US General Election Thread IV: The Beginning of the End

[Thermodolia]

We have a neoliberal pathological liar, a fascist pathological liar, a neoliberal ignoramus, and a loony self-serving petty criminal. Not a one of them deserves my vote. Not a one of them will get it. I find myself so disgusted with the lot of them (and 90% of the down-ballot races are unopposed teabaggers and Trumpites, so there's no point there) that, unless there's a referendum on the ballot, I'm staying home for the first time since I've been eligible to vote.

90% unopposed is more than a bit of a stretch.

If they live in a very rural area it could be true. I know in many areas of North Georgia politicians run unopposed for decades

[The Princes of the Universe]

90% unopposed is more than a bit of a stretch.

If they live in a very rural area it could be true. I know in many areas of North Georgia politicians run unopposed for decades

Ding ding ding! We have a winner here.

[Eol Sha]

90% unopposed is more than a bit of a stretch.

If they live in a very rural area it could be true. I know in many areas of North Georgia politicians run unopposed for decades

That's not 90% of the down-ballot races, though. Few races only have one person running for a position.

[Libertarian Paumanok]

[/quote] Some people might vote for both Trump and Stein.[/quote]

.........Trumpenstein?

[Geilinor]

Fuck this sentiment. I hate it.

We have a neoliberal pathological liar, a fascist pathological liar, a neoliberal ignoramus, and a loony self-serving petty criminal. Not a one of them deserves my vote. Not a one of them will get it. I find myself so disgusted with the lot of them (and 90% of the down-ballot races are unopposed teabaggers and Trumpites, so there's no point there) that, unless there's a referendum on the ballot, I'm staying home for the first time since I've been eligible to vote.

Trump seems to be the only one with a pathological lying problem. Just take a look at Politifact. 70% of the time he opens his mouth, he lies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

We have a neoliberal pathological liar, a fascist pathological liar, a neoliberal ignoramus, and a loony self-serving petty criminal. Not a one of them deserves my vote. Not a one of them will get it. I find myself so disgusted with the lot of them (and 90% of the down-ballot races are unopposed teabaggers and Trumpites, so there's no point there) that, unless there's a referendum on the ballot, I'm staying home for the first time since I've been eligible to vote.

Trump seems to be the only one with a pathological lying problem. Just take a look at Politifact. 70% of the time he opens his mouth, he lies.

I wouldn't put much faith in Politifact tbh, it's owners have openly endorsed Hillary and their quality has certainly taken a hit these past couple of months.

[Thermodolia]

If they live in a very rural area it could be true. I know in many areas of North Georgia politicians run unopposed for decades

That's not 90% of the down-ballot races, though. Few races only have one person running for a position.

I thought they meant 90% of the races in their area

[Geilinor]

Trump seems to be the only one with a pathological lying problem. Just take a look at Politifact. 70% of the time he opens his mouth, he lies.

I wouldn't put much faith in Politifact tbh, it's owners have openly endorsed Hillary and their quality has certainly taken a hit these past couple of months.

Regardless of the accuracy of that figure, the argument that Clinton and Trump are both equivalent holds no sway.

[Uiiop]

Trump seems to be the only one with a pathological lying problem. Just take a look at Politifact. 70% of the time he opens his mouth, he lies.

I wouldn't put much faith in Politifact tbh, it's owners have openly endorsed Hillary and their quality has certainly taken a hit these past couple of months.

I've have to see the evidence for myself but it could be that her being more accurate influence their endorsement rather than them already liking her influencing the fact checking.

[Ngelmish]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-health-replace-contingency-228037

Although hell will freeze over before Hillary Clinton drops out (there are somewhat likelier circumstances that could persuade her to do it, but not many) I find myself largely in agreement with the article's overarching point. Whether or not the Democrats need to replace a candidate after the convention in 2016 is irrelevant: It's been plausibly enough floated in the public consciousness that the procedures need to be updated and made as clear as possible as soon as possible.

As a thought experiment, at this point in the election cycle, the Democrats could probably even get away with slotting in a fairly weak replacement in terms of candidate skills so long as that person can debate reasonably well and seem empathetic, which of course highlights the other problem: They really have nobody right now (arguably two people) who combines the necessary candidate skills with the prospect of actually being a good president.

[Jerzylvania]

Trump seems to be the only one with a pathological lying problem. Just take a look at Politifact. 70% of the time he opens his mouth, he lies.

I wouldn't put much faith in Politifact tbh, it's owners have openly endorsed Hillary and their quality has certainly taken a hit these past couple of months.

So let's just spell it out. If Politifact's owners openly endorsed her ...what? What do you mean exactly? That they lie about Trump's lying?

*rolls eyes*

C'mon man!

[AiliailiA]

Would it really take a constitutional amendment to do that? I don't think FPTP is enumerated in the constitution

The electoral college is explicitly FPTP. For Congress you can't have a nationwide proportional system because each state's representatives are only elected by voters from that state. Upon closer inspection, however, I suppose there's technically nothing stopping a state government from allocating its Representatives on a proportional basis. Again though, why would they do that given that under the current system the ruling parties of each state can gerrymander districts to ensure safe seats in Congress?

The gerrymander is the exception rather than the rule. Though they could most states don't.

You should understand that gerrymandering does create "safe seats" but the beneficiary isn't that party with the safe seats: they're the victim because if you distribute (say) 50% of the vote into safe seats (80% or more to that party) there are fewer seats in total held by that party. The gerrymandering party benefits by having more, winnable but not super-safe, seats.

Gerrymandering is significant in some states, but nationally it is dwarfed by the urban/suburban divide which is a kind of natural gerrymander which favors Republicans (winnable but not safe suburban districts) at the expense of Democrats (super-safe inner city districts). Remarkably, until the early 70's the 'natural gerrymander' went the other way: cities were winnable for Democrats while rural districts were super-safe and a waste of voters for Republicans. The long term trend of urbanization (falling rural populations redistricted to be geographically bigger) was good for Democrats until suburbanization occurred.

My point is that Democrat-dominated states DO have an incentive to apply proportional representation to their US House delegations: it would beat the 'natural gerrymander' without needing a drastic gerrymander (so drastic it probably wouldn't stand in court). They wouldn't want third parties and independents, any more than Republicans would, so they'd probably set a very high minimum to get any representatives.

Finally let me note that state-legislated proportional representation would be meaningless in some states: those with only 1 House rep. They could still have Alternative Vote for that one rep, but "proportional representation" would work precisely the same as FPTP. In states with 2 US House reps, applying Proportional Representation almost certainly leads to one Democrat and one Republican (ie, worse for a Democratic state legislature than having two districts each with a FPTP rep), so it's really only blue states with 3 or more House reps who would even consider the change.

[Jerzylvania]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-health-replace-contingency-228037

Although hell will freeze over before Hillary Clinton drops out (there are somewhat likelier circumstances that could persuade her to do it, but not many) I find myself largely in agreement with the article's overarching point. Whether or not the Democrats need to replace a candidate after the convention in 2016 is irrelevant: It's been plausibly enough floated in the public consciousness that the procedures need to be updated and made as clear as possible as soon as possible.

As a thought experiment, at this point in the election cycle, the Democrats could probably even get away with slotting in a fairly weak replacement in terms of candidate skills so long as that person can debate reasonably well and seem empathetic, which of course highlights the other problem: They really have nobody right now (arguably two people) who combines the necessary candidate skills with the prospect of actually being a good president.

Joe Biden could wipe the floor with Trump. If it wasn't for his son Beau dying he could have been the nominee.
Joe may be over his grief enough now to step in. But let's face it. HRC ain't coming off that ballot unless she's stone dead, and even that is no lead pipe cinch.

[Freefall11111]

Let's be clear: There's no choice to be made in this election. Third party candidates are irrelevant due to the USA's electoral system, so there are only two candidates worth discussing: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Only one of those will pursue American geopolitical interests, and it's not Trump.

Q: What are American geopolitical interests?

A: The overarching theme of American geopolitical interests originated in the same place the Cold War did. It could be argued, then, that that current American geopolitical interests were born in 1946, either in February when George F Kennan released his Long Telegram, or in September, when Secretary of State James F Byrnes delivered a speech in Germany warning the USSR that the US intended to maintain a military presence on the European continent indefinitely. At the latest, it could be argued that the formation of the Cominform in September 1947 was the origin of current American geopolitical interests. So what are current American geopolitical interests? To maintain the USA's spot as the number one power in the world, with no competition coming close to threatening that position. But why? Why does the USA care about being number one? Most countries don't have such an aim.

The answer is that the USA learned from the past. For much of recorded history, the world existed in a multi-polar distribution of power, which can be defined as a world in which at least four, or more, nation-states have nearly equal amounts of power (and power can be said to include military, cultural, and/or economic influence). From the Three Kingdoms period, to the Thirty Years War, to World War I, multipolarity allowed states to wage war against those of near equal power in order to gain the upper hand. This changed after World War II ended when Europe, then in control of much of the world, was left devastated and unable to maintain its empires. Suddenly the USA and USSR were far stronger than anyone else. They maintained armies and industrial bases far above what the rest of the world had. The world was their playground. This was the beginning of bipolarity, the USA (and by extension NATO) versus the USSR (and by extension the Warsaw Pact).

Of course, we know how that story ends. The USA won. The USSR collapsed. Now the USA was the only one left with the ability to go wherever and do whatever it wants. The USSR's collapse led to unipolarity, a state in which one country is so far above the rest in power that they're effectively a hegemon. Make no mistake, the USA is and has been effectively the world's hegemon since the USSR's collapse. The US holds unprecedented military, cultural, and economic influence over every country in existence. Just because others hold some influence over the US does not negate this fact.

This is where modern American geopolitical interests really come into shape. Since the USSR's collapse, US geopolitical interests went from working hard to achieve the number one spot in competition with the USSR and its allies, to maintaining the unipolarity of the world. By being at the top, nobody can threaten the USA as a nation-state or its people. This is the ultimate goal of every foreign policy decision made by the USA, in one form or another.

Q: Why should I care?

A: Because American hegemony has been stable. Despite popular perception that the world is getting more dangerous, it isn't. In fact, the world has reached an unprecedented level of peace. Ever since the end of World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War, deaths caused by violent conflicts have plummeted. What changed? It could be argued, and is argued by many, that the polarity of the world shifting is to blame. It is no coincidence that after millennia of multipolarity, deaths drop sharply as bipolarity is introduced, and then drop significantly further as unipolarity is introduced. In the study of international relations, this theory is called the HST, the hegemonic stability theory.

It doesn't take a genius to understand why having one state so far ahead of the rest leads to stability. Firstly, if you're a nation-state that isn't the hegemon, you must always consider how your actions are viewed by the hegemon. If the hegemon views them as unstable, you risk intervention, and intervention spells doom for whatever geopolitical interests you may have (because, again, the hegemon is so much more powerful). At the core of every nation-state's geopolitical interests is survival, even in states considered "insane" or "maniacal" such as North Korea. After all, North Korea has nuclear weapons. Why haven't they used them on South Korea to finally end the Korean War? Because North Korea, as an entity, is a rational actor, even if it doesn't seem that way. North Korea's leaders want to ensure the state continues to survive, and the threat of American retaliation is far too great to ever risk conflict. In other words, stability is achieved.

Secondly, the hegemon often intervenes in situations that would lead to instability without intervention. For example, natural disasters sometimes lead to widespread violent crime, and in extreme cases the state risks collapsing, allowing rogue elements (such as crime syndicates or terrorist groups) to act freely. This causes instability, and that is why you'll often find the USA's emergency teams one of the first on the scene in nearly every natural disaster on the planet, even in countries that aren't considered "friendly". An unfriendly state is better for stability than a failed state. The same logic can be applied to civil wars. Why does the US often finance rebels, or coups, or oppressive states? Because they're aiming for stability, and oppressive stability is generally regarded as better than an anarchy. It's not ideal, but it works.

Now, does the hegemon intervene perfectly? No. Policy is, after all, driven by humans in the end, and there have been foreign policy disasters both in the bipolar and unipolar states of the world. But as we've already demonstrated, these are outliers, not the norm. The trend is that the world is more peaceful than ever, even if it doesn't seem like it at times.

Q: Okay, fine, the world is more stable and people are dying less, but what do we care? There haven't been wars on US soil for a long time.

A: You're assuming, of course, that fact won't change if the USA gave up on maintaining its hegemony. But okay, let's say for a moment that the evidence suggested that there was no possibility of an attack on American soil even if multi-polarity were re-introduced. There's still a strong reasoning for American hegemony, and that reason is to ensure the flow of trade. Make no mistake, the USA is reliant on countries all around the globe to maintain its current standards of living. The USA exports around $2.3 trillion a year, and imports about $2.7 trillion a year. On top of that, foreign direct investment in the USA totals about $3 trillion a year. All three of these figures can be taken at face value and compared to GDP, but you must remember that they all have domino effects. A company may import $100 worth of goods, but produce $300 worth of goods for domestic consumption. Imports, exports, and foreign investment drive the US economy, there is no question about that. Self-sufficient nation-states simply do not exist. Even North Korea is reliant on the outside world.

Q: Sounds nice. For Americans. I'm from *insert country*, and I don't care about American standards of living!

A: First, that's not a question. Second, the US Navy is one of the most important players in the global economy. It cannot be understated how reliant the global economy is on shipping lanes populated by container ships, and it cannot be understated how reliant these lanes are on the US Navy's protection (and yes, other navies do help, but the USN does a lot of the heavy lifting) from both piracy and rogue states. Global trade is the lifeblood of the global economy. The global economy's GDP is roughly $77.6 trillion at the moment, and global trade is measured at $12.4 trillion exports per year and $12.3 imports per year (why the discrepancy? Purchasing power, but that's a story for another time). Even those figures alone should be mind-blowing, but, again, consider the domino effect.

Make no mistake: Standards of living have risen dramatically globally ever since America set out to make global trade safe, and they've been rising even faster since the USSR got knocked out of the picture. The number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped by over half from 1990, the global under-5 mortality rate has dropped by almost two-thirds since 1990, child labour has fallen by a third since 2000, and global illiteracy has been cut in half since 1990. It's not open to discussion: People everywhere are better off by wide margins. Every year, the world gets a little bit better for all of us, and a whole lot better for those at the bottom.

Q: Wasn't this about the election?

A: Yes.

Q: ...so why's Trump so bad for American geopolitical interests?

A: Because he has no experience or education in foreign policy and it shows. It shows a lot. His foreign policy views are wildly inconsistent, but consistently terrible for maintaining stability. Here's an example of an interview he gave. In it, he advocates that other states develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Never mind that he's advocating that other nation-states take a large step towards closing the gap with America's position as hegemon (nuclear weapons are significantly more effective at this than any conventional weapons), this would lead to incredible instability regardless. One need only look at North Korea and Iran, whose pursuit of nuclear weapons frightened half a dozen neighbours each. Adding more nuclear weapons to the mix won't make the situation less tense, but more, and the tenser the situation, the more likely it is that someone will make a fatal mistake. On top of that, encouraging more countries to pursue nuclear weapons gives them incredible influence over their non-nuclear neighbours (who, knowing this, could also pursue nuclear weapons. It was, and to a lesser extent still is, speculated that Saudi Arabia was, and possibly still is, aiming to develop nuclear weapons just in case Iran does. You'll notice that domino effects are very common in both geopolitics and economics).

Another example from another interview, where Trump says he would not protect a NATO ally if they are invaded and have not "fulfilled their obligations to us". Again, this would lead to both incredible instability and nation-states closing the gap. Russia may not be the USSR, and they're not the USA's big bad mortal enemy, but Russia and the USA have conflicting geopolitical interests. Russia's main interest is not stability, but securing excess land as buffer zones with all of their neighbours, friendly or not. Here's a video for more details. We've seen this in action. Russia has spent the last two decades either propping up ex-USSR states or annexing territory to create buffer-zones. That's why they invaded Georgia, that's why they invaded Crimea and supplied the Ukrainian rebels with arms and men, that's why they have formed various "Eurasian" institutions such as the Eurasian Economic Union and Collective Security Treaty Organisation. These actions have caused instability and in some cases directly led to conflict, harming global trade. This is the exact opposite of what American interests are. That's why the USA, in many cases but not all, is on "the other side" of Russia in violent or nonviolent conflicts. It's not ideology, it's a matter of different priorities.

So why is NATO important? Because most of NATO's members are militarily far, far behind Russia. It doesn't matter if they fulfill their obligations or not, it's a simple case of difference in size. It doesn't matter how much money, say, the Baltic states spend on their militaries, they would inevitably be taken over by Russia if Russia could afford to invade. Thanks to NATO and the risk of American retaliation, it cannot, and as such stability is ensured in the Baltic states. That's why NATO continues to exist, and that's why Trump's proposal to simply ignore NATO's unconditional mutual defense agreement is asinine from a geopolitical point of view.

Another example from far earlier in the campaign, where he says that the US has to stop giving aid to people. Again, instability is the only result of such a proposal. Ignoring the direct effects of aid, which help build militaries to defeat terrorists, which prevent famine, which are used in reconstruction efforts, aid in any form is used as leverage by the USA to ensure that other nation-states absolutely must take into account American interests when considering their actions, or they risk the aid being revoked, even if no military intervention from the US is expected.

Another example would be literally anything to do with his ISIS strategy, if you could call it that. Ignoring the moral dilemmas of torture (which isn't effective in the first place) and killing the families of terrorists, his utter disregard for generals who know about the situation tells you a lot. He seems to be under the belief that the current strategy against ISIS is insufficient, when it couldn't be less true. ISIS is losing, and it's losing hard. If you prefer something more visual, here's a live map that you can explore, dating all the way back to January of 2015.

Another example would be literally anything to do with his Iran strategy, or lack thereof. Let's ignore the most recent development in which he'd risk war over basically nothing. That's self-explanatory as to why it's unstable. What about the Iran deal, which he has pledged to "renegotiate"? Well, it's working,or at least that's what the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey thinks. If you're wondering why Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions, it's because the sanctions worked. The Iranian economy turned out to be very reliant on the international community, and while nuclear weapons are very appealing for any nation-state, you have to remember that the number one priority of any nation-state is to survive. A failed economy is a far greater risk than not having nuclear weapons, and so Iran's leaders acted rationally and gave up on nuclear weapons in exchange for economic stability. After all, starving people are more likely to revolt, and win, than pro-nuclear policy wonks.

Q: Alright, we get it. But what about HRC? Would she serve American geopolitical interests?

A: Yes. She already has. Remember that Iran deal we just discussed that worked incredibly well? She was the one who orchestrated it. She brought Russia and China to the table, and then she lobbied Congress. She also lobbied for the bin Laden raid. There's also the fact that she brokered a ceasefire in Israel, a ceasefire which successfully lasted for two years. Of course, it was eventually broken, but a ceasefire isn't a peace agreement. It should also be noted that, for the most part, favourability ratings of the US increased during her tenure in office, arguably partially driven by the fact that she traveled for over a year during her term, visiting a total of 112 countries, surpassing every US Secretary of State ever.

All of her actions as Secretary of State were driven by American geopolitical interests. They were clearly aimed at, and in many cases succeeded in, bringing stability to the world. Is her record perfect? No, and over the coming decades it may change for better or worse (for example, it's not clear yet if limited intervention in Libya was too much, insufficient, or correct. It takes time to see the full effects). But her actions have a purpose, a clear goal that aligns with American geopolitical interests, and we've already established that American geopolitical interests have benefits to many Americans and non-Americans.

Q: So TL;DR?

A: On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, who will pursue American geopolitical interests aggressively, with both allies, and in some cases "enemies", to bring stability to the world. On the other, we have Donald Trump, a businessman who has no experience or education in anything remotely connected to foreign policy. All of his plans and proposals, if you could call them that, are either nonsensical or antithesis to American interests. To conclude, I have a question for you: Who would you rather be in charge of the strongest military in all of history, an experienced stateswoman, or a businessman with no plan?

[Liriena]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-health-replace-contingency-228037

Although hell will freeze over before Hillary Clinton drops out (there are somewhat likelier circumstances that could persuade her to do it, but not many) I find myself largely in agreement with the article's overarching point. Whether or not the Democrats need to replace a candidate after the convention in 2016 is irrelevant: It's been plausibly enough floated in the public consciousness that the procedures need to be updated and made as clear as possible as soon as possible.

As a thought experiment, at this point in the election cycle, the Democrats could probably even get away with slotting in a fairly weak replacement in terms of candidate skills so long as that person can debate reasonably well and seem empathetic, which of course highlights the other problem: They really have nobody right now (arguably two people) who combines the necessary candidate skills with the prospect of actually being a good president.

Joe Biden could wipe the floor with Trump. If it wasn't for his son Beau dying he could have been the nominee.
Joe may be over his grief enough now to step in. But let's face it. HRC ain't coming off that ballot unless she's stone dead, and even that is no lead pipe cinch.

After his DNC speech I must admit, I do yearn somewhat for a Biden vs Trump campaign.

[Eol Sha]

That's not 90% of the down-ballot races, though. Few races only have one person running for a position.

I thought they meant 90% of the races in their area

Oh. Maybe.

[Ngelmish]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-health-replace-contingency-228037

Although hell will freeze over before Hillary Clinton drops out (there are somewhat likelier circumstances that could persuade her to do it, but not many) I find myself largely in agreement with the article's overarching point. Whether or not the Democrats need to replace a candidate after the convention in 2016 is irrelevant: It's been plausibly enough floated in the public consciousness that the procedures need to be updated and made as clear as possible as soon as possible.

As a thought experiment, at this point in the election cycle, the Democrats could probably even get away with slotting in a fairly weak replacement in terms of candidate skills so long as that person can debate reasonably well and seem empathetic, which of course highlights the other problem: They really have nobody right now (arguably two people) who combines the necessary candidate skills with the prospect of actually being a good president.

Joe Biden could wipe the floor with Trump. If it wasn't for his son Beau dying he could have been the nominee.
Joe may be over his grief enough now to step in. But let's face it. HRC ain't coming off that ballot unless she's stone dead, and even that is no lead pipe cinch.

Biden would probably be the best possible choice in that scenario, or at least stronger than either of the other two most seriously floated candidates (I'm not guessing about what would happen in the primary with him running).

It's not happening though, and even if it did, it would be a similar short-term fix to the party's ills that Hillary herself is supposed to be: A lackluster bench of future candidates who lack either the charisma or the accomplishments.

[The United Territories of Providence]

Jill Stein: I would not have assassinated Osama Bin Laden

I disagree, but I do understand her logic. I just agree with the President's rationale more. The trial of Osama Bin Laden...would've been interesting to see. But in a way, this feels like it's own justice.

[AiliailiA]

Some people might vote for both Trump and Stein.

.........Trumpenstein?

There's a joke there, but you haven't quite nailed it:

Franken for VP, Anyone?

Basically, I've seen a bit of buzz that Franken could be Clinton's logical choice. He's from the Midwest so he could be sort of a "Midwestern Firewall" for Clinton, much like Clinton had in the south. From what I've heard, Franken has a Progressive Record that would woo the Sanders supporters to the polls, and Franken has the type of Charisma that is capable of slowing Trump down. Franken has credibility (at least in Minnesota), which would erase some of the doubts about Clinton.

What do we think? Would we be happy if Franken was Clinton's VP? Myself, I'd be pretty impressed and Proud of Clinton.

OK, but I still want Al Franken for the Greens ticket:

Franken/Stein 2020!

[The United Territories of Providence]

Let's be clear: There's no choice to be made in this election. Third party candidates are irrelevant due to the USA's electoral system, so there are only two candidates worth discussing: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Only one of those will pursue American geopolitical interests, and it's not Trump.

Q: What are American geopolitical interests?

A: The overarching theme of American geopolitical interests originated in the same place the Cold War did. It could be argued, then, that that current American geopolitical interests were born in 1946, either in February when George F Kennan released his Long Telegram, or in September, when Secretary of State James F Byrnes delivered a speech in Germany warning the USSR that the US intended to maintain a military presence on the European continent indefinitely. At the latest, it could be argued that the formation of the Cominform in September 1947 was the origin of current American geopolitical interests. So what are current American geopolitical interests? To maintain the USA's spot as the number one power in the world, with no competition coming close to threatening that position. But why? Why does the USA care about being number one? Most countries don't have such an aim.

The answer is that the USA learned from the past. For much of recorded history, the world existed in a multi-polar distribution of power, which can be defined as a world in which at least four, or more, nation-states have nearly equal amounts of power (and power can be said to include military, cultural, and/or economic influence). From the Three Kingdoms period, to the Thirty Years War, to World War I, multipolarity allowed states to wage war against those of near equal power in order to gain the upper hand. This changed after World War II ended when Europe, then in control of much of the world, was left devastated and unable to maintain its empires. Suddenly the USA and USSR were far stronger than anyone else. They maintained armies and industrial bases far above what the rest of the world had. The world was their playground. This was the beginning of bipolarity, the USA (and by extension NATO) versus the USSR (and by extension the Warsaw Pact).

Of course, we know how that story ends. The USA won. The USSR collapsed. Now the USA was the only one left with the ability to go wherever and do whatever it wants. The USSR's collapse led to unipolarity, a state in which one country is so far above the rest in power that they're effectively a hegemon. Make no mistake, the USA is and has been effectively the world's hegemon since the USSR's collapse. The US holds unprecedented military, cultural, and economic influence over every country in existence. Just because others hold some influence over the US does not negate this fact.

This is where modern American geopolitical interests really come into shape. Since the USSR's collapse, US geopolitical interests went from working hard to achieve the number one spot in competition with the USSR and its allies, to maintaining the unipolarity of the world. By being at the top, nobody can threaten the USA as a nation-state or its people. This is the ultimate goal of every foreign policy decision made by the USA, in one form or another.

Q: Why should I care?

A: Because American hegemony has been stable. Despite popular perception that the world is getting more dangerous, it isn't. In fact, the world has reached an unprecedented level of peace. Ever since the end of World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War, deaths caused by violent conflicts have plummeted. What changed? It could be argued, and is argued by many, that the polarity of the world shifting is to blame. It is no coincidence that after millennia of multipolarity, deaths drop sharply as bipolarity is introduced, and then drop significantly further as unipolarity is introduced. In the study of international relations, this theory is called the HST, the hegemonic stability theory.

It doesn't take a genius to understand why having one state so far ahead of the rest leads to stability. Firstly, if you're a nation-state that isn't the hegemon, you must always consider how your actions are viewed by the hegemon. If the hegemon views them as unstable, you risk intervention, and intervention spells doom for whatever geopolitical interests you may have (because, again, the hegemon is so much more powerful). At the core of every nation-state's geopolitical interests is survival, even in states considered "insane" or "maniacal" such as North Korea. After all, North Korea has nuclear weapons. Why haven't they used them on South Korea to finally end the Korean War? Because North Korea, as an entity, is a rational actor, even if it doesn't seem that way. North Korea's leaders want to ensure the state continues to survive, and the threat of American retaliation is far too great to ever risk conflict. In other words, stability is achieved.

Secondly, the hegemon often intervenes in situations that would lead to instability without intervention. For example, natural disasters sometimes lead to widespread violent crime, and in extreme cases the state risks collapsing, allowing rogue elements (such as crime syndicates or terrorist groups) to act freely. This causes instability, and that is why you'll often find the USA's emergency teams one of the first on the scene in nearly every natural disaster on the planet, even in countries that aren't considered "friendly". An unfriendly state is better for stability than a failed state. The same logic can be applied to civil wars. Why does the US often finance rebels, or coups, or oppressive states? Because they're aiming for stability, and oppressive stability is generally regarded as better than an anarchy. It's not ideal, but it works.

Now, does the hegemon intervene perfectly? No. Policy is, after all, driven by humans in the end, and there have been foreign policy disasters both in the bipolar and unipolar states of the world. But as we've already demonstrated, these are outliers, not the norm. The trend is that the world is more peaceful than ever, even if it doesn't seem like it at times.

Q: Okay, fine, the world is more stable and people are dying less, but what do we care? There haven't been wars on US soil for a long time.

A: You're assuming, of course, that fact won't change if the USA gave up on maintaining its hegemony. But okay, let's say for a moment that the evidence suggested that there was no possibility of an attack on American soil even if multi-polarity were re-introduced. There's still a strong reasoning for American hegemony, and that reason is to ensure the flow of trade. Make no mistake, the USA is reliant on countries all around the globe to maintain its current standards of living. The USA exports around $2.3 trillion a year, and imports about $2.7 trillion a year. On top of that, foreign direct investment in the USA totals about $3 trillion a year. All three of these figures can be taken at face value and compared to GDP, but you must remember that they all have domino effects. A company may import $100 worth of goods, but produce $300 worth of goods for domestic consumption. Imports, exports, and foreign investment drive the US economy, there is no question about that. Self-sufficient nation-states simply do not exist. Even North Korea is reliant on the outside world.

Q: Sounds nice. For Americans. I'm from *insert country*, and I don't care about American standards of living!

A: First, that's not a question. Second, the US Navy is one of the most important players in the global economy. It cannot be understated how reliant the global economy is on shipping lanes populated by container ships, and it cannot be understated how reliant these lanes are on the US Navy's protection (and yes, other navies do help, but the USN does a lot of the heavy lifting) from both piracy and rogue states. Global trade is the lifeblood of the global economy. The global economy's GDP is roughly $77.6 trillion at the moment, and global trade is measured at $12.4 trillion exports per year and $12.3 imports per year (why the discrepancy? Purchasing power, but that's a story for another time). Even those figures alone should be mind-blowing, but, again, consider the domino effect.

Make no mistake: Standards of living have risen dramatically globally ever since America set out to make global trade safe, and they've been rising even faster since the USSR got knocked out of the picture. The number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped by over half from 1990, the global under-5 mortality rate has dropped by almost two-thirds since 1990, child labour has fallen by a third since 2000, and global illiteracy has been cut in half since 1990. It's not open to discussion: People everywhere are better off by wide margins. Every year, the world gets a little bit better for all of us, and a whole lot better for those at the bottom.

Q: Wasn't this about the election?

A: Yes.

Q: ...so why's Trump so bad for American geopolitical interests?

A: Because he has no experience or education in foreign policy and it shows. It shows a lot. His foreign policy views are wildly inconsistent, but consistently terrible for maintaining stability. Here's an example of an interview he gave. In it, he advocates that other states develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. Never mind that he's advocating that other nation-states take a large step towards closing the gap with America's position as hegemon (nuclear weapons are significantly more effective at this than any conventional weapons), this would lead to incredible instability regardless. One need only look at North Korea and Iran, whose pursuit of nuclear weapons frightened half a dozen neighbours each. Adding more nuclear weapons to the mix won't make the situation less tense, but more, and the tenser the situation, the more likely it is that someone will make a fatal mistake. On top of that, encouraging more countries to pursue nuclear weapons gives them incredible influence over their non-nuclear neighbours (who, knowing this, could also pursue nuclear weapons. It was, and to a lesser extent still is, speculated that Saudi Arabia was, and possibly still is, aiming to develop nuclear weapons just in case Iran does. You'll notice that domino effects are very common in both geopolitics and economics).

Another example from another interview, where Trump says he would not protect a NATO ally if they are invaded and have not "fulfilled their obligations to us". Again, this would lead to both incredible instability and nation-states closing the gap. Russia may not be the USSR, and they're not the USA's big bad mortal enemy, but Russia and the USA have conflicting geopolitical interests. Russia's main interest is not stability, but securing excess land as buffer zones with all of their neighbours, friendly or not. Here's a video for more details. We've seen this in action. Russia has spent the last two decades either propping up ex-USSR states or annexing territory to create buffer-zones. That's why they invaded Georgia, that's why they invaded Crimea and supplied the Ukrainian rebels with arms and men, that's why they have formed various "Eurasian" institutions such as the Eurasian Economic Union and Collective Security Treaty Organisation. These actions have caused instability and in some cases directly led to conflict, harming global trade. This is the exact opposite of what American interests are. That's why the USA, in many cases but not all, is on "the other side" of Russia in violent or nonviolent conflicts. It's not ideology, it's a matter of different priorities.

So why is NATO important? Because most of NATO's members are militarily far, far behind Russia. It doesn't matter if they fulfill their obligations or not, it's a simple case of difference in size. It doesn't matter how much money, say, the Baltic states spend on their militaries, they would inevitably be taken over by Russia if Russia could afford to invade. Thanks to NATO and the risk of American retaliation, it cannot, and as such stability is ensured in the Baltic states. That's why NATO continues to exist, and that's why Trump's proposal to simply ignore NATO's unconditional mutual defense agreement is asinine from a geopolitical point of view.

Another example from far earlier in the campaign, where he says that the US has to stop giving aid to people. Again, instability is the only result of such a proposal. Ignoring the direct effects of aid, which help build militaries to defeat terrorists, which prevent famine, which are used in reconstruction efforts, aid in any form is used as leverage by the USA to ensure that other nation-states absolutely must take into account American interests when considering their actions, or they risk the aid being revoked, even if no military intervention from the US is expected.

Another example would be literally anything to do with his ISIS strategy, if you could call it that. Ignoring the moral dilemmas of torture (which isn't effective in the first place) and killing the families of terrorists, his utter disregard for generals who know about the situation tells you a lot. He seems to be under the belief that the current strategy against ISIS is insufficient, when it couldn't be less true. ISIS is losing, and it's losing hard. If you prefer something more visual, here's a live map that you can explore, dating all the way back to January of 2015.

Another example would be literally anything to do with his Iran strategy, or lack thereof. Let's ignore the most recent development in which he'd risk war over basically nothing. That's self-explanatory as to why it's unstable. What about the Iran deal, which he has pledged to "renegotiate"? Well, it's working,or at least that's what the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey thinks. If you're wondering why Iran would give up its nuclear ambitions, it's because the sanctions worked. The Iranian economy turned out to be very reliant on the international community, and while nuclear weapons are very appealing for any nation-state, you have to remember that the number one priority of any nation-state is to survive. A failed economy is a far greater risk than not having nuclear weapons, and so Iran's leaders acted rationally and gave up on nuclear weapons in exchange for economic stability. After all, starving people are more likely to revolt, and win, than pro-nuclear policy wonks.

Q: Alright, we get it. But what about HRC? Would she serve American geopolitical interests?

A: Yes. She already has. Remember that Iran deal we just discussed that worked incredibly well? She was the one who orchestrated it. She brought Russia and China to the table, and then she lobbied Congress. She also lobbied for the bin Laden raid. There's also the fact that she brokered a ceasefire in Israel, a ceasefire which successfully lasted for two years. Of course, it was eventually broken, but a ceasefire isn't a peace agreement. It should also be noted that, for the most part, favourability ratings of the US increased during her tenure in office, arguably partially driven by the fact that she traveled for over a year during her term, visiting a total of 112 countries, surpassing every US Secretary of State ever.

All of her actions as Secretary of State were driven by American geopolitical interests. They were clearly aimed at, and in many cases succeeded in, bringing stability to the world. Is her record perfect? No, and over the coming decades it may change for better or worse (for example, it's not clear yet if limited intervention in Libya was too much, insufficient, or correct. It takes time to see the full effects). But her actions have a purpose, a clear goal that aligns with American geopolitical interests, and we've already established that American geopolitical interests have benefits to many Americans and non-Americans.

Q: So TL;DR?

A: On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, who will pursue American geopolitical interests aggressively, with both allies, and in some cases "enemies", to bring stability to the world. On the other, we have Donald Trump, a businessman who has no experience or education in anything remotely connected to foreign policy. All of his plans and proposals, if you could call them that, are either nonsensical or antithesis to American interests. To conclude, I have a question for you: Who would you rather be in charge of the strongest military in all of history, an experienced stateswoman, or a businessman with no plan?

Hillary Clinton probably subscribes to the Kissenger idea of realpolitik, where you do the most practical thing even if it is horribly immoral. I'm conflicted about that, deeply conflicted about that. However, Trump...is totally unfit. We have no idea what we're getting, and what little we do know...is horrible. Therefore, I agree with your really well written riff about the geopolitical risks in this election. However, I was a little disappointed to see no mention of Latin America which is falling apart and will certainly become an issue before this decade is out.

[New West Guiana]

After his DNC speech I must admit, I do yearn somewhat for a Biden vs Trump campaign.

I think it would've gotten to the point where during a debate Joe would sucker punch trump in the mouth, oh what a great dream.
Then at his next rally everyone will chant Uncle Joe!

[Eol Sha]

*snip*

You make an extremely compelling argument, Freefall.

[Eol Sha]

*snip*

Hillary Clinton probably subscribes to the Kissenger idea of realpolitik, where you do the most practical thing even if it is horribly immoral. I'm conflicted about that, deeply conflicted about that. However, Trump...is totally unfit. We have no idea what we're getting, and what little we do know...is horrible. Therefore, I agree with your really well written riff about the geopolitical risks in this election. However, I was a little disappointed to see no mention of Latin America which is falling apart and will certainly become an issue before this decade is out.

Hmm. How, exactly, is Latin America falling apart? And how much of that should fall on Clinton's shoulder's?

[Freefall11111]

*snip*

You make an extremely compelling argument, Freefall.

Thank you.

[Zurkerx]

Still #FeelingtheJohnson.