The Trump Presidency

[Hawk]

Common courtesy and respect runs a little deeper than vanity.

That’s a nice utopian ideal, but we’re in Atwood territory.

[Hawk]

there have been historical periods where the reigning hegemonic power has abdicated...the outcomes have tended to be disastrous for all parties...if you want to read up on the thinking in this field Charles Kindleberger is a good place to start

The last true hegemon prior to the United States was Great Britain and their losing of status was delivered by Herr Hitler.

[57Brave]

LOLGOP
‏ @LOLGOP
2h2 hours ago

Putin looted his people to make himself the richest person on Earth.

He kills his critics and enemies.

And he uses racism, sexism & homophobia to rally supporters to his hollow con of an agenda.

In short, he’s everything Trump could ever hope to be.

[nsacpi]

The last true hegemon prior to the United States was Great Britain and their losing of status was delivered by Herr Hitler.

actually no...by the interwar period Great Britain no longer had the capacity to provide the kind of stabilizing services required of a hegemon (one of which is acting as lender of last resort in economic crises)...this accounts for some of the severity of the Great Depression and general economic instability of the interwar period

[Hawk]

actually no...by the interwar period Great Britain no longer had the capacity to provide the kind of stabilizing services required of a hegemon (one of which is acting as lender of last resort in economic crises)...this accounts for some of the severity of the Great Depression and general economic instability of the interwar period

A hegemon's utility goes far beyond financial wherewithal though.

Anyways, what exactly are you suggesting? That the United States acceded to the hegemony prior to WWII? That the British hegemony was fatally wounded during the Great Depression?

My contention is that the British hegemony ended in 1939, for all practical purposes.

[nsacpi]

A hegemon's utility goes far beyond financial wherewithal though.

Anyways, what exactly are you suggesting? That the United States acceded to the hegemony prior to WWII? That the British hegemony was fatally wounded during the Great Depression?

My contention is that the British hegemony ended in 1939, for all practical purposes.

no...we might have had the capability to act as one but declined to do so...the inter war period was so volatile in part because the country that had been hegemon no longer had the capability to act as one and the country with the capability was not ready to act as one...of course there were other factors...an angry aggrieved Germany turning to Hitler

[Hawk]

I don't think we had the capability, the national unity, or the international respect.

(until after WWII)

The money question is: would the hegemonic transition (from Great Britain to the United States) have naturally occured in the absence of a second World War?

[nsacpi]

there are lots of chaotic periods of history when the chaos is partly due to a lack of a hegemon

[nsacpi]

I don't think we had the capability, the national unity, or the international respect.

(until after WWII)

The money question is: would the hegemonic transition (from Great Britain to the United States) have naturally occured in the absence of a second World War?

also we were not psychologically ready...isolationism and all that...i think WWII accelerated a transition that would have happened anyhow

[Hawk]

Anyways, this is digressing a bit. I am curious as to what other hegemons/disasters you were (are) talking about (in reference to 'abdicating'). Not being familiar with Kindleberger in that light.

[Hawk]

also we were not psychologically ready...isolationism and all that...i think WWII accelerated a transition that would have happened anyhow

I think Germany could just as easily have stepped into that void. Maybe even the better choice. Talking purely in terms of power structures, economic largesse, and regional import.

[nsacpi]

I think Germany could just as easily have stepped into that void. Maybe even the better choice. Talking purely in terms of power structures, economic largesse, and regional import.

Germany seemed invincible militarily for a while. But I don't think they ever had the overall heft needed to play hegemon. They might have acquired it if everything had gone right for them.

[nsacpi]

Anyways, this is digressing a bit. I am curious as to what other hegemons/disasters you were (are) talking about (in reference to 'abdicating'). Not being familiar with Kindleberger in that light.

Kindleberger's research in this field concerned the interwar economic period. His book, The World in Depression 1929-39, is what led other scholars to create the field now known as hegemonic stability theory. You won't find the word hegemon in his book, but it is what the field has come to be called.

During the 16th and 17 centuries, some fairly small countries--Portugal and Holland--played the role within Europe.

And there have been some larger empires that have played the role, but in a different way given the more primitive financial and trading systems of their times. As Rome declined for example even before its fall things became more chaotic and turbulent on the periphery of the empire.

China over its long history has had many ups and downs. Certainly it played the role of hegemon relative to its neighbors and periods of decline and decay were at times extremely turbulent. In fact, a recurring theme among Chinese scholars is the fear of luan (or chaos). The ordinary people fear it and the elites fear it. And it makes for a certain amount of conservatism (not in the American political sense) in Chinese society.

[Runnin]

That’s a nice utopian ideal, but we’re in Atwood territory.

Well aware of it, but any leader can get more done with some basic people skills. Trump didn't just dis world leaders with the sudden tariff idea, he dissed his own people. He needs those people desperately. He has no one else.

[Runnin]

Trump's praise and envy of Xi's power grab shows he has no respect for democracy and is exactly who we all said he was, a dictator wannabe.

[Hawk]

Well aware of it, but any leader can get more done with some basic people skills. Trump didn't just dis world leaders with the sudden tariff idea, he dissed his own people. He needs those people desperately. He has no one else.

First of all, I feel like we're going in circles here (either that, or you are just choosing not to pay attention).

This is not a "sudden tariff idea" - this was an explicit campaign pledge.

See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.da184ac03a09
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...201-story.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0WQ0WG

That Reuters report is from March 2016. Two years ago.

Now, how is this policy "dissing" the American people?

[Hawk]

Trump's praise and envy of Xi's power grab shows he has no respect for democracy and is exactly who we all said he was, a dictator wannabe.

LOL.

I don't recall you getting your dander up when Obama said he really was from Kenya in October.

[Runnin]

First of all, I feel like we're going in circles here (either that, or you are just choosing not to pay attention).

This is not a "sudden tariff idea" - this was an explicit campaign pledge.

See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.da184ac03a09
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...201-story.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN0WQ0WG

That Reuters report is from March 2016. Two years ago.

Now, how is this policy "dissing" the American people?

I'm afraid you're the one not paying attention. He made a lot of pledges during the campaign. He dissed his people in the WH and the REPs by not giving them warning he was going to suddenly do this now and by not letting them present the policy change in a normal way so that the stock market wouldn't go haywire and the headlines wouldn't be filled with the phrase "trade war". He disrespected his staff by taking them out of the process and leaving them with the mess. Do you think they appreciate having to answer questions from the press about something they knew nothing about?

[Runnin]

LOL.

I don't recall you getting your dander up when Obama said he really was from Kenya in October.

You believed that?

Even a tribesman from Kenya has more representative govt in him than Trump.

[Jaw]

I think Germany could just as easily have stepped into that void. Maybe even the better choice. Talking purely in terms of power structures, economic largesse, and regional import.

The biggest obstacle for Germany to have become a hegemonic power was the same thing that caused WW 1, they were surrounded by potentially powerful enemies. The need to defend every border in that amount of strength comes with a cost that virtually precludes any chance of investing in the naval forces necessary to project power in the way that GB and the US have managed to do. Russia would have been a much better candidate than Germany if they had ever managed to become organized. Neither really had the necessary empirical assets to exploit financially to make that happen.

China is currently in the midst of a naval buildup greater than anything we have seen since WW 2, and will likely succeed Pax Americana within a couple of decades if they decide to. The problem with Pax Americana is that we have taken on all of the responsibilities of an empire, but have not exploited those empirical assets to a great enough extent to fund the empire (or even their own defense). China seems unlikely to make the same mistake.