A beautifully argued piece. One objection though. By stating that NATO expansion provoked Russia into war in Georgia and Ukraine, you employ the Mearsheimer framing in what is otherwise a Hegelian argument. Hegel's states have agency, they make choices. Georgia and Ukraine also have agency, including the agency to not want to remain inside Russia's sphere of influence. And so does Russia - it could refrain from going to war to assert dominion over its neighbours.
The thing about Hegel is that you can apply his thought to just about anything. Thesis: Bread (soft, pale, inert); Antithesis: Heat (destructive, burning, transformative); Synthesis: Toast (a “higher” unity—crispy, browned)! But sure it's a fun device to make your point and there are deeper problems with your argument.
In particular, you make a lot of large claims, particularly with respect to economic policy, that are not substantiated by the evidence.
1. "China’s entrance into the WTO caused a massive loss of factory jobs in the United States and Western Europe." I'm guessing that you're referring to the Autor et al research, and that you haven't read the paper. The estimated effects was job loss that affected about 1.7% of the US workforce. Should the US have done a better job of managing those losses and helping out those affected? Absolutely. Does it make sense to protect strategic industries and friend-shore manufacturing. Yes again. But this is not a wholesale repudiation of all free trade. Nor are the policy remedies obvious. Need I remind you that a year after Trump imposed his tariffs, while the rest of the economy has continued to add jobs at a surprisingly high clip, manufacturing employment has declined.
2. "Free trade was a chimera. The free movement of capital had contributed to the hollowing out of industry in the West." Wrong again. Gains from free trade are sizable and real. If you want an easily digestible summary of the research, read Free Trade Under Fire by Douglass Irwin. For now, I'll just leave a few citations.
I don't deny that a lot of people believe these statements and that it is driving policy, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bad policy has serious long term effects. Look at Argentina. If you're going to make sweeping statements about the way the economy and the world order works, it seems like the least you can do is learn statistics and familiarize yourself with the actual statistics. But of course it's so much easier to fall back to a lazy appeal to authority and quote Hegel instead.
I agree that chalking this asshole up to an aberration is going to be a cheap, trendy liberal comfort when this is all over (assuming we survive). What I already fear is the kumbaya ~ "It's time to heal, reach across the aisle, and listen to each other again" bullshit. We're already hearing murmurings of this, and we still have 3 years left of this stuff. As for my plan, I will remember EVERY person that wore a red hat, every fascist/bigot with a MAGA sign in their lawn, every single adult that defended this stain on civilization... forever. I overuse this quote, but as Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." I will die on the following hill: the combination of democracy AND near-absolute free speech will continue to lead to this sort of fascist bullshit if we do not consider it a civic duty to correct assholes in the court of public opinion. It is not time to be polite. Humiliate, shame, point fingers, don't forgive. These people are OK with neo-Nazism for God's sake, and they're making a mockery of all that is decent. They are the reason we can't have nice things. Trump isn't the problem, it's his enablers. And if we think they won't pull the exact same shit again, if they get no blowback for this round, we're all fucked. And we'd be just as culpable as they are for tolerating this nonsense.
Here is what I wrote in comments to Damon Linker's piece about John's thesis (and I still think it is true):
To equate Trump with Alexander or Napoleon is absurd. For all their flaws and overreach, they were also real leaders of men who had substantive achievements. Trump is a buffoon who has no strengths beyond a reality show hustler's shamelessness (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/the-return-of-donald-trump-a-tragedy). The right comps for Trump are more figures like Nero, Caligula, and the George the Third of Hamilton rather than Alexander or Napoleon.
There is another factor to consider, and that is impact that AI will have on our future. The question relevant to Trump is who were the people with great political power who were fumbling around at the time of the invention of the printing press, onset of the industrial revolution and beginnings of instant communication (telegraph and telephone) and what impact did they have on the future?
A beautifully argued piece. One objection though. By stating that NATO expansion provoked Russia into war in Georgia and Ukraine, you employ the Mearsheimer framing in what is otherwise a Hegelian argument. Hegel's states have agency, they make choices. Georgia and Ukraine also have agency, including the agency to not want to remain inside Russia's sphere of influence. And so does Russia - it could refrain from going to war to assert dominion over its neighbours.
The thing about Hegel is that you can apply his thought to just about anything. Thesis: Bread (soft, pale, inert); Antithesis: Heat (destructive, burning, transformative); Synthesis: Toast (a “higher” unity—crispy, browned)! But sure it's a fun device to make your point and there are deeper problems with your argument.
In particular, you make a lot of large claims, particularly with respect to economic policy, that are not substantiated by the evidence.
1. "China’s entrance into the WTO caused a massive loss of factory jobs in the United States and Western Europe." I'm guessing that you're referring to the Autor et al research, and that you haven't read the paper. The estimated effects was job loss that affected about 1.7% of the US workforce. Should the US have done a better job of managing those losses and helping out those affected? Absolutely. Does it make sense to protect strategic industries and friend-shore manufacturing. Yes again. But this is not a wholesale repudiation of all free trade. Nor are the policy remedies obvious. Need I remind you that a year after Trump imposed his tariffs, while the rest of the economy has continued to add jobs at a surprisingly high clip, manufacturing employment has declined.
2. "Free trade was a chimera. The free movement of capital had contributed to the hollowing out of industry in the West." Wrong again. Gains from free trade are sizable and real. If you want an easily digestible summary of the research, read Free Trade Under Fire by Douglass Irwin. For now, I'll just leave a few citations.
- https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w24407/w24407.pdf
- https://www.ericksager.com/uploads/3/8/0/3/3803061/price_effects_trade_latest.pdf
- https://alevchenko.com/BLPT.pdf
I don't deny that a lot of people believe these statements and that it is driving policy, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Bad policy has serious long term effects. Look at Argentina. If you're going to make sweeping statements about the way the economy and the world order works, it seems like the least you can do is learn statistics and familiarize yourself with the actual statistics. But of course it's so much easier to fall back to a lazy appeal to authority and quote Hegel instead.
I agree that chalking this asshole up to an aberration is going to be a cheap, trendy liberal comfort when this is all over (assuming we survive). What I already fear is the kumbaya ~ "It's time to heal, reach across the aisle, and listen to each other again" bullshit. We're already hearing murmurings of this, and we still have 3 years left of this stuff. As for my plan, I will remember EVERY person that wore a red hat, every fascist/bigot with a MAGA sign in their lawn, every single adult that defended this stain on civilization... forever. I overuse this quote, but as Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." I will die on the following hill: the combination of democracy AND near-absolute free speech will continue to lead to this sort of fascist bullshit if we do not consider it a civic duty to correct assholes in the court of public opinion. It is not time to be polite. Humiliate, shame, point fingers, don't forgive. These people are OK with neo-Nazism for God's sake, and they're making a mockery of all that is decent. They are the reason we can't have nice things. Trump isn't the problem, it's his enablers. And if we think they won't pull the exact same shit again, if they get no blowback for this round, we're all fucked. And we'd be just as culpable as they are for tolerating this nonsense.
Here is what I wrote in comments to Damon Linker's piece about John's thesis (and I still think it is true):
To equate Trump with Alexander or Napoleon is absurd. For all their flaws and overreach, they were also real leaders of men who had substantive achievements. Trump is a buffoon who has no strengths beyond a reality show hustler's shamelessness (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/the-return-of-donald-trump-a-tragedy). The right comps for Trump are more figures like Nero, Caligula, and the George the Third of Hamilton rather than Alexander or Napoleon.
There is another factor to consider, and that is impact that AI will have on our future. The question relevant to Trump is who were the people with great political power who were fumbling around at the time of the invention of the printing press, onset of the industrial revolution and beginnings of instant communication (telegraph and telephone) and what impact did they have on the future?
A brilliant article. If only Democrats are able to grasp it. Their scolding hubris assures they cannot. A pity, a genuine pity.