Orwell just got the year wrong.
Comment on So, is the USA screwed?
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 days ago
Intensionally, the USA is going to lose its status as a hyperpower. Europe is going to decouple from American defense policy to the point where I can see American military bases close in Europe. An anti-Chinese military alliance will function with or without the USA anchored by India and Japan, but I see that force yielding some territory to China in the near term. There will probably be an increase in the number of wars in general as regions go into conflict without an American threat to maintain borders. Nothing the USA does is likely going to fix this.
Domestically, the administration is the greatest threat to the republic since the Civil War. If Trump is able to be pushed out in the future, there is going to need to be a major re-evaluation of how the American federal government works. This is going to require constitutional changes and the removal of major powers that the President has collected as the federal government grew.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 days ago
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Trumpism isn’t Orwellian, it doesn’t need to be.
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
This is going to require constitutional changes
I think it’s going to require a new constitution. The American constitution was pretty good for a first try at modern democracy, but it has weaknesses. Look to European constitutions for inspiration regarding balance of power, parliamentary systems, electoral systems, basic rights. A less powerful president and a voting system that doesn’t lead to two parties might be prudent for example.
SabinStargem@lemmings.world 2 days ago
Having term limits on politicians (including judges) would be key. At some point, an old person simply can’t relate to the world that younger people grew up in. More importantly, they either being angry codgers (Republicans) or domesticated sheep (Geronocrats), which is innately an imbalance in political influence. An assertive person, in most situations, gets a bigger piece of the pie, be it political, fiscal, sexual, or some other thing.
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Term limits have a huge downside. The politician will need a job afterwards and is thus more motivated to give political favors for job security afterwards. Your goal would also be achieved via an age limit like 70.
Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The US Constitution had plenty of ways to control someone like Trump. Not the least of which is the absolutely clear barring from public office for life of anyone participating in an insurrection. It’s just that the people in charge of enforcing these statutes lacked the courage to enforce those statutes. Legal statutes and so forth are useless if they aren’t enforced.
PanArab@lemm.ee 2 days ago
China is focusing on itself, maybe that’s what the US and Europe should do for a while.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
With Belt and Road, and all the colonialist projects China is doing in Africa, I would absolutely not say that “China is focusing on itself”. Or, at least: Even if it’s mainly focusing on itself, there is a very noteworthy imperial and colonial project going on.
PanArab@lemm.ee 2 days ago
What’s wrong with building infrastructure? Nothing stopping the West from offering an alternative development plan.
Instead when the US invaded Iraq it destroyed its infrastructure and opposed any plan to rebuild Iraq. China now is helping rebuild Iraq. Just one example of plenty.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Nothing’s wrong with building infrastructure. Why would it be?
What’s wrong is the financing scheme that makes the infrastructure effectively Chinese national property. And when China can decide how and when a country’s infrastructure can be used, China gets a lot of influence in that country’s domestic politics. And it does use that influence.
USA destroying Iraq doesn’t make China any less colonial. China helping rebuild Iraq in a way that will make Iraq a vassal of China… That does make China more colonial.
USA should absolutely focus on itself. And it will do it much more than before, because now that it has decided to cut its international soft power, it does not really have other options, does it? :)
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
China is building military infrastructure on contested islands in the south china sea with the goal of controlling the whole area firmly including the first island chain and Taiwan.
Countries go with China’s because it is a better deal with fewer strings attached.
There’s also no historical baggage with Chinese colonialism in Africa. Fewer strings also means China doesn’t care about democracy, human rights, and such.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
all the colonialist projects China is doing in Africa
Westerners love changing the meaning of words like “colonialism” so that they can use it to attack their enemies, as if their new definition still holds all the moral wait that it did when it was properly applied. Honestly, calling China’s relationship with Africa a “colonialist project” is a fucking disgusting insult to all the people who suffered under actual, real colonialism perpetrated by Western nations.
I would absolutely not say that “China is focusing on itself”
No, there isn’t, you absolute ghoul.
Tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
What you’re saying suggests that France’s current behaviour is not colonialist. What are your thoughts on that?
VitoRobles@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Maybe I’m going through the five stages of grief and now I’m at acceptance.
Everything in your first paragraph sounds accurate and maybe something that probably needed to happen. America as the World Police is/has been a problem. There were some positives, but a lot of negatives.
The sooner America gets off the stage, the better. We don’t deserve the recognition. We can’t even feed our own people and yet weld tremendous influence internationally, and maybe it’s a positive thing that it ends soon.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 days ago
My only concern is that I expect an increase in international conflict as the American security guarantee is gone. The only remaining countries capable of projecting power internationally can’t do it on nearly the scale of the USA. I expect a lot of wars until new spheres of influence get established.
PanArab@lemm.ee 2 days ago
People in the Middle East are really not seen as people.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 days ago
This is including the Middle East.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
My global political history isn’t great, and maybe others can correct me here, but it doesn’t feel like the US has had much of a stabilising effect in the last 30 years.
There’s plenty of conflicts that just don’t make the news that the US just isn’t interested in. Poor places with no oil or other resources. Presently Burma comes to mind. There always seems to be somewhere in Africa, last decade there was genocide in Congo IIRC.
Also it’s not really clear whether their involvement in the middle east over the last few decades was positive or negative.
It’s nice to have them hovering around South China Sea to keep China in check I guess.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 days ago
The USA definitely went crazy after 9/11 and has done destabilizing things to the international community. I’m not denying that.
However, the USA has a big stick that has been able to keep most borders frozen. Without the threat of American intervention, I can see a lot of wars between countries start because war became an option.
And this could come to pass with a peaceful China.
VerifiedSource@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The USA put a stop to the wars on the Balkans in the 1990s: Bosnia, Kosovo.
Saddam Hussein is another one. Without the USA, he might have continued his expansion after Kuwait into Syria for example.
Latin America has had no major wars, only guerrillas and such for a long time.
The USA made peace between Egypt and Israel possible, a cornerstone for stability in the region.
The USA also kept Europe together with NATO.
Pax Americana is a thing for sure.