@Orathaic
I learnt nothing in American schools, but I picked up quite a bit in British schools and thirty years working around the world.

Let me rephrase the question that you keep evading: how long does the US need before it would no longer be *surprising* that Trump was elected?

I agree that the EU is a great example, albeit with faults and a democratic model that needs to improve. The banking crisis was a great blow but the real problem is currency union without fiscal union (in the Eurozone). If the PIGS had their own currencies their debts could have been sorted out by now.

@orathaic

Yes, those are all big problems plaguing the EU.
I'm not sure we can talk about European neo-liberalism in general when there are so many different national systems within it.

@diplomat61

The PIGS... First time I hear that acronym. Awful. And I don't think Italy should be bunched together with Iberians and Greeks. It has a lot of problems, but it's still a strong economy.

Italy is doing pretty badly with debt, along with Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece...

But Ireland seems to have mostly recovered. And the contagion stopped in Greece. Even if that means the Greeks are screwed for a generation.

@Diplomat: i don't know, look at China, they think the French revolution 'still need a few centuries before we can tell if it was a good idea' - and yet there is huge criticism of China's ability/culture of strategi thinking. Because China developed for centuries as a power unto itself and never really had to deal with strategic concerns of dealing with multiple equilivantly powerful neighbours.

The US has a history at least of thinking strategically - at least in some sectirs of academia, world politics, global economics and military. But what the US can learn as a nation depends on what it experienves. I think 9/11 was a big experience to shape a nation. I'm not sure what was learned... But there are events which will continue to shape the public consciousness. And the Trump Presidency may be one (depending on how it proceeds).

Americans are understandably still scarred after 9/11, New Yorkers deeply so. That's why we shouldn't be electing native New Yorkers to become President.

Comparing the US reaction to 9/11 - a terrorist attack responding to neo-Imperialism.
With the French reaction to similar attacks.

The French had experience of fighting the FLN in the 60s - which perpetrated terrorist attacks against the Colonialism of France in Algeria.

As far as i'm aware, the US had no equivalent conflicts/experience to draw on - except for domestic terror, which i suspect feels a lot different (eg the Oklahoma City bombing)

"By replacing the populace of a successful nation with the populace of an unsuccessful nation, you turn the successful nation into an unsuccessful nation."

Well, not really. This is a pretty uninformed reasoning for opposing globalization. The opposite has shown to be true. The successful nation actually tends to become MORE successful because the products are flowing into it, and the wealth is flowing in from the unsuccessful nation. This increases the wealth disparity between nations.

Oh I think I read that wrong. What threw me off was repeated use of the word "nation," but only talking about one despite the talk being about globalization and other states (not nations, states are the relevant actors). I can refute in more detail later, then.

@orthaic: The U.S. has had few incidents of international terror that hit our mainland. The U.N. building bombing of 1993 was probably our largest incident prior to 9-11.

We are very fortunate in this regard. It's partially due to our "American exceptionalism" in the sense that we are geographically isolated and have very good relationships with our neighbors.

I think because of this, we like to perceive ourselves as friendly most of the time (because we can keep enemies at arms length), but we can be ferocious if provoked. "Don't Tread on Me" snake flags. Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly, but carry a big stick." Yamamoto's apocryphal "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

These are all deeply ingrained in Americans. It's not a surprise that sometimes we lash out at foreign enemies, real and perceived because we aren't used to living next door to them.

The issue as I'd see it would be security, then economy.
. Afghanistan, poppy/wheat choice & the farmer in the western Afghan province goes with dope. The land is rich in rare elements and eminently saleable metal commodities, but the security issue's been unresolved after a dozen yrs. UNSUCCESSFUL.
USA: Economy rolls along. Agribusiness with GMO and pesticides has Wall St.'s short term goals & expectations met.
Security: The Great Depression & the American Civil War (a k a War Between the States) & the Great War's aftermath: postwar fear of "Reds" [with politically formed Red Scare; during the war, fear of "Huns," & fear of "Entangling Alliances" (pace, Geo. Washington as in rejection of Wilsonianism & the League of Nations) -- all these give rise to the anticosmopolitanism of the American Deep South mentality. All modern attempts at multiculturalism survive only in U.S.'s universities and colleges (where many admit that solution's failed), and in Hollywood and "liberal media." Both coasts reviled by the American midwest & one sees the result in federal elections.
Outside of SFrancisco & environs, metropolitan LA & NY, the coastal Northwest, and almost all of New England elements of neofascism (armed to the teeth) are documented. "They" hate "us" - polarization breeds insecurity, and may tumble into the political economy. The GOP never got over Nixon's ouster/resignation, etc.
-- The Mideast: I've no expertise on these balkanized & religiosity-inspired events
--- Europe. The Pope came before the UN General Assembly & said, "Jamais plus la guerre!" He most assuredly was not referencing the Vatican archive's Sybilline prophecies, only modern history. To this day, the poppies grow in Flanders fields...

@ZMaj - certainly PIGS isn't a pretty acronym, but it was in common use at the height of the crisis. It does mask the fact that the issues in each of the countries is somewhat different.

@Orathaic - I think it is a mistake to regard China as homogeneous. I worked there for a while, and in my first couple of months I was astonished to see several provincial governments defying Beijing over the introduction of new taxes. Generally, the country does take a longer term view of things, but I came to recognise very different mindsets in Guangzhou, Shanghai, and Beijing. They may not be experienced at considering the concerns of their neighbours, but they have a lot of bright people and are keen to earn.

@Jeff Kuta - the US is very powerful and most countries prefer you as a friend than an enemy. However, the "big stick" can be seen as somewhat threatening and, when wielded, makes enemies.

I have worked in more than 50 countries, and with people from probably twice that many, including a few that you might consider to be the source of great evil. I have learnt that our similarities are far greater than our differences. Most people are worried about the same things: the health, welfare, and education of their children, themselves, and their parents. Wonder what keeps Xi Peng awake at night? It is keeping over a billion Chinese happy about those things, otherwise he is toast.

Ever thought about who risks building home-made rockets to fire from Gaza into Israel? It's a smart guy who should be at university but cannot, because the border is closed, and has lost hope. Foreign policies need to be built around extending hope and opportunities to all.

"A nation is the sum of its people. By replacing the populace of a successful nation with the populace of an unsuccessful nation, you turn the successful nation into an unsuccessful nation."

Wrong...in the long term.

http://www.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-effects-of-immigration-on-the-united-states-economy

FTA: "Moreover, immigrants are often imperfect substitutes for native-born workers in U.S. labor markets. That means they do not compete for the same jobs and put minimal downward pressure on natives’ wages. This might explain why competition from new immigrants has mostly affected earlier immigrants, who experienced significant reductions in wages from the surge in immigration. In contrast, studies find that immigration has actually raised average wages of native-born workers during the last few decades.

Immigrants are at the forefront of innovation and ingenuity in the United States, accounting for a disproportionately high share of patent filings, science and technology graduates, and senior positions at top venture capital-funded firms."

Immigrants have played an important part in the economic growth, and the "cultural growth" of Australia. Crikey, before we had the waves of immigrants from Europe in the immediate post WW2 period, Australians rarely ate outside...traditional Roast Beef with baked of boiled vegetables eaten inside on a scorchingly not Sunday was the "norm". Now that the Greeks and Italians showed us, we eat outside a lot more, the Cafes and outdoor eating restaurants are the norm, with a much more diverse range of foods. That's just one example.
And we've had other " waves of immigrants" since that post WW2 period, from Asia from the late 1970's, and most recently from Africa and the Middle East.
Yes there has been some xenophobic "push back", but that's a noisy minority.. The dumbnut rednecks mostly.

Interesting post Diplomat61. Thanks. What do you think of this impression that I have of China ? I have this notion that the Communist Party rulers of China have moved towards a "Technocracy", that the Scientists, Engineers, the "real smart intellectuals" have real influence in policy creation and implementation in China. What thinkest thou ?

safety and security are the most important aspects of the nation state. That must be maintained even if it means closing borders and having limited to zero immigration policies.

Even with a credit card and a plane ticket immigrating is not easy, let alone if you are walking with only the clothes on your back. Generally speaking, people who can do that are an asset to the country they move to.

@MM: I went to China expecting a monolithic, centrally directed, country and while that is true to some extent, the sheer scale of the place makes that impossible. Of course, the centre has great power and can direct enormous resources, including making use of smart people to achieve their primary aim, which is the keeping the Chinese Communist Party in power.

@ND: why?

@ND...not sure that a "siege mentality" & xenophobia / isolationism provides long term security... I think it tends to produce less security... Hasn't this wonderful game, Diplomacy taught you that engagement with other nations is essential ?

@Major Yes, and it has also taught me that my allies only use me for their gain the spectrum goes two ways sadly. I have had some good allies and I have used people for my gain. and how engaging with other nations can lead to your downfall, oh UK wants Switzerland now they want to occupy the barrents sea and now they have invaded st.petersburg all because you were fearful of germany and Austria taking you out, then turkey comes in from sevestapol and backstabs you once more. Hard to say this is diplomatic as russia had done nothing to the UK or the ottomans

"Would a nationalist America stayed out of Iraq? hell, no!"

The opposite of globalism is not nationalism, though it certainly plays a part. The opposite of globalism is isolationism. An isolationist America would certainly have stayed out of Iraq.

Hey, I just gave @leon a +1!

MM wrote: "It's damaging the credibility and reputation of a once great nation"

You are completely right there! Both are beyond repair sort of. But if you adopt "normal" governments for some 20 years after this, your credibility and reputation may be restored, at least partially...

"That means they do not compete for the same jobs"

There is certain labor that needs to be completed no matter what. If the immigrants did not exist, employers would be forced to raise wages until native workers are willing to fill the jobs. The only reason native workers don't work these jobs is because the wages have already been depressed by immigrant labor.

"Hey, I just gave @leon a +1!"

Let's make that a habit. ;-)

@Jeff Kuta,

The problem with immigration is not immigration in itself. In the long term, the nation benefitted enormously from the influx of immigrants in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The problem is that, as anyone should be able to see, one cannot have a massive social system and safety net for those on the lowest end and have open immigration. That the radical left continue to demand upon having both, we have encountered the dilemma that we are in.

*Being that the radical left continue to demand upon having both, we have encountered the dilemma that we are in.

Hmm, I'm no fan of immigration from anywhere. In the past, when there wasn't so much automation, it did help America but things are different now. So let's have some safety net. $15 min wage, even basic income, and definitely universal healthcare with single payer. Yay!

I dont think the radical left is doing anything of the kind. In fact it seems like theyre stating the fact that the countries selected for the ban were pretty much just arbitrary. Not a single one of the nations listed in the immigration ban attempt had ever been involved in any terror attacks on america. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia *cough cough bin laden* was not a listed country we banned... oh look trumps selling the saudis billions of weapons.

Also the argument about the vetting process crap was bogus. What is the vetting criteria? These people are getting gassed and bombed what more do you need to know about innocent women and children?

Let them all in. They will be safer here and we have plenty of room.

What are guys talking about? There is no radical left in the US. Ol, maybe there are like three guys, but that's about it

@Ogion

when people say "radical left" they mean socialists. that's more than just "like three guys"

@Ogion: Yeah, most of the Democratic Party and their leadership (Pelosi, etc) are part of the radical left. I have definitely seen you say radical things on here. Totally out of the mainstream of American thought which is center-right.