I'm almost ashamed to admit this, but one of the truest insights I've ever read into civilization came from Orson Scott Card. In Songbird, a grim novel-length adaptation of one of his grimmest short stories, Card expounds through monologue that the Romans were more important than the Greeks because while the Greeks invented nearly everything, the Romans invented bureaucracy. And bureaucracy, despite everyone's hatred of it, is the most stabilizing force in the history of governance. Card points out that while the Vandals sacked Rome in the 5th Century, the bureaucracy of Rome continued in Byzantium for another thousand years. It continued as the Holy Roman Empire of the Franks through the 17th Century. Alexander's empire crumbled within decades of his death. Ghengis Khan's empire descended into the warlord piracy of the Golden Horde. but the petty TPS reports of the papacy kept civilization together through the thousand years of the Dark Ages. Obviously, "Dark Ages" is something to avoid, not something to shoot for. But I think the gist of the above is what Obama meant: “Now that the election is over, no, I don’t believe it,” he said with a sharp, dark laugh. “Not because I was over-hyping it. I think that the possibility of everything being out the window exists. But, as a practical matter, what I’ve been saying to people, including my own staff, is that the federal government is an aircraft carrier, it’s not a speedboat. And, if you need any evidence of that, think about how hard we worked over the last eight years with a very clear progressive agenda, with a majority in the House and in the Senate, and we accomplished as much domestically as any President since Lyndon Johnson in those first two years. But it was really hard.” Obama said that he had accomplished “seventy or seventy-five per cent” of what he set out to do, and “maybe fifteen per cent of that gets rolled back, twenty per cent, but there’s still a lot of stuff that sticks.” There's a claim in this whole Michael Wolff fiasco that Rupert Murdoch advised Bannon and Trump that every administration has six months to make a real change, after which point they'll spend the rest of their time fighting defensive actions. True? Dunno. Truthy? Well, September 11 was 9 months in so obviously we've got some caveats. But what, really, has the Trump administration accomplished? - Replaced Scalia with Scalia 2.0 - Made a couple national parks smaller - Repealed Net Neutrality - Killed the Trans Pacific Partnership - Passed a tax bill with a bunch of temporary roll-backs The Scalia thing was a given so long as Mitch McConnell had a Republican in office. The parks thing is bizarre, and probably not permanent. Net Neutrality? The Internet needs to be reclassified as a utility by Congress, not the FCC, and that's an eventuality, too. Trans Pacific Partnership? It was in danger under Obama. The tax bill? I mean fuckin' A they've got the house, the senate, the judiciary and a fuckin' billionaire in office the fact that it took them an entire goddamn year to ramrod that through is like watching the Patriots almost lose to the Browns. Civilization's gonna be fine. Did you see that the Koreas are talking? Meanwhile, the Virginia legislature went down to the Republicans in a fucking coin toss which is probably not going to sit well in the midterms. I feel like everyone thinks the Trump administration is Darth Vader and he's coming at us with a light saber but really it's Rick Moranis and all he has is a rusty spoon. Yeah - I don't wanna be attacked by Rick Moranis. But really, it could be worse.Throughout the campaign, he had told his audiences that if Trump—“uniquely unqualified” and “temperamentally unfit” to be Commander-in-Chief—were to win, eight years of accomplishment would go out the window. I asked him if he still believed that.
I'm not sure I agree. While the Executive branch is far more covered in honey than they've ever been in the past (and will hopefully ever be in the future), ours is a largely stable democracy and we're facing no real threats. I think things could have gone seriously wrong under Kennedy, and I think things could have gone seriously wrong under Reagan, but I think both Kennedy and Reagan had enough experience in governance to get the job done and I think they were humble enough to surround themselves with people who at least had good, solid, intellectual reasons for acting the way they did. I think the United States in 2018 is the same as the United States in 2017, except that everyone is perfectly willing to second-guess the President because c'mon. It's the only sensible response.
I think they're trying to pick up some of the balls America is dropping in the region. China was also involved in some diplomacy talks with Afghanistan and Pakistan recently and if I remember right, after the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal went under, China has been trying to position itself to be even more of an economic influence. They're also setting some of their own environmental targets 1 2 and I read an article recently that their capital punishment rate has been dropping steadily since the early 2000s. If I remember right, after decades their poverty levels are still dropping and their literacy levels are still rising (though the whole education in China seems to be a bit of a mixed bag) and I think those are good things. The Western Media likes to poo-poo China a lot and to be fair they do have a lot of problems they need to work through 1 2. But so do we. So does a lot of Europe. So does pretty much every country except for Free Magical Unicorn Economic Social Equality Land. In general, countries need to dial back the dickish behavior a bit. I think what I'm trying to say though, is that as a country I think they realize this is their time to take advantage of a changing world but I also see signs that they also realize they need to step up and be more conscientious of the amount of power and responsibility they wield. I'm concerned but also hopeful. Edit: Added some Wikipedia links. Edit 2: Added some recent news stories to illustrate what I'm seeing.
I like to remind myself in any discussion about China that they're attempting to move from a feudal economy to a market economy in less than a century. Tienamen Square may have killed 10,000 people but they've got a billion and a half citizens. And they're building up a middle class as fast as they can. Which means energy. Which means oil. Which is why they have a most-favored-nation status with Kazakhstan. Which is why they're heavily invested in Nigeria. Which is why they have a trillion dollars in One Belt One Road. I've heard it argued a few times that Putin is attempting to jump into the vacuum left by the US abandonment of the Middle East. China's already there. here's what I know: China bears me no ill will. But a Pakistan with close ties to China has a lot less interest in my well-being than they do in the well-being of China. And there's a lot of ill will in Pakistan. Always has been, always will be. We're all so overwhelmed with daily dumbshit from the White House that the slow and steady severance of ties with our once and former empire barely gets a mention. This is in the back pages of CNBC, only linked because Seeking Alpha sends me a news summary every day. The more places trade on your reserve currency, the fewer places likely to go to war with you. As an American, the more places trading in dollars the better for me.
There's definitely a lot of frustration about decaying international relations and I'm kind of surprised myself that the media doesn't cover it more. NAFTA, for example, seems to be pretty important and it's crazy that you have to search for articles to see what's going on with that. Though I understand it's not as sensational and you know, if it bleeds, it leads. On the one hand, I'm worried because it's easier to to make enemies than it is to make friends. On the other hand, it's also easier to make amends and let bygones be bygones than it is to make friends from scratch, so I think there's still a chance for people in this and future administrations to patch things up. China's development with Pakistan though? I don't really know how worrying I should consider it. The way I see it is, Pakistan is their neighbor and China really takes regional stability seriously. At the same time, since we're one of China's largest trading parters, I can't help but think that our relationship with them will be in the forefront of their minds when they consider working with Pakistan. I think what I'm trying to say is that, even though the media seems to paint it the other way a lot, it strikes me that more often than not China's interests and America's interests are often generally in line with each other. So with that in mind, I guess I'm saying maybe this will be okay. I understand this. Though I have to wonder, the fact that we're such a major economy, even if people do stop trading in American dollars, doesn't our global presence still create a lot of clout for us? Not trying to argue here. Just trying to think this whole development through.As an American, the more places trading in dollars the better for me.
The Week has a little section called "Boring but Important." Golden showers? That shit'll pop up every week from now until the end of time. Pakistan's currency exchange vehicle? Good luck. The United States still has the world's largest economy, the world's largest refining capacity, and is the world's largest agricultural exporter. We're not going to become Portugal. For better or for worse, though, the position we enjoy is a position we have to maintain. We missed a lot of maintenance in 2017. 2018 doesn't look much better.
I think I'll put "Boring but Important" in my news rotation. One of my PBS stations recently changed their format and late at night, they're nothing but news. They have, in no particular order, BBC, DW, and NHK news programming as well as other random stuff like Nightly Business Report and it's all so much of a breath of fresh air. They literally make NPR's morning news sound sensationalist. Last night, because literally nothing else was on, I watched ABC's World News Tonight and it was awful. It was five minutes worth of commercials with two to three minute breaks of inane crap with splash graphics. At least, that's what it felt like. I'm gonna watch it again tonight to actually get a commercial to news ratio. I'm betting my estimate is not too far off. I don't know what 2018 is gonna bring for any of us. I'm gonna hope for the best and just in case, do what I can to batten down the hatches on the home front.
No, they were doing that before the TPP was negotiated, and the TPP was in response to their behavior. TPP was never about free trade in the sense that NAFTA was, and was always about Chinese encirclement. That post was my attempt at reviving the debate on here over TPP, which the community consensus is basically, "Fuck you; you're evil for even suggesting Bernie Sanders isn't Jesus incarnate. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist pig and so are you for saying nice things about TPP." (Something like that, anyway.) Trade deals make some people poorer and some people richer, but it's up to us to decide how to promote economic opportunity domestically. That has nothing to do with trade deals. TPP was and remains a good idea, and it is never coming back....after the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal went under, China has been trying to position itself to be even more of an economic influence.
The Trans Pacific Partnership specifically and explicitly set the legal rights of foreign corporations over the legal rights of domestic citizens. It's bullshit law. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton; it was an Obama push to advance the interests of American globalism. I, for one, am not a fan of American globalism. This is such rank bullshit I stopped reading. The United States, since WWII, has advocated the Home of the Free and the Land of the Brave and all other brown people hold onto your butts. We have destabilized nascent democracies because they threaten our corporations; we have sponsored the murder and assassination of humanitarians because they interfere with our business interests. Christopher Boyce sold KH-11 plans to the Soviet Union because he stumbled on a CIA plot to overthrow the government of Australia. That, of course, was shortly after we destabilized the Allende government which led to 27,000 people in jail and 3,000 people getting one-way helicopter flights over the Atlantic. The TPP was an attempt by the Obama administration to say "we're not going to sneak around legally fucking with your democracies; we're just gonna do it up front and legal-like through the WTO. Clinton, Sanders, whatever, the TPP was grossly unfair legislation that advanced the interests of corporate monopolies at the expense of ordinary human beings and I will totally fight you on this for insinuating that anybody who's against it is some unthinking Bernie-bro."Fuck you; you're evil for even suggesting Bernie Sanders isn't Jesus incarnate. Hillary Clinton is a corporatist pig and so are you for saying nice things about TPP." (Something like that, anyway.)
Ever since the Second World War, the United States has advocated an international order based on a free press and judiciary, human rights, free trade, and protection of the environment. It planted those ideas in the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, and spread them with alliances around the world. In March, 1959, President Eisenhower argued that America’s authority could not rest on military power alone.
That comment was definitely not directed at you. I have of course heard well reasoned, well founded critiques of TPP, and I wouldn't expect anything less than a bare-knuckler from you on that point. That said, I've heard a lot more that boil down to something slightly less coherent than Tim Robbins' monologue in Team America, and a lot of those have been directed at me. I'm ambivalent at best about American global hegemony. I'm far less than ambivalent about the prospect of Chinese global hegemony. America has an imperfect record when it comes to exporting the rule of law, but by and large we're pretty damn good at it at home. China, on the other hand, doesn't even have a tradition of pretending that there's a such thing as rule of law domestically, let alone internationally. Perhaps supporting a giant free trade zone is a sort of cynical and somewhat damaging way to contain China's global ambitions, but I haven't come across a better one.
It tires me whenever anyone starts from the basic assumption of zero sum international trade. TPP was totally and absolutely about encirclement. I would argue that if your philosophical position is one that democracy and free trade are best for everyone, you lead by example not by decree. Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier. American imperialism wants to be China's frontier. If we want China's frontier to align with us by choice instead of force, we should provide them a trade framework that shows them the benefits of our system of law, not one that fucking exempts us from theirs. there's "soft power" and there's vassalage.
Historically, maybe, but I think the Phillipines and Japan would disagree with that point. China, as you know, has been very aggressive in redrawing their maritime borders in recent years. But more to the point, China excludes outsiders far more than the US or EU excludes China. Possibly the only thing I think Trump had a point about during the election was that the asymmetrical trade relationship we share with them needs rebalancing (not talking trade imbalance, per se, but rather access to markets--e.g. any foreign company needs a China-based business partner to do business there, which just becomes a vehicle for them to steal trade secrets). I don't think I'm operating from anything like viewing trade as zero sum. I think on balance, freer trade is very beneficial (overall that is--how we choose to spread the wealth is a different issue that I think people conflate with trade). I think the world would welcome true Chinese participation in the global community, but unless they decide that's what they also want, they are always going to face encirclement.Chinese imperialism has never extended beyond their frontier.
The Philippines are the Chinese frontier. Japan is the Chinese frontier. The Pacific is an imperialist patchwork of 200-mile exclusive economic zones; the borders China is attempting to redraw were the ones redrawn by Japan in the 1930s. I don't disagree with economic rebalancing. I do think Chinese control of the Pacific would be worse for most ordinary citizens than American dominance. However, I believe strongly that the relationship needs to be opt-in and fair.
It would be cool if they could just pass a clean trade bill without mixing in a ton of other stuff. Eliminating tariffs, quotas, local content requirements and what not is almost always good for everyone. It isn't as clear that eliminating barriers to FDI is always in a countries best interest. The ISDS system seems like a mess that if reformed could be much more fair. A harsh judgement against a small nation can cost as much as an education budget. I'm in favor of free trade but I don't know how I feel about major aspects of the TPP.
The way our system works I don't think that legislation can be passed without a lot of pork in it. If it doesn't directly benefit the person voting 'yes' it seems like they will vote 'no.'It would be cool if they could just pass a clean trade bill without mixing in a ton of other stuff.
Maybe my wording is off? I understand this relationship between China, the region, and TPP. That's why I said "even more of an economic influence." As in now they're doubling down even more. I'm sorry if I was vague.No, they were doing that before the TPP was negotiated, and the TPP was in response to their behavior. TPP was never about free trade in the sense that NAFTA was, and was always about Chinese encirclement.