| ▲ | bigyabai a day ago |
| Conversely, it must take a truly wild level of indifference towards American politics to watch globalism go up in flames and cheer. Regardless of where you stand on the aisle or how old you are, surely you can't feel much hope for America's economy watching the Apple supply chain capsize. The economy isn't scripted by Seth McFarlane, America's automotive business and manufacturing bases aren't going to start hiring again overnight. America has supported perpetual war in Palestine for decades and will continue to do so regardless of how globalism fares. There is not an informed citizen in America that will take this rhetoric seriously, we treat Tel Aviv like they're fighting WWIII but can't spare Maxar access to Ukraine during an active conflict. You want to associate globalism with conflict so badly, but you just can't deny that America will wage war regardless. It's tragic. |
|
| ▲ | hollerith a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| >watching the Apple supply chain capsize. A professional geographer says that Apple is almost unique among major American corporations in how dependent they have chosen to become on Chinese manufacturing. The US economy is in fact much less dependent on international trade than places like China, Germany, the Netherlands and most of the developing nations are. This self-sufficiency of the US economy has been true for at least a century (with a notable exception that the US was dependent on oil imports from about 1960 to 2018, which had the full attention of the US national-security establishment because of how important access to oil is during war). You don't hear about that much because the small parts of the US economy (mostly in the professional-managerial class) that profits the most from trade with China has been effective at convincing the public that the trade is more vital than it actually is. (Note that most Americans don't even know that the US economy is no longer dependent on oil imports.) And Apple will survive their mistake. I'm not a fan of Trump, but I'm even less a fan of the ideology that Mearsheimer calls "liberal hegemony" that is so quick to wage war on any non-democracy anywhere in the world no matter how tangential to American national security interests and no matter how awful and large the number who have died or become refugees in places like Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria because of past applications of this ideological commitment. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai a day ago | parent [-] | | FWIW, the alternative to "liberal hegemony" in places like Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria is nuclear proliferation and human rights abuses. Between the window of Mearsheimer and Chomsky we see a pretty clear-cut obligation to protect our trade partners. We invoked Article 5 of NATO to fight a war on "terror" with the lives of other countries ken, now we're unwilling to even consider their own security? This isn't a path of conservative rectification, America isn't going to make itself less reliant on partners like Taiwan or more attractive than cheaper alternatives like China. We aren't going to fight less wars as a result, we aren't going to somehow create international demand for our goods while pricing them out of reach for most consumers. I don't know what to tell you here - Trump is far from my worst nightmare but it's plain to see that this will give America's faith-based economy a seizure. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith a day ago | parent [-] | | > the alternative to "liberal hegemony" in places like Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria is nuclear proliferation and human rights abuses. IMHO, US intervention in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine or Syria increased human rights abuses as long as you include violent death in the definition of "human rights abuse". | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | The problem with expanding the definition like that is that it also includes the violent death of the aggressing coalition. We could argue that America's relationship with the PKK or Peshmega was "human rights abuse" under that sort of umbrella. Or you could go full stupid-mode and argue that the Vietnam War was an attack on American human rights, foisted onto Northern Korea under the evil auspices of... checks clipboard ...American-provided military regiments. Again, read what I said and not what you think I meant. The alternative to "liberal hegemony" in the examples you provided are uniquely catastrophic and inherently impact America. You cannot even fathom what 9/11 would have looked like if the US treated Balkan denuclearization as a back-burner issue. Yes, it sucks the absolute biggest dick that we have to send American troops to defend these interests. No, it is not a good enough reason to forfeit being a world superpower and let ourselves get glassed because AIPAC has American politicians by the balls. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | >the alternative to "liberal hegemony" in places like Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria is nuclear proliferation The West persuaded Qaddafi to give up his nukes, then a few years went by, then the West helped Libyan rebels overthrow Qaddafi, resulting in his violent death. Since the world was watching, good luck now trying to persuade any other leader to give up his nukes in the future. I'm not objecting to the West's having persuaded Qaddafi to give up his nukes; I'm objecting to the West's putting him in mortal peril after he cooperated to give up his nukes. (Much of the help given to the rebels consisted of Western bombers attacking Libyan governmental installations. If Libya still had nukes, the West would not have dared to use their bombers in that way.) So, explain to me again how the agenda and approach I am criticizing (which has been called "liberal hegemony") helps control nuclear proliferation. Also: I always thought that any attempt to obtain a nuke by the leadership of Iraq ended before the US took over that country. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rayiner a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We voted to watch globalism go up in flames! Many of us thought Obama would do it but he turned out to be the consummate globalist. Israel/Palestine is a unique situation, I’ll give you that. But I don’t think we must inexorably be “Team America: World Police.” I think our commitment to propping up the so-called “rules based international order” really is in service of free trade. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai a day ago | parent [-] | | America's commitment is absolutely arbitrary. There is no reason America has to defend the First Island Chain, the bases in Guam, Pakistan and Poland. We don't have to base troops near Israel or Iran, we don't need to install tripwire brigades near places of international importance. China is happy to take over for America - they've certainly got a fast-growing Navy and the commitment to deploying carrier groups abroad. Look - I don't really see China or America as the "good guy", you won't scare me (or most liberals) by suggesting a draw-down of American forces abroad. But, any casual wargamer will tell you that this has consequences. If America gives up our hard-power military installations and forfeits our attempts at soft-power economic expansion, absolutely nothing stops China from taking America's seat at the table. If you want that, fine, but I would argue that it is an obvious problem for America's own stability and accountability abroad. We cannot make our money exporting software in a world where we can't import the best hardware. > Israel/Palestine is a unique situation, I’ll give you that. No, it is outright proof that your "warmonger" characterization is invariably false. The warmongers aren't the globalists, by some measures the people trying to stop infinite war are the globalists. We've tried ceasefires, treaties, negotiations and more, every time it gets interrupted by Israel. We refuse to punish them, and the motivation for censuring discontent is entirely nationalist. |
|
