This makes no sense to me.
Whatever one thinks of progressives, however you define them and whether you believe their ideals are eventually corrupted, what you can't deny is they are, at the very least, motivated to do what they believe to be right in order to enrich the lives of the greatest number of people.
I think you are giving too much credit to stated intent. I am not so much interested on why people say they do what they do, what i am interested in is what the actual outcomes are.
Way too many organizations have formed to solve a problem, only to serve the purpose of not solving the problem . Why? Because solving the problem actually puts them out of a job. I do not agree that taking at face value what a groups say their intent are is always true.
Id rather we just judge all groups by the outcomes achieved by their actions.
The same cannot be said of Trump and his cronies, they pursue power not for the betterment of the American people, or to make the world safe for democracy, or anything lofty or inspiring, but for power itself and what power gives them, and for Trump 2.0 it's given him the power to destroy the American state, because it has to be destroyed in order to be repurposed to do his bidding.
Now that's funny... I might in fact agree with the conclusions you reach here about Trump and his cronies, but i want us to both recognize in real time that you are applying 2 separate standards here: With the progressive, you believe what they say they want for humanity/ country/ the people. even if the evidence of their actions fail to accomplish their stated goal. In other words, you take them at their word. Yet with Trump and his cronies, you don't take them at their word, rather you assume a nefarious intent, regardless of what the outcomes are.
By the way, im not suggested you are wrong about Trump and his cronies. Just simply that you are applying different standards and thats patently unfair.
I for one just conclude both Trump and his cronies and the Progressives all want power for the same reason everyone wants power. So they can matter and influence in the interest of what they deem best.
Same standard.
USAID is a soft power tool of the old state, its destruction may on the surface damage the soft power you referred to, but it has to go, because it is an encumbrance, a remnant of the old state, a useful tool yes, of the old order, but it's also a trap, an obligation to do things as they've always been done, there's no room for it in the new reality, it has to go.
I think you have mixed 2 different posts of mine together. Anyway, so does this mean you are in agreement with Trump and his cronies that US AID has to go? And if so, what would you say are the nefarious reasons for getting rid of it?
Trump is a rambling, shambolic man with no clear ideology, but he understands power, if nothing else. There's a reason he loves authoritarians, he's somewhat envious of North Korea and the power it bestows on the great leader. So that's where he's heading, not to create a monolithic state, but a shrunken state, but one that still retains enormous financial and military muscle to do his bidding
Well, this is a prediction. We'd have to come back in 3 years to see how accurate it turns out. Just to be clear, your argument is that Trump crushed US AID because he wants a less externally involved US foreign policy so he can create a powerful, rich independent state where he becomes the 'dear leader'
Does that accurately describe what you think?
Trump deliberately sows chaos with his daily Executive Orders because he's on a mission to rewire America, at ever level, and this tsunami of Trumpian edicts come way too fast for his opponents to even comprehend let alone counter. It doesn't matter that so much of it is garbage, or that every day he makes up contentious bullshit on the hoof that frightens and appals people across the globe, because while everyone is running around like headless chickens trying to keep up, folk far clever than Trump are taking a wrecking ball to everything we thought America stands for.
We clearly have come to very different conclusions about what he is doing. I agree he is on a mission to rewire America. I dont think he is sewing chaos. He just has an agenda. One he openly and plainly stated by the way. And he is on a mission trying to accomplish that agenda.
In so far as their is any chaos, it simply comes from the establishment orthodoxy reeling from hos audacious attempts to accomplish the goals he sst out.
On a side note, whether he is successful or not partly will depend on speed. Hence why he needs to move quickly and push through as many projects as possible within the first 2 years ( before he becomes a lame duck) and even more important within the first 100 days when he has the most momentum.
You can, as you have, assume nefarious intent, but others as i can see how this too can simply be a difference in opinion on how to beat serve America's interest and everything it stands for.
