Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Que]

let's see....

Europe in crisis....

The Middle East in flames....

And the US run by....... Donald Trump....


It is going to be sooooo much FUN!

Q 

[drogulus]

Then on what ground(s) would you have opposed Nicolae Ceausescu and his government?

     On what grounds did he oppose me? Did he oppose everyone only to the extent he had "grounds", or did the fucker need grounds to oppose everyone who wouldn't knuckle under?

     Is it equally groundless to overthrow Ceausescu as it is for him to shoot you? Look, you're entitled to overthrow guys like him because you won't listen to anybody tell you you don't have a priori grounds. You don't even have to have an a priori Declaration of Independence, you can make one up like we did in the good ol' U.S. of A!

[Brian]

let's see....

Europe in crisis....

The Middle East in flames....

And the US run by....... Donald Trump....


It is going to be sooooo much FUN!

Q 

The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks

A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world. The firm has no plans to include Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or John Kasich on future risk lists.

-

On the actual risk, Trump is ranked the #6 greatest global threat.

#1: Chinese economy crashes hard
#2: Putin moves into "new cold war"
#3: "Currency volatility culminates in an emerging markets corporate debt crisis"
#4: European Union breakup
#5: Euro currency breakup
#6: Donald Trump
#7: ISIS destabilizes global economy
#8: UK votes to leave EU
#9: Warfare with China in South China Sea
#10: Oil industry collapse

[André]

"After Tuesday's primaries, it's looking like we can add one more entity to the Trump Marks list: the Trumpublican Party, LLC."

"But in truth the Trump takeover of the GOP occurred, to quote an old line from Hemingway, "Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly." What had to happen first, before Donald could step in and slap on his own brand in a short period of time, was the gradual "de-branding" of the party at the hands of its own leaders, especially over the past 7½ years since Barack Obama entered the White House. That's when the party decided to abandon any ideas about governing in favor of one singular, unifying idea: "No to Obama." "

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/how-trump-re-branded-the-gop-213745#ixzz43OObzCag
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

...........................................................................

Interesting read.

[Madiel]

That´s not what I inferred from orfeo´s post. I think, on the contrary, that he is talking about existing, real societies.

Well I was talking about both. I was talking about Rawls (couldn't remember the name, I think there's a second name in the back of my mind as well). But I was also musing on the Happiness Index.

In terms of what that particular index seeks to measure, you can look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report

You ask what I mean by "equal". Equality before the law, equal opportunity to make choices, equal access to important services regardless of money, they'd all factor into my notion of equality. It means money and power not mattering so much - that a lack of money and power does not put you at so great a disadvantage that life is a struggle.

And no, it is most assuredly not communism. Whatever the rhetoric of a man like Ceausescu, the fact was that the wealth of the country was held by a small number of individuals to the point where it made ordinary people struggle. And people's choices were restricted.

[Que]

The Economist rates Trump presidency among its top 10 global risks

A Donald Trump presidency poses a top-10 risk event that could disrupt the world economy, lead to political chaos in the U.S. and heighten security risks for the United States, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

Until Trump, the firm had never rated a pending election of a candidate to be a geopolitical risk to the U.S. and the world. The firm has no plans to include Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz or John Kasich on future risk lists.

I hate to be a Doomsday prophet, but all the ingredients for a geopolitcal disaster of epic proportions are currently present.... 

Q

[Jo498]

It's impossible to tell because so far Trump is mostly/only rhetorics and it seems anyone's guess what he might do should he become president. But I think there is a higher probability that with him US foreign policy could become somewhat less meddlesome (more in line with their pre-WW-I-policy) than with Clinton...

[Brian]

somewhat less meddlesome (more in line with their pre-WW-I-policy)

Our pre-WW-I policy where we annexed the American west, conceived the Monroe Doctrine, took land from Mexico by warfare, declared war on Spain, seized control of Puerto Rico and Cuba, created Panama by force so we could build a canal, and spent 40+ years ruling the Philippines as a colonial holding?

The United States has always had an assertive, indeed aggressive, foreign policy. Cases like Woodrow Wilson's reluctance to enter WWI are exceptions to the rule.

(A good book to read on this subject is "Dangerous Nation: America's Foreign Policy from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century", by Robert Kagan.)

[drogulus]

The United States has always had an assertive, indeed aggressive, foreign policy. Cases like Woodrow Wilson's reluctance to enter WWI are exceptions to the rule.

     The U.S. is a young country, born with imperial ambition. Empire was not tacked on later (sorry Gore Vidal, there was no decline and fall from your ideal republic). When we got powerful enough we began to replace Britain as the maritime hegemon. Such a role is inconceivable for a country with pacifist assumptions about the "normalcy" of peace. We are not Swiss, we don't have pacifist mountain ranges! So we fought wars of expansion, world wars when they showed up, now we fight police actions including "wars of choice" the maritime power fights, choosing this one not that one, sometimes getting it wrong.

[Jo498]

Pre WWI it was meddling only in the "own backyard". Which included all of Latin America and most of the Pacific, of course. It did not participate in the "Great Game" in the near/middle East.
I am well aware of the fact that Empires keep meddling, especially if they think (often rightly), others are weak. The main problem seems that some in the US think they are still like Rome in the first century AD, not in the fifth...

[drogulus]

Pre WWI it was meddling only in the "own backyard". Which included all of Latin America and most of the Pacific, of course. It did not participate in the "Great Game" in the near/middle East.
I am well aware of the fact that Empires keep meddling, especially if they think (often rightly), others are weak. The main problem seems that some in the US think they are still like Rome in the first century AD, not in the fifth...

     The fifth century Romans were trying to stop their empire from invading them, and they failed. People moralize about this, but it really came down to the growing strength of the Romanized (even Christianized) Germans and Huns both inside and outside the imperial boundaries.

      People want the fall of the Western empire to teach lessons. That's largely crap. If Napoleon collapsed in three years and Rome managed to survive the 4th and most of the 5th century, it looks to me very much like imperial systems differ greatly from each other according to a variety of factors. Unsuccessful empires expand and collapse quickly, successful ones play by M&A rules, Greek>Roman, Dutch>British>American.

[drogulus]

     Oh, hail Trump, I suppose. Other than the embarrassment factor, it's not clear to me what effect Trump-lesconi will have. Look at Italy, how embarrassed are they now? Of course they're out of practice at ruling the world, so I can understand how people outside the Galactic Center might be apprehensive. But consider that the U.S system that has thwarted a good President can be modified to deal with a nightmarish one. We will, I promise, govern around him.

[Brian]

     Oh, hail Trump, I suppose. Other than the embarrassment factor, it's not clear to me what effect Trump-lesconi will have. Look at Italy, how embarrassed are they now?

Well, they're still cleaning up the gigantic economic mess his incompetence left behind.

EDIT: If you're trying to imply that Ted Cruz would be worse, I do agree that Ted Cruz would be worse.

[Florestan]

     On what grounds did he oppose me? Did he oppose everyone only to the extent he had "grounds", or did the fucker need grounds to oppose everyone who wouldn't knuckle under?

     Is it equally groundless to overthrow Ceausescu as it is for him to shoot you? Look, you're entitled to overthrow guys like him because you won't listen to anybody tell you you don't have a priori grounds. You don't even have to have an a priori Declaration of Independence, you can make one up like we did in the good ol' U.S. of A!

I got this one too: you have no objection whatsoever to government having ever-expanding or downright unlimited power as long as it acts according to your own idea of what government should do.

[Florestan]

Well I was talking about both. I was talking about Rawls (couldn't remember the name, I think there's a second name in the back of my mind as well).

Frankly, I have little patience with, and still less use for, theories about what "the perfect society" would look like and the proper way to get there. They might be interesting intellectual games but have zero practical relevance. No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas. And all the attempts of forcibly organizing the society according to some preconceived plans aimed at perfection have (predictably) resulted in tyranny.

You ask what I mean by "equal". Equality before the law, equal opportunity to make choices, equal access to important services regardless of money, they'd all factor into my notion of equality. It means money and power not mattering so much - that a lack of money and power does not put you at so great a disadvantage that life is a struggle.

That´s all good and I agree. Yet I know of no society past and present in which money and power did not / do not matter at all --- and I doubt there will ever be one such in the future. The only way to make power absolutely irrelevant is to have everybody hold the same power; the only way to make money absolutely irrelevant is to make everybody have the same income --- both of which are impossible.

[drogulus]

I got this one too: you have no objection whatsoever to government having ever-expanding or downright unlimited power as long as it acts according to your own idea of what government should do.

     The limits my objections impose are as stringent as yours, though I run the justifications through a different screening process. Anyway, I don't see how my own ideas of governance are at a disadvantage to your own. They are both based on past ideas and practices, though I tend to put practice horses before idea carts, on the grounds that only well understood practices can form a basis for useful reforms. I don't like the idea of idea carts pulling other idea carts while practice horses wait around for definitions.

Frankly, I have little patience with, and still less use for, theories about what "the perfect society" would look like and the proper way to get there. They might be interesting intellectual games but have zero practical relevance. No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas. And all the attempts of forcibly organizing the society according to some preconceived plans aimed at perfection have (predictably) resulted in tyranny.

     So you must go on and can't go on, because if going on isn't perfect (a very important concept in the a priorist idea-sphere and not elsewhere), it will fail by the perfection standard.

     Q: Did Rawls offer a plausible description for what a modern democratic society tries to do?

     A: Yes, it's in both practice and theory, which in my view grow up together bootstrap like.

     Q: Is it perfect?

     A: What difference could it possibly make that it's not?

[Madiel]

No society is ever going to be voluntarily organized according to Rawls´ (or whoever else´s) ideas.

On the contrary, the whole point is that many societies include these ideas.

Australia scores quite highly on these sorts of indexes. I can tell you that "fairness" is one of the strongest values in the Australian psyche. Yes, Australians have plenty of individualism at looking out for themselves, but they also have a very strong reaction to situations affecting other Australians in an unfair or adverse way. There's a definite undercurrent of "that could be me" that creates a desire to help.

Which is pretty much the essence of the idea I'm talking about - looking at the less well-off members of society and thinking "that could be me", not "they deserve it".

[André]

Same here. 'They deserve it' smacks of smugness.

[Madiel]

Anyway, it doesn't matter exactly which things you measure, the same countries turn up again and again as the best places to live. The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand fill out the top spots with monotonous regularity. All the different indexes keep saying it.

And the American response is usually to say "well, we're not a small non-diverse country". Which is based on notions of America from a long time ago. Did you know that several of these countries easily outstrip the USA for percentage of people born elsewhere? I know for sure Canada and Australia are way ahead on that statistic, and I've seen suggestions at least that several of the European countries also have more immigrants than the USA.

[Florestan]

looking at the less well-off members of society and thinking "that could be me", not "they deserve it".

Once again, I generally agree with that  --- but Rawls´ idea about how a perfect society should be organized is purely theoretical; IIRC,  his theory is as follows: an individual is asked to design a perfect social, economical and political arrangement; the only condition he must bear in mind is that after setting it up he will be born again in that society but he knows not beforehand what his place and status will be. Rawls argues that this is the way to really achieve real perfection. Now please tell me if this is something you can safely call a realistic proposal / approach.

Solidarity, altruism, generosity, benevolence, liberality ---all these inborn human traits and propensities have manifested themselves long, long, long, loooooong before Rawls (or Marx, for that matter) was born. To wish and hope that they will prevail over (equally inborn) human traits of atomistic individualism, egotism, avarice, malevolence and illiberality and to personally act in such a manner as to promote them is one thing --- to pretend that one knows with certainty what and how must be done in order to achieve the perfect society is quite another. As long as people themselves will be imperfect --- that is, until Judgment Day --- society (any society) will be imperfect as well. That is not to say that any statu quo should be maintained and that reform, change and improvement should not be sought when possible.