We've also lifted the veil on the myth that we were a unstoppable military power. We look silly saying, day after day, that the war is over, they're powerless, etc while the same channel shows that's not true.
The folks least impressed right now are China and Russia, who must surely see a new system of regional powers operating in their own spheres, not a single global power which is apparently a historical fiction.
The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
The US is relatively weak without its allies. NATO was the real superpower in the west. The current regime got too big for their britches and tried to go it alone.
I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover. I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
If that does not happen, I would say the article is 100% true.
> I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover.
Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election (if they hold every one that they currently hold, it requires them to take 20 of the 22 Republican-held seats.)
> I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
I don't think the world is waiting at all, it is just taking time to work out the shape of the big changes, whether its European defense integration to replace the historically-pivotal role of the US, or any of large number of other changes nations are actively and openly working on.
Now, if the present direction of the US changes, some of those efforts may be abandoned or deprioritized, but "could potentially stop work" is not the same thing as "waiting to start".
Does the rest of the world really pay attention to internal political details like that? I can't imagine the average non-American thinking "well I know they have a legislative election this year that may impact Trump's ability to enact his agenda, I'll reserve judgement until then." I assume it's more like "America is dropping bombs for no reason and destroying the global economy, why are they doing that".
Even as an insider it's hard to understand how a country could re-elect the worst person on earth and then two years later vote the opposition into power, so it's hard to believe that outsiders are taking such a nuanced view.
Other countries have had very dark times and are not pretty well respected nations. US shouldn't be any different, but we're definitely being set back a lot, even more so if midterms don't result in anything meaningful.
The problem is that even if the US elects some nice centrist democrats for the 14 years every country is going to be thinking "What if they elect Trump v2?"
I mean the US already re-elected him after the first time so it wasn't a one off. US allies are already increasing defense spending and diversifying supply chains (especially for weapons) away from the US.
Would you bet the safety of your country on the US being stable going forward?
> problem is that even if the US elects some nice centrist democrats for the 14 years every country is going to be thinking "What if they elect Trump v2?"
Nobody actually does this outside opinion pages. Like, Argentina has defaulted on its debt nine times. It still finds lenders. Similarly, an America that has stabilised its foreign policy still represents a military superpower and consumer dynamo that would be hard for any rational leader to pass up aligning with.
Counterpoint: Japan committed some war crimes back in the 40s, and almost a century later, a lot of East Asians still think maybe Japan shouldn't have a regular military that can project its power. And that includes a large portion of Japanese citizens themselves.
> Japan committed some war crimes back in the 40s, and almost a century later, a lot of East Asians still think maybe Japan shouldn't have a regular military that can project its power
I'd actually say that's a decent corollary versus counterpoint. The folks you attack will hate you. Regardless of whether you genuinely change. But we aren't directly attacking our allies right now. The folks who weren't directly war crimed by Japan, e.g. South Asia, have moved along just fine.
Maybe the attacks on allies aren't being done with bombs but the attacks are landing anyway and the hate is growing too.
It's not like America was super popular before all of this, it was more tolerated then celebrated. This very large straw broke the camel's back and everyone is working on moving away and after that's done, why come back?
So the story is... a publication that opposes the party currently in power, quoting a few people from the side that's presently out of power, saying that their being out of power is really bad, and we may never recover?
How is this different than the whining we get when the roles are reversed?
I realize you folks hate each other, but it would be nice if either of you could talk about something without turning it into a rant about how great, noble and good your side is and how awful the other side is.
People often prioritize "reputation" over other things, as if it is politically actionable or tangible.
It's not, and it's a projection of peoples' personal feelings onto the actions of a nation-state.
Honestly, it's odd behavior. To identify with a nation-state so strongly to care about it's "reputation" over actual material measures. It's parasocial and indicitave of people treating politics as a consumer form of entertainment, and not something they engage in in their daily lives. As if you were a foreign diplomat, might be the only time "reputation" mattered in the way that people talk about it.
Admitting it can wain admits the concepts of waxing and waining, which admits the concept of waxing. It could rise again. it depends how bad the other choices become exploiting their new found international reputation.
Also, it was built on useful largesse. I think the beginning of the end to me (I am sure it predates this, but this is when I became more conscious of it) was when the funding of the UN dried up because militant american christianity hates women's reproductive rights. That was a massive flip in posture towards a rational approach to improved health in Africa and for what? For a short term domestic agenda. The UN systematic corruption and money laundering was a huge issue but what motivated the change wasn't "cleaning up the UN" it was putting contraception back in the box.
[edit: "this century" meaning "in the last 25 years" because during the Vietnam era, American reputation was pretty low worldwide. I keep forgetting we're in a new century. The war on sex was President-pro-tem Nancy Reagan era stuff.]
We've also lifted the veil on the myth that we were a unstoppable military power. We look silly saying, day after day, that the war is over, they're powerless, etc while the same channel shows that's not true.
The folks least impressed right now are China and Russia, who must surely see a new system of regional powers operating in their own spheres, not a single global power which is apparently a historical fiction.
The excellent book, Clash of Civilizations predicted this move to regional powers versus the 50's simple East/West divide, along with many other current events we see now. It was written 30 years ago.
The US is relatively weak without its allies. NATO was the real superpower in the west. The current regime got too big for their britches and tried to go it alone.
FAFO USA - With Love, Canada
:)
I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover. I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
If that does not happen, I would say the article is 100% true.
That goodwill was used up the first time. It will take at least a generation to recover from re-electing the criminal.
> I think if the GOP looses big in 2026 to the point Trump can be impeached and removed from office and his minions are convicted for corruption, I think it will recover.
Assuming party-line voting on the issue with no defections from either party, that requires the Democrats to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election (if they hold every one that they currently hold, it requires them to take 20 of the 22 Republican-held seats.)
> I believe the world is waiting for Nov 2026 before making big changes.
I don't think the world is waiting at all, it is just taking time to work out the shape of the big changes, whether its European defense integration to replace the historically-pivotal role of the US, or any of large number of other changes nations are actively and openly working on.
Now, if the present direction of the US changes, some of those efforts may be abandoned or deprioritized, but "could potentially stop work" is not the same thing as "waiting to start".
Does the rest of the world really pay attention to internal political details like that? I can't imagine the average non-American thinking "well I know they have a legislative election this year that may impact Trump's ability to enact his agenda, I'll reserve judgement until then." I assume it's more like "America is dropping bombs for no reason and destroying the global economy, why are they doing that".
Even as an insider it's hard to understand how a country could re-elect the worst person on earth and then two years later vote the opposition into power, so it's hard to believe that outsiders are taking such a nuanced view.
Other countries have had very dark times and are not pretty well respected nations. US shouldn't be any different, but we're definitely being set back a lot, even more so if midterms don't result in anything meaningful.
The problem is that even if the US elects some nice centrist democrats for the 14 years every country is going to be thinking "What if they elect Trump v2?"
I mean the US already re-elected him after the first time so it wasn't a one off. US allies are already increasing defense spending and diversifying supply chains (especially for weapons) away from the US.
Would you bet the safety of your country on the US being stable going forward?
> problem is that even if the US elects some nice centrist democrats for the 14 years every country is going to be thinking "What if they elect Trump v2?"
Nobody actually does this outside opinion pages. Like, Argentina has defaulted on its debt nine times. It still finds lenders. Similarly, an America that has stabilised its foreign policy still represents a military superpower and consumer dynamo that would be hard for any rational leader to pass up aligning with.
Counterpoint: Japan committed some war crimes back in the 40s, and almost a century later, a lot of East Asians still think maybe Japan shouldn't have a regular military that can project its power. And that includes a large portion of Japanese citizens themselves.
> Japan committed some war crimes back in the 40s, and almost a century later, a lot of East Asians still think maybe Japan shouldn't have a regular military that can project its power
I'd actually say that's a decent corollary versus counterpoint. The folks you attack will hate you. Regardless of whether you genuinely change. But we aren't directly attacking our allies right now. The folks who weren't directly war crimed by Japan, e.g. South Asia, have moved along just fine.
Maybe the attacks on allies aren't being done with bombs but the attacks are landing anyway and the hate is growing too.
It's not like America was super popular before all of this, it was more tolerated then celebrated. This very large straw broke the camel's back and everyone is working on moving away and after that's done, why come back?
America will be to military powers what Argentina is to economies is not exactly a bright prospect for the future.
There is a difference between "aligning with" and "trusting with your life"
> There is a difference between "aligning with" and "trusting with your life"
Practically? In a germane context? I don't think that delineation exists in geopolitics.
Every U.S. ally under its nuclear umbrella trusts its life with D.C. Same with NATO and AUKUS and other defensive partnerships.
So the story is... a publication that opposes the party currently in power, quoting a few people from the side that's presently out of power, saying that their being out of power is really bad, and we may never recover?
How is this different than the whining we get when the roles are reversed?
I realize you folks hate each other, but it would be nice if either of you could talk about something without turning it into a rant about how great, noble and good your side is and how awful the other side is.
People often prioritize "reputation" over other things, as if it is politically actionable or tangible. It's not, and it's a projection of peoples' personal feelings onto the actions of a nation-state. Honestly, it's odd behavior. To identify with a nation-state so strongly to care about it's "reputation" over actual material measures. It's parasocial and indicitave of people treating politics as a consumer form of entertainment, and not something they engage in in their daily lives. As if you were a foreign diplomat, might be the only time "reputation" mattered in the way that people talk about it.
Admitting it can wain admits the concepts of waxing and waining, which admits the concept of waxing. It could rise again. it depends how bad the other choices become exploiting their new found international reputation.
Also, it was built on useful largesse. I think the beginning of the end to me (I am sure it predates this, but this is when I became more conscious of it) was when the funding of the UN dried up because militant american christianity hates women's reproductive rights. That was a massive flip in posture towards a rational approach to improved health in Africa and for what? For a short term domestic agenda. The UN systematic corruption and money laundering was a huge issue but what motivated the change wasn't "cleaning up the UN" it was putting contraception back in the box.
[edit: "this century" meaning "in the last 25 years" because during the Vietnam era, American reputation was pretty low worldwide. I keep forgetting we're in a new century. The war on sex was President-pro-tem Nancy Reagan era stuff.]