Dems lose the Make America Great argument because they don’t think America was ever great nor do they really want it to be. The one time Dems are consistently honest is when a sentence has the words “great” and “America” in it - they instinctually insert the word “not” is those sentences. — Fire Ologist

But I've never heard them call it a garbage can.

The most convivial place I frequent is the quick sale rack at Food Basics. It's a magnet for old women and there is always some item of produce that one of us knows how to cook. I make a point of complimenting the attire of anyone of who has obviously gone to some trouble to present herself, and remark on the most striking tattoos of young women at the checkout. (I shun the automated one, as do many of my contemporaries, which is another subject for comment when the line is long.)
Another thing I've noticed is the young people working minimum wage jobs in the farm supply, hardware and department stores go out of their way to help an old lady. One cheerful fellow not only lifted the cat litter into my cart but came out to the parking lot to lift it into the trunk.
We're not completely oblivious of one another just yet.

A cat tunnel. Well, well, well. I think need the human version. Why should kittens have all the fun? — Amity

They make all sizes, for babies, dogs, small and large children and adults.

No, Vera, just No!! — Amity

I suppose it would have helped not to read the book, which happens to be among my top favourites.

But, hey, does it matter? — Amity

YES - to me. The tone, the flavour, the atmosphere, the focus - the very essence of the story was altered unrecognizably. If they wanted to make a vibrant, brilliant, over-the-top funny movie, they should have made their own movie, and I would have enjoyed it for itself. But I was promised Good Omens, in fact, it was the deciding factor in signing up to Prime instead of Netflix, and this wasn't it. If a book is worth adapting, I expect fidelity to it. John Irving was treated with respect...

What is that [tube with a window], pray tell?! — Amity

It's called a cat tunnel. Elaborate ones are available; we have the basic version, inherited from a neighbour who moved into a seniors' apartment with her old cat. I used to cut out cardboard boxes, but the tunnel is light and it rolls, which is apparently very amusing.

I often consult The Guardian myself, for clarity and objectivity. Michael Moore recommends it, along with CBC, for news on US affairs. (Pretty soon they won't have any uncoerced domestic sources)

This is a one-sided view. — Amity

I guess. I took it as an op-ed piece from the author's POV, on one aspect of the protracted male backlash. I'm not sure talking to adolescents is enlightening: they repeat what they hear from their social media, have little patience for honest self-examination and generally distrust non-peers. I sure never had much luck talking to the one I was raising, whereas the boys in technical school were happy to confide. Different approaches at different ages, by different adults.

I don't know how much time teachers have nowadays to spend with individual students, even if they didn't have to fear accusations of inappropriate behaviour. Boys' clubs, interest groups, community projects and informal sports under the leadership of male role models would be more are beneficial. I think teenaged boys today are cast adrift by society: shielded from adult concerns, excluded from decision-making, not given enough responsibility. They don't see a defined role for themselves, present or future; they don't feel needed and have few opportunities to earn respect. As far as commercial media are concerned, a man is a hero, a villain, a drudge or a booby - so all the young boobies try to appear heroic, without all the effort or resort to villainy.

*connecting, connecting* — Amity

I'm just glad I visited San Francisco in the 1980's, when it was colourful and charming, when we engaged in conversation or banter or at least commerce with many locals.
I'm also glad that, when not in my own bubble at home, I'm in one of several nearby communities where people still notice one another, hold elevators, smile at jokes in the checkout line and appreciate a compliment. They do all seem to have cellphones (I don't), but mainly just for consulting shopping lists or significant others, or passing the time in waiting rooms where the tv is silent and nobody turned on the captions. D'you know how unentertaining it is trying to deduce the asinine questions from the idiotic replies in Family Feud, or being warned, over and over, of the the dangers of gingivitis? My kindle doesn't hold a charge anymore; can only be read in bed.

Several things happened.
Before the internet, children were dumbed down by television. While there was some educational and socializing content, most children's programming was purely for amusement, and much of it was anti-intellectual. The more time children spent looking at moving pictures, the less they read.

Before the 1950's, American schools were quite strict and punitive. During the 60's, the power of administrators and teachers was curtailed. To a large extent this was necessary to prevent harsh treatment of children; OTOH, it also reduced student discipline. A number of innovations were tried at that time, some more effective than others, but they generally allowed students to move on to the next level without having fully mastered the basic skills. Within a year or two, the weaker ones would be hopelessly out of their depth, just marking time until they could legally quit. Some of these potential school-leavers were then diverted to vocational programs - or entire separate schools - where academic subjects were neglected.
Meanwhile, teachers had classes of 35 and more students, due to the post war baby boom; they were required to take courses in the new methods in their spare time; they were expected to lead extracurricular activities and supervise lunchrooms, schoolyards, sporting events and dances, and their routine paperwork tripled inside of a decade. When were they supposed to provide extra help for the slower students?

As the general population's reading and math skills declined, news and public affairs outlets adjusted their vocabulary, the structure of their articles and the level of detail in their reports. Over time, information was gradually reduced to generalities and sensations. Schools, too, had to lower their standards in order to keep promoting students, up and out to make room for the new ones.

Since states are in charge of setting curriculum and administer the main funding of schools, poor states and poor neighbourhoods have poor public schools. Additionally, as the standard of living of low-paid workers stagnates or declines, parents have less time to spend with their children; there is little privacy in cramped homes to do homework, and books are generally absent.

As the religious factions push for less science and more scripture; conservative local governments and school boards ban or reject more and more books, and forbid the discussion of a range of disapproved topics, bar critical thinking instruction and unrevised history courses, there is a homogenization of thought which doesn't require analysis or comprehension of complex ideas.

A polity that thinks in slogans and jingles is easier to control than one that arms itself with facts.

So, why is it that Republicans in the US just dominate the airwaves and internet social media sites? — Shawn

Because commercial communications media, tv, radio, internet, and print, is privately owned. Owners have control of staffing and content. Owners and sponsors have a lot more to gain under Republican administrations than Democratic ones.
In concert with politically aligned state governments, the owning class can get its own way pretty much all the time - except immediately after it's caused an economic collapse. Then, it has to wait for the little people, under liberal leadership, to build something worth exploiting again.

And now, a word from our kittens:
They've discovered that collapsible tube with a window in the side. Even the big cats still play with it from time to time, but for the little guys, it's a whole playground.

Footnote to genres. I think they're like cliches: the original examples were strong literary efforts; once their popularity grew, there rose many inferior imitators. There is only one Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, one Dracula one Rebecca, one monumental Lord of the Rings; there are maybe a dozen very successful - I don't like to say imitators; say rather, stories on the same theme. After that, it becomes predictable, which is what fans are looking for.

As for convergence and subdivision of genres, they're too confusing for me. I prefer to know whether I'm picking up a science fiction story based on actual science, or a fantasy with magic. But whether it's alternative history or speculative or post apocalyptic, I don't really care. I don't really understand about 'punk' in any context. I like William Gibson's stories, whether he's cyber, steam or rust.

Footnote on hope.
When I was in elementary school, they held drills on what to do in case of nuclear attack (duck and cover - I guess it's jut effective against gunmen) and Mr. McCarthy was ruining lives left, left and center. American children pledged allegiance, not to the constitution, but "to the flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," while Black people were barred from restaurants, excluded from schools and quite often got sentenced to years of hard labour for loitering.
That nation was, in fact, not merely divisible, but divided from its very inception. Things got better, with a lot of hard work, perseverance and sacrifice. Now they're worse again. The descents are fast; destruction is much easier than construction; destruction can be carried out by an army of drunken orcs, while construction takes vision, co-operation, forbearance, patience and fortitude.
I just don't believe there is time for another long upward slog.

Camus' apparent negative view of hope comes from the idea that human existence is absurd. I don't see this as having anything to do with courage. — Amity

You can be realistic; understand the futility and absurdity of life, and yet have compassion for those who suffer greater hardship or pain. So keep on keeping on, alleviating as much of that pain as you are able. There is little reward and plenty of risk in service, and so it takes more courage than hoping for improvement to come from elsewhere or from the hope of a better afterlife. (Camus had an effect on my teens.)

This started me wondering about genres, subgenre and how certain kinds of writing are classified. How they might limit the writer by having a need to keep to criteria. Why can't a nasty Gothic character have nice elements? — Amity

They can, but the author needs to be very subtle. The average reader of that genre might miss subtlety.
The very popular escapist genres are easy and quick to write, because they're formulaic: plug in the necessary elements in a slightly different order. They're also read only once and quickly discarded. If you're going to mess with the formula, elevate the novel to something approaching literary fiction, it loses most of its fan base and appeals to a smaller, more discerning audience.... or nobody at all.
I read a trilogy by Ray Bradbury that would be loosely classified as psychological thrillers. The first one, Death is a Lonely Business, was wonderful; I reread it twice in later years. The other two were disappointing: the impetus (fond remembrance of a time and place) was absent; the stories had no soul. Yes, Bradbury can miss!
My favourite aunt had a saying for when she learned something that went counter to her assumptions: "A world collapsed inside me."

Actually, I'm not a strict adherent to genres; I just understand why they're helpful to the reader. If there is a zombie or vampire on the cover, I'm gone. If it says young adult, I tiptoe around it, and if it's designated H, I run the other way.

Does he stand as a testament to the power of hope? — Amity

I think Gene Roddenberry did. But that was in the optimistic, expansive, society-improving 60's and 70's. There is nothing grubby about Star Trek NG, even when they have moral dilemmas, or when they're forced to fight.

I hated the cinematic version of Good Omens, perhaps even more than I normally would have, because I like David Tenant and found that over-the-top campy performance embarrassing. The book OTOH, was charming and quietly amusing. The central characters were determined mortal kids, not the supernaturals. Thereafter, I didn't watch American Gods, which is all Gaiman, and therefore much darker. I'm curious, but afraid to find out what the movie people made of that.

Sounds to me like the eternal social tension: competition vs co-operation, between vertical and horizontal society. In a vertical society, there are clear distinctions in status, in privileges and duties, in social and familial roles. While men are dominated by rulers and bosses, they have little control of their lives. If they lose superiority over an even lower caste of men, and then control of their household, what status, what source of pride do they have left? How they feel about that, we've been aware of the backlash for years, the bitter recriminations against women and minorities, the anxiety disguised as bravado. Moreover, with dwindling resources and growing population, the competition for the last of everything grows more fierce every day.
They want the middle ages back, because they cannot imagine anything better than having someone to kick down at while their masters give them attaboys.

Interesting to explore side-taking in conflict. — Amity

I didn't get into the big picture, just individuals: How their minds changed and what events brought that change about.

What's wrong with keeping complex and contradictory aspects of a character? Doesn't that make her richer with hidden depths? — Amity

Yes. But it wouldn't be a Gothic novel then; it would be literary fiction and I hadn't signed up for that much effort.* Even the one that I intended as a kind of spoof of historical romance turned itself into a subversive social commentary. Damn things just won't stay where I tell them to sit.
*Though, come to think of it.... I wonder where I put all those notes... Probably in the storage room, in a mouldy binder, yellowing...

Isn't there a need to explore all aspects of humans and their place in whatever worlds they find themselves in? — Amity

Sure, but I perceive no shortage of writers exploring the deepest, darkest crannies, describing the vilest acts in the most graphic terms. They don't need any help from me. I'm more interested in the small, everyday pleasures and pains, loyalties and betrayals, courageous and craven acts or ordinary people. Lately, I've been exploring how someone decides which side to take in a conflict. If my protagonists end up with the forces of light, I'm in no position to fault them.
I've written sad stories and happy ones; they tell me the tone they prefer.

I'm not sure about that judgment of optimism and hope. Have never thought about which is humane -- but then, I sniff around the word 'humane' like a poodle at the corner lamp-post. On reflection, I tend to reserve hope for specific situations, in which something bad is likely to happen, but may yet be averted, and optimism as a general outlook on life and the world. I have some hope for individuals, for ideas, for the preservation of seeds, culture and knowledge. But not for this civilization, about which I'm wholly pessimistic.

Small footnote about poetry in school. I've read some quite remarkable collections of children's poems, written as school assignment. I imagine the inept and resentful ones were omitted. I definitely think poetry should be taught - both reading and discussion and the mechanics of writing. I wouldn't force any child to submit a poem for grading, but I would test them on understanding.

This thread appeared once before and immediately disappeared. I wonder why.
I also wonder where this comes from

An overview of politics and culture in America, including radical identity groups and the psychology of status, hardly leaves the impression of analytics upon the observer. — EdwardC

Are you observing, analyzing, evaluating or just collecting impressions?

is America actually less spiritual than it appears? — EdwardC

In what sense does America appear 'spiritual'?
I can't make sense of what is being asked.

I believe whomever won that primary would have beaten Trump. — Maw

I very much doubt that was uppermost in anyone's mind. More time would certainly have helped - if the strategy had not been so gender-weighted and more focused on the working class, rather than the middle. All the liberal parties these days buy into the fiction that everyone who isn't a billionaire identifies as middle class or aspires to be middle class: they've swept the working class under a big lumpy carpet that just won't lie still.

Sometimes it's obvious that the writer is having fun even when writing a tragedy. — Jamal

For good or ill, I can't do that. I get too involved in the story. I can't be jolly about a character I intend to kill off. I tried to write a Gothic once and everyone in it turned nice by Chapter 3, so I had to throw it away and start another project.

I've been dragged from the depths... — Amity

And there's so little sunshine on the surface at this time of year.
I can't stay down too long; I'd get the bends and I'm way too claustrophobic to go in the decompression tank. News blackout is a good start.

No, no, no. You missed the point: democratic nations don’t go to war at all based off of a vote—that’s not how it works. You are acting like a democratic nation only goes to war if we vote to. — Bob Ross

Exactly. You're wanting to force democracy on other peoples through undemocratic means, at great cost to both your own population and the one you hope to convert.

This opens up the discussion to the question: “what reasons can a democratic nation go to war, which is despite whatever their citizens think?” — Bob Ross

No, it doesn't. If your democratically representative government believes that another nation is doing a great wrong, like genocide, the moral and legal course is through existing treaty organizations, such as the UN, and persuade your fellow signatories, as well your own population to participate in an international intervention.

People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid. — Bob Ross

It's how democracies work.

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? — Bob Ross

It wasn't. The Nazis should have been stopped before they started knocking over the smaller nations around them. Should it have been stopped by force of arms, diplomatic or economic means? By whom? By what right? Consult the treaties and compacts and international laws of the period.
If you want to go back in time and stop them by force before they round up all the mental patients, communists, Jews and Romani, fine. If you expect my help in conquering North Korea, forget it.

I'm trying very hard to find a light, humorous, optimistic theme.
We have kittens...

I'm not going anywhere. Here I sit and here I stay. It's not the worst place I could have ended up.

Ay-yup! Not entirely unforeseen or unpredicted: it's been hurtling down the track since 1972 - that I could see. Before that, I was a youthful optimist, going on peace marches, stuffing envelopes and making coffee for the Greenpeace boys - immediately after which experience, I became a feminist of sorts. Even for a while after, I still believed the course of history could be altered, if only enough of us progressives wanted it enough and worked hard enough. There were signs... yet disillusionment didn't land with the last decisive *thud* until the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney axis. From there, all our ill-wishers converged unerringly on this point. (and yet, and yet, we still hoped the train might slow down.... it can't)

I thought Canada would be the first domino, but it turned out to be Germany. How many more? They all have pressure from their own right wing and a common fear of Putin. A Trump-Putin alliance vs The EDu? I don't think Europe wins. I know the earth doesn't. Or the people.
But what we are in even more suspense about is whether JD adheres to the book he endorsed or morphs into yet another incarnation once DJ strokes out. I give him till March (in deference to a self-styled prophet we met in 2016: maybe he had the month right and just misread the year.)

Some days, it's a genuine privilege to be old.

I'm saying people don't vote for it.
…
If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.


People haven’t ever voted on when to go to war—that’s not how republics work I’m afraid. — Bob Ross

That's what I've been trying to tell you: democratic nations don't "take over" other countries to fix those other countries' morality. It would have to be done by either coercing or misleading the people: i.e., by undemocratic means. So, what superior values are you imposing on another non-democratic government?

Is going to war with the Nazis to stop the Holocaust a war of aggression? — Bob Ross

Who attacked the Nazi regime just to improve its morals?
And why do you think shifting the subject in every exchange is going to convince anyone of your own moral rectitude?

I've just read an article by masculinity researcher, Richard Reeves, which seems to shed more light on the gender issues. And how the Democrats miscalculated. — Amity

Badly, yes.

But I don't think this:

“There are so many progressive young women who are worried about the mental health of their boyfriend or brother. There are so many progressive women who wanted a party that would support their reproductive rights and do a better job of educating their son.” — Guardian- Young men and the Election

would have helped. The first reaction from the rightward press would be :"Are they calling all young men crazy?" I shudder to think what the Trump campaign would have made of that approach.

Susan Faludi covered this state of affairs it pretty well in her book Stiffed It's been evident for some time that the social, political and financial status of women, especially women of colour, has made rapid and accelerating progress in the last 25 years, while that of men in the same ethnic and class brackets has stagnated or declined. Given where each group was in 1990, the fact that women are still paid less, and what happened on the economic stage, that shows progress toward fairness.
But the affected men don't remember past conditions as wrong, don't experience the present as fair, and don't know enough to place the blame appropriately. (This is largely down to the shift in 'information' media, more than political rhetoric.) It's always easier to direct one's frustration and disappointment at the nearest target than at some billionnaire with the power to move your livelihood to the other side of the world, leave your town destitute and you, dependent on the wife's income.
Of course, there have always been canny political strategists to harness insecurity, frustration, anger and hurt pride. Especially hurt pride.
The single biggest mistake the Harris campaign made was that ad by Julia Roberts: "don't tell him". That was specifically directed against men. Seems many men are less bothered by being called rapists and garbage than the suggestion that their wives lie to them.

Instead of leaning so hard on the women's vote, Harris should have emphasized Biden's job creation and her plans to expand that - more detail in what union jobs will become available with the building program and renewable energy scheme. They should have put more emphasis on workers (that was working for about five minutes) and veterans and revitalizing the industrial base. They might have explained the effect on the productive classes of deregulation, offshoring and tariffs better. They should have come down hard on the 'protect women whether they like it or not' Trumpism, with something like "How dares that pudgy old rich guy take over as protector of your family?"
(They might also have covered border security much more forcefully, but that's not a gender issue.)

Someone is paying the price for 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants in the US, and it isn't the liberal elites. — BC

Nor is it the "conservative" elites. It's convenient that the famous American political amnesia has sainted Reagan and blamed everyone else for the consequences of his policies. It's convenient that nobody asks why so many Latin Americans are fleeing their homelands. Those questions would be far too complicated for the average Trump voter. They'd rather be taxed for thousands of bibles at three times the regular price than not have bibles in their schools.

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. Why not? Because the economic elite isn't running the country for the benefit of workers. It's run for their own benefit. So, workers get fucked over — BC

Well, duh! And the coming deregulations are not going to bring any good jobs to Americans or reduce their rents, gas and food prices - but at least it will eliminate overtime and strikes. I'm sure enough scabs can be rounded up in the concentration camps.

At the time, Nixon was the liberal nightmare, — BC

He still is, to me, despite some of his good policies. His campaign advisors made the little snowball that turned into the Trump presidency and he dropped it in front of George Wallace, who kicked it down the hill.

One of the points Snyder made in a recent NPR appearance was that a number of incumbent governments have been voted out since Covid, the UK, for instance. — BC

Won't make any difference to the next catastrophe.

Firstly, people get told to go to war no matter what in a republic—that’s not unique to my position here. If my country goes to war, then I could legitimately get drafted—are you saying that’s bad too? — Bob Ross

I'm saying people don't vote for it.

Secondly, the idea is that, just like a citizen should want equal rights for their fellow citizens (and to sacrifice potentially for it), so should they with helping people out from another country by taking them over or at least having influence there to help out. — Bob Ross

If you convince them of what they should want, they'll vote differently.

What makes you think that? — Bob Ross

Everything he's ever said and done publicly.

So war, for you then, is always impermissible. — Bob Ross

A war of aggression, for me, is always immoral.
I wish you did get it.

Demagogues might often use xenophobic rhetoric to take advantage of the fact that the West's migration policies are deeply unpopular, even among many minority communities at this point. However, the key reason the center and the left's efforts to push back on the ascendent far-right have failed is an absolute inability to countenance major changes or compromises on migration. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Changes like sending millions of people to destitution, misery and death is a bit hard to countenance. (Especially since we know that it was the allied powers' actions since WWII, and European imperialism preceding the wars, that cause most of the current displacements).
But that wouldn't be sufficient appeasement for the extreme right: next, they'd have to give the Christian militants control of reproduction, marriage, education, assisted suicide and gender issues. They've pretty well caved on climate mitigation at every summit. Soon, they'd have to start dismantling social services.
Major changes in that directions will come, but through coercion, not compromise.

There’s nothing about a representative republic that prevents this [electing officials on their aggressive foreign policy]; nor why would it? — Bob Ross

Because it would require them to die and sacrifice.

What do you mean by “aggressive”—that’s a very vague term here.

Nothing vague about aggression. One country attacks another - as you propose they should. The population is usually not asked whether it wants to go to war; it's told (often untruthfully) why it should or must go to war.

It’s not that he doesn’t care: it’s that he cares more about America—as it should be. — Bob Ross

Oh, he doesn't care about the US, either. If he's convinced you otherwise, I've overestimated your acuity.

This can be true, but isn’t always the case. I think you are denying my OP on the grounds of practicality, when it was meant in principle. — Bob Ross

I'm rejecting it on all of the grounds I listed in my first post. If your principles cause innocents to be killed or bereaved, I reject your principles.

Do you think there’s a certain point where the Nation would have to use conquest, as a last resort? — Bob Ross

I'll let you know when I've seen the results of the first five resorts. ATM, no.

Like as not, Trump will do little to make life better for workers, — BC

Oh, he'll make it much worse, if he gets the chance.

You are worried about xenophobia; most workers are not. — BC

I'm worried about fascism, which rides in on nationalism, racism and the fear of strangers. Trump didn't say all those horrible things about immigrants just to piss off the liberals; it always got big cheers. He got elected on paranoia and misdirected anger, not for his concepts of a plan to improve health care. And if he puts the migrants in concentration camps (mass deportation is too expensive, even if Venezuela, the only Latin American country Trump knows, wanted them) the price of food will go through the roof.

Democrats have done a great job meeting run-of-the-mill working class needs, plus there's the "basket of deplorables" and "garbage" problem. — BC

Now there is a perfect example of double standards!! Two isolated comments by two unrelated people over 10 years - in reaction to the continuous toxic spewage from Trump and his many mouthpieces. (What, no indictment of the Democrats' response to Covid? Or how they let down the labour unions?)

What I am more afraid of is 4 years of seriously incompetent and corrupt management of the government, and an altogether failing effort to deal with basic problems ike Social Security funding, environmental protection, global warming, health care costs, etc. — BC

You needn't worry too much about incompetence. Chances are, it will be a Vance presidency. He has an agenda. Maybe it's the one laid out in the book, maybe not: nobody knows what the next Vance incarnation believes or wants to do, though we can be sure he'll please as many billionnaires as possible. He'd probably try to keep the Wall Street feeding frenzy going, which doesn't bode well for the working class. We don't know whether he can keep the Inverterbrate Party or its tame judges in lock-step; we don't know whether he has a foreign policy the military can stomach. All we know is, he's sane, smart, utterly uncharismatic and unreadable.
You've got what you've got; you'll cope as you can.

Law and Order party lost the elections last year and a pro-EU candidate won or, is that the totalitarianism you mean by totalitarianism? — ssu

No, I mean the rise of right-wing xenophobia all over the world, to which some nations are more susceptible than others, for reason of their location and/or history. Politically, Poland may be safe for the moment, but those antisemitic, anti-Muslim sentiments haven't gone that far underground - and the refugees keep on coming. Of course, if Putin picks them off one by one - a possibility of which they are all keenly aware, the question of elections becomes moot.

Just like I'm not buying the idea that the US is on a verge to collapse into a civil war tomorrow, I'm not convinced that so many Eastern European states heading into tyranny. — ssu

Okay. But keep your eye on your own overridable constitution.

What small countries are you talking about specifically? — ssu

Sliding toward totalitarianism specifically: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland. Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria are openly pro-Russian; Poland has a rising pro-Rusian faction, Serbia will probably follow soon. I don't know the current political situation in Albania and Romania, but they're all scared of another wave of refugees: xenophobic parties keep gaining power even France and Germany. And most EU countries now have debt problems. Once Putin's taken Ukraine, they'll be unable and/or unwilling to mount a convincing defence without the support of NATO.

Well, China will do what it will. It has it's own problems. — ssu

It doesn't matter anymore. The tipping point is passed; global cooperation might have provided some mitigation, which isn't going to happen now. Nor will any effective prevention of the next pandemic.

"Actual good" in war is usually merely things valued from the perspective of the one citing it as a justification for war. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, that. No country invades another country and kills its people for their own good. After the pillage and installation of a governor, the conqueror might bring some of its more advanced technology and introduce its own - sometimes - more efficient admininstrative style ... usually to the detriment of the local culture and class structure; usually with the result of another war for that country's independence.

Do you think members of a government, in representative republics, are self-appointed??? — Bob Ross

As guardians of other countries, yes. Candidates don't run on aggressive foreign policy. The American people have just elected an isolationist president who doesn't give a sweet ff about other countries.

No empire conquers other peoples in order to help them.
- Why not? — Bob Ross

Because:

The US isn’t in a position to be funding external wars right now; that’s why US citizens are fed-up. They have a serious budgeting problem that needs to be fixed. — Bob Ross

conquest is far more expensive than aid, and many representatives oppose even the barely adequate level of aid that might prevent those bad effects you want to march in to remedy.
If the biggest, healthiest (for whatever short time in the future) economy and the biggest, most expensive army in the world can't or won't oppose dictators, who do you think is capable or willing?
Nations go to war when they or their assets are threatened, when they have an obligation to allies, or when they have something to gain.

You don’t think we should try to help oppressed people in other nations?

I absolutely do. By prevention - like, not propping up and arming bad leaders; like not bombing civilians or supplying bombs to those who will; like empowering the common people; like supplying medicine and technology. Not by conquest. That only substitutes a foreign oppressor for a native one.

You are conflating a subset of scenarios with all of them. — Bob Ross

I'm opining that your subset is a pipedream.

Sure, the bureaucracy is lousy, but there's still some reasons to have that common market, common monetary system and the leaders constantly talking to each other. — ssu

Yes. However, things have been changing and will change faster now. As more small countries fall to totalitarian governments, into debt or under Russian influence, it becomes harder to discipline the membership and enforce commitments. Also, an alarming surge of xenophobia has been causing ructions, and will get worse. The richer nations will have to keep forking out more for mutual defence - especially if Trump-Vance scuttle NATO, and will be increasingly reluctant to protect states that are failing or turning into enemies.
OTOH, Europe can go ahead with any self-sufficiency projects and energy generation, but with the biggest contributor to global warming determined to increase its contribution and despoil more of the environment, even that tiny sliver of hope is extinguished and climate change is now guaranteed to be fatal.
So, it doesn't much matter what they do.

Where does that empower any nation that considers itself superior to the nation in which a wrong is taking place to invade and impose its own values?

You ask everyone what they prefer, without others knowing what they said, granting everyone an equal say. — jorndoe

And this is practicable in a nation of 50 million - how? I assume, first you asked each of the people in your own country whether they supported an intervention half-way around the world. Could take a while....

You didn’t answer the question; and provided, instead, a red herring. — Bob Ross

No, a reality-check. It's the UN's mandate, not any self-appointed guardian's, to organize interventions against genocide, but those morally superior modern western nations are mighty slow to support UN initiatives.
When the morally superior western nations finally did defeat Germany, they didn't prevent the next genocide; they didn't resettle the survivors in their own countries: they took the lands of people they had recruited to their cause and plunked a European population on it, which started 77 years of sporadic carnage.
This 'duty' to fix other peoples tends to be expensive and end very badly.

to your point, many people would be too cowardly to act. — Bob Ross

Or they're too sensible to die for your assessment of The Good.

The way they handled the conquest of abhorrent; because they were not trying to help the people there: — Bob Ross

No empire conquers other peoples in order to help them.

What the OP is referring to by imperialism, is its simple form of a nation having a duty, under such-and-such circumstances, to conquer and impose their values onto another nation (without it being legitimate self-defense or something like that). — Bob Ross

I get that. You're wrong, it's illegitimate, it kills more people than it saves and it doesn't work.

He's a question for you. Now Trump is elected one could make an argument that the US poses a treat to the health of earth's biosphere, as it is one of the biggest polluters and under Trump it also has no intention of doing something about it. Are other countries morally obliged to attack the US in order to prevent further damage to earth's biosphere? — ChatteringMonkey

How about preventing the proposed persecution of liberals, women and immigrants? Nobody's about to intervene on behalf of those threatened minorities. Nobody's even going to aid the protests that will inevitably form. The US will have to play out its own internal drama.

I can only imagine a war against a real country like Canada or Mexico. — Lionino

I'm not exactly looking forward to that. In the case of Canada, they probably don't need to invade; they're imposing their 'values' on us through money, propaganda, infiltration and appeals to the meanest, dumbest factions. But at least we get the best of their defectors.
Mexico won't need invading, either; it will be inundated with poor migrants from all over South ans Central America. As per current Western Nationalism.

And let's cast a brief glance at Saudi Arabia.... How are "we" doing there, morally?

Not at all. I am evaluating the justifiability of imperialism via a moral realist theory: I am not saying that every country should just take each other over for any willy-nilly reasons. — Bob Ross

They're not willy-nilly, they're at bad guys. Every imperial aspiration is fed by some self-perceived need, threat, imperative or benevolent wrapping on a greed motive. Your moral justification isn't mine; America's is not Britain's or Russia's. There is no 'objective' realism.

For example, if the Nazis stayed in Germany (in the sense of not invading other countries), then would you say that no country should have invaded Germany to stop the Holocaust? — Bob Ross

No country did; most wouldn't even take in refugees. It wasn't until after they themselves felt threatened that the allies confronted Germany. No country is stepping in to stop Russia or Israel today. And stopping a genocide is not equivalent to imposing one's own political system on a non-belligerent nation.

It wouldn’t be blind: it would be operating under policy guidelines; just like the Geneva convention or how the UN tries to enforce universal rights—instead, though, we would actually do something about it when it happens. — Bob Ross

Who "we"? Under what mandate? The UN is a legitimate international organization that is poorly supported by its western members; "we" could only be vigilantes.

Imperialism does not presuppose a dictatorship. It never has and never will. — Bob Ross

You read this in history, or tea leaves? How else do you get the majority of a people to volunteer for extreme hardship and danger, for the purpose of imposing one government's will on another? If you can manipulate people into believing their own country is in danger, yes; otherwise, you have to coerce them. As in Korea and Viet Nam.

The dude was brutal. — Bob Ross

He wasn't alone; the regime was brutal. He reported to Ferdinand II and had the use of soldiers, administrators, overseers and priests sent by the monarch. Is there any record of the common people of Spain or Portugal clamouring to bring civilization to the Americas? D you truly believe they would have voted for the conquests on moral grounds?

I can foresee, as a possibility, a nation which comes up with a better economic system than capitalism; and if that happens then, yes, they should imperialize everyone else — Bob Ross

Like the USSR appointed itself liberator of the world's exploited proletariat? It's not easy to see the log in one's own eye. Whenever economic parity is approached, the capitalist nations smother it in its cradle. No such country could survive a single generation, let alone grow powerful enough to threaten other regimes. Even if it wanted to, which fair and decent governments don't.

What do you mean? — Bob Ross

What I said:: there are always consequences. Consequences are inescapable. These days, consequences tend to come in the form of nuclear warheads, which several of your 'inferior' societies possess.

You can take over a country with the sole purpose of giving it the gift of democracy and then trying to salvage the culture as much as possible to keep the traditions. — Bob Ross

No, I can't. And neither can a functional democracy. In order to have a government that's both arrogant and blind enough to try to impose itself on other sovereign nations, first, you need either absolute monarchy or a military-backed dictatorship.

jingoism, exceptionalism, xenophobia, militancy, ethnic cleansing, oppression — Vera Mont

is the sequence of event leading to the prerequisite populist dictatorship. Let's see how Mexico and Canada fare in the next four years.

If the West took over North Korea, e.g., we would not, in all probability, do anything remotely similar to what Columbus did to the Natives. Wouldn’t you agree? — Bob Ross

Oh, yes, I agree. All Columbus did was report back to the monarchy. You would do to the Natives pretty much what China, Rome and Britain did.