Trump didn’t come up with any plan. The Heritage Foundation did. Trump’s only focus is how to increase his own wealth and power, and he will use any means possible to do that. He is not a man of principle. Vought, Hegseth, Miller, they feed his delusion that he is really in charge, but it’s their self-serving goals that steer the administration.
The current administration fits the term kakistocracy (rule by the least qualified) – a government run by sycophants—often characterized as a “yes-man” culture—a political structure where loyalty, flattery, and personal devotion to the leader are prioritized over competence, integrity, or expertise.
Your approach to the discussion seems to be to re-characterise what I say into a series of claims which you can then argue with. I don’t get involved in that sort of argumentation. However in the spirit of discussion I would agree approximately with points 2 and 3 there.
Trump had been building his base for a number of years before the 2016 election, probably through his celebrity status as a TV star. Then he must have been in the right place at the right time (the emergence of social media). I agree with Tzeentch that he was a symptom of broader issues in the U.S.
Also, I agree with you that it is, certainly economically, pretty much business as usual. What is unusual is Trump’s foreign policy.
Exactly. And here it’s important to make the difference of a) What has happened thanks to Trump, b) what has happened independently of Trump and c) would this “Pax Americana” (I know, a better term would be “Bellum Americanum”) have similarly been cracking without Trump?
The populist cry against “Globalization” and against migration is something that has happened throughout the West. Brexit was part of this, but so was earlier the Occupy Wall Street movement against globalization, where the OWS wasn’t at all similar to the MAGA-movement (then it was the so-called Tea Party which was the right-wing populist movement). Nigel Farage or Boris Johson aren’t at all like Trump. If they would be, either one of them could then declare that Ireland should join the UK because the UK is the natural home for Ireland, which would be extremely toxic for the British-Irish relations.
And as Spain is in the EU, I guess the next thing is that the EU has to get again the “trade bazooka”, the Anti-Coercion Instrument (the actual EU regulation here). In the case of NATO countries sending troops to Greenland, Trump backed down. So this is basically what Trump does that other populists don’t do.
And the option C), was this decline of Pax Americana inevitable? I would argue that no, not at least in the short run. I would argue that Trump has just accelerated everything.
It’s not just rhetoric.
After Munich security conference Rubio visited only Orban’s Hungary and Slovakia, both countries that are critical towards the EU. In Hungary Rubio pledged US support for Victor Orban as he is facing a tough election. How many times did Biden, Bush or Obama send their secretary of state to openly endorse an European leader in his national elections in a NATO country? Usually, if something like this has been done, it has been done clandestinely behind closed doors, not openly. Since the State Department is basically sidelined by the Kushner/Witkoff team, the NSS is read and really implemented. Just like the CIA did send it’s agents to recon which Greenlanders were in favour of being part of the US and which were not.
This goes back actually to the Carney speech. I think the best term would be that countries tolerated the US skipping the rules if these were minor breaches. But having absolutely no rules or basically weaponizing supply chains is quite different.
The issue here is even if the US has beaten up or bullied it’s allies behind closed doors, that has happened behind closed doors. But once done in public, there’s no going back. If the Greenland debacle would have been attempted behind closed doors and linked to the independence of Greenland, it would have been different. But here for Trump it really was about land belonging to the US, annexation, and saying things openly in public. Mark Carney is here the another example: his party was likely to lose the elections, but then Trump started to call Canada a future state of the US and thus the before Pro-Trump candidate Pierre Poilievre lost and Carney won.
I think it is the end of the European iteration of Pac Americana, at least, but other versions may still arise.
American conservatives have come to believe that European civilization (of which Canada is a satellite) is in a spiral. This is due to three factors: demographic decline, the unsustainability of the social state, and the lack of a sense of self-preservation. Also, they mostly dislike us. Unshackling oneself from a sinking ship like that is probably necessary for American self-interest.
That being said, there are other countries and civilizations outside of Europe that are more resilient and less infected by American wokery. New alliances are being built, I think, and they may serve us better than the old ones.
We can point to the racist backlash against the election of a Black man to the presidency, to the misogyny of the American people preferring to vote for a crooked White man over a more capable Black woman.
This just kicks the can down the road. Did the American people just wake up one day and find themselves to be bunch of racist misogynists. Do you really think that’s likely?
We can look to the way Trump cons the public, and dazzles them with ‘spectacle.’
This is the ‘incompetent’ leader you were referring to, yes? The one you’re now suggesting has pulled a con on the entire American public?
We can look at the hate he has fomented against the “enemy” – like Democrats and immigrants.
Again. One man. You’re suggesting one man has moved half the nation to hate immigrants where they were not so inclined before? Not just any man, but one too stupid to even speak properly.
The MAGA Report by Jan Golbeck summarizes the content of various pro-Trump forums
This tells us nothing. Has this content increased? From what baseline? How does it arise? Who starts it?
It just reads like smugness at being so Very Smart as to not think like that.
Trump is in bed with the billionaires. The “dark money” - especially from oil and gas - has set records
That doesn’t answer the question. Are you suggesting that the most wealthy and powerful forces in the world although unable (for some reason) to actually influence events in their favour, then just got lucky enough that things all turned out that way anyway? That’s seriously your position?
Trump didn’t come up with any plan. The Heritage Foundation did.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. Is it Trump’s dazzling rhetoric thay won him the election? Or the Heritage Foundation’s planning? Or the Dark Money from oil and gas barons?
Trump’s only focus is how to increase his own wealth and power, and he will use any means possible to do that.
Now we’re back to Trump being responsible for events in some dastardly (though also somehow incompetent) plan to take over the most powerful nation on earth to make a quick buck.
Any theory as to why no-one has managed this before? Was the entire American population too principled before Trump? Or just too busy bombing children?
Vought, Hegseth, Miller, they feed his delusion that he is really in charge, but it’s their self-serving goals that steer the administration.
Oh, and we’re back to it being the other guys in charge now. Are they also incompetent (but somehow also managed to take over the government of a superpower)?
a government run by sycophants—often characterized as a “yes-man” culture—a political structure where loyalty, flattery, and personal devotion to the leader are prioritized over competence, integrity, or expertise.
Aaaa..nd full circle. Now we’re back to it being Trump in charge again and everyone in his whole government loyal, devoted (despite him also being stupid and self-serving).
I don’t do politics, so my answer is yes & yes, but don’t look to me for a new political philosophy. [self-image below]
The title of this thread harks back to the “Pax Romana”, a 200 year Golden Age of Roman Imperialism. During that era, money was funneled from the provinces back to the center of government. Yet it was an age of peace & prosperity for the whole empire, but disproportionately for the Oligarchy1 at the top of the Power Pyramid2. That anti-democratic top-down political structure, centuries later, became known as Fascism3. But Roman law & order was imposed on the provinces by means of military conquest, not philosophical persuasion. And the unruly general populace was pacified by Bread & Circuses4 (populism).
Ironically, two centuries of state stability came to an end around 180BC And one generation later, Rome was being invaded from without by barbarians, and from within by religious disunity. Consequently, Emperor Constantine centralized the state religion by top-down fiat, with anti-liberty & anti-idolatry ideas imported from the Jewish diaspora. Traditionally, Rome had liberally allowed the worship of many gods (polytheism), as long as citizens formally supported the official state religion (emperor worship) with offerings & sacrifices (taxes). But the exclusive Jewish monotheism was not so broad-minded, hence persecution of minor religions soon consolidated religious power (Roman Church) in the hands of political & military & religious power (Roman Emperor + Pope)
Now fast-forward to the American military-economic empire. The British empire exported many of its less enthusiastic subjects (including prisoners) to the colonies. So, the majority of colonists were no longer “rule Britannia” and “hail to the king” enthusiasts. But the rebels did inherit the nascent Industrial Revolution — along with British “rule-based” Law & Order — and made a fortune from mass production of cheap goods. Unfortunately, today China has taken over that role. So, the Oligarchy had to look elsewhere for economic & political power. For a while, it was secured by the international power of the dollar.
Even as the American Empire — like British & Roman before — fades away, the sheep-like masses will support the Supreme Leader, as long as he maintains the religio-political myth that props-up the economic weakness. One facet of that myth is called Christian Nationalism. Once again, Jewish mono-religion adapted to a new political system. Once again, hand-outs and misdirection from Dear Leader keep the unruly masses appeased, and focusing their discontent on outsiders. Once again, rule-based government is transferred to the whims of one mythical man at the top of the Power Pyramid.
The schizo result has been the radicalization of right-&-left-wing political parties. Fortunately, the US still has the crumbling remains of “Loyal Opposition” to the powers that be. So if a “new political philosophy” is to emerge, I hope it’s from the moderate middle.
1.Oligarchy : Unlike aristocracy (rule by the best), oligarchs often rule through economic power (plutocracy), military control, or political influence.
3.Fascism : an extreme right-wing, authoritarian political ideology that promotes intense nationalism, dictatorial power, and the subordination of individual interests for the good of the nation or race. It suppresses all opposition, relies on militarism, and enforces strict social and economic control.
4. “The evil was not inbread and circuses, per se, but in the willingness of the people to sell their rights as free men for full bellies and the excitement of the games which would serve to distract them from their human hungers which bread and circuses can never appease.” ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero”
4.Modern “bread and circuses”refers to using government aid and mass entertainment to pacify citizens, distracting them from societal issues and political instability. Examples include SNAP benefits/welfare (bread) combined with 24/7 news, social media, reality TV, and professional sports (circuses) that keep populations disengaged from civic responsibilities.
Your approach to the discussion seems to be to re-characterise what I say into a series of claims which you can then argue with.
I’m trying to get your argument clear. I cited the sections of your post that promoted each summary.
For example, I note you don’t say you believe in my (1). I gave the reasons at the end of it. You said the Trump was not elected by the rich, but by MAGA because he appealed to ‘poor politics’. That’s a functional democracy. According to your post, the people voted for someone who offered what they wanted and that’s who they got. What’s not functioning about that?
then he must have been in the right place at the right time…
Why ‘must’ he have been? Can you conceive of no other option?
Usually, if something like this has been done, it has been done clandestinely behind closed doors, not openly.
Exactly. So nothing has actually changed, just the optics. As I said. It used to play well to pretend to be rule-abiding, now it plays well to pretend to be maverick. Nothing has actually changed.
If the US wants to support Orban (or anyone else) for whatever reason, they will do so. Trump would do it pretending to be a maverick. Biden would have done it in backroom deals behind closed doors. But the exact same outcome would have resulted -the preferred foreign leader in power and in America’s pocket.
The end result is the same.
having absolutely no rules or basically weaponizing supply chains is quite different.
It’s not. Breaking the rules whenever you want to is literally the same as having no rules.
Can you provide an example of when America previously really, really wanted to break the rules, but restrained itself because it had broke a few too many recently. I can’t. Which put the lie to Carney’s rhetoric. If ‘only a few’ rules were broken it was because it suited America to break only those few. It’s not like they were a bunch of thouroughly decent chaps before. This is the nation reaponsible for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo recently. Do we even need to go into the Vietnam war or the various South American anti-communist alliances?
You don’t think nothing has changed? How about that after Trump made his remarks about Canada, tourism dropped last year by -22%, four million people, to the US when Canadian tourism to other places increased and also Canadians started rejecting US products? That’s not a change?
When the disagreements and the bullying becomes public, that goes directly into the national discourse of both countries and effects how people view the whole country. The outburst against Zelensky in the White House by Vance and Trump would have been totally different, if it wouldn’t have been performed in front of cameras. We’d only know about it in some political memoirs or history books. Now it reminds us just how this White House views Ukraine altogether. Politicians can naturally get over outbursts, but once those arguments are done in public, it isn’t the same.
Besides, there’s a reason for diplomats being diplomatic when engaging with foreigners or with their foreign peers.
With Biden, who wasn’t as popular as Obama, about 56% of British had a positive opinion about the US president and 44% had a negative opinion in 2022. With Germans it was 60% favorable and 33% unfavorable. With Trump now in January 2026 about 16% of Britons have a positive opinion of him and 81% have a negative opinion. With Germans 11% are favorable and 84% unfavorable. In Denmark a whopping 94% have an unfavorable opinion about Trump. Wonder why.
But that doesn’t matter, nothing has changed, according to you?
Besides, a lot of politics and international relations are indeed optics. And those optics are indeed important, like attending a funeral of a relative that you actually didn’t know so well.
… and when pushed for any actual change other than rhetoric you come back with “well, the US tourism industry’s taken a bit of a hit”.
This is the problem these days. Navel-gazing myopia. The US is bombing cities. Again. Children buried under rubble. Again. But the new liberal class are more happy to wring their hands over the fact that the optics are all wrong.
I didn’t give an argument about Trump, it was an observation that he took advantage of a situation. The only argument I made was about the effects of globalisation.
I think our writing style doesn’t mesh well, it happens sometimes. You have an emphasis on analysis of what someone is saying and I have an emphasis on trying to describe something that’s happening in the world. Both equally valid, but it doesn’t seem to work as a discussion, for me at least.
I didn’t mention your point 1, because it was barely relevant to what we were talking about.
[quote=“Pseudonym, post:20, topic:203”]
That’s the theory you find more compelling than “the powerful exerted their power to further their own ends”?
[/quote]No, that’s not what I’m saying.
I don’t think we are far from each other on the political issues involved here. Apart from your idea that nothing has changed. That is clearly nonsense. I could write an essay on what has changed since 2016, but I don’t see any benefit in my doing that and you then re-interpreting it into points to argue. I don’t think I have read one of your points that actually represents what I was saying. It’s a non starter.
Let me just point out a few things that have changed. For you to chew on.
The American president (entirely on his own) has defected to the other side, ie Russia.
He has severely broken the trust between the members of NATO. To the extent of threatening to invade another member.
He is sending the U.S. economy over a cliff of irrational policy. Which is now propped up by a massive AI bubble.
He is praising the AI bubble as an economic achievement. While at the same time embarking on a war of choice in the oil producing states of the Middle East. Which has the potential to throw the world economy into turmoil, which could burst his precious bubble.
I could go on.
I opened with the speeches of the Canadian and German leaders, noticing that there’s an undeniable rift in the Transatlantic relationship and Europe is heavily rearming, even contemplating a new European nuclear doctrine.
I gave that response of tourism to show the effects when bullying and harassment is NOT done behind closed doors, how the people themselves react to this kind of “diplomacy”.
This is the problem these days: people don’t bother even to read what others say.
I’ve already mentioned I think several times in this thread (and notice that threads have a point of discussion) the way Trump has now attacked Iran. No alliance building, no action to seek support on the international stage like either Bush did. Not even an attempt to gather support from the American voter, who actually oppose this war. Objectives that are totally unclear.
You seem to think that this doesn’t matter. Well, it actually matters: just look at the diplomatic effort and the alliance building that older Bush did when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Heck, Assad’s Syria sent an armoured division to fight alongside the Americans and the Soviet Union and the UN gave a green light! But for mr “nothing has changed”, nothing has changed and everything is just like the two or three decades before the present.
I start to feel like I’m in a discussion with a LLM, so I’ll just say that in this discussion I start feeling like @Punshhh when he wrote this:
I didn’t give an argument about Trump, it was an observation that he took advantage of a situation.
That’s an argument. He either did or didn’t take advantage of a situation. It’s a fact about the world. You can’t avoid having to defend your claims by relabelling them as ‘observations’.
I think our writing style doesn’t mesh well, it happens sometimes. You have an emphasis on analysis of what someone is saying and I have an emphasis on trying to describe something that’s happening in the world.
Nor can you avoid having to defend your claims by relabelling them as ‘descriptions’ either.
You’re making claims about the way things are. People will disagree with you. This is a debating forum, presumably we debate.
I could write an essay on what has changed since 2016, but I don’t see any benefit in my doing that and you then re-interpreting it into points to argue.
There’s a chat room been opened up for you to just ‘comment’ on world events. Threads are for actual discussion, that may, and most likely will, involve interpreting what you’re saying and arguing against it.
What else did you expect a response to consist of?
Let me just point out a few things that have changed. For you to chew on.
I don’t need anything ‘to chew on’. I have the same access to information you have. I’m disagreeing with your conclusion, not asking for a quick summary of CNN talking points.
The American president (entirely on his own) has defected to the other side, ie Russia.
Stuff like this is the issue.
If I came on to a thread talking about Autism and said “Of course, vaccines cause Autism, so no wonder there’s been an increase in cases” I would not, and should not, be allowed to get away with that by saying “Oh, I’m just ‘describing’”, or “I’m just offering an explanation”. It matters. People might avoid vaccination when they need it because I’ve told them it causes Autism.
It’s the same with claims about politics. They matter. In this case, as @Tzeentch has pointed out, it matters because it builds the illusion that we can just get rid of Trump and Putin and everything will be fine. It actively harmful to the political process. The problems are systemic, not all down to two bad men.
I’ve already mentioned I think several times in this thread (and notice that threads have a point of discussion) the way Trump has now attacked Iran.
Exactly.
Trump has not attacked Iran.
America (and Israel) have attacked Iran. Just like America (and the UK) attacked Iraq. Just like America attacked just about every country on the world not compliant with their economic objectives.
America. Not Trump.
One man did not just attack Iran.
You seem to think that this doesn’t matter. Well, it actually matters:
So you keep saying. I’m asking you to defend that claim.
I’ve asked you three times now for the actual effects. The real world consequences. The best you came up with was a drop in tourism.
Are the bombs softer if they’re dropped by an alliance?
Do the hospitals stand up better when there’s been some preliminary diplomacy?
What are the actual changes you’re claiming have happened outside of the cabal of politicians and diplomats fussing about seating plans? The 8 billion or so ordinary people in the world. What’s the effect on them?
It’s actually true, I’m making an observation, it’s not a claim. I’m describing something which happened in the real world.
Give me your alternative assessment of whether Trump took advantage of the situation?
There is an argument to be had about whether Trump has defected to the other side and it’s my assessment having checked out a wide spectrum of media outlets.
Do you think Trump has defected to the other side? and if not, what’s he doing repeating Putin talking points?
I watched a Netflix movie last night : Eden, based on real events. After world war 1, a German doctor, disgusted with European civilization, moved to an uninhabited island, with his non-wife, to get away from corrupted human Culture, and back to pristine Nature. While there, he sent philosophical letters back home, which due to the seemingly idyllic story, were published in newspapers. Soon others, attracted by the romantic notion of living more like carefree animals, and without the discontents of modern civilization, also came to setup camp on the volcanic island of Galapagos.
The doctor was disgusted by the encroaching tourists, and began to lecture them about Reality. One snide remark about cycles of history reminded me of this thread : “Democracy, Fascism, War, Repeat”. That sentiment reminded me of Hegel’s “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” referring to philosophical & historical cycles of Conflict, Contradiction, and Resolution : rinse and repeat.
Personally, I grew-up, in mid-20th century, indoctrinated with the post-WWII ideals of American Democracy, and was disillusioned as the American Dream began to crumble and evolve, in the 21st century, back toward Autocracy . But history indicates that humanity has survived the ups & downs of human nature & culture for eons. Ironically, the current dinosaur in the china shop, is also the “leader of the free world”.
Meanwhile, philosophy also evolved through cycles of Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism. Stoicism in particular, reminds me of how the early shrew-like mammals survived, underfoot of massive dinosaurs : by keeping their heads down, not by direct competition. Even Plato’s ideal republic was proto-fascist. So, a motto of downtrodden people throughout history has been : ”This too shall pass”. Which encourages equanimity and emotional balance, acknowledging that life is constantly in flux.
If all those famous philosophers couldn’t agree on the path to Utopia, I’ll just have to leave it to the flux of society to find a temporary resolution to the current “rupture” of America.
Disadvantages of Democracy : Inefficiency and Instability
Vulnerability to Populism
Majoritarianism and Minority Rights
Slow Decision-Making
Unequal Influence
Disadvantages of Fascism Suppression of Human Rights
Totalitarian Control
Violence and Militarism
Cult of Personality and Unreality
Economic Exploitation and Corruption
Social Division
Yes, of course, you’ll have to wait a week and a half though.
There is a serious point here, though. What political analysts do is only of consequence to the advisors of politicians and some historians. Out there in the world,politics is about swaying the masses to vote in a particular way. Sometimes, it’s about doing things they don’t want to know, or don’t want to happen. This is where politicians use sleight of hand, distraction, even lie (bread and circuses). So showmanship and populism is always ready to step into the breach when more sensible politicians fail, or aren’t to be found.
Appearances are important.
Armchair commentators like myself do play a role here, by looking for what others aren’t noticing, looking at the bigger picture. Sensing trends, injecting some humanity into the discourse. There are big picture politicians too, who are not details people, who stand on the world stage and feel the political wind.
Yes, of course, you’ll have to wait a week and a half though.
Damn! Like my ability to control the weather… it works if you just wait long enough.
Armchair commentators like myself do play a role here, by looking for what others aren’t noticing
Exactly. This is why it’s important.
Do you really think you’re repeating information here that ‘others aren’t noticing’, or do you think you’re repeating mainstream media almost verbatim?
As you say, this stuff matters. What I’m arguing here matters (and likewise for you) because we’re all part of setting the global discourse.
My point here is that you are not reflecting on the wider implications of your discourse, it seems. You’re taking part (and quite a full-throated part) in the rhetoric which is spreading the story that the world has simply been taken over by two Bad Men and it’s all their fault.
This perpetuates the notion that there’s;
a) no systemic problems to look at - capitalism is fine, corporate power is fine, the system all works perfectly well excpet these to Bad Men who happen to have slipped through the net somehow and as soon as we catch them we’ll be right as rain again
b) it’s all the ordinary person’s fault - not the rich and powerful exerting that power, no, the ordinary person who’s been dumb enough to fall for some ‘misinformation’ online (the idiots!)
What I’m asking you to reflect on is just who these two notions (the ones you’re actively promoting) serve?
Who benefits from having all the newspaper headlines taken up with the stupid escapades of a single world leader?
Who benefits from pushing the notion that it’s a bunch of ordinary idiots causing all this trouble and this can be cleared up with a bit more control over the flow of information?
Who benefits from changing the discourse from anti-corporate (like Occupy Wall-Street) to anti-working class (your typical MAGA)?
Who benefits from popularising the notion that anyone would be better than Trump in power?
But that’s all I’ve done in this thread. Watched the political weather. And guess who’s making the political weather at the moment. Well it’s Trump, Netanyahu and Putin. This isn’t to ignore what else is going on and the posters who usually post in these threads have a fairly broad understanding of what’s going on in the world. The differences between them are due to their differing political positions.
I don’t know because I’m not a mind reader. But I do know that the positions I’m expressing are my own, that I arrived at myself.
The rest of your post sounds like you are projecting you own interpretation of posters like me and SSU onto us. Which is why we’ve said that your interpretations do not represent what we are saying. I’m already aware of those things before I post. But posts are short and I’m not going to try to summarise the broader implications of the circumstances I describe into every post.
If there’s something you think I’m missing point it out and we can discuss it.
