Big Picture American Politics

[Shhon]

[Psy-Fi]

MSNBC Says Rural Voters Are Destroying Democracy!

[Psy-Fi]

Bernie Sanders pushes bill to establish a four-day workweek

[SGR]

Bernie Sanders pushes bill to establish a four-day workweek

Nice thought - but that'll go no where. Maybe once AI robots take all our jobs, it might gain traction.

[Psy-Fi]

Nice thought - but that'll go no where. Maybe once AI robots take all our jobs, it might gain traction.

Yeah. I like the idea and I used to work a 4-day, 40 hour workweek for several years and loved it but I don't see a 4-day, 32 hour workweek ever becoming a national law.

[Psy-Fi]

Supreme Court to hear free speech case over government pressure on social media sites to remove content

[Psy-Fi]

Is Biden Done?

[Psy-Fi]

Grassley releases whistleblower documents, multi-agency probe into American cartel gunrunning

[Lisnaholic]

Is Biden Done?

^ Have I missed something here? Despite the title, I'm not convinced that this is some major issue that is going to doom Biden.

What I heard was two podcasters speculating about the retirement of an official that I  for one have not previously heard of. I haven't found a reason for her retirement, and I'm not convinced that the podcasters have either, but they are very ready to accept the Russian spin on this piece of news:-

The Russian foreign ministry immediately seized on the announcement, calling it an admission of failed U.S. policy toward Russia.

"They won't tell you the reason," spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. "But it is simple - the failure of the anti-Russian course of the Biden administration. Russophobia, proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main foreign policy concept of the United States, is dragging the Democrats to the bottom like a stone."

To me, this is the big picture for the USA's approach to the Ukraine: since the end of WWII, the US and NATO countries have worked in unison to block Russian expansionism. I think that position works to the benefit of Western Europe, the USA and the continuance of democratic systems of government. Putin is opposed to those things and should therefore be stopped. Sadly, Trump brought to the world stage an, at best, naive approach to foreign affairs, with his love letters with Kim Jung Un and his sycophantic attitude to Putin.

However the war in Ukraine develops, I have faith in the US voters, that they will see the wisdom of a party that opposes Russian interference, and will not vote for a party that embraces Russia's disinformation,etc, etc.

[SGR]

To me, this is the big picture for the USA's approach to the Ukraine: since the end of WWII, the US and NATO countries have worked in unison to block Russian expansionism. I think that position works to the benefit of Western Europe, the USA and the continuance of democratic systems of government. Putin is opposed to those things and should therefore be stopped. Sadly, Trump brought to the world stage an, at best, naive approach to foreign affairs, with his love letters with Kim Jung Un and his sycophantic attitude to Putin.

However the war in Ukraine develops, I have faith in the US voters, that they will see the wisdom of a party that opposes Russian interference, and will not vote for a party that embraces Russia's disinformation,etc, etc.

Since this is 'Big Picture American Politics', I'll respectfully challenge some of what you've said here.

While it might be true that since the end of WW2, the US and NATO have opposed Russian expansionism, it is important to note that Russia then (the USSR) and Russia now are two very different nations, especially in terms of size. While it is true that by size, Russia is still the biggest country, their motivations and ideology are quite different from the USSR days, even if their ideology is still authoritarian and even if the motivations for their expansionism might be rooted in the same interests as it was during the USSR days. While the US government told its citizens it was preventing the expansion of Russia in the USSR days to 'stop the spread of communism', it now says to its citizens that its opposing the expansion of Russia (and sending billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars to do so) to 'protect democracy'. I think that explanation was over-simplified then and it remains so now.

I don't think Trump's 'love letters' to Kim Jong Un were necessarily a bad thing. Much of what he did with Kim was theatrics, and knowing that he's likely a narcissistic dictator, Trump played to his ego. I think it wasn't a bad thing for a US president to try a different approach with North Korea rather than the tried-and-true saber-rattling our government has done in the past. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kim and his government became more agreeable and willing to enter negotiations when the leader of the free world is speaking praise about the leader (giving NK international credibility). China is NK's primary benefactor, but we have stable relations with China - at least to a degree where we do all kinds of trade with each other and we're not constantly threatening to send missiles at each other. There's no reason to think that the US couldn't have some kind of stable relation with North Korea as well. Trump, being the first president to enter North Korea without so much as secret service protection accompanying him was a historic moment. Did it work out in the end? Not really. Does that mean that if Trump had won in 2020 and continued the same approach, it wouldn't have worked? Also no - it's all speculative. But I think if one approach has proven not to work (saber-rattling in this case), it's at least worth trying a different approach, and to be fair, it should be noted that Trump entered that stage of praise for Kim by first doing the most saber-rattling towards NK of probably any president since the end of the Korean War.

I'd extend all this to Trump's relationship with Putin. I don't think he was a Putin sycophant, though that's how the media likes to paint him. The reality is, it's more difficult to begin real negotiations with foreign leaders when the leader of your country is constantly deriding them as a 'dictator', a 'brute', a 'lawless leader who kills journalists' - of course, all of this is probably true about Putin, but if you want to have real negotiations with someone, especially a dictator, you don't publicly deride their reputation and integrity. Look at what FDR did with Stalin to go back to one of our previous discussions. I don't think most people, if we're being honest, think Trump behind closed doors isn't a hardball negotiator, even with a guy like Putin. The public perception is just different from what happens behind closed doors - for a more recent example, Obama's 'hot mic' moment with Medvedev - the perception and characterization our leaders often paint of foreign countries and foreign leaders is a fiction designed to influence public domestic support/outcomes in one form or another. And the way our media characterizes how our government paints foreign leaders/countries can be either positive or negative depending on the political bias of the media outlet, but it almost never gets close to the truth.

All this said, I don't think the War in Ukraine has anything to do with 'protecting democracy' as our US government leaders like to say - this is the typical propaganda that placates the populace to support sending their dollars overseas and further entrenching themselves in national debt (we were supposed to be protecting and 'spreading' democracy in Iraq under George W. Bush too). Before Russia invaded, Ukraine was well known as one of the most politically corrupt countries in the region, and that probably won't change regardless of the outcome of this war. I think in reality, this war, like most wars, is a battle for resources. I think it's more likely that Russia and the US are fighting to decide who gets ownership of the gas station of Ukraine. Democracy be damned.

[Trollheart]

Thanks to everyone here for some really interesting and entertaining reading, and a lot of education on the state of US politics. SGR, if you did a podcast on this, I'd subscribe to it. As I said to you before, you are a really great writer, but not only that, you're polite, respectful and engaging with those with whom you don't necessarily agree, and you present your arguments not as a "haha! Gotcha! You don't know what you're talking about!" sort of thing, more as a "I respectfully disagree, and this is why." It's a very refreshing way to see a debate going, and I can imagine were this going on in MB there would be considerably more mud slung by those (not anyone participating here in this thread, I hasten to add) who know little but just want their voices heard, want to push buttons and cause friction.

Well done all!

[SGR]

Thanks to everyone here for some really interesting and entertaining reading, and a lot of education on the state of US politics. SGR, if you did a podcast on this, I'd subscribe to it. As I said to you before, you are a really great writer, but not only that, you're polite, respectful and engaging with those with whom you don't necessarily agree, and you present your arguments not as a "haha! Gotcha! You don't know what you're talking about!" sort of thing, more as a "I respectfully disagree, and this is why." It's a very refreshing way to see a debate going, and I can imagine were this going on in MB there would be considerably more mud slung by those (not anyone participating here in this thread, I hasten to add) who know little but just want their voices heard, want to push buttons and cause friction.

Well done all!

Thanks Trolls, as a great writer yourself, your praise means a lot!

I try not to view online arguments/debates/discussions as a zero sum game. I try to view them more as a learning experience. There may be things that my interlocutor knows that I don't know. There may be things I know that my interlocutor doesn't know. Either way, we're both better off after the conversation has been had. That's why free speech is one of the most valued constitutional rights to me as an American. And something I'm proud of as an American. Not every country has that, and I view exercising it as a privilege that many people around the world don't get. Free speech helps us suss out bad ideas, and get closer to the good ones.

@Lisnaholic has never been anything but respectful to me, which is why I feel so comfortable engaging him in conversation. I hope he feels the same way about me, even though we often have disagreements. To your point though, many on MB (we all know who) would not exercise the same grace or patience.

All this does make me rue the absence of @Rubber Soul though. Given that he's a history buff as well, his contributions and thoughts I found to be extremely valuable. I hope he's doing okay, given that we haven't heard from him in a while.

[Lisnaholic]

^ Thanks for spelling out the advantages of polite debate, SGR, and also for your kind words about me: yes, I feel that with you as well: that we can argue a point, but that any difference of opinion will be explored amicably.

Alas, tbh, I do not feel optimistic about Rubber Soul, whose last posts were about a serious medical issue.

I've also been wondering about Nimbly, who has always been a great debator on US politics but who hasn't posted in ages. I hope he's ok.

Also thanks for your long answer to my recent post here. I'm going to reply soon, I promise !

[Lisnaholic]

Since this is 'Big Picture American Politics', I'll respectfully challenge some of what you've said here.

While it might be true that since the end of WW2, the US and NATO have opposed Russian expansionism, it is important to note that Russia then (the USSR) and Russia now are two very different nations, especially in terms of size. While it is true that by size, Russia is still the biggest country, their motivations and ideology are quite different from the USSR days, even if their ideology is still authoritarian and even if the motivations for their expansionism might be rooted in the same interests as it was during the USSR days. While the US government told its citizens it was preventing the expansion of Russia in the USSR days to 'stop the spread of communism', it now says to its citizens that its opposing the expansion of Russia (and sending billions and billions of US taxpayer dollars to do so) to 'protect democracy'. I think that explanation was over-simplified then and it remains so now.

It's true that Russian expansionism has both changed, but also remains effectively similar. As you say, the US is once again sending billions of dollars to Europe: in another thread, you mentioned the lend-lease agreement that the US had with Russia when they were allied in the fight against Hitler, and I remember reading about the extraordinary generosity of the US's Marshall Plan and how it helped to rebuild post-war Europe.
I suppose one of the main arguments in favour of the US's financial support of Ukraine is the "domino" one: if Ukraine fell, who will fall next, and isn't it cheaper to stop Putin now ? 

I don't think Trump's 'love letters' to Kim Jong Un were necessarily a bad thing. Much of what he did with Kim was theatrics, and knowing that he's likely a narcissistic dictator, Trump played to his ego. I think it wasn't a bad thing for a US president to try a different approach with North Korea rather than the tried-and-true saber-rattling our government has done in the past. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kim and his government became more agreeable and willing to enter negotiations when the leader of the free world is speaking praise about the leader (giving NK international credibility). China is NK's primary benefactor, but we have stable relations with China - at least to a degree where we do all kinds of trade with each other and we're not constantly threatening to send missiles at each other. There's no reason to think that the US couldn't have some kind of stable relation with North Korea as well. Trump, being the first president to enter North Korea without so much as secret service protection accompanying him was a historic moment. Did it work out in the end? Not really. Does that mean that if Trump had won in 2020 and continued the same approach, it wouldn't have worked? Also no - it's all speculative. But I think if one approach has proven not to work (saber-rattling in this case), it's at least worth trying a different approach, and to be fair, it should be noted that Trump entered that stage of praise for Kim by first doing the most saber-rattling towards NK of probably any president since the end of the Korean War.

I'm not so sure about Trump's approach to NK, or which dicator was playing to which ego. Also, Trump's flip-flopping on Kim Jung Un made the US look inconsistent and frivolous, and while conceding a huge PR gift to Kim Jun Un, the US got nothing in return; oh, yeah, there was a promise made to Trump that KJU promptly reneged on two months later:

  https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_north-korea-tests-more-missiles-violating-pledge-trump/6174477.html

...then to save face for being duped, Trump had to become an apologist for KJU, saying, "oh that kind of missle test is fine by me, we are still buddies". You are right about long-term not much harm has been done by trying a different approach, but that's partly because, as you yourself suggest,SGR, Trump was booted out of office and Biden has returned to the traditional policy of not trusting the North Korean government.

I'd extend all this to Trump's relationship with Putin. I don't think he was a Putin sycophant, though that's how the media likes to paint him. The reality is, it's more difficult to begin real negotiations with foreign leaders when the leader of your country is constantly deriding them as a 'dictator', a 'brute', a 'lawless leader who kills journalists' - of course, all of this is probably true about Putin, but if you want to have real negotiations with someone, especially a dictator, you don't publicly deride their reputation and integrity. Look at what FDR did with Stalin to go back to one of our previous discussions. I don't think most people, if we're being honest, think Trump behind closed doors isn't a hardball negotiator, even with a guy like Putin. The public perception is just different from what happens behind closed doors - for a more recent example, Obama's 'hot mic' moment with Medvedev - the perception and characterization our leaders often paint of foreign countries and foreign leaders is a fiction designed to influence public domestic support/outcomes in one form or another. And the way our media characterizes how our government paints foreign leaders/countries can be either positive or negative depending on the political bias of the media outlet, but it almost never gets close to the truth.

^ Absolutely right that we, the public, just get a simplified good guy/bad guy version of what goes on behind closed doors, so for us it's largely ill-informed guesswork about how world leaders are really negotiating.
The bit you wrote that I put in bold is for this reason: Trump at Helsinki, standing alongside Putin, publicly humiliated his own country by speaking in Putin's defense. That doesn't sound like the consequence of hardball negotiating on Trump's part; it sounds like total abdication to Putin and is just one of the reasons that rumours persist about why Putin has such a hold over Trump: is it because of Russia's election help? Is it some backroom real-estate financial dealings? Or is it the gloriously salacious rumour of a peepee tape?
My guess is that Trump is probably a hardball negotiator on his home turf: swindling investors and not paying lawyers, but on the world stage he doesn't do his homework and is therefore hopelessly out of his depth.

All this said, I don't think the War in Ukraine has anything to do with 'protecting democracy' as our US government leaders like to say - this is the typical propaganda that placates the populace to support sending their dollars overseas and further entrenching themselves in national debt (we were supposed to be protecting and 'spreading' democracy in Iraq under George W. Bush too). Before Russia invaded, Ukraine was well known as one of the most politically corrupt countries in the region, and that probably won't change regardless of the outcome of this war. I think in reality, this war, like most wars, is a battle for resources. I think it's more likely that Russia and the US are fighting to decide who gets ownership of the gas station of Ukraine. Democracy be damned.

Alas, you are right about people who have been taken in by the old "protecting democracy" line before, who are quite rightly wondering "Is it worth it this time?" I suppose my counter-argument would be like I mentioned earlier: that in the long run, it may be better to block Putin now rather than later, especially now that the NATO-Russsia border is longer: Putin steps over that and the US will have a moral obligation to join in the fight, just as NATO countries supported the US in the post-9/11 war against Al-Quaeda.

[SGR]

@Lisnaholic - thanks for the thoughtful response! I appreciate your engagement on the topics. I'll include my response below. 

It's true that Russian expansionism has both changed, but also remains effectively similar. As you say, the US is once again sending billions of dollars to Europe: in another thread, you mentioned the lend-lease agreement that the US had with Russia when they were allied in the fight against Hitler, and I remember reading about the extraordinary generosity of the US's Marshall Plan and how it helped to rebuild post-war Europe.
I suppose one of the main arguments in favour of the US's financial support of Ukraine is the "domino" one: if Ukraine fell, who will fall next, and isn't it cheaper to stop Putin now ? 

I suppose I'd ask, given the suggestion, what makes you think the Russia of today should be considered with the same degree of alarm as America's cold-war era communist-centric 'domino theory'? Times are different than they were then - not only us (the USA) and Russia, but many other countries have access to nuclear weapons now. And let's look at the geography of Ukraine:



Who would fall next, assuming Russia gained complete control of the country (which is unlikely)? Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, all members of NATO? You think Russia would risk all-out war to expand from Ukraine into NATO countries? And if not, what is the $75 billion dollars the US govt sending to Ukraine really achieving (besides enriching our defense contractors)? Regardless of political party control, I'd much rather use that money for either universal health care, or tightening up/fixing our border rather than spending it on a politically corrupt European country that 95% of Americans couldn't even identify on a map. I understand it's not necessarily an 'either/or' situation here, but there has to be some point at which we reach the monetary limit of what we're willing to send Ukraine. Once America reaches that limit, I think the war is going to end - because Ukraine's resources will have been spent/exhausted. At that time, that's when we should get Zelensky and Putin together, figure out who gets control of what, and call it a day.

I'm not so sure about Trump's approach to NK, or which dicator was playing to which ego.

Comparing Trump to Kim as a 'dictator' is kinda disingenuous, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're simply joking.

Also, Trump's flip-flopping on Kim Jung Un made the US look inconsistent and frivolous, and while conceding a huge PR gift to Kim Jun Un, the US got nothing in return; oh, yeah, there was a promise made to Trump that KJU promptly reneged on two months later:

  https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_north-korea-tests-more-missiles-violating-pledge-trump/6174477.html

...then to save face for being duped, Trump had to become an apologist for KJU, saying, "oh that kind of missle test is fine by me, we are still buddies". You are right about long-term not much harm has been done by trying a different approach, but that's partly because, as you yourself suggest,SGR, Trump was booted out of office and Biden has returned to the traditional policy of not trusting the North Korean government.

I can see how the back and forth in optics could make the US look frivolous/inconsistent, won't argue that (though I would say that if the US was successful in making meaningful/long-lasting headway in negotiations, no one would care about that inconsistency). The bold is where I'd disagree - that's simply speculation. Not much harm has been done because Biden's in now and we're currently back to our normal routine of international disinterest and saber-rattling? Or I suppose - as you put it, simply not trusting them. The implication is that harm would have been done if Trump remained in office and continued to try and build rapport and negotiate with them - which is the speculative part - we just don't know.

I think to be fair, even at the height of Trump/Kim's 'buddy buddy' phase (which was more than likely just for optics), I doubt Trump or his admin "trusted" NK, so to say. It was, in a way, a test to see if we could have good-faith negotiations and follow-through with NK. In this trial run, I wouldn't say we have a definitive conclusion, but it certainly does appear that future negotiations (should they happen) between the US and NK won't be easy. When it comes to foreign policy, sometimes it takes more than just 4 years of an applied strategy to reach detente and begin productive negotiations and coordinations - just look at the historical relations between the U.S. and China. In all of our international relation-building, there's rocky phases, and certainly times when our prospective allies break their word to us. NK should be treated with suspicion and they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt - I think Trump's 'trial run' of negotiations with them proved that, and that information will be useful to all future presidents. But that said, I don't think that means we shouldn't try again in the future. Future presidents, if they wanted to negotiate with NK, can now look to what Trump did as an example, and adjust our approach based on what Trump did right and what he did wrong.

The bit you wrote that I put in bold is for this reason: Trump at Helsinki, standing alongside Putin, publicly humiliated his own country by speaking in Putin's defense. That doesn't sound like the consequence of hardball negotiating on Trump's part; it sounds like total abdication to Putin and is just one of the reasons that rumours persist about why Putin has such a hold over Trump: is it because of Russia's election help? Is it some backroom real-estate financial dealings? Or is it the gloriously salacious rumour of a peepee tape?
My guess is that Trump is probably a hardball negotiator on his home turf: swindling investors and not paying lawyers, but on the world stage he doesn't do his homework and is therefore hopelessly out of his depth.

I don't know what news sources you consume, or how deeply you pay attention to American politics as a Brit - I wouldn't blame you if you only lightly paid attention to it as an occasional entertaining sideshow - because honestly, with our dishonest media and politicians, it deserves only sideshow consideration most of the time - but I disagree with your assessment here. Trump didn't humiliate our country in this event, despite what the media said. This was about Trump believing Putin over his intelligence agencies that Russia didn't meddle/interfere in the 2016 election. Eventually, after two years of constant media coverage and claims about Russian collusion and Trump being a Kremlin puppet, the big find was that evidence came out that there was some Russian bot farm operation on Facebook (that, to my recollection, was never tied to state actors) that posted lame US election memes that were never proven to have any real effect on the election or the voters.

If you don't know this already, most of our popular American news media companies are professional liars who receive their talking points from American intelligence agencies. They all get the same basic scripts which is why it all sounds so similar most of the time (and with enough media repeating the same lies over and over again, people will begin to believe it) - here's an example compilation of American news media reports about the Trump-Russia collusion fiasco:

When you consider how long this 'Russia Collusion' lie went on, I don't begrudge Trump at all from taking a swipe at the intelligence agencies. After all, these are the same people who fed us the 'Gulf of Tonkin' lie and the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' lie. They didn't suddenly become honest and virtuous when Trump got elected. (p.s. the 'peepee tape' was from the Steele dossier which was a fraud paid for by the Clinton campaign)

So no, he didn't 'humiliate our country' in my view - what he did do was spit in the face of his own intelligence agencies. The media though will frame it as though he 'humiliated his country', because the intelligence agencies feed our media the talking points. Trump is not the first president to pick fights with, and distrust his intelligence agencies. Famously, JFK described his desire to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds" after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. How'd that work out for him? It's no secret that the intelligence agencies in America, in many, many ways - are the ones running the show. And if you go against them, stand up to them, don't fall in line with their 'intel' or 'narratives', they will go after you. Chuck Schumer, in 2017 said it right in the open.

"You take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you"

One addition - to further discredit the news media for you, or at least introduce some additional skepticism for you - have you heard of the Gell-Man Amnesia effect? - coined by a friend of Michale Crichton - food for thought:

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

Alas, you are right about people who have been taken in by the old "protecting democracy" line before, who are quite rightly wondering "Is it worth it this time?" I suppose my counter-argument would be like I mentioned earlier: that in the long run, it may be better to block Putin now rather than later, especially now that the NATO-Russsia border is longer: Putin steps over that and the US will have a moral obligation to join in the fight, just as NATO countries supported the US in the post-9/11 war against Al-Quaeda.

As I said earlier, I don't think the 'domino effect' comes into play here - one big reason Putin did what he did in Ukraine is because NATO surrounds its borders. He probably foresaw that we'd try to pull them (Ukraine) into the fold eventually - and he wants a buffer state that he has control of between NATO and Russia. I don't think he'd ever dream of invading a NATO state, because while I do think he's a brute and a thug, I don't think he's stupid. He'd need to have a death wish to do that.