Edit: I am in no way saying conservatism is bad and liberalism is good. I have my values in both.
To me it's very clear why the government is leaving UNESCO (and over time the UN at large). The UN is dysfunctional and does not work. It used to be a source of soft power for the States, but hasn't been so for the better part of this century. Meanwhile, the US continues to fund it even though it is currently running a massive deficit. It doesn't make sense to continue throwing good money after bad, especially when funds are scarce. Let other nations pick up the funding slack. Likely they will not and the UN will collapse, as it should. Something new can be built from its ashes. Many people agree with this rather pragmatic view.
If you want to have a discussion, debate the points I made above instead of hurling insults and ad hominem attacks.
That's how I know the UN no longer matters.
For instance: Both Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have been sanctioned by the UK, Norway, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian civilians."
And yet all of these countries also condemn Hamas and their atrocities....
Similarly, many countries have sanctioned both Hamas (and/or other groups like PIJ, etc.) and/or individual Palestinians for acts against Israeli civilians as well as Israel and/or Israeli politicians for acts against Palestinian civilians.
Go look at where the money goes. This is not it.
I would argue that it's not practical to burn the current system down without a plan at all for the next system (like the ACA a few years ago. . .)
My concern isn't change. My concern is the complete lack of concern for consequences. Like it or not, the US is and has been on the decline in terms of world authority. Leaving a power vacuum, like dismantling the UN, will just open the door for places like China to step in. You think that country has any amount of give a crap about humanity as a whole? Not even a little, I would argue.
So, again, for many people, it's not that the UN is perfect (or even functional in my opinion). It's that there is, has been, and seems like there will never be an actual plan. Am I wrong?
If China wants to foot the bill, let them. As I pointed out, the US hasn't been getting anything in return for the last 25 years of footing the bill, basically since 9/11. China cares about its people. They are currently fighting back against privilege and conspicuous consumption by the elites [1]. The CCP knows that an open revolt would destabilize their grip. After all, they themselves rode a populist wave into power.
I think of it like the Tour de France. Sometimes to win the race you need to move into second place, conserve your resources, and let someone else face the headwinds.
The comment about change felt like an ad hominem attack.
You pointed this out but provided no evidence.
"I'm paying for these traffic lights with these taxes but all they do is slow me down"
Thoughtful, conservative isolationists don't mix up their questions about how important soft power is really with threats to annexe Canada or attempts to get the Brazilian Supreme Court to drop a case through tariff policy. Or indeed rant incessantly about how much of a threat China is whilst doing everything possible to drive the rest of the world into their arms.
And the Tour de France is not a Peleton. You are being disingenuous.
Even if this were true - and Commodore Perry, Manifest Destiny, and our zealous pursuit of trade among other skeletons of history fly in the face of this - why would we want to return to a status quo when we are so far removed from it now? The global landscape has changed, and we were the primary motivator of that change. After decades of assassinations of political leaders abroad and shock doctrine economic policies, we are to pack up our bloody toys and go home? The moral objections aside, this is a foolish and shortsighted policy that leaves only chaos. We will not preserve anything about our way of life, because it's been spliced with the genes of a globalized, post ww2 administrative world we created.
A peloton is a line of cyclists with riders taking it turns to voluntarily relinquishing the lead to conserve energy. Happens a lot in Tour De France. Pretty much exactly the situation your analogy attempted to describe. (If you're only aware of the branded exercise equipment, maybe don't use cycling race analogies and definitely don't confuse people possessing knowledge you lack with disingenuousness)
Got to enjoy the irony of someone accusing me of being disingenuous for knowing slightly more than zero about cycle races, whilst simultaneous arguing that a mad child shouting about annexing Canada is either isolationism or the "US returning to its roots" though.
I mean, I guess the US did have a mad king once and, separately, an attempt to annex Canada. Neither of those had anything even slightly to do with the principle of isolationism either, and I don't think either of them were successful enough for any sane Americans to want to return to them :D
The UN has no power, so dismantling it cannot leave a power vacuum. The US abandoning its overseas policies, that'd leave a power vacuum, because the US has power and projects it. But the UN has no power - it's some UN member states that have power.
Case in point: the general assembly demanded Russia withdraw all military forces from Ukraine. But what are they going to do about Russia ignoring that demand? Nothing, they're powerless.
If you screw your counterparty over in every negotiation, you erode trust and end up without allies.
That’s fine in a business setting, if you’re self-capitalized (although Trump famously ran into issues after burning bridges with most banks), because you can do without them.
It works less effectively in a forum of sovereign nations, where you’re going to need to deal with CountryX tomorrow and ten years from now.
The US is ceding the soft power and web of alliances that are the basis of its economic and hard power.
The US, without allies, loses to China strictly on the basis of population.
“America first” is “America alone” with an orange spray tan.
It had several remits, but its most important is probably the one to prevent a world war. It’s designed specifically as a talking shop to help countries find other ways of resolving disputes than kill people - and promote international understanding . It’s far from perfect, but in general it does a pretty good job.
The current state of the world would definitely beg to differ
Fair enough. It's worth noting though, that China benefits when the US withdraws from stuff like this.
“ This pick-up truck is dreadful as a tool for peeling bananas “
The UNSC isn’t an arbitrator of good, but an alignment of hard UN outcomes with the first countries to have nukes (and therefore the ability to force the issue militarily if they disagreed with the UN).
This is not proven. Why would China want to wreck Taiwan? Official US, Taiwanese, and Mainland China policy is that there is one China. Taiwan is like Texas being a breakaway republic run by confederates in the USA, though the culture has evolved in a more progressive direction (more progressive than USA) since the original breakup.
> It’s a bit incomplete to bring up Security Council vetoing without mentioning Russia (currently at war with a sovereign nation)
I'll give you that's bad, but at least it's a fight between nations and not a genocide. I believe the U.S. instigated this fight by advancing NATO territory eastward and my position is there should be peace negotiations immediately.
For the same reasons most wars have been fought: belief (primacy of CCP), resources (uncontested access to the Pacific), and the economy (don’t worry about that, ra ra flag).
> [Russia and Ukraine] not a genocide
One of the definitions of genocide is forced relocation of children and eradication of culture, both of which Russia is doing in the Ukrainian territories it occupies.
All parties seem to be exercising their right, the US does not have a monopoly on it.
Among other things, it called for Yemen to stop attacking Israeli shipping, which is one of the few acts by a country that is fulfilling its international obligation to intervene to stop genocide. Yemen has repeatedly stated that it will stop when Israel stops its genocide in Gaza and proved it when it stopped during the ceasefire.
The US budget is ~$7T annually. There is $50B to spend deporting critical parts of our workforce. There is $1T in defense spending to ensure that we spend more than the next 9(!) militaries combined*. Et cetera.
The US spends ~$18B supporting UN programs. This is ~0.003% of the federal budget.
The point here is funds are not scarce, and in any case to the extent that one is concerned about spending, the UN spend is not the driver. The rest of your point is consistent, there's no need to use the red herring about lack of money.
* I'm old enough to remember the end of the Cold War. Americans were told that as the Soviet threat withdrew, we could expect a "peace dividend" now that we didn't need to spend so much on defense. Inflation-adjusted, we spend more now than at the peak of the Cold War.
Given the threat matrix today that includes fantasies such as "US land war against its third-largest trading partner" and the absurd "protracted war against a developing nation currently being fought to stalemate by a country smaller than California," I am not sure this increased spend makes sense. Seems like the only scenario that justifies our military spend is when a President decides to blow a wad of lives & cash in some utterly wasteful conflict.
A government that does not collect sufficient taxes to fund its priorities can somehow always claim that funds are scarce. But that's a) a choice and b) can be rectified any time by shifting priorities (see: military budget, for ex.) or collecting more revenue.
It's fine to say "I don't care that there is a body where nations can defuse conflict without war," but it's disingenuous to pretend there simply is not money for it.
If you're ok with increasing debt to fund UN (and thousand other things) then come out and say so.
BTW: I would love to hear which wars did UN stop?
It seems to me that recently US, not UN, stopped Houthis from bombing ships, stopped India-Pakistan conflict, derailed Iran's nuclear plans and is making progress on Israel-Palestine conflict.
All I hear from UN is pro-palestine, anti-israel virtue signaling and zero action or even a realistic plan to help end those conflicts.
Yes. I am okay with increasing debt (currently costing 2% after inflation) to increase long-term US stability and competitiveness. I am not okay with increasing debt to decrease long-term US stability and competitiveness, as we are doing now.
- some spending is objectively more necessary than other spending. Funding UNESCO is not that important. I detailed why we shouldn’t do so even were we running a $1T budget in another comment.
- UNESCO is not responsible for “defus[ing] conflict without war.” The vast majority of the UN is not.
It's fine to say we should not participate in the UN/UNESCO for ideological reasons, but we don't have to take leave of our faculties and engage with the silly notion that this administration cares about the debt or deficit.
That doesn’t mean I’m going to quit supporting removal of pointless spending any more than it means I’ll support the OBBBA. I’m not going to adopt a sunk-cost fallacy that “well, they just pissed away even more money, so throwing the UN a few billion to further chicom propaganda and political narratives I oppose is fine.” That’s not a facile position.
I agree it’s not going to make a huge difference in the debt but we don’t have the money to burn. The fact that congress and the president ignored that doesn’t make it less true or compel me to do so for this case. There isn’t this bargaining thing happening where trump’s OBBBA pisses away trillions more therefore now it’s acceptable to piss away billions on anti-american global organizations.
U.S. can't afford $18 billion of non-essential spending. It can't afford $1 billion of non-essential spending. In fact, it can't afford $1 of non-essential spending.
The argument "we're $35 trillion in debt so it's not a big deal to add 0.01% to it" is just incomprehensible to me.
And it's not just UN. It's $47 billion to USAID, $9 billion to NPR, $10 billion to California's "never gonna happen" rail, $1.3 billion to Harvard and that's just a small part of spending.
US government still needs to go on a serious spending diet. But every cut gets people to catastrophize how the world will end if US doesn't fund UN or Harvard.
> The argument "we're $35 trillion in debt so it's not a big deal to add 0.01% to it"
This is not the argument. The argument is more along the lines that our leadership just weeks ago rallied around a sharp increase in the rate of our debt accretion, so obviously erasing the debt is not a political priority at this time.
Given that erasing the debt is not a political priority, good stewardship demands that deficit spending should align with uses that will generate positive long-term financial returns to Americans (e.g. cancer research) instead of negative returns (deporting agricultural and construction workforces).
Making cuts that will have the effect of slowing the long-run growth rate of the US economy and its overall competitiveness will also make it harder to erase the debt should that ever become a political priority.
Now it seems that the current administration is too much for people here to handle. I wonder if the mods have noticed the same thing, or maybe they support it at this point.
Where I get frustrated is when the admin turns around and massively expands the deficit by throwing cargo ships full of money at other wasteful, in my opinon, programs. That tells me the fiscal responsibility talk was just a pretense to do another kind of money grab and "own the libs" at the same time. And at the end of the day the argument reduces to opinions on what is wasteful and what is not.
Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what?
> Example: you claim UN hasn't been a source of soft power "for the better part of this century." Well, says you - I think it has done a great job. Now what?
Okay, what has it done that has aligned with US interests?
Whether the UN works or not is largely dependent upon whether the five powers that granted themselves veto power (the P5: the US, the UK, France, China, and Russia) allow it to work. They are largely the source of its funding.
With that context in mind, it's difficult to understand your perspective. You've only thrown out your opinion instead of facts, and then - in a preemptive defensive posture - claim any criticism will be insults or ad hominem attacks.
You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?)
If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century.
The US is responsible for more than 25% of the UN's funding and is ~5-6x more than other members of the Security Council [1]. This is disproportionate to its obligations or its population.
> You seem to believe the UN's job is to advance the US's agenda. (No, it isn't. It's there to allow a forum for diplomacy for all nations.) You also seem to believe that the UN is a bad investment. (That's a highly subjective perspective: what are your stated metrics for such a judgement on ROI?)
Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft.
> If you believe that the world is a better place with regional hegemons ruling their parts of the world with power as the only metric that matters, I'd suggest building yourself a time machine and going back to the end of the 19th century.
If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this. Truth is it never changed. It is still very much regional hegemons governing their parts of the world. The only difference being that the hegemonic boundaries are not defined by homogeneous geographic regions. If you read the world news carefully, you will realize that all conflicts are tied to the boundaries between two or more hegemons.
Fact. Another fact: this is a rounding error for the US government's budget. The total spend is under $15b. Government spending has been $5t to $7.5t in the last decade. Why is this particular spending line item of such interest to you? Do you truly see zero value derived from investment in the UN? Is that perhaps because you require some benefit to Americans from the investment? About 2/3rds of UN spending is on development and humanitarian assistance. Is helping the rest of the world raise the standard of living a laudable goal for the richest country in the world to contribute to or not, in your eyes?
> Countries are not friends. They are allies with shared interests. That means each country has to derive value from the alliances it participates in. These alliances are strategic. If the alliance does not bring value, the country could and should divest from them. These are foundational principles of statecraft.
Perhaps one root difference in belief is that I don't believe the UN is an alliance, and you do. It is a forum for countries that belong to different alliances to have a forum to talk to each other. It also is a forum to build temporary alliances for military intervention (e.g., Iraq War I) across such boundaries. The US failed miserably at building such a consenus for Iraq War II and has been
> If you believe the world is anything other than that then either you have been fooled by the super comfortable existence insulating you from most shocks that the US has provided, or you wish the world was like this.
Thank you. I understand your zero-sum argument and realpolitik in general, both from an academic and personal perspective. I grew up in a third-world country, so - perhaps, unlike you - I'm intimately familiar with the impact of Great Power games in the post-Cold War era. You are unfortunately correct; I wish that the US (my home for several decades now) tried harder to move away from such thinking and utilized the UN for more win-win scenarios, but we're moving away from such liberal thinking, and so my wish will probably remain unfulfilled.
Says the person using an international communication network orchestrated by the UN...
This article makes the case that the 1965 Immigration Act happened not because anyone in the US wanted it but because the State Dept. pressured Congress to pass it in order to make more allies with Third World countries https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/geopolitical-origins.... Basically the UN was used as a forum by countries to trash the US which it still is. The USSR propagandized against the US in the Third World.
So honestly the whole UN experiment seems like it was kind of a foreign policy wonk experiment that didn't really serve the interests of US citizens especially now that the USSR fell. But I think the philosophical ideas behind it run very strong in elitist thought in the US. These are that 1) Nationalism is an ever present threat to global peace 2) social engineering should be used to prevent Nationalism/Nazis/etc. 3) Immigration is a tool for statecraft and limiting Nationalism in certain countries. 4) an enlightened class of smarter, educated people should be used to counter Nationalism.
If any of these goals or assumptions are false the whole thing becomes useless.
- Information bubbles (this is the top issue, and it's really incredibly persuasive)
- Geographic location and social environment
- Lack of time to deeply evaluate truth vs noise and consider multiple sides of an issue
- Conviction of values - how much does a person believe their values are tied to the political view (leads to subtly drawing emotional conclusions and implicitly trusting a political party)
- Belief that due to one's own intelligence, one is not subject to propaganda (a clearly false belief that many smart people fall into)
Deep emotional awareness is not as strongly related to intelligence as people think.
It seems objective that many civilians have been killed and a lot of land stolen.
But my point is that things that seem objective to one group of people might be objectively false to another group.
Which isn't to say that there is no real truth. Just that the premises people hold are so different that the worlds are not compatible.
A lot of people treat politics like they behave in the HN comment section: They see the headline, arrive at a conclusion based on previous assumptions, and head straight to the comment section to argue their side without ever even making an effort to read the article. With politics, politicians are experts at crafting headlines and sound bites that feed these people their confirmation bias and tickle the part of the brain that says this person is on your side.
I’ve had some success discussing issues with these people calmly and openly, adding facts one at a time until they realize the situation isn’t what they thought. There are a lot of “That can’t be right” lightbulbs going off as the facts start to conflict with their idea of how the world works. This goes for both extremes of the political spectrum, BTW.
I certainly do not love the Trump admin and think Kamala would easily do better. However, that does not mean the Trump admin has done nothing I agree with. There are nice parts to the OBBB that directly benefit me. Further, I think the approach to H1Bs, removing the lottery and instead basing it on salary, is the right move.
I say this because regardless of admin, there's going to be things you like and dislike. What seems to happen is people get completely sucked in a media bubble which only reports the good or bad of their political opponents.
Even the worst and most evil world leaders in history did good or had some good policies. There's never been a pure evil or good leader. Unfortunately, people want to flatten the world and remove the nuance "if so and so did it, it must be good/bad".
Your line of thinking is like saying that the British Raj was terrible for India, but the British built railways, which was a good thing. Good and bad do not exist in isolation. The British built railways in india so they could more effectively extract wealth, not out of the benevolence of their hearts. It is much the same with the US government.
Back to the british railway example. You are correct that it was there to more efficiently extract wealth (bad). But that does not mean that rails aren't hugely beneficial to the population in general. Roads in the US exist primarily to aid in rapid shipping, that doesn't mean roads are a bad thing because a company like Amazon gets the majority of the benefit.
It's a basically non-existent politician that does something purely out of the goodness of their own hearts. In a democracy, it's the role of the electorate to try and remove politicians from power who refuse to provide benefits to the citizens as a whole.
This can be a problem when the political 'class' (politicians of course, but also media commentators, journalists, podcasters, whatever) do not realise this issue. Brexit is a classic example, where the UK prime minister called for a referendum possibly confident that 'no one' would actually vote yes.
I agree -- it is surprising how many high achieving people have such poor understanding of how the world/society/countries work. It's almost like our education system's specificity hasn't done a good job on civics broadly.
Not only in their own lives, but as the primary measure of success.
One side effect of this is that they stop investing effort in things that don’t generate material wealth.
Personally, I think that tends to turn people into dicks (non-transaction friendships are valuable to me), but they do them.
That’s why they’re burning money on life extension moonshots.
And what will happen in 22nd century and onwards is no great concerns for us here.
The people I know who support this regime do so because they feel completely left out (they're low income so I'm not sure that applies to software developers).
When there's nothing for you why wouldn't you want to just burn it all down? Then you can build a more "fair" system.
Please note that I do not agree with literally anything current admin does, this is just the perspective I hear often.
They probably also feel left out by their current regime, and "just burn it all down" would be done more efficiently by other ways, or with other choices.
There's still a part that resonates enough that they're willing to support a specific message.
You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious, but I hear these arguments, too, and the people I see who feel "left out" are largely left out because they hold fringe beliefs or because they are told they are left out despite actually being part of highly influential groups.
Rural Middle- to low-income folks are who I interact with mostly.
No fringe beliefs, just the unfortunate circumstance of being born in places that peaked 60 years ago, but with family roots deep enough to keep them planted. Not who I would call influential. Mostly just working class Joe's trying to make it and struggling, even though their parents were FAR more successful with FAR less education, training, and pressure.
Notably, the people who lived under legal oppression for centuries in this country did not take this approach. Instead, they worked inside the system and were able to affect change. The "burn it down" side ended up having its cities literally burned down.
Being able to code isn't the end-all-be-all skillset the industry likes to pretend it is.
For the record - I think those same intelligent people overlook the externalities (a personal military for the executive branch) of such a disruptive administration, or irrationality disbelieved it would ever happen.
They _are_ smart people. There's more to the differences in perspective than "lib smart, maga stupid".
It almost doesn’t even make grammatical sense to say “raising prices will lower prices”, let alone any kind of rational sense.
In my experience I have seldom seen people who believe 100% in whatever party/government does. Most of the time it's a few topics that matter - be it immigration, or less taxes, or whatever. However, they are not gonna protest for leaving UNESCO. They might find it stupid, but probably they find topic XYZ more important. So they suck it up and move on.
Then there are the believers - everything the administration does is great. But I like to believe and think they are a minority.
There's a lot of MAGA hats out there man. Historically, has it ever been a good thing when so many people believe everything one man says is pure truth? I mean, even if I agreed with every policy, the extent and dedication of this cultish behaviour would give me pause.
Many MAGA hats don't all mean the same. I doubt all of his supporters like the tariffs, or how he is dealing with Russia, or Israel, or, or or...
However, I believe that some of the core policies (hard on immigration, etc) somehow find a common agreement. And even in those core policies, some might like different approaches. And yet in total they do feel they support this administration.
The issue is when people let all happen because one of the core problems must be solved at all costs. Meaning the administration solves that one core problem you really wanted fixed, but the price to pay is equally bad, and yet you just look down and let it all happen, because it's convenient and doesn't affect you in the short term.
In my opinion, this has become more and more common with whichever party we elect, except some are more vocal about it than others.
We see a bodybuilder good at lifting things, or a bricklayer good at building houses, and we don't assume they also have an opinion on nicomachean ethics that should be entertained. Similar, usually, with entertainers. But we sometimes assume that someone really good at structuring database queries for optimal retrieval efficiency must respect the separation of labor from capital value or the challenges of providing for the needs of eight billion people because they are people.
I have to assume it's because we think that if you're good at one "labor of the mind" you must be good at the others (and, probably, because too few of us also have nearly enough respect for how much thought goes into making a wall that won't fall down).
The worst ideas come from the smart people who can persuade themselves and others of inevitable success.
After one particular discussion he conceeded: "I know you're factually correct, but I don't care, because this is what I want". And this is the point were further discussion was useless.
I'm totally fine debating whether the sky is blue with someone claiming it's gray because it is usually overcast. I'm happy to entertain the motion that the sky could be bronze - with a reference to ancient Greece and pretty sunsets. At the end of the day we can just agree to disagree and move on.
But I'm not going to debate whether the sky is blue with someone yelling that the sky MUST be green because obviously clouds are green. They have moved so far from the truth that they are either arguing in bad faith or just plain delusional. Neither case is worth even the slightest snippet of my time: I'd have a better chance of success trying to explain my viewpoint to a tree. It isn't politics anymore, it has turned into religion or sports.
Edit: removing a sentence that came across as offensive.
But I can see how it can read as an “attack”, I’ll update the comment. Thanks for calling it out!
Depends on the problem you're trying to solve.
Perhaps it's "how can I get more for myself?" versus "how I improve the lives of humanity?".
Engs all think they and their peers are very logical and super smart. They must be because of all the world changing apps/services/monies they make...? I've fallen in to this trap.
* Intelligence is the computational power one is born with
* Stupid/smart is the effective utilization of that intelligence
I personally blame social media and the financialization of everything for this. A person's entire self-worth can be reduced to the size of their 401K and their instagram reels (brunch, dog, destination wedding, hike, repeat).
Depressing.
I share the same horrible experience of having these last 10 years open my eyes wide to the reality of humanity.
I know many of “those people” and not a single one of them religious.
American leftist insults always go like this - X is bad, but only if it originated from us. The self loathing is amazing.
* Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity. * Men are bad, unless they’re trans * Gender is a social construct, but race is real * culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture
Right wing is a semi balancing act * religion is good, unless Muslim * men aren’t necessarily good or bad. They can be heros or villains * boys naturally fight with sticks, it’s not taught * American culture is just as valid as any other
Not exactly a mirror image, but enough team loyalty and justification goes on so people can pat themselves on the back as smart while the other team is delusional
Your list of grievances is like a Fox News handout for viewers to remember what they hate about DemonRats.
Your "assumptions":
* Religion is bad, but only if it’s Christianity.
* Men are bad, unless they’re trans
* Gender is a social construct, but race is real
* culture is important, unless it’s associated with whites, because they don’t have culture
* Your Religion is yours, don't make it mine (regardless of which flavored cult)
* Men no longer get to be the boss just because they're men
* Gender is a personal "choice"
* Culture is important (and "white culture" is tempting to make light of in that it's "punching up", and it's kind of Wonder Bread bland).
I'm happy for you that you have people to pat you on the back and tell you you're smart -- we all could use a little emotional support.
Edit: I only have two Trump supporters in my friend list -- they are both intelligent, kind, and devoutly religious. Obviously I have n=2 personally, but it's a thing to very Christian and very Trumpy. It's an observation, not a judgement.
If someone who seems smart disagrees with me then there's only 1 explanation
just remember, there is nothing more easy to manipulate than an insecure male.
It has also made me realize how difficult life was for my parents and grandparents, who were all born before the civil rights act.
The civil rights act passed when Trump was in college so he and the other elderly members of the other branches also saw the lead up to it. Every action I see is to prevent anything like that again. Or to personally enrich themselves.
I had no idea my Dad had gone down that path, or why...
I've been on this earth a long time, and I too realize I don’t know anything about human nature or intellect.
Those seemingly smart people are likely all smart. But they have no idea how to take their skills from one area and apply them to another. So they fall for really stupid BS outside their area of specialization.
Looking back I blame the Democrats for running horrible candidates and the gaslighting that their candidates were actually great and were as "cool" as the Trump team. It just felt so disingenuous when you heard Democrats saying that Biden was still very with it and even more disingenuous when they said that Harris/Walz were a great pick. And now the folks that said it was disingenuous were not wrong, cause after the campaign ended and Trump was in office seemingly everyone that praised Biden and then Harris then flipped the script and started saying what everyone was thinking all along (that Biden was not fit to serve and Harris wasn't a great candidate).
I talked to alot of guys that flipped from D to R this past election and just about every one of them said a version of: "do they think we are stupid??".
The Democrats have a hubris problem, they think that just because they run someone and tell folks that the person is great, everyone will just automatically buy into that. That's just not how it works and you have to make a genuinely convincing argument and that argument can't be "the other guys is worse"
The party is defined as being composed of the people who are already elected. So the priority of the Democratic Party ends up reflecting the priorities of those who are already in office, which is to make sure the incumbents get reelected.
This means there's very little incentive to expand the electorate (which would mean younger voters, who are likely to vote younger candidates, so that threatens the aging incumbents), or spend resources in expanding the map (because by definition there are no incumbents there whose interests are represented in the party).
For as advanced as the US political system is, it's incredibly backwards when it comes to professionalization of the political parties. A good comparison is the BJP in India. Setting aside policy, ideological issues for a moment, what they're really good at is being professional. The head of the party is not elected, and constantly rotates the party representative in each election, keeping their bench deep. They also have a soft age limit.
In a way, Donald Trump's greatest contribution to the Republican Party was destroying the incumbency advantage for Republicans. As a result the Republican slate was completely refreshed with younger (although generally worse) candidates, but while it may have made the party significantly worse from a policy/ideology perspective, it has made it politically stronger.
I'm not a US citizen and did not have to make a choice, but I could see plenty of reasons not to vote for the Democratic candidate: the establishment had tried to run a candidate that was obviously unfit for office and parachuted a replacement at the last minute; the Democratic response to covid was atrocious (yes, the irony of Trump capturing that slice of the vote does not escape me); the issue of males (transwomen) in female sports and prisons...
Whether those reasons outweighed the obvious (to me) negatives is everyone's choice to make when casting their vote... but the inability to understand the other side (and brag about it) seems odd for all the smart people here.
In the first term Trump hired a lot of retired or retiring generals. They may not have been subject matter experts, but that's fine, since they had subject matter experts within their departments, and they had the ability to organize, lead and execute.
But most importantly, most of them had a pretty strong sense of ethics and loyalty to the country and constitution.
The generals, and the people they hired, and even the Trump lackeys who were nonetheless being watched by the generals, helped keep Trump's worst impulses in check.
In Term 2, on the other hand, Trump has explicitly picked people who are completely unqualified (this is a mafia tactic to ensure the individual's loyalty is entirely to you since they know they would never have got the job they did on merit) and their primary skills lie in right wing TV and Podcasts. So these people prioritize effect and show for their followers, and are loyal to no one but Trump. And they've been selected primarily because they're incapable of doing the jobs they've been hired for well, so it's a stark 180 from the first term.
Sometime, cruelty is the point and there is only delusion in trying to project "good reasons". It is loosing strategy.
Yes small swings could change election results, but none of them will come from Trump voters. This argument just serves to more politics further to the right.
Those people wanted harm, wanted to cause pain and addressing their concerns does not provide any of that.
1. Intelligence does not transfer across domains. E.g. being good at making money doesn't necessarily make you qualified in other areas. And vice versa, as Isaac Newton is famously quoted as saying "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men" after losing a ton of money in the South Sea Bubble.
2. Many (most) people view their identity as a membership in some group, however that is defined. Most people like to pretend to argue about policy, but they're really arguing about their group membership.
3. Admitting you were wrong and changing your opinion is incredibly difficult for most people, perhaps even moreso for people who are nominally smart in other domains. Doubly so if it goes against your group membership as pointed out in #2.
Regarding "And it’s wild to think that more than 1/3 of the devs I’ve met in my life support this admin" specifically, at least in my experience, many of the devs don't support Trump as much as they chaffed against some of the cultural changes Democrats led (woefully unsuccessfully in my opinion) and so they hooked their wagon to Trump. E.g. this is my personal opinion, but I think "the left" really did go overboard with language policing, recognizing racial group membership above all else when it comes to diversity, labeling any valid discussion of the pros and cons of biological men in women's sports as "transphobic", the utter dishonesty in pretending Biden would be capable for another term and thus denying a real primary, etc. etc. And, to be blunt about it, for a very long time the Democratic party had almost nothing to offer for white men - indeed, in many aspects "old white men" became an acceptable derogatory term amongst the left. How they expected that would win them elections in the US is beyond me.
So don't get me wrong, I think Trump is worse in nearly every way, but I think a lot of the dev supporters I've seen of Trump are less full-on MAGA folks than libertarian types who thought Trump would challenge the excesses of the left (and are now having a hard time admitting his full-on fascist behavior).
If you have false beliefs as the basis for your computation you just get wrong results faster.
What people mean by intelligent person is often someone who: - has more computing power - spends their time using that computing power - checks their assumptions and biases regularly - over time accumulates more correct beliefs than others
If you get lots of computing power but don't do the other things - you get a dumber person than average. Because they accumulate more wrong results than everybody else.
This is how you get tech bros - great at math and programming, dumb as a shoe about everything else.
The key concept here is "transhumanism" [1]. This is a very popular belief among Silicon Valley CEOs. Followers have deluded themselves into thinking their genes are special and they think about what they can do to ensure this transhuman future. It usually means having as many children as possible a la Elon Musk.
Thing is, transhumanism is simply eugenics [2]. It's tech-flavored white supremacy [3].
[1]: https://www.thenation.com/article/economy/silicon-valley-art...
[2]: https://www.seenandunseen.com/transhumanism-eugenics-digital...
[3]: https://biopoliticalphilosophy.com/2023/01/19/transhumanism-...
The second biggest is a life that hasn't gone how they had envisioned and, rather than take accountability, they blame anything but their choices. Though, I think lack of accountability is a symptom of insecurity, so it is wrapped up in the first issue.
There should be a lot more and a lot louder complaining about conservatives.
They're seeking maximum asshole alignment and some recognize that while supporting the primary asshole may be causing them pain, it's lesser than the pain of the people they've always wanted to hurt.
It works because it's like short-circuiting. You have the easy to identify superficial traits, and so the current goes straight through, and shorts the system. Except it's social electricity in this case. My point is while we can blame the individual assholes in this, their generation itself is an inevitability in the right toxic environment. These populist explanations seek to address real concerns of people like bad work conditions, inflation and so on, but it invents an easy to digest (and entirely wrong) premise about why their lives are bad.
I wish I could say hating the assholes works, but that's just another short-circuiting of social electricity. Polarization, hate, enemies. It all just serves to divide and conquer us. Unity is strength, division is weaknesss.
Meanwhile 28 of the 196 state parties to the world heritage convention have no sites listed at all. Of course, Taiwan has no sites at all.
It’s well known that many of the UN bodies and similar international orgs have been wholly captured by china or her new axis of evil. Ghebreyesus, for example, has been china’s man from the get-go. American dollars should not go to support a grand red chinese narrative.
UNESCO has, in recent years:
- published an “anti-racism toolkit”
- campaigned to “#ChangeMENtalities”, to “reshape masculinities for gender equality”
- published “comprehensive sexuality education” that is strongly at odds with many Americans views on how such things ought to be taught
- published ai ethics recommendations that focus on issues like “gender” and “climate”
- run partnerships to “get every learner climate-ready”
In other words, it’s operating out of its original scope, doing things that are clearly and massively one-sided. I recognize the NGO-industrial complex, along with much of mass media and culture, has been so wholly captured by the left for long enough that y’all can see a change back to the status quo as disruptive or odd. But the other half of the Overton window does still exist. A lot of what the current administration has done is stupid or wrong, but my tax dollars being sent to this organization would also be stupid and wrong.
UNESCO was previously a body that did some social justice stuff and a bunch of heritage work. Now it's a body that does a lot of social justice stuff and heritage work hijacked by chinese agitprop. The case for withdrawing previously was decent but these days it's pretty clear.