump You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months. Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies. I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    I never understand this mentality. They continue to support expanding the power of the executive until it consumes all functions of government, while simultaneously declaring that Trump (and every Republican candidate in every presidential election) is basically Hitler. As if it is inconceivable that the technocrats they relate to will never lose control of government (and legislative agencies.) This, when a wrestling valet Berlusconi-level carnival barker was just elected president eight years ago against the (appointed through a goofy primary) übertechnocrat H. Clinton. That was their best and brightest, and the public was disgusted. My theory is that liberals were made mentally dull by the Warren court, that it created this unacknowledged model of government within their minds where all actual controversies are low level, and will eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, who will simply dictate the consensus liberal opinion to be the law. It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family. To fill in the gaps, the country is otherwise ruled through executive orders, and all resulting injustices from this system are to be straightened out by the Supreme Court. That world is very much gone, and nobody has adjusted because all of their theories on liberal governance come from a period during which this was close enough to true (although gradually less and less after Warren.) It is not now true. We (and liberals) can stop worshiping the members of the Supreme Court now, and simply treat them as smart, connected people writing opinions that we may or may not agree with, instead of some holy chamber of wizened elders. It's profoundly anti-democratic. It's an exact counterpart to the theocrats on the conservative side, but not grounded in anything but current upper middle-class trends and a belief in Whig history to replace the belief in gods. If we can't fix Congress, and get them to actually govern, there's no government worth saving. I'm not going to fight for the right of the president to unilaterally declare war, rule by executive order and Supreme Court dictates, or the actual functioning of the country to be delegated to unaccountable regulatory agencies. Doesn't spark joy. edit: I think the existence of the Senate probably adds to the level of liberal cynicism about democracy. It should really be abolished or directly elected in a way unconnected with the states. We already have a geographically based body in the House. The Senate is clearly a distortion of democracy, like a sensory homunculus for representative government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representa...)
jf22 2y ago
Foreign policy is mostly up to the executive branch and is far removed from the decision-making process regarding whether or not the EPA can regulate a new type of deadly plastic.

refulgentis 2y ago

FWIW nothing changed re: presidential power over foreign relations. The judiciary held that the legislature can't empower an agency.

beaeglebeachedd 2y ago

[flagged]

consumer451 2y ago
The biggest beneficiary of Pax Americana is the United States, the second biggest is the entire world.
- klibertp 2y ago
  Yeah, if only it didn't run on a "first past the post" system...
knowaveragejoe 2y ago
That is exactly what the US' adversaries would like you to believe is the case. By all means, carry water for the despots of the world as you turn inwards.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
phillipcarter 2y ago
This is a very uncharitable view of how foreign policy works. It is absolutely in our best interest to not only maintain strong diplomatic ties with peoples and countries who share our values, but also cooperate in defense efforts and ensuring safety and security from military actions that would undo things we benefit from in the long term.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  [flagged]
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Sadly America's politicians stopped explaining this and took the American public's support for granted expected us to see things the way the Greatest Generation did. Our allies took our support for granted and spent their money elsewhere, then started making fun of us for subsidizing their affordable healthcare. Our political class getting lazy and stopping doing the hard half of their jobs (effectively communicating and building national consensus) and instead adopting Jon Stewart levels of discourse and you get where we are today.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
justinclift 2y ago
> playing world police Don't you mean schoolyard bullies? Because that's how much of the world, including your allies, view the US. Then again, seeing the state of the US police force, maybe that's why US people think bullying and policing is the same thing?

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

dangoor 2y ago

I don't think our allies felt quite so flung about until Trump came along. Sure, administrations might engage a little differently from one another, but fundamentally they could count on the US for a very long time. Presidents did not, before Trump, throw NATO under the bus, for example.

spurgu 2y ago
Reminding NATO countries to adhere to the 2% of GDP spending stipulated in the terms of the alliance is "throwing NATO under the bus"? Or did he do something else I'm unaware of?
- electrondood 2y ago
  [flagged]
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Did you forget the first impeachment for withholding critical aid from a buffer country between NATO and USSR-hopeful in exchange for them investigating his political rival?
  - briandear 2y ago
    Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. If Poland were attacked, then there’d be something to discuss. As an American taxpayer, Ukraine is none of my business. Was Ukraine sending troops to help find Bin Laden when the U.S. was attacked? What strategic value does Ukraine have for the U.S.? Very little. It wasn’t like they were letting us put airbases or missile defense systems in their country. If Russia attacked Finland, Ukraine wouldn’t have done anything.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Its strategic value is exactly as described: a buffer state. It gives us months, if not years, of warning and can potentially totally rebuff an aggressive Russian state. To be confused about this at this point reveals either profound ignorance or extreme motivated reasoning.

dimitrios1 2y ago

I am not buying this argument. America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president. Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958. edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.

lolinder 2y ago
> Arguably, the biggest wrinkle to this was Trump You say this as though he isn't favored to win the next election and take over the presidency and all its policies in about six months. Edit in response to the edit: I latched onto this because it's entirely relevant to the rest of your point. Trump is the Republican party today, and his foreign policy dictates the acceptable stances for the majority of Republicans in Congress. His foreign policy is absolutely terrifying to our allies. I didn't latch on to Trump because he's a big name, I latched on to Trump because you deliberately glossed over him as though he weren't an enormous glaring example of how quickly our foreign policy can (and is likely to!) pivot.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  I never understand this mentality. They continue to support expanding the power of the executive until it consumes all functions of government, while simultaneously declaring that Trump (and every Republican candidate in every presidential election) is basically Hitler. As if it is inconceivable that the technocrats they relate to will never lose control of government (and legislative agencies.) This, when a wrestling valet Berlusconi-level carnival barker was just elected president eight years ago against the (appointed through a goofy primary) übertechnocrat H. Clinton. That was their best and brightest, and the public was disgusted. My theory is that liberals were made mentally dull by the Warren court, that it created this unacknowledged model of government within their minds where all actual controversies are low level, and will eventually work their way up to the Supreme Court, who will simply dictate the consensus liberal opinion to be the law. It's a world where Congress has no other function but to create regulatory agencies to which they appoint their campaign staff, thinktank creatures, friendly professors, lobbyists, and each other's friends and family. To fill in the gaps, the country is otherwise ruled through executive orders, and all resulting injustices from this system are to be straightened out by the Supreme Court. That world is very much gone, and nobody has adjusted because all of their theories on liberal governance come from a period during which this was close enough to true (although gradually less and less after Warren.) It is not now true. We (and liberals) can stop worshiping the members of the Supreme Court now, and simply treat them as smart, connected people writing opinions that we may or may not agree with, instead of some holy chamber of wizened elders. It's profoundly anti-democratic. It's an exact counterpart to the theocrats on the conservative side, but not grounded in anything but current upper middle-class trends and a belief in Whig history to replace the belief in gods. If we can't fix Congress, and get them to actually govern, there's no government worth saving. I'm not going to fight for the right of the president to unilaterally declare war, rule by executive order and Supreme Court dictates, or the actual functioning of the country to be delegated to unaccountable regulatory agencies. Doesn't spark joy. edit: I think the existence of the Senate probably adds to the level of liberal cynicism about democracy. It should really be abolished or directly elected in a way unconnected with the states. We already have a geographically based body in the House. The Senate is clearly a distortion of democracy, like a sensory homunculus for representative government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus#Representa...)

jf22 2y ago

Foreign policy is mostly up to the executive branch and is far removed from the decision-making process regarding whether or not the EPA can regulate a new type of deadly plastic.