Making Imperialism Great Again
Greenland, Canada, and Panama. Oh my.

I have been thinking about all of Trump’s rhetoric about Greenland, Canada, and Panama (plus the Gulf of Mexico), for a few days now, and still am not sure what the best place to start is. On the one hand, it is deja vu all over again, as we are now in the cycle wherein Trump says outrageous things, and social media and cable news all erupt in a deluge of attention.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
So, on the one hand, should one just ignore it? I mean, we all know that the US is not going to invade Greenland or Panama and that we are not going to annex Canada.
But on the other hand, the words of the president-elect matter. It matters that the US President is using rhetoric that sounds very much like Putin. Indeed, as Ian Bremmer noted on LinkedIn, Trump’s Truth Social post about Panama uses the same logic that Putin has used for Ukraine.
It is disconcerting to have the President of the United States talking like this, even if it is not surprising.
It also has the effect of getting his co-partisans to buy in. As Aaron Ruper correctly noted:
Meanwhile, Republicans are already referring to Canada as a “territory” and have drafted legislation to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” If nothing else, they’re making clear there’s nothing their Dear Leader could say or do that they won’t enthusiastically support.
The whole thing is being discussed as a topic worth consideration on FNC. For example:
Again, this is Putinesque. And, I would hasten to add, Greenland, as part of Denmark, is already in an “alliance” with the United States.
And there are gems such as this:
(To correct the community note, via NPR: Did Harry Truman Really Try To Buy Greenland Back In The Day?).
But, of course, past attempts at these kinds of territorial acquisitions don’t make them a good idea in the now. All this talk of buying or seizing land is the stuff of the pre-WWII political order. And it is also the kind of thing that we opposed in the first Gulf War when Saddam Hussein made similar claims about Kuwait, for example. The notion that bigger powers can claim what they want is 19th-century imperialist thinking.
Talk about renaming the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” sounds like a parody of rhetoric that Teddy Roosevelt might have used about the Caribbean over a hundred years ago. All this talk about the Panama Canal utterly ignores the fact that the reason it belonged to the US in the first place was that the US helped Panama secede from Colombia so that a new and compliant Panamanian government would acquiesce to signing it off to us (because the Colombia government wouldn’t).
The US can get what it needs from Greenland, for example, in terms of national security via working within NATO. The US already has a military presence in Greenland, and if an expanded one was needed, working with our NATO partners, rather than bullying them would be the smarter way to go. And if there is money to be made extracting rare minerals, one suspects that appropriate business arrangements will be made.
Back to the 19th-century (and older) of it all, I was recently reminded of this 2019 piece in WaPo, Marc Thiessen (Trump’s idea of buying Greenland is far from absurd) made the following assertion (which echoes some things I have seen and read in the more recent discussion over Greenland and Trump):
Indeed, a Greenland purchase would be in keeping with a long history of presidential land acquisitions. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory from France. In 1819, President James Monroe bought Florida from Spain. In 1854, President Franklin Pierce, in the Gadsden Purchase, bought part of New Mexico and Arizona from Mexico. In 1867, President Andrew Johnson bought Alaska from Russia. In 1898, President William McKinley bought the Philippines from Spain. And in 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt rented the Panama Canal Zone from Panama and Guantanamo Bay from Cuba. If Denmark won’t sell Greenland, maybe we can rent it!
Two things are striking to me about Thiessen’s piece and the general discourse by anyone who does not see Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland (and rhetoric about other places) as anything other than absurd.
- All such discussions ignore the people who live there.
- They all are predicated on a pre-WWII notion of imperialism.
All of this rhetoric ignores that human beings live in these places. They should not be treated as mere pawns who should be ignored (or, as per Hannity-as-Putin, lied about). Of course, I don’t really think Republicans would be keen on adding Canadians to the voting pool.
But it is really important to realize the degree to which territorial expansion as a normal part of international politics was taken off the table after WWII. The number of great wars fought in the 19th and early 20th centuries with territorial aims underscores why such attitudes are dangerous and destabilizing.
As noted above, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was seen as a massive violation of international norms. It is why the Ukraine invasion is so problematic. It is why China’s designs on Taiwan are seen as unacceptable.
Indeed, Russia’s violation of Georgia’s territorial sovereignty and its subsequent annexation of the Crimean peninsula helped lead to the invasion of Ukraine. Small violations of norms often lead to larger and large ones.
Norms matter. As does tearing them down.
I oversimplify given the medium, but one of the major positive results of the post-WWII global order (and subsequent decolonization period) is the establishment of solid, persistent international borders that were considered more or less sacrosanct. The US, in particular, fostered and upheld this notion. Rogue countries like Russia did not. For the incoming US president to speak this way, even if actions are not a likely outcome, is dangerous.
It will change the way some Americans think about this topic (as we are seeing media allies and members of the GOP parrot his nonsense).
It will erode global trust in the US (of course, our national foolishness in re-electing Trump has already done that, but this will just deepen the problem).
And it will embolden people like Putin.
None of this is good, in case anyone was wondering.
At a minimum, it is utterly discouraging to again have a president who reasons like a child playing a game of Risk and who thinks that making threats is an impressive negotiation tactic.
Update:
Another example of a member of the Congress spreading this nonsense.
And for a serious analysis concerning Greenland (which echoes and deepens points I made above), see this piece at War on the Rocks.
h/t: LGM for both.
The rhetoric is working, just fine.
We’re not talking about the prospect of Tulsi Gabbard running our intelligence community anymore.
One mighty big reason why imperialism and conquest fell out of fashion after WWII is the existence of nuclear weapons. Had things kept on being the same as before and during the war, all major powers, and many smaller ones, would have developed their own. Ergo the non-proliferation treaties.
As is, all too many states have developed them. Many more should be capable, too, given a few years. The really hard part is obtaining the fissile materials, One might want to take comfort in the fact that U235 makes up only 0.72% of all uranium. But the enrichment degree needed for a breeder reactor is far lower than that needed for a nuclear weapon. A breeder reactor can make plutonium, which is far easier to separate from other fission products. It can also produce tritium, which is needed for a hydrogen bomb.
Once you have that, making the bombs is not that hard given modern engineering tools and knowledge of nuclear physics. Some major components require very precise machining, but that is true of a lot of other manufactured products that are turned out by the millions each day. Besides, as Tom Clancy showed, if a megaton warhead fizzles to under 20 kilotons, tens of thousands of people still die.
What I want to know is, why not Mexico? Making Mexico a state would solve our southern border problem and the Mexico border with Guatemala and Belize is far shorter, making a wall a possibility. Besides it would give Americans a sunny, warm place to go without a passport that isn’t the south or southwest.
His natterings are going to be covered, unfortunately, but the press needs to cover them as the bluster of a madman that is sinking deep into dementia.
Trump is going to be Trump. Hegseth is going to be SecDef, Gabbard NID, RFK, Jr. at HHS, and other hairballs everywhere else. And these are the “A” team–as they quit ( or get fired) even stupider hairballs will replace them.
This is the next 4 years. If we’re lucky, these 4 years will be followed by 4 years of sane, but caretaker, government until the next electoral brain fart. Good time to be old. My apologies to Drs. Taylor and Joyner and the rest of you who aren’t old enough.
And my thoughts and prayers.
@Sleeping Dog:
There was a joke in the 70s, where Mexico’s foreign minister advises the president to declare war on the US. The purpose being that once the Americans take over, they’ll flood the country with dollars and build industries and mines and oil wells, and we’ll be part of a first world country.
To which the president replies, “But what if we win the war?”
@Kathy: Nukes are absolutely a huge part of the equation. I almost went down that route as well. There is an awful lot to deal with on this topic and why Trump should not be opening Pandora’s Box, even if just rhetorically.
@Tony W: Here’s the thing: I am not sure I buy the notion that this is strategic.
And I expect that topic will return.
@Steven L. Taylor: Yes, it feels to me like to the extent that it’s strategic, it’s just the effects of Trump’s brain stem-level impulses.
I don’t see much difference between having a petulant 8-year old as president vs. the 78-year old who never matured beyond 8-years old but has since lived 70 years and thinks he knows everything as a result. Neither will go well. (Thanks, America!)
@Kathy:
Already plotted out, The Duchy of Grand Fenwick
This is why your side lost. This is why Trump won.
You look at the world from a position of self-satisfied privilege and think everything is fine and nothing needs to change, unless that change is in the same direction as everything else for the last 50+ years.
If a bunch of scientists can decide one day that Pluto is not a planet, why can’t Greenland become a U.S. territory? Why can’t the provinces of Canada join the union as the newest U.S. states? Why can’t we rename the gulf? Why should a transportation chokepoint vital to the global economy be left, theoretically, in the hands of a nation subject to pressure and influence from one of the worst actors on the world stage?
If your only answer to those questions is “Imperialism!” or “Putin!” then you are not as smart as you think you are.
So, the asshole strike wasn’t due for today?
@MBunge:
But I was told reliably that Democrats are the current party of War and that Trump was the candidate of peace.
Call me crazy, I don’t see how any of those things are realistically accomplished without significant shows of force. I guess the exception is renaming the Gulf of Mexico within the US–though it’s weird to see MAGA advocating for essentially an American version of the Académie Française.
BTW, do you still call them Freedom Fries? Because that’s what “The Gulf of America” feels like.
Again, perhaps it me, but this rings of “why can’t we call black people negros any more?” type of cultural conservatism–the very thing you seem to be arguing against.
BTW, get this… it turns out that technical definitions (i.e. what constitutes a planet) evolve as science evolves. Oh, and also, Pluto was shifted to being a “Dwarf Planet” so it still is a type of planet, just not on the same order of magnitude as the rest of the planets in the solar system… but there I go with my “details.”
I realize that not lying to the general populace is, sadly in this moment, a political liability. See also Trump admitting, post election, that he probably cannot meet his pledge to bring down the prices of groceries or Musk now admitting that 2-trillion dollars cannot actually be cut from the federal budget.
This is exactly how the unserious becomes serious and the unthinkable real.
I don’t see an invasion of Canada. But Greenland or Panama? The guy is a demented bat surrounded by self-abasing toadies.
Who’s going to tell him no? This is a serious question. It’s not going to be someone in his cabinet. I reckon. Just look at his nominees.
So where will the restraints be coming from? Again, a serious question.
@Matt Bernius: Come, now! Scientific reclassification of a celestial body and political-military control of a territory are exactly the same thing!
You’re right. The citizens of Greenland have no more right to self determination than do the citizens of Pluto.
I’m sure Trump has you on the short list of his lackeys that he will consider for Primary Plutocrat of Pluto.
@MBunge:
Seriously! Preferring lack of great power wars over territory and respecting existing sovereign boundaries is just the stuff of privilege!
Having historical perspective is soo very passe.
Honestly, one of the craziest aspects of the notion that the post-WWII order is be derided is that the US basically established that order and reinforced it by winning the Cold War.
It is a sign of US power and influence that we have a Space Force Base in Greenland and, moreover, we can work through NATO to secure our national security goals.
If one’s concern is with the power (even, dare I say, greatness) of the United States, then the post-WWII order is where to look.
All of this Putinesque imperialist rhetoric weakens the United States.
Empires, btw, are expensive. As the War on the Rocks piece notes, if we took over Greenland, that creates a cost. Our current arrangements and prospects are much better than territorial acquisition would be.
Likewise, let Panama worry about maintaining the canal. My expend the costs needed to run it?
None of this reflects an understanding of what is being proposed. And people like MBunge buy it hook, line, and sinker (despite it being pretty obvious we aren’t taking over Greenland or sezing the Canal).
@MBunge:
Oh, you sweet summer child. Do you really think that the US can maintain its economic and cultural hegemony if it is hated by everyone?
For instance, how will the US finance its structural trade deficit if the dollar stops being the world’s reserve currency?
How will the country better off if there is less of everything and what’s left is more expensive? How will the US be more influential in global affairs without Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. in its corner?
Just take everything? How would that work? Do you even remember what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan? Even armed farmers were too much to overcome at anything resembling a reasonable price.
You are an excellent example of why MAGA is Putin’s wet dream: let the stupid fools kill their own country.
You’re one of those fools, obviously.
Just being practical. Pluto is just one of several known Kuiper Belt objects, and not the largest. Eris is slightly larger than Pluto, and about 27% more massive – if Pluto is a planet what then is Eris? And what about the rest as more Kuiper Belt objects keep being discovered?
Also, the object is a bit tiny for a planet, roughly 2/3 the diameter of Earth’s moon.
The Canadian people who live there are the ones to answer that, along with their current government. Who knows, maybe they would rather not be part of a country that regards a senile demented mentally ill scoundrel as acceptable national leadership.
@Matt Bernius:
I realized there is a second option for acquiring Greenland, Canada, and the Panama canal: we could buy them!
Granted, the impact that would have on the national debt would be astronomical… but then again, since we once again have a Republican about to enter office, I’m sure that the MAGA base will suddenly forget about the debt. They’re already doing that with the Debt Ceiling.
Also, I’m interested to hear how folks like MBunge will feel about then having to integrate all of those new citizens (not to mention transitioning them from their socialized medical systems and high social safety-net expectations). But those are just details.
Most of Trump’s ridiculous statements are to distract us from what is really going on, which is him and his rich buddies abusing the government to enrich themselves and grab more power. If you think Trump’s policies will benefit the middle and working class in any way, you are cognitively impaired. That said, the stagnation in wages for the “rest of us” for the past four or five decades has not improved significantly even under Democratic administrations, so of course people are frustrated and vote for the guy who says entertaining shit.
My advice to fellow progressives: do your best to ignore the Trump media cycle (this is why I haven’t been posting much), and think about how you’ll fix the system when you get back in power. Because you will in four years, and you better have a fucking plan this time.
It’s going to be fun watching MAGA isolationists try to continue defending Trump as “the president who didn’t get us into a war.”
@Kylopod: Watch how fast his support would dry up if he went to war.
@Franklin:
Totally agree. I’d go further to say that we should also think about how we can continue to work to improve local systems while his administration is in power. At least that’s where my brain is–we’re preparing for unprecedented attacks on criminal legal system reforms and the social safety net. For better or worse, Project 2025 has already given us a template of what is probably on its way.
I’m fairly certain MBunge was being really sarcastic and employing ad absurdium.
Is imperialism effective? The British, French, and Russian (both Tsarist and Soviet) empires fell apart because they were not workable. The USA has centrifugal strains as well; there is a Texas independence constituency. If the PRC conquers Taiwan, will high grade chips be cheaper than just buying them on the market? The emperors get fancier crowns, but little accrues to ordinary citizens other than the opportunity of having their children slain or crippled in exotic locations.
@MBunge:
Ha! Yes, the side that wants a change towards universal healthcare, a change away from worsening fires and floods, a change towards robust high-speed mass transit, a change away from allowing mentally ill gun nuts to slaughter our kids, a change towards taxing the 1%, a change away from America being the only developed nation with no guaranteed paid leave, a change towards Kamala Harris’s plan to build millions more housing units, a change towards free vocational training and community college, etc…
…is the side that “thinks everything is fine and nothing needs to change.”
But the privileged orange rapist that’s backed by privileged oligarchs while peddling same ole same ole trickle-down tax cuts for privileged billionaires, more failed trade wars, and recycled 19th century warmongering imperialism — that’s the change candidate. Right.
Trump’s fascism won because normies were outgunned this time by mentally-weak fools: depressed, angry, fearful, and thus easily-manipulated by this bootlicking propaganda. Simps who think Musk, Ramalamadingbat and Trump’s corporate cabal care about you — that they’re not exploiting your bigotry and gullibility to enrich themselves while gutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
When my side wins again in 2026 or 2028 — as in 2018, 2020, and 2022 — it will be because some of the fools decline to be fooled again. Like every time y’all elect Republicans swearing this time their corporate socialism and malevolent incompetence won’t leave the have nots worse off. Unlike, you know, every other time before in recent memory.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Isn’t the canal self-funding? Or even shows a profit?
@Michael Cain:
The canal needs water to operate the locks, which it gets from the local lake. This is becoming a problem because of recent/current drought conditions.
@Matt Bernius: “I realized there is a second option for acquiring Greenland, Canada, and the Panama canal: we could buy them!”
Well, yeah, but in any real sale you need not only a buyer but a willing seller.
I know the moron on Fox declares that all these citizens of sovereign nations would be proud to become Americans, but, for instance, I’ve never met a Canadian who wanted to be part of the USA. And certainly not one who’d ever had need of medical treatments.
And yes, I know you’re being sarcastic, but I’ve seen people propose this for real…
Canada has been on the front lines with Russia (and the Soviet Union) since WWII. Through NORAD it watches the Northern approaches. It supplies (as a percent of GDP) more support to Ukraine that the US does. It makes more sense that Canada take over Greenland. It also makes sense that that a number of northern tier states (like Washington, Michigan, New York, New England) join Canada the country. And they may prefer it.
I wonder if any of these countries will just reject the credentials of the new US ambassadors?
BTW, we have taken the Trump BS bait again.
Guys, Canada has 40 million citizens who are pro-choice, pro-gun control, anti-capital punishment and fanatically attached to their socialized medicine which (if anything) they feel isn’t expansive enough. They like government spending just fine, even if they disagree about details, and they’re pretty consistent about not being war mongers. This would not be a good fit. Besides any Canadian can emigrate south of the border any time they want and it’s not a big deal.
Americans would be genuinely astonished if they knew how many Canadians thought Trump’s droolings are pretty damn insulting.
@MBunge:
Judges would also accept:
If you can add 14 different genders, why not 3 new states?
If you can accept pressing 1 for English, why not 2 for Greenlandian?
I thinks it’s foolish to engagevwith Trumpists on their terms.
The very concept of annexing another sovereign nation is repugnant and un-American.
No, I won’t debate whether there are benefits or not, the entire premise is contemptible.
@wr:
Yes, the only way for President Musk to acquire Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal is via war.
So Senate Democrats should in their hearings publicly ask Gabbard, Hegseth, Patel, Jr., Stefanik, Rubio and the rest to explain why they agree with Trump’s Hitleresque promise to start WW3, and how such a war will lower the cost of eggs.
@wr:
I totally believe that. I’m also curious about how many of those same folks regularly rail against wasteful government spending and our national debt crisis.
@Chip Daniels:
Just when I feel like I’m approaching being witty, someone like you rolls up with a pitch perfect response. I kinda want to lock the thread after that.
May I add to your list:
3. All of those “bought”s carried 1800 dates.
We have established a norm against war for territorial acquisition, and to me enforcing that norm is the primary reason for supporting Ukraine. Which we were not doing adequately even before Trump entered the picture.
I fear this is like the border wall. Trump throws out poo, and if some item gets a big response, it joins the rally speech and becomes policy. On all of this, Trump is just blowing. But if there were a big favorable response to, say, seizing the canal, he’d get serious. He’s still campaigning. I have no idea if he thinks he can somehow extend his term or if it’s just habit, but it drives his behavior.
Here’s how easily Trump’s Special Military Operation could go bad in a hurry:
1) Panama scuttles a couple ships in the locks of the canal. Even if Panama does not obstruct recovery, it closes the canal for months, leading to breakdowns in supply chains and spiraling inflation. Would this hurt Panama’s economy? Yes, it would. Is there another large country more than ready to help Panama weather the storm? Why yes, there is.
2) We have hundreds of bases all over the world. If the US were to seize Greenland the message would be clear: don’t host US military bases. Is there anyone ready to move in and take over our bases? Why yes, there is. Two in fact.
3) We are in the process of attracting opponents to the PRC, such as Philippines, which has recently decided we are more trustworthy than the Chinese. An imperialist US is not more trustworthy than the Chinese.
There is a surprisingly deep well of trust in the US from countries all over the world. In a flash we would lose all that trust, meaning that Russia and China would become moral peers of the US. They become relatively stronger, we become weaker.
@MBunge: you are a simpleton. This is way above your pay grade, as it is way above the capacity of the Rapist in Chief. Toddle off and let the grown-ups talk.
@gVOR10:
The Panama/Greenland presser was supposed to address inflation, about which Trump has effectively admitted he lied to the morons. So, time to shout, squirrel!
Weren’t we talking about invading Mexico a few weeks ago? And Don Jr was in Greenland a few days ago passing out Make Greenland Great Again hats.
I don’t see how this can not get a response from the governments of Denmark, Panama and Canada. And Mexico. Refusing ambassadors, travel ban on the Trump family, etc.
On a side note, one wonders whether Little Marco wants to be Sec of State anymore if he has to deal with this kind of crap all the time.
@MBunge: I read your post, and I get the sense that you aren’t really telling me what’s bothering you. Are you really upset that Pluto isn’t a planet? Have you ever looked in to why that reclassification was done?
What is there about your life that would be better if we acquired Greenland? Let’s assume the counterfactual and suppose that both Greenland and Canada are willing and eager to become part of the US, and it’s a done deal.
How does that make your life better? How is different from the status quo?
By the way, I grew up five miles from Canada, and we went there regularly. Going through the border was no big deal, especially for locals, both American and Canadian. I had Canadian friends. I do not see one thing that would be improved by making Canada part of the US.
But maybe you do. Tell us what that is. Or for Greenland. Or maybe there’s something else that would be better. What would that be.
For the life of me, Greenland seems like a giant liability, not a valuable asset. I do not know why we would want the responsibility for taking care of it. And I note that Trump isn’t really saying what’s good about Greenland. We have a base in Thule, which was very useful in the Cold War, and is maybe kinda sort useful now. But we pay rent for that, so it’s all good.
Why is this important to you?
More fundamentally, what is it that Trump is gonna do for you that will make your life better? Make Pluto a planet again? Is that going to help?
Seriously, I think there are a lot of people out there supporting Trump who want things that I want, but they have been trained to not trust me or my political fellow travelers. I think this is a fundamental political problem.
@Matt Bernius: Wow! You found a lot more content in MBunge’s ramblings than I did. Good job, I guess.
What happened to the price of eggs?
How will tariffs reduce inflation of housing and groceries?
This Greenland, Panama Canal, Gulf of America nonsense jibber jabber is intended to divert our eyes and brains away from the core focus: we elected an absolute unqualified dumb-ass. Again!
We’ve got 4 years of petty, stupid, and vainglorious bullshit headed our way. Who could have known that electing a petulant toddler as President would have consequences?
He can’t get re-elected*, so it’s going to be id driven petty vengeance and grievances until 2029. The typical Trump crap.
(* so far. Who knows what the Supreme Court might invent? Disregard the Constitution? A gap resets the clock? Who knows?)
@Matt Bernius:
I’m just tired.
How many years did we spend patiently arguing about “Small government” only for the rug pull of “Haha, we never meant any of it, suckers”.
How much time and energy was wasted by Dems to try and prove their “Law &Order/ “Tuff on Crime” bonafides only to have them smirk at the J6 criminals attacking cops and make a repeated felon into a hero?
How desperately did liberals try to reassure them that queer people posed no threat to women and children only for them to gleefully embrace *actual* pedophile priests and sex pests and rapists?
How loudly they howled at “Censorship” of Nazis and harassment only to have them create a special rule on Meta specifically allowing harassment of queer people and women, and suppressing anyone who complains?
They. Are. Liars.
Always about everything. Let’s not ever accept their nonsense at face value.
Instead, let’s understand that their every utterance is a grunt of racism or misogyny.
@Michael Cain: Keep in mind, though, that when we controlled the canal we had a substantial military presence. The Canal Zone was essentially a colony. I could be mistaken, but I am not sure the canal paid for itself and the Zone.
@Matt Bernius: Back during Trump I, I posted a message to the effect of: Trump’s supporters are the sort of people who look at a complex problem and say “why don’t we just [fill in the blank]” and call it common sense without ever remotely thinking through the actual impact of [fill in the blank]. Well, they’re back with a vengeance.
I have not noticed any of Chump’s toadies slam his inane declaration:
Apparently you think that the first shots will have to be fired before the deep thinkers who approve of his policies will suddenly abandon him.
Donny’s trip to Greenland? Pure BS. “Danish news is reporting that many of the people wearing MAGA hats in Don Jr & Charlie Kirk’s Greenland videos were homeless rounded up from the area, including one man they found under a bridge, to come into the restaurant for a photo op & a free meal.”
Bluesky post with link to source: https://bsky.app/profile/ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lfdgxnri2s2b
If it comes to war over Greenland, I wonder how loudly the felon and his accomplices will squeal when not a single NATO country allows use of their airspace.
Oh, look. A “why your side lost” post that…checks…yeah makes no argument, appears to defend imperialism good, compares geopolitics to scientific classification of natural space phenomena, and calls the EU (not sure, post not specific) “one of the worst actors on the world stage” in the same post that contains the name”Putin.”
And this person thinks they answered the OP.
Maybe they did demonstrate why Dems lost, just not the way they think they did.
@Franklin:
We the people should be frustrated with our own fetish for trickle down voodoo economics and divided government. As someone tried to explain yesterday:
Of course decades of bad rightwing policy cannot be undone in the two years of razor-thin control voters give Democrats every 10-15 years, in which they’re supposed to fix all the bad rightwing policy we keep voting for betwixt. Derp.
This seems obvious to me, but I’m a person of average intelligence and common sense. That most of my countrymen — including plenty of liberals and leftists — cannot figure this out is not a ringing endorsement of our national IQ.
Astronomers never liked Pluto.
It was hypothesized before it was discovered (and it was seen before it was discovered, too*), as being responsible for perturbing the orbit of Neptune. as the latter had been hypothesized and discovered as being responsible for perturbing the orbit of Uranus. So, the expectation was of a large planet, an ice giant or a rare super-Earth type rocky world.
Pluto is neither.
Planetary scientists don’t dislike it. And New horizons showed it to be a unique type of object, whatever its designation. But there’s politics too. Had Pluto been demoted a few years earlier, it’s doubtful NASA would have approved the New Horizons fly-by mission. As it is, it managed to launch mere months before Pluto’s demotion.
BTW, astronomical definitions are somewhat vague and fluid. Planet once meant any object in orbit around a star, as opposed to a satellite which orbits a planet that orbits a star. Ceres, an asteroid, was considered a planet for a while. Lately it gets called a dwarf planet, same as pluto. Asimov came up with the term “planetesimals” for such objects; it didn’t catch on.
Some early NASA probes that flew by Mars and Venus wound up in orbit around the Sun. For a time, they were termed “artificial planets,” akin to artificial satellites.
*This is more common than one would think. Uranus was discovered by William Herschel because he made the best telescopes of his time**. Many earlier astronomers had seen it, but not recognized it as a planet. I think one astronomer recorded it several times under different names. Herschel’s superior instrument showed a disk, where earlier telescopes had shown a pinpoint.
**And he had the ambition to map the whole sky. So he looked everywhere with his telescopes.
@Franklin: I think what has to be solved first is the messaging mismatch. Republicans are much better at getting their message out than Democrats are.
Case in point: Gasoline at the pump when I just filled up is the cheapest it has been since before 9/11. That’s more than twenty years. And yet the message was “Inflation Was Bad!!!”
There are lots of other examples. And spreading a message of calumny and lies is likely to get easier with the changes we are seeing in social media. We need to stop fixating on Fox News. Social Media is where these battles are being won.
@Kurtz:
Indeed.
@Mister Bluster:
I don’t think either Trump’s core supporters or swing voters he gained was ever significantly based on foreign policy. (One possible exception is Gaza, which I think had an impact on the election, but mostly due to people who stayed home, not those who shifted to Trump.) Anti-interventionism gained in popularity on the right after Bush left office, but it was always more a branding exercise than genuine commitment (and I think it signified in part the increasing influence of the far right, which never liked America’s Middle East adventurism, largely for anti-Semitic reasons). The MAGA isolationist argument has long been that Trump uses threats he won’t follow through on to intimidate foreign entities into submission, but I have no doubt most of them will find ways to rationalize a giant war that breaks out on his watch (whether begun by him or not), and those who stick close to enough to their principles to call him out on it will soon find themselves isolated from the larger movement–no pun intended.
@Kathy:
A single carrier strike group and one or two dock landing ships each with 500 marines seems kind of like overkill, but requires no overflights.
Speaking as a Canadian, I think our collective response to any American who thinks we want to join your country is pretty unprintable. I like my neighbours fine, but I don’t want them moving into my house.
@Kylopod:
Biden’s approval fell below 50% during the Afghanistan withdrawal and never recovered.
I bet you’re wrong but it remains to be seen. I don’t think we will see it though.
Note to fellow travellers: I think a response of “why would we do that?” is much more valuable politically than “How dare he!!!”. Outraging us is what Trump aims to do, and it drives the wedge between us and people who ought to be our political allies further in.
Instead, we can say “that seems like a bad idea and here’s why.” Or maybe even, “I’m not sure he’s serious, but it can be hard to tell, but in case he is, here’s why this isn’t a good idea”.
Our outrage makes Trump and the MAGA (by identification) feel powerful. Take that away from them. No facts or arguments need to change, just the underlying emotion. This will require a lot of skill at emotional regulation – a LOT of skill. I have a lot of practice at these skills from a lifetime of dealing with people with, ahem, similar issues.
You might argue that I’m normalizing him. Well, I’m not the one who normalized him, but he is normalized.
AND, look up the concept of “intra-psychic conflict” sometime. If I don’t act out one side of an intra-psychic conflict, they can’t pick up the other side, which is what they reallly, really want to do.
Let’s knock the Canada thing. We could claim all of their oil and we could get pea meal bacon at highly discounted rates. Heck, we could rename Canadian bacon to US bacon or freedom bacon or something patriotic. Imagine the huge bargains we could get on maple syrup. To heck with making them a 51st state let’s just take them over. They will greet us int he streets with flowers like liberators!
Steve
@Michael Cain:
I think the Army and Air Force would resent being left out in the first war of the New American Imperial Era.
And you know, shatter one norm, shatter all norms. The US Army has never staged a coup.
@Kylopod:
I think he wanted to go to war against Iran or Venezuela last term, and didn’t only because it would be a hard and uncertain endeavor. And one where he’d have to do a lot of work to get allies onboard, even the UK.
He must figure Greenland will be so scared they’d serve themselves up on a platter for him. And if they don’t, that a war to take it will be easy, maybe it will be over in les than a day.
@de stijl: I don’t know what’s happening in your area, but in Portland, OR the weekly Safeway ad had a message appended to it:
Apparently, bird flu has wiped out supplies as provisional shippers/brokers have culled what may amount to several billion eggs.
A dozen eggs is about 3 weeks supply for me, so last time I was in the store, I barely noticed that the egg storage unit had only about 4 or 5 dozen eggs in it. I replied to myself, “hmmm… I wonder what’s going on here.”
Now that I’ve eaten my last egg from my purchase before Christmas, I’ll be more interested.
@Chip Daniels:
This needs to be repeated for emphasis.
For everyone’s sanity in the foreseeable future, we need to remember that the GOP – from the Head of the Party down to at least the state legislator level (if not to the municipal level) is not acting in good faith. Unreality and Propaganda are completely baked into the rightist project. We’ve learned that Republicans are completely immune to being called on their hypocrisy, illogic, and inconsistency. In a political dynamic when one party is thoroughly anti-expertise, post-shaming, and post-fact, trying to reason with the opposition is a fool’s errand.
Recent case in point, Trump’s vile politicalization of the ongoing California fires. Governor Newsom was wise to state “one can’t even respond to [Trump’s politicking.]” Why bother pointing out that a fictional water restoration declaration is not a solution, nor is raking forests? There are facts about FEMA funding and CA’s wildfire fighting expertise, but they are immaterial in a debate with an entire party predisposed to false narratives and wild conspiracies theories.
DON’T BOTHER. Let them rant, then point and laugh. Sadly, that’s where we are.
@Jay L Gischer:
I love this approach. Leaning into curiosity is a terrific way to avoid getting emotionally riled up, and this phrasing is terrific to do just that while also conveying, shall we say, deep skepticism over the wisdom of idea at hand.
@Fortune:
It’s hard to separate the political impact of the withdrawal from the waning of Biden’s honeymoon period. Not that I’m saying it didn’t hurt Biden–I believe it did. But there’s no particular evidence it was a major reason his approval never recovered, or why Harris lost 3.5 years later. Historically, approval ratings go up and down throughout a presidency, and in Biden’s case there were plenty of other factors (most notably inflation) to keep it down.
But I also reject your attempt to draw a comparison between Biden and Trump in terms of their relationship with their voters. Biden never had the cult of personality that Trump has. Even when there are disagreements within MAGA, like the recent flare-up over H1-B visas, everyone bends over backwards to avoid criticizing Trump–the closest they come is suggesting there are bad actors in Trump’s inner circle.
Not only have Dems been willing to criticize Biden, they’re not even in agreement over how good a president he’s been. The only disagreement within MAGA-world over Trump’s place in history is whether he’s the greatest president ever or the greatest since Reagan. This is not normal, even for a Republican president. While there’s been a cult around Reagan for a long time, it’s something that largely developed after he left office–during his presidency there were plenty of examples of prominent Republicans criticizing him (evangelicals weren’t happy about his choosing Sandra Day O’Connor, and when he sat down with Gorbachev, some compared him to Neville Chamberlain).
MAGA voters will adjust, just as they have so many times in the past.
European history has lessons about leaders who demand territorial concessions with threats of force.
The UK government is taking a rather different tack from France and Germany, trying to minimise it as just Trumpian piss and wind trollery.
But make no mistake: if he pushes this re, Greenland:
There are some things “up with which we will not put.”
The Atlantic Alliance ends, then and there.
Trump wants Europe to go to 5% defence spending?
“Be careful what you wish for, for you may just receive it”
The US alliance and economic relations are the foundations of not just partners, but American, security and prosperity.
The second half of that sentence being what MAGA (and paleocon isolationists that preceded them often overlook.
NSC-68 of 1950 was adumbrated by very intelligent strategists for very good reasons.
People who often had personal memory of the US in 1940 teetering on the edge of a disaster in 1940.
Of the fall of both France AND the UK.
Of Germany securely dominant in Europe, and with the British and French navies under its control.
Of Japan dominant in Asia and able to laugh at US sanctions if Germany handed effective control of South East Asia, including the Borneo oilfields, over to them.
In addition, the post-war trading and financial systems were designed and subsequently shaped by the US to minimize the problems of rival autarkic economic groups, and then to stabilize the dollar as the global reserve currency.
With the Soviet Union as the the only major hold-out
(Later China, of course, but China has in many ways accepted the US global economic hegemony, while trying to both exploit it and work around it)
Collapsing that system may seem like loadsa lulz to MAGA.
But they seem to overlook the possibility that contingencies might not play out as they might complacently expect.
I think here of the old West Midlands parable of the sparrow in the pile of horse-shit: it’s wise to recognize when you are fortunate. And shut your beak.
@MBunge:
Panama is NOT about to be taken over by China, which cannot effectively project naval force beyond the Inner Island Chain.
The Canal is, however, eminently vulnerable to crippling sabotage by pissed-off Panamanians.
Would you care for the proverb of the sparrow in full, or just shut yer beak?
Ah, I see @Michael Reynolds got there ahead of me, as so often.
@Kathy: Looking for a metaphor for a world thoroughly manipulated by an unpredictable dictator…I found this old classic: “It’s A Good Life” -Twilight Zone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZcdSOoLnpg
@Slugger:
This.
The British Empire as an effective proposition was centered on India, and the “white Dominions” (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa sorta). The Dominions were effectively independent by 1914
A reality Americans sometimes had difficulty processing, because they shared the monarchy, and were military and economic allies.
Once India became clearly set on self-rule by c.1920 at latest, the Empire was effectively over, sooner rather than later.
Holding down India by force long-term was obviously a stupid idea.
(See also, Ireland)
And all the rest was really rather trivial in comparison.
@Kathy:
Of all the regions in the world capable of massive rapid nuclear proliferation, number 1 is Europe, and by a long way.
Because not only does it have rather a lot of reactors, and reprocessing plants, but also two extant nuclear powers, in alliance withthe other sates concerned, and with formal nuclear technology exchange programs with said others (EURATOM).
Who are capable of producing not just nuclear, but thermonuclear weapons.
Plus intercontinental range missiles, warhead vehicles and buses, guidance systems etc.
And SSBN launch platforms.
As Napoleon said of China, so might a sensible American (or Russian, or Chinese) say of Europe:
“There lies a sleeping giant. Let it sleep; for if it wakes it may shake the world.”
@Kylopod:
I almost replied on that correlation/causation issue with the Afghanistan withdrawal and then realized you were the person they were engaging with. I had no doubt you would thoughtfully cover most of what I would have said. Low and behold, I was right.
Maybe don’t over-react and just ignore the obvious troll next time.
Y’all gave that dude like two months of j*^k off material.
Ignore obvious trolls.
@mattbernius: co-re-lum-shun? me no understand. me just provide statistic to support claim.
@Michael Cain:
Assuming you’re not facing up to the RN + MN.
19 first line RB/MN SSN vs a US carrier strike group = carrier strike group goes *glug glug glug*
As also does the Marine expeditionary unit
Sorry.
@dazedandconfused:
You know, that’s one of the TZ eps in the category “I’ve never seen it, but I’ve heard all about it.” It’s been satirized in The Simpsons, and I think adapted as a segment in the 80s TZ Movie. Also I believe there was a sequel in one of the new incarnations, where Bill Mumy, who played the original monster, is all grown up and has a daughter who takes after him.
It does fit.
@JohnSF:
Oh, absolutely. Even if France and the UK don’t share weapons or methods, there are tons of expertise in Europe.
As to shaking the world, Europe did just that from the XV to the XX centuries, no? Pax Americana was about the closest the world has ever gotten to a liberal, benevolent despot.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Good news! Safeway had eggs today when I went to shop. Didn’t check the price, tho. Trader Joe’s usually has lower prices for eggs.
@Fortune:
The fact you choose to double down makes it even better.
Neither @Kylopod or I deny that the handling of the Afghan withdrawal caused Biden’s numbers at the time to drop.
If that was where you stopped you would have a point. But you were responding to this point:
Unless you are suggesting that a significant portion of swing voters abandoned Biden specifically on Afghanistan and that specifically was the reason they voted for Trump (3 ish years after the withdrawal) then you are in fact committing a correlation versus causation fallacy.
If you thing you can demonstrate a causal connection I am happy to revisit that statement. But without showing your work this feels much more like correlation to me.
Call me crazy, but I suspect there were far more immediate economic (and other reasons) for the movement of swing voters.
But hey what do I know?
BTW, I love how you just deflected to a snarky joke rather than address @kylopod’s non-snarky response.
@Jay L Gischer: The play here—and for 90% of this shit is—“ I dare you..”
Remember, this guy wants to be social media/Press Conference POTUS—He doesn’t want to have to POTIS against reality. He can’t—he is one real crisis away from being unrobed.
Dems gotta stop bitching up around this guy and call his bluff. Go ahead and take the Canal & Greenland cowboy —I dare you.
I guarantee he changes the subject to some new ridiculous social media/press conference shit.
I keep thinking that if I could travel back in time 20 years and tell people what our president in 2025 was saying no one would believe me.
Never in my life have I heard any objections to the name “Gulf of Mexico”, WTF? Who cares? Where does he get these thoughts from?
What of New Mexico? Will if have to be renamed? I’m sure you all know what the suggested new name will be.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ilcRS5eUpwk
@Scott O: Let’s name it New America and move the Capital there!
@Jim Brown 32: Sorry, your vote doesn’t count. It’s got to be “Trumpland” or “The New State of Trump” or simply “Trump”.
@Not the IT Dept.:
If you’ll pardon the pun-ish nature of the comment, the idea of being homeless in Greenland gives me shivers. Brrrrr.
@just nutha:
Out here, Trader Joe’s did not have eggs yesterday (Wednesday). As of tonight (Thursday), eggs were back, $0.60 higher than before.
Thanks Obama!
@mattbernius: Yes, I’m speculating that Trump tapped into significant isolationist sentiment. I used the decline in Biden support during the Afghanistan withdrawal as evidence, not proof. I know people who turned MAGA during Trump’s first term, and his foreign policy record was important to them. It’s natural for partisanship and confirmation bias to lead liberals to discount the failures in the Afghanistan withdrawal. I have a theory, anecdotal evidence, a correlated statistic, and a reason to think your team’s assertions may be flawed.
Why does Putin have a Z armband in the cartoon?
Since mid-March 2022, the “Z” began to be used by the Russian government as a pro-war propaganda motif,[9][41][42] and has been appropriated by pro-Putin civilians as a symbol of support for Russia’s invasion.[39][43] Governor Sergey Tsivilyov of Kuzbass (Russian: Кузбасс) changed the name of the region to a hybrid word that replaced the lowercase Cyrillic letter з with the capital Latin letter Z (Russian: КуZбасс, romanized: KuZbass).
If you have been following the war this is pretty well known.
Steve
@Fortune:
I totally agree with your assessment up until the “and”… and it’s the jump that happens at the “and” that led me to raising the “correlation” versus “causation” issue with your theory.
BTW, since I’ve been assigned to a “team,” I’m curious about what “team” you see yourself playing for.
@Fortune:
I was initially wondering about that, then I remembered the significance of the symbol on “Z” in the Russian military campaign of aggression against Ukraine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_(military_symbol)
The sorta-OCD, neruospicy aspect of me was frustrated that the cartoonist decided to break the pattern of using family names (though they also broke that pattern with Kim Jong-Un).
@Matt Bernius:
I don’t know, I would have voted for DeSantis so call it what you will.
@Fortune:
Thanks!