Why? So he can construct a strawman rationalization for expansionist "defense" instigating war? To learn lessons from decades of neo-con failure is not simply being the opposite of the other side, it is heeding the warnings of Mearsheimer, Buchanan, Chomsky, Kissinger and others who warned for decades of this foreseeable outcome. Made all the worse when the europeans themselves through expressed preference prove their core concern invalid as they were never concerned about war, they wouldn't fund their military's as this was always their true belief. So instead of the cost free cultural corrosion through mcdonalds we chose blood of hundreds of thousands, while shredding our own credibility in every area that matters, proving ourselves as not just hypocrites but bad faith actors, leading even our allies to ruin. I'm sure you are "happy" to see this.
You can click and see that this Luca guy reads a bunch of rightist blogs. He's part of the reason the right became anti-Ukraine. These guys see Russia as an upholder of White power and traditional values, so they don't want to see Russia weakened by a military defeat.
For true far rightists, perhaps. For others a bit more mainstream it is a reaction to the years of Russian collusion BS, Trump’s impeachment over Ukraine and Biden family profiteering in Ukraine. For previously pacifist and anti-military/anti-CIA Dems who are now newly warmongering and bloodthirsty over Ukraine, the same reasons apply. Trump lives on in the minds of many on both sides, sadly.
Well, Trump is still alive, he's the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and in 2024 he will win the same states as in 2016 and 2020.
He has the support of 60% of white men and a lesser but still a majority of white women.
It's also apparent that the House of Trump is a political dynasty. Once Donald Trump dies, his children will engage in Ottoman-style open succession to inherit the maga caliphate.
Even if the House of Trump becomes a political nonentity, the American rightwing is thoroughly authoritarian. Right now, it's a sort of battlefield of ideas for what kind of authoritarianism it should be -- Christofascism, maga, fashoid (classical fascism is rooted in ethnonationalism; modern palingenetic forms are rooted in identities like race or masculinity) as well as neoreaction. Each one has a leader, and their goal is to gain mastery of these sectarian coalitions.
Thanks for the article, I think this needed to be said.
As a side-note:
"“Negative partisanship” — the hatred of anything that’s perceived as being aligned or associated with the opposing party —" As a European citizen, that's the impression I get about the USA, looking in from the outside.
If Biden had declared 'We have no dog in this fight' and ignored Ukraine's plea for military aid, the very Republican people who now decry that aid would have been the first to demand it and accuse Biden of abandoning the USA's most important allies (Europe) to their miserable fate. Conversely, if Trump had still been in office and done as Biden does now, Democrats would have accused him of war-mongering the world into WW3.
I'd say the one complexity is that it's not symmetrical; while negative partisanship is deeply felt in both parties, it's *more* present in the Republican party than the Democratic party. One way to think about this is that Democratic-aligned voters have a lot of policies they want to see happen, and if e.g. the Republicans got up one day and said "you know what, we want universal health care too," most Democratically-aligned voters would go "great!" Whereas the Republican party is driven first and foremost by negative partisanship/resentment, culture war issues, and only a few salient policy things (e.g. abortion).
In the universe of Trump standing up to Putin (not likely!), there absolutely WOULD have been a vocal anti-war left, but it would not have been the majority of Democrats.
"Whereas the Republican party is driven first and foremost by negative partisanship/resentment"
This is only because you see liberal/Democratic priorities as some sort of neutral state, as opposed to an ideological agenda that conservatives naturally oppose.
TJ, you write, "There is no going back to the racist, patriarchial, pseudo-Christian America anymore. "
How about a "colorblind" approach to race -- as recently as "No Black America, no White America"?
For that matter, I've fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing "queer" about same-sex attraction. I'm attracted to guys; I've never hidden that fact, and I'm proud simply to be myself. As an individual, that's all the respect I demand.
I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" (or to demand that others redefine "male" and "female") on behalf of some Brave New World.
Live and let live? These days, that's easier for me in Texas than it is in Berkeley (where I constantly need to walk on eggs, micro-mincing every word that comes out of my mouth).
A colorblind approach to race is quintessentially white and male.
Not having to think about your race, your sex, your gender, etc., is a form of privilege.
Bernard Malamud had a famous quote: "If you ever forget you are a Jew, a gentile will remind you." I mean, the 1930s and '40s were the cruelest object lesson to prove this. It has universal application.
"If you ever forget you are [an outgroup], [an ingroup] will remind you." Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
"A colorblind approach to race is quintessentially white and male"? How Orwellian!
"Not having to think about your race, your sex, your gender, etc., is a form of privilege"? "Privilege"? Really? Pursued with integrity -- without either hypocrisy or resentment -- it can demonstrate self-assurance and personal strength. Got a problem with that?
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over such (nefarious?) "privilege" (and as protection rackets take hold on all sides), the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Ad nauseam, indeed!
Once again -- as a gay male and a Jew (but above all, as an individual) -- thanks, but no thanks.
You are right in one thing, there is no going back as what you advocate is decay. The democrats/left are best summed up as the agenda of the 7 deadly sins.
Simon, although I agree that Europe and America have much to offer each other and have generally been good allies to each other, I do think a lot of analysis misses some of the merits to isolationist rights arguments.
(1) America risks being perceived as an unreliable ally. However, how reliable an ally has Europe been to America? Trump had a point about European NATO contributions. Why does America need to garrison 100K troops in a continent that is as wealthy as the USA and has nearly 500M people? In the past 20 years, has Europe's contribution to NATO been proportional to its capacity? Is this simplistic? Yes, but it is still hard to account for some countries in Europe having very limited military capabilities relative to what they could be fielding.
(2) To individuals with isolationist views, there seems to be a persistent trend dating back to the Wilson Administration of the US being drawn into European wars. We look at WW2 with hindsight but at the time many in America saw it as just another expression of age old European imperial rivalries. I think Americans had more sympathy in the 1930s for the Republic of China and its fight against Imperial Japan than they did for the fighting in Europe. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and the fall of the Philippines just further reinforced to the American public that Japan, and not Germany, was the major threat to the USA. Do I think this perspective is incorrect? Yes, but there seems to be a one-sidedness to US military engagement globally, America keeps getting involved in Europe's troubles.
(3) I think there is a lot of disillusionment among huge portions of the American public regarding US security commitments around the world. It transcends partisan bickering. They see US actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq as pointless and wasteful. This has become part of American "lore." Politicians often talk about the "forever wars." They rarely discuss what the policy alternatives to those wars would have been (i.e. what should America have done in lieu of aiding South Vietnam? Or, in lieu of the Iraq War, how should the US have engaged Saddam Hussein circa 2002?).
There is more going on than just reflexive partisanship.
I'm not sure about the merits of those arguments, but you lay them out well. I agree on one point, though: Trump was right to call out European NATO members for not living up to their pledged defense contribution. NATO is and should be a common effort, not just the USA protecting everyone else.
You partisanship observation is unfortunately very true. During Trump's presidency, a much larger number of Democrats were actively opposing providing lethal aid to Ukraine comparing to Republicans. They did the U-turn with Biden in the White House.
After WW1 USA withdrew troops from the Rhineland despite appeals from both France AND Germany, due to internal USA politics(ie my opponent wants X therefore I want the opposite).
I think "negative partisanship" is a good general characterization, but it does not come from a personal level negativity, as might be misconstrued by your usage of "Republican people" and "Democrats". It is important to note that the US mostly runs such an electoral system: single-seat districts with first past the post voting, without run-off. This system tends to surface more extreme representatives than the various systems used in EU countries such as two-round run-off, multi-seat districts, ranked choice voting, proportional voting, etc. Therefore, the ground truth of the public will is most definitely less extreme than the visible surface -- but the visible extremism over the years has nonetheless torn the public will further apart.
Right, and toward the end, I really would like to see Biden and the Democrats come out strongly against bullet trains, housing abundance and universal healthcare!
As a subscriber, I'd prefer that you stick to writing about economics. That's a subject you've studied and can contribute to. This post was juvenile in its reasoning and its language.
Feb 12, 2023·edited Feb 12, 2023Liked by Noah Smith
Hard disagree and I’m sure most readers do. This article was excellent and overall the breadth is a huge value add, even if I don’t find every topic to be relevant myself. I
It's not a question of disagreement, but the quality of the reasoning.
For example, the only piece of evidence put forth that the US's NATO commitment is not ironclad is some rhetoric by Trump.
The description of the US as the indispensable aid to Western Europe in the 20th century against totalitarian threats (presumably Nazi Germany and then the USSR) is simplistic. The USSR was responsible for the preponderance of the destruction of the German armed forces in WW2.
In one paragraph, Russia in the first decade of this century is described as "quiescent." In another paragraph, Russia has been mounting cyber attacks for decades against the Baltics as evidence of its ambitions to conquer Eastern Europe. Plus some Russian soldier painted "Berlin: on a tank.
These are the sorts of things that bother me about posts like this.
David, with respect I think you are committing the very same simplification that you charge Noah with:
"...the USSR was responsible for the preponderance of the destruction of the German armed forces in WW2..."
Technically this is correct, but there is a lot of nuance to this statement. Prior to VE-Day the Soviets killed about 4M Axis troops and captured about 2.5M. The Western Allies killed about 1.2M Axis troops and captured about 5.6M. The Soviets killed a lot more troops but the Western Allies captured a lot more. When you look at the number of Axis troops (in Europe) removed from the order of battle, the Western Allies and the Soviets had about the same effect-6.5M each. To be fair, the US was one of many Western Allies.
The real issue, I think, is that analysts such as Noah have to condense complex issues into a short columns. You are going to lose a lot of nuance by space constraints. The general thrust of what he argues seems quite valid.
Most of the capturing by the West was in the last few months and was far less than the 5.6 mm you quote prior to VE. If you were at risk of capture by the Soviets, I think there was a great incentive to surrender to the West.
And here is a summary of Norman Davies's views. He has credibility based on his scholarly focus.
Noah's not an expert in geopolitics an it shows. See here his "radical" conclusion in the second week of the invasion that Russia was always going to reassert it's dominance in ex-USSR countries and the former Warsaw Pact block and that NATO expansion was visionary.
Most Eastern Europe knew that for three decades. All our efforts from 1989 onwards were about insuring ourselves against Russia when it's not on knees anymore.
The problem with the last paragraph is that it also means "All our efforts from 1989 onwards were about [e]nsuring [that there would be conflict with] Russia when it's not on knees anymore." (After the US helped knock it to its knees.)
Speaking for myself- there’s plenty of economics blogs and papers out there, I am a subscriber because I appreciate Noah’s perspective even when the topics come out of the left field :)
“More generally, the evidence is clear that Russia’s new imperialists see their country’s mission as one of regaining control over territories it feels it lost when the Soviet Union fell — former USSR republics like Ukraine and the Baltics, former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland, and even parts of Germany.”
I’m pretty positive Putin has never threatened the Baltic states or former Warsaw Pact members, or ever suggested he somehow wants to regain control over them. Ukraine has always been the primary focus.
Putin has invaded neighboring territories multiple times now. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine multiple times (the Donbas, Crimea, and the current invasion). He does it to drive his popularity at home upward because Russians have an imperialist mindset and like invading smaller countries. You’re essentially saying “well, the lion ate my neighbor, but _surely_ he won’t eat _me_!”
The Baltics also include large numbers of ethnic Russians. So are you going to sacrifice the Baltics now? Actually, so does Germany now. See where that goes?
But even if Noah overstates the case and Putin doesn’t yearn for Russian control over Berlin like it once had, if violent imperialism is wrong, then it should be stopped.
A Russian TV variety show repackaged by a Ukrainian pro-business, propaganda group is no more convincing than a Pravda report or a CCP spokesman. Sorry, Noah, but you didn't even come close to making this case. "To Berlin" written on tanks? Really?
"Russia’s new imperialists see their country’s mission as one of regaining control over territories it feels it lost when the Soviet Union fell"
This gets to the heart of the matter. Either it is imperialism for a large and powerful country to seek to influence, cajole, and even topple rival governments... or it isn't. If it is, and "imperialism" is bad, America has a lot of explaining to do: Iran, Libya, Venezuela, and our hands aren't exactly clean in Ukraine either. Anyone unwilling to repudiate the Monroe Doctrine is pretty hypocritical to refuse Russia and Japan and China their own spheres of influence.
"Relentless anti-Ukraine messaging by right-wing media figures like Tucker Carlson has taken its toll"
Or... the portion of the populace least inclined to view America as a global policeman (which tends to overlap with the Republican Party) has started to come to its senses. Noah wants to paint this as a negative, but I'm unclear why Americans NOT wanting to fight a war on the front porch of a major nuclear power is a bad thing. Of course, if one believes that Putin is Hitler redux, then he will view this differently. But if you treat every peace proposal as Munich, Ukraine will be 100% women and children within a few years.
This poll can also be read this way: "a remarkably bipartisan consensus supports Ukraine, with more than half the country saying they believe America should provide as much or more aid than it currently is, including 40% of Republicans agreeing with this sentiment." There's imperialism for you: Americans willing to make money on arms sales (subsidized by their own government) while Ukrainians do all the dying.
---
I have rarely so agreed with the final conclusions of an article and so disagreed with its reasoning. I hope the EU takes this advice and starts defending itself -- it's long past time. However, that hope is not rooted in a desire for my own nation to start "refocusing on China".
There is a saying about European royalty: "There was a time that the law and the consent of the governed clothed kings in a power that is nearly unimaginable, but rarely did they make use of it." Let us learn from this example. A superpower should have the strongest military and should use it rarely.
It isn't time for America to refocus on China. It's time for America to do what we should have done at the end of the Cold War: refocus on America.
If Russia should be allowed their own sphere of influence, then surely S Korea (roughly the same size economy) should be allowed one too. So how would that work? How would China, S Korea, and Japan all have their own spheres of influence? Do you see how absurd that sounds?
If you’re arguing instead that only great powers like the US should be allowed a sphere of influence, at least that would be logically consistent. In that case, though, the great power that is in Europe is the EU, and you’d surely understand if the EU was not willing to let a foreign intruder like Russia encroach on its sphere of influence in Ukraine laying down.
that's called typical multipolar international relations. There's nothing weird about it at all. Powerful countries have always had "spheres of influence", sometimes allies, sometimes vassals. European history is essentially contests between competing regional spheres of influence, often based on religion. Ironically, there's a major religious element to the EU-Russia war right now: Orthodox Christianity (however poorly Patriarch Kirill represents that) vs. secular LGBT theology. Biden was explicit about this (https://tinyurl.com/2x9s4cuc). So yes, the world you're describing would be historically quite normal.
When a single country claims the entire world its sphere of influence though, there's another name for that: an empire. The post-WWII, American empire is failing. Regional spheres of influence and a multipolar world are inevitable. And the longer we cling to the illusion that we can still dictate, cajole, and coerce everyone else in the world, the more of them will refuse to comply -- witness how our weaponization of SWIFT has accelerated the BRICS trade bloc. America needs to accept this reality, as Britain did after 1947. The longer we deny it, the harder our fall will be.
It didn't accelerate BRICS trade block that much and BRICS is not really a trade block even and it doesn't operate as a trade block.
The problem with Russia is that the country has pathetic growth rate while being middle income one and will have close to no growth in the next decade once again, and will be having declining population and less general relevance, Russia is far less relevant than ever in 300 years including 90s and losing its influence in all post Soviet states at the rapid speed with their governments running de-Russification programs and translating everything into national languages and trying to find more contacts in Europe, China and America. This war is happening specifically because Russia is really bad at diplomacy and economic influence and its sphere was just falling apart and nothing from the current regime can be sustained that much after Putin dies because he didn't build anything, it's purely personalistic regime.
The empire that is falling apart here is not America but Russia. It's losing its regional sphere of influence and can't sustain anything without direct violence which will not actually stop its declining role even if it succeeds now. When people write the post about falling American empire, it's the back-projection of the real situation with Russia at a far larger scale. Your entire story is to accept unstable, increasingly dysfunctional regime that lashed on the outside world in the largest European war after WW2 which will continue to lose influence and can sustain it only through direct military interventions. Do you think that it looks good for anyone involved?
Ah, you’re one of those anti-American conservatives.
Anyway, if you believe in spheres of influence, then surely you’d agree that the much more powerful sphere (the EU/West) should find it in its self-interest to dominate and limit the much weaker sphere (Russia), yes? So what are you objecting to?
Important to note that it's not just negative partisanship, which could have been expressed by an ultra-hawk position. The dominant faction in the Republican party is fascist (Biden was being charitable in saying "semi") and they correctly see Putin as an ideological ally, and backer of Trump.
Europe needs to be prepared for the likelihood that the US won't merely get distracted, it will change sides.
In 12 hours, all you've got is a bunch of Republicans who weren't ready to jump on board with certifying one of the weirdest elections in American history (not in terms of result, but in terms of changing rules leading up to it) and the fact that Republicans are wary of age appropriateness of some books. (In truth though, does anyone here actually want to defend GenderQueer for 7th graders?)
Meanwhile, your own tribe is busy dismantling the entire history curriculum and replacing it with racist, ideological indoctrination sessions. (The 1619 project sure looks fascist to me.) Your tribe is creating mandatory loyalty oaths -- sorry, diversity and inclusion statements -- that must be signed to be hired at universities (Fascists do that too). You're upset about conservatives wanting to keep a few books out of school libraries while your own tribe is slicing the private parts off teenagers and calling it liberation? (The Bolsheviks celebrated deviancy too.) You closed down churches for most of 2020 and arrested pastors and priests who refused to comply (fascist again.) And today, many Democrats openly support financially harming churches and any other charities that dissent from the progressive LGBTQIA2SXYZ theology. (Hitler punished priests that dissented from his ideology too -- oh, yeah, have you forgotten that NAZI was actually of the Left... "national socialism"?)
Sorry, but this label of "fascist" is just projection. You need an enemy to blind yourself to the lunacy of your own tribe.
I will grant you that I got a little ticked. but my examples were legit. I notice you didn't argue with any of them other than my mention of Nazis. And considering I'm arguing with people who want to apply the term "fascist" to a major American political party, quibbling about the location of Hitler on a Nolan Chart is a little nit-picky. At the extreme ends of the vertical Nolan axis, the differences between right and left narrow considerably.
Fascism has a definition. It is a melding of the media, corporate and state power under an largely authoritarian regime. Applying that to a party that does not control the media, corporate, or political spheres (to say nothing of all 3) is completely absurd.
As for the "culture war"? When one side wants to pretend that men can get pregnant and the other simply wants to maintain the definitions that have existed since prior to the invention of agriculture... I think you ought to reconsider who the aggressor in the "culture war" actually is.
And just so you know, "European center-right" translates to mostly-progressive in America. Even Marine Le Pen isn't particularly right-wing by US standards on most issues. Only Victor Orban would really qualify as "conservative" in an American sense. I'm guessing you think he's a fascist too.
Is the guy who shot Scalise tolerated or defended by any elected Democrat?
If you're comparing the Scalise shooting to Jan 6, then you should consider comparing the reaction of elected Democrats to the Scalise shooting (horror, condemnation, insistence that the shooter be prosecuted with the full force of the law) to that of elected Republicans to Jan 6 (often supporting it, complaining about the prison conditions of those arrested and convicted, etc).
No, he was not, and they deserve commendation for that. Of course, the media was busy refusing to talk about how the shooter was a crazed Democrat campaign volunteer. Meanwhile, when Paul Pelosi was attacked earlier this year, the media couldn't stop trying to make the attacker a MAGA Republican, despite the BLM flag in his front yard. Even you must admit that's a pretty weird double standard.
Regarding Jan 6, holding large numbers of people in prison, many in solitary, for over 2 years for what amounts to trespassing in a federal building in many cases is excessive. If you haven't actually looked at some of those cases, you should. If you want us to consider your claims of injustice, you need to be willing to fairly consider ours.
The Paul Pelosi attacker did not have a BLM flag is his front yard. His ex-girlfriend had one in hers;. She'd kicked him out about a year before and he was living elsewhere. What seems to be the case is that he's someone who was on the extreme left (he may have been Black Bloc, though membership of that is notoriously secretive, but certainly some sort of conspiratorial dangerous idiot bit of the left) and then moved to the conspiratorial extreme right (he was spouting Qanon nonsense online), which is what led him to attacking the Pelosis. There is definitely a group of people who are dangerous idiots who flock to conspiratorial nonsense, and drift between left and right because they are more into the conspiracies and attacking people than into the actual politics. 20 years ago, they'd have been 9/11 Truthers, now they are Qanon. This is why anti-vax has gone from being far left to far right in the last decade or so - it's the same people and they've carried it with them as they crossed over.
All I'd say is that any responsible political movement denounces these sorts of violent dangerous idiots and a mainstream movement that doesn't denounce them consistently worries me. The time it took for the Democrats to react properly to the Black Bloc nutters at the BLM protests was worrying, but they do seem to have got their act together on that and got back to making the proper distinction between peaceful protest and violent rioting. I'm hopeful that the Republicans can get past their current wobble and stand by that.
My read of Jan 6 is that there was a large, mostly peaceful, protest, that a substantial group, but still a relatively small minority, forced their way violently through the police lines and a number of the peaceful protestors then followed through into the Capitol. To the extent that peaceful protestors are being treated as equivalent to the violent attackers, that's not justice; they should be faced with, at most, a modest fine for walking through an open gateway into the building and leaving when asked to do so by the police.
The people who forced their way in committed a serious crime - they were attempting to violently overthrow the democratic government of the United States of America. That should face a felony charge and years of imprisonment.
But my understanding is that the main complaint is how people are being held in prison before trial, to which my answer is that the way that prisoners are held before trial is a gross injustice; they are innocent until proven guilty, should only be held in prison if they are a flight risk, and even then should be held in comfortable and safe conditions. That will cost more money, but we should be prepared to pay the price in taxes for justice. Moreover, the speed of trials in the US is a disgrace, and using imprisonment before trial as a mechanism to induce guilty pleas is, in my view, a breach of the constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy trial.
I'm not a prison abolitionist. Prisons - the concept of incarcerating people who have commited serious crimes - are capable of being an instrument of justice. The problem is that the US criminal justice and prison system are grossly unjust and that, as currently constituted, they are incapable of delivering justice. The fact that many Republicans only seem to have noticed this when people they find sympathetic are on the receiving end of the injustice system does not reflect well on those people. But nonetheless, if they are prepared to join movements for criminal justice and prison reform, then they should be welcome. There is more rejoicing in heaven at a convert and so on.
It is amusing though that it was released in 1985 and the R's had no interest in it for 30 years. At that point, they had turned into the party of the uneducated, lost all their great thinkers and decided that it should be their secret plan for world domination and must therefore be protected from prying eyes.... (probably something in their about it becoming a TV series because the party had long since lost the ability to read too) \S
Been said before, but its hard to adjust to Godwin's Law seeming quaint these days. I do think you are right to point out this asymmetry. Appreciate everything you write.
FYI: I worked as a full-time volunteer as a member of the Oklahoma Medical Reserve Corps in the Tulsa Covid-19 POD which vaccinated 2,000 patients each day.
Noah, I think you're right that 'the United States can’t be counted on to be a permanent trump card against' Russia, but I don't think that necessarily means that 'If Europe’s great enemy is likely to be relentless, its great ally is likely to be fickle and inconstant.'
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd bet on a Russian systemic collapse before an American one.
I find it somewhat amusing and also saddening that you talk about "negative partisanship" as though it's a bad thing, then immediately blame Republicans for it, thus reinforcing exactly that.
Tucker Carlson's behavior has of course been completely reprehensible (as always), but from what I saw, it was the left that started this divide and continued to widen it. From inventing a fake Russian scandal to try to discredit Trump, to claiming that all right-wing engagement on Twitter came from Russian bots, the left has also done plenty to damage the unity of the USA's response to Russia's aggression.
A solution to this sort of negative partisanship is not going to come from simply recognizing that it exists and then blaming the other side for it; that's just lampshading the issue while perpetuating it.
Excellent article Noah! I’m would also be interested as to what role Turkey will play going forth. If I’m not mistaken they have the 2nd largest standing army in NATO yet culturally and politically have much more in common with the Russians, including their neo-Ottoman imperial expansion aspirations, and seem to be helping the Russians evade sanctions. There is much, much more they can do if Turkey really wanted to hurt the Russians. Are they going to continue playing both sides?
As a subscriber, I am happy to see posts like this.
Why? So he can construct a strawman rationalization for expansionist "defense" instigating war? To learn lessons from decades of neo-con failure is not simply being the opposite of the other side, it is heeding the warnings of Mearsheimer, Buchanan, Chomsky, Kissinger and others who warned for decades of this foreseeable outcome. Made all the worse when the europeans themselves through expressed preference prove their core concern invalid as they were never concerned about war, they wouldn't fund their military's as this was always their true belief. So instead of the cost free cultural corrosion through mcdonalds we chose blood of hundreds of thousands, while shredding our own credibility in every area that matters, proving ourselves as not just hypocrites but bad faith actors, leading even our allies to ruin. I'm sure you are "happy" to see this.
Huh?
You can click and see that this Luca guy reads a bunch of rightist blogs. He's part of the reason the right became anti-Ukraine. These guys see Russia as an upholder of White power and traditional values, so they don't want to see Russia weakened by a military defeat.
For true far rightists, perhaps. For others a bit more mainstream it is a reaction to the years of Russian collusion BS, Trump’s impeachment over Ukraine and Biden family profiteering in Ukraine. For previously pacifist and anti-military/anti-CIA Dems who are now newly warmongering and bloodthirsty over Ukraine, the same reasons apply. Trump lives on in the minds of many on both sides, sadly.
Well, Trump is still alive, he's the frontrunner for the Republican nomination and in 2024 he will win the same states as in 2016 and 2020.
He has the support of 60% of white men and a lesser but still a majority of white women.
It's also apparent that the House of Trump is a political dynasty. Once Donald Trump dies, his children will engage in Ottoman-style open succession to inherit the maga caliphate.
Even if the House of Trump becomes a political nonentity, the American rightwing is thoroughly authoritarian. Right now, it's a sort of battlefield of ideas for what kind of authoritarianism it should be -- Christofascism, maga, fashoid (classical fascism is rooted in ethnonationalism; modern palingenetic forms are rooted in identities like race or masculinity) as well as neoreaction. Each one has a leader, and their goal is to gain mastery of these sectarian coalitions.
Except Nordstream is far more a macro-economic issue and impact.
Thanks for the article, I think this needed to be said.
As a side-note:
"“Negative partisanship” — the hatred of anything that’s perceived as being aligned or associated with the opposing party —" As a European citizen, that's the impression I get about the USA, looking in from the outside.
If Biden had declared 'We have no dog in this fight' and ignored Ukraine's plea for military aid, the very Republican people who now decry that aid would have been the first to demand it and accuse Biden of abandoning the USA's most important allies (Europe) to their miserable fate. Conversely, if Trump had still been in office and done as Biden does now, Democrats would have accused him of war-mongering the world into WW3.
Any way you slice it...
Well, that's at least how it seems to me.
I'd say the one complexity is that it's not symmetrical; while negative partisanship is deeply felt in both parties, it's *more* present in the Republican party than the Democratic party. One way to think about this is that Democratic-aligned voters have a lot of policies they want to see happen, and if e.g. the Republicans got up one day and said "you know what, we want universal health care too," most Democratically-aligned voters would go "great!" Whereas the Republican party is driven first and foremost by negative partisanship/resentment, culture war issues, and only a few salient policy things (e.g. abortion).
In the universe of Trump standing up to Putin (not likely!), there absolutely WOULD have been a vocal anti-war left, but it would not have been the majority of Democrats.
"Whereas the Republican party is driven first and foremost by negative partisanship/resentment"
This is only because you see liberal/Democratic priorities as some sort of neutral state, as opposed to an ideological agenda that conservatives naturally oppose.
TJ, you write, "There is no going back to the racist, patriarchial, pseudo-Christian America anymore. "
How about a "colorblind" approach to race -- as recently as "No Black America, no White America"?
For that matter, I've fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing "queer" about same-sex attraction. I'm attracted to guys; I've never hidden that fact, and I'm proud simply to be myself. As an individual, that's all the respect I demand.
I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" (or to demand that others redefine "male" and "female") on behalf of some Brave New World.
Live and let live? These days, that's easier for me in Texas than it is in Berkeley (where I constantly need to walk on eggs, micro-mincing every word that comes out of my mouth).
Thanks, but no thanks! :-)
A colorblind approach to race is quintessentially white and male.
Not having to think about your race, your sex, your gender, etc., is a form of privilege.
Bernard Malamud had a famous quote: "If you ever forget you are a Jew, a gentile will remind you." I mean, the 1930s and '40s were the cruelest object lesson to prove this. It has universal application.
"If you ever forget you are [an outgroup], [an ingroup] will remind you." Ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
"A colorblind approach to race is quintessentially white and male"? How Orwellian!
"Not having to think about your race, your sex, your gender, etc., is a form of privilege"? "Privilege"? Really? Pursued with integrity -- without either hypocrisy or resentment -- it can demonstrate self-assurance and personal strength. Got a problem with that?
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over such (nefarious?) "privilege" (and as protection rackets take hold on all sides), the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Ad nauseam, indeed!
Once again -- as a gay male and a Jew (but above all, as an individual) -- thanks, but no thanks.
I was going to take you on, but I think I’llgo for a walk.
You are right in one thing, there is no going back as what you advocate is decay. The democrats/left are best summed up as the agenda of the 7 deadly sins.
[sarcasm] Six deadly sins. Envy is the dominion of the right. Y'all can keep it. [/sarcasm]
Got to disagree with you here, the negative partisanship is extremely strong on both sides. Simon's view is correct.
Conservatives, in general, just don't want the govt to do much.
Simon, although I agree that Europe and America have much to offer each other and have generally been good allies to each other, I do think a lot of analysis misses some of the merits to isolationist rights arguments.
(1) America risks being perceived as an unreliable ally. However, how reliable an ally has Europe been to America? Trump had a point about European NATO contributions. Why does America need to garrison 100K troops in a continent that is as wealthy as the USA and has nearly 500M people? In the past 20 years, has Europe's contribution to NATO been proportional to its capacity? Is this simplistic? Yes, but it is still hard to account for some countries in Europe having very limited military capabilities relative to what they could be fielding.
(2) To individuals with isolationist views, there seems to be a persistent trend dating back to the Wilson Administration of the US being drawn into European wars. We look at WW2 with hindsight but at the time many in America saw it as just another expression of age old European imperial rivalries. I think Americans had more sympathy in the 1930s for the Republic of China and its fight against Imperial Japan than they did for the fighting in Europe. The attacks on Pearl Harbor and the fall of the Philippines just further reinforced to the American public that Japan, and not Germany, was the major threat to the USA. Do I think this perspective is incorrect? Yes, but there seems to be a one-sidedness to US military engagement globally, America keeps getting involved in Europe's troubles.
(3) I think there is a lot of disillusionment among huge portions of the American public regarding US security commitments around the world. It transcends partisan bickering. They see US actions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq as pointless and wasteful. This has become part of American "lore." Politicians often talk about the "forever wars." They rarely discuss what the policy alternatives to those wars would have been (i.e. what should America have done in lieu of aiding South Vietnam? Or, in lieu of the Iraq War, how should the US have engaged Saddam Hussein circa 2002?).
There is more going on than just reflexive partisanship.
I'm not sure about the merits of those arguments, but you lay them out well. I agree on one point, though: Trump was right to call out European NATO members for not living up to their pledged defense contribution. NATO is and should be a common effort, not just the USA protecting everyone else.
You partisanship observation is unfortunately very true. During Trump's presidency, a much larger number of Democrats were actively opposing providing lethal aid to Ukraine comparing to Republicans. They did the U-turn with Biden in the White House.
https://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll136.xml
Here's your typical progressive Democrat from that time: https://twitter.com/reprokhanna/status/969407194088091648 . His Twitter feed in February 2022 was even more ironic. "No military aid!" "Military aid right now!"
After WW1 USA withdrew troops from the Rhineland despite appeals from both France AND Germany, due to internal USA politics(ie my opponent wants X therefore I want the opposite).
I think "negative partisanship" is a good general characterization, but it does not come from a personal level negativity, as might be misconstrued by your usage of "Republican people" and "Democrats". It is important to note that the US mostly runs such an electoral system: single-seat districts with first past the post voting, without run-off. This system tends to surface more extreme representatives than the various systems used in EU countries such as two-round run-off, multi-seat districts, ranked choice voting, proportional voting, etc. Therefore, the ground truth of the public will is most definitely less extreme than the visible surface -- but the visible extremism over the years has nonetheless torn the public will further apart.
Ok, thanks for commenting on that point.
Right, and toward the end, I really would like to see Biden and the Democrats come out strongly against bullet trains, housing abundance and universal healthcare!
How sure are we that those tanks don't say "to Berlin" because they're left over from World War II?
Funny!
They can't be from before WWII. At that time, Russia had yet to discover waterproof paint.
As a subscriber, I'd prefer that you stick to writing about economics. That's a subject you've studied and can contribute to. This post was juvenile in its reasoning and its language.
As a subscriber, you must have read my many articles about similar topics over recent months! Strange that you chose now to complain 😉
Hard disagree and I’m sure most readers do. This article was excellent and overall the breadth is a huge value add, even if I don’t find every topic to be relevant myself. I
Thank you!!
I have. And I've refrained form commenting until now.
But there's a huge gap in quality between your posts that focus on economics (which I think are generally excellent) and your posts on other subjects.
Disagree. But it’s easy. You don’t have to read them.
What specifically do you disagree with?
It's not a question of disagreement, but the quality of the reasoning.
For example, the only piece of evidence put forth that the US's NATO commitment is not ironclad is some rhetoric by Trump.
The description of the US as the indispensable aid to Western Europe in the 20th century against totalitarian threats (presumably Nazi Germany and then the USSR) is simplistic. The USSR was responsible for the preponderance of the destruction of the German armed forces in WW2.
In one paragraph, Russia in the first decade of this century is described as "quiescent." In another paragraph, Russia has been mounting cyber attacks for decades against the Baltics as evidence of its ambitions to conquer Eastern Europe. Plus some Russian soldier painted "Berlin: on a tank.
These are the sorts of things that bother me about posts like this.
David, with respect I think you are committing the very same simplification that you charge Noah with:
"...the USSR was responsible for the preponderance of the destruction of the German armed forces in WW2..."
Technically this is correct, but there is a lot of nuance to this statement. Prior to VE-Day the Soviets killed about 4M Axis troops and captured about 2.5M. The Western Allies killed about 1.2M Axis troops and captured about 5.6M. The Soviets killed a lot more troops but the Western Allies captured a lot more. When you look at the number of Axis troops (in Europe) removed from the order of battle, the Western Allies and the Soviets had about the same effect-6.5M each. To be fair, the US was one of many Western Allies.
The real issue, I think, is that analysts such as Noah have to condense complex issues into a short columns. You are going to lose a lot of nuance by space constraints. The general thrust of what he argues seems quite valid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_northwest_Europe
Most of the capturing by the West was in the last few months and was far less than the 5.6 mm you quote prior to VE. If you were at risk of capture by the Soviets, I think there was a great incentive to surrender to the West.
And here is a summary of Norman Davies's views. He has credibility based on his scholarly focus.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/09/scholar-addresses-question-who-won-world-war-ii-in-europe/
To say that the Soviets and the West had the same effect at winning the war is just wrong.
It's not a matter of nuance. It's a matter of not writing about what you don't know.
Got it. Thanks David!
I disagree and hope Noah keeps writing about big-picture stuff like this (in addition to economics).
Somebody is juvenile.
Needs more Tucker, apparently
Noah's not an expert in geopolitics an it shows. See here his "radical" conclusion in the second week of the invasion that Russia was always going to reassert it's dominance in ex-USSR countries and the former Warsaw Pact block and that NATO expansion was visionary.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1500219163846983682
Most Eastern Europe knew that for three decades. All our efforts from 1989 onwards were about insuring ourselves against Russia when it's not on knees anymore.
The problem with the last paragraph is that it also means "All our efforts from 1989 onwards were about [e]nsuring [that there would be conflict with] Russia when it's not on knees anymore." (After the US helped knock it to its knees.)
As someone who worked in a defense think tank for decades, I find Noah's writing on these issues to be thoughtful and insightful.
This post is totally spot on.
Speaking for myself- there’s plenty of economics blogs and papers out there, I am a subscriber because I appreciate Noah’s perspective even when the topics come out of the left field :)
“Militarily, Europe will be able to outmatch Russia — if it tries to do so.” Frankly it’s a big if.
Although Poland with its purchase of 485 Himars systems shows the way. As well as few others.
“More generally, the evidence is clear that Russia’s new imperialists see their country’s mission as one of regaining control over territories it feels it lost when the Soviet Union fell — former USSR republics like Ukraine and the Baltics, former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland, and even parts of Germany.”
That’s not clear at all. It’s a fantasy.
Putin has said it repeatedly in speeches, and it is consistent with Russia's rhetoric and threats toward European states.
I’m pretty positive Putin has never threatened the Baltic states or former Warsaw Pact members, or ever suggested he somehow wants to regain control over them. Ukraine has always been the primary focus.
We'd love some links to those speeches!
Putin says that’s what he’s up to, and while it may be a fantasy on his part, people are dying because of it.
Putin has invaded neighboring territories multiple times now. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine multiple times (the Donbas, Crimea, and the current invasion). He does it to drive his popularity at home upward because Russians have an imperialist mindset and like invading smaller countries. You’re essentially saying “well, the lion ate my neighbor, but _surely_ he won’t eat _me_!”
The Baltics also include large numbers of ethnic Russians. So are you going to sacrifice the Baltics now? Actually, so does Germany now. See where that goes?
But even if Noah overstates the case and Putin doesn’t yearn for Russian control over Berlin like it once had, if violent imperialism is wrong, then it should be stopped.
Didn’t see anyone else mention it but did you mean to pun “Trump card” with a capital T or autocorrect?
"Russia is committed to imperialism in Europe"
A Russian TV variety show repackaged by a Ukrainian pro-business, propaganda group is no more convincing than a Pravda report or a CCP spokesman. Sorry, Noah, but you didn't even come close to making this case. "To Berlin" written on tanks? Really?
"Russia’s new imperialists see their country’s mission as one of regaining control over territories it feels it lost when the Soviet Union fell"
This gets to the heart of the matter. Either it is imperialism for a large and powerful country to seek to influence, cajole, and even topple rival governments... or it isn't. If it is, and "imperialism" is bad, America has a lot of explaining to do: Iran, Libya, Venezuela, and our hands aren't exactly clean in Ukraine either. Anyone unwilling to repudiate the Monroe Doctrine is pretty hypocritical to refuse Russia and Japan and China their own spheres of influence.
"Relentless anti-Ukraine messaging by right-wing media figures like Tucker Carlson has taken its toll"
Or... the portion of the populace least inclined to view America as a global policeman (which tends to overlap with the Republican Party) has started to come to its senses. Noah wants to paint this as a negative, but I'm unclear why Americans NOT wanting to fight a war on the front porch of a major nuclear power is a bad thing. Of course, if one believes that Putin is Hitler redux, then he will view this differently. But if you treat every peace proposal as Munich, Ukraine will be 100% women and children within a few years.
This poll can also be read this way: "a remarkably bipartisan consensus supports Ukraine, with more than half the country saying they believe America should provide as much or more aid than it currently is, including 40% of Republicans agreeing with this sentiment." There's imperialism for you: Americans willing to make money on arms sales (subsidized by their own government) while Ukrainians do all the dying.
---
I have rarely so agreed with the final conclusions of an article and so disagreed with its reasoning. I hope the EU takes this advice and starts defending itself -- it's long past time. However, that hope is not rooted in a desire for my own nation to start "refocusing on China".
There is a saying about European royalty: "There was a time that the law and the consent of the governed clothed kings in a power that is nearly unimaginable, but rarely did they make use of it." Let us learn from this example. A superpower should have the strongest military and should use it rarely.
It isn't time for America to refocus on China. It's time for America to do what we should have done at the end of the Cold War: refocus on America.
If Russia should be allowed their own sphere of influence, then surely S Korea (roughly the same size economy) should be allowed one too. So how would that work? How would China, S Korea, and Japan all have their own spheres of influence? Do you see how absurd that sounds?
If you’re arguing instead that only great powers like the US should be allowed a sphere of influence, at least that would be logically consistent. In that case, though, the great power that is in Europe is the EU, and you’d surely understand if the EU was not willing to let a foreign intruder like Russia encroach on its sphere of influence in Ukraine laying down.
that's called typical multipolar international relations. There's nothing weird about it at all. Powerful countries have always had "spheres of influence", sometimes allies, sometimes vassals. European history is essentially contests between competing regional spheres of influence, often based on religion. Ironically, there's a major religious element to the EU-Russia war right now: Orthodox Christianity (however poorly Patriarch Kirill represents that) vs. secular LGBT theology. Biden was explicit about this (https://tinyurl.com/2x9s4cuc). So yes, the world you're describing would be historically quite normal.
When a single country claims the entire world its sphere of influence though, there's another name for that: an empire. The post-WWII, American empire is failing. Regional spheres of influence and a multipolar world are inevitable. And the longer we cling to the illusion that we can still dictate, cajole, and coerce everyone else in the world, the more of them will refuse to comply -- witness how our weaponization of SWIFT has accelerated the BRICS trade bloc. America needs to accept this reality, as Britain did after 1947. The longer we deny it, the harder our fall will be.
It didn't accelerate BRICS trade block that much and BRICS is not really a trade block even and it doesn't operate as a trade block.
The problem with Russia is that the country has pathetic growth rate while being middle income one and will have close to no growth in the next decade once again, and will be having declining population and less general relevance, Russia is far less relevant than ever in 300 years including 90s and losing its influence in all post Soviet states at the rapid speed with their governments running de-Russification programs and translating everything into national languages and trying to find more contacts in Europe, China and America. This war is happening specifically because Russia is really bad at diplomacy and economic influence and its sphere was just falling apart and nothing from the current regime can be sustained that much after Putin dies because he didn't build anything, it's purely personalistic regime.
The empire that is falling apart here is not America but Russia. It's losing its regional sphere of influence and can't sustain anything without direct violence which will not actually stop its declining role even if it succeeds now. When people write the post about falling American empire, it's the back-projection of the real situation with Russia at a far larger scale. Your entire story is to accept unstable, increasingly dysfunctional regime that lashed on the outside world in the largest European war after WW2 which will continue to lose influence and can sustain it only through direct military interventions. Do you think that it looks good for anyone involved?
Ah, you’re one of those anti-American conservatives.
Anyway, if you believe in spheres of influence, then surely you’d agree that the much more powerful sphere (the EU/West) should find it in its self-interest to dominate and limit the much weaker sphere (Russia), yes? So what are you objecting to?
Ukrainians are also Orthodox Christians. Most of the deaths by vatniks will be straight Orthodox Christians.
Important to note that it's not just negative partisanship, which could have been expressed by an ultra-hawk position. The dominant faction in the Republican party is fascist (Biden was being charitable in saying "semi") and they correctly see Putin as an ideological ally, and backer of Trump.
Europe needs to be prepared for the likelihood that the US won't merely get distracted, it will change sides.
I'd love to see examples of actual Republican policies that are "fascist", please.
In 12 hours, all you've got is a bunch of Republicans who weren't ready to jump on board with certifying one of the weirdest elections in American history (not in terms of result, but in terms of changing rules leading up to it) and the fact that Republicans are wary of age appropriateness of some books. (In truth though, does anyone here actually want to defend GenderQueer for 7th graders?)
Meanwhile, your own tribe is busy dismantling the entire history curriculum and replacing it with racist, ideological indoctrination sessions. (The 1619 project sure looks fascist to me.) Your tribe is creating mandatory loyalty oaths -- sorry, diversity and inclusion statements -- that must be signed to be hired at universities (Fascists do that too). You're upset about conservatives wanting to keep a few books out of school libraries while your own tribe is slicing the private parts off teenagers and calling it liberation? (The Bolsheviks celebrated deviancy too.) You closed down churches for most of 2020 and arrested pastors and priests who refused to comply (fascist again.) And today, many Democrats openly support financially harming churches and any other charities that dissent from the progressive LGBTQIA2SXYZ theology. (Hitler punished priests that dissented from his ideology too -- oh, yeah, have you forgotten that NAZI was actually of the Left... "national socialism"?)
Sorry, but this label of "fascist" is just projection. You need an enemy to blind yourself to the lunacy of your own tribe.
I will grant you that I got a little ticked. but my examples were legit. I notice you didn't argue with any of them other than my mention of Nazis. And considering I'm arguing with people who want to apply the term "fascist" to a major American political party, quibbling about the location of Hitler on a Nolan Chart is a little nit-picky. At the extreme ends of the vertical Nolan axis, the differences between right and left narrow considerably.
Fascism has a definition. It is a melding of the media, corporate and state power under an largely authoritarian regime. Applying that to a party that does not control the media, corporate, or political spheres (to say nothing of all 3) is completely absurd.
As for the "culture war"? When one side wants to pretend that men can get pregnant and the other simply wants to maintain the definitions that have existed since prior to the invention of agriculture... I think you ought to reconsider who the aggressor in the "culture war" actually is.
And just so you know, "European center-right" translates to mostly-progressive in America. Even Marine Le Pen isn't particularly right-wing by US standards on most issues. Only Victor Orban would really qualify as "conservative" in an American sense. I'm guessing you think he's a fascist too.
Attempting to overturn democratic elections and murder elected officials are fairly standard characteristics of fascism. HTH
Call up Steve Scalese and then get back to me.
And I said actual policies. You want to rant about riots, I'm happy to talk about the Summer of Floyd, but it won't get us anywhere.
Is the guy who shot Scalise tolerated or defended by any elected Democrat?
If you're comparing the Scalise shooting to Jan 6, then you should consider comparing the reaction of elected Democrats to the Scalise shooting (horror, condemnation, insistence that the shooter be prosecuted with the full force of the law) to that of elected Republicans to Jan 6 (often supporting it, complaining about the prison conditions of those arrested and convicted, etc).
No, he was not, and they deserve commendation for that. Of course, the media was busy refusing to talk about how the shooter was a crazed Democrat campaign volunteer. Meanwhile, when Paul Pelosi was attacked earlier this year, the media couldn't stop trying to make the attacker a MAGA Republican, despite the BLM flag in his front yard. Even you must admit that's a pretty weird double standard.
Regarding Jan 6, holding large numbers of people in prison, many in solitary, for over 2 years for what amounts to trespassing in a federal building in many cases is excessive. If you haven't actually looked at some of those cases, you should. If you want us to consider your claims of injustice, you need to be willing to fairly consider ours.
The Paul Pelosi attacker did not have a BLM flag is his front yard. His ex-girlfriend had one in hers;. She'd kicked him out about a year before and he was living elsewhere. What seems to be the case is that he's someone who was on the extreme left (he may have been Black Bloc, though membership of that is notoriously secretive, but certainly some sort of conspiratorial dangerous idiot bit of the left) and then moved to the conspiratorial extreme right (he was spouting Qanon nonsense online), which is what led him to attacking the Pelosis. There is definitely a group of people who are dangerous idiots who flock to conspiratorial nonsense, and drift between left and right because they are more into the conspiracies and attacking people than into the actual politics. 20 years ago, they'd have been 9/11 Truthers, now they are Qanon. This is why anti-vax has gone from being far left to far right in the last decade or so - it's the same people and they've carried it with them as they crossed over.
All I'd say is that any responsible political movement denounces these sorts of violent dangerous idiots and a mainstream movement that doesn't denounce them consistently worries me. The time it took for the Democrats to react properly to the Black Bloc nutters at the BLM protests was worrying, but they do seem to have got their act together on that and got back to making the proper distinction between peaceful protest and violent rioting. I'm hopeful that the Republicans can get past their current wobble and stand by that.
My read of Jan 6 is that there was a large, mostly peaceful, protest, that a substantial group, but still a relatively small minority, forced their way violently through the police lines and a number of the peaceful protestors then followed through into the Capitol. To the extent that peaceful protestors are being treated as equivalent to the violent attackers, that's not justice; they should be faced with, at most, a modest fine for walking through an open gateway into the building and leaving when asked to do so by the police.
The people who forced their way in committed a serious crime - they were attempting to violently overthrow the democratic government of the United States of America. That should face a felony charge and years of imprisonment.
But my understanding is that the main complaint is how people are being held in prison before trial, to which my answer is that the way that prisoners are held before trial is a gross injustice; they are innocent until proven guilty, should only be held in prison if they are a flight risk, and even then should be held in comfortable and safe conditions. That will cost more money, but we should be prepared to pay the price in taxes for justice. Moreover, the speed of trials in the US is a disgrace, and using imprisonment before trial as a mechanism to induce guilty pleas is, in my view, a breach of the constitutional rights to due process and to a speedy trial.
I'm not a prison abolitionist. Prisons - the concept of incarcerating people who have commited serious crimes - are capable of being an instrument of justice. The problem is that the US criminal justice and prison system are grossly unjust and that, as currently constituted, they are incapable of delivering justice. The fact that many Republicans only seem to have noticed this when people they find sympathetic are on the receiving end of the injustice system does not reflect well on those people. But nonetheless, if they are prepared to join movements for criminal justice and prison reform, then they should be welcome. There is more rejoicing in heaven at a convert and so on.
147 House Republicans voted to overturn the 2020 election. Was that a policy?. But, as you say, arguing about this won't get us anywhere.
From school libraries.
That is an important distinction.
It is amusing though that it was released in 1985 and the R's had no interest in it for 30 years. At that point, they had turned into the party of the uneducated, lost all their great thinkers and decided that it should be their secret plan for world domination and must therefore be protected from prying eyes.... (probably something in their about it becoming a TV series because the party had long since lost the ability to read too) \S
Been said before, but its hard to adjust to Godwin's Law seeming quaint these days. I do think you are right to point out this asymmetry. Appreciate everything you write.
FYI: I worked as a full-time volunteer as a member of the Oklahoma Medical Reserve Corps in the Tulsa Covid-19 POD which vaccinated 2,000 patients each day.
Noah, I think you're right that 'the United States can’t be counted on to be a permanent trump card against' Russia, but I don't think that necessarily means that 'If Europe’s great enemy is likely to be relentless, its great ally is likely to be fickle and inconstant.'
Possibly, but not necessarily. I'd bet on a Russian systemic collapse before an American one.
I find it somewhat amusing and also saddening that you talk about "negative partisanship" as though it's a bad thing, then immediately blame Republicans for it, thus reinforcing exactly that.
Tucker Carlson's behavior has of course been completely reprehensible (as always), but from what I saw, it was the left that started this divide and continued to widen it. From inventing a fake Russian scandal to try to discredit Trump, to claiming that all right-wing engagement on Twitter came from Russian bots, the left has also done plenty to damage the unity of the USA's response to Russia's aggression.
A solution to this sort of negative partisanship is not going to come from simply recognizing that it exists and then blaming the other side for it; that's just lampshading the issue while perpetuating it.
Excellent analysis Noah. I think you are spot on
Excellent analysis Noah. I think you are spot on
Great article!
Excellent article Noah! I’m would also be interested as to what role Turkey will play going forth. If I’m not mistaken they have the 2nd largest standing army in NATO yet culturally and politically have much more in common with the Russians, including their neo-Ottoman imperial expansion aspirations, and seem to be helping the Russians evade sanctions. There is much, much more they can do if Turkey really wanted to hurt the Russians. Are they going to continue playing both sides?
Yes, so long as Erdogan leads Turkey. Yes, Turkey could do more to hurt Russia, but why would that be in Erdogan’s interest to do so?