U.S. foreign policy could play a significant role in the 2024 election. That could lead to some perverse strategies by domestic and international actors.
US views on Israel/Palestine are a special case, but something like omnibalancing is now the norm rather than the exception, as politics is globalised. Taking sides in an international dispute, politically aware people will support the government with which they are politically aligned, rather than the one to which they happen to be subject.
In the context of the Colorado decision, do you think that the trend toward omnibalancing is at all indicative that the US is stumbling towards anocracy -- defined as an extended period of government among competing power centers, with none able to gain the upper hand on the rest?
I could see the 'future history' description of such a descent going something like this: "The power struggle over Donald Trump's 2024 candidacy revealed that the US was no longer a set of opposing actors cooperating within common institutions, but a set of institutions failing to cooperate in shared self-government. The military hid behind the shield of civilian control until it was too late. State supreme courts split on allowing Trump on the ballot, and sought ways to get around SCOTUS's repeated rulings on the matter. SCOTUS itself could not pose a unified front among these challenges. Right-wing media continued to zombify a GOP whose elites were increasingly both detached from and deranged by osmosis with its constituents, while the campus left paralyzed the Democrats."
The Ukraine supplemental funding was quite the fiasco. I live down in East Tennessee where we would have received a sizable chunk of that money which was set aside for rebuilding our nation’s nuclear fuel cycle. When that funding was cancelled*, the energy security crowd and conservative ilk celebrated! Perfect example how these people don’t care about their neighbors or their alleged platform as long as they’re owning the libs or whatever
*I think the funding did get appropriated in another bill eventually, but that was well after the exchange I’m describing here
NATO and US lost the Ukraine War in the first year by not devoting all force (including air superiority) and resources in an attempt to win it. Hence this is now a war of attrition against a larger foe, and not an exit strategy in sight. A reelected Trump Administration would likely end the war and save the money from going into a bottomless pit.
Interesting development is the stationing of German troops in Lithuania. If there is a new strategy at play, then one might expect similar multinational troops stationed in Estonia, Romania, and Poland in anticipation of the fall of Ukraine. Any new Russian offensive that spills NATO blood would bring new meaning to the conflict.
US views on Israel/Palestine are a special case, but something like omnibalancing is now the norm rather than the exception, as politics is globalised. Taking sides in an international dispute, politically aware people will support the government with which they are politically aligned, rather than the one to which they happen to be subject.
In the context of the Colorado decision, do you think that the trend toward omnibalancing is at all indicative that the US is stumbling towards anocracy -- defined as an extended period of government among competing power centers, with none able to gain the upper hand on the rest?
I could see the 'future history' description of such a descent going something like this: "The power struggle over Donald Trump's 2024 candidacy revealed that the US was no longer a set of opposing actors cooperating within common institutions, but a set of institutions failing to cooperate in shared self-government. The military hid behind the shield of civilian control until it was too late. State supreme courts split on allowing Trump on the ballot, and sought ways to get around SCOTUS's repeated rulings on the matter. SCOTUS itself could not pose a unified front among these challenges. Right-wing media continued to zombify a GOP whose elites were increasingly both detached from and deranged by osmosis with its constituents, while the campus left paralyzed the Democrats."
Any of this ring true?
The Ukraine supplemental funding was quite the fiasco. I live down in East Tennessee where we would have received a sizable chunk of that money which was set aside for rebuilding our nation’s nuclear fuel cycle. When that funding was cancelled*, the energy security crowd and conservative ilk celebrated! Perfect example how these people don’t care about their neighbors or their alleged platform as long as they’re owning the libs or whatever
*I think the funding did get appropriated in another bill eventually, but that was well after the exchange I’m describing here
NATO and US lost the Ukraine War in the first year by not devoting all force (including air superiority) and resources in an attempt to win it. Hence this is now a war of attrition against a larger foe, and not an exit strategy in sight. A reelected Trump Administration would likely end the war and save the money from going into a bottomless pit.
Interesting development is the stationing of German troops in Lithuania. If there is a new strategy at play, then one might expect similar multinational troops stationed in Estonia, Romania, and Poland in anticipation of the fall of Ukraine. Any new Russian offensive that spills NATO blood would bring new meaning to the conflict.