I am not American, but I’ve lived there and travelled extensively (both while living there and on subsequent visits).
I am referring to how you often hear various rhetorical statements about “how the government [this] and [that]” and so on. While there is often seemingly passionate opposition to “government intervention”, such alleged passion came off as disingenuous and theatrical to me. Trump is merely proving my point.
Note I am not for or against government intervention. In some cases, I believe it is mandatory (e.g. provision of healthcare and education on a universal and public basis), in others situations it is not.
I agree. Right wing politics doesn’t really do idealism, contrary to left wing which is almost purely idealism. That means when you hear a right wing politician or a CEO talk about ideals, they almost always use them to have an excuse for the unpopular thing they actually want.
That’s why you hear Musk complain against government subsidies (because they are anti-competitive, they stifle the free market and innovation, they are against the american dream and so on), but when he’s the one getting the subsidies he’s suddenly super quiet. Because he’s not against subsidies per se, he’s only against other people getting them.
You also hear right wing politicians claiming they want a lean government that’s not involved in peoples’ lives when it comes to e.g. regulating health care or the rights of marginalized groups or poor people. But when it comes to topics like abortion, sexual orientation or immigration they are suddenly super in favour of a large government that e.g. tracks the periods of women to detect if they might have had an abortion. Because they are not against large governments per se, only when they benefit people they don’t like.
Because ideals to them are just an excuse.
On the other hand, people on the left seem to be in general more idealistic and are e.g. for public health care even if that means more taxes for them.
Polemics? Political economics? Also, shallow? What does that mean in this context?
Everything with Trump is money and power related. If national security was really a concern why would he accept money to allow exports?
I am not American, but I’ve lived there and travelled extensively (both while living there and on subsequent visits).
I am referring to how you often hear various rhetorical statements about “how the government [this] and [that]” and so on. While there is often seemingly passionate opposition to “government intervention”, such alleged passion came off as disingenuous and theatrical to me. Trump is merely proving my point.
Note I am not for or against government intervention. In some cases, I believe it is mandatory (e.g. provision of healthcare and education on a universal and public basis), in others situations it is not.
I agree. Right wing politics doesn’t really do idealism, contrary to left wing which is almost purely idealism. That means when you hear a right wing politician or a CEO talk about ideals, they almost always use them to have an excuse for the unpopular thing they actually want.
That’s why you hear Musk complain against government subsidies (because they are anti-competitive, they stifle the free market and innovation, they are against the american dream and so on), but when he’s the one getting the subsidies he’s suddenly super quiet. Because he’s not against subsidies per se, he’s only against other people getting them.
You also hear right wing politicians claiming they want a lean government that’s not involved in peoples’ lives when it comes to e.g. regulating health care or the rights of marginalized groups or poor people. But when it comes to topics like abortion, sexual orientation or immigration they are suddenly super in favour of a large government that e.g. tracks the periods of women to detect if they might have had an abortion. Because they are not against large governments per se, only when they benefit people they don’t like.
Because ideals to them are just an excuse.
On the other hand, people on the left seem to be in general more idealistic and are e.g. for public health care even if that means more taxes for them.
Clearly because money = financial security