America's Best President

This article is currently unfinished.

Anyone who isn't completely braindead understands that the American Century is coming to a close. Even people who were doing OK in years prior are beginning to feel the shockwaves ripple through. Increasing amounts of capital are being shifted back to the original economic center of the world, that being Asia. We used to think that Japan would overtake us, but now it seems like China will take on that role. Even worse, it seems like India might also get ahead. Not to mention, those Slavs over in Russia are once again reasserting themselves geopolitically. Seems like America's best days are behind us...

Alright, so the American Century is going to end, but how will it end? Fortunately for you, I'm not the President of the United States, but unfortunately for you, it seems that our current leadership isn't much better. The inevitable response has been an explosion of populist politics. Of course, this started with the crash in 2008, but it's grown quite a bit since then. Now, here's the thing: a populist explosion is scary to Washington, because if it gets too out of hand, then people might just [REDACTED]. Remember, these are the people who said that Bernie doing well in the 2020 DNC primary was like the fall of France to Nazi Germany. So, what is to be done? Well, imagine that, for some reason, Washington comes to its senses and tries to actually get its shit together. What sort of policies are necessary to crush any form of serious resistance to the United States?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present:

Plexiglass Inhibitor's Plan for Global Domination

The plan is pretty simple: implement every single policy that Boomers think is evil. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

OK, that's not wrong, but I should probably be a bit more serious. See, the big problem with America is that, uh... "certain three-letter agencies" have quite a bit of sway over the government's policy. Now, this might come as a shock, given that I tend to have a more leftward orientation, but I'm going to use the concept of time preference here. The government of the United States, or at least the components that matter, have incredibly low time preference, to the point that it's pathological. If America wants to play emperor of the world, then it should probably act like it at some point.

What do I mean by this? Well, it is well-understood that the United States operates on the profit incentive. However, profit for who? It's not profit for the government as it formally exists. Instead, it's profit for various large corporations inside the US. Of course, anyone with any knowledge of how these things play out knows that the public and private sectors are almost never separated from each other. People complain about Chinese companies like Huawei making moves overseas because they know that Huawei is deeply connected to the Chinese government. However, the difference with the case of China is that they have actually formalized this relationship. But, even when informal, it still exists. Ronald Reagan's dirty secret is that he was actually a dirigiste, just not the kind that acts like how you would expect one to.

The thing is, the way that the US maximizes profit is not a good method in the long term. Through a hilarious coincidence of terminology, the adjective that properly describes the behavior of the US is "greedy." What I mean by this is that it consistently chooses what appears to be the optimal solution at every given moment. This is very importantly not necessarily the same thing as what is the best solution overall.

Unsurprisingly, US has been chasing profits so hard that it's bad behavior is starting to catch up to it. While its imperial ambitions have been done so as to secure profits, it has not effectively pursued being an imperial power for its own sake. The thing about being the head of a large empire is that it necessarily requires some form of stability. If you have multiple empires competing against each other, then it might be in everyone's interest to form a balance of power. The only sort of stability that the US seems at all interested in is securing its ability to extract profit from the entire globe at once. Have there been Presidents who tried to shift away from this tendency? Yes, actually. Kennedy and Nixon were both prominent examples. Now take another look at those names that I just said and realize what the problem is.

Having the low time preference that the US currently does is really going to do us in if we don't quickly deal with the emerging world.

I'll be going over a few key policies right now, though these are far from the only things that could be done:

1) Implement Universal Healthcare

The most important one is universal healthcare, because most American lefties are secretly single-issue, and their issue of choice is healthcare. The reasons for this should be self-explanatory. Now, here's the thing: this po

2) Actually Give a Shit About Infrastructure


2) Allow for Greater Criticism of our Allies

By "our allies," I'm mostly referring to those in the Middle East: Israel and the Gulf countries. This one might actually be harder to implement today than universal healthcare, given how blatantly semitophilic most Boomers are. As for why this policy would be useful, take a look at the country that people love to compare Israel to: Apartheid-era South Africa. It's not at all a coincidence that Apartheid was finally undone around the same time that communism fell.

A quick recap: During the Cold War, South Africa was politically aligned with the NATO gang. This meant that it was to be shielded from criticism. Even after the United States had its major civil rights revolution, South Africa remained an Apartheid state. However, at some point, Apartheid became just too embarrassing for the world to ignore. The greatest illustration of this shift was UN Security Council Resolution 591, a unanimous declaration that it was evil. For reference, this was during a period when the Security Council was essentially a useless institution due to Cold War geopolitical divides. This highlights an unspoken component of the condemnation of Apartheid, which is that it aligned closely with declining Soviet power. Coincidentally, Apartheid was formally abolished in, of all years, 1991, the same year that the USSR formally abolished itself.

Now, imagine an alternate world where the US continued to defend Apartheid even after the fall of communism. There would be no geopolitical justification, and it would very blatantly just be a defense of an ally for defense's sake. That's not a popular decision, neither internationally nor domestically. Ergo, it only made sense that it was allowed to fall when it did.

The same logic as above also applies to the Gulf countries, most notably Saudi Arabia. That the US is the bitch of the House of Saud is a common populist talking point, and it's one that's hard to deny. Here's the problem with shifting away from arbitrarily defending the Saudis: they have oil, and that's an incredibly valuable resource. If we allow for a greater drift between the US and Saudi Arabia, we're potentially cutting ourselves off from that pipeline. What's the solution? That leads into my next policy proposal...

3) Snort some BRICS

Here's the thing about America's global presence: despite being the single most powerful country on Earth, we're also something of a pariah. This means that, if we ever do lose our current place as kings of the world, we'll be shit out of luck, and we'll have deserved it. Therefore, it would be best if we preemptively counteract this. How? Simple: we very closely align ourselves with rival powerhouses. In the header for this section, I used BRICS, partly for the terrible cocaine pun, but also because it's a good example of who we'd have to deal with. (It's also odd how I'm once again mentioning both Russia and South Africa in the same grouping, but I digress.)

Now, I doubt the average American has super-negative opinions on, say, Brazil or India, but Russia and China pose a greater obstacle to integration. See, Americans heavily distrust these two, and China in particular. My response is to suck it up. Besides, most of the distrust comes from above. Once you remove that influence, there's a good chance that people will eventually warm up to the two of them.

The biggest issue that the world has with American foreign policy is that it is inherently one-sided. The greatest illustration of this has been the reaction to China's Belt and Road Initiative. The counterclaim is that it's "debt trap diplomacy," and that the plan has no ultimate purpose other than Chinese colonialism. Even in that case, the United States has failed to counter an important fact: the countries that have been courted by Beijing will most likely improve because of it. What's the alternative? A shitty IMF loan? Get real, USA. That we have yet to counter China is proof that we are on a downward spiral, but just letting it happen is falling for the sunken cost fallacy. The best solution is to reorient ourselves towards being an active participant in this order while we're ahead.

Here's where I might lose the support of some people: we should be more willing to cooperate with so-called "evil regimes." As in, we should be friendlier with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and so on. The single best thing that Donald Trump ever did was befriend Kim Jong-un, and the fact that Dems loved to use this as ammunition against him is proof that they are kakistocrats. People act as if North Korea is run by a bunch of paranoid lunatics, but given their standing on the global stage, they seem pretty rational to me. Same goes for Iran and Venezuela. People love to fearmonger about how we're in a Second Cold War without once mentioning why we're in one. Turns out, it's mostly our fault. Again, maybe we should reorient ourselves while we're ahead.

Now, why is it that I'm willing to work with all of these countries, and yet emphasize distancing ourselves from Saudi Arabia? The answer is simple, really: Saudi Arabia is one of the biggest vectors of modern-day instability, and it's all our fault. Every major instance of Islamic terrorism has Saudi origins. All of those Wahhabi schools overseas that create terrorists? They were funded by the Saudis. No amount of Iranian-funded terrorism can compare. How about, instead of pressuring countries like North Korea or Venezuela to "democratize" (lmfao), we pressure the Saudis to not be the most evil country? But how do we get around the oil connection? Simple, really: many of the other countries I've mentioned so far are also energy superpowers. If we can guarantee that we'll be on good terms with them, then we can probably afford to put some pressure on the Saudis, no?

To Be Continued?

I can guarantee you this: many people will find the above world much more palatable than today. But, it also will never happen, at least not in time. Why is this? To be blunt, Boomers are fucking stupid. This statement has much of its gravity removed by virtue of "Boomers" being a common punching bag. However, don't let this be a distraction from the fact that they truly are an incredibly idiotic force who live in a fantasy land.

This article is currently unfinished.