The General US Politics Thread

He's made his opinion known by his silence but is that a scandal?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Feb 1st 2020 at 11:22:55 AM

It's telling of how he might deal with the issue of mainland China and Taiwan if he somehow became President.

Just another reason I'm glad he has no chance in hell of winning.

Edited by M84 on Feb 2nd 2020 at 3:27:22 AM

On the whole Yang/Taiwan thing, I'd like to note that there's not really a point in him doing anything now, and stopped being any pretty quickly. Once you're late enough, any attempt to make up for your mistake looks insincere, and the period of time for something like a congratulations message is a couple of days

This is also in part why I do not expect much from Warren or Sanders on this front either.

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the Democrats is that they have no coherent strategy or attitude towards China. You have Biden who superficially has made remarks congratulating Tsai (even though the President he served under arguably tipped the 2012 Taiwanese elections against her), and you also have Bloomberg whose ties to China are so tight that even the Washington Post is disgusted by him.

In contrast, the GOP has maintained a pro-Taiwan, anti-CCP stance even independently of Trump. A group of Republican senators even attempted to have Tsai address Congress last year.

Thus, it's no surprise that Trump has a cult following among Taiwanese people and and caused torn feelings from Taiwanese-Americans, at least those who support the DPP.

Edited by FluffyMcChicken on Feb 2nd 2020 at 12:44:15 PM

Trump has a complicated reputation in a lot of places. One Trevor Noah interview I just watched was how Trump killing Solemani was greeted with applause and relief by large sections of the Middle East.

I mean, Soleimani was a particularly effective warlord on one side of a massive regional sectarian war. Of course he was hated by some and beloved of others. The Trump administration seems to be gradually trying to align themselves with Sunni sectarian interests (although with only limited success because they're racists who are shit at diplomacy).

'Populism' is politics based on the idea that the interests of an elite and those beneath them are mainly opposed. Its inverse is elitism, the idea that a social hierarchy is good and necessary (which is why calling Trump populist is of extremely limited value as political analysis - he is absolutely promoting his own brand of elitism, because he's a wealthy narcissist). A rejection of populism in general seems like it's more revealing about the person doing it than it is about populism itself.

In news, a thread with receipts on Biden's stolen valour in the Civil Rights Movement.

The problem is that anti-elitism all too often becomes mixed with anti-intellectualism.

I've mentioned political scientist Francis Fukuyama here before a while ago. He defined three different kinds of populism:

• policies that are popular in the short run but unsustainable in the long run

• one that is based on only one segment of the population, (ethnostate or a theocracy)

• a cult of personality

Let's see if Bernie Sanders qualifies...

• Unsustainable policies in the long run? Maybe — he's cagey on the details of his plans for a reason.

• Based on only one segment of the population? He's been criticized before for how his policies seem to be "whites-first and only socialism", so maybe.

• Cult of personality? Oh yeah.

Edited by M84 on Feb 2nd 2020 at 7:24:54 PM

I'd probably say "no" to both "maybe"s - while implementation details matter I think that the policies can be made sustainable without unreasonable effort, and the "whites-only" aspect IMO isn't actually there - but one certainly gets the impression that his support is a bit too similar to a cult of personality for its own good.

The second point was recently reinforced by his campaign's ill-thought out decision to proudly tout the endorsement of a bigot.

I don't think that that is a very compelling piece of evidence. Regarding the policy question, I think the issue is that any flavour of "colour blind" socialism in the US would be subject to two opposite "social forces":

• The force of pre-existent racism and discrimination, which can't be removed simply by pursuing economic equality. See pretty much every rigorous discussion of "colour blind" policy as example.
• The fact that the average black or otherwise minority person is poorer than the average white/majority person means that they will probably benefit more from even colour-blind socialism. Especially when we consider that some existing racial inequalities are due to self-sustaining poverty that resulted from past racism.

I disagree that the policies he proposes are unsustainable - every other developed country has a universal health care system, and all of them are measurably better, both financially and in terms of health outcomes, than the US. The US is verging on third-world in terms of health metrics.

It’s the status quo of extreme wealth concentration that’s unsustainable - we’re a a point where even right-wingers like the IMF are recognizing inequality as a serious threat to the global economy.

Support from only one segment of the population? Verifiably not - his support is highest among Hispanic voters, followed by white voters, and he’s made gains among younger black voters.

Cult of personality? Again, I wouldn’t say so. I think a lot of people on the left are latching onto him because he’s their only shot in, well, ever, to have a US president who supports the kind of radical socioeconomic change they want. The key difference is that they back Bernie because of his positions - not the positions because of Bernie. And they’re vociferous in his support because they’re not willing to let this one chance slip away. That’s my read, anyhow.

Edited by Galadriel on Feb 2nd 2020 at 6:40:16 AM

The point is that it illustrated one issue with Sanders' campaign. Namely, that it keeps doing things that imply that Sanders doesn't care about bigotry.

And yet there's a good chunk of his supporters who are quick to turn on Warren even though she has very similar policies.

Edited by M84 on Feb 2nd 2020 at 7:42:22 PM

They trust Bernie. Being a former Reagan supporter isn’t conducive to trust among many on the left. And her changing positions on health care signalled - rightly or wrongly - that she’ll back off on progressive positions if she gets enough pushback.

Bernie is not their only shot. Warren supports almost the exact same policies he does and she has more of a concrete plan to implement them.

Regarding the definition of populism - Iaculus’ definition seems designed to define it as inherently good, while Fukuyama’s is designed to define it as inherently bad (all of his “three types/characteristics” are derogatory). So I’m not keen on either of them.

I would say that populism and technocracy are opposite poles.

Technocrats run on being the smart people who know what to do, but can fall prey to accepting a lot of the assumptions of conventional wisdom and rejecting any policies that depart too far from it, and being detached from the desires and needs of the public. They especially appeal to high-education (and often higher-income) voters.

Populists run on being “in touch” with the common people and following the popular will, and are more willing to make more sweeping changes to policy and rally public support behind those changes. But they are at greater risk of pursuing policies on the basis that they are popular, even if they don’t have solid policy grounding, and their actions may be less well-thought-out. They especially appeal to lower-education (and often lower-income) voters.

Both have their pros and cons. Technocrats who are also skilled communicators and campaigners can still rally movements around themselves (Obama; Trudeau 2015).

“She’s Got A Plan” and “Not Me. Us” are both practically encapsulations of technocracy and populism respectively, and I think that - even more than the policy differences that exist - are why Warren and Sanders supporters don’t tend to get along.

Edited by Galadriel on Feb 2nd 2020 at 7:01:55 AM

Bernie having a cult of personality that hates anyone that looks like a threat to his position isn't really arguable. You could sort of make a case for attacking Hillary being reasonable, but the way his supporters focus their attacks on Warren when Biden is a much bigger threat to his candidacy suggests that they're more concerned about who's considered the progressive leader than actually accomplishing anything

With no surprise, Trump announced the extension of his travel ban that included African countries (Nigeria, Eritrea, Tanzania, Sudan). The other two countries mentioned are Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar.

This isn't surprising since Trump is a racist asshole who referred Nigeria as a "shithole" country (not helping the matter is Nigeria is actually one of the more developed African countries that is a close ally to the United States).

EDIT: @M84 You can also use all your three points on Bernie Sanders (Unsustainable policies in the long run?, Based on only one segment of the population?, Cult of personality?) with Donald Trump as well.

• Unsustainable policies in the long run? China trade war, gutting ACA, and tax cuts for the rich screwed over middle class Americans.
• Based on only one segment of the population? The far-right neo-Nazi, homophobic, neo-Confederate white populist, yes. Trump also has a strong history of racism against black people with his business.
• Cult of personality? Oh yes, definitely. In fact, he reshaped the GOP to be a far-right, neo-Nazi party of Trump that is blindly loyal to Trump. Any opposition to Trump's policies will result with you being kicked out of the GOP.

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Feb 2nd 2020 at 4:06:21 AM

My definition is the most common, frequently-used one coined by Cas Mudde. It's interesting that you say it frames it as axiomatically good, given that Mudde himself isn't too keen on populism - like I said, it's a label that, when used pejoratively, reveals a lot about the user's biases.

Edited by Iaculus on Feb 2nd 2020 at 12:10:10 PM

Well...yeah. Of course Trump's a populist. I never said he was not.

x5 You could expand it into the Straw Vulcan vs Strawman Emotional dilemma.

x4 Kygyzstan? Really? Most people don't even know that country (or Central Asia in general except Kazakhstan, really) exists.

Edited by CookingCat on Feb 2nd 2020 at 4:43:48 AM

Well, considering that not many people from Kygyzstan immigrate to United States, the ban is pretty minimal for them.

The expanded travel ban, however, has huge impact for Nigeria since Nigeria is more economically developed as an African country when compared to other African nations (despite the Boko Haram terrorist activities in Northern Nigeria) and is a key ally to United States. I'm guessing a lot of the said African countries will respond with a retaliatory ban for American citizens.

If you ask me, the travel ban will probably be used by Boko Haram as a political tool to win local support in Nigeria and topple the Nigerian government, which would backfire on United States.

Mind you that the travel ban is very racist and discriminatory since it specifically targeted African and Muslim countries, but then again, the conservative SCOTUS okayed this (mainly because the conservative SCOTUS is just as equally racist).

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Feb 2nd 2020 at 5:06:55 AM

Putting Nigeria on the list is a new low considering how populous and financially active it is. Also the Muslim majority is relatively slim and is heavily diluted by nominal Muslims who are mostly secular or maintain folk practices underneath. Not to mention most of the Nigerians I know are some kind of Christian and will be pissed.

Also, bear in note that Nigeria is one of the countries Trump referred as a "shithole" country (I think the other one is Haiti IIRC). But like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if Nigeria will respond with a retaliatory ban on American citizens (or if Boko Haram uses this as a political tool to try and win over the Muslim population in Nigeria in order to topple the Nigerian government). I know some countries have done that when Trump announced a travel ban for many Muslim majority countries like Iran (which Iran responded to the ban by banning American citizens from entering).

Edited by DarkPaladinX on Feb 2nd 2020 at 5:13:33 AM