@expatme I am not claiming Trump personally caused low unemployment or wage growth, or that every supposed positive in my post stacks up. My point was that these are the arguments his supporters make, and that they aren’t all reducible to stupidity or fascism, which is how they’re often treated on MN.
Obviously outcomes don’t exist in a vacuum. Global cycles, inherited conditions, Covid, institutions all matter. But acknowledging context doesn’t mean debate becomes illegitimate, or that it should be shut down with caricature.
On Greenland and rhetoric, I am not saying words don’t matter. I am saying MN has a habit of taking Trump’s language in the most literal, catastrophic way possible. Hyperbole and signalling aren’t new in international politics, whether we like it or not.
On “no new international conflict”, I am not suggesting that Trump has a spotless moral record, or denying his controversial actions. I’m pointing out that he didn’t initiate a new large-scale foreign military intervention in the way several of his predecessors did. That distinction matters to a lot of voters, supporters, even if others think it shouldn’t.
I don’t disagree that Trump is destabilising. But I think the reaction to him, the loss of proportionality, the refusal to distinguish between rhetoric and action and the constant moral escalation, is destabilising too. Politics and political opinion conducted in panic and hysteria isn’t more ethical, is it?
Criticism grounded in evidence is necessary. As
your post addresses. So is the ability to discuss why millions of people support a politician without assuming they’re stupid, immoral or acting in bad faith. That was the space I was aiming to address. “His supporters”.
The reason I posted was because thread after thread on MN about Trump, are challenging to read, and I do, not in defence of Trump, stand by my point regarding hysteria.