The Fall of the American Empire

[Hypoxia]

Much of Make America Great Again has nothing to do with a master international economic strategy-- it has to do with returning to being a bully on the international stage again. Too late for that.

Strictly speaking, the USA empire consists of Alaska; Hawai'I, Guam, American Samoa, and various Pacific atolls; and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Said empire formerly possessed Cuba and the Philippines also. Treating 'puppets' as imperial possessions is tricky because a local revolt could flip sides - cf Cuba, Iran, etc.

If MAGA is supposed to increase Amerikkkan influence globally, Tromp is sure taking a strange path, what with ceding leadership to China on trade, science, environment, power, and even basic morality. Does USA look stronger after a year of Tromp?

 

[DrDelirium]

Strictly speaking, the USA empire consists of Alaska; Hawai'I, Guam, American Samoa, and various Pacific atolls; and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Said empire formerly possessed Cuba and the Philippines also. Treating 'puppets' as imperial possessions is tricky because a local revolt could flip sides - cf Cuba, Iran, etc.

If MAGA is supposed to increase Amerikkkan influence globally, Tromp is sure taking a strange path, what with ceding leadership to China on trade, science, environment, power, and even basic morality. Does USA look stronger after a year of Tromp?

I think Trump ran on the platform of leaving more people the fuck alone. As for 'ceding' all that to China, that ship had sailed before Trump got elected, and he's been trying to bluff his way back to the top.

 

[coati]

I think Trump ran on the platform of leaving more people the fuck alone.

Now wait a minute. This is the same guy who said we should have taken over the oil production facilities in Iraq (after Bush 2 invaded that nation on false pretenses).

That sure sounds like a return to the thinly veiled form of American imperialism of the past

 

[coati]

Strictly speaking, the USA empire consists of Alaska; Hawai'I, Guam, American Samoa, and various Pacific atolls; and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Said empire formerly possessed Cuba and the Philippines also. Treating 'puppets' as imperial possessions is tricky because a local revolt could flip sides - cf Cuba, Iran, etc.

If MAGA is supposed to increase Amerikkkan influence globally, Tromp is sure taking a strange path, what with ceding leadership to China on trade, science, environment, power, and even basic morality. Does USA look stronger after a year of Tromp?

Hell, the "strictly speaking" formal imperial possessions can flip, also, like India did. Puppet-based empires have very similar effects on the affected populations, and sometimes the effects can be more long lasting, because of the sneaky way that possession is imposed and maintained.

 

[DrDelirium]

Interesting. I had posted the same quote re the TPP in the GB forum,
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=88286337#post88286337
and the comments were entirely different. No wonder the country is so divided, when people's worldviews are so incompatible.



It seems like that, and many people were vocal and raised alarm bells about the conditions of the TPP, long before the Trump admin. So to blame it on Trump (like some libs do) would be disingenuous, when a large chunk of the population had doubts about it.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hotkins implied that if the provisions of the TPP (which favoured corporations etc.) were changed, TPP would be advantageous for the US, and would put the US in a better position relative to China.

Since I'm inclined to take in opinions like those expressed by RightGuide and DrDelirium etc, I'm perplexed that a prestigious historian would teach (thus indoctrinate) his students with such dangerous notions. Or maybe he's partially right.

He uses terms like 'America' and 'China' and 'we' as if the interests of corporations are identical to the interests of American workers or the American nation. His thinking is therefore either very muddled or deliberately disingenuous. And, there really is no TPP without ceding sovereignty. That's the core of the agreement.
Trump is not particularly interested in American workers either, but his vision of a post-globalist America does require reinvestment in domestic manufacturing. Trump's campaign positions are consistent with an understanding that American military hegemony cannot be maintained, and that therefor American economic/political hegemony cannot be maintained, so the prudent course is to pull back and build up a domestic base capable of weathering the coming disruptions as a multii-polar world breaks out all around us. I don't believe that he is doing any of this out of a heartfelt concern for American workers, rather, he wants to preserve the core power relationships of the billionaire class, and sees this as the way to do it. The neocons and global corporatists represented by the Clintons prefer to try everything they can to maintain and extend military and economic dominance. Personally, I think that's much more dangerous.

 

[coati]

Trump is not particularly interested in American workers either, but his vision of a post-globalist America does require reinvestment in domestic manufacturing. Trump's campaign positions are consistent with an understanding that American military hegemony cannot be maintained, and that therefor American economic/political hegemony cannot be maintained, so the prudent course is to pull back and build up a domestic base capable of weathering the coming disruptions as a multii-polar world breaks out all around us. I don't believe that he is doing any of this out of a heartfelt concern for American workers, rather, he wants to preserve the core power relationships of the billionaire class, and sees this as the way to do it. The neocons and global corporatists represented by the Clintons prefer to try everything they can to maintain and extend military and economic dominance. Personally, I think that's much more dangerous.

Dr. Delirium,

I think you are out on a tangent if you believe Trump has an actual strategy, and I think you are delirious if you think he is not prone to take steps to extend military dominance.

Trump is mainly an opportunist driven by impulse. This has led him to become the most besieged President of my lifetime. As he becomes more and more cornered due to his impulsive behavior, it increases the likelihood that he will resort to military force as a way to save face and retain power. His notion of Making America Great Again includes the notion of historic American hegemony, as indicated in his comments about how we should have taken over oil production in Iraq.

I think you are getting way out there when you attempt to ascribe a coherent philosophy to this self-absorbed man.

 

[DrDelirium]

Dr. Delirium,

I think you are out on a tangent if you believe Trump has an actual strategy, and I think you are delirious if you think he is not prone to take steps to extend military dominance.

Trump is mainly an opportunist driven by impulse. This has led him to become the most besieged President of my lifetime. As he becomes more and more cornered due to his impulsive behavior, it increases the likelihood that he will resort to military force as a way to save face and retain power. His notion of Making America Great Again includes the notion of historic American hegemony, as indicated in his comments about how we should have taken over oil production in Iraq.

I think you are getting way out there when you attempt to ascribe a coherent philosophy to this self-absorbed man.

I think it's a mistake to dismiss everyone you disagree with as mentally ill. It invites a lazy lack of rigor in examining the patterns of what they actually do. Much of what Trump has 'actually done' since coming into office lacks coherence, but a significant part of that is the concerted Democratic Party and mainstream media attack on him to prevent a direct approach to carrying out his program, which is very bad for them. What we see is the intersection of the efforts of Trump, his various 'supporters' who have their own agendas, and the 'Resistance.' If you attempt to interpret the results as the untrammeled expression of Trump's intent, you'll naturally see him as completely confused.
Now, I agree that he is an opportunist- but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan or a coherent set of goals. It means his approach to achieving his goals is highly reactive, which tends to be the surface level of activity of anyone who is placed on the defensive. His position is actually very weak, since he has no party apparatus or organized allies in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. So he must react to threats, of which there have been many. In the meantime, at least some aspects of his programme have been achieved, for better or worse, while everyone is focused on his tweets. For instance, although active cooperation with Russia vs ISIS has not really manifested, he did manage to hobble the active military obstruction of the Syrian/allied forces to a degree that has allowed them to essentially destroy ISIS except in the areas under US/Kurdish control, where they are becoming 'good terrorists'.
As another example, he has pushed the establishment of both parties and the military into an anti-war posture vis-a-vis North Korea, a thing that looked impossible last year. While it may be argued that the Clintonistas never actually wanted a hot war with North Korea, they certainly wanted an extended sanctions regime and a build up of US military power in the ares (actually directed at China). Trump has brought things to a head and the former proponents of war are now proponents of peace- so it's just possible that an agreement with NK will take placem or, more likely, that an agreement between China, Russia, NK and ROK will take place that removes the US military from the peninsula and reduces the arms of both North and South while building economic cooperation. ROK's rejection of the tri-partite alliance with the US and Japan, and their discussion of military cooperation with China, are indicators that this has legs.
This is not going to happen immediately, by any means, but as it develops it will create an opportunity for Trump, or whoever, to reduce military activity and basing in the region- and blame it on congress. Again, this result would be in line with Trump's stated desires to reduce US military forces abroad.

 

[BotanyBoy]

If MAGA is supposed to increase Amerikkkan influence globally, Tromp is sure taking a strange path, what with ceding leadership to China on trade, science, environment, power, and even basic morality. Does USA look stronger after a year of Tromp?

Not anymore than it was "changed" after Obummer, another run of the mill, standard issue, corporate Democrat.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5a/9b/a6/5a9ba6d60f392a64d2f93b79dad50297--obama-change-politics.jpg

 

[coati]

I think it's a mistake to dismiss everyone you disagree with as mentally ill. It invites a lazy lack of rigor in examining the patterns of what they actually do. Much of what Trump has 'actually done' since coming into office lacks coherence, but a significant part of that is the concerted Democratic Party and mainstream media attack on him to prevent a direct approach to carrying out his program, which is very bad for them. What we see is the intersection of the efforts of Trump, his various 'supporters' who have their own agendas, and the 'Resistance.' If you attempt to interpret the results as the untrammeled expression of Trump's intent, you'll naturally see him as completely confused.
Now, I agree that he is an opportunist- but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a plan or a coherent set of goals. It means his approach to achieving his goals is highly reactive, which tends to be the surface level of activity of anyone who is placed on the defensive. His position is actually very weak, since he has no party apparatus or organized allies in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy. So he must react to threats, of which there have been many. In the meantime, at least some aspects of his programme have been achieved, for better or worse, while everyone is focused on his tweets. For instance, although active cooperation with Russia vs ISIS has not really manifested, he did manage to hobble the active military obstruction of the Syrian/allied forces to a degree that has allowed them to essentially destroy ISIS except in the areas under US/Kurdish control, where they are becoming 'good terrorists'.
As another example, he has pushed the establishment of both parties and the military into an anti-war posture vis-a-vis North Korea, a thing that looked impossible last year. While it may be argued that the Clintonistas never actually wanted a hot war with North Korea, they certainly wanted an extended sanctions regime and a build up of US military power in the ares (actually directed at China). Trump has brought things to a head and the former proponents of war are now proponents of peace- so it's just possible that an agreement with NK will take placem or, more likely, that an agreement between China, Russia, NK and ROK will take place that removes the US military from the peninsula and reduces the arms of both North and South while building economic cooperation. ROK's rejection of the tri-partite alliance with the US and Japan, and their discussion of military cooperation with China, are indicators that this has legs.
This is not going to happen immediately, by any means, but as it develops it will create an opportunity for Trump, or whoever, to reduce military activity and basing in the region- and blame it on congress. Again, this result would be in line with Trump's stated desires to reduce US military forces abroad.

I don't dismiss everyone I "disagree with as being mentally ill" First, there is a difference between being mentally ill and having a personality disorder. Trump has a personality disorder.

Unlike you, I do not believe Trump does have "a plan or a coherent set of goals", any more than I believed that his volatile, juvenile, and debasing temperament would change once he assumed office, which was also a myth pushed by his apoligizers.

The evidence so far supports that he will end up promoting greater hegemony and more military intervention, due to his lack of restraint, rapid loss of political support, and the resultant sense of desperation his particular personality disorder tends to cause when he feels victimized by the circumstances he helped to create.

I don't think it is helpful for intellectuals to continue to make excuses for his bizarre behavior.