4 ms·
The government is not a reasoning individual. There are many explanations why that goal might be pursued (whether rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintent
by treetalker 2y ago
The government is not a reasoning individual.
There are many explanations why that goal might be pursued (whether rightly or wrongly, intentionally or unintentionally).
One good explanation, though, is usually that one or more groups of one or more actors who have power in the system find certain actions and/or decisions to have the systemic effect of benefiting them, regardless of whether the governed (or the system itself — institutionalism) benefit.
I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility.
- hottakesbun 2y ago> I won't go so far as to claim that we are in a Manchurian Candidate scenario, but I also cannot exclude that possibility. You probably know this already, but you don't need to. The relevant question is not "Is the president working on behalf of America's adversaries?"; rather it is "If he was, what would he be doing differently?"
- jfengel 2y agoWhile I sympathize with the idea, an actual traitor could be doing even more harm. An actual traitor, for example, would have just flat-out canceled everything we're sending to Ukraine, and demanded everything we've given back. As bad as this is (and it's very, very bad), it could be even worse.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- verzali 2y agoUm, that sounds pretty much like what trump actually did.
- treetalker 2y agoUnless not wreaking more immediate harm (or taking certain actions, like the one described) enables the wreaking of more harm over time, or taking further actions that result in a superior future strategic advantage or accomplishment that outweighs the former. (One possibility among others, no doubt.)