This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Trump represents a pent up peasant and heartland burgher rage in a way that no other GOP politician can.
Yes, they want to “own the libs”, but that’s misses out the most important part. They want Donald Trump to own the libs. Owning the libs is important but not essential. Donald Trump is essential. Better Trump is in power and fails than DeSantis is in power and actually succeeds. This is, in effect, the decision that is being made.
But in a wider sense, American conservatives aren’t serious people. They consider forcing impoverished black single mothers to give birth to more children higher priority than ending mass immigration. That considered ending the tiny amount of GDP sent to Ukraine (tying up a longstanding geopolitical foe for years at the cost of zero American lives) more important than ending affirmative action - which only happened because of a 30-year effort by some autistic Jewish guy who couldn’t let it go. These are people who genuinely abhor the pittance spent on America’s empire when it has been the mission of every great Western civilization to conquer, to expand and to rule other lands and peoples.
They live in an imaginary mid century fantasy that is itself a product of Hollywood. They do not aspire to greatness, personally or collectively. Kevin Williamson was right about Trump, and about his supporters. The libs - if he wins again - will be “owned” well and truly for 4 years, and then simply pick up where they left off. Trump doesn’t understand institutions, but his supporters don’t care. The ‘deep state’ will let him spend 4 years in the AG’s office fighting spurious legal cases against his onetime political foes, and all the while the rest of Washington will tick along as usual.
You think this is about money?
The American empire is the Blue Empire. For the longest time heartland red tribers - which are the only demographic that still serves in the tip of the spear of the army -- have been duped into dying in droves in the name of "empire". Which somehow means making Ukraine safe for pride parades, or teaching Afghan girls how to put condoms on bananas, or creating refugee crises in the Middle East so that we can import mass numbers of Muslim immigrants to live on welfare and vote Democrat. The benefits of empire go to the Blue Tribe (or mostly to a small number of well-connected grifters), the costs accrue overwhelmingly to the Red Tribe.
If real empire was on the table - an empire ruled according to the interests of those who actually helped conquer it - the Red Tribe would sign up in a heartbeat. But that's not exactly what's on offer.
How do the costs only accrue to the Red Tribe? Seems to me the costs are born by everyone except a very select few, plus the foreigners who are actually receiving aid
Only the Red Tribe actually fights in the army.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Baby boomer self-described "conservatives" drawing social security and sometimes maybe going to an evangelical church .... are not serious people.
The next generation of conservatives is bringing the motherfucking ruckus especially when compared to their liberal / progressive peers. Mike Gallagher has more foreign policy bonafides than anyone on the Republican campaign trail right now. He is just one of a literal generation of multi-tour combat veterans. He isn't 40 yet (or maybe he's just 40). The fastest growing subset of American Catholics - and traditional Catholics at that - are millenials. Even though I'm not a fan, Look at the subscriber growth of Catholic Joe Rogan. Even the weirdo dissident right online community flows pretty easily to Rogan-Tate-Huber-Jocko LiftBro territory.
The point is, after 2024-2028, I think you'll see the emergence of an American Conservatism that codes strongly and obviously towards traditional male patterns of socialization. The "machismo" of Trump will become laughable compared to basic and common actual badass credentials of, say, Congressman eye patch pirate SEAL. The "family values" double speak of evangelicals working on their second divorce will be trampled by NunCore chicks. Even if the numbers are quite less compared to median pop-culture Americans, I'm not super worried as that later cohort is largely and quickly dropping out of society. The "RETVRN" people are weird and sort of goofy - but I think they might be durable.
Long term, I'm jacked to the TITS! about American conservatism because millenial liberalism / progressive is already a circular firing squad of bewildering self-contradiction.
I just hope the Boomers don't immolate the entire nation before we get there.
There are phonies or pretenders everywhere. Not just evangelicals with divorces , but plenty 'trad' guys with undisclosed 'pharmacological enhancement' . Everything is acting to some degree. The image sold to the public is not reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
few Trump voters would pick Trump if you asked them, "You get Trump but he does nothing and 'fails' or you can get Desantis and he actually does all the things he's promising and 'succeeds'"
even slight exposure to Trump voters, or especially die-hard supporters, makes clear they think Desantis is a fraud who will sell them down the river like so many other Republicans, not that he's just not Trump
Trump is a reaction to "American conservative" elites being unserious people and, worse, complete losers.
funny enough, the exact opposite of what Trump wanted to do and what caused his support to begin with
trump didn't run on ending abortion in 2016, he made immigration and trade the election topics pretty much single-handedly, and it wasn't the driving message in 2020 either
"trump is a dumb failure and the peasants support him to fail even if they could succeed" may scratch whatever itch you have, but it's nonsense
one, a claim the US or the median American only spends "a pittance" on America's empire is nonsense and attempting to make the entire discussion about "America's empire" as only talking about a couple hundred billion dollars going to Ukraine is dishonest
two, "American conservatives" and Trump supporters are not the same group of people. Many Trump supporters are fine and proud of American empire, they're upset that it's being used to impoverish them while they get no benefit. They were proud when they went over or sent their sons to fight for it. An easy way to see this is when Trump makes comments about the middle eastern wars that we conquered and didn't even get the spoils. Others want a different "American empire"; they don't like seeing their cities and towns gutted and turned into drug-zombieland as their jobs and wealth are shipped overseas and the wealth to the coasts. Very few want the US to not matter on the world stage.
it's not that "Trump supporters" or "American conservatives" don't want "empire," it's that they don't want an "empire" which means getting their sons killed and them impoverished to make Kabul, Baghdad, and Tehran safe for Pride parades all the while making people who hate them fabulously wealthy
three, even if this was an accurate description of the "American conservatives" who support Trump and of the "pittance," trying to portray ending Affirmative action, an institution which may as well be the bedrock of American institutions, and ending sending "a pittance" to a war on the other side of the planet as in the same category of things to prioritize is just silly because one is relatively easily obtainable right now and the other is revolutionary
additionally, the SCOTUS which exists in its current form due heavily in part to Donald Trump, did deliver a blow to Affirmative Action, Inc., in SFFA v Harvard
a tv show host clown beat the vast political machines of the GOP and Democrat Parties to become President of the United States on the slogan "Make America Great Again" because his supporters wanted to go back to a time they thought America was "great"
a claim these people do not "aspire to greatness, personally or collectively," is simply ridiculous; for some of them, collective greatness is all they have left
your model of Trump supporters and American politics generally is way off
Bingo!
I already linked the editorial in reply to another to another comment in this thread, but I believe Glenn Reynolds hit the nail on the head back in 2016 when he argued that guys like David Brooks and Mitt Romney effectively "Created Trump" through their own fecklessness. When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. If you make a big show of not representing your constituent's interests, don't be surprised when they drop you for someone else who promises to do so. The Republican Establishment spent the better part of a decade in the late 00s and early teens shitting on their base and then had the chutzpah to be "shocked and appalled" when said base decided that they wanted nothing to do with them anymore.
It was clear from the first debate on that Trump understood gamesmanship and the stakes at play far-far better than anyone else in the room. That's why he was able to run the table on both the Media and Republican Establishment so readily, and it's the reason that a good chunk of his supporters in 2016 voted for him.
To paraphrase Lincoln in reply to demands that Grant be dismissed for drunkenness and insubordination. "He may be a drunk but he's the only general we have who can actually fight."
More options
Context Copy link
I would not be so sure about this. War has generally been a a popular platform for the right . first-order patriotism/nationalism takes precedent over second-order questions like who profits or whose interests are served. An empire by definition means being global and enforcing its interests abroad.
If trump were replaced by someone else, his replacement would get probably the same # of votes, so for all intents and purposes they are the same people . Even if you vote for Trump grudgingly, that still is a show of support.
what the empire looks like or should look like and what are its interest are subjective; part of "the right" soured on the middle east adventures and when asked they tell you why and it's some mix of what I listed: they don't believe the empire benefits them, they don't like what the empire is and who it benefits, and they don't like a lot of what it pushes, consuming their blood and wealth to keep running
no, this couldn't be more wrong; Trump wins because he motivates non and low likely voters to show up when they otherwise wouldn't
the reason why the GOP loses despite great metrics is because they do not motivate voters while Democrats have bottom-up get-out-the-vote machines going in every small city and larger across the United States who deliver ballots to friendly counting centers
in a state like Ohio where Trump won by over 8 points, the last election had a Biden +2 electorate; where did all of the Trump voters go? they didn't show up in his absence
Trump voters are not GOP voters and to the extent they vote GOP it's because Trump gets them to show-up
This presupposes that Trump wins. He lost the popular vote to Dolores Umbridge in 2016 and lost the popular and electoral votes to an empty suit in 2020.
Trump appeals differently to swing voters compared to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans, but it isn't obvious that he appeals more to them. What is clear is that the Republican base prefer Trump to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans that run against him in primaries.
thankfully, the national popular vote isn't how presidents are elected in the United States and the other candidates on deck in 2016 or 2020 would have lost much worse
sorry mottezens, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz weren't going to win in the midwest, some of those states for the first time in over a generation, in 2016 against Hillary Clinton
You just don’t know this. Romney would have won in 2016 against Hilary, he just couldn’t win against Obama (and neither would Trump have been able to).
I don't know that a counterfactual which didn't happen "would have" won in 2016 against Hillary? No, he wouldn't have. A claim that Mitt Romney would have won PA, WI, MI, or even OHIO in 2016, all necessary states to win to win the presidency, when he lost in OHIO by over 3 points to unpopular incumbent with policies so unpopular they caused the largest seat swing for the GOP in 80 years in 2010 is just ridiculous.
No, Mitt isn't winning Ohio in 2016 either after ads hit the TV screens with cry stories of people who lost their pensions because Mitt Romney and Co. bought their companies and gutted them to sell them off to foreigners so they didn't have assets to finance the pool.
your model and info is just way off reality
Do you think Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Speaking of things no one actually knows ...
Yes, that kind of ridiculous counterfactual is my point!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump also brings out non-regular voters on the other side.
The non-regular voters and non-voters don't split their votes evenly between red and blue; Trump has commanding leads in the non and low-voter turnout demo largely because non-regular voters who lean blue are already well mobilized by Democrat "nonpartisan" get-out-the-vote operations across the US which deliver ballots to friendly counting centers. This is even more true in the midwest, GA, NV, AZ, etc.
The GOP low turn-out Finkelstein strategy of the 1990s doesn't work and hasn't worked in the general for 15+ years. We've seen this strategy fail repeatedly and recently. Despite the best generic ballot in decades, the GOP was able to deliver only a neutered majority in 2022. It's really only still effective at shaping the primaries towards Party derps who then go on to lose.
Sounds a bit like the main man himself.
A lot of the electoral issues the GOP has faced over the past 6 years is crazy MAGA candidates winning primaries on Trump's endorsement and then going on to lose the general.
this is simply wrong; low voter turnout doesn't benefit MAGA candidates in primaries, it's the opposite
without MAGA, there are no big GOP victories, especially at the national level
The GOP’s best recent moment for Congressional elections was 2014, tellingly the last major period in which Trump wasn’t the face of the party.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Truly, a festival of democracy. How can we ever repay Donald?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
DeSantis isn't making too impressive a showing right now, unless events have moved on, which is rather disappointing after his performance as governor of Florida. Is he now finally deciding to stop trying to be the anti-Trump and come out as his own guy?
Yes, how very terrible it is that those poor, poor black women can't control their own fertility. They just get pregnant, who knows how, maybe the North Wind fertilises them, and unless we have abortion then they will all have twenty kids each with no ability at all not to get knocked up. Hooray for the white saviours making sure they don't have to have the babies even if they have no idea how baby-having happens!
Or maybe black women have intelligence and agency? Nah, can't be, why else would they be having babies via conservatives standing over them with whips forcing them to go out and have sex and not use protection and infallibly get pregnant from each encounter?
It is indeed true that the major reason, by a country mile, for abortion is economic, but tell me this: how is it that the liberal solution to "impoverished black women having babies" is "kill the babies" and not "end the impoverishment"?
if not for Trump, DeSantis has the goods to win. It's just that Trump is so dominant.
no, Desantis would lose a general election because he will not motivate needed voters to show up in the must-win mid-west
Desantis is an uncharismatic dork who would have to rely on a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, but despite the GOP, Inc. grift hoovering up hundreds of millions, the GOP doesn't have that and won't have that
without Trump, Desantis wouldn't be governor of Florida at all
Trump is his own get-out-the-vote operation who can fill stadiums in small towns in the middle of nowhere
it really is Trump or bust, there is no one else with a chance of winning a general election
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How many times does it need to be expressed that a huge chunk of American conservatives are also religious and consider ending what they conceptualize as mass scale baby murder to be extremely serious? Please stop using this like it's some kind of a dunk, all it does is indicate that the person using it like a dunk doesn't have a good mental model of the minds of the people they are trying to dunk on.
If that was their motivation they wouldn't vote for Trump a second time, they already got their judges and Trump has expressed much milder and more reserved pro-life sentiments than many of his contemporaries on the primary ballot.
Religious conservatives have reasons for supporting the GOP and being very invested in GOP judicial appointments that go beyond abortion. Notable among them are conscience rights/religious objection, support for parental rights, especially in education, and preventing discrimination against religiously-based organizations by public agencies. And the GOP does in fact deliver on these promises to its conservative Christian base; it's generally easier to live the trad conservative christian lifestyle in red states than blue states, and generally easier in blue states than in western Europe.
The GOP, yes; I'm talking about supporting a different Republican.
Why? Trump delivers on his promises to that section of his base, it’s only fair to give him loyalty in return.
He appointed a conservative Justice when a seat opened up, which is what literally anyone with an R next to their name would have done at the time.
He's been a lot softer on the pro-life message than some of his competitors, it's pretty reasonable to predict he's not the option that would deliver the most on that front.
Of course if your decision metric is 'giving loyalty for past favors' instead of 'doing the thing that will accomplish your goals in the future' then yeah that makes sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, if they're paying attention: The win was from Mitch McConnell stealing a seat from Obama. Literally any warm body with an R next to their name would have produced the same or better results for the pro-lifers during Trump's term, that's just when the last seat needed happened to open up.
we have decades of history with people with R next to their name who nominated justices who refused to do just that
arguing counterfactuals are nice for the proponents because in practice they're unfalsifiable; no other GOP candidate was going to flip PA, MI, WI, likely even Ohio, and other states to win the presidency in 2016
the corporate neocon grift of GOP, Inc., which had lost elections for over a generation in those states, was somehow going to accomplish what Donald Trump accomplished with a radically different message who near single-handedly made the 2016 election about immigration and trade while explicitly denouncing the idiotic neocon projects to boos from GOP, Inc., stooges
Mitch McConnell blocking Obama from replacing Scalia was likely a conditional to the win, but the rest of your statement is based on counterfactuals supported by an unfalsifiable myth of the great alternative GOP winner which does not exist
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
yup. There were always better pro-life alternatives. It was clearly obvious in 2015/2016 that Trump was not a pro-lifer
...And yet Trump still managed to be one of, if not the, most Pro-life presidents we've had since the days of Reagan and Carter. I dont recall either of the Bushes participating in the March for Life. Do You?
Trump opposed DeSantis on abortion ban https://apnews.com/article/trump-desantis-abortion-ban-republican-primary-5bdbba55f9c2f328d49b5fbe9727677e
Trump has a long history of prevaricating on this issue.
George W. Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act , although it was drafted by Rick Santorum.
And the elder Bush https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/us/as-expected-bush-vetoes-bill-that-would-pay-for-some-abortions.html
The evidence would suggest the Bushes are more stridently pro-life compared to Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If America actually conquered people instead of experiments in nation-building in the ME or normalizing trade with what would become an even bigger rival, I'm sure the Trumpists would give more credit.
The mission is unclear, greatness doesn't seem to be a likely product but the cost is still perceived by MAGA-types.
More options
Context Copy link
Not if project 2025 succeeds or fails in a way that really blows up. Let's say Trump attempts to "drain the swamp" at the Department of Education. He actually manages to replace some of the management, but the bulk of the staff keeps on following the old processes. "Abolish Title IX", they hear, and come back with a 300 page report "On amending Title IX" that ultimately recommends not doing anything.
In response, Trump posts on X that DoE must be protected from the agents of the deep state that think they run the department. A totally spontaneous peaceful protest of magahats blocks the doors of 400 Maryland Ave and lets in only those federal workers who swear loyalty to the head of the executive, including some IT workers that disable remote access to DoE services. The new rump department quickly passes new regulations that blocks Pell grants, student loans and Title I grants unless the receiving institution can prove they have zero DEI policies in action.
This can't happen. The "peaceful protest" will be broken up by one of the various security agencies whether Trump likes it or not. You can't "quickly" pass new regulations, the Administrative Procedures Act precludes that, and lawfare will prevent any attempts to promulgate regulations. The same courts which allow the deep state to get away with shenanigans normally will suddenly decided that every such procedure must be followed. Further, the DEI proponents will come up with novel legal theories as to why those regulations aren't allowed, and the courts will accept them.
Not if their leadership is replaced first.
How many divisions do the courts have? Will they send US Marshals into the DoE to wire the funds if Trump says, "I am the head of the executive branch, if anyone has a problem with you doing what I tell you, it's not your problem: you do what I tell you and I deal with the fallout, if I tell you to stop, don't cover your ass with bullshit acts, just stop".
The leadership which matters has civil service protections and can't be replaced first.
Most of the executive branch will support the courts over Trump on their own accord. They'll even oppose Trump on their own initiative. We saw that when Trump talked about suppressing the BLM riots with force.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump (or his administration) did rescind Obama's Title IX interpretation, so it's certainly possible. Of course Biden put it back.
That was because Obama didn't actually pass a regulation in the first place. And you will note that colleges responded to Obama's letter by stripping (mostly male) students of due process, but did not respond to the rescission by restoring it. This is the general way of things -- when the left does something it has instant and lasting effect and cannot be challenged (since the guidance wasn't a regulation change, there's nothing to challenge, by one theory). When the right does something it is buried in challenges and even if the right ultimately wins, there are no effects (see various posts by /u/gattsuru on the ways the appeals courts have nullified every provision of Bruen including those directly at issue, and note the only challenge the Supreme Court has taken up was by the one court which upheld gun rights)
IIRC many of those policies were softened because the schools started losing (or at least, being forced to settle) lawsuits over those policies themselves violating Title IX, largely during the Trump administration -- although whether the president influences court settlements is unclear. The Columbia University Mattress case is the first example that comes to mind, but not the only one. There are other examples more recently, as well.
I'm not sure exactly what standards of due process are on campus for accused students these days, but I'd be surprised if they're as unbalanced as those of the tail end of the Obama administration. EDIT: Also, the Biden administration has at least proposed reviving those rules, but it's unclear if that is actually going anywhere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, Trump may have Rufo-esque entryists volunteering, all but begging, to help do it right this time around.
The man could care less about policy but other Republicans do, and he's not inclined to fight them over it if they're sufficiently flattering.
Not really the standard you'd want for the President but hey, it's what conservatives have.
He had extraordinary talent volunteering the first time round too (eg Bannon) and with the exception of Miller he screwed almost all of it over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is misrepresenting the position of most of the working class Red Tribe Trump supporters I know. Sure, there is an element of "owning the blank" that happens on both sides. But they absolutely do aspire to greatness. They have a very heartfelt belief in the greatness of America. That's why the Trump's slogan was so successful. They are very serious people, with serious problems. That even I as a neo-liberal myself acknowledge are true and correct. Their small towns and cities have been hollowed out my decades of neglect and policy. Their kids are turning to drugs at tremendous rates. Getting good healthcare coverage is difficult.
and Trump for all his faults speaks to them in a way no-one else really does. And many of them acknowledge that he is a serial liar, cheater and has an ego the size of a small moon. But at least he talks about going to bat for them. DeSantis and Haley may be conservative and know the system better than he does, but they also pattern match to exactly the same kind of Republican politician who has sided with big business over the little people for the last 50 years.
See Fetterman's success (even after a stroke!) for another kind of "working class joe" kind of vibe (even as it isn't really true for either Trump or Fetterman). My old neighbor, told me he would vote for Fetterman way before he would vote for DeSantis, and he is diehard for Trump, all day every day.
The truth is, they have been taken for granted, and that has created a level of anger and despair. And for all Trump's opponents may well be better at navigating bureaucracy they are not well situated to tap into that emotion and channel it positively. I think DeSantis is an excellent political operator. But he has the charisma of a wet paper bag where the bottom fell out and spilled your shopping all over the floor.
Trump, I predict will (barring any weirdness) easily win the primary, and it will be a 50-50 shot against Biden, depending on how the economy is feeling in a few months. His big weakness of course is that he is divisive, his supporter's love him, but his opponents hate him, so he drives turnout both ways. I think he probably narrowly loses because of this, but I am by no means certain of that and he could easily win.
But to be clear, Trump supporters are very serious people, they just have very different priorities that you do or I do. To many of them, it is absolutely not a contradiction that abortion is a bigger deal than immigration. Sure a conservative utilitarian might point out that immigration is more of a "threat" to conservatism, but they are not utilitarians. While they certainly do care about mass immigration it isn't a big leap to understand why they might think (what they see as) murder of children is a teensy bit more important than illegal border crossings. Especially when it is possible deport people after they enter the country, but you can't reverse an abortion. Having said that, they support Trump who wants to build the wall, so it isn't as if they are against doing more than one thing at the same time!
More options
Context Copy link
Who ought we to be conquering if we were appropriately aspirational toward greatness?
I'm all for a peacefully-aggressive expansionist American foreign policy. We should be offering any small, culturally compatible, developed nation an opportunity to join the USA voluntarily with a path to full statehood. Potential targets:
Singapore. English speaking, small, rich, educated, strategically located, with a basically compatible common-law system of government. Singapore has limited natural sovereignty, and so would face relatively little difficulty in adapting to statehood. Would add massively to America's human capital and geographic reach. Would be the natural ambassadors of America to the rest of Asia, while the backing of the USA would permanently secure Singapore's future from covetous neighbors or population decline. A beautiful, genuinely diverse, and intelligent people, a credit to the Nation. Could ultimately foster further expansion into ASEAN countries, Malaysia is already most of the way there with the flag and over 60% of Malaysians are fluent in English.
Cuba. Small, relatively developed, produces disproportionate numbers of doctors and engineers relative to its size. Don't just raise the embargo, eliminate the border, correct the mistakes we made after the Spanish American war and make Cuba a state. Alongside Puerto Rico, and splitting the smaller island territories between them, Cuba would foster further filibustering into Latin America. Cubans are historically a brilliant people, with outsize contributions to arts, music, heroic politics, and science. Cuba developed its own damn Covid vaccine, think what they could do with Capitalism and Capital from the rest of the USA.
Greenland. One of Trump's better ideas. Allows us to surround Canada, a prelude to the inevitable CanadAnschluss. Honestly I have no opinion on Greenlanders, but there aren't that many of them anyway.
Ireland. The ethnic, cultural and linguistic ties are obvious, the most powerful Irishmen in history have all been American Presidents. Ireland's economy is already based on Americna corporations, why not formalize things? Becomes the entrepot to the EU for the USA (how statehood and EU membership and Northern Ireland border issues would be handled are obviously issues, but wouldn't be any more complicated than the British saga in the EU). A lovely people (on the inside) who have plenty to offer the USA in culture and humor.
That would be a good start.
One reasonable method of assessing the overall size of the USA's states may be to take the natural logarithm of (population × land area ÷ km2). Under that metric, the currently-incorporated states contain e27 ± 1.7 people⋅km2, ranging from eμ − 2.99σ (Rhode Island) to eμ + 2.2σ (Texas).
More options
Context Copy link
Hah, I've never heard this take before, but it's hilariously fascinating. We are a nation of states after all... why not just drop the pretence and build an empire for real?
The answer is in the question- the "nation of states" isn't used to putting up a united front about anything but the basics (outside of maybe what that year's progressives are busy being angry about, whose power waxes and wanes with time), so that empire tends to be relatively minimalistic.
The only reason to impose empire, at the ground level, is to make a statement to the world that a.) your social policies are obviously bullshit (if they were true the other country would already have adopted them), and b.) you're more interested in enforcing them than you are with what your vassal can do for you resource/economy-wise. All the imported goods get a lot more expensive once a country sends its goons to force those populations to abandon all their old gods and bow down before LGBTesus; you get way more revolts that way (Afghanistan being the most recent) and it's a great way to unify and otherwise motivate your enemies.
Better to just leave them to their own devices and try to impose bits and pieces when you can through things like the Imperial Monetary Fund; this is especially important should you have a nation who sees things the same way (and the Chinese are offering much better terms than the Soviets ever could, International Communism has a higher interest rate than Belt and Road).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ooh, or Flanders - my brother tells me they ~all speak fluent English
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Tuvalu. The domain name is great money, and what are they going to do, throw coconuts at you?
When you’re right you’re right. Though the total population doesn’t seem suitably glorious. Maybe we could vassalize Georgia and Armenia and diplo-annex them in 10 years?
Surely one Georgia is enough for the American Empire? At a certain point it becomes confusing, which is why I wager Britain hasn't been reverse-colonized.
You have two Carolinas, two Dakotas, two Virginias. American Georgia can be South Georgia, Caucasian Georgia can be North Georgia. As long as the US doesn't try to annex the island of South Georgia there shouldn't be any issues.
More options
Context Copy link
We can call it Sakartvelo as a sop to local sensitivities
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link