@Hellbound Hellhound
Hey I’m back and you’re wrong.
I mean, we’re meeting in the middle on a few things but you’re still mostly wrong.
Let's see, shall we?
If I recall, the EU concessions largely consisted of the UK being subject to EU oversight and regulation while not having any kind of representation. That doesn’t strike me as particularly generous.
Ironically, you've just described the situation post-Brexit.
The UK did have some representation in the EU (though practically, not much) by having a seat in the European Parliament: something which was rescinded through Brexit. The situation with regard to regulations and oversight remains the same. If companies based in the UK ever want to sell produce to the EU (the UK's biggest market), they will still have to follow all of the same rules and restrictions that they did before, only now, without their elected representatives having any say in them.
Brexit fundamentally happened because of a failure of negotiation, and a failure to understand what the main political point of contention was: which was fears about immigration. If the UK government and the European Union had managed to reach an agreement with the British people about that, then Brexit likely would never have happened.
Myself having conceded that there’s more to a diplomatic relationship than material terms, I’m curious as to why you’re the one suddenly taking a myopic view of the one between the United States and China.
For starters, I’m curious how you can accuse Trump of undermining global democracy while ignoring the fact that he’s been the first president in forever to take real economic measures against one of the most abusive and authoritarian regimes on the fucking planet.
Trump’s policy on China has two major motivations. First, as you’ve mentioned, is inequitable trade, something he was happy to publicize in the 2016 campaign. Second, which you’re choosing to ignore, is disentangling the United States from a brutal communist state, and weakening that state’s influence.
Trump’s fears of overreliance on China and the fallout from their negative global reach have been so thoroughly vindicated that you now have the Biden campaign weakly chiming in about how he’d be even tougher on China.
You can’t look at the immense political reach that China has in the US public square and argue that we have nothing to lose by becoming even more reliant on their exports and media/service markets. Especially not if you’re truly concerned with the health of democracy and Western ideals.
I don't think there is anything myopic about my view. I completely welcome any pressure that Trump can place upon the Chinese regime to address it's undemocratic makeup, corruption, and lack of respect for human rights, but progress of this kind isn't going to come about as a result of the United States trading less with China, and it's certainly not going to be engendered by a detrimental trade war.
The reality is that the political influence the US can exert on China strongly hinges on a good trade relationship between the two countries. There are three areas where a country can lead: militarily, economically, and culturally. The US comfortably beats China in the first two categories, but it absolutely dominates it in the third. There is simply no comparison: a China which is closely tied to the United States is going to be far more susceptible to US influence than the US could ever be to China.
My points concerning the specifics of trade still stand. The low-skilled manufacturing jobs which the US has lost to China aren't meaningfully coming back, and the tariffs Trump imposed have proven to be counterproductive.
It looks like we fundamentally disagree with the degree of leverage the US has over Europe in defense negotiations. We agree in broad strokes on likely outcomes of hypothetical defensive actions, but despite my best efforts you seem to be under the impression that NATO member states are free to walk away from the table. They are not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
I will grant you the point that coordination and cohesion suffer if diplomatic relations are strained, but I’d still maintain that the US is the critical centerpiece to European defense, to the point where European leaders are as motivated now to coordinate with the US as they’ve ever been. Hell, if readiness and spending are taken into account, they’re more willing now than they were under Obama.
Speaking of Obama, the 2014 commitment to increased spending was likely a direct result of his own neglect towards Europe, and it’s obvious looking at the numbers that the real increase in spending from major NATO members did not occur until Trump started taking a more aggressive stance.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_06/20190625_PR2019-069-EN.pdf
This seems like quite selective reasoning. When Obama's leadership causes European member states to spend more on defense, it's weakness, but when Trump's leadership causes the same thing, it's strength? The only constant here is that European defense spending went up following a pledge by all member states to spend more, and I haven't seen any evidence that this is strongly tied to the singular leadership of any particular US President.
And the data doesn't clearly show that the trajectory of defense spending in Europe has meaningfully changed since Trump took office. Quite the contrary:
“I see no similarities between the two scenarios while also admitting that nuclear parity was the main reason there wasn’t escalation to begin with.”
You kind of played yourself here.
A nuclear exchange may be on the table, but fundamentally unlikely. Especially considering that fact that you’re assuming the alliance can maintain cohesion in the face of incremental aggression.
It wasn't nuclear parity which prevented Israel from nuking it's enemies, it was the fact that the risk of nuclear escalation wasn't in any way worth it.
When you're at risk of annihilation, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is what you have to fall back on. Israel was never in that situation; they were always realistically going to win against their enemies.
I think we’re reaching a general understanding, but I need you to consider the vast difference between “flipping the odds”, and the loss of an overwhelming deterrent. The difference between a European victory with the US and one without it is incredibly vast, and this lies at the heart of my other arguments. Knowing that you are likely to win a conflict is a cold comfort when the conflict was allowed to start in the first place, has already taken a devastating toll on your nation, and will cause yet more destruction and misery before it can end. Just ask the Allies circa 1943.
It’s also crucial to consider the impact on European stability once Russia becomes a serious threat to EU member states and other continental allies. Europe does not want this, and they will fight to keep the US around to make sure it doesn’t happen.
I don't disagree with any of this.
Whatever happened to democracy, friend? Who elects those representatives?
The people elect the representatives, which is what makes the system democratic. If the people don't like the decisions their elected representatives make, they can vote for someone else at the next election.
I agree that material realities affect policy more potently than perception alone, that’s really what I’ve been saying since the start, but it’s naïve to assume that a nation immediately becomes an autocracy the second there’s a major crisis. In fact, that’s largely what you’ve stated (and I agree) we want to avoid in the first place.
I’d encourage you to look at the history of the World Wars and other 20th century conflicts to see how crucial the will of the people and their perceptions are to the balance of power and rules of engagement, even in times of existential threat.
I would still add that “the people” in most cases are more sensitive to rational material realities than they are to popular perception alone, although these days the balance is way closer than I’d like.
I'm not saying that countries automatically become autocratic in times of crisis, simply that leaders may have to make unpopular decisions. I don't believe this represents a failure of democracy either: the whole point of representative democracy is that we elect people to govern on our behalf, and when your full-time job is to deliberate over the merits and feasibility of a particular policy or course of action, it's perfectly understandable that you will sometimes come to a different conclusion than some random person off the street who's thought about the issue for perhaps no more than 10 seconds.
Appealing to the people on matters of principle is important; representing their interests is important, but when it comes to the complex matters of statecraft and diplomacy, the devil is in the details. I have no problem with elected representatives having a different view to that of the electorate, just as long as they are still accountable to the ballot box come election time.
I’m just gonna have to disagree with you on most of this one considering there’s no conflict at stake currently, yet somehow that hasn’t stopped a wave of populism and Euroskepticism from shaking up internal cohesion in a major way. Are you European? I’m genuinely interested if you have a different take on this if you are, but from where I’m sitting, it looks to me like the Europe and the EU have a whole lot lose if the US is no longer subsidizing their defense.
I haven't seen much evidence that the rise of populism in Europe has done much to affect European cohesion beyond perhaps strengthening the divides that already existed between East and West. Most of the anger seems to be directed towards the government, and the main point of contention isn't defense, but concerns about the economy and immigration.
And yes, I am European, although I have many family ties across the US.
Most universal health care systems cost less taxes than American programs (and health care in general) for two main reasons:
1) Countries outside the US are sucking the teat of American medical innovation.
2) Medicaid and Medicare deal with poor people and old people respectively, two of the most high-risk groups medically that have the highest associated health care costs.
It’s not a fair comparison.
That's not why healthcare in the US is so expensive. There are plenty of other countries that are able to provide healthcare systems which are free at the point of service to everybody (including the high-risk groups you mention), and still do it for less per capita than the cost of Medicare and Medicaid alone. American medical innovation can't be the reason either, because when population is taken into account, the US doesn't produce the most medical innovation; it's not even in the top 5.
The real reason healthcare in the US is so expensive is administrative inefficiency coupled with a lack of measures to prevent rent seeking. Both problems would be solved by having a centralized system in place.
You cannot, in a million fucking years, convince me a public option is going to result in anything but bloated bureaucracy at best and catastrophic decline in quality of service at best.
Trump has taken steps to try and get more transparency for health care billing and costs, which shows some positive focus on the subject.
The ACA was so ineffective that they relied on a bait and switch for premiums as well as outright coercion in the form of a fine. In my opinion it existed solely as a means to keep people reliant on the government once they had broken out of the Medicare bracket.
On top of that, I remain skeptical of any form of government price fixing due to the overwhelming body of historical evidence pointing to how it typically ends in disaster.
The ACA was ineffective because it was gutted by compromise. A lot of powerful financial interests rest on there not being a public option for healthcare providers to have to compete with, and as such, a lot of lobbying takes place to ensure that there isn't. The fact remains that universal healthcare isn't some theoretical pie in the sky idea; it's the norm across the developed world, and in terms of cost effectiveness and ease of access, the evidence is clear that it's preferable to a customer-driven system.
Even Trump has signaled in the past that he agrees with me on this: back in the 90s he advocated a single-payer healthcare system.
Yeah but who are you voting for? Assuming you’re American that is. I’m curious, I really am.
I think there’s a decent chance you’re a Shareblue shill or similar, given how you go from ignorant about topics to suddenly knowledgeable about surface level talking points while opening other lines of attack. All with a “how do you do, fellow conservatives” kind of vibe. But I’m curious how you plan on voting nonetheless.
(Although if you are a paid shill, you are absolutely in the wrong fucking neighborhood).
I'm not eligible to vote in the United States, so I won't be voting for anyone, although if I could vote, I'd be inclined to vote for Biden simply because I think he'd govern more responsibly, create less scandal, be more willing to listen to advice, and delegate responsibility more effectively than Trump, who's nepotistic, revolving door of a cabinet have been turning on him and generating scandal left and right. I could be completely wrong, of course, but given how bad things have been, I'd be willing to take the chance. If Biden turns out to be a disaster, then I'd be fine with him being a one-term President.
And no, not everyone who disagrees with Trump is part of some conspiracy. I'm not a conservative and I've never claimed to be, but I'm not especially left-wing either. What I am, fundamentally, is baffled at how much a once great country appears to have completely taken leave of it's senses over the last few years, and I think a repudiation of this development would be a positive step in the right direction, even if the alternative is less than ideal.
If it ever seems like I'm shifting my focus or changing the subject, it's probably because I've already made my point on the matter. I also don't really want to get bogged down with minor details when I feel like my central points have already been made.
People can neg-rate this post all they like. I don't care. I feel like I've said all that I reasonably can at this point anyway.
not appreciating the plebs getting uppity.
