What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

The EO posted makes no reference to "continuous progress".

"[A] clear examination of how the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles throughout its history"

But I would strongly disagree that is America's "foundation".  That was the failure of the 1619 Project - to view the foundation of America solely through the lens of slavery.

The colonies were a British commercial enterprise.  At the core was the sugar island of Barbados; the American colonies were secondary.  The primacy of the sugar islands was such that even by 1763, France was more than willing to hand over all of New France just to get Martinique back. The economic foundation of the American colonies and the source of their viability as settlements was their facilitative role in the sugar trade, the plantation production from the American colonies themselves, and land speculation.  The former two were based on massive levels of slave labor, the latter on the brutalization and exploitation of the native population to secure regular supplies of cheap frontier land.

The failure of the 1619 Project was the failure to anticipate how it would be distorted by critics. The 1619 project was never intended to be One Narrative to Rule Them All, mono-explanation of the colonial American experience.  On the contrary, it was (and is) and a counter to such master narratives, an explicit critique of what it describes as a "founding mythology."

Even putting aside the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence - America was founded on a heritage of religious freedom, self-government and co-operation with the indigenous peoples.

America was not founded on a heritage of religious freedom; Anne Hutchinson, who died in exile for failure to conform, would be suprised to hear that.  Most of the New England colonies were founded by religious dissenters and oddballs, and the consequence of different factions settling in different locations, plus additional settlements from persecuted factions, ultimately led to such uncontrolled diversity that religious freedom became a logical endpoint.  But not by design. 

English-speaking America certainly was not founded on co-operation with natives, unless one defines co-operation to encompass duplicity, exploitation and shocking levels of violence.

As for self-government, that was a distinctive attribute of the colonial experience, at least in some places at some times.  But even that was not by design but the byproduct of benign neglect from a Britain which (other than James II) lacked the inclination and state capacity to impose viceregal rule on the Americas.

[Barrister]

Even putting aside the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence - America was founded on a heritage of religious freedom, self-government and co-operation with the indigenous peoples.

Slaves didn't even have bodily autonomy let alone self-government. I'm not sure how America could claim a heritage at that point or later about co-operation with indigenous peopless. I'm less certain on religion though I think for quite sometime America had a strong anti-Catholic bent.

Looking at it, I should have used the phrase "also founded".

I do not wish to ignore or minimize the history of slavery in the US, and everything you say is true wrt slaves.

But the founding colonies were largely self-governing, they were founded largely on principles of religious freedom (that's the whole story of the Mayflower and the pilgrims), and while the schoolyard story of the first Thanksgiving is mostly a fable the early colonies were certainly not founded on conquest of indigenous people but on mutual self-respect and trade.

[Oexmelin]

Even putting aside the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence - America was founded on a heritage of religious freedom, self-government and co-operation with the indigenous peoples.

None of that is true.

This is what Americans what it do be - and it's admirable, and these are worthwhile goals. And they may even stem from historical precedents. But Puritans weren't interested in religious freedom, nor were the founders of Virginia. Tell that to the Quakers who were hanged, and the antinomians who were hunted down. They were not interested in self-government, but the government by their betters. Founding Fathers turned to independance as their requests for being represented in some way in an imperial government got denied. There was no cooperation with Indigenous peoples - or, at least, Algonquins and Yamassee, and Cherokees, and the Powathan confederacy, whom the settlers tried to extract tribute from, had first taste of what American cooperation truly meant.

Amongst those people, and amist those events, there were people who loved their family, their neighbors; who somehow fashioned new ideas about the dignity of men, the nature of liberty; who grudgingly compromised about speech, vote, happiness.

If you want to tell an admirable story, tell the story of how, out of that blood, and bullshit, and exploitation, and misery, our of ordinary lives and exceptional commitment, emerged a blueprint that can still inspire today, both in what it can achieve, and in what ideals it has been able to generate.

[Barrister]

Even putting aside the flowery language of the Declaration of Independence - America was founded on a heritage of religious freedom, self-government and co-operation with the indigenous peoples.

None of that is true.

This is what Americans what it do be - and it's admirable, and these are worthwhile goals. And they may even stem from historical precedents. But Puritans weren't interested in religious freedom, nor were the founders of Virginia. Tell that to the Quakers who were hanged, and the antinomians who were hunted down. They were not interested in self-government, but the government by their betters. Founding Fathers turned to independance as their requests for being represented in some way in an imperial government got denied. There was no cooperation with Indigenous peoples - or, at least, Algonquins and Yamassee, and Cherokees, and the Powathan confederacy, whom the settlers tried to extract tribute from, had first taste of what American cooperation truly meant.

Amongst those people, and amist those events, there were people who loved their family, their neighbors; who somehow fashioned new ideas about the dignity of men, the nature of liberty; who grudgingly compromised about speech, vote, happiness.

If you want to tell an admirable story, tell the story of how, out of that blood, and bullshit, and exploitation, and misery, our of ordinary lives and exceptional commitment, emerged a blueprint that can still inspire today, both in what it can achieve, and in what ideals it has been able to generate.

Again, I chose my language carefully.

I said "heritage of".

Many people fled England to pursue religious freedom.  Sure, they did not intent to extent that freedom to others in the new colonies they founded, but it was "baked into the cake".

The new colonies were largely self-governing.  Sure, it was because England couldn't really be bothered to micro-manage the colonies, but it became part of the colonial experience.

Indigenous people is where I'm perhaps least equipped - but again the experience of the colonies was not like Spanish conquistadors who came in guns a-blazing.  There was a tradition of grudging mutual respect and trade.

I'm a proud Canadian, and in my way a loyalist (my ancestors came to Canada well after the American revolution, on both the British and Ukrainian sides).  There is PLENTY to criticize in American history.  Slavery is the really obvious starting point, US treatment of indigenous peoples certainly merits a lot of mentions.  It's always interesting to me how indigenous people largely fought with the Crown, and against the colonists, in the War of Independence, and even a century later you had bands coming north of the border to settle.

I think you and I are not that far apart, that America (and the West as a whole really) has been a remarkable story of establishing societies built on human rights and human dignity from a origin that was far from perfect.  But there are elements of that from early on in history - be it the Magna Carta and English common law, the colonial/frontier history, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation - you name it.

[grumbler]

But I would strongly disagree that is America's "foundation".  That was the failure of the 1619 Project - to view the foundation of America solely through the lens of slavery.

The 1619 project "failed" because it was stolen and used by the same right-wing social warriors who tried (and mostly succeeded) to redefine "woke" into a active evil.  None of them (and, I'll bet, you) have ever looked closely at the 1619 Project and tried to understand what it was designed to do.

The 1619 Project was not an attempt to create a history that would "view the foundation of America solely through the lens of slavery."  It was an attempt to say "what would the early history of the United States look like to the victims?"  It was an attempt to provide the resources teachers would need if they DID want to look at American History through the lens of racism and slavery. There are tons of programs like it available to teachers. 

The 1619 Project was just a victim of timing, coming along when conservatives felt a need to find a whipping horse because "critical race theory" (another whipping horse) hadn't yet emerged into the narrow field of view of the conservatives.

[Barrister]

But I would strongly disagree that is America's "foundation".  That was the failure of the 1619 Project - to view the foundation of America solely through the lens of slavery.

The 1619 project "failed" because it was stolen and used by the same right-wing social warriors who tried (and mostly succeeded) to redefine "woke" into a active evil.  None of them (and, I'll bet, you) have ever looked closely at the 1619 Project and tried to understand what it was designed to do.

The 1619 Project was not an attempt to create a history that would "view the foundation of America solely through the lens of slavery."  It was an attempt to say "what would the early history of the United States look like to the victims?"  It was an attempt to provide the resources teachers would need if they DID want to look at American History through the lens of racism and slavery. There are tons of programs like it available to teachers. 

The 1619 Project was just a victim of timing, coming along when conservatives felt a need to find a whipping horse because "critical race theory" (another whipping horse) hadn't yet emerged into the narrow field of view of the conservatives.

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html

It's in the very name - the idea was to put slavery as the very foundation of US History.

As such I think you're being overly charitable to it's aims and goals.

It's amazing how quickly language can change.  You hardly hear about CRT or intersextionality right now, when they were all the rage a few years ago.  Again I disagree with you - I think CRT and 1619 project came into the view of conservatives around the same time - although now both have been supplanted by "DEI".

Critical race theory and intersectionality have some useful insights, much as 1619 did.  Where they fail is by trying to put those insights and lessons as the core or centre of how we view history and modern day society.

[Valmy]

The AOC wing is the same as Bernie Sanders and while they may appeal to the young populist, they repulse anyone with an education in economics/finance/business, people from the center, people whom the Democrats absolutely need.

The advantage of the AOC wing is that they are more savvy to how media and politics currently work. The old fossils seem to be stuck in the 1980s. Now I am currently as anti-Joe Rogan as anybody, despite being a longtime fan of his thanks to Newsradio and used to enjoy his podcast, but when Kamala Harris decided (or was advised) that some in person rallies were better uses of her time than going on his show I was worried. That in itself might not be the one thing that lost the election but it showed a...lack of understanding of how to reach the most voters particularly critical swing voters in a modern election. You absolutely hit the podcast circuit, particularly those with millions of viewers.

As for being concerned populism will drive off moderate voters...um tons of moderate swing voters went Donald Trump's way. Appealing to the mythological center that wants old school 1990s liberalism is a proven loser that I can see. If it wasn't Trump wouldn't have won twice.

Besides AOC has proven herself to be very reasonable in supporting more moderate policies when practical. Describing her as some kind of Matt Gaetz of the left isn't accurate.

[Barrister]

The advantage of the AOC wing is that they are more savvy to how media and politics currently work. The old fossils seem to be stuck in the 1980s. Now I am currently as anti-Joe Rogan as anybody, despite being a longtime fan of his thanks to Newsradio and used to enjoy his podcast, but when Kamala Harris decided (or was advised) that some in person rallies were better uses of her time than going on his show I was worried. That in itself might not be the one thing that lost the election but it showed a...lack of understanding of how to reach the most voters particularly critical swing voters in a modern election. You absolutely hit the podcast circuit, particularly those with millions of viewers.

I read somewhere that Harris was really just jerked around by Rogan, with the day Trump did his interview being one that the Harris campaign early on was told was unavailable.

[Valmy]

I read somewhere that Harris was really just jerked around by Rogan, with the day Trump did his interview being one that the Harris campaign early on was told was unavailable.

Joe Rogan is a liar? Well fuck me.

Even in my "I hate Joe Rogan" phase I still give him to much credit.

[garbon]

I do not wish to ignore or minimize the history of slavery in the US, and everything you say is true wrt slaves.

Then don't?

But the founding colonies were largely self-governing

Only a small elite group in the population were 'self-governing', I'm not sure what's so laudable about that.

they were founded largely on principles of religious freedom (that's the whole story of the Mayflower and the pilgrims)

But that's not what they were doing. And also you mention story but then appear to forget, that's just what it is - a story. It is so much more complex than they just wanted to spread religious freedom and all was lovely.

and while the schoolyard story of the first Thanksgiving is mostly a fable the early colonies were certainly not founded on conquest of indigenous people but on mutual self-respect and trade.

Wow. I would venture that perhaps this is why people tend to shy away from recognising Jamestown as the founding of the American colonies as it tends to easily shatter such a myth.

[viper37]

The primacy of the sugar islands was such that even by 1763, France was more than willing to hand over all of New France just to get Martinique back

[The Minsky Moment]

As for being concerned populism will drive off moderate voters...um tons of moderate swing voters went Donald Trump's way. Appealing to the mythological center that wants old school 1990s liberalism is a proven loser that I can see. If it wasn't Trump wouldn't have won twice.

Besides AOC has proven herself to be very reasonable in supporting more moderate policies when practical. Describing her as some kind of Matt Gaetz of the left isn't accurate.

Right - AOC is capable person lacking in glaring moral turpitude; there just isn't an equivalence in the Democratic party of the maga loony toons in the GOP.

With neoliberalism a dead political force, the Trumpist version of "business-friendly" policy is the late Yelstin/early Putin era grand bargain between ruling party and oligarchs.  The ruling party gets slanted or tamed media coverage and an unlimited political slush fund.  The oligarchs get to write their own rules and nominate their own regulators.  Both facilitate each others' corruption - which is normalized by the lie of "everyone does it" - a claim that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The oligarchs don't care much if trade policy gets screwed up; in a balkanized economic world they have competitive advantage gaming the systems and moving around operations.  The losers are people like farmers and small/mid-sized businesses stuck with more costly inputs and diminished export possibilities.

My head lies with the Hakim Jefferies pragmatic-moderate wing of the Democrats but politically the winds are still blowing in a populist direction. No one is going to reconstitute the Davospolitik of the past political generation. There will be a movement to smash the dominance of the tech oligarchs.  Vance knows it and wants to co-opt it, but Trump is going the other way.

[Syt]

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-china-canada-mexico-fentanyl-e526616cdcb7fc596ed999cb89ee2265

White House says Trump tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China will come Saturday. No word on exemptions

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump will put in place 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on goods from China effective on Saturday, the White House said, but it provided no word on whether there would be any exemptions to the measures that could result in swift price increases to U.S. consumers.

Trump had been threatening the tariffs to ensure greater cooperation from the countries on stopping illegal immigration and the smuggling of chemicals used for fentanyl, but he has also pledged to use tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing and raise revenues for the federal government.

"Starting tomorrow, those tariffs will be in place," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. "These are promises made and promises kept by the president."

The tariffs carry both political and economic risks for Trump, who is just two weeks into his second term. Many voters backed the Republican on the promise that he could tamp down inflation, but the possibility of tariffs could trigger higher prices and potentially disrupt the energy, auto, lumber and agricultural sectors.

Trump had said he was weighing issuing an exemption for Canadian and Mexican oil imports, but Leavitt said she had no information to share on the president's decision on any potential carveouts.

The United States imported almost 4.6 million barrels of oil daily from Canada in October and 563,000 barrels from Mexico, according to the Energy Information Administration. U.S. daily production during that month averaged nearly 13.5 million barrels a day.


Trump has previously stated a 10% tariff on Chinese imports would be on top of other import taxes charged on products from the country.

Shortly after Leavitt spoke, the S&P 500 stock index sold off and largely erased its gains on the day.

Both Canada and Mexico have said they've prepared the option of retaliatory tariffs to be used if necessary, which in turn could trigger a wider trade conflict that economic analyses say could hurt growth and further accelerate inflation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Friday that Canada is ready is a respond if Trump goes ahead with the tariffs, but he did not give details.

"We're ready with a response, a purposeful, forceful but reasonable, immediate response," he said. "It's not what we want, but if he moves forward, we will also act."

Trudeau said tariffs would have "disastrous consequences" for the U.S, putting American jobs at risk and causing prices to rise. Trudeau reiterated that less than 1% of the fentanyl and illegal crossings into the U.S. come from Canada.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday that Mexico has maintained a dialogue with Trump's team since before he returned to the White House, but she emphasized that Mexico has a "Plan A, Plan B, Plan C for what the United States government decides."

"Now it is very important that the Mexican people know that we are always going to defend the dignity of our people, we are always going to defend the respect of our sovereignty and a dialogue between equals, as we have always said, without subordination," Sheinbaum said.

A study this month by Warwick McKibbin and Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics concluded that the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and 10% tariffs on China "would damage all the economies involved, including the US.''

"For Mexico,'' the study said, "a 25% tariff would be catastrophic. Moreover, the economic decline caused by the tariff could increase the incentives for Mexican immigrants to cross the border illegally into the US — directly contradicting another Trump administration priority.''

[Valmy]

The primacy of the sugar islands was such that even by 1763, France was more than willing to hand over all of New France just to get Martinique back

Rien de personnel, c'est les affaires.

[viper37]

Many people fled England to pursue religious freedom.  Sure, they did not intent to extent that freedom to others in the new colonies they founded, but it was "baked into the cake".

Let's say there is, in our contemporary times, a revolution taking place in Iran, after multiple military conflicts with Israel.  The leaders of the country flee to Afghanistan to pursue religious freedom.  The top echelons of the government and some of those who agree with their visions are fleeing, and are allowed to leave peacefully, within some parameters defined by the new government.

They will be merging with the new government of Afghanistan to recreate an Islamic Republic.

Would you agree they are seeking to recreate an idyllic society based on religious freedom?