Hacker News Reader

Comment by cloakandswagger | Hacker News Reader

The value of stability to who? Other nations? America has ample military resources for defending its own shores, and I fail to see how we'll be negatively impacted by exiting the Middle East (aside from wailing from the pro-Israel lobbies).

Trump knows exactly what he's doing, and it is completely in line with his "America First" slogan. It's about focusing on improving our own citizens' lives before pouring trillions into wars, offshore military bases, NATO defense payments and UN programs in the name of globalization.

View on HN

The point to the post you're replying to is that "defending its own shores" is not the only value derived from American dominance. A free and unimpeded military environment in the middle east is one where, say, Russia feels justified in blackmailing Saudi over OPEC disputes.

A withdrawal of forces from ROK and Japan means that they now have to turn to China for protection from the lunatics in the North.

A world without NATO means that Russia gets to annex Russian-speaking regions of Estonia whenever they want, just like they ALREADY DID to the Ukraine.

It's tempting to believe that there are no militarist nuts with guns in the modern industrial world, but it's not true. What is true is that they've been largely suppressed in the post-cold-war era by American military dominance.

Until now. I'll actually put this prediction down in writing: before the end of Trump's term, there will be at least one shooting war involving one of the players mentioned above.

Absolutely this. You can't just absolutely do a complete 180 on the principle of US's place in the world Post-WW2 and not expect bad things to happen. There is a reason things are the way they are. It's because we have let America always think they are the greatest and have some sort of God-given right to be the best in the world. They absolutely hate Muslims and can easily quote the fact that Islam dictates global dominance, hence it is wrong. When the US says it comes first and should have global dominance, everyone else is supposed to roll over and conform to all their demands?

They just elected a strongman into office who has a clear pattern of misplacing blame for all of the countries problems on the out-groups, including immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, liberals, politicians, the "upper class", and all kinds of other things. What will happen when his misplaced blame doesn't solve the problem? He will double down on the out-groups that gave him such easy support... It is DANGEROUS to have the principle of America first and everyone else second when you don't understand the consequences of America's actions and what it has inflicted on the world. It started the globalist capitalist elite, and now it doesn't want to be on the hook for them while blaming IMMIGRANTS for problems that were clearly caused by big corporations. So he wins by promising to cut taxes for those same corporations... I just don't get what he thinks his end-game is. Mostly WW3, I suppose.

> It's about focusing on improving our own citizens' lives before pouring trillions into wars, offshore military bases, NATO defense payments and UN programs in the name of globalization

This is literally the exact same argument the first group of people to use the "America First" slogan made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

And what those people ended up accomplishing was making sure that when the U.S. finally did enter World War 2, it did so more or less unarmed and with its Pacific Fleet sitting at the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Which meant that it took longer to defeat the Axis than it should have, and a lot more Americans (and people, both military and civilian, in all the other nations that struggled against fascism) had to die to make that happen.

In the age of rapid transit and telecommunications, the world is even smaller than it was then. Which makes hiding behind the oceans that sit between us and the rest of the world even less viable of a strategy today than it was.

Are you unaware that Trump wants to increase military spending?: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/politics/donald-trump-defense-...

> History shows that when America is not prepared is when the danger is greatest. We want to deter, avoid and prevent conflict through our unquestioned military dominance

My suspicion is that he wants less direct military involvement and a greater threat if military involvement is required.

That is, he's proposing that we replace the "World Police" model with the Swiss model.

That's a somewhat rational reconstruction of his argument. I am not sure that's the only possible reading. (At least one other one is that he was or is simply not coherent.)

It goes hand in glove with his push for nuclear rearmament. Trump wants a strong, military deterrent but wants to stop nation state building and proxy wars. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.

They aren't. I just don't understand why people were convinced the US military is so weak and shitty and needs rebuilding.

Nostalgia perhaps?

Russia has it even worse---they went from world wide (perceived) number 2 and scary antagonist to `also-ran in decline'.

There could be some detterant benefit in having someone like Trump. With Obama enemies always knew that he would take a rational approach anf try and avoid war. An irrational President is potentially more scary. He will attack even when logically it is a bad idea.

Sort of like Luo Ji as the "Swordholder"? That's kind of scary, but actually it's less scary to imagine a single person making occasionally irrational decisions, than a slow inexorable buildup of media hype and intelligence service bullshit with no obvious cause but one possible result. Actually it feels like the election interrupted one of the latter, and I'm glad because I'd prefer we not go to war with Russia.

That doesn't really go against what he said.

Every Trump supporter seems to see exactly what they want to see of Trump's candidacy. I just had a conversation with someone who believes Trump will be great for LGBTQ equality. No awareness that the campaign has specifically, and emphatically, said, it would roll back almost every bit of progress that has been achieved over the past eight years.

Trump, apparently, won because Trump is whatever people want him to be, even if he has clearly and repeatedly said he is the opposite.

>No awareness that the campaign has specifically, and emphatically, said, it would roll back almost every bit of progress that has been achieved over the past eight years.

Source?

Here's one, pretty well-cited, article on the subject: http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-...

And, look at the legislative record of the people he has chosen to be part of his team. They are among the most anti-LGBTQ legislators at the national level (and his VP has been a nightmare on LGBTQ and women's issues).

I guess it is Trump's lack of legislative record that allows people to make him a grab bag of whatever they want to see. But, when you check the history of who he's got on the team, the story is pretty clear.

And meanwhile those of us in the centrist technocrat left are dodging post-election spitballs thrown by progressives and hoping beyond hope that what Trump ACTUALLY wants to do is just sit on his ass in the oval office and play emperor and DOESN'T try to actually get anything done.

The spitballs are because what America (and the world) desperately needs right now is an opposition party. The centrist (actually, center-right, or even just right wing, compared to European politics) Democratic party has no power against right wing extremist ideologues. If the response of leading Democrats, thus far, is any indicator, there will be literally no effective opposition to Trump and the GOP leadership.

This is why progressives hate the Democrats so much lately.

Whatever. Still seems misdirected to me given the situation we're in. Being right isn't being helpful. People are legitimately terrified.

It's not about being right. It's about whether the Democratic party, as it stands today, has the guts to aggressively take on Trump and Republicans, and I think history has shown us that they do not. So, the Democratic party, today, is a party that people don't really like all that much, and has mostly driven straight down the middle when Republicans push extremist right wing agendas. So, over and over, when the chips fall, the result is far to the right of center. And, Democrats congratulate themselves on their willingness to compromise (unlike those awful Republicans, who are just so stubborn).

Even when Republicans haven't owned all of the branches of government (which is the state we've now found ourselves in), legislation has ended up tilting to the right...because for all their flaws, they know how opposition works, even if you don't have the majority.

You can drive that knife as much as you want, if it makes you feel better. I'm an upper middle class white man whose gonna do just fine in Trump's america. It still doesn't change whose ass is going to sit in the oval office, nor do much to help our neighbors waiting for the deportation squads to arrive.

Tell me when you're through with the stabbing and want to work productively again WITH me to fix this. I'll be waiting.

What does that work look like, to you?

You just characterized this guy who hasn't said a single violent thing as some knife-stabber, you're part of the obstacle preventing us all from working together.

Just keep at it. My bleeding centrist establishment abdomen will be here all week. Let me know when you're done.

(Edit just to clarify the sarcasm, as I feel you won't get it if I don't: if you check upthread, the metaphor I picked originally was "spitballs". I escalated for effect when it became clear that SwellJoe was more interested in yelling at the corrupt DNC establishment elites than in discussing what to do about a Trump presidency, which was the original topic.)

"SwellJoe was more interested in yelling at the corrupt DNC establishment elites"

What have I said that is in a "yelling" tone? Please point it out to me, so I can adjust my tone. I'm speaking the truth as I see it, as clearly as I understand it. The Democratic party lost big this year. It was not just the presidential race. Republicans swept the board, at the national, state, and local level, including in places they shouldn't have won.

If you believe staying the course is the right course of action for the DNC and the party in general, I believe the onus is on you to defend that position; there are people who have tried to bring the party back to being a grassroots party of the working class (among others, of course), and have been repeatedly shushed, shunned, dismissed as being "extremist", etc. So, the working classes have spoken and embraced a fascist who, at least, speaks to them where they are and acknowledges the pain they're feeling. That he can get away with giving scapegoats rather than solutions is predictable in the absence of consistent messaging and action from the Democrats on those same issues.

The argument can no longer be made that the center lane is the pragmatic approach; though one could certainly argue that there's room for center-left Democrats in red state elections, and I would even agree with that and support that. But, the party has no passion left in it; it's been shoved out by party functionaries who cling to power within the party, all the while it sinks further below water.

Losing (big and wide) is not pragmatic.

Oddly enough, despite the fact that the Dutch political climate is more left and quite different from the US, I'd say that many 'progressives' here also hate 'traditionally their' parties (usually Labor and Greens and the like).

The term 'regressive left' is becoming more common in my surroundings, and ever since Pim Fortuyn (2002, the precursor to our Dutch version of Trump, and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) there's been a growing sense that our 'left' not only lacks an answer to populism, it's part of the 'evil neoliberal establishment 1% elite etc.'.

There's a sentiment around me that Labor/greens/D66 (center-left democrats?) are mostly an intellectual elite that doesn't understand the problems we face. They call for integration and multiculturalism, but don't feel any of the adverse effects or problems that result. And somehow they seem way too much into privatizing things, dismantling our welfare state, and general Neoliberal-tasting things.

Now, I don't know enough to have a very strong opinion on all of this. But I do sort of get the intense hatred of the 'intellectual left elite'. It feels degrading and shitty to be told that you're wrong and your problems are bullshit and you're being manipulated by a populist, and you're a racist, and all that, and I can totally see how that could make one respond with a big middle finger and a vote for exactly those populists. Even if just out of spite. And even regardless of the consequences.

Of course I have no answer to this problem. I'm a well-educated, left-leaning, academically-minded, LGBT-affiliated white man and I'll probably do fine no matter what. I feel the way forward for me is to start engaging more with those who feel like they need to 'fuck shit up' with their vote, and to try and properly understand why all these things are happening that I didn't predict and that don't make sense to me.

But dear God I'm trying my best to bite my tongue and not blindly disparage Trump or our own populist movements. Because 1) it seems counter-productive, and 2) a surprising number of my highly-educated, intellectual-type friends are in favor of those movements, so I can't afford not taking them seriously.

And I suppose 3) most people are smarter than they seem, including the really dumb ones.

> Every Trump supporter seems to see exactly what they want to see of Trump's candidacy.

This is part of his genius. There's a similar concept in some mythology that I can't place at the moment...

The Mirror of Erised?

Yup, that's it. Nice.

In so much as America is a "global cop", it's because we actually directly benefit the most from "continued peaceful existence of the world". We do the most trade, we are the largest economy. We have the most to lose.

We're also sitting on an abundance of natural resources. In stark terms: We only rely on continued world peace because of globalization and our reliance on international trade. It isn't inconceivable that we could return to total self-sufficiency if we wanted to.

http://www.drishtiias.com/upsc-exam-gs-resources-Distributio...

We more than 'rely' on world peace and global trade, we thrive on it. Could we be self-sufficient in isolation? Maybe. Would we be better off? Unlikely. Comparative advantage is a real thing.

Yes, unskilled factory workers in China really are cheaper than unskilled factory workers in USA. That's why the Rust Belt voted for Trump, isn't it?

Michael Hudson summed it up a different way - in exchange for military protection, use our currency and open your companies to ours. Oh, and we'll win the guns at you next if your military gets big enough to challenge ours.

US military dominance is what makes USD the world's reserve currency which in turn drives 30-40% of our GDP if we start to withdraw it will start to affect USD standing as a world's reserve currency.

These kinds of economic predictions are nearly impossible to prove or verify.

I remember approximately 1 week ago that Trump being elected would cause a global economic meltdown. Krugman himself said the stock market would "never recover" if he is elected.

And already stocks are up, and have been the last few days.

Bond market is getting hammered though, because it believes he'll revive inflation.

If he lets the Tea Party horsemen of the apocalypse loose on Yellen and the Fed, he just might

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/infrastructure-co...

This is just one of those myths that gets bandied all around the web. It's a reserve currency because it's a huge balanced economy, and the dollars are freely floated and available. And it's not exactly proven that a strong dollar benefits the US altogether.

You are confusing the exchange rate with our ability to basically control word's money supply. The Middle East is basically economic preferences in exchange for security type of setup. One of the consequences of that is that's world's oil trade is denominated in USD. Putin's wet dream is changing that.

The strong vs weak dollar is one of those things that nobody seems to understand. A weak dollar means it's harder for BMW to sell in America, but easier for Ford to sell in Europe. Why should that make people in Detroit angry?

In fact, Trump is in favor ( as all nationalists should be ) of depreciating our currency to be more competitive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com