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 -
I agree that Trump's critics have articulated their positions. I disagree with their foreign policy analyses, though.
Even if America became fully isolationist, Russia would probably not dominate Europe because the EU has nuclear weapons and a larger population and economy than Russia.
Even in America became fully isolationist, China would probably not dominate Asia because an anti-China alliance of India, Japan, and possibly some other countries like South Korea and Vietnam would have nuclear weapons and a larger population than China, and an economy that is at least capable of holding its own against China.
The real risk that isolationism poses to US domination of the world is not that Russia and China would take over, it is that if the US's current allies in Europe and Asia had to fend for themselves, they would probably be quite successful at it and then they would not need the US anymore, so the US would lose its control over them.
There is also some risk that in a more multipolar world, wars and nuclear weapons would both become more common, which could potentially lead to a nuclear war into which even an isolationist US might get sucked in.
It's not only that. Such a course of events would eventually result in Western European powers negotiating some sort of overall bargain with the Russians, which might later lead to the formation of an Eurasian power bloc that no outside power can dominate.
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is proving too much, or at least using an inappropriately strong definition of "dominate". The total population of the EU is also greater than that of the US, and the total GDP is at least in the same ballpark, and yet it's quite fair to say that the US dominates it, at least in the sense that a hypothetical future in which China has the level of economical power and social influence over Asia that the US has over Europe would be terrible for US interests in Asia. If you consider the entirety of the US empire that is the "western world", it exceeds the US in population and GDP for sure. Dominance is not just about "more bulk wins"; it is also about how much of that bulk you are willing to use on dominating others, rather than on hookers and blow, and how much will to power and good maneuvering you are actually capable of engaging in. In that regard, the US, Russia and China are all far superior to the hapless prize damsels of the international sphere that are Europe, Japan etc., because the former would to some extent rather go sick and hungry than be weak, but the latter generally reinvest any surplus to be a bit more lazy, comfortable or self-satisfied on some ideological metric.
US domination of Europe is overstated, most of the close relationship is because the US and Europe are part of the same general civilization and because the US is by far the strongest individual power within that civilization.
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed, but I'm pretty sure that Europe, Japan, etc. would change their tunes pretty quickly about being willing to be hapless prize damsels if big daddy US packed up his toys and went home.
More options
Context Copy link
If the vassals are comfortable and self-satisfied, how can their wills be said to have been subverted by the hegemon? This isn’t domination, it’s don’t-mind-ation.
Let’s say you had an all-carrot-no-stick hegemon, who uses his bulk surplus to bribe his ‘vassals’ into recognizing his nominal overlordship. The vassals can still do whatever they want. The vassals can even get him to do their bidding because he wants their approval. I mean, when is it no longer domination? Surely at some point of hegemon softness, the relationship is more accurately described as transactional, friendly, or even reverse-domination.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would say the real risk of American isolationism is American economic decline, which in turn could lead to a loss of military power that could leave America vulnerable even in its own lands. Free trade really is mutually beneficial, and nations that wall themselves off will inevitably find themselves less prosperous and powerful than others.
Multiple East Asian nations serve as examples of this. The Ming and Qing dynasties in China had broad import-export bans, eventually leading to such a massive power imbalance that European nations, from thousands of miles away, were able to force them to open up for trade at gunpoint. Japan has a similar story, as does Korea.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and for context: France by itself is a nuclear power with a larger GDP than Russia. As is separately the UK.
Russia is neck-and-neck with Italy in terms of economic size. And Russia has a very distorted population pyramid. Looks like a child's drawing of a Christmas tree. I rather doubt their large population will be mobilized to invade Western Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link