Well said. But for me, this is the shocking part: "Two-thirds of Americans – including 40% of Republicans – are concerned the push could harm NATO and damage relations with Europe." This still leaves one-third of Americans who are so clueless about the state of the world that they can't see the obvious - that any move against Denmark will mean the permanent fracturing of the West, the end of NATO, and the end of American hegemony.
But maybe that's exactly the point... How many people in Trump's immediate circle have been found to be Russian assets again?
Good point. I think most of America remains laser-focused on their domestic issues. Number 1 - affordability. What European decision-makers see as existential, most Americans are barely noticing.
My take is that Trumpism has emboldened a 'third party' of people who didn't really participate in "mainstream" politics, dialogue, and elections, for that matter, until Trump came along. In other words, they were relatively silent (or ignored) and on the fringes until they were fed red meat tied to their grievances through these decaying digital media platforms.
There is systemic rot in our approaches to community and country that will either completely destroy what the US Constitution set out to create, or somehow the US will miraculously find some sort of equilibrium again. But I'm not betting on that, knowing our history, and the fundamental destruction of any type of sane regulation that has been methodically stripped away by partisan forces since the seventies and eighties.
I place a lot of original blame on Reagan's dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to all of his other discretions, that were lauded so vigorously at the time. In my opinion, that set the process in motion to slowly defenestrate the idea of "good government" and turn the phrase into an oxymoron in the eyes of neoliberal opportunists who wanted it all, no matter what that kind of mentality would wrought in the coming decades.
Now the bills are coming due...and world citizens are looking elsewhere for actual integrity and ideals that aren't just empty, hollowed out "words" without any deeds to support their utterance.
Brilliant breakdown here. The Mount Rushmore angle is what actually makes this click for me, teh way ego-driven territorial expansion gets packaged as security strategy is pretty wild. I've noticed this pattern where symbolic wins (monument placement, map redrawing) seem to matter more than actuaal strategic gains lately. The Srebrenica comparison at the end is chilling though, makes you rethink what 'deterrence' even looks like when the threat comes from inside the alliance.
Well said. But for me, this is the shocking part: "Two-thirds of Americans – including 40% of Republicans – are concerned the push could harm NATO and damage relations with Europe." This still leaves one-third of Americans who are so clueless about the state of the world that they can't see the obvious - that any move against Denmark will mean the permanent fracturing of the West, the end of NATO, and the end of American hegemony.
But maybe that's exactly the point... How many people in Trump's immediate circle have been found to be Russian assets again?
Good point. I think most of America remains laser-focused on their domestic issues. Number 1 - affordability. What European decision-makers see as existential, most Americans are barely noticing.
My take is that Trumpism has emboldened a 'third party' of people who didn't really participate in "mainstream" politics, dialogue, and elections, for that matter, until Trump came along. In other words, they were relatively silent (or ignored) and on the fringes until they were fed red meat tied to their grievances through these decaying digital media platforms.
There is systemic rot in our approaches to community and country that will either completely destroy what the US Constitution set out to create, or somehow the US will miraculously find some sort of equilibrium again. But I'm not betting on that, knowing our history, and the fundamental destruction of any type of sane regulation that has been methodically stripped away by partisan forces since the seventies and eighties.
I place a lot of original blame on Reagan's dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to all of his other discretions, that were lauded so vigorously at the time. In my opinion, that set the process in motion to slowly defenestrate the idea of "good government" and turn the phrase into an oxymoron in the eyes of neoliberal opportunists who wanted it all, no matter what that kind of mentality would wrought in the coming decades.
Now the bills are coming due...and world citizens are looking elsewhere for actual integrity and ideals that aren't just empty, hollowed out "words" without any deeds to support their utterance.
As someone who started their career at CBS News I think your point about the Fairness Doctrine is very well made!
Brilliant breakdown here. The Mount Rushmore angle is what actually makes this click for me, teh way ego-driven territorial expansion gets packaged as security strategy is pretty wild. I've noticed this pattern where symbolic wins (monument placement, map redrawing) seem to matter more than actuaal strategic gains lately. The Srebrenica comparison at the end is chilling though, makes you rethink what 'deterrence' even looks like when the threat comes from inside the alliance.
Always seemed to me that so many people in the sense-making industry - aka policy shops - are smarter than the people they are making sense of.
Well written
Thanks Sue!