Walker: Recounts the IT obvious, but does not draw the conclusion that the very freedoms she enjoys were part of the problems she bemoans, and she has no apparent inkling of a solution for her critique.
Goodman: Not a word worth commenting on here.
Igo: Ditto.
Kennedy: Last clause is true.
Nichols: His question, Can democracies cope with success?, is quite wrongly conceived, and inappropriate under the circumstances.
Greenberg: "...For many people, this upheaval offered hope for the advent of a more equal and just society..."
This was a truly ridiculous false dream la la land hope.
But Greenberg does not say that.
He says: "right-wing nationalist regimes held fast to power, there seemed at least as great a chance that it would fatally undermine the liberal international order that had underwritten peace and prosperity for so long..."
He doesn't call out left wing regimes, nationalist or not.
Inboden: No comment here.
Blain: I just read her bio, and stopped there.
Joseph: No comment. American negro white race issues again. Dead dog loser issue re global Russia China issues.
Richardson: No comment.
Nash: No comment.
Kruse: No comment.
Kabaservice: He thinks elites failed to see the backlash in the West from globalization coming.
That is emphatically not true at all.
Plenty of people have known about it for decades, and tried various methods to forestall its manifestation and its effects along the way. It did not begin with eg The Global Trap, 1996, and tittitainment....The Western nation state, and the modern Western middle class were slated for obsolescence, for both economic and moral excuses, in the aftermath of WWI and especially WWII.
These folks generally did not, and do not, give a fuck about their country or about Western civilization as a concept over against globalization.
They don't care about their own children or their grandchildren, or their childrens' children to the seventh, or whatever, generation more than they care about all global people everywhere and all their fricking children everywhere.
Suri: I do not see 2010s as a pathway to any new beginning whatsoever. A generation that resists declining is not a model for enduring success either. The Roman republic had some prominent families who, generation after generation, and across noble family interconnections, built on strengths and challenges over long periods of time. We have nothing like that here, for all kinds of reasons.
Potter: No comment.
Wu: https://www.faculty.uci.edu/profile.cfm?faculty_id=6123
Bacevich: "...Although himself utterly devoid of principle, Trump presented himself as intent on repudiating all of these (Clinton's LIEO) things. His election thereby brought to the fore divisions related to class, race and ethnicity that had been latent or ignored..."
People continue to claim that Trump was and is devoid of principle. I, too, had believed so, prior to his election, but learned, to my surprise, that he does have a few firmly held, dogged, smell test revisionist principles regarding globalization, trade, and nationalism, that the LIEO Clintonesque American vital center has overridden since WWII, even since the Wilsonianism of WWI.
Hollinger: He has nothing more enlightening to say than to try to blame Clinton for the deregulatory cul de sac of the US of the 2010s. Hollinger represents the ideological bankruptcy of Western liberalism in spades.
He criticizes faux accounts, but he gives the really really big one here. The Boomer generation, Democrats during Clinton, is the culprit, not generations before, not after. He is a fricking Steven Brill, who blames mainly only Boomer lawyers, a bad fragment of a generation, for the whole thing!
"Rarely in the history of industrialized societies had a political leadership equipped with such magnificent opportunities squandered them so spectacularly, and thus betrayed the nation of which they were entrusted to be the stewards..." What utter nonsense. No one is in a better position than Hollinger to know how false this diatribe is.
Not that I sympathize with the Democrats he pillories. Almost no administration here has ever had much of an opportunity to do anything great. It has mostly been a droning tale of constitutionally engineered [plitical drift decade in decade out.
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR just got lucky, and they and their governments and administrations were poor materials in each case, for the jobs.
Hemmer: If you are a globalist liberal Democrat, why shouldn't foreigners of any color or orientation have a big say in your faux domestic politics, when it already looks like this shit:
Bookended on one end by Citizens United and on the other by a president impeached for inviting foreign interference in U.S. elections, the 2010s were the decade of democracy under siege. Red states instituted strict voter ID laws and purged their voter rolls, while the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Super PACs fueled dark-money politics. State-house Republicans stripped power from their rivals, and congressional Republicans broke every institutional norm in an attempt to thwart a popular Democratic president. And social media, which techno-optimists hailed as a force of democratization at the start of the decade, ended the 2010s as a dystopian hellscape crawling with wannabe Nazis and disinformation campaigns. It was also a decade of grassroots pro-democracy movements, from Occupy Wall Street to Moral Mondays to Black Lives Matter to the Women’s March to March for Our Lives, reminders that some Americans were resisting democratic decline.
Rakove: Interesting, thought provoking, and cute, but these are not consequences merely of Trump, but rather Rakovian possible worlds.
Hollinger: He has nothing more enlightening to say than to try to blame Clinton for the deregulatory cul de sac of the US of the 2010s. Hollinger represents the ideological bankruptcy of Western liberalism in spades.
He criticizes faux accounts, but he gives the really really big one here. The Boomer generation, Democrats during Clinton, is the culprit, not generations before, not after. He is a fricking Steven Brill, who blames mainly only Boomer lawyers, a bad fragment of a generation, for the whole thing!
"Rarely in the history of industrialized societies had a political leadership equipped with such magnificent opportunities squandered them so spectacularly, and thus betrayed the nation of which they were entrusted to be the stewards..." What utter nonsense. No one is in a better position than Hollinger to know how false this diatribe is.
Not that I sympathize with the Democrats he pillories. Almost no administration here has ever had much of an opportunity to do anything great. It has mostly been a droning tale of constitutionally engineered [plitical drift decade in decade out.
Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR just got lucky, and they and their governments and administrations were poor materials in each case, for the jobs.
Hemmer: If you are a globalist liberal Democrat, why shouldn't foreigners of any color or orientation have a big say in your faux domestic politics, when it already looks like this shit:
Bookended on one end by Citizens United and on the other by a president impeached for inviting foreign interference in U.S. elections, the 2010s were the decade of democracy under siege. Red states instituted strict voter ID laws and purged their voter rolls, while the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Super PACs fueled dark-money politics. State-house Republicans stripped power from their rivals, and congressional Republicans broke every institutional norm in an attempt to thwart a popular Democratic president. And social media, which techno-optimists hailed as a force of democratization at the start of the decade, ended the 2010s as a dystopian hellscape crawling with wannabe Nazis and disinformation campaigns. It was also a decade of grassroots pro-democracy movements, from Occupy Wall Street to Moral Mondays to Black Lives Matter to the Women’s March to March for Our Lives, reminders that some Americans were resisting democratic decline.
Rakove: Interesting, thought provoking, and cute, but these are not consequences merely of Trump, but rather Rakovian possible worlds.
No comments:
Post a Comment