United States Politics Thread 47

[malloc]

What would it take to make you change your mind, to accept that things are not quite as bad as you like making them out to be? Anything?

Quite a lot.

Such as? Trump losing heavily in the midterms, possibly?

NOTE!!! I am not asking you if you believe Trump is going to lose heavily in the midterms; I think we can all guess the answer to that. I am asking: if he does, would you concede that things have become slightly better? And if some of the things which you say will change your mind actually happen, similarly?

Fundamentally, all the current trends toward catastrophe would have to reverse, I think. That sounds like quite a lot to demand from reality of course, but all those trends are so dismal. It really is hard to feel optimism anymore when pretty much everything has gotten worse over the past decade.

[Travis B.]

Quite a lot.

Such as? Trump losing heavily in the midterms, possibly?

NOTE!!! I am not asking you if you believe Trump is going to lose heavily in the midterms; I think we can all guess the answer to that. I am asking: if he does, would you concede that things have become slightly better? And if some of the things which you say will change your mind actually happen, similarly?

Fundamentally, all the current trends toward catastrophe would have to reverse, I think. That sounds like quite a lot to demand from reality of course, but all those trends are so dismal. It really is hard to feel optimism anymore when pretty much everything has gotten worse over the past decade.

The idea that everything is hopeless, though, is a construction of your own head. Take AI, for instance ─ the real concern right now is not that AI will take over the world and render everyone jobless, but rather that the economy will be fucked when this gargantuan AI bubble pops (and AI will of course become too expensive for many of the applications it is currently marketed for, as there won't be endless venture capital money to pay for all that electricity and water) ─ but as this is in your head rather than a realistic analysis of the actual world, you don't see this.

[WeepingElf]

Such as? Trump losing heavily in the midterms, possibly?

NOTE!!! I am not asking you if you believe Trump is going to lose heavily in the midterms; I think we can all guess the answer to that. I am asking: if he does, would you concede that things have become slightly better? And if some of the things which you say will change your mind actually happen, similarly?

Fundamentally, all the current trends toward catastrophe would have to reverse, I think. That sounds like quite a lot to demand from reality of course, but all those trends are so dismal. It really is hard to feel optimism anymore when pretty much everything has gotten worse over the past decade.

The idea that everything is hopeless, though, is a construction of your own head. Take AI, for instance ─ the real concern right now is not that AI will take over the world and render everyone jobless, but rather that the economy will be fucked when this gargantuan AI bubble pops (and AI will of course become too expensive for many of the applications it is currently marketed for, as there won't be endless venture capital money to pay for all that electricity and water) ─ but as this is in your head rather than a realistic analysis of the actual world, you don't see this.

Yes. Things don't develop linearly. Another example is the rising opposition against Trump - all those "No Kings" protests (why don't you join them, malloc?), the results of the opinion polls that suggest a Democratic landslide at the midterms (as long as Trump allows them to be free and fair, of course - but if he doesn't, protests will become even more massive), etc. Sure, things look bad right now, with the climate crisis, the rising tide of authoritarianism, the AI craze and all that - but you can and should stay hopeful. Pessimists never changed the world to the better.

[Raphael]

Fundamentally, all the current trends toward catastrophe would have to reverse, I think. That sounds like quite a lot to demand from reality of course, but all those trends are so dismal. It really is hard to feel optimism anymore when pretty much everything has gotten worse over the past decade.

The idea that everything is hopeless, though, is a construction of your own head. Take AI, for instance ─ the real concern right now is not that AI will take over the world and render everyone jobless, but rather that the economy will be fucked when this gargantuan AI bubble pops (and AI will of course become too expensive for many of the applications it is currently marketed for, as there won't be endless venture capital money to pay for all that electricity and water) ─ but as this is in your head rather than a realistic analysis of the actual world, you don't see this.

Yes. Things don't develop linearly. Another example is the rising opposition against Trump - all those "No Kings" protests (why don't you join them, malloc?),

In his defense, I think he's said in other threads that he does.

[Raphael]

Oh, and, for what it's worth, WeepingElf, I don't agree that pessimists have never changed the world for better. I think that's only true of the most extreme kind of pessimists, the ones who insist that there's no hope at all. Less extreme variants of pessimists, the ones whose position is more like, "Think about the worst thing that might happen, and then try whatever you can to prevent it!" - yes, I think people with that approach can make positive contributions.

[malloc]

Oh, and, for what it's worth, WeepingElf, I don't agree that pessimists have never changed the world for better. I think that's only true of the most extreme kind of pessimists, the ones who insist that there's no hope at all. Less extreme variants of pessimists, the ones whose position is more like, "Think about the worst thing that might happen, and then try whatever you can to prevent it!" - yes, I think people with that approach can make positive contributions.

Quite. Before we can solve the problems facing us, we must first acknowledge their existence. It feels like many people implicitly assume that liberalism is invincible, that all the alternatives are inherently unviable and destined to collapse. Meanwhile there are many examples of authoritarian regimes still going strong, with some like China competing quite effectively with liberal democracy. We need to forget all about the "end of history" and accept that the future of politics is still unsettled and can easily take a turn for the worst.

[Travis B.]

Oh, and, for what it's worth, WeepingElf, I don't agree that pessimists have never changed the world for better. I think that's only true of the most extreme kind of pessimists, the ones who insist that there's no hope at all. Less extreme variants of pessimists, the ones whose position is more like, "Think about the worst thing that might happen, and then try whatever you can to prevent it!" - yes, I think people with that approach can make positive contributions.

Quite. Before we can solve the problems facing us, we must first acknowledge their existence. It feels like many people implicitly assume that liberalism is invincible, that all the alternatives are inherently unviable and destined to collapse. Meanwhile there are many examples of authoritarian regimes still going strong, with some like China competing quite effectively with liberal democracy. We need to forget all about the "end of history" and accept that the future of politics is still unsettled and can easily take a turn for the worst.

There is a difference, though, between acknowledging problems and throwing one's hands up in the air and declaring that everything is hopeless, as you have been doing. No one here is denying problems, but the only person here claiming things are a lost cause is you.

[alice]

Quite a lot.

Such as? Trump losing heavily in the midterms, possibly?

NOTE!!! I am not asking you if you believe Trump is going to lose heavily in the midterms; I think we can all guess the answer to that. I am asking: if he does, would you concede that things have become slightly better? And if some of the things which you say will change your mind actually happen, similarly?

Fundamentally, all the current trends toward catastrophe would have to reverse, I think.

That's something, at least; but all of them, or most, or just the most worrisome? And would they all have to reverse, or just grind to a halt?

[malloc]

There is a difference, though, between acknowledging problems and throwing one's hands up in the air and declaring that everything is hopeless, as you have been doing. No one here is denying problems, but the only person here claiming things are a lost cause is you.

Sure but it feels like there really isn't much we can do these days. The far right has an incredible advantage in propaganda distribution, for instance, a vast ecosystem of influencers and podcasters that has no analog on the left. We have quite a steep hill to climb before approaching anything like the popularity of Joe Rogan and such. Meanwhile time is running out to solve problems like this as Trump consolidates his power and other far right populists inch closer to winning elections.

[Travis B.]

There is a difference, though, between acknowledging problems and throwing one's hands up in the air and declaring that everything is hopeless, as you have been doing. No one here is denying problems, but the only person here claiming things are a lost cause is you.

Sure but it feels like there really isn't much we can do these days. The far right has an incredible advantage in propaganda distribution, for instance, a vast ecosystem of influencers and podcasters that has no analog on the left. We have quite a steep hill to climb before approaching anything like the popularity of Joe Rogan and such. Meanwhile time is running out to solve problems like this as Trump consolidates his power and other far right populists inch closer to winning elections.

If the right were so effective at propaganda, why in hell then is Trump so fucking unpopular?

[zompist]

Sure but it feels like

Yep. It feels bad. EVERYONE HAS THIS FEELING. I see it every day on Mastodon, among my friends, etc. We all have to plow on anyway. If you can do politics, do that. If all you can do is keep yourself going to spite the bad guys, do that.

It's OK to feel bad, it's even OK to say things like "The Repubs just did this horrible thing, it's horrible."

It's not OK to use the board as therapy, to center a world problem as if you're the only victim, to spread doom and despair, to build up the fascists by saying they're unstoppable.

BTW, according to Nate Silver's survey of multiple polls, Trump's approval rating is down to 39.4%. OH NOES THE GOD-EMPEROR IS A GENIUS WHO CAN DO NO WRONG

[rotting bones]

The way I see it, any enthusiasm you can summon using delusion, you should be able to summon though the reasoning that motivates accepting the delusion in the first place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9TRJ3M7bA (Trigger warning: Iranian propaganda without censorship or commentary)

[rotting bones]

As for now - sigh. Say about our establishment politicians what you want, but they've run the country for several generations now without turning it into a field of rubble. They're muddling through managing a generally stable and prosperous place. But people don't like the ocean's exact shade of pink, so they're increasingly turning to people not that different from the people who, the last time they got to run the country, did turn it into a field of rubble.

If you enter work life, you will have a very different experience of society. Your boss will yell at you day in and day out until you want to watch the world burn. That's one price of capitalist prosperity.

[rotting bones]

Military analyst says the US military is optimized to be expensive: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeteo/p/p ... id&r=e7ptw

[zompist]

Military analyst says the US military is optimized to be expensive: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeteo/p/p ... id&r=e7ptw

Paywalled, so I can't see his actual argument. But it's been clear since Vietnam that the US sucks at asymmetric warfare.

The US military is designed to fight Nazis or Soviets. It relies on better technology to make up for a perceived numbers deficit-- and yeah, its technology is super-expensive. It relies on sophisticated combined warfare to control the skies. It's something like a Greek phalanx in that you really don't want to be facing its business end.

It can make short work of a medium nation-- cf. Saddam's Iraq, which had just fought Iran to a bloody ten-year draw. If Trump's Iran war was a conventional war it would be won: the US inflicted enormous damage and destroyed Iran's conventional forces quickly. But it wasn't a conventional war; all Iran had to do was what it has been preparing to do for years or decades-- block the Strait with cheap missiles and drones. In a month the US used more Patriot missiles than it sent to Ukraine over four years. Patriot missiles cost $4 million each; Shahed drones cost $35,000.

Ukraine has stymied Russia, and caused up to a thousand casualties per day, largely with drones. The Ukrainians actually value their own troops, so they're not standing in the Russians' way with a cordon of human flesh. Though it's too early to verify claims, Phillips O'Brien says that during the current Russian offensive, Russia actually lost territory. Has the US adapted to drone warfare? It has not. The Ukrainians are signing agreements with Gulf states to bring in their state of the art anti-drone knowledge.

Against an enemy which understands and uses asymmetric warfare and doesn't give a shit for its own populace, the US does terribly: a 20-year war in Vietnam which it lost, a 20-year war in Afghanistan which it lost.

So it's probably fair to say that the US is showing what it can do (drop lots of bombs) and what it can't (protect its allies, keep the oil flowing, change the Iranian regime). Still, it doesn't exactly help that it's under orders from a sociopathic but confused and easily bored toddler.

[Raphael]

zompist: TBH, I wonder how good they still are at conventional warfare, given how much focus they put on trying to get better at asymmetric warfare for so long.

[rotting bones]

He says this is not asymmetric warfare in the usual sense. The US is not fighting guerillas but a smaller military with advanced weaponry. US forces are staying in hotels too, effectively using civilians as human shields. Iran is fighting a conventional defensive war, and has the US at a disadvantage. The issue is that Iran (1648 ksqkm) is larger than Vietnam (331 ksqkm), Iraq (438 ksqkm) and Afghanistan (652 ksqkm) combined. The US military is just not that good at things other than being expensive. This guy is going full Yes Minister. Some highlights:

Congress and Pentagon officials “consistently prioritize the most expensive programs,” Julia Gledhill, a defense budget expert at the Stimson Center, tells me, adding that individual services like the Army and Navy welcome overpriced weapons since a higher budget denotes greater importance among the competing services.

...

In fact, Gledhill says, “the arms industry is designed to impede readiness” on the battlefield, because systems that require more maintenance and earlier replacement – or, even better, a total redesign – generate more lucrative contracts.

...

Underground bunkers are what leaders in Tel Aviv, Tehran, and yes, even the White House use when they want to protect themselves from modern weaponry, but none of the bases in Kuwait or Bahrain I served in ever had them. Compared to aircraft carriers and fighter jets, there’s not much of a lobby for digging holes.

...

do you think AIPAC and Benjamin Netanyahu himself would be so welcome in Congress if they declared that, instead of constant war, the survival of the Jewish state depended on pacifism, and so Israel and its Arab friends should stop stocking up on US-made weapons?

...

He may not understand it, but Trump is learning the hard way what the US military is really designed for: Funneling taxpayer money to Lockheed and Raytheon.

Satirized in The Veep (which I haven't seen), these ships are "the Navy’s sole option for clearing any sea mines Iran lays": https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... effective/

YouTube's academic game theorist William Spaniel argued against the weapon price framing, saying it's much more complicated given the military budgets of the two countries.

Also I have doubts about the US keeping its allies safe. Israel has recently bombed Qatar. If anything came of that, I haven't heard about it.

[zompist]

Underground bunkers are what leaders in Tel Aviv, Tehran, and yes, even the White House use when they want to protect themselves from modern weaponry, but none of the bases in Kuwait or Bahrain I served in ever had them. Compared to aircraft carriers and fighter jets, there’s not much of a lobby for digging holes.

do you think AIPAC and Benjamin Netanyahu himself would be so welcome in Congress if they declared that, instead of constant war, the survival of the Jewish state depended on pacifism, and so Israel and its Arab friends should stop stocking up on US-made weapons?

He may not understand it, but Trump is learning the hard way what the US military is really designed for: Funneling taxpayer money to Lockheed and Raytheon.

These and the other points are darkly funny and aren't wrong.

Still, I'd stand by the statement that you don't want to be standing down the barrels of the US military complex. As I noted, Saddam folded in days, despite being able to manage a medium-power war for a decade. The Venezuela intervention showed that the US can do a lot of damage but it's terrible at salvaging something from the ruins.

Also I have doubts about the US keeping its allies safe.

Just doubts? Trump has no allies and simply has not lived up to the dark bargain made with the Gulf states. Trump could not be weakening the US faster if he were an actual Putin operative. (Still not ruling that out, but I still think it's narcissism and stupidity more than cool calculation. Weakening is one thing, making yourself so odious that people want you gone is another.)

[Raphael]

Trump could not be weakening the US faster if he were an actual Putin operative. (Still not ruling that out, but I still think it's narcissism and stupidity more than cool calculation. Weakening is one thing, making yourself so odious that people want you gone is another.)

Repeating myself from not too long ago in this thread:

As for the relationship between Trump and Russia, it might be a bit more complicated that just "for" or "against". My impression is that Trump is completely in love with his fantasy image of Putin, which is almost, but not completely the same as the real Putin, with the one crucial difference being that the fantasy image is not allied, or at least not really allied, with any of the countries Trump hates.

I might be completely wrong on that, but if I'm right, that might be simply one of the many cases where Trump's racism is important: he might see Putin simply as a white man - and one of the "good" white men, not one of those led astray by "wokeness" - and therefore, he just can't imagine that Putin might really be allied with so many darker-skinned rulers whom Trump hates.

[malloc]

Yep. It feels bad. EVERYONE HAS THIS FEELING. I see it every day on Mastodon, among my friends, etc. We all have to plow on anyway. If you can do politics, do that. If all you can do is keep yourself going to spite the bad guys, do that.

It's OK to feel bad, it's even OK to say things like "The Repubs just did this horrible thing, it's horrible."

It's not OK to use the board as therapy, to center a world problem as if you're the only victim, to spread doom and despair, to build up the fascists by saying they're unstoppable.

BTW, according to Nate Silver's survey of multiple polls, Trump's approval rating is down to 39.4%. OH NOES THE GOD-EMPEROR IS A GENIUS WHO CAN DO NO WRONG

Fair point. It was never my intention to glaze Trump or make everyone else miserable. Nonetheless, I will work on keeping my more depressing thoughts to myself.