I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why is an "America First" position something to be excoriated?

I've seen a number of economists rip it as bad policy to the extent it involves tariffs, trade wars, etc. That I fully understand.

But I've also seen a good bit of non-economist criticism of an America First policy, on the basis that it's somehow wrong (unethical, immoral... it's never fully fleshed out) to put US interests first. But... isn't that exactly what we do all the time? Isn't that kind of an essential behavior of a state -- that it act first and foremost in the interests of its citizens initially, all others secondarily? Hasn't our national policy, and the national policies of every other state, been to act in its own interests?

If this seems to borrow some logic from Louis CK's "Of course, but maybe..." routine, it's intentional.

When Trump says "America First," do you think he's proposing to do exactly what we do all the time? No. So when he says that, what do you think he means?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When Trump says "America First," do you think he's proposing to do exactly what we do all the time? No. So when he says that, what do you think he means?

Isolationism. He's going to more formally recognize the region of influence which is Putin's, as Obama did tacitly.

As to Europe, he's going to leave them to unwind or reconnect as they will.

As to China, I suspect he thinks they're fucked far worse in a trade war than us. If I'm reading him, and it's hard, I think he thinks he can disconnect and, remaining the least on fire of block full of burning homes, retain an advantage while setting back China's long range plan by 50 years.

If the rest of everything goes to shit and we simply stay afloat, we win, for the time being. There is no move more Trumpian than taking the ball the rest of the world cannot play without and leaving the game.

Le Pen and Grillo are the next interesting pieces. I don't see her winning, but it's for the same reasons I doubted Brexit and was sure Trump was a joke.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why is an "America First" position something to be excoriated?

Because it's an expression used by isolationist pro Nazi anti-Semites who opposed American support of the British (like Lend Lease and the destroyers for islands deal) in pre-Pearl Harbor WWII. Since then, everyone* has mainly agreed that is mostly correct that U.S. isolationism** is Not Good.

By the way, aren't you always arguing that it's impossible to stop globalization? How did the unfairness of criticizing Trump for an "America First" position even make your radar?

* With some exceptions on the left and right - see e.g. McGovern's "Come Home, America."

** With the caveat, of course, that "isolationism" is in the eye of the beholder. But Trump deliberately uses the phrase "America First," so that's the version he's talking about. And when he belittles NATO, he makes it clear.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Isolationism. He's going to more formally recognize the region of influence which is Putin's, as Obama did tacitly.

As to Europe, he's going to leave them to unwind or reconnect as they will.

As to China, I suspect he thinks they're fucked far worse in a trade war than us. If I'm reading him, and it's hard, I think he thinks he can disconnect and, remaining the least on fire of block full of burning homes, retain an advantage while setting back China's long range plan by 50 years.

If the rest of everything goes to shit and we simply stay afloat, we win, for the time being. There is no move more Trumpian than taking the ball the rest of the world cannot play without and leaving the game.

Le Pen and Grillo are the next interesting pieces. I don't see her winning, but it's for the same reasons I doubted Brexit and was sure Trump was a joke.

Over the last 15 years, we've gotten a lot of benefit from our European alliances. They have committed troops to our actions and have played ball with us when we've deployed sanctions that included secondary boycotts. That magnifies American power and influence; indeed, a couple decades of Iran sanctions were pretty ineffective until Obama engineered the secondary boycott. The decline of those relationships isn't going to benefit us.

Right now in Asia, Japan and China are both in full court diplomatic presses looking to fill the vacuum that is about to occur. China in particular is pushing a trade deal along the TPP lines, which we'd cut them out of; it looks like Australia will be working with them on it. The TPP hostility was always poorly thought out, but in the context of a potential trade war between the US and the rest of world, alliances be damned, it's just epic stupidity.

Trump seems to believe his foreign policy reset is occurring in the world of the 1950s. It's a world where the Soviet Union is the world's no. 2 GDP at 40% of the US', and where the Asian powers barely squeak into the top 10. It's not the world where China's GDP approaches ours with Japan third and Russia out of the top ten and well below 10% of ours.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Because it's an expression used by isolationist pro Nazi anti-Semites who opposed American support of the British (like Lend Lease and the destroyers for islands deal) in pre-Pearl Harbor WWII. Since then, everyone* has mainly agreed that is mostly correct that U.S. isolationism** is Not Good.

By the way, aren't you always arguing that it's impossible to stop globalization? How did the unfairness of criticizing Trump for an "America First" position even make your radar?

* With some exceptions on the left and right - see e.g. McGovern's "Come Home, America."

** With the caveat, of course, that "isolationism" is in the eye of the beholder. But Trump deliberately uses the phrase "America First," so that's the version he's talking about. And when he belittles NATO, he makes it clear.

I have been expecting that we'll see what the hardest core neo-cons have been pushing for years: not so much isolationism as American triumphalism, an attempt to impose our terms on the world economic and geopolitical order. That's what people like Flynn and Tillerson push.

The Russian connection is the bat-shit-crazy element in it. The Russian oligarchs are really just old-fashioned third-world commodity barons; is Trump looking to play in the oil baron business? He can't be happy just privatizing our national parks to benefit little Barron?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I can support this argument with three words that ought give everyone piss shivers: President Michael Pence.

I don't know. I mean, it depends on whether Trump is going to be a check on the House GOP or not. Right now, he doesn't look all that different than Pence in terms of substance, in that he's going to go along with whatever they want, just way more volatile.

But maybe that's wrong and Trump will say no to something like voucherizing medicare, which would make the volatility worthwhile.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. But here's another, explaining that democracy already died, and arguments against Trump, or any other leader, are really just complaints that one would prefer to be governed by a different figurehead sitting above a shadow government: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/...as-dems-cheer/

I used to think that Greenwald was worth reading as a dissident voice. He's even further discredited himself during this election cycle.

He poses as some sort of radical advocate for freedom while being clearly pretty okay with Putin and Trump.

You cannot really think this is a battle of freedom vs. autocracy.

It's relative freedom versus potential actual autocracy. Haven't we already been over how dangerous your inability to see relative difference is?

Trump is preferable to others for equally understandable reasons.

Name one.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But a ton of the answer for Texas statewide is turnout, isn't it?

I enjoy Pantsuit Nation. The Mass chapter has become an action organization. One of the most effective things they do is drive comments on articles, so now if some winger spouts off in a local paper, when you read the comments its all ornery lefties calling bullshit instead of the peepee the frog crowd. The peepee crowd seems to be getting kind of flustered with it actually. But they can also turn out a crowd on a moments notice, which means when the Gov is about to do something bad, he's suddenly finding himself being called on it very publicly everywhere he goes.

I've heard "turnout" for 20 years. I don't buy it anymore. Yes, there are voter suppression efforts. Yes, there's an outreach problem. But it's also a messaging problem. AND if we KNOW that a certain population isn't going to show up, why do we ignore the population that DOES show up?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Humphrey**
Mondale**

Those, sir, are fighting astrices.

It's also some massive motivated reasoning. They lost, so they were lackluster stuffed shirts. Okay.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why is an "America First" position something to be excoriated?

Because the phrase has been adopted by racists and when you say it, they will think you're talking their language.

Otherwise, of course we put national interests first all the time.

ETA: And even giving a massive benefit of the doubt, the person using that phrase almost certainly has a ridiculously narrow view of what's in our self interest (things like abandoning NATO and putting in place tariffs).

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Adder

Those, sir, are fighting astrices.

It's also some massive motivated reasoning. They lost, so they were lackluster stuffed shirts. Okay.

Dunno why he dissed Fritz, but my guess on why he dissed the Hube is because Sebby read Hunter Thompson at an impressionable age. The good doctor did not care for HHH and ripped him as an evil hack in "Fear & Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72" (an awesome book, btw).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've heard "turnout" for 20 years. I don't buy it anymore. Yes, there are voter suppression efforts. Yes, there's an outreach problem. But it's also a messaging problem. AND if we KNOW that a certain population isn't going to show up, why do we ignore the population that DOES show up?

I'll stay tuned for thoughts on how to message to win Texas. The state is so large and diverse, it's tough to have a clue on that from outside.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Over the last 15 years, we've gotten a lot of benefit from our European alliances.

Longer than that. We fought two global wars in the twentieth century that started in Europe. It is very much in the United States' interest that we don't have a World War III, and the NATO and the EU are fundamentally aimed at preventing it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Because it's an expression used by isolationist pro Nazi anti-Semites who opposed American support of the British (like Lend Lease and the destroyers for islands deal) in pre-Pearl Harbor WWII. Since then, everyone* has mainly agreed that is mostly correct that U.S. isolationism** is Not Good.

By the way, aren't you always arguing that it's impossible to stop globalization? How did the unfairness of criticizing Trump for an "America First" position even make your radar?

* With some exceptions on the left and right - see e.g. McGovern's "Come Home, America."

** With the caveat, of course, that "isolationism" is in the eye of the beholder. But Trump deliberately uses the phrase "America First," so that's the version he's talking about. And when he belittles NATO, he makes it clear.

You'll admit there's a wee bit of cognitive dissonance floating about when people are accusing Trump and Jared Kushner (his tech guru... and husband of his converted and observant Jewish daughter) of dog whistling to anti-Semites.

But, having had no idea "America First" was the exact phrase used by the Charles Lindbergh wing of the isolationist camp, I do acknowledge your point. I'm not sure I buy it, but I see the argument.

I do think it's impossible to stop globalization. Putting America's interests first and globalization aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

I'm also not defending Trump putting America first. I was merely wondering, "Isn't this whatever every President does?"

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Longer than that. We fought two global wars in the twentieth century that started in Europe. It is very much in the United States' interest that we don't have a World War III, and the NATO and the EU are fundamentally aimed at preventing it.

Agreed. I was just focusing on what they'd done for us lately, but, really, it's worked for us for a long time.