View original postHuh. I see America First starting to look a lot like America Alone if Trump continues with his agenda and tone. The economic and security turmoil his policy changes have created along with his inflammatory rhetoric and insults directed towards our allies are engendering a lot of ill will and hard feelings - hatred, even. What’s the half-life of these negative feelings for America? A year? Two years? Longer? Canada has erected retaliatory tariffs, but more worryingly, the people of Canada are starting to boycott American goods, services, and travel. I expect other countries will take note and do likewise when Trump turns his eye upon them. He’s midwifing a sort of anti-American coalition, comprised of long-standing allies! This isn’t to say I’m opposed to having our allies get off their asses to help shoulder the burden of security costs, and in terms of both blood and treasure. Far from it. The desired changes don’t require assholery to be achievable, though.
View original postEh, no offense, but this is a tired talking point. It’s always this polarized dichotomy. You’re either a major player in international politics, or you’re an isolationist.
My issue is chiefly with the process, not the position. And my concern has to do with the long-term health and strength of the American economy. I see no sense in belaboring my points, however.
View original postLet’s just put aside for the moment that the entirety of US international involvement since the end of WWII has been one disaster after another, since this is an opinion that may not be shared, and is not the point here anyway. The US has been the tip of the spear for the EU, NATO, etc for decades, and is a primary reason for the country going absolutely bankrupt. We have been taken advantage of by all of our allies, not only as the policemen of the world, but as the primary investor, bankrolling international interests at the expense of national interests. We are hollowed out, divided, and broken.
Were you expecting it to be a picnic or a soirée? I don’t think it realistically could’ve gone much better for the first two decades after the war. The real screwup didn’t come until a bit after the fall of the USSR, imo. For clarity, US debt breaks down to $36T for the government, $11T corporate, and $18T for households. Household wealth alone, however, clocks in at about $160T, which leaves the US pretty far from being bankrupt. As to allies taking advantage of us, yes, I agree. But I’ll add that sometimes it was less an active choice and more a product naïveté and being self-deluded, thinking that peace would be a natural state of affairs if only everyone else thought and behaved like Europeans. I’ve been back to the homeland in Norway to visit relatives and they found it totally incomprehensible their peaceful lives were made possible in part by an imposition put in place and maintained largely by American power.
Wage arbitrage by MNCs covers the bankrolling of the foreign investments. And wage arbitrage is also why the business wing of the Republican Party is happy with illegal immigration. It’s simply a tool to hold down wages for the working class.
View original postWe are on a precipice, and are here because we have overextended ourselves in trying to be an empire, which we never should have done in the first place. It is the reason the Founding Fathers warned against foreign alliances. And the wisdom of those men is clearly evident in the state of our country today, having not followed that advise.
I see at as more of a quasi empire, and mostly a commercial one at that. Or at least until W’s two terms.
View original postNow, is Trump addressing this problem in the best way possible? Maybe not. Probably not. But is he the only one who’s held the office of President since before WWII that
is addressing this problem? Sadly, yes.
I don’t know. Is he ushering in a G-Zero world? Concert of Hegemons? Making Crackerdom Crackerific Again? We’ll have to wait and see.
View original postCare to elaborate on what you see as the deep state? Is it monolithic? Countervailing forces which might sometimes act in concert? Something else?
View original postThe deep state is nothing more than the unelected bureaucracy that surrounds government, and all governments have them. And it is deep in that it contains positions that far outstrip the term limits of elected officials.
The inevitable risk of a deep state is in its unelected structure, persistence intergovernmentally, and propensity to function unchecked. Between that and the necessary power it wields, it is ripe for infiltration of bad actors.
As to who those bad actors are depends on the conspiracy theorist you ask, and can range from corrupted business interests to ancient primeval forces. I would propose it as a conglomeration of various mafia groups enacting out their interests: allowing avenues for black markets such as drug and human trafficking, as well as enacting political agendas. Whether they work in concert or have their own secret fights, I don’t know. But I
do know that there is more than enough preponderance of evidence to say that something like this is going on, and probably in every government around the world.
I basically see it as countervailing forces which sometimes act in concert. And yeah, mostly permanent government types. However, I see the actors as the Neocons in the State Department, the military industrial complex, Big Oil, and Big Capital. I’m not saying there aren’t any others, just that those are the real problems.