Stidmatt

Watch this video first. This is a response.

I agree with his analysis. Shirvan is correct that these four states have many conflicts. This has a lot to do with my previous post, where I discussed world superpowers. After looking at GDP, GDP per capita, military expenditure, total area, and population, I found that the United States is indeed the most powerful country in the world. Canada, by my rough calculation, is the second most powerful country in the world, followed by China in third place.

China and Russia are the most powerful authoritarian regimes, followed by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran. All these countries are part of the “BRICS” group except Venezuela, a suspended member of the Rio Pact.

I think of American alliances in three tiers:

1. The first tier comprises members of ANZUS, NATO, and the Rio Pact, our three extant multilateral and voluntary mutual protection pacts.
2. Our second tier comprises four countries with unilateral protection pacts: Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.
3. Our third tier comprises major non-NATO allies, such as Afghanistan, Israel, and Egypt. They do not have mutual protection pacts with the United States.

Our first tier comprises 18% of the world’s population but 54% of the world’s economy and 59% of the world’s military expenditure.

Our second tier is comprised of countries that were members of SEATO. Adding these four allies brings our total to 23% of the world’s population, 64% of the world’s economy, and 63% of the world’s military expenditures.

If a country was to attack the United States directly, they would be faced with all of these countries at the same time. Certain doom for any country stupid enough to attack us. It is also extremely likely that if a Rio Pact member was attacked, however unlikely, that many NATO members besides the United States would respond, especially Canada which would certainly respond.

A military invasion anywhere in the Americas is a fantastically stupid idea.

Invading basically any democratic country ranked by the Economist with a GDP per capita over $10,o00 is a stupid idea because of the seven which do not have a mutual protection pact with the United States, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta are part of the European Union, the European Union surrounds Switzerland, leaving only Israel and Singapore as the only rich democratic countries which are not either a member of or surrounded by a mutual protection pact made of democracies. If they have not already, Mauritius, Malaysia, and Mexico will join this list soon.

So when it comes to this “New World Order” which has been formed to oppose the “American Empire” all four of them are authoritarian regimes. Their GDP per capita is quite low in nominal terms. The difference between nominal and PPP values for Russia is extreme, which is a sign of extreme currency manipulation. China has the same problem to a smaller extent, with PPP values twice that of nominal. This increases the cost of imports, increases the cost of living for the middle class, hinders further economic growth, and limits China’s power. The same problem exists in Iran. North Korea’s economy is so closed we don’t even have accurate GDP figures for it. The only country in Asia which could have a worse economy than North Korea is Afghanistan, which is quickly falling to Russian influence with the Taliban regime.

According to SIPRI, these four countries combined comprise only 17% of global military expenditures, less than the United States’s, which stands at 40%.

If the United States and our allies were more willing to bring more developing countries under our wing as allies, we could quickly prevent their military expansion.

Ukraine is a test of America’s resolve. Russia has been very clear that if we don’t defend Ukraine, they will continue to attack more countries that do not have mutual protection pacts with the United States. Georgia is next on the list.

After Georgia, they will try to colonize a wide array of countries using various economic and military means, moving towards regime change. India’s elections threaten its continued membership in BRICS, and if they elect a more liberal government that fights against corruption, don’t expect China and Russia to take that lightly. Most of these countries are in Africa. Once India goes through a major reform period dealing with corruption, I predict it will leave BRICS. India is a natural ally of the United States and Europe with our shared democratic values. It’s only a matter of time. China and Russia are doing everything in their power to prevent this at all cost.

When India elects a reformer, whenever that is, the United States and Europe will prioritize quickly bringing India into our alliances.

Taiwan is obviously the first target of the Communist People’s Republic of China. This has been their policy since their founding. If  Ukraine loses, expect a full-blown invasion of Taiwan.

The Russian military uses extreme levels of propaganda to convince Americans that they are strong and scary, but in reality, they are actually quite weak relative to the United States when you look at the data.

If we bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, there will be no likely targets left in Europe. Georgia and Ukraine can then focus on democratic reforms to bring themselves in line with the EU acquis.

Forming a military alliance with ASEAN would immediately deter China from military incursions into that region.

Mexico is always welcome to rejoin the Rio Pact. The isolation of the Americas means an invasion of any American country is unlikely, but Mexico rejoining our alliance will be meaningful. I believe this will happen someday.

Sri Lanka is the only other Asian democracy left with a population of over 5 million, and it does not have a mutual protection pact with the United States. When they reach out to us, we must respond in kind. It’s only a matter of time.

The remaining democracies, which have a population of over 10 million and do not have an alliance with the United States, are located in Africa. Historically, there is a pattern that as countries develop, their economies grow, corruption declines, their government becomes more democratic, and then they reach out to the United States for deeper relations. The only exceptions tend to be petrostates, like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Georgia and Ukraine did this, and we rebuffed them. When we do this, it slows democratization globally and is a gift to tyrants everywhere. We need to reach back to Georgia and Ukraine, defend their sovereignty, and bring them into NATO.

We must never respond to an olive branch with a flame thrower as we did when Ukraine and Georgia applied to join NATO. That has been a massive failure of foreign policy. We have adopted an adversarial stance against China, especially in our speeches over the last 8 years, but until we respond with as much warmth and welcome to our new friends as we respond to China’s treatment of the Uyghurs with hostility, it will only be an act. We could and should have responded to their rejection of NATO by offering a unilateral mutual protection pact. Bush and Obama did not do that, which was our failure as a country.

We can never do that again. We must quickly and deliberately respond to the warming of relations from democracies that respect their human rights by deepening our relations, starting with military relations and leading with economic relations to help them develop further and grow into free and stable societies people want to live in.

That is how we build a more peaceful world.

When Kamala Harris becomes President in January she has 4 years to have a different approach to power than Biden has sought.

“Unity” is not a Key to the White House. Presidents can and have been elected without bipartisan support.

Kamala’s keys

Harris must pass a major piece of legislation directly affecting Americans. The economy and health care are the top concerns facing Americans. Introduce a public option and extend Medicare to cover long-term care. This is a key to the Presidency.

Maintaining a strong economy for her entire term grants her two keys, for a total of three keys.

I do not think Harris will have a scandal as President. She will then have four keys.

If Harris supports Ukraine fully and they win the war, that will count as a major foreign policy success. She will have five keys.

There cannot be a major military or foreign policy failure while she is President. The Gaza War, the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are all major foreign policy failures. None of this can be repeated. She will now have six out of thirteen keys.

Six keys to the White House are in the President’s direct control. If a President successfully unlocks those six keys, she is probably charismatic, bringing her to seven.

A charismatic President will not have a serious primary challenger, bringing her to eight out of thirteen keys.

It is also likely that the President will win a Party mandate in the midterm, with a major foreign policy success and a major law passed through Congress in her first congressional meeting, bringing her to nine keys.

A president with a successful foreign and domestic policy will almost certainly run for a second term, ten keys.

She will be popular, and it’s highly unlikely that a third party will do well in the general election, bringing her to eleven keys.

The likelihood of social unrest in such a scenario is non-existent. Twelve keys.

The only key the President does not have direct control over is how charismatic her challenger is, which fully depends on how organized the opposing major party is. But at this point, the President has achieved Twelve keys to power.

Former president mistakes

Donald Trump screwed up the economy with his handling of COVID. This led to social unrest and was a scandal. He likely would have won reelection against Biden if not for his disastrous handling of COVID.

The Democratic Party was disorganized in 2014, which led to its loss in the midterms. This resulted in no major policy change before 2016. Parties need to compete everywhere to win a mandate and pass a major policy. 2016 was a weird election for these reasons.

George W. Bush’s second term was disastrous. The economy was in freefall, and the Iraq War was going badly.

Al Gore had the most keys in 2000. The Electoral College voted against the will of the people.

Bill Clinton won because the economy was in recession in 1992.

Carter suffered from a poor economy. He was unable to pass a major policy change.

Gerald Ford had to deal with the legacy of Nixon’s administration, which he did not handle well.

Nixon won because of protests against the Vietnam War. So, the peace candidate lost due to peace protests. It was a weird election.

The economy was in recession in 1960, and multiple foreign policy failures occurred in Eisenhower’s administration’s last few years.

Truman’s last term had no major policy despite a party mandate, no incumbency advantage, investigations into corruption, and lots of problems, which led to the highly charismatic Eisenhower winning.

Herbert Hoover was a deeply uncharismatic man who presided over a horrendous recession. He had no control over Congress and failed as president, leading Roosevelt to victory.

Woodrow Wilson flipped almost every key to false during his second term. A recession, Republican congress, and social unrest gave the Republicans a win.

Taft had a third-party challenger, a primary challenger, little charisma, and no major policy change.

Over the last 120 years, those are all the times the Presidency has flipped to the other party.

Former Presidential wins

The most notable reelection campaigns are the following:

Obama had only three false keys. Lichtman claims Obama was not charismatic, I’m not sure I agree, and he claims the economy was poor. Obama did fail to maintain control of Congress in 2010, though. Every other key was positive.

Reagan’s reelection and the election of George H.W. Bush were slam dunks.

LBJ in 1964 had almost every key in his favor.

Eisenhower, in 1956, had everything except a major policy change in his first term.

Franklin Roosevelt was a master of the keys, never having more than 2 false keys in his entire Presidency.

Every key was in Theodore Roosevelt’s favor in 1904, the last time a President had every key to the Presidency.

McKinley had three false keys. He supported civil rights and was generally popular.

The results of these presidential administrations are the background for what I think Harris should do so she has a successful first term and an easy path to winning the general election in 2028.

Don’t worry about bipartisanship. Govern well and win.

https://bsky.app/profile/mcopelov.bsky.social/post/3l7a5uk4vay2n

Dr. Copelovitch is correct; Afghanistan led to Biden’s dropping approval ratings. The lesson is not that we can never end a war, but that if we are placed in a situation like Afghanistan again, there needs to be a lot more focus on not just fighting the terrorists with guns but also cutting the financial support, rooting out and arresting white collar crime which supports terrorism around the world. We must sanction countries that do not cooperate into poverty. We did not do this. So we were fighting an essentially endless flow of weapons into the terrorists. That’s an impossible fight to win. If you cut off their supply of weapons and money, the fight becomes possible to win.

The Ls continued for Biden when Putin invaded Ukraine. We did not respond in time to prevent it, due to this “unity” bullshit and talking about how we were going to fix our “shithole country” and not concern ourselves with foreign matters. This did Biden no favors.

There were no major legislative accomplishments in his first two years. We did not pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and there was nothing to focus on health care. We passed a one-time bailout of suburban roads, and that’s about it. Biden’s caucus blocked him on passing necessary legislation. So there was no substantial legislative boost to his popularity in 2022 and he lost the primary.

Then, after over a year of Ukraine and Russia being in a similar situation to most of World War I’s western front, Hamas attacked Israel, and Israel’s defenses utterly failed. Netanyahu’s impeachment trial has been on hold ever since. Instead of evacuating civilians as the IDF then can remove Hamas’ weapons in search of a winning scenario, they have been bombing hospitals, schools, and apartments. Moving civilians form one refugee camp to another in a truly endless war. Afghanistan had an endgame scenario if we cut off financial supplies to the Taliban and were placed in Afghanistan, similar to how we have had troops in Germany since 1945. The government of Israel does not have a realistic plan to end the endless war in their region. It’s time to pull out. The War in Israel has been going on for almost 4 times as long as the United States defended Afghanistan from foreign terrorists. How is that not an endless war?

For Presidents to see their polling numbers go up, there has to be an event that causes the president’s approval to go up. Bush’s decisiveness after 9/11 is an obvious example. It’s very unusual, however, for a President to see their approval ratings go up significantly after declining during their first term. The media loved Reagan, and his approval climbed from 1982 until the Iran Contra affair came out. Most increases in popularity are very gradual. Biden has never had a single event that would lead the 60% of Americans who disapprove of his job to change our minds. It has been one major failure after another in foreign policy. There have been no major high-profile domestic victories, while there have been multiple times he has been left with mud on his face on the domestic front.

This is not the media’s fault. Biden has always been a mediocre politician. He has been a mediocre president. He has little charisma, and cares more about making Republicans happy than doing the right thing. That has always been his brand; it is what he ran on and how he has governed. Biden has emphatically stated that he does not identify as a New Deal Progressive Democrat. He was one of the first New Democrats elected to Congress. He has been this way since the 1970s. He was a mediocre Senator. Obama deliberately kept Biden away from foreign policy when he was President while also preventing Biden from filibustering Democratic bills in the name of “Unity,” leaving only one problem Senator, Joe Lieberman.

Biden is not an evil man; he lacks inherent political talent. He is not like Barack Obama, and he never has been.

Biden was able to win in 2020 because the New Deal vote was split between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. New Democrats flocked to Biden as he was their only candidate, and if they had another candidate, the vote would have been split four ways. It almost was with Michael Bloomberg, but he was taken out in the debate by Elizabeth Warren. Anyone we ran could have beaten COVID in the election, represented by Donald Trump. That is how Biden became president.

We could make it so every abandoned railroad automatically becomes AMTRAK property. Every failed railroad becomes AMTRAK property as well. As AMTRAK reinvests in these and builds a profitable income base eventually AMTRAK becomes the national operator.

We do what I will call the America Plan, where failed railroads become part of AMTRAK and mergers are not allowed. This is what we did in 1971 with the formation of CONRAIL.

The cheapest option by far is full permanent nationalization with AMTRAK taking over every private railroad in the company. Private freight operators still exist, but now they can run on any track which is now publicly owned.

Nationalization is the only way I can see the US expand passenger railroads at a similar rate like what has been seen in Mitteldeutschland.

Assassinating bin Laden was the right thing to do. He was a dangerous man.

Assassinating bin Laden did not cause al Qaeda to collapse.

Assassinating bin Laden did not lead to America winning the War in Afghanistan.

It was still the right thing to do.

Assassination of terrorist leaders is only the first step towards building a just and peaceful world.

The hard part is building institutions that bring freedom to people instead of institutions that oppress them.

Reason 1: The Electoral College makes some votes worth more than others.

This one is pretty obvious and a common complaint. Presidential candidates campaign mostly in swing states while mostly ignoring other states. Shouldn’t we live in an America where each person is equally important? Campaigning for votes in Los Angeles or Boston should have as much value as campaigning for votes in Detroit or Philadelphia.

Reason 2: Minority winners

Four times in American history, the candidate who won the most votes did not win the presidency, and we don’t have ranked voting so this makes it unrepresentative. No candidate who has majority support should be able to lose the presidency. It’s undemocratic.

Reason 3: Slavery

The reason the Electoral College was created was to protect slave power. The structure of the Senate was designed so we would have an equal number of slave and free states, prolonging the agonizing torment of slaves across the South. The House increased slave power through the 3/5 compromise, which meant slave owners were overrepresented while slaves had no representation. If it was not for the 3/5 compromise the South would not have had nearly as much influence in early American politics.

If the President had been directly elected by the people starting in 1788, the South would not have received any electoral benefit from slavery, and the North would have dominated presidential elections. By making slaves count for the presidency while not having the votes, the South would have been more powerful than it would have been. The electoral college was a way of ensuring the South had power without having a prime minister. This is enough reason to abolish the system and move to a direct popular vote.

Reason 4: Small states don’t matter in the Electoral College

As this map demonstrates, if we divide states by population, shade all the smallest states red and all the most populous states blue. The state in the middle is Virginia, the 12th largest state in the country. Even with the Electoral College, small states don’t have enough votes to matter more than large states. There have only been three states in American history where a state with fewer than ten electoral college votes could have flipped the election alone. That’s how democracy works. Campaigning in any state with under ten votes is pointless under our current system, whereas under a direct popular vote every vote will count equally.

If Texas became a swing state, and it sure looks like it will soon, with Trump only winning a 5% margin of victory in 2020 versus Bush win, it’s possible Texas could become a swing state with shifting demographics. If this happens, Texas alone will decide as long as we keep the electoral college, but not with a popular vote.

Texas flipping in the elections where it voted for the winner would have flipped the overall result in every election since 1988.

Even though the Electoral College increases the percentage of the overall vote in small states, it only increases the power of large states.

Reason 5: We will become a unitary state if we abolish the Electoral College

This is one of the more absurd arguments. The Electoral College has nothing to do with the separation of powers between states and the federal government, which is based on the 10th Amendment. Plus, power has gradually moved more towards the federal government ever since John Marshall was chief justice, and all of this has been with the Electoral College. It’s a nutty argument.

 

In short, even though repealing the Electoral College will be difficult, it should still be repealed because it is undemocratic.

If you have ever been on Facebook or most newspapers, you probably notice that they push depressing media. People are more likely to stay engaged if they feel like something is threatening them, which means more scrolling and ad revenue. It’s a vicious cycle for the user.

It’s easy to walk away from this and feel like the world is horrible. Crime is at an all-time high; everyone is out to get you, the government is corrupt, and the world is a horrible place. So, there is no point in trying.

You stop engaging politically, or even worse, start voting for parties that make the world a worse place. Either way, that’s the goal.

While it is important that the news media writes articles about events, that is their job; it is our job as citizens to ensure that the constant flood of negative news stories does not capture the whole picture.

The enemy is our brains. Even after being trained, we are naturally bad at statistics. It’s easy to watch the news, feel like cities are overrun by crime, read message boards, and feel like everyone is a doomer.

However, the problem is that this is not a random sample. It is a biased sample since people are more likely to comment if they feel something is wrong than if they agree. This is where we need to pull ourselves out of our base mindset and push ourselves towards seeing the bigger picture. While we live in a world with more access to news from everywhere, we are also in an era where we have more access to big-picture statistics than any time before, and the amount of big-picture data that becomes available grows daily.

What I wish people would do more is look at the big picture when you look at an unpleasant news story. It doesn’t minimize the suffering in places like Gaza, Afghanistan, and Ukraine, which are truly horrific. Still, the trick is recognizing what is happening in those places while understanding the big picture.

That’s hard. Really hard. No one can do it all the time.

The ironic part of it is that while people fall for doomer narratives of how the world is worse than it was, we also won’t do everything possible to ensure Ukraine wins and negotiate a workable system to bring lasting peace to Israel and Palestine. Plus all the other conflicts in the world today.

We need to understand our world in a way that doesn’t lead to despair but instead leads to action. This requires a clear mindset, which is more difficult than shutting down but also far more rewarding for the practitioner and society as a whole.

• Understand where we have been. Study history as much as you can.
• Understand the current situation, good and bad. Do not bury your head in the sand.
• Dream about how to make things better. Do not despair.

If you do these three things, I have found it leads to a much more meaningful life.

The only thing you need to block out are people who deny the humanity of others and doomers.

In my opinion, Uber and Lyft’s problem is not that they have a computer that sets prices. Every company does that nowadays. That’s normal, and enables more flexible prices.

The problem with Uber and Lyft is that they pay their drivers less than minimum wage. There are two ways this can work:

1. Drivers for the platform are classified as employees and they get all of the rights afforded to them by law, including being paid at least minimum wage with mandatory benefits if they work sufficient hours.
2. Drivers for the platform are independent contractors and they can set their own prices automatically.

When I did some driving for Uber Eats and Postmates, I would often not be told the amount I would make or how far I would have to drive in order to pick up a delivery before I would end up being driven for free to the other side of the city and then only be paid a few dollars when I finally made the delivery. It’s impossible to make enough to live with such a system. They will then stop paying you enough to survive and push you into poverty if you turn down too many jobs.

In this way, they have found a way to maximize profits while taking advantage of everyone illegally.

Another illegal action by these companies is predatory pricing. They enter the market and offer extremely good deals. People who used to be taxi drivers lose business and are forced to become employees of these companies instead of running their taxi businesses. The wages start by being high enough for everyone to get a good deal. Once their competition is gone, they jack up prices and reduce wages for their drivers. This is illegal.

Part of their anti-competitive nature is also fighting against public transit. When Uber enters an area, bus ridership drops, starving routes of funds. Read more in this newspaper.

Ultimately, there is no substitute for fast, frequent, high-quality mass transit for getting around cities.

In the Ukraine war, after the war had been won, the only stable solution to this conflict is Ukraine being a member of NATO. Ukraine then can focus on reforming institutions to bring themselves in line with European Union acquis in preparation for membership.

Any time a conflict ends, the most important thing is what replaces it? How will the situation resolve in a way that does not just bring a respite but a lasting peace?

Freedom is an essential ingredient, along with equality under the law.

Ukraine had this before the war and they will have it after. All people in Ukraine are free. This means there is a very high probability that Ukraine will be able to join the European Union sooner than most people think.

Israel however is in a fundamentally different situation. While Jewish Israelis enjoy a high quality of life and protection under the law, the same cannot be said for Palestinians.

The reason why a ceasefire needs to happen is Palestine is because civilians are being targeted like Ukrainians are today. Terrorists need to be taken out and civilians need to be protected. Without this, there will not be reconciliation after the war is over and I fear there will only be more violence which does not solve the conflict.

There needs to be a political solution to any conflict.

The political solution to Ukraine is NATO membership and the end of Russian occupation of Ukraine. This is what Zelenskyy is working towards.

I do not see a sincere plan from world leaders to solve the political situation in Palestine.

That needs to change.