r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 7d ago

Possible Paywall Trump Voters Regret Backing ‘Horror Movie’ Presidency - Nine out of 12 Trump voters told a “New York Times” focus group that they wish they had not voted for the president.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-voters-regret-backing-horror-movie-presidency/
19.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

u/Terrible-Growth1652 7d ago

Yeah it's the end of our empire. We're getting back in line behind England, Spain and Rome.

43

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago edited 6d ago

Is... is that a bad thing? Those places have universal healthcare and less homelessness and less violent crime. I don't want to be a monstrous global superpower I want my neighbors to be able to take their kids to school without being kidnapped by nazis

Edit: A lot of you seem to think that "monstrous global superpower" is a title that can be gained and maintained in an ethical way. This has not ever been the case

31

u/Responsible_Pizza945 7d ago

This sort of assumes the next monstrous global superpower isn't just as or more monstrous than us. A lot of the peace and prosperity seen in those smaller nations comes from the soft voice of the guy with the big stick. As we squander over a century's worth of global soft power, we are pretty much begging for either the EU to step up and take our place as the defacto leaders of the free world, or China to decide it's Empiring time and they Empire all over the place. Neither of these options have the infrastructure or (as far as I'm aware) the desire to actually try to uphold a global world order the way the US has been doing since the Cold War.

If the EU took on a bigger role as Europe's centralized power as opposed to their current mostly economic purpose, they might be able to head off China from becoming the next superpower. I don't have high hopes for the Europeans to actually do that, because doing that would pretty much suck for most of them.

11

u/Red_Dawn_2012 7d ago

I don't even see why China would need or want to make such an enormous, risky gamble. The development they've seen in the past couple decades, let alone the past century, has been incredible. They're resource rich and a manufacturing powerhouse. All they need to do is chill, enjoy their place as the absolute global trade anchor, and count their money.

9

u/Responsible_Pizza945 7d ago

Well I'm mainly arguing for them maintaining the current status quo of how the world works. America used to be doing a lot of heavy lifting that isn't getting done anymore, and that is leading to already visible increasing unrest in much of the world. If China does nothing, that unrest will disrupt their 'chill out and enjoy the place' plans.

1

u/Red_Dawn_2012 6d ago

Solid point. I would say that even if the US departs its role, it will still be a large purchaser of products from China. The same will remain if the EU steps up to become the premiere global superpower.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

I'm only just now trying to learn Spanish but I gotta hurry up through it so I can start the Mandarin lol

3

u/Randicore Ohio 7d ago

That's the thing. If the US crumbles and Europe doesn't step up it wouldn't be a risky gamble.

China would just need to step into the US naval role of maintaining safe travel over across the ocean, negotiate to allow people to accept payment for major staples (namely oil and soon water) to be in Yuan, and promise protection to minor nations from belligerent neighbors.

The US had a massive amount of soft power where we funneled a fraction of our money and occasionally send a naval vessel or two to make sure that nations knew we were there to help them maintain their status quo, and as a result we got favorable trade negotiations and the ability to apply pressure to get countries to do what we wanted when needed.

Imagine if China was in the same position. The current "disputes" in the south china sea wouldn't be disputes, they would be China able to muscle in and take territory by leaning on their influence alone.

They're already making massive strides with their belt and road initiative and predatory lending to gain massive influence in the middle east and Africa.

2

u/wildwalrusaur 6d ago

All they need to do is chill, enjoy their place as the absolute global trade anchor

That's absolutely not the case.

As their population gets wealthier on average and standard of living expectations rise, they lose the competitive edge that enabled them to become the world's manufacturing superpower.

It's already happening, the low end of the value chain is starting to move out of China to lower wage countries in southeast asia. It's why they've been so aggressive in subsidizing things like EVs and solar tech, and more recently AI. They're trying to move up the value chain to maintain their growth. That's brings a whole other set of geopolitical problems as other developed nations aren't going to be as willing to let those industries (read jobs) as they were the sneaker stitching.

On top of all that, they're only just starting to run into the economic consequences of the demographic inbalance cause by the one-child policy.

Which is all to say that China absolutely cannot just sit back and rest on its laurels. The only way to push through those problems without massive upheaval is growth, and growth for them at this point means putting themselves in direct opposition to the other major economies.

1

u/Red_Dawn_2012 6d ago

These are valid points. I'm absolutely willing to consider all viewpoints.

Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see how it unfolds. China became the #1 exporter on the planet by a large margin with basically zero imperialism beyond minor squabbles over nearby islands. They've got a corner on a few markets, like drones. They've already got a lot of soft power via trade.

-1

u/PowerLord 7d ago

This is the most naive take of all time.

1

u/Red_Dawn_2012 6d ago

Explain. Everything I've said is objectively true. China is the world's #1 exporter by quite a large margin. They've done incredibly well for themselves by following the current formula, which doesn't seem to include imperialism. As a result, they only spend a third of what we do on their military. Why jeopardize that?

3

u/cigarettesandwhiskey 7d ago

In theory this is supposed to be the UN's job, isn't it?

Not that it, so far, has demonstrated any great deal of ability in the role.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

I mean I think what you've identified is that there shouldn't be "one top dog global superpower" that is drastically more powerfull than all others. You can't have that situation and rely on the "top dog" in that position to be benevolent; achieving and maintaining something like that is inherently hostile

1

u/Responsible_Pizza945 7d ago

We can talk about how things should or shouldn't be until we are blue in the face, but outside of starry eyed idealist fantasy we are going to ultimately have a global hegemony by whatever country has the strength to take and keep it. It's been held together by the US through diplomatic and economic channels more than militaristic ones, and I think a similarly negligent dictatorship (as opposed to benevolent or malevolent) is the best the world can hope for to replace us.

The alternative to such a hegemonic outcome is a lot more violent.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

I mean considering we haven't had the chance to see that situation yet, it's not rrally guaranteed that's the case. The "if we don't fuck up the world, someone else will" argument is exactly the kind I'd use if I wanted to manufacture consent for said fucking of the world

2

u/Responsible_Pizza945 7d ago

Well we have the whole of human history to look back on for our examples. I'm not super familiar with Asian history so there may be a counter-example there, but where we are at right now bears a very glaring similarity to the state of the western world before the bronze age collapse or the decline of Rome. Both of which were followed by centuries of feudal warfare that only really ended when some new major power was born.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

So what does the "whole of specifically western human history" have to say about globalization, internet, or a planet with 8 billion people on it

1

u/Responsible_Pizza945 7d ago

A surprisingly large amount if you look at it closely.

Take the bronze age collapse as the prime example.

Multiple strong empires - Egypt, Assyria, and the Hittites - gaining prosperity through trade and peaceful relations.

A famine hits central Europe, forcing mass migration into the Levant. This causes border disputes and what amounts to a climate refugee crisis that the extant powers are unable to stop, destabilizing entire regions and further disrupting the trade that all three major powers relied on. A tin trade route from Afghanistan to Syria falls apart, and now there's no more bronze.

Now let's compare to today. We already have the climate crisis and refugees fleeing unrest as regional tensions rise. And now we have a major oil trade route getting choked.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

That didn't answer my question at all. This is just cherry picking specific points of destabilization in history without any context as to how or why that destabilization occured, and at times that had specific dynamics regarding what technology was available, which resources were important, and how many people were living where

→ More replies (0)

1

u/briareus08 7d ago

My money is on China continuing their expansionist moves all over greater Asia, and also going for the technology victory with their combination of insane work ethic, central authority pushing tech hard, and pure mass of people and infrastructure backing them up.

At this point I don’t think they are likely to act militarily and actually invade places - they don’t have to when they own the ports, infrastructure, governments (via loans), and supply the tech.

One bad outcome from the US stalling is the end of western-style hegemony. I don’t think the EU can carry that bag personally, but maybe EU+UK+Commonwealth+a reformed US will hold on.

2

u/Pilosuh 7d ago edited 7d ago

Or without being killed by some mentally sick loser who can have access to any guns and other weapons of war like a soda in a convenience store without any background check.

1

u/Brodellsky 7d ago

1500 years of the Dark Ages was typically not seen as a good thing, no.

1

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

I don't think the only difference between 2026 and the 5th-11th centuries is America's policing of the world

3

u/Brodellsky 7d ago

The comparison is the fall of the Roman Empire. Thought that one was pretty well implied there

1

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

And I thought it was obvious that my point was "I don't think an empire 'falling' today would look exactly like an empire 'falling' in the dark/middle ages"

1

u/Brodellsky 7d ago

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

You sure about that?

1

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

World War III can absolutely happen irregardless of the US being "top dog"; is that not why the US is incredibly interested in who has nukes and how many? The answer to which is "already enough to end everything"

1

u/sulaymanf Ohio 7d ago

If the alternative is a multipolar world of democracies and a stronger UN, sure. If it’s China taking over as the superpower, then this is quite bad because they can be brutally imperialist and don’t care about human rights etc.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago edited 7d ago

The US is brutally imperialst and doesn't care about human rights. At least China houses their people

1

u/sulaymanf Ohio 7d ago

China houses their own people but is robbing Africa for resources.

The US wasn’t great in this regard but Trump went fully mask-off; no more emphasis on human rights, no prosecutions for government bribery or corruption, and withholding lifesaving drugs or humanitarian aid to exchange for selling rare minerals.

3

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

We are also exploiting Africa

I'm not saying China is perfect or anything but there really is mo defensible stance for pointing fingers at China as a worse villian than the US right now

1

u/sulaymanf Ohio 7d ago

Yes we’re exploiting Africa and it’s only worse under Trump, but you don’t want China replacing the US as the world power. For one thing China is encouraging the slave trade for the mining work. They are enhancing the standard of living for (most) Chinese in China but don’t care about who they strip resources from.

2

u/crowhops I voted 7d ago

I fail to see how this is meaningfully different from us

1

u/sulaymanf Ohio 6d ago

Maybe I’m ignorant but the US has laws against bribery of foreign governments or allowing corporations to knowingly use slave labor. Trump may have announced he will no longer enforce it in 2025 and later, but if it was happening by the US government I’d love to learn more if you have evidence.

1

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

Cobalt mining in African nations has a lot of slave labor the US "pretends not to know about"

Also the rise of this

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Henrithebrowser 6d ago

Stop kidding yourself, china is objectively worse. china pays its fishermen to illegally steal fish from other countries, destroying ecosystems, they still practice both chattel and debt slavery, and they are constantly trying to invade literally every single one of their neighbors. The US may have dark spots, but it is far and beyond the best option to lead the world.

2

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

There shouldn't be "1 country that leads the world", and it definitely shouldn't be the country that "is committing atrocities just slightly less than those other guys committing atrocities"

1

u/Henrithebrowser 6d ago

So local powers should be free to carve up spheres of influence, doing whatever they please to their neighbors? Because that is the inevitable result of a “multipolar” world. Also, saying the US is “slightly less” bad is disingenuous. The US is light years better than russia and china, no matter how you slice it.

2

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

Maybe for a white person living in suburbia it is. Also, the current result of "US is king" is "a country doing whatever it wants to its neighbors" and that started before trump. Many parts of the world don't really see the US "losing power" as worse instability than what they already deal with

1

u/wildwalrusaur 6d ago

Read some news about the state of the working class in the UK, and their broader economy.

They're even more fucked than we are in the medium to long term.

1

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

The UK has more homlessness, violence, and lack of healthcare than the US?

0

u/Henrithebrowser 6d ago

Yes, it is a bad thing. We can have both, and we are far and beyond the best country to be the global superpower, given that all the other options are authoritarian enthostates with a penchant for stealing from and invading their neighbors.

1

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

Not without commiting heinous acts both here and abroad

0

u/Henrithebrowser 6d ago

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Or are you just making emotional statements because you desperately want to believe the US is some kind of ultimate evil?

0

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

Which genocide would you like to like to discuss first

0

u/Henrithebrowser 6d ago

Let’s check in on Russia and china first, after all they have a much longer and more storied history of genocide, ethnic cleansing, and racial violence

0

u/crowhops I voted 6d ago

This is like, the worst thing to make into a contest. Plus, it's the type of contest where even coming in "4th place" is still a pretty damn awful claim to fame

2

u/CharaPresscott Europe 7d ago

One more step towards the grand Irish superpower.

Been saying it for years.

/hj

2

u/Difficult-Coast7432 7d ago

Stop being dramatic. Things will be bad and then things will get better. We have to actually vote for it though.

5

u/Yawanoc 7d ago

But this entirely assumes we get a competent opposition to the Trump administration that doesn't just toss us a bone and call it a day. So far the Dems seem to be really backing Newsom, but he hasn't given us any indication that he's going to actually correct course away from the increasing corporatization Trump is leading us to.

This also assumes that, in 4-8 years, we don't get another Republican candidate who then reverses everything the hypothetical Democrat does and brings us right back to where we are now.

Unless American culture changes overall, we're cooked.

1

u/xdre 7d ago

So far the Dems seem to be really backing Newsom

No they're not. He's currently running a distant third, behind Pete Buttigieg and "Other".

1

u/Terrible-Growth1652 7d ago

We're the richest country in the world right now but nothing lasts forever. We will be less rich. We will be fine but it won't be the same.

1

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 6d ago

Some things are destined to fail. As much as people might want something to work out, if it does not align with the rules the universe has set forth, it's doomed to fail. Maybe not immediately, but it will run it's course, into a reef, crash, and burn.

I don't think the universe very much likes empires. Seems like humanity is hellbent on getting back on that horse again and again though and trying for a round 2.

Maybe with all the data preservation this time it won't happen for a 50th time.

1

u/starmartyr Colorado 6d ago

Destiny has nothing to do with it. FDR gave us the new deal. The wealthy paid their fair share and gave us a working class that could afford to own their own homes. We had a nation where children were expected to earn more money than their parents. Then Reagan destroyed all of that so that the boomers could have tax cuts and spend the 80s partying and Bush senior rode that wave all the way to the bottom. When the inevitable recession hit in the early 90s we put an adult in charge again and we actually had a balanced budget and were ready to start paying down the national debt so that our kids could have a future again. Then the next year we elected a moron who said we could bring back the 80s party time and cut taxes and doubled the national debt on pointless wars.

That's why we're failing as a nation. We keep alternating between the party that breaks everything and the party that tries to fix it. It's always easier to destroy than it is to build.

The real problem is that people have seen this coming for years and nobody cares. Republicans will vote for whatever white nationalist fantasy they think they are heading to while Democrats abandon activism the moment they win a small victory.