|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2016 02:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Watching Trump spout positions antithetical to Republican mainstream positions and watching both his supporters and party officials is a very amusing pastime. Trump's heresies against conservatism are largely excusable given that he's going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall). Rumor from the grapevine is that Trump's FP is one of his most severe conflicts with "the establishment." At the very least he really struck a nerve with his anti-NATO rhetoric, and that's not hard to see if you look at how desperate a lot of the military/intelligence officials are for Hillary to win. Absolutely. However, what I think the know-it-alls are about to learn is that Trump has figured out and is pursuing the foreign policy that the people want. Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread
I've said numerous times (as recently as last week when discussing the Claremont article) that, not only is Trump not conservative, but his election will spell the end of traditional conservativism as we know it. Now, there are some bones that Trump will throw conservatives and some overlap between Trumpism and conservatism. Immigration is one of those areas where there is common ground. With regards to the wall, the republican establishment does not want it. The conservative base absolutely does. That's why Trump wiped the floor with the other candidates in the republican primary.
As for where I stand, that's a good question. "Conservative" is probably still the best description, but it depends upon what we're talking about. I break with conservative orthodoxy on a number of issues now.
And yes, I will vote for Trump.
|
On September 16 2016 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
While FP involves a great deal of non-common expertise which should be cross-administration and influenced strongly by experts, it should still reflect the general will of the people. Otherwise we get the olden days when kings started war for petty land grabs while the people had to pay for it, a pattern that is not so unlike certain less well-liked FP adventures in recent years.
I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the people holding the government accountable for foreign policy decisions, and the government actively following the will of the people on foreign policy. Subjecting FP decisions to the whims of popular sentiment is a dangerous game to play.
I'd also hazard a guess to say that most "less well-liked FP adventures" are only so in retrospect. If you merely have to convince the general population, it's not exactly that hard to trick the people into thinking something bad is actually good for them when the amount of non-common expertise needed for the relevant decision-making is so high. With regard to FP, it's quite easy to foster an us-vs-them mentality to get people on board with your decisions, regardless of how outlandish they may be.
|
On September 16 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:06 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Watching Trump spout positions antithetical to Republican mainstream positions and watching both his supporters and party officials is a very amusing pastime. Trump's heresies against conservatism are largely excusable given that he's going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall). Rumor from the grapevine is that Trump's FP is one of his most severe conflicts with "the establishment." At the very least he really struck a nerve with his anti-NATO rhetoric, and that's not hard to see if you look at how desperate a lot of the military/intelligence officials are for Hillary to win. Absolutely. However, what I think the know-it-alls are about to learn is that Trump has figured out and is pursuing the foreign policy that the people want. Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread I don't think an actual conservative would wnat the wall; because they know it's a waste of cash big gov't spending program.
Not a wall, simply stoping the flood of democrat voters coming trough the border 
|
There should be an ISIS equivalent of Godwin's law
|
On September 16 2016 02:34 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 02:02 RvB wrote:On September 15 2016 22:34 Rebs wrote:On September 15 2016 14:28 RvB wrote:On September 15 2016 12:45 Rebs wrote:On September 15 2016 12:30 Plansix wrote:On September 15 2016 12:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So when this becomes a national story NAFTA will back in the spotlight...
We should tax them, so then their cars cost more than foreign cars. Then we can tax the foreign cars. Then every other country in the world taxes US cars. Then we can't see cars abroad. Everyone loses. In fairness with regards to the auto industry, there is a legitimate case for some protectionisim. News flash no one buys American cars outside NA. This 'legitimate case' has existed for decades. There has already been protectionism for the big car makers and it didn't work back then why would it now? News flash if nobody buys your products it means you have a shitty product. uhh Japan ? Pretty good model for why protectionism works. Not sure what you mean by it didnt work back then. As we can see now, it worked brilliantly. But its not the sole reason and never should be ofcourse since there is a high risk the protected industry gets sloppy. Japanese industries dont do that because as much as people like to bitch about the lack of creativity in Kaizen, its disciplined and efficient. Americans cant handle that shit. And its not like it was a race to the bottom in terms of cost cutting via shafting wages which is what China does. News flash, American cars arent really that bad. Its just that they cant compete financially with markets abroad. And they wont for a long time. But they could do quite decently at home provided some actual will involving some improvements in manufacturing and will. But they dont want to do that because they want to make cars that let you let your hair down. Thats their problem. Japan isn't a model that protectionism works but that's besides the point. Protectionism in the US car industry against the Japanese has already been tried in the 80s so they could catch up to them. Guess what it didn't work. According to one study, lifting the VER would have produced a gain of $9.8 billion for the United States.12 Another estimated that the VER reduction in 1992 saved 1,234 jobs in the United States, but also imposed a $1.7 billion cost on consumers and a quota rent loss of $1.2 billion.13 Yet another study stressed that the biggest losers were US consumers who had to pay an average of about $1,200 more (in 1983 dollars) per Japanese car, and suffered a combined loss of some $13 billion; the US economy as a whole suffered welfare losses totalling some $3 billion. In the long term, as illustrated by the data in Figure 3, the VERs paused but did not halt or reverse the relative decline of the Big Three. Those firms’ combined share of the US market, as well as the share of the Japanese producers, fluctuated very little during the 1981–95 period. While the US producers did improve quality during that time, they continued to lose ground to Japanese and other foreign firms in the first decade of the 21st century. http://www.globaltradealert.org/sites/default/files/GTA-AP1 Vangrasstek_0.pdfIt was the sustained competition from efficient, export-oriented Japanese firms that produced the changes in the U.S. auto producers that are being celebrated in the specialist auto media and the popular press today. There is not a shred of evidence that the innovations in organization, product, and process that define the new auto industry would have occurred without that competition. Second, trade policy was not essential to improved performance. The primary effect of trade activism, during the brief period in the mid-1980s when it was binding, was to transfer rents from consumers to foreign and domestic firms. www.nber.org Sure it is. Also I know what Reagan did, he did it totally wrong. That isnt an indicment for protectionism in general. its an indictment of how it was done. Obama did the exact opposite, its also pretty much failing. The japanese did it and they did it right. They were innovatinve and competed better with protectionist behavior at the core of it. If competition is your only incentive for innovation you are in trouble anyway. Competition is ofcourse paramount, but sometimes you get a red card and keep playing with 10 men for the rest of the century. The only way to fix that is to restart the game. Your good at finding articles, you will find plenty that will advise that.
I like to support my views with evidence yes.
Then what is your proposed policy? 'The Japanese did it right' doesn't quite cut it for me.
|
On September 16 2016 03:46 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2016 03:08 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Trump's heresies against conservatism are largely excusable given that he's going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall). Rumor from the grapevine is that Trump's FP is one of his most severe conflicts with "the establishment." At the very least he really struck a nerve with his anti-NATO rhetoric, and that's not hard to see if you look at how desperate a lot of the military/intelligence officials are for Hillary to win. Absolutely. However, what I think the know-it-alls are about to learn is that Trump has figured out and is pursuing the foreign policy that the people want. Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread I don't think an actual conservative would wnat the wall; because they know it's a waste of cash big gov't spending program. Not a wall, simply stoping the flood of democrat voters coming trough the border
Back in the day when new people immigrated to this country the parties competed for the votes. I guess that was back when the immigrants were white or Asian.
|
On September 16 2016 02:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 01:57 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 16 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:38 Acrofales wrote:On September 16 2016 01:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 16 2016 01:22 xDaunt wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the policy, we to have keep in mind how it's going to be viewed by a majority of Americans: a potentially massive subsidy for the lower and middle classes. That's going to score Trump some huge points and further cement and expand his standing among his core constituencies. Only if we believe in the magic of bad bookkeeping. Trump has promised sweeping tax cuts, including a new 0% rate for the poorest 25% or so of American families and dramatic tax cuts for the rich. He's also promised to completely pay off the deficit and increase spending on the military, security, immigration enforcement and a dozen other things. Now he's going to give large tax benefits to the lower and middle classes? I have to ask, with what money? Because at present the lower and middle classes get more back in government provided societal benefits (through direct transfers, programs like Medicare and food stamps, subsidized services (bus routes etc), public services like policing) than they pay in with taxes. Sweeping tax cuts wipe away the foundation for all of that. If you reduce a poor guy's taxes by $2k and a richer guys by $8k by cancelling a public program that gave the poor guy a net benefit of $10k, you're not helping the poor guy. There is no reading of Trump's tax policy, which is incidentally one of the few areas where numbers have been provided in a non clearly-made-up-that-second way, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the post-tax financial position of the lower and middle classes is going to improve. The maths simply isn't there. Let's just presume that you're correct about all of the above. What will Joe voter hear? What you just said, or that Trump is going to pay for his kids' daycare? Yup. Trump should promise Joe Voter the moon on a stick, because it really doesn't matter that it is completely 100% impossible. PS: whence the disdain for Joe Voter? My wife and I are paying in the neighborhood of $3,000-3,500 per month for childcare (2 kids in daycare, 1 in kindergarten + after-school care). Trump just told me that he's going to cover it. What could Hillary possibly offer me that trumps what Trump just put on the table? The same thing but to feasibly pay for it? Has she made the offer? And is the offer as good as Trump's from my economic perspective? What Trump is doing is pure conservative heresy (hence Danglar's protests), but Trump's naked pandering to the middle class clearly is going to work. Of course she has made the offer. It has been plastered up on her website for weeks. Here: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/It probably doesn't sound as good, because she's not in the business of lying about what the government can afford. And one of a couple of articles comparing Trump and Hillary's plans: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/09/politics-child-careAnd as a bonus, while I was there (on the Economist's website), I stumbled upon this interesting blog about "post-truth politics": http://www.economist.com/node/21706525It basically states that Trump can lie, because it really doesn't matter anymore in modern politics: the campaign is not about facts, or policy. It's about creating an us vs. them, and as long as something sounds plausible, it can be completely false, but will have the same reinforcing feeling. Especially if "they" try to debunk it by showing how it is false.
that post-truth economist article is absurd. the "pro-truthers" need to stand up and be heard? that completely misses the point of what's going on here, as if pointing out the "truth" of facts is somehow different from the "facticity" of facts themselves. all in all an incomplete diagnosis of the situation followed by an ill-conceived course of treatment
|
What else are you going to do? Put Bill Nye and Trump in a cage and have them fight it out on television? The solution can't really be to start some kind of counter-propaganda program
|
On September 16 2016 04:22 Nyxisto wrote:
What else are you going to do? Put Bill Nye and Trump in a cage and have them fight it out on television? The solution can't really be to start some kind of counter-propaganda program
Shut down the internet because it is making the population stupider?
|
On September 16 2016 03:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:46 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 16 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:12 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Rumor from the grapevine is that Trump's FP is one of his most severe conflicts with "the establishment." At the very least he really struck a nerve with his anti-NATO rhetoric, and that's not hard to see if you look at how desperate a lot of the military/intelligence officials are for Hillary to win. Absolutely. However, what I think the know-it-alls are about to learn is that Trump has figured out and is pursuing the foreign policy that the people want. Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread I don't think an actual conservative would wnat the wall; because they know it's a waste of cash big gov't spending program. Not a wall, simply stoping the flood of democrat voters coming trough the border Back in the day when new people immigrated to this country the parties competed for the votes. I guess that was back when the immigrants were white or Asian.
pretty sure nativist parties/platforms existed in the 19th century, and i would be surprised if voting considerations werent there at all
|
On September 16 2016 04:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:53 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2016 03:46 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 16 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Absolutely. However, what I think the know-it-alls are about to learn is that Trump has figured out and is pursuing the foreign policy that the people want. Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread I don't think an actual conservative would wnat the wall; because they know it's a waste of cash big gov't spending program. Not a wall, simply stoping the flood of democrat voters coming trough the border Back in the day when new people immigrated to this country the parties competed for the votes. I guess that was back when the immigrants were white or Asian. pretty sure nativist parties/platforms existed in the 19th century, and i would be surprised if voting considerations werent there at all
They didn't really care about the Irish until they started organizing to vote en masse in certain regions.
|
On September 16 2016 04:32 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 04:26 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:On September 16 2016 03:53 Plansix wrote:On September 16 2016 03:46 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 16 2016 03:38 zlefin wrote:On September 16 2016 03:34 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:30 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:28 Nyxisto wrote:On September 16 2016 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On September 16 2016 03:18 Nyxisto wrote:
[quote]
Take a look back at Athenian democracy if you want to know why that isn't a particularly good idea. That's like arguing for the " nuclear physics of the people"
One redeeming feature of conservatives is their natural scepticism when it comes to the intellectual capacity of the electorate. Apparently that's been thrown out of the window as well Again, I'm not expressing any value judgments as to whether any of this is good. I'm just describing what's happening. Yes but at some point you just have to concur that Trump has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism any more. The whole isolationist and protectionist wall thing isn't conservative either. When have I ever said that he's a conservative? well you just said a page ago that he's "going to give conservatives the big ticket items that they want (ie the Wall)." I don't think conservatives actually want that. I'm not sure where you stand anyway. Are you identifying as a conservative, are you supporting Trump? I truly never know, you are the Trump of this thread I don't think an actual conservative would wnat the wall; because they know it's a waste of cash big gov't spending program. Not a wall, simply stoping the flood of democrat voters coming trough the border Back in the day when new people immigrated to this country the parties competed for the votes. I guess that was back when the immigrants were white or Asian. pretty sure nativist parties/platforms existed in the 19th century, and i would be surprised if voting considerations werent there at all They didn't really care about the Irish until they started organizing to vote en masse in certain regions.
They liked that cheap labor and police departments. But yeah, until they started voting no one cared. Then everyone cared a whole lot, but the voting blocks were to big. And the US needed labor badly.
|
South Park's take on Hillary: "Sometimes in life you just have to suck a turd."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 16 2016 03:44 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
While FP involves a great deal of non-common expertise which should be cross-administration and influenced strongly by experts, it should still reflect the general will of the people. Otherwise we get the olden days when kings started war for petty land grabs while the people had to pay for it, a pattern that is not so unlike certain less well-liked FP adventures in recent years. I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the people holding the government accountable for foreign policy decisions, and the government actively following the will of the people on foreign policy. Subjecting FP decisions to the whims of popular sentiment is a dangerous game to play. I'd also hazard a guess to say that most "less well-liked FP adventures" are only so in retrospect. If you merely have to convince the general population, it's not exactly that hard to trick the people into thinking something bad is actually good for them when the amount of non-common expertise needed for the relevant decision-making is so high. With regard to FP, it's quite easy to foster an us-vs-them mentality to get people on board with your decisions, regardless of how outlandish they may be.
Most people have little long-term thinking and for them the real test of whether or not an FP decision was correct is if they come out as the "winner" in the conflict. Iraq is only bad because the US "lost" by some very nebulous definition of victory and defeat that no one can really agree upon. Same with the older conflicts for the most part, that took place in the era of monarchs.
So it's true that the peasants aren't really very good judges of FP and that's why we need real experts. Leave those experts unchecked, though, and they will pursue their own interests, the nation be damned. In that light, FP should at least loosely follow the will of the people. If people want nonintervention, the FP should reflect that, but do so wisely. If people want to fight terrorism abroad, the government should find an effective way to do that. And so on. In a way it's a sanity check.
|
United States42638 Posts
On September 16 2016 04:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:44 TheYango wrote:On September 16 2016 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
While FP involves a great deal of non-common expertise which should be cross-administration and influenced strongly by experts, it should still reflect the general will of the people. Otherwise we get the olden days when kings started war for petty land grabs while the people had to pay for it, a pattern that is not so unlike certain less well-liked FP adventures in recent years. I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the people holding the government accountable for foreign policy decisions, and the government actively following the will of the people on foreign policy. Subjecting FP decisions to the whims of popular sentiment is a dangerous game to play. I'd also hazard a guess to say that most "less well-liked FP adventures" are only so in retrospect. If you merely have to convince the general population, it's not exactly that hard to trick the people into thinking something bad is actually good for them when the amount of non-common expertise needed for the relevant decision-making is so high. With regard to FP, it's quite easy to foster an us-vs-them mentality to get people on board with your decisions, regardless of how outlandish they may be. Most people have little long-term thinking and for them the real test of whether or not an FP decision was correct is if they come out as the "winner" in the conflict. Iraq is only bad because the US "lost" by some very nebulous definition of victory and defeat that no one can really agree upon. Same with the older conflicts for the most part, that took place in the era of monarchs. So it's true that the peasants aren't really very good judges of FP and that's why we need real experts. Leave those experts unchecked, though, and they will pursue their own interests, the nation be damned. In that light, FP should at least loosely follow the will of the people. If people want nonintervention, the FP should reflect that, but do so wisely. If people want to fight terrorism abroad, the government should find an effective way to do that. And so on. In a way it's a sanity check.
And when the people want to defeat an ideal without intervening or spending money in 30 days what do you do then?
|
On September 16 2016 04:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 03:44 TheYango wrote:On September 16 2016 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
While FP involves a great deal of non-common expertise which should be cross-administration and influenced strongly by experts, it should still reflect the general will of the people. Otherwise we get the olden days when kings started war for petty land grabs while the people had to pay for it, a pattern that is not so unlike certain less well-liked FP adventures in recent years. I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the people holding the government accountable for foreign policy decisions, and the government actively following the will of the people on foreign policy. Subjecting FP decisions to the whims of popular sentiment is a dangerous game to play. I'd also hazard a guess to say that most "less well-liked FP adventures" are only so in retrospect. If you merely have to convince the general population, it's not exactly that hard to trick the people into thinking something bad is actually good for them when the amount of non-common expertise needed for the relevant decision-making is so high. With regard to FP, it's quite easy to foster an us-vs-them mentality to get people on board with your decisions, regardless of how outlandish they may be. Most people have little long-term thinking and for them the real test of whether or not an FP decision was correct is if they come out as the "winner" in the conflict. Iraq is only bad because the US "lost" by some very nebulous definition of victory and defeat that no one can really agree upon. Same with the older conflicts for the most part, that took place in the era of monarchs. So it's true that the peasants aren't really very good judges of FP and that's why we need real experts. Leave those experts unchecked, though, and they will pursue their own interests, the nation be damned. In that light, FP should at least loosely follow the will of the people. If people want nonintervention, the FP should reflect that, but do so wisely. If people want to fight terrorism abroad, the government should find an effective way to do that. And so on. In a way it's a sanity check.
I would argue that a functional oversight system, as is found in a lot of other countries, would function better as a check and balance system than public opinion. If we already assume a majority of the country is approximately ignorant on all key FP details, the whole opinion is kind of useless.
|
In general; I prefer to have the public at large provide a general stance, and let the particular policies be chosen to be things that match/support that stance. On many issues it's the case that what the public claims it supports, and what it would support if it actually looked long and close at the issue, aren't the same.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 16 2016 05:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2016 04:46 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2016 03:44 TheYango wrote:On September 16 2016 03:39 LegalLord wrote:
While FP involves a great deal of non-common expertise which should be cross-administration and influenced strongly by experts, it should still reflect the general will of the people. Otherwise we get the olden days when kings started war for petty land grabs while the people had to pay for it, a pattern that is not so unlike certain less well-liked FP adventures in recent years. I think a meaningful distinction can be drawn between the people holding the government accountable for foreign policy decisions, and the government actively following the will of the people on foreign policy. Subjecting FP decisions to the whims of popular sentiment is a dangerous game to play. I'd also hazard a guess to say that most "less well-liked FP adventures" are only so in retrospect. If you merely have to convince the general population, it's not exactly that hard to trick the people into thinking something bad is actually good for them when the amount of non-common expertise needed for the relevant decision-making is so high. With regard to FP, it's quite easy to foster an us-vs-them mentality to get people on board with your decisions, regardless of how outlandish they may be. Most people have little long-term thinking and for them the real test of whether or not an FP decision was correct is if they come out as the "winner" in the conflict. Iraq is only bad because the US "lost" by some very nebulous definition of victory and defeat that no one can really agree upon. Same with the older conflicts for the most part, that took place in the era of monarchs. So it's true that the peasants aren't really very good judges of FP and that's why we need real experts. Leave those experts unchecked, though, and they will pursue their own interests, the nation be damned. In that light, FP should at least loosely follow the will of the people. If people want nonintervention, the FP should reflect that, but do so wisely. If people want to fight terrorism abroad, the government should find an effective way to do that. And so on. In a way it's a sanity check. And when the people want to defeat an ideal without intervening or spending money in 30 days what do you do then?
Use some discretion. At best the people can provide some idea of the direction things should take but ultimately the decision is to be made by experts.
There's a balance to be struck between making use of expert opinion, and following the general direction of the electorate. Everyone has advisors but every president chooses their own set of them, based on how they align with a certain set of general goals.
|
"I spoke at [Defense Intelligence Agency] last month...Flynn got fired as head of DIA. His replacement is a black Marine 3-star. I asked why Flynn got fired. Abusive with staff, didn't listen, worked against policy, bad management, etc. He has been and was right-wing nutty every [sic] since. I watched about five minutes on line of his talked [sic] and switched off."
- Colin Powell on Gen. Flynn, likely Trump cabinet member
Interesting to compare this with reports that Flynn was contentious at Trump's intel briefings and questioned the briefers' claims.
But hey...it's only logical a TV general would be the FP advisor to the TV candidate. Those actual generals are rubble and need to be purged.
|
On September 16 2016 03:41 xDaunt wrote:
With regards to the wall, the republican establishment does not want it. The conservative base absolutely does. That's why Trump wiped the floor with the other candidates in the republican primary.
That is what we call a one-dimensional candidate. Why any conservative intellectual would claim this means Trump is redefining conservatism is pretty frightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
