While what you say is true, the more central issue is the collapse of the press in the face of GOP threats. They're falling in behind Fox News as Trump's enablers.
And the idea that he has a coherent worldview--from a 2016 Politico article? Seriously?
He doesn't even have concepts of a coherent worldview--except that it's rather like Saul Steinberg's "View of the World from 9th Avenue" but with Trump at the center. He contradicts himself constantly, changing policies more often than he changes his Depends.
And even if his mercantilist worldview was somehow actually coherent, he deserves zero credit for following an economic philosophy that has been discredited for almost 200 years. In fact, he deserves the harshest possible criticism--not sanewashing--for exactly that continued adherence to obsolete economics.
I teach a 12th grade Civics class and today had a student earnestly ask me if Canada was going to be a part of the US. We may be able to see through Trump’s schtick, but many believe everything he says. And sanewashing it just makes it seem more plausible.
"There are two possible takeaways from this cornucopia of bad bargaining takes. It is possible that policymakers are simply shoveling a bunch of manure to media outlets to serve a variety of political purposes. Or it is possible that they do not understand how bargaining and coercion actually work."
There's no reason not to think both may be true at the same time.
"I would very much like Lammy to list even one example of Trump dealing with an autocrat and, through destabilizing rhetoric, getting what he wants. Go ahead. I’ll wait…."
I think that Trump supporters (based on the endless pages of their writing that I have read) would say that being extreme and unpredictable makes one a more formidable adversary than being timid and careful (and incompetent, which is certainly how a Trump supporter would characterize Biden's leadership-or whoever was leading during the Biden administration, rather). They would point to Oct. 7th and the invasion of Ukraine as things that happened under Biden. It's hard to deny that both of those things happened under Biden... and NOT Trump. Boom. Checkmate.
Okay, I'm joking. Trying to attribute international events to one administration or another is even more specious than trying to attribute economic trends to one or the other. I think an excellent case can be made that Iran (probably the U. S.'s second most threatening adversary) took a much different and more aggressive approach during the Biden administration. The fact that Iran really didn't want Trump to be elected could be interpreted as support of this.
Honestly, I find these debates tiresome. I think they would be more productive if people would actually acknowledge the reasons WHY people tend to like Trump (no, it's not racism or xenophobia... not in my experience; it MIGHT be demagoguery but only in the sense in which Harris was also a demagogue). One of the best practices of debate is to restate your opponents' case and ensure that you're stating it fairly and clearly, as your opponent would. I find that anti-Trump people too often ignore what Trump supporters are saying (the two sides rarely converse, after all) and attribute fanciful ideas and motives to them. I don't think most voters take Trump seriously when he talks about the Smelt or Greenland or Canada. Certainly none of the Trump voters I know do. Yet they all strongly prefer him. Why might that be? In a two-party system, where it's essentially a choice between two options, that is a very germane question.
Voters don't vote according to foreign policy, mostly, but I do. The idea that Trump's impulsiveness is an asset in foreign policy is actually quite popular among Americans, I think. Why not represent their viewpoints fairly? They wouldn't point to a time that the impulsiveness won discrete benefits in negotiations but that's not how most of foreign policy works, as you well know. It's something you might focus on if you were trying to build a case against Trump, but any hint of that project will immediately turn away a huge group of independents. We've heard that tune, for 10 years now. If you seem to be accurately representing the views and feelings of Trump supporters, I really believe you'll have more impact on them (naturally!). You'd have to speak to some though.
The Times even did a "how much would it cost?" analysis of tRump's Greenland "bid"...sane-washing doesn't half cover it.
While what you say is true, the more central issue is the collapse of the press in the face of GOP threats. They're falling in behind Fox News as Trump's enablers.
And the idea that he has a coherent worldview--from a 2016 Politico article? Seriously?
He doesn't even have concepts of a coherent worldview--except that it's rather like Saul Steinberg's "View of the World from 9th Avenue" but with Trump at the center. He contradicts himself constantly, changing policies more often than he changes his Depends.
And even if his mercantilist worldview was somehow actually coherent, he deserves zero credit for following an economic philosophy that has been discredited for almost 200 years. In fact, he deserves the harshest possible criticism--not sanewashing--for exactly that continued adherence to obsolete economics.
I teach a 12th grade Civics class and today had a student earnestly ask me if Canada was going to be a part of the US. We may be able to see through Trump’s schtick, but many believe everything he says. And sanewashing it just makes it seem more plausible.
"There are two possible takeaways from this cornucopia of bad bargaining takes. It is possible that policymakers are simply shoveling a bunch of manure to media outlets to serve a variety of political purposes. Or it is possible that they do not understand how bargaining and coercion actually work."
There's no reason not to think both may be true at the same time.
"I would very much like Lammy to list even one example of Trump dealing with an autocrat and, through destabilizing rhetoric, getting what he wants. Go ahead. I’ll wait…."
I think that Trump supporters (based on the endless pages of their writing that I have read) would say that being extreme and unpredictable makes one a more formidable adversary than being timid and careful (and incompetent, which is certainly how a Trump supporter would characterize Biden's leadership-or whoever was leading during the Biden administration, rather). They would point to Oct. 7th and the invasion of Ukraine as things that happened under Biden. It's hard to deny that both of those things happened under Biden... and NOT Trump. Boom. Checkmate.
Okay, I'm joking. Trying to attribute international events to one administration or another is even more specious than trying to attribute economic trends to one or the other. I think an excellent case can be made that Iran (probably the U. S.'s second most threatening adversary) took a much different and more aggressive approach during the Biden administration. The fact that Iran really didn't want Trump to be elected could be interpreted as support of this.
Honestly, I find these debates tiresome. I think they would be more productive if people would actually acknowledge the reasons WHY people tend to like Trump (no, it's not racism or xenophobia... not in my experience; it MIGHT be demagoguery but only in the sense in which Harris was also a demagogue). One of the best practices of debate is to restate your opponents' case and ensure that you're stating it fairly and clearly, as your opponent would. I find that anti-Trump people too often ignore what Trump supporters are saying (the two sides rarely converse, after all) and attribute fanciful ideas and motives to them. I don't think most voters take Trump seriously when he talks about the Smelt or Greenland or Canada. Certainly none of the Trump voters I know do. Yet they all strongly prefer him. Why might that be? In a two-party system, where it's essentially a choice between two options, that is a very germane question.
Voters don't vote according to foreign policy, mostly, but I do. The idea that Trump's impulsiveness is an asset in foreign policy is actually quite popular among Americans, I think. Why not represent their viewpoints fairly? They wouldn't point to a time that the impulsiveness won discrete benefits in negotiations but that's not how most of foreign policy works, as you well know. It's something you might focus on if you were trying to build a case against Trump, but any hint of that project will immediately turn away a huge group of independents. We've heard that tune, for 10 years now. If you seem to be accurately representing the views and feelings of Trump supporters, I really believe you'll have more impact on them (naturally!). You'd have to speak to some though.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/our-flailing-elites
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/is-trump-an-incipient-fascist-dictator