2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ, what a weird world this is where I, a committed lefty in international relations with a deeply cynical view of foreign affairs, is in the position of defending the importance of US leadership in international affairs and the importance of security alliances such as NATO

It's not all that weird given that recent political trends have seen leftists tending towards more globalist ways of thinking while conservatives tend to favor more nationalist thinking.

I'm not trying to get you in a GOTCHA! moment. Just want to better understand your thought process and understanding

It's not so much about specific events as it is there seems to be a general attitude that sees the world assuming the worst about our intentions with every action we take, whether it be providing aid or disaster relief efforts, diplomatic negotiations, or military interventions. It seems like we are always assumed to be bad faith actors, and I don't think that's fair. While we certainly have a lot of screw ups in our history that have had some pretty disastrous and horrific results, I don't think we went into a lot of those situations with genuine bad or evil intent.

And then there is how the world seems to view our people culturally. Americans are generally assumed to be fat, stupid, lazy, arrogant, and rude. None of those are even close to being accurate generalizations of our people. Do we have people like that? Of course. But so does every other nations, but it seems only the US gets judged based on our worst citizens. And it also bothers me that a lot of those negative generalizations come from people who have never even visited the US, while a lot of foreign tourists who do visit generally leave with a much more positive opinion of our people. So we are being largely judged by people who don't even have any first-hand knowledge of our nation or people. Now that may not seem important, because who cares what some yokels in a far away land think of us right? Well those yokels will be voting for the leaders of their nation who will be negotiating with us and determining what their nation's relationship with us should be. So if their people are believing inaccurate negative stereotypes about us, then it's likely they'll elect leaders that also take a dim view of the US as well.
 
Fat, lazy stupid is a big negative stereotype even here in the 80s when I was a kid.

Most Americans I have met are tourists but tourists tend to lean towards middle class.

Biggest negative people going to the states is the food is terrible and you feel sick eating or drinking it, to processed seems a common complaint.
 
@Commodore

I can only speak for the UK, but "electing leaders that have weird views on America" never makes any policy leaflet. Every country has stereotypes, it's good to combat them, but try not to get hung up on them. America is not unique in this regard, and indeed perpetuates a ton of its own (and is better able to do so because America is culturally-influential, even through things that are seen as separate, like Hollywood - which for as much as conservative types like to moan about it, is decidedly, 100%, American).
 
It's not all that weird given that recent political trends have seen leftists tending towards more globalist ways of thinking while conservatives tend to favor more nationalist thinking.



It's not so much about specific events as it is there seems to be a general attitude that sees the world assuming the worst about our intentions with every action we take, whether it be providing aid or disaster relief efforts, diplomatic negotiations, or military interventions. It seems like we are always assumed to be bad faith actors, and I don't think that's fair. While we certainly have a lot of screw ups in our history that have had some pretty disastrous and horrific results, I don't think we went into a lot of those situations with genuine bad or evil intent.

And then there is how the world seems to view our people culturally. Americans are generally assumed to be fat, stupid, lazy, arrogant, and rude. None of those are even close to being accurate generalizations of our people. Do we have people like that? Of course. But so does every other nations, but it seems only the US gets judged based on our worst citizens. And it also bothers me that a lot of those negative generalizations come from people who have never even visited the US, while a lot of foreign tourists who do visit generally leave with a much more positive opinion of our people. So we are being largely judged by people who don't even have any first-hand knowledge of our nation or people. Now that may not seem important, because who cares what some yokels in a far away land think of us right? Well those yokels will be voting for the leaders of their nation who will be negotiating with us and determining what their nation's relationship with us should be. So if their people are believing inaccurate negative stereotypes about us, then it's likely they'll elect leaders that also take a dim view of the US as well.
I certainly agree that the US is held to a far higher standard than most other countries, and is subject to more scrutiny than any. When the US does something like bombing a hospital, it's (rightly) condemned, while a Russian strategy of deliberately wiping out as many hospitals in enemy territory as possible barely gets noticed. As a general rule, I think your average person is unconcerned with right or wrong, and assigns little value to human lives they don't know - they actually base judgments on whether others live up to their expectations, and expectations for the US are much higher than those of most other countries. It certainly doesn't help America that it airs much of its dirty laundry, whereas China and Russia hide theirs as much as possible.

So yeah, I'm annoyed by the unequal standards and amoral concern for consistency-for-its-own-sake.

But should our annoyance direct foreign policy? Should we allow our hurt feelings to dictate world history? I don't think so.
 
It's not all that weird given that recent political trends have seen leftists tending towards more globalist ways of thinking while conservatives tend to favor more nationalist thinking.
I thought the left was also pursuing ideas of identity politics, political correctness (gone mad), Orange Man Bad, and “wokeness” that’s driving away moderates from the Democratic Party instead of persuing kitchen table issues that most Americans care about. Since I see the moderates drifting to the right cause they’re actually persuing kitchen table issues that your average American cares about.
 
I certainly agree that the US is held to a far higher standard than most other countries, and is subject to more scrutiny than any.

I completely disagree. The US's actions are justified because the US is the "indispensable nation" and we are fundamentally good so when we bomb a hospital it is an unfortunate mistake, while when Putin or Assad bombs a hospital it is because they are evil and bad.
 
I completely disagree. The US's actions are justified because the US is the "indispensable nation" and we are fundamentally good so when we bomb a hospital it is an unfortunate mistake, while when Putin or Assad bombs a hospital it is because they are evil and bad.
The question comes on bombing a hospital boils down to intent. Was it an accident or a deliberate action?
 
The US backed fascist dictatorships in Spain, Portugal and Greece, and would have done the same in Italy if the Communists had beat out the Christian Democrats. (As it is, they managed to, ah, supervise the elections to the correct result.) A liberal Western Europe was convenient for US policy in the region, but entirely optional.
Was invading Iraq acting like the "global police"? Is propping up sordid little dictators whose only redeeming quality is their openness to brutalizing reformers acting like the 'global police'? Was [insert from literally endless list of things] acting like the 'global police'?
It's more like ‘the DEA directed by Gary Oldman's character in Léon’, actually. We should expand Traitorfish's list to Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Mexico, Korea, Cuba and Taiwan at least, not counting all those despotic monarchies and their occasional military overthrowers.

The US has done good things? Yes. Have they done evil? Oh yes, too.
 
I thought the left was also pursuing ideas of identity politics, political correctness (gone mad), Orange Man Bad, and “wokeness” that’s driving away moderates from the Democratic Party instead of persuing kitchen table issues that most Americans care about. Since I see the moderates drifting to the right cause they’re actually persuing kitchen table issues that your average American cares about.
I hear this argument alot but I find it a little... I don't know... Can you give me 3 examples of "kitchen table" issues that Republicans care about but Democrats don't and three examples of non "kitchen table" issues that Democrats care about but Republicans don't?
 
That's the unfortunate predictable outcome when you are stuck with doing things. Argentina mostly gets to just sit things out, but the US is pretty much required to pick a side.
"Picking a side" means adopting a friendly or hostile posture towards a foreign government. It doesn't mean organising a military coup to replace it with a government you like better.
 
Last edited:
"Picking a side" means adopting a friendly or hostile posture towards a foreign government. It doesn't mean organising a military coup to replace it with a government you like better.
I hope we can agree that there's a pretty broad sliding scale for what "picking a side" can involve.
 
The question comes on bombing a hospital boils down to intent. Was it an accident or a deliberate action?

It doesn't boil down to intent, at all. Murder may be a worse crime than criminally negligent homicide but they are both serious crimes.
 
"Picking a side" means adopting a friendly or hostile posture towards a foreign government. It doesn't mean organising a military coup to replace it with a government you like better.

When Scotland "adopts a hostile posture" generally nothing happens. The US doesn't have that luxury. When the US adopts a hostile posture, there is really no excuse for not following through.
 
When Scotland "adopts a hostile posture" generally nothing happens. The US doesn't have that luxury. When the US adopts a hostile posture, there is really no excuse for not following through.
Why does "follow through" mean "staging a military coup"?
 
Well if we decide that a government is our enemy, it only makes sense that we would do everything we can to topple that government.
Surely you understand that a foreign government can be unfriendly without being an enemy?
 
Surely you understand that a foreign government can be unfriendly without being an enemy?
No, not really. That again is a luxury that comes of being in Scotland or Argentina. Scotland and Argentina could spout hatred at each other all day long, and both would just shrug at each other because everyone knows that neither of them are gonna be able to do anything to the other. Argentina gets "unfriendly" with the US, there are tendrils of the US economy and position at risk so that unfriendliness can't be just ignored. They're an enemy.
 
Well, if you adopt a "you're with us or against us" attitude, I don't think you really have much to complain about if govts then abruptly decide that they don't like you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom