12-22-2016, 04:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2016, 05:15 PM by Eric the Green.)
(12-22-2016, 08:45 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Getting back to the original premise for a minute, here's a wishlist from another actual Trump voter, in order of precedence.
Thoughtful post, yes. But given Trump's appointments, I see zero chance of you getting what you thought you voted for.
Quote:1. Avoid War with Russia - Avoiding WWIII is pretty much at the top of my list. The moral panic and inflammatory rhetoric concerning Putin's Russia was getting to the point where even my friends and family who don't follow current events much were shaking their heads in disbelief. We had the former NATO second in command writing a book on the coming war with Russia, supposed moderates like John Kasich demanding we "punch Russia in the nose", numerous other candidates (including the erstwhile presumptive nominee) talking about setting up potential confrontations with Russia in Syria and arming its foes in the Ukraine, going so far as to compare it to Nazi Germany. The Russians, in turn, were responding with talk of de-escalatory nuclear strikes. It was a recipe for disaster on a scale that would dwarf WWI, previously the gold standard for blundering political posturing leading to mass destruction. Look, Ukraine is not a treaty ally of the West, NATO is obsolete, the Crimea is majority Russian and shows little evidence of the sort of insurgency that has traditionally accompanied territorial occupation (and if you think those evil Russkies have found a way to suppress insurgencies without a huge occupying force, it might be worthwhile to buddy up with them just to learn how they do it, since we clearly haven't figured it out). How are Russia's interventions in Syria, Georgia, or the Ukraine qualitatively different from our invasion of Iraq, bombing of Libya, or worldwide drone program? How much worse are they than our supposed allies the Saudis, who behead people, support terrorism abroad, and invaded Bahrain and are presently attacking Yemen, bombing them from the air and blockading their ports, leading to famine? Don't think that has anything to do with us? It isn't like the Saudis have a domestic arms industry to speak of, nor the logistic capability to sustain an extended bombing campaign without extensive US support. Thus far, with the exception of John Bolton, whose name has not been excluded from a Trump administration yet, he's getting high marks from me so far.
Unfortunately, Hillary had it right. War with Russia can also happen if we let its expansionary, authoritarian approach under Putin continue to threaten other countries. I think appeasement is still a danger, just as intervention in wars of choice is a danger. It's true America has erred more often in the latter direction since Pearl Harbor. But allowing a dictator and war-monger like Putin to go unchallenged, is also dangerous. What if he decides Trump is anti-NATO and won't resist an invasion of Estonia? The Syria mess is affecting us, and helped elect Trump due to hysteria over Muslim refugees. It is encouraging racist right-wing movements here and even more in Europe. We should have done more in Syria to help the rebels defeat Assad. Hillary had the right program. Trump simply wants to abandon Syria to Assad, and at the same time allow Iran and North Korea to build nuclear weapons. He is extremely shallow in his analysis of world affairs; ignorant, complacent, easily-offended, temperamental and unwilling to learn. Trump is a great danger to world peace.
Quote:2. Infrastructure - There is a critical need for a massive and sustained infrastructure push in this country. Broadband, highways, water systems, power lines, the list goes on and on. There is an opportunity to yield significant dividends in terms of not just improved capital, but mass employment for at least a generation. While there are questions as to what a Trump infrastructure program would look like, there have been numerous indications (Mnuchin discussing an infrastructure bank, Kushner stating that Trump's desires are closer to Schumer's than McConnell's) that it may in fact be a legitimate Keynesian stimulus package and not just a corporate give-away.The Trumpster has appointed the most hard-line laissez-faire billionaire corporate capitalists to his cabinet that he can find. Given that he has no skills to govern by himself, he will rely a lot on these greedy fools for his decisions. It seems highly unlikely therefore that he will embrace any genuine Keynesian schemes any time soon. He is going the route of more tax breaks and toll roads. Putting any hope in corporate thugs like Mnuchin will disappoint you.
Quote:3. Trade - Look, deindustrialization has been a disaster for the working class (black, white, or what-have-you), the costs from Free Trade have been far more widely spread than the benefits, and one overwhelmingly concentrated in the Anglo countries that went full Thatcher/Reagan back around 1980. Want to talk about automation? Here's a list of countries by number of industrial robots per 10,000 manufacturing workers. The United States is number 7 on the list, and the top three countries all have manufacturing work forces that make up over 20% of their labor force, roughly double the United States' 12%. What's more, the United States has a consumer base greater than all three put together, coupled with a vast resource base that obviates the need to trade finished goods in exchange for raw materials the way all three have to. Besides, the removal of tariffs and trade barriers occurred in the fairly recent past, and it isn't like no goods traveled across international borders before then.Trump's rhetoric was right on this issue, even though it was wrong on most others. The error is to think that better trade deals alone will fix the problems of the working class, especially in the Rust Belt that voted for him. Trump has embraced an extreme Reagan/Thatcher laissez-faire approach to the economy, and has fully rejected the new energy industries that would create a new booming economy and many more jobs. His lower tax, lower government investment approach is exactly the opposite of what made America great, and would make it great again.
If Trump were really interested in making America great again, he would embrace higher taxes on the wealthy, government investment, and involving the diverse younger generations. Instead he says that the people protesting his racism "are not the people who made our country great" and tells them to "go home to Mommy and get a job." No, the younger, diverse people; not the xenophobic, racist-dog-whistle-responding, older angry white dudes; are the people he would need if he really wanted to make our country great again. He would have to ditch the Reagan meme that has caused our decline, not embrace it and install it into his cabinet as he has done.
Quote:4. Immigration - Look, none of the countries that people claimed they were moving to (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, etc.) in response to Trump's election (or whatever the latest cause of aggravation is) are easy places to move to, nor do they tolerate people just showing up and saying they have a right to be there whether the host country likes it or not. There are enormous pressures on low-wage, "unskilled" workers and there is no reason to continue dumping more people in to compete with them. There is a reason people from Samuel Gompers to Bernie Sanders, noted labor advocates all, never supported unlimited, no-questions asked immigration. It's bad for labor, which is to say, bad for normal people. The way people on the left have lauded tech companies for their stance on immigration despite the investigation of those same companies by the federal government for wage fixing is deplorable. Hell, even the Labor Department has been shown to use H1B visa workers in violation of federal guidelines. This, in spite of numerous studies showing that there is no shortage of American tech workers available to take those jobs. A tightening of the cheap labor spigot, from farm workers to programmers is long overdue.
The problem with this attitude, is that Obama was already tough on illegal immigration, as tough as necessary. Trump has no problem with legal immigration, apparently. Immigration overall has slowed to a crawl; it's not even a current problem. And low-wage workers do not keep down the wages of higher-wage workers. Farm workers do not bring down the wages of tech workers. And I hear nothing from Trump about any curb on legal immigration that would hurt the profit margins of tech companies. Trump wants to boost company profits, and believes in the trickle-down theory that says this is what makes America great. He is all-in on the trickle-down theory.
The way immigration is reduced, is if conditions improve in other countries. American support needs to go for improving human rights, reducing gun violence and death squads, supporting land reform and democracy, and not hero/cult worship of oligarchy (as in Hugo Chavez and Putin) in these countries. Immigration itself helps grow the economy and adds jobs. But if companies are allowed to hire foreigners because our education system is poor, that doesn't help. I see zero evidence that Trump wants to improve education; he wants to destroy it. That's why he appointed an education destroyer to head the education department. I see zero evidence that Trump wants to interfere in the profit margins of tech companies. That's why he appoints corporate raiders who prey on their workers to his cabinet.
Quote:5. Wars of Choice - The years since the end of the Cold War have been chock full of interventions from the Balkans to Africa to the Middle East, for little reason other than that politicians have been able to get away with it. I put this last because, at the end of the day, it's not existential the way, say, not getting into a nuclear exchange over Syria is. I also put it last because it is the one I have the most doubts of seeing happen, particularly given the noted hawkishness towards Iran I'm seeing in a lot of Trump's Cabinet picks (Matthis, Flynn, etc.). I will admit, I cheered when Trump called out Bush and the War in Iraq in SC, then won its primary shortly thereafter, but I also cringed on numerous occasions with his calls for torture, murdering family members of terrorists, and general boorishness. So, I'll put this as a nice-to-have, but I am not holding my breath. In the absence of real peer competitors on the global stage, and a professional military drawn in large part from a small section of the population, there is simply too little pushback to this sort of adventurism abroad.
Indeed, it's not only grounds for not holding your breath, but for sounding alarm bells. Only the Republican interventions have been harmful, or costly, in American or foreign lives and money, since the Cold War ended. The Republicans have seen this as a green light to create "the new American Century" in the "New World Order." Democratic presidents on the other hand have intervened to stop or prevent genocidal massacres by foreign tyrants, and the results have been mixed, but usually good. The Balkan intervention by Bill Clinton was the most successful, and has restored peace there. Syrian support for the Free Syrian Army was too little, too late; and gave us no bargaining position with Putin and Iran to make any diplomacy possible with the tyrannical, genocidal monster.
Multi-lateral action by America in concert with NATO and the UN is essential to preserve international law and peace and meet humanitarian needs, which benefits peace and prosperity in the long run for all. America going it alone or with a coalition of the willing in preventive wars of choice, invading other countries without cause, and with imperialist aims, was the Bush policy, and is very destructive and has largely failed. Trump's stand on this is not what he said it was, and his approach to Iran is indeed dangerous and conflicts with his cozying up to his financial partner, Mr. Putin, who is Iran's principal ally.
Quote:So there you have it, that's what I voted for. We'll see how it turns out.
We already see how it turns out. His appointments make that clear. He is a liar and a greedy corporate oligarch, concerned only with the fortunes of his upper class, of which he's the most famous member.
Some people were fooled. Trump will disappoint them. Hillary was the only proper choice in the general election. She was the one who could have made America great again for all its citizens, not just for white oligarchs.
His ignorance and those of his appointees on climate change will undercut any advantage from "building" that may occur. His appointees are the most greedy, ruthless, ignorant climate and environment destroyers that he could find. This alone makes his presidency a disaster.