site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   26208 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 22, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The remaining primaries and convention at this point serve as little more than a coronation for the inevitable Trump nomination. It was discussed last week the unlikely circumstances in which Trump is prevented from running. The questions now are:

  1. The likelihood Trump wins? Betting markets put the odds between 40-60%, which is not that useful but is what I would expect. The election will be very close and come down to the usual swing states like in 2020 and 2016. Biden's approval ratings are precariously low for an incumbent, especially given that the Electoral College works to Trump's advantage.

  2. What will a second Trump term be like? My guess is much like his first term. A lot of hollow populist gestures to his base but not much happens. I still don't understand these people who are otherwise centrist or middle-left like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails. I guess they have to keep toeing the 'orange man bad' line even though he was not that bad, and the economy and other metrics did well under his presidency (until Covid, which was out of his control anyway). Key alliances were strained much, as commonly feared in 2016-2017. The leadership of allies like Germany and France begrudgingly accepted Trump, and not much else happened.

I doubt that it would be that much like his first term.

As I see it, his first term was characterized by him wanting to do wild stuff, and a bureaucracy dedicated to impeding or distracting him, leading to an overall sedate and reasonable tone in terms of actual policies and state actions, if not in terms of rhetoric coming from the Oval Office.

And my impression now is that the Republican party and many parts of government have since then been hollowed out and replaced by Maga true-believers o hangers-on, who will not want to moderate or distract him, and who will apply actual institutional competence and energy to doing the things he's always talked about but never done.

So I'd expect it to be very different in practice, and much much worse from at least my perspective.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of that, I acknowledge it's a particular narrate that progressive sources are trying hard to sell me on right now. I think it's more plausible from the outside view than a lot of other things they try to sell me on that I dismiss as silly, but it could also be sillier than I'm seeing.

Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of that, I acknowledge it's a particular narrate that progressive sources are trying hard to sell me on right now. I think it's more plausible from the outside view than a lot of other things they try to sell me on that I dismiss as silly, but it could also be sillier than I'm seeing.

I don't normally agree with your posts on here but I actually do think that you've got an accurate picture here despite the downvotes. I'm legitimately surprised to hear that this is a narrative progressive sources are trying to sell you on, because it reads to me like pro-Trump campaign advertising. "Last time, Trump was held back by the Deep State and the RINOS - but this time he's SERIOUS" - I could see that maybe as an attempt at encouraging progressives to get motivated to go vote for Biden, but I can't help but feel that it'd be counter-productive in the general.

It's pro-Trump if you want Trump's policies to be implemented, and anti-Trump if you don't want them to be implemented. Dems have pushed really really hard for the better part of a decade on convincing their voters that it would be disastrous for Trump's policies to be implemented and only his incompetence and inability to push things through saved us the first time, so saying that won't save us the second time is an effective scare tactic.

I probably have a similar blindspot for the conservative side of the narrative - I would have guessed that conservatives can't say 'Trump will actually get things done this time' because it would be acknowledging that he didn't get much done last time (beyond his constitutional right to propose SC appointments), and no acknowledging of weakness or failings for Trump is allowed. Maybe it's allowed if they wrap it in 'the deep state stopped him form getting things done' or w/e.

I probably have a similar blindspot for the conservative side of the narrative - I would have guessed that conservatives can't say 'Trump will actually get things done this time' because it would be acknowledging that he didn't get much done last time (beyond his constitutional right to propose SC appointments), and no acknowledging of weakness or failings for Trump is allowed. Maybe it's allowed if they wrap it in 'the deep state stopped him form getting things done' or w/e.

I'm not an American conservative and so I'm not quite sure what conversation is like in their spaces, but in the discourse I actually have access to (and my own personal opinion) that is indeed the case - Trump was hamstrung by a GOP establishment more concerned with preserving their own sinecures and access to power than actually doing anything to help him implement the policies that got him elected, as well as Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation it turned into (to say nothing of the open disobedience of people like Milley). Maybe my impression is incorrect, but I always felt that the right didn't mind acknowledging Trump's various weaknesses/failures, they just didn't like obsessing over it because whatever the man's flaws there isn't really an alternative willing to fight for them.

How many of the predictions made about the first Trump presidency were correct if we limit the scope to policy/governance?

How many were cartoonishly wrong?

How does that suggest we weight predictions for a possible second first term?

I think I take your meaning, but, 'how accurate were we at predicting his presidency when he'd never held an elected office before' vs 'how accurate are we at predicting his presidency after he's been president for 4 years' should intuitively not be the same number, if we're updating on evidence at all here.

I don't have much else to add except that I was reading the WSJ today and several polls showed between 22% and 34% of Republican voters stating that a criminal conviction would disqualify Trump from office.

Huh? How snail-brained are 22-34% of these voters? Why would you care if he gets convicted?

I could understand saying a credible accusation is disqualifying. I could understand saying his behavior was disqualifying in and of itself. But why would you outsource your vote to the jury pool of Georgia?

I don't know if jury selection in a place like New York might be inevitably biased, but Georgia was very close to 50/50 in the 2020 election, wasn't it? So wouldn't it be one of the best states for ensuring a balanced jury pool?

If he is actually convicted in Georgia, then people's priors about Trump being a criminal should and will change.

Why the downvote @FiveHourMarathon?

I could see there maybe being an argument that a conviction would only change priors slightly, but it absolutely should have a nonzero effect.

But why would you outsource your vote to the jury pool of Georgia?

The same reason anyone outsources any judgements to anything: a level of epistemic humility, and acknowledging that other people and systems may know things you don't.

Republicans are the Tough on Crime party after all, Back the Blue and harsher mandatory sentencing and all of that. Their policy positions wouldn't make a lot of sense if they didn't think that criminal convictions had at least some pretty high correlation with actual states of guilt.

Some percentage may implicitly be thinking about a conviction under 18 U.S. Code § 2383, though he is not actually being charged with such in any venue.

Huh? How snail-brained are 22-34% of these voters? Why would you care if he gets convicted?

The fact you'd say this is a pretty emblematic of how crazy the US (and this site) have become. This might seem like a hot take, but people generally don't want their leaders to be convicted felons.

Well, maybe that would have held more true back before trust in institutions collapsed. Those 22-34% are the last vestiges of that era. The thought is that anyone can lob an accusation, but a conviction carries more weight. Yes, most people understand that prosecutors would generally only bring cases that have a good chance of winning, but they can still fudge around the edges.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it. That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to. Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

If I saw that, my first thought would be that I’m watching an AI-generated deepfake that was put together ahead of time and the fact that it’s “live TV” was a lie.

My second would be, “Did that person deserve it?”

Honestly, this was my first thought as well.

Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

Depending who he 'murders' his approval may go up. As long as they're bad dudes it's probably a good thing.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it. That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to. Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

This is a bit too boo-outgroup.

One of replies is that their second thought would be “Did that person deserve it?”

I think that it is actually accurate description of situation.

I agree it probably skirted the line after rereading it, but I have two questions:

  1. Would it still get dinged if I balanced it by saying the far left could probably do something similar?
  2. Do you think Arjin's post down below also violates the rules? It's basically the mirror inverse of mine, but I notice you haven't modded it like you've modded mine.

Would it still get dinged if I balanced it by saying the far left could probably do something similar?

You'd get double dinged.

Do you think Arjin's post down below also violates the rules? It's basically the mirror inverse of mine, but I notice you haven't modded it like you've modded mine.

It wasn't reported. But even if it had been I probably would have approved it. I quoted three sentences from you. The first sentence I quoted is what Arjin said a mirror inverse of. But your first sentence was mostly quoted for context. The next two sentences were the bad parts, and I don't think Arjin said anything like those.

That's basically what the election loss denialism came down to.

Some words/phrases aren't really good for fostering discussion. They are more about denigrating people you disagree with. In general use phrases that people would use to describe themselves, or if you don't like those phrases (which is common) try to use a neutralish term. And if you don't think there is a neutralish term, be prepared to defend the use of an aggressive/denigrating term.

Why let evidence get in the way of vibes and dunking on the outgroup!

Along with the previous denigrating term in the last sentence this sentence is basically saying "these people suck".

This might seem like a hot take, but people generally don't want their leaders to be convicted felons.

Better than felons who are unconvicted because a corrupt system protects them.

What always trips me up about sentiments like this is that I agree with them... and that's a big part of why I'm a prison abolitionist, you can't trust the justice system to deliver real justice and shouldn't premise everything on it's ability to do so.

But most people expressing these sentiments are not prison abolitionists, many of them among Republicans want to be tougher on crime with harsher sentencing and so forth, and I don't understand the epistemic state that lets someone dismiss the justice system as obviously corrupt when it works against someone they like, but reliable enough to throw people in jail for life willy-nilly otherwise.

What always trips me up about sentiments like this is that I agree with them...

You straightforwardly don't, though. The fact that you have a critique of an element of the justice system and I have a critique of an element of the justice system doesn't mean that those critiques share any meaningful overlap, whether in focus, hypothesized mechanisms, evidence presented, standards by which that evidence is measured, proposed solutions or standards by which the effects of those solutions should be assessed.

...and that's a big part of why I'm a prison abolitionist, you can't trust the justice system to deliver real justice and shouldn't premise everything on it's ability to do so.

I could, as you have, claim to likewise be in favor of prison abolition, on the understanding that I and people like myself will simply band together to punish criminality directly through immediate and severe violence against perpetrators rather than deferring to sclerotic, compromised and increasingly incompetent institutions. After all, if there's no jail to send criminals to any more, than naively one might assume that there's no jail to send those who simply beat or shoot criminals to, either. Only, I don't think this is actually what you have in mind by the term "prison abolition", and it seems to me that blurring the distinction between our positions and values only generates misunderstandings and frustration without advancing meaningful conversation.

I don't recall you ever making a case for prison abolition, though I'd certainly be interested in discussing it if you ever chose to. As with your recent post on race, I'm interested in the discussion, but that requires an actual willingness to discuss, rather than limiting oneself to laments over discussion that isn't happening. I've provided some examples of why I consider the justice systems deployed against Trump to be compromised; if you've got a similar list for why you consider the justice system deployed against ordinary murderers and thieves to be compromised, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Whoever you reesponded to, their post is still marked as filtered, and I can't see it.

It was darwin. He must have finally triggered something in the site code.

There are problems in the enforcement of justice, but it's not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. I presume you're referring to the Hunter Biden stuff? Well, that's largely symmetrical to Trump's Russia investigation: Lots of smoke, not much actual fire (at least by the president himself), yet partisans whip themselves into a frenzy over the issue since they're getting a maximally damning picture due to their filtered media consumption. Biden could very well face a frivolous impeachment trial like Trump did as well.

Well, that's largely symmetrical to Trump's Russia investigation:

This is extremely wrong and a sign that you haven't done the required research to talk authoritatively about this topic. There's absolutely no symmetry to the Carter Page warrant, Crossfire Hurricane, Mueller panel etc, and vice versa with the Hunter Art shows or Laptop photos.

I've done quite a bit of research of both. Not as much as many extreme partisans who keep track of daily updates, but more than enough to get a good picture. I stand by what I said: if you want to find bias or wrongdoing then it exists in both investigations. If you want to find crimes by people merely involved in the scandal that aren't the president, you can do it. If you want to actually get to wrongdoing by the president himself, that's a lot harder. There's morally grey stuff, but not much that's technically illegal.

but more than enough to get a good picture.

Are you sure? The things I listed there specifically in my post are what I feel distinguish the two cases. There's absolutely no equivalence to Crossfire Hurricane or the Carter Page FISA warrant in the Biden cases, and I feel it is dishonest to even imply it. There's a huge world of difference there and collapsing the distinction makes your thinking lazier and less clear.

The Carter Page stuff was bad, but ultimately more as a factor against the FBI than to the broader investigation as a whole. Carter Page was not indicted, nor did he feature particularly prominently in the final report compared to people like Papadopoulos or Manafort. Then there's the issue of whether that stuff meant the investigation was started from partisan motives, but similar accusations have been levelled in the reverse direction for Hunter. It's also pretty easy to point to Giuliani, who was one of the leading proponents of the Hunter stuff since it's inception, as Giuliani isn't exactly the cleanest guy himself. Or heck, even the recent deposition stuff, where House Republicans initially said they'd accept any type of deposition with Hunter, before reneging and saying they'd only accept a closed deposition, something Hunter specifically wanted to avoid due to the likelihood of the Republicans selectively leaking testimony to present a skewed picture.

More comments

Last I heard, it's been confirmed that Hunter Biden got his bribes selling access to Joe to foreign entities, and some portion of the bribe money ended up in Joe's bank account. I'm pretty sure that's a felony.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton set up an illegal email server to evade lawful oversight, sent classified documents through it, and then attempted to cover up her crimes. I'm pretty sure there are at least a few felonies there.

Likewise, Bill Clinton appears to have been a rapist.

I'm not sure if George W Bush lying the country into a disastrous war is technically a felony, but it certainly ought to be. Ditto for Obama's administration intentionally supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels, which were then used to attack and murder American citizens, in an apparent attempt to generate support for gun control legislation.

I disagree that it's not as bad as I'm making it out to be. In fact, I think it is pretty much exactly that bad. I do not concede that the existing system retains any shred of legitimacy whatsoever. All that remains is the question of how to coordinate sufficient meanness to allow something more fit to be built on its ruins.

Ditto for Obama's administration intentionally supplying arms to Mexican drug cartels

link for more info would be appreciated

Wiki

Writeup from the first page of search results.

OK, incompetent sting operation technically counts for quoted part.

But

in an apparent attempt to generate support for gun control legislation

is missing.

I don’t see your angle here. Condemning the ATF for causing the deaths of mexican and parisian civilians and that border patrol guy, implies that letting people buy weapons is complicity in murder. You can either condemn the ATF, Obama, and the right to bear arms, or none of the above.

If you're a consistent 2A gunman, you have to, you know, bite the bullet. Obviously some of the legally sold guns are going to kill people. But guns don't kill people, and anyway protection against tyranny is worth it, and so on. So the ATF is perfectly innocent here.

More comments

Operation Fast and Furious

In November 2009, the ATF’s Phoenix field office launched an operation in which guns bought by drug-cartel straw purchasers in the U.S. were allowed to “walk” across the border into Mexico. ATF agents would then track the guns as they made their way through the ranks of the cartel.

At least, that was the theory. In reality, once the guns walked across the border, they were gone. Whistleblowers reported, and investigators later confirmed, that the ATF made no effort to trace the guns.

Wikipedia page

Gunwalking, or "letting guns walk", was a tactic used by the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office and the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations between 2006 and 2011 in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them". However, as of October 2011, none of the targeted high-level cartel figures had been arrested.

I'm surprised this wasn't immediately recognized, but I guess I'm old, and it was at the very start of the Obama administration.

Or, as my neighbor once said, Obama had a scandal-free presidency. He meant it as an indication that Obama behaved well while in office. I took that to mean that the media did not allow him to suffer from any scandals, including F&F gun running.

No, actually both are just as bad.

I disagree. If criminals must have power, I would rather have a criminal whose crimes the justice system can engage with in power than one whose crimes the justice system is forced to ignore.

Well, maybe that would have held more true back before trust in institutions collapsed.

Yes, why would trust do such a thing to institutions? The institutions are free of any responsibility for trust collapsing.

Nowadays, Trump could probably murder someone on live TV and a majority of the Republican voters would say he didn't do it.

The flipside of it is that the current political establishment could start hauling off dissidents to psychiatric hospitals USSR-style, and the 22-34% that are the last vestiges of that era would bemoan how Republicans no longer trust medical professionals.

The flipside of it is that the current political establishment could start hauling off dissidents to psychiatric hospitals USSR-style, and the 22-34% that are the last vestiges of that era would bemoan how Republicans no longer trust medical professionals.

I don't disagree.

The likelihood Trump wins?

50-50. Biden's currently down by about 10 points from where he needs to win comfortably, but the vibecession is easing and a lot of his low polling is just disaffected leftists who are sad that he hasn't been as extreme as they wanted him to be. They'll almost certainly come around when Trump is in the news more. That said, Biden still has big problems in terms of immigration and his age, so there's a lot of uncertainty.

What will a second Trump term be like?

Somewhat more of the same, but probably moderately worse. If you've read any of the "behind the scenes" books of the Trump presidency, you'll know it was basically a three ring circus between:

  • The Establishment: Old neocons who favored things like tax cuts, aggressive military use, and immigration "compromise" (effectively open borders). Examples include Reince Priebus, Gary Cohn, Sean Spicer, Rex Tillerson.
  • The Far Right: Immigration hawks and isolationists. Examples include Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Stephen Miller.
  • The Grifters: People who were ideologically flexible and were more concerned about their own advancement rather than any policy. Most of these people came to power through a mix of flattering Trump, court intrigue, and cable news appearances. Examples include Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, Mike Pompeo, Anthony Scaramucci, Kellyanne Conway, Ivanka Trump.

When Trump's term began, all three rings were fairly evenly matched. But as the years went on, the Establishment was utterly annihilated while the Far Right was cut down and sidelined pretty harshly as well. Towards the end it was mostly just grifters. After J6 there was a fourth ring, The Crazies, who insisted Trump really won the election. People like Giuliani, Mike Lindell, Sidney Powell, and others took the reins in the final days.

If Trump were to win a second term, I doubt he'd bother much trying to reach out to the first 2 groups, and mainly focus on The Grifters and The Crazies. There'd be even less of a pressure to push through immigration reform, and US foreign policy could be negatively impacted.

The Far Right: Immigration hawks and isolationists. Examples include Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Stephen Miller.

Two of the three people you named in this category were some lf Trump's most important advisers, who gained in influence during Trump's term.

I've grown used to, and even fond of, all the silly and quirky takes about Trump's presidency on this site. But this one especially sounds like you made up a Trump Presidency in your head to be mad about. (US foreign policy will be damaged because, uh, lots of people believe the election was rigged in Georgia.)

Miller is personally powerful, but only because he refused to argue with Trump and to walk the plank as a result. Instead, Miller just allowed his orbit to grow more distant from the president when he didn’t like Miller and waited around until Trump regained interest in immigration hawkishness. That’s the main reason he survived and Bannon didn’t; Bannon got very angry with Trump and they started arguing, while Miller was more willing to shrug and go back to being a generic Trump sycophant when at risk of falling out of favor.

Obviously Trump sacked Bannon, who was one of his most prominent populist advisors. Stephen Miller, who was in charge of immigration, started strong but kept getting undercut by Trump in a number of ways, although he personally still had some sort of seat at the table. Peter Navarro himself was basically shipped off into a hidden office where he had little access to Trump after a certain point, although the tariffs he helped initiate did go through. Navarro would eventually regain favor, but only by joining the Crazies and insisting the election was stolen.

US foreign policy will be damaged because, uh, lots of people believe the election was rigged in Georgia.

This is not what I said at all.

who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails

I can't ascribe this to anything other than not paying attention:

Trump’s go-it-alone strategy would certainly leave our allies to the tender mercies of totalitarian powers. But the U.S. itself would not escape major negative consequences. If China dominates all of Asia and Russia dominates all of Europe, the U.S. would be in a far weaker and more precarious position than it is today. The China-Russia axis would then be able to dominate America economically by cutting us off from trade and raw materials at will.

(for just one example I dug up in 20 seconds)

Maybe you agree with these prognostications, maybe you don't. Saying that Trump's critics can't or haven't articulated their positions is just confusing.

I guess they have to keep toeing the 'orange man bad' line even though he was not that bad

"'Orange Man Bad' is the 'Buy index funds' of political commentary.". If historically left-of-center political commentators who have spent the past 8 years criticizing Trump and his policies continue to do so, odds are pretty good that they actually believe it.

If anything, the sudden flurry of "Oh, Trump wasn't that bad"-type statements from figures who previously criticized him reeks of groveling and bet-hedging. Jamie Dimon doesn't have to worry that Biden is going to punish him for making critical statements. Likewise for his many critics within the party who have 'come around'.

If China dominates all of Asia and Russia dominates all of Europe, the U.S. would be in a far weaker and more precarious position than it is today. The China-Russia axis would then be able to dominate America economically by cutting us off from trade and raw materials at will.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

This so isn't happening it is comical. But I accept it as an example of the hysterical detached-from-reality "what-if"ing that some people like to do about Trump and why he will ruin the entire world.

This seems like a willful misreading. Do you think "dominate" means "conquer by force of arms"? Because it's not as if the EU has been putting up vigorous opposition to Russian hegemony absent US spinal prosthetics.

Russia is not going to dominate Europe, force of arms or otherwise. Again, an economy about equal to Italy.

Hydraulic despotism using their oil is their only possible influence on Europe. Push come to shove we'll bomb every oil pipe and free Europe from that addiction.

Push come to shove we'll bomb every oil pipe and free Europe from that addiction.

This would also entail freeing Europe from having an economy beyond subsistence farming for a generation or two. The actual work required to free Europe from Russian oil would have to have been started at least a decade ago, maybe even more. This doesn't give the US hegemony over Europe - this just pushes Europe into the BRICS sphere and leaves the US even more isolated, because when EU leaders are given a choice between "reversion to third world despotism to keep the USA happy" and "having profitable trade with one of their closest neighbours" you don't have to be a genius to see which one they'll pick.

On 26 September 2022, a series of underwater explosions and consequent gas leaks occurred on the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipelines, two of 23 gas pipelines between Europe and Russia.

No one needs to ask Europe for permission. Pipes can just start blowing up. They are really long and as best I know not practically defensible.

Sweden is a cold country. They decided to largely use renewable energy and nuclear power. For the little fossil fuel they import, almost all is not from Russia. A modern developed European nation could just not rely on Russia for energy.

I get that transferring from an oil-for-energy scheme to something else is an enormous lift. But they may not be given the choice if more pipeline ""accidents"" occur.

And I'm not some hardass Anerican warmonger hoping Europe gets fucked and Germans can't heat their homes in the winter. But hitching their wagon to this particular mule appears to have been a mistake.

No one needs to ask Europe for permission. Pipes can just start blowing up. They are really long and as best I know not practically defensible.

This proposed strategy is utterly moronic and I really don't see how you can think this is a viable approach at all. What, exactly, is the carrot being offered to keep the Eurozone outside Russia and China's sphere of influence when the American offer is just "if you want an economy more advanced than the middle ages we are going to bomb your infrastructure back to the stone age"? The US military is not going to have nearly as easy a time operating in Europe when they're enforcing a zero-development policy against the wishes of the EU.

A modern developed European nation could just not rely on Russia for energy.

For Europe, the only alternative to Russian energy is deprivation - remember that Biden just turned off the LNG exports designed to cover the shortfall in order to get back at Texas. You can't have a modern first world economy (or a modern first world welfare state for that matter) without copious amounts of fossil fuels. Green and renewable energy cannot make up for the shortfall, and neither can nuclear. There is no alternative to Russian fossil fuels - right now Europe is still using them, they just have to pay a big premium to India in order to get around US sanctions and pipeline bombing. I was one of the people who thought the sanctions would have caused massive problems in Europe last winter, I just didn't think the US would accept such an obvious and naked end-run around their sanctions.

I get that transferring from an oil-for-energy scheme to something else is an enormous lift. But they may not be given the choice if more pipeline ""accidents"" occur.

It isn't just an enormous lift - the calculations on exactly when the transition process has to start in order to avoid severe involuntary reductions in societal complexity have been done, and the answer was several decades ago. Switching to a new energy source is going to be a massive, society-wide challenge WITH Russian fossil fuels. Without them? lol

The moment the US switches to an approach of "You are going to stay poor, cold and freezing because we want to hurt the people you buy gas from, and we are not going to make up for the shortfall in the way we promised because our own states are rebelling and need to be punished" the Europeans are going to just welcome the Russians in through open doors. Of course, now that I think about it, that doesn't really seem that unrealistic given the fecklessness of the current administration.

This proposed strategy is utterly moronic and I really don't see how you can think this is a viable approach at all.

There's only 20 something oil pipes from Russia to Europe and 3 have already been bombed. Call it dumb and correctly point out the negative consequences. But if Europe is in real danger of being dominated by Russia because of oil then any nation with a naval diving team can anonymously bomb a few more sections of pipe. Or like how the CIA likely destroyed a section of Rusdian gas pipe in 1982 by engineering a computer ""accident"". The leaked Pentagon documents include Zelensky discussing bombing Russian pipes to get back at Hungary.

I'm not saying it is a good thing. I'm saying it already has happened a few times and will keep happening if need be. And it can be done anonymously and Europeans can be left speculating who blew up the pipes.

Sweden imports a single digit percentage of their fossil fuel from Russia. If they were cut off from Russia they wouldn't suffer. It is possible to be a modern Western nation and not hopelessly dependent on Russian fuel. Sweden chose this. Germany did not. Rather than shut down nuclear power plants in order to replace them with even more imported Russian fuel, Germany could have built more and then have imported less Russian fuel.

More comments

Russia is not going to dominate Europe, force of arms or otherwise.

It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.

It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't.

It's in the process of conquering the second largest country in Europe and would have succeeded if Trump had been president.

Lol wut?

Either Trump is critically destabilizing the region by allowing US sales of advanced Air Defence systems to Poland, publicly entertaining the possibility of Ukraine Joining NATO, and undermining the Russian economy by increasing US energy exports to Europe. Or he's secretly in Putin's pocket. Which one is it?

In either case the Russian military has been revealed as a paper tiger and clearly aint conquering shit. The best they can hope for at this stage is to turn Eastern Europe a desert and call it "peace".

Either Trump is critically destabilizing the region by allowing US sales of advanced Air Defence systems to Poland, publicly entertaining the possibility of Ukraine Joining NATO, and undermining the Russian economy by increasing US energy exports to Europe. Or he's secretly in Putin's pocket. Which one is it?

That would be quite the inconsistency, if I'd accused Trump of doing the former.

In either case the Russian military has been revealed as a paper tiger

Given massive US support. And even with that, Ukraine is far from winning.

Interpreting the war in Ukraine as a sign of Russian strength and capability is quite the contrarian take.

Russia is exhausting itself in a multiyear grinding war against a flat open nation of 35 million people. Their economy is so small that they can't replace much of the expended equipment and weapons. They still might win, either keeping a lot of territory or conquering the whole country.

But, having battled so hard for so long at such a great cost to fight a nation of 35 million people to a standstill, I'm now taking Russia's larger threat to Europe much less seriously. They are willing to fight, but frankly not very capable.

Ukraine is feeling a lot like Winter War II at this point.

Interpreting the war in Ukraine as a sign of Russian strength and capability is quite the contrarian take.

Indeed, but it's not my take: "It's not so much that Russia is stronger than Europe, it's that it's crazier. Someone willing to fight can dominate a room full of equally strong people who aren't."

Russia has shown that it's aggressive. It would have been successful if Trump was president, because Trump is more favourable to Russia/Putin than Ukraine/Zelenskyy. That's why RT etc. likes Trump and dislikes Biden. And I say that as someone who also dislikes Biden.

a flat open nation

A flat open nation that has had massive aid from the US. Assuming that sort of assistance, I also have little worries about Russian expansionism, but the question is whether Trump would be true to his word and be less supportive of the Ukrainians etc.

Why didn't the invasion happen during Trump's presidency then? 4 years should certainly be enough, right?

Other hypothesis is that Russian financial system was not sanctioned proofed back then. Pro-war Russians would not like getting their Visa/Mastercard blocked; Russia built Mir cards since then.

In 2016-2020, Russia hadn't even prepared for annexing the Donbas, let alone invading Ukraine. Russia also had hopes of reversing Euromaidan. After all, Poroshenko was unpopular, Zelenskyy was an unknown quantity, and Ukraine had performed a similar reversal from West to East after the Orange Revolution in 2005. Invading Ukraine would guarantee that such a reversal would not take place.

By 2022, Russia and its Donbas puppets were militarily, politically, and administratively prepared, while Zelenskyy turned out to be just as much of a problem for them as Poroshenko.

Trump's reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would have been to cry a few tears for the Ukrainians, praise Putin's savvy and genius, and provide less support for Ukraine than Biden has done, and hope to appease Putin by encouraging Ukraine to cede the territory that Russia wants. We can predict all that, because that's what Trump's position has been on the Russia-Ukraine war.

I am no fan of Biden, but it's irrefutable that Trump is far softer towards Russia than Biden. This is one reason why many people like Trump! Trump's policy towards Russia has always been appease, withdraw, and sincerely pray to the Almighty for the victims of the consequences.

In 2016-2020, Russia hadn't even prepared for annexing the Donbas, let alone invading Ukraine.

The problem with this take is that by the summer of 2015 Russia had already annexed the Donbass and Crimea in all but name, or have you forgotten all the talk about "friendly green men" from 2014?

The Russians problem seems to be that they drank their own Kool-Aid. They seem to have seriously underestimated the degree of support that Euromaidan enjoyed on the ground in western Ukraine and seemed to genuinely believe that if they landed some paratroopers in Kiev and seized the Rada they'd be welcomed by the populace as liberators rather than with a hail of gunfire and molotov cocktails. That shock of expectation vs reality seems to have set the tone of the war going forward. Ukraine may eventually lose this war but Ukraine losing doesn't necessarily mean a win for Russia.

More comments

In 2016-2020, Russia hadn't even prepared for annexing the Donbas, let alone invading Ukraine.

Huh? And what further preparations would have been deemed sufficient? Because we're aware of the extent of preparations made before the 2022 intervention, and they turned out to be, well, more or less laughable, at least in the Northern areas of operations for sure. I mean surely the Russian state had at least the same amount of resources and troops available in 2018 or 2019 as well.

Russia also had hopes of reversing Euromaidan. After all, Poroshenko was unpopular, Zelenskyy was an unknown quantity, and Ukraine had performed a similar reversal from West to East after the Orange Revolution in 2005.

Fair enough. That said, this is the same Russian regime that, according to the mainstream interpretation, successfully manipulated the results of the Brexit referendum and US elections of 2016, and colluded with Trump. Surely it was within its means to manipulate Poroshenko or get him replaced by someone more pliable, to let Russian puppets gain positions all over the Ukrainian state apparatus, and to collude with Trump to rob Ukraine of US assistance! And yet Trump did the opposite, by allowing the supply of lethal military aid to Ukraine in 2018, which no other US administration had done before. Something doesn't add up.

We can predict all that, because that's what Trump's position has been on the Russia-Ukraine war.

I suggest that his position might have something to do with no longer being in power.

More comments

Push come to shove we'll bomb every oil pipe and free Europe from that addiction.

We can't even agree to aid the people who are currently in a hot war with Russia. Until that happens, the idea that we're going to comprehensively destroy European energy infrastructure is a touch laughable.

Even if true, it kind of runs counter to the Trump is NBD narrative.

Again, an economy about equal to Italy

If Italy could figure out a way to leverage boutique luxury goods into military and political power they could make a play for regional hegemon as well.

we're going to comprehensively destroy European energy infrastructure is a touch laughable.

It already began: Nordstream pipes were blown, and almost nobody protested.

I seriously doubt Russia could pull off hydraulic despotism. They'd be cutting themselves off from their own customers.

And after the bombing of Nord Stream pipelines I think it is clear they won't be squeezing Europe this one way. This isn't some weird hypothetical I'm making up, we've already seen an example. The pipelines are inherently vulnerable and too many interested parties get a veto by bombing the pipelines.

I keep comparing them to Italy to say they are equivalent to a small portion of Europe. This talk of small GDP Russia dominating vastly larger in GDP and population Europe is quite the uphill battle.

I'm trying to fairly consider Russia's ability to dominate Europe if the US became isolationist. The prospect is more silly than plausible.

I keep comparing them to Italy to say they are equivalent to a small portion of Europe. This talk of small GDP Russia dominating vastly larger in GDP and population Europe is quite the uphill battle.

Well, sure, but isn't this old timey war of conquest on Russia's part a scheme to add Ukraine's economy and population to its balance sheet? A disinterested, Trump-led US makes Ukraine and the rest of the Eastern bloc sitting ducks and their aggregate could form a threat to Western Europe.

If China dominates all of Asia and Russia dominates all of Europe

Great spot for a laconic 'If' here, but more loquaciously:

If you take this at face value while it proves that Trump's critics have articulated some criticisms, it also proves that they are utterly insane -- in what world could Trump cause Russia to dominate France and China to dominate Japan/India/take your pick?

It's not like US institutions have done a great job thus far, maybe a little chaos would help lift their performance. It wasn't Trump that ran the US military ragged in pointless Middle East wars, giving China and Russia a chance to catch up. It wasn't Trump that caused white recruitment to plummet. They did that all by themselves.

Putin didn't invade Ukraine under Trump - perhaps Putin was worried about Trump's unpredictability or felt he had something to lose regarding US-Russia relations. He had nothing to lose with Biden. There was a chance of US-Russia rapprochement under Trump, something the oh-so-smart US institutions spent enormous effort into demolishing and undermining with the Russiagate hoax, amongst other things. US-Russia rapprochement was by far the biggest win the US could've made, it could reshape the balance of power decisively against China. The US institutions apparently think a struggle against a combined Russia, Iran and China is a great idea, fun for the whole family. Biden proposed it back in 1997, as a contemptuous put down. The arrogance and stupidity of the establishment is considerable, greater even than Trump's.

I don't think Trump was a good foreign policy leader - he was too aggressive with Iran, undoing the good work Obama did on that front. We may be reaping the whirlwind of that strategy today, Iran is making its displeasure clear. But Trump wasn't terrible on foreign policy or domestic policy, more lazy and outmatched. Biden's sleepwalking into a major war in the Middle East, the US Southern Border is in shambles, domestic political stability is in question. The US is losing a proxy war to Russia in Ukraine (possibly the only place in the world where the balance of willpower and materiel favours Russia). Just look at all the frantic energy in Europe - head of the MoD talking about how Britain needs to prepare for war with Russia, Germany talking about conscription and leaking war scenarios. If Russia was losing, the threat would be diminishing and the war propaganda would be unnecessary.

Who is to say that the US can even win a war with China over Taiwan? The US would need to find some way of piercing the Chinese A2AD grid and resupplying a hopelessly dependent Taiwan with food, energy and munitions. Winning a naval war against a power with hundreds of times more shipbuilding capacity, in their home waters, from the other side of the world is not an easy task. If the US loses a major war and collapses 2-5 years before superintelligence, leaving it to China, wouldn't that be just the biggest joke in history? Trump's instinct to pull away from Taiwan is not necessarily wrong, we just won't know until the missiles fly. Indeed, the US establishment has traditionally adopted a similar mixed strategy, refusing to directly guarantee Taiwanese defence but strongly hinting at it - they want flexibility.

Just look at all the frantic energy in Europe - head of the MoD talking about how Britain needs to prepare for war with Russia, Germany talking about conscription and leaking war scenarios. If Russia was losing, the threat would be diminishing and the war propaganda would be unnecessary.

European military chiefs realized that the press is happy to boost stories about being invaded by Russia because fear sells / gets views, and that this in turn can lead to political pressure to raise defense budgets. The German military wants the coalition to adhere to the huge boost to defense spending announced after the invasion of Ukraine (which the Germans now appear to be wavering on because of the tougher economic situation), and the British military, traditionally a Tory institution that got slashed during Labour governments, want to make sure that Starmer continues with the current plans to increase spending, buy more planes, keep both aircraft carriers in service and so on. All this is further bolstered by the fact that the US government and pentagon encourages these European defense officials to make these statements (and leaks some of them to the press itself).

Regarding Taiwan, both the US and China know that America isn’t going to war for Taiwan. It’s not viable, it’s not justifiable directly (the public will switch off at the word ‘semiconductor’) and the American heartland doesn’t want to kill Chinese the way they wanted to kill Arabs after 9/11. China is developing domestic semiconductor / EUV equivalent tech faster than anyone imagined, so there’s less immediate pressure to invade even if the US forces tougher export sanctions, they can proceed with the general plan to wait a few more decades if they have to until the political situation in Taiwan changes for any one of a large number of reasons.

the sudden flurry of "Oh, Trump wasn't that bad"-type statements from figures who previously criticized him reeks of groveling and bet-hedging

At this point I wonder how much of this is due to fashion. If even the most uncool members of your group try to rally people by bashing trump, your only options to distinguish yourself are to be even more hysterical (which is getting kind of played out) or play the nuance card.

I agree that Trump's critics have articulated their positions. I disagree with their foreign policy analyses, though.

Even if America became fully isolationist, Russia would probably not dominate Europe because the EU has nuclear weapons and a larger population and economy than Russia.

Even in America became fully isolationist, China would probably not dominate Asia because an anti-China alliance of India, Japan, and possibly some other countries like South Korea and Vietnam would have nuclear weapons and a larger population than China, and an economy that is at least capable of holding its own against China.

The real risk that isolationism poses to US domination of the world is not that Russia and China would take over, it is that if the US's current allies in Europe and Asia had to fend for themselves, they would probably be quite successful at it and then they would not need the US anymore, so the US would lose its control over them.

There is also some risk that in a more multipolar world, wars and nuclear weapons would both become more common, which could potentially lead to a nuclear war into which even an isolationist US might get sucked in.

The real risk that isolationism poses to US domination of the world is not that Russia and China would take over, it is that if the US's current allies in Europe and Asia had to fend for themselves, they would probably be quite successful at it and then they would not need the US anymore, so the US would lose its control over them.

It's not only that. Such a course of events would eventually result in Western European powers negotiating some sort of overall bargain with the Russians, which might later lead to the formation of an Eurasian power bloc that no outside power can dominate.

I think this is proving too much, or at least using an inappropriately strong definition of "dominate". The total population of the EU is also greater than that of the US, and the total GDP is at least in the same ballpark, and yet it's quite fair to say that the US dominates it, at least in the sense that a hypothetical future in which China has the level of economical power and social influence over Asia that the US has over Europe would be terrible for US interests in Asia. If you consider the entirety of the US empire that is the "western world", it exceeds the US in population and GDP for sure. Dominance is not just about "more bulk wins"; it is also about how much of that bulk you are willing to use on dominating others, rather than on hookers and blow, and how much will to power and good maneuvering you are actually capable of engaging in. In that regard, the US, Russia and China are all far superior to the hapless prize damsels of the international sphere that are Europe, Japan etc., because the former would to some extent rather go sick and hungry than be weak, but the latter generally reinvest any surplus to be a bit more lazy, comfortable or self-satisfied on some ideological metric.

US domination of Europe is overstated, most of the close relationship is because the US and Europe are part of the same general civilization and because the US is by far the strongest individual power within that civilization.

Agreed, but I'm pretty sure that Europe, Japan, etc. would change their tunes pretty quickly about being willing to be hapless prize damsels if big daddy US packed up his toys and went home.

If the vassals are comfortable and self-satisfied, how can their wills be said to have been subverted by the hegemon? This isn’t domination, it’s don’t-mind-ation.

Let’s say you had an all-carrot-no-stick hegemon, who uses his bulk surplus to bribe his ‘vassals’ into recognizing his nominal overlordship. The vassals can still do whatever they want. The vassals can even get him to do their bidding because he wants their approval. I mean, when is it no longer domination? Surely at some point of hegemon softness, the relationship is more accurately described as transactional, friendly, or even reverse-domination.

I would say the real risk of American isolationism is American economic decline, which in turn could lead to a loss of military power that could leave America vulnerable even in its own lands. Free trade really is mutually beneficial, and nations that wall themselves off will inevitably find themselves less prosperous and powerful than others.

Multiple East Asian nations serve as examples of this. The Ming and Qing dynasties in China had broad import-export bans, eventually leading to such a massive power imbalance that European nations, from thousands of miles away, were able to force them to open up for trade at gunpoint. Japan has a similar story, as does Korea.

Russia would probably not dominate Europe because the EU has nuclear weapons and a larger population and economy than Russia

Yes, and for context: France by itself is a nuclear power with a larger GDP than Russia. As is separately the UK.

Russia is neck-and-neck with Italy in terms of economic size. And Russia has a very distorted population pyramid. Looks like a child's drawing of a Christmas tree. I rather doubt their large population will be mobilized to invade Western Europe.

who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins

Roughly speaking: he is far to likely to jump to extremes that are not good solutions. Say what you want about Biden but at least he is not going to ask for missile strike on Zelensky/Putin/Ali Khamenei.

Or other outrageous stuff.

With Trump? Hopefully will not happen, but risk is much higher.

I can't take this position seriously when the Biden administration is (or was) dancing dangerously close to escalating a war with Russia.

It is not doing that. It's sending lots of money to a corrupt shithole that wants to fight to the last man against Russia, but that's not the same thing as escalating a war; it's well within "the rules" of proxy warfare.

Proxy wars have never been fought with such a serious risk to the homeland of one of the big powers. Also never so close to nations that could trigger NATO's mutual defense provisions.

If Russia gamed out that there was a 97% chance that Ukraine will seize control of Moscow, then what? Russia would have refused to use its most powerful weapons out of respect for international norms?

If Russia gamed out that there was a 97% chance that Ukraine will seize control of Moscow, then what?

Then whoever gamed it out is a bunch of cretinous idiots detached from reality. In what kind of insane scenario Ukraine could occupy Moscow?

Ukraine having actual biolabs producing mutant supersoldiers powered by comic-book level tech? All rumours about Putin having 19393 different cancers and nuclear missiles being made of cardboards and Russia having less than 100 working tanks in storage and out of missiles being actually true?

some of mottizens wrote that they saw possibility of Ukraine conquering Moscow. I guess they are cretinous idiots?

They may be merely uninformed and being aware about what happens there from CNN headlines. Though making strong predictions in such case is also pretty silly.

If someone spend significant time on learning about this war and thinks that Ukraine seizing Moscow is likely - then they are cretinous idiots or trolls. It is event that is technically possible but in epsilon levels of probability, in class of events like "literal aliens invade Earth" or "do_something account is run by president Joe Biden" or "Putin died in early morning of 2024-01-27".

If someone is responsible for gaming out results, as professional government job, for critical purposes such as deciding whether nuclear weapons should be used - and would reach such results. Then they are cretinous idiots (or someone else in decision chain is, I guess). And being troll in such case is being a cretinous idiot.

If Russia gamed out that there was a 97% chance that Ukraine will seize control of Moscow, then what?

If that were true it would change the calculus. It isn't true, so it doesn't.

Russia has not gamed that out, because there’s not even a .97% chance. These people are a corrupt and paranoid militaristic oligarchy, but the motteizean neurotic doomerist panic mode thinking is something I’ve never seen any sign of from them. Ukraine won’t seize any Russian territory even in its maximally delusional war aims unless you count crimea.

what if say, civil war breaks in Russia and Ukraine wants to have some pieces by itself?

Assimilating a whole bunch of ethnic Russians would severely change Ukraine's politics, which those currently in power don't want. And ethnic cleansing is mostly out because of the West not being big fans of that. So it's not all that attractive to Kiev.

Trump made the mistake of building a personality cult instead of a party. Orban or Erdogan built a party base with vast infrastructure supporting them. They could take power because their people are running local governments, staffing embassies and serving in the police. Trump couldn't even get members of his own party to support his vision in the senate. Trumpism can't achieve change in itself without replacing tens of thousands of managers. Franco wouldn't have been able to rule Spain if there wasn't loyalty from the officer corps and church which in turn could be used as a talent pool.

Had Trump wanted to MAGA, he would have spent the last 9 years building lots of local chapters of local supporters and future apparatchiks.

With that said I do believe Trump is a revolutionary candidate for the simple reason that he will ensure that the US government will be unable to function due to being bogged down with intra-elite infighting. This provides a window of opportunity for Texas to implement their own immigration policy.

For the first two years of Trumps administration he was dealing with successful RussiaGate ops by the Dems he wants prepared for. He also didn’t come in with institutional creds.

He also got a lot of things right during his Presidency which is pulling people like me into his camp. Musks is essentially Maga now. Jamie Dimon probably won’t vote for him but he’s praised Trump of late so you don’t have his tribe trying to undermine Trump now.

Institutionally the Heritage was against him in 2016 and now they are for him. That gets you your government middle managers with Plan 2025.

Trumps got the Governors trusting him now with this Abbot immigration play showing unity.

IMO Trumps orders of magnitude much stronger now. He was a dissident in 2016 but now has had 8 years figuring stuff out. The Party is being built.

I agree, although it wasn’t a mistake, it was just who Trump is. There are two big risks for populist reactionary movements. The first, as in Europe with Meloni, Le Pen Jr, Weidel etc is that careerist politician types vaguely amenable to a more moderate version of the platform become its leaders. But the second, which is less fully appreciated, is that a single figure concerned primarily with his own popularity and temporal, near-term successes might hijack the impulse to a popular movement, leading to its utter subsumption beneath a pointless and ineffectual personality cult. And that’s what Trump is.

It’s impossible to look at rally footage, interview footage and even polling data in the US and not conclude that it’s not really about ideas, it’s about Trump. As you say, a genuine movement would have included a whole party apparatus, local organizations, a whole superstructure through which countless small town mayors and district attorneys and state representatives would be figures within a broader platform for a specific program of political change.

Trump doesn’t care, he’s not a true believer. And that’s fine if true believers are in control, but they’re not, Trump is so irascible and so mercurial that he actually is in control to some degree, and his motivations are to be a “winner”, by whatever definition strikes him as valuable at whatever given time.

He will spend his second term on a crusade through the justice department against his enemies, which will certainly distract some portion of the left. But it’s hard not to see it as equally bad for the right, because there’s going to be no real push from the White House for conservative policies while the full energy of the president is devoted towards hunting down people who are mostly no longer even relevant.

Agreed, with one caveat—it is very much possible to look at him and insist that it’s about ideas. A significant fraction of the country is doing that. It wouldn’t be a very good personality cult if he couldn’t accrue his own true believers.

I wonder if it would be fruitful to ask supporters about predictions for a second term. Not necessarily about effectiveness so much as strategy. Will Trump ever endorse a successor?

But it’s hard not to see it as equally bad for the right, because there’s going to be no real push from the White House for conservative policies while the full energy of the president is devoted towards hunting down people who are mostly no longer even relevant.

It doesn't matter. Red states establishing illiberal regimes is the main hope for right wing policy in this country and that depends on declining federal state capacity.

Red states can only do so much short of actual secession. It’s like the Texas border thing, even if Abbott could do what he wanted there’s nothing stopping migrants entering California, having children who are constitutionally 100% American citizens entitled to US passports, and them deciding to move legally to Texas.

Trump made the mistake of building a personality cult instead of a party.

This is what passes for analysis, I guess. Question: How much of the GOP was amenable to MAGA in 2016 vs now?

I still don't understand these people who are otherwise centrist or middle-left like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails.

I agree. Also, because Trump’s foreign policy views are contradictory and rarely fully sincere, they can be extremely easily manipulated. For example, say you want Trump to support Ukraine, all you have to do is invite Putin to a summit and to give Donald talking points that amount to less than a full capitulation to Russian aims, and he’ll do the rest of the work himself. Look at North Korea, how fast things went from summits to “ROCKETMAN!!!!” bluster. If he feels personally insulted he can go from a dove to “fuck it, assassinate Iran’s most important military leader” in a way even Clinton wouldn’t dare overnight. As soon as he feels his ego is insulted he’s willing to go full neocon on just about anyone.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats