Because they're literally ten feet below the surface drowning in ideology. We all are. The notion that the Democrats are the solution to an existential threat that is found only in one blustering guy with a bad hairpiece is lunacy, but it's easier to understand than any other alternative-- that the core of the capitalist world system is in crisis again and that as the epicenter we will be in a position of instability until it's fixed. Coupled with the fact that we are probably at the end of our turn as the Great Power of the world, and it's harder and harder to just will ourselves into a fix through hegemonic force applied by 'the right guy.' The reason I said earlier that Biden is the accelerationist candidate is because he's going to govern like a neoliberal, even though the cracks are coming through. Doing austerity to the US won't fix any of this.
AptosDuck what's your thoughts on Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers? As a house Frau with a background in geopolitical theory.
I'm not willing to call him the accelerationist, but he's certainly a band aid on a gunshot wound. Once again, I just need someone explain to me why it will be different. if anything bringing in Harris is a big nod as to what's coming down the pipeline. Neoliberal governance would be the death knell. You may as well get out of the country if that happens.
He will accelerate the crisis by pretending you can do 1997 American politics to it, and black pill a shit ton of people in the process.
Obama did the blackpilling already and when Trump won I think that just killed hope in a ton of people that this country is anything other than a racist shit hole.
Haven't read it since undergrad years, so I don't remember much. It was an extremely influential book, recently published and all the rage, and his Imperial Overstretch hypothesis made sense to me at the time, but I don't have much more to say about it than that. I will say that later reading Richard Thornton's books on how Nixon wanted forward containment and Kissinger wanted offshore balancing, I thought that Kissinger's approach was probably more conducive to avoiding overstretch
I had occasion to revisit it for a course I'm doing on global markets, essentially to provide an approachable foundation to the logic of policing the economic frontier. Hopefully I didn't butcher it.
Really? There are people-- the majority-- in this very thread that think a proper application of voting will fix the country's crises.
Honestly... I don't think they do. Some people just aren't ready to give up on home yet.....and I don't blame them.
I'm not giving up btw. I'm less blackpill than I have been in years. It's comforting to dismiss all hope in the DNC.
Back in the day I recall a lot of talk about Nye-esque soft power vs. hard power considerations, and how structural realists were having to reconcile a world where, where power balances inevitably recur, why nobody had decided to balance the emerging US hyperpower in the wake of the Cold War. I think it was Steve Walt who put forth the argument that it wasn't balance of power but balance of threat that was most important, and that the US wasn't threatening to others the way that previous hegemons had been. Our soft-power economic policies were aggressive but our hard-power pol/mil expansionist policies were nonthreatening, so states were more likely to bandwagon instead of balance (this kinda upends the older realist mantra about prioritizing capabilities over intentions, because while capabilities change over time, intentions can change overnight). Later, the neocon response to 9/11 screwed it all up, thanks guys As for butchery, we all put our own spin on stuff, comes with the territory
China stuff is so obvious and disgusting. Yes, we should totally listen to people who openly pine for extermination of brown people in the middle east claiming they care about people in Hong Kong. These people are definitely making a good faith argument.
If you aren't already, please support the NBA. It's the only somewhat ethical sports league in this country.
Gore made a few phone calls and caught hell. Rs always seem to care when they're not in power. Some things never change. Simpler times. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/04/...g-illegal-in-soliciting-from-white-house.html
“bUt WhAt aBoUt cHiNa” - Chud who cheers on as US protesters are targeted and Muslims in the US are discriminated against.
Of course he hasn’t talked about this since it came out that the murderer is a white supremacist. Those are good people. He’s not moved on to retweeting clay Travis’ criticisms of the NBA boycott.
What a stupid fucking position. Cops kill a black person > people protest > a right wing extremist kills a protestor is the trump cycle of death