[flagged]
> I think about this line a lot when I read about what Trump and Musk are doing
It's not just them though, but also their predecessors who created the conditions that led to Trump (e.g. pushing free trade even after the initial fairy tale that it would increase US manufacturing proved to be untrue). They were willing to sacrifice others' blue collar employment.
It's would be kind interesting to see every politician's list of who should be prioritized and who they're willing to sacrifice, but they'll never be explicit about such things.
Eh, kinda sorta. Trump is responsible for his actions, but the people who created the conditions for him are responsible too. There are a lot of leaders are very interested in having the buck to stop with him because it lets them off the hook.
IMHO, Trump's tariff policies were poorly thought through, and that's something that's all on him. But reshoring manufacturing is going to be costly, and those costs will land on people who aren't yet used to bearing them, and that's also on his predecessors who allowed the offshoring in the first place. If they'd never done that, there'd be no Trump and no pain of reshoring.
It's just a truism though isn't it? Everything in the past is responsible for what is the current state of things. You can say it but it has next to no meaning and is not interesting.
But using plain English and the plain meanings of words: Trump is responsible. You can blame Biden for not dropping out soon enough or whatever, but ultimately: what is happening now is on Trump.
What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen.
Personally I think it's a mix, but inequality is a big factor. Quoting Roosevelt:
"But I venture the challenging statement that if American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, then Fascism and Communism, aided, unconsciously perhaps, by old-line Tory Republicanism, will grow in strength in our land."
Fashion.
Not exactly. Being so blunt and simplistic is politics, pure and simple. The D's don't like the R's, so their analysis always stops once they can blame an R (and vice-versa).
I think it's a much more interesting and fruitful question to ask "Who is responsible for Trump," rather than "What is Trump responsible for."
IMHO, the Trump phenomenon is in large part the expression of rejection of neoliberalism, which the pre-Trump political structure made unexpressable. The result is a seriously flawed man gaining power, and causing way more damage than was necessary.
> What would perhaps be interesting is to discuss this objective failure of the American system. Far from the "greatest democracy in the world", the constitution is clearly quite, quite a shit one if it allows this to happen.
That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part?
>That's closer to what I'm getting at. However, what exactly is "this," though? Does it include deviation from a Wall Street-friendly stasis? Neoliberalism 'till death do us part?
Neoliberalism is much newer than the constitution and the country. Have a sense of scope when talking about the history of your country, it's new, but it's not that new.
The country is completely fucked—that we can all agree on. It's imploding and its position in the world is frankly becoming increasingly pathetic. America's friends pity it at best and detest it for its betrayal of Western civilisation at worst. America's enemies are laughing. If there are people to blame, then I'm afraid it's the American people. Americans are not worthy of the country that they have inherited. Americans are an undignified people, that's a bit part of the problem.
The playing politics part is (among other things) selectively focusing only "on the things Trump is doing."
Trump isn't responsible for creating the conditions that allowed him to get elected. A lot of the people who are really interested in focusing only "on the things Trump is doing" are the ones responsible for those conditions in the first place.
I mean, how bad do you have to be that people would rather vote for a sociopathic clown than you, when given the choice? But you know, thinking about that will make you uncomfortable, lets avoid it and focus on the clown!
Here's a thought: if you don't want to be ruled by a Trump, figure out how to avoid creating the conditions where someone like him could win. Strongly advocating for reasonable policies to create those conditions would also be better politics against Trump, right now than the incessant outrage about how terrible Trump is.
>I mean, how bad do you have to be that people would rather vote for a sociopathic clown than you, when given the choice? But you know, thinking about that will make you uncomfortable, lets avoid it and focus on the clown!
The people aren't always right. Just because Trump is a sociopath and actively destroying the country right now, that doesn't mean the opposition actually is worse. That's extremely flawed thinking to put it mildly. You'd really have to be a dyed in the wool member of the Trump cult to still believe that the electorate made the right choice in rejecting Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024.
>Here's a thought: if you don't want to be ruled by a Trump, figure out how to avoid creating the conditions where someone like him could win. Strongly advocating for reasonable policies to create those conditions would also be better politics against Trump, right now than the incessant outrage about how terrible Trump is.
Outrage is fine when he's destroying the country. Tone policing is not OK in this situation, because there's 4 more years of this and proposing new policies now changes literally nothing. The damage is already done. It's too late. The US will probably be OK in the end but the rot is much deeper than can be solved by your beloved "new policies" (which actually the Democrats proposed plenty of, but Americans just wanted Trump anyway), the US needs constitutional change at this point.
He'd have to be a force of nature to be responsible for his own election. The problem with what you're saying is that it's a one-sided perspective, and that's about ego protection ("the problem can't be with me any my side, we're all good, someone else is responsible for all the bad") not solving the actual problem.
Trump is a symptom.
> The people aren't always right. Just because Trump is a sociopath and actively destroying the country right now, that doesn't mean the opposition actually is worse. That's extremely flawed thinking to put it mildly. You'd really have to be a dyed in the wool member of the Trump cult to still believe that the electorate made the right choice in rejecting Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024.
Sorry, it's your thinking that is flawed. You can yell that Clinton and Harris should have won until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that they lost to Trump and the Democratic party was so uncompelling that people decided to take a chance on him.
It's not that the electorate was stupid, it's that the Democratic party either undermined itself and/or failed to offer solutions to problems people were actually having. That's the problem.
> Outrage is fine when he's destroying the country. Tone policing is not OK in this situation, because there's 4 more years of this and proposing new policies now changes literally nothing.
Oh come on. Proposing policies for 4 years establishes credibility. Being outraged accomplishes nothing except a temporary catharsis. It might even be worse than nothing if it allows a squeaker win that prevents real reform to address the issues (see the 2022 midterms).
> The US will probably be OK in the end but the rot is much deeper than can be solved by your beloved "new policies" (which actually the Democrats proposed plenty of, but Americans just wanted Trump anyway), the US needs constitutional change at this point.
Except the Democrats' proposals were timid and weak, and they plugged their ears and ignored a lot of stuff (e.g. immigration: ignored until a last-minute executive order, trade/re-shoring: pretty weak, and mainly focused on protecting existing industries, no risk-taking like Trump's tariffs).
> Michael Scott: We are here because there is something wrong with society.
> Jim: See, you're always saying there's something wrong with society, but maybe there's something's wrong with you.
> Michael Scott: If it's me, then society made me that way.
That probably works as limited context joke, playing off of the saying "if you think everyone else is always the problem, then maybe you’re actually the problem," but it's not really something that generalizes. The relationship between individuals is a lot different than the relationship of society to the individual.
I don't think anyone can seriously claim that society doesn't have major problems, so any issues are actually individual ones. The people who claim that (and they exist), often are just gaslighting to deny a problem they don't want solved.
So like what the Biden admin was doing?
I'm sorry, but "a moron steps in and runs a wrecking ball through the global economy" is not something you look at and say, "wow, his predecessors really messed this one up". No, they did not create the conditions for this needless harm. The answer is, plainly, that Trump is a disastrous moron.
I took the OP to mean the predecessors like McConnell who were evil self-serving sociopaths and normalized a kind of politics to win at all costs, even if the cost is a detriment to the country.
(Yes, you may deem some things are of strategic value - then you put predictable and long term tariffs on a _limited_ number of items, ramped up slowly, matched with incentives to build up capacity in that sector.)
In the past, the tradeoff appeared to be that public school was offered to everyone, and that was enough to make a living. And now?
Harris's message: "Biden is doing fine and things are going great"*
Trump's message: "You're hurting right now, and I'm going to fix it for you"
Very similar to 2016 (in which Bernie's message was also closer to that of Trump)
Exercise for the reader: how might this framework explain Andrew Tate and the like?
* "The US economy is the envy of the world" (accurate though it may be) probably doesn't resonate when you can see your purchasing power slipping through your fingers (as highlighted by certain media outlets) and you can't buy a house
Yes, Trump is doing awful, aimless, cruel things, but he would be laughed out of power had the parties been serving any interest other than those of the wealthy.
I remember Obama and Clinton railing against NAFTA when they were competing for rust belt votes in the primary and it was insincere nonsense. Of course Obama's policies after getting elected revealed he thought as much and that was why so many democrats (now a globalist/neoliberal party) like him.
https://www.npr.org/2008/02/26/38185288/clinton-obama-and-na...
Trump is the reckoning that comes when you tell the exurbs / blue collar work force you ultimately don't care about them and they should all just learn to code.
They felt ignored and powerless and latched onto Trump and here we are. A populist movement in America was overdue, democrats could have taken control of it with Bernie but they put their thumb on the scale to get Hillary the presidency. Republican establishment looked on with despair and saw several of their favored candidates get their career ended but adapted.
To be fair, much of the hollowing out of the rust belt/rural areas is/was as you mention (although, I'd say that Trump doesn't give a rat's ass about those folks either, they were just a means to an end), but what's unsaid is the lack of infrastructure investment by the states themselves.
Had the state governments paid attention to the lack of decent educational opportunities, broadband, transportation and opportunities for the "new economy" (as compared with the withering/now withered manufacturing economy), there would be significant investment/start ups in/of tech companies in those areas, as the cost of living and capital/real estate costs are much lower in the "rust belt" and similar areas.
But no such investment was made by those state governments, so those areas left damaged by the loss of manufacturing jobs were left to rot. Not just by the Federal government, but even more so by the state and local governments in those areas.
There were/are other factors in play too, but you rarely (if ever) hear anyone calling state/local governments to task over this stuff -- it's always the "Feds" who, in point of fact, can certainly help, but remaking areas with sagging economies is much more a state/local thing, IMNSHO.
You misunderstand my point. Which is probably my fault. My apologies. I'll attempt to clarify:
I don't advocate for states to "pay to give each member or your state elite college educations." Rather, I was commenting on the disinvestment[0] in higher education by the states, resulting in poorer educational outcomes as well as fewer educated professionals to serve as innovators, knowledge workers and entrepreneurs in those states.
I'd posit that if many states in the rust belt invested in quality education, rather than forcing big tuition increases/student debt, more folks would stay in those states, with the positive economic benefits across those state economies improving the lots of everyone.
As for "global" businesses, they're mostly an outlier[1], at least in the US with ~15,000,000 businesses with less than 100 employees and ~170,000 businesses with more than 100 employees (of which only 45,000 or so have more than 500 employees).
And why, exactly, do folks leave such places? Why, for the better economics of states that invest in infrastructure and education. Folks wouldn't leave if they could do just as well or better in their hometowns. But (for a whole bunch of reasons, the ones I cite included), those places don't have the same economic opportunity because they don't have the infrastructure or skilled workforce to do so. If they did, companies would flock to those places as the cost of living and cost of doing business are significantly lower.
Why is Silicon Valley a hub for business?[2] Strong educational institutions, good infrastructure and a skilled workforce?
Why are prisons the highlight of six of the seven poorest counties in the US?[3] Poor or no educational institutions and a lack of skilled workers.
I hope I've clarified my point. My apologies for not doing so initially.
[0] https://www.cbpp.org/blog/by-disinvesting-in-higher-educatio...
[1] https://www.naics.com/business-lists/counts-by-company-size/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties...
There's just too many factors outside the state's control, beyond a lack of political support for those types of investments.
I never said it was. In fact, I repeatedly said that lack of infrastructure and disinvestment in higher education were among the reasons for the lack of economic activity in the rust belt and similar.
That said, without decent infrastructure and a skilled workforce, it's much, much harder to attract new businesses, innovators and entrepreneurs. Other factors (as I noted in both the comments to which you replied) are impactful as well, but I chose to focus on two that are (IMHO, at least) rather important.
An excellent point and more's the pity. :(
What industries, specifically, are you thinking about?
Because if those industries did not disappear completely but were instead offshored to arbitrage labor, then the global economy has definitely NOT moved on.
You aren't going to bring manufacturing back to the US and get jobs on the assembly line like your grandfather had, those jobs simply no longer exist. The few jobs that do exist won't pay enough money for a home with a two-car garage like your grandfather had on the assembly line either, they will pay barely subsistence wages like working in an Amazon warehouse. And American manufactured goods won't be competitive like they were when the US could leverage its industries against a Western world that was still rebuilding after the war. No one is going to want to buy American Ladas, and Americans won't be able to afford them.
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/trackers/the-democr...
It's pretty simple: collectively, they didn't care enough. Not enough to counter 30 years of neoliberalism, and stuff like "just learn to code" are convenient fantasies to avoid dealing with the problems they were too timid to address.
IMHO, we have Trump because the Democrats are terrible. They had eight f*cking years to change to actually defeat him, once the problem became evident, but they decided to sit on their hands except to fearmonger.