Yeah good luck with that. Maybe I'm living in a parallel Europe but that is not what I'm reading in the European newspapers this morning. Trump is loathed here and the notion of always cooperating with (our "friend") the US is sinking extremely fast, politically and also in the mind of the general people. I can't comment for all EU countries, but the view of the US is rather negatively here.
And honestly why would we? While a lot of EU leaders are publicly outraged, the fact that the US is more and more turning back into the dark ages gives a lot of possibilities for other countries. That void needs and will be filled in by others.
For me there is a silver lining here.
Maybe this will garner some points with his most fervent backers, but that set's growing smaller by the day.
The most charitable spin I can think to put on this is that he made an enormously risky bet on a) the rise of populism in Europe and b) the ability of America to cash in on its supposed position of leadership. Turns out a) failed and b) is worth less than we imagined.
The developing countries that (collectively) expect to receive $100 billion per year under the agreement would stick with it under any conditions.
How will that work now? Will Europe be paying that on their own?
In other words, any politician claiming that he's made a dent in the climate change problem is pretty hard to refute while any politician claiming her opponent has failed to make real climate change progress is similarly hard to debunk.
Meanwhile, a growing number of career bureaucrats get to keep on "working" for environmental improvements with almost no accountability. Compared to the war on terror, which does demand more tangible results, this is a much more politically pliable issue. For the political class, this is a win/win in perpetuity.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/trump-threatens-the-failing-e...
Yawn
Trump is in for a rough time next time he tries to negotiate anything internationally, now when he has shown that he backs out of what many regard as a very important international agreement just 2 years after it was reached.
And on yet another issue, Trump shows the world that America is no longer taking the lead. Positioning yourself with Syria and Nicaragua is not taking the lead. He has put America last.
And I doubt it will be without repercussions from other nations. In the coming weeks we will see how there will be calls in Europe for blocking America in all kind of other international cooperation, including trade deals.
Yeah because China, India and everybody else are totally willing to sacrifices other deals because they are unhappy about this climate deal.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of this deal to the governments around the world.
> And on yet another issue, Trump shows the world that America is no longer taking the lead.
He was the first to leave. So he is taking the lead at something.
It's not a case of unhappiness over this deal. It's a matter of trust. The US pushes for this deal for years, then abruptly abandons it. So, next time the US pushes for a deal, who's going to believe it?
This will absolutely increase the caution with which countries reach deals with the US. As it should.
Politicians understand that internal politics dominates (at least for big strong countries).
If they wanted to figure out that US goes back on its deal they did need Paris. They could ask Cuba about the Platt Amendment.
Very few countries in the world are a direct democracy where this would be a concern.
In contrast, representative democracies like the US are very resistant to sudden shifts in populist sentiment. Specifically for the US, the entire government is structured to prevent drastic changes in policy based on the whims and daily desires of the populace. For example, it is part of the reason why Congress is split into two houses.
In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
Yes, they are resistant to swings based on mood changes in the population. However, this does not hold for changes of mind or strategy by elected people themselves. They might promise something at some point and then not do it. US history is full of broken promises.
A counterpoint is that Trump and Obama are elected directly and specially on foreign relations they have a huge power to do whatever they like. Obama promised some stuff, Trump retracted it.
> In contrast, a dictatorship is unreliable, because all decisions are made by one person, whose mood swings can result in lots of unpredictability.
That is true in theory but in practice many dictatorships are remarkably stable. A dictator has to please his cronies, he can't do whatever he likes. He can do what he likes as long as it does not touch the interest of the cronies.
Check "Selectorate theory" in political science. Or this nice little video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Representative democracies are notoriously prone to populist shifts; the US, though, has a system with many different and conceptually independent levers of power checking each other which is generally thought to make it resistant to populist shifts, and this was probably quite true in practice before the era of modern mass communication and nationalization of most politics and political movements when those levers really were largely independent in practice as well as in theory. But it's not the late 18th Century any more.
Thousands of treaties, conventions, agreements, and other arrangements are negotiated all the time. The Paris accord is just one, but a major one. The belief that the American government can be trusted to stick to a good cause, let alone stick to deals it has made before, has been eroded. American diplomats will find it harder to persuade other governments to do anything. They will also find that they have fewer favours to call.
Everybody understand that a treaty like Paris is just a big PR thing. Its is unenforced and the waste majority of people working on it will not be around when the results of it are in.
This is all about signalling. Trump wants to signal that he doesn't give a fuck and he is tough (or something).
If they wanted to know that American diplomacy is not consistent they could have looked at literally any point in US history. The could call Cuba what happened with the Platt Amendment.
Polling shows that the Russian story is basically resonating with Democrats, but not doing much on the other side of the aisle (granted, Republicans stayed with Nixon up until almost-impeachment...)
Paris has broad bi-partisan support. "Let's distract from the Russia issue by something that people actually care about" is not the best strategy is it?
Think about the absolutely massive bad press AHCA has generated, combine that with the fact that Paris is only symbolism, and you have a political move with bad optics and no effect on reality. A global minimum if I've seen one (if you have enough cognitive dissonance to think AHCA isn't a massive mess).
The problem with "Trump is a political savant" is that it's indistinguishable from the "Trump has severe ADD and just does whatever comes up" narrative.
EDIT: check weather.com (at least the US site). When your political move make a meteorological site go full-monty on you, maybe you've generated a couple problems.
I'm not so sure how it helps him with Europe and China. What are your thoughts there?
IMO his foreign relations have been a disaster. I think the only country he has good relations with is Russia. Everyone else is laughing at him.
This also continues the polarization of the nation, which, I guess can be good for him but that's still TBD. And only someone with a gold fish's memory would let this distract them from the Russian thing.
I tend to cringe whenever intelligence is assigned to the man, but I know that's wrong and I should be more open minded.
Bargain with your credibility? I don't think that will work, though. One of Trump's strategy is put something that has been agreed upon on the table again, in the name of renegotiation. For other countries, it might be same thing as, blackmailing. How do you know Trump or his successor will play the same trick again and again?
Credibility is simply something you cannot game. This will cast a long term shadow on US's reputation if a contract can last no longer than 4 years.
Trump's America will still, be treated seriously, not as revered leader, but a unpredictable danger.
With these sort of one dimensional political questions its mostly about how you ask.
If it had said "Do you support the presidents effort to renegotiate the Paris treaty to get a better deal for the US?" you would have gotten 70% in the other direction.
Most of these sort of 'studies' are just marketing.
What "better deal"? The Paris climate agreement is entirely voluntary; each country determines its own contribution to reducing global warming and there is no enforcement mechanism. It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
We know that generally the majority people support some action in flavor of climate. So any question that is phrases in that light will reflect that and have almost nothing to do with Paris specifically.
> It's aspirational and America gains nothing by pulling out of it.
Who cares about America? How is that relevant to politicians? Some climat change that might happen at some point in the future when they will not be in office anymore. What even is America? The people now living in America? The future people in America that don't vote? The country itself?
Non binding international agreements are about signalling and internal politics.
If Trump actually believed that 70% of the people would vote against him if he pulled out of Paris he would never have done it, but that is not relevant because they want, so he doesn't care.
Trump's decision (assuming it's a rational one and not fed by ignorance) is signaling the reverse: he's telling his supporters that climate change is a myth. And this is why he's getting pushback from other countries.
What percentage of people have a clue of WTF the Paris Agreement is? What effects it will HONESTLY have? The difference between this "Accord" and an actual Treaty?
Right now, 99% of what's on the news is My Team vs Your Team. Republicans Defending. Democrats Attacking. No knowledge of what's actually going on.
Trump could hire Hillary to replace Comey, create peace in the middle east and give everyone a new car... and the Left would demonize him for all of it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/ho...
Anyway, what you're saying is wrong - my parents are extremely conservative, voted trump, and are very upset about this.
Why? They live in a sinking state where you can actually see climate change(LA).
Many things have become factionalized - but climate and healthcare are much less than people think.
I think the real problem right now is the right is engaging in identity politics and victimhood - ironically the same things they accuse others of. "Trump can never do anything right in the eyes of others" and "I like this ebcause the other side doesn't" reak of it.
What does the Paris Accord do? Nothing. What lawful enforcement is there to it? None. What forces countries to be accurate and honest? Nadda. How much will it actually affect "Climate Change"? Marginally.
Climate and Healthcare haven't become factionalized and politicized? No offense, but what reality are you in? It sure as shit ain't the one I live in...
The same Healthcare that was changed by a party line vote via the ACA? Pushed through with no bipartisan work or support?
Climate change isn't either? When more than a few studies can be pinged as affected by money from one side or the other? When denying "Climate Change" gets you branded a Heretic at the same level as denying Mother Church?
Name one thing the Democrats have done to work Trump since he got elected?
BOTH sides are engaging in "identity politics". Neither side is willing to work together for the common good. Both sides have victimization - although I would argue that the parts on the Right are much less pronounced and "Central" to their message and platform...
Maybe not here on this forum, but throughout the country, then absolutely yes.
Can you offer one piece of evidence to support your claim?
That is not an anecdote.
To Europe and China the US looks like it can't be argued with. For many the US has become a pariah state.
Not really. There's nothing that he acquires by leaving a non-binding, aspirational agreement other than burning goodwill in effigy. What this means to the rest of the world is that the US cannot even be assumed to abide by voluntary agreements where it can unilaterally declare how much it actually wishes to contribute.
The message that the EU/China are getting is either that they're being given the middle finger for purposes of jingoistic posturing or that Trump doesn't actually understand how the Paris agreement works.
The main point here is that an effort to combat an idiot with sleazy advisors and good instincts looks quite different to the effort that you'd go to if you were trying to counter a secret mastermind who is just playing dumb. I'm amazed at the number of Random Know-it-all Lefty Bros out there who seem to think that overestimating Trump's intelligence and painting everything as a sophisticated plot marks them as somehow more sophisticated and right-on. I suspect you are one of them, with your raving about how I'm "easily duped" by Trump's typo. Jeez.
The front page itself though? I don't know how others use it, but my frontpage is populated by my favourite subreddits, which are luckily mostly free of politics.
TBH I have no idea how the majority use Reddit, but don't confuse the front page with all of Reddit.
(As a side note, yesterday I went on /r/The_Donald out of morbid curiosity. I'm not sure what I expected, but it was rather shocking).
[0] http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics
An angry and selfish man with power can easily destroy the careful work of decades (or centuries). That doesn't make him smart or right.
I've never believed it.
---
The biggest problem in the US is that currently neither party has a convincing majority. During the Depression, Democrats held something like 75% of the Senate. When FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, the Republicans had no ability to stop it and had to rely on Democratic senators to decide it looked bad.
Today all politicians know that government control can change drastically in the next election, which gives a lot of hope to the guys out of power that if they slow things down just a little longer they'll achieve their wildest dreams, and a lot of fear for the guys in power that if they don't get what they want today they may not get another chance tomorrow.
There are brutish, stupid, and venal wreckers at both ends of the political spectrum. There are intelligent, careful, and thoughtful conservatives and socialists. Donald Trump and his followers are not among them. It's only the deeply fucked up political situation in the US that lead to conservatives (those interested in conserving the good that has been achieved) to support a person like Trump.
Political effectiveness divorced from thoughtfulness and respect is not desirable.