Der Spiegel Proclaims the End of the West

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/donald-trump-and-the-new-world-order-the-end-of-the-west-a-b71fa1bd-6147-47a4-8738-5c17eff44a55

by keepamovin • 2 years ago

33 85 2 years ago

spiegel.de

keepamovin3• 2 years ago

So I guess the four Horsemen of the apocalypse are Donald Trump, RFK Jr, JD Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy?

djkivi• 2 years ago

Can’t forget Elon.

nobody9999• 2 years ago

Can’t forget Elon.

I try very hard to do so. And mostly I succeed until someone (this time you) brings him up.

jauntywundrkind2• 2 years ago

It sure seems likely that the rest of the world is going to shy away from an America proudly trumpeting America First. this insulting schtick of mean cruel losers is not going to be a dignified model for the world to work together through problems on.

The chance to be a respectable force in the world is going to be deeply hampered, and the states like a Russia and China are going to be beyond joy to watch us look like such absolute rubes and fools.

asdasdsddd6• 2 years ago

Or maybe they're mad that there's no more free lunch. Asking NATO to pay their fair share was fair. Imposing tariffs on China because they were devaluing their currency was fair. I didn't see anyone prominent talking about this before the America First people.

The piece de resistance was when Europeans laughed when Trump asked them to spend more on defense only to be caught entirely off guard when Ukraine was invaded.

The_Colonel5• 2 years ago

Asking NATO to pay their fair share was fair. Imposing tariffs on China because they were devaluing their currency was fair.

"fair" has little relevance in geopolitics. Spending on military used to be politically difficult in Europe and US has so far decided to be lenient on the 2% rule since pressing the issue would achieve little but burning the relationship and thus influence. Choose your battles wisely, apply your limited political capital where it has the biggest impact. This 2% rule is likely not it.

In general, the international relationships will get more transactional and "multi-polar". One probably unintentional effect is that Europe will get closer to China, not bound by loyalty to US, and thus doing more fence-sitting. (China is a much bigger concern in US than in Europe)

bamboozled6• 2 years ago

This argument just seems fishy to me. The only way Trump's argument makes sense is if Russia attacked NATO, and they came looking for a hand out, this hasn't happened.

America has benefited massively from NATO. Intelligence, weapons sales, security...

All that was going on is some countries in Europe weren't paying 2% of their GDP towards NATO, but, America has benefited enormously from paying only a small fraction more. America gets to be the controllers of the global reserve currency which basically gives unlimited ability to influence world affairs.

Trump only really started to carry on about this since the invasion of Ukraine as far as I can tell, even then, it's still cost America nothing because Ukraine isn't in NATO. Any money that went to Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO specifically. In my opinion, America gained a LOT of security from The Budapest Memorandum, people argue all the time that you owe Ukraine nothing but is that really true? They're ultra vulnerable after giving up their nukes. Now what?

Did you want Europe to be the global economic and military super power previously? I feel like I'm missing something ?

yawpitch5• 2 years ago

The piece de resistance was when Europeans laughed when Trump asked them to spend more on defense only to be caught entirely off guard when Ukraine was invaded.

So the piece de resistance was when Trump gave Putin carte blanche to invade Ukraine?

Just to be clear, he’s about to give Putin carte blanche to keep pushing to (eventually) Belgium. Never mind what he’ll do in his next first 100 days to provide carte blanche into Taiwan.

The man has the tactical savvy and realpolitik of a toaster.

jauntywundrkind2• 2 years ago

The American greatness project relies on respect for democratic systems & institutions. Schedule F reverts us to a mockery of a system, to hardly better than the Andrew Jackson Spoils system; no one anywhere is going to respect the idea of governance at all if we just throw away our institutions. If we bypass Congress & have various appointed czars running the country. No one is going to respect us if we don't have any respect for ourselves. Squabbling about NATO bills seems ridiculous when the institutions and systems NATO was meant to protect are being canabalized, when the Heritage Foundation finally gets it's long held dream of plutocracy.

The idea that tariffs are making anyone else pay for things is u serious in extreme. China isn't paying for anything, no more so than Mexico paid for the flimsy poorly built border wall. Those costs will be paid by the consumer, or those goods will be sold into other markets, this time around just as last time. Reducing American business's ability to source parts and materials in the process.

America used to stand for somethin, used to have meaning. But there has been a persistent agitating element telling us the worst, saying our cities are overrun by violent anti fascist and other ridiculous fables, and they're using these tales of terror to undo and unmake America. In my view these are the enemy within, and their lack of respect for what we have as a nation is most telling, and will be seen far and wide, and people will think, well, why not go to China for partnerships? All sorts of world partnerships that would never have been considered when America was stable will seem to make more sense when there is such turmoil and undoing at home, when it's just illegotemate Spoils system again.

piva003• 2 years ago

Or maybe they're mad that there's no more free lunch. Asking NATO to pay their fair share was fair.

It was never a free lunch, this transactional mindset is ignorant, the USA benefitted tremendously from NATO both financially as through immense soft and hard power stemming from it. Repeating this platitude shows you don't understand that.

The piece de resistance was when Europeans laughed when Trump asked them to spend more on defense only to be caught entirely off guard when Ukraine was invaded.

Probably you need to be reminded: who tried to blackmail Ukraine to dig dirt on a political opponent otherwise military support would be cut? Trump had all the cards to play and make the 2022 invasion impossible if Ukraine had the equipment and support against Russia in the initial Donbas invasion.

The piece de resistance is right that: Trump only thinks transactionally, damned be the consequences, the consequence of throwing Ukraine under the bus for dirt on Hunter Biden was emboldening Russia to invade again in 2022.

dfedbeef• 2 years ago

Look like?

pjbk• 2 years ago

https://archive.is/0Ldfn

gizajob• 2 years ago

Somewhat hyperbolic…

keepamovin3• 2 years ago

No, I’d say it’s revealing because the people who genuinely believe in the ideology espoused in this article truly hold these ideals. To them, this must feel like the end of the West, as they’ve known it. Because to them, the West was defined by the institutions and systems built in the post-war era.

What strikes me about the picture painted by the author is how much it seems to miss—or entirely ignore—many important factors. These include the challenges of integration, the burdens of mass migration, the distinction between legal migration and open borders policy, and the failure to address how such policies, even if well-intentioned, can be exploited for slave labor, human trafficking, and voter manipulation. There’s also the uninspired and unsustainable approach to reducing inflation and the cost of living by importing ultra-cheap labor, instead of investing in forward-thinking development projects that actually benefit citizens.

It feels almost myopic how much the focus remains on avoiding the mistakes of the authoritarian and fascist World War II era. In their quest for salvation and redemption, there’s an overcorrection that disregards essential social, economic, political, and institutional factors necessary for effective progress and development.

Maybe it’s not so bad if it’s indeed true that this post world war II, reactionary, but tunnel visioned, definition of the West has died.

The specific issues raised by this article and larger context tho are irrelevant to another trend: an innovative, new organizing model for the West is an idea whose time has come.

anotherhue• 2 years ago

It feels like we used to invest in infrastructure, but never wanted to pay the maintenance. And now we mostly invest in ideology or other intangible things that don't offer much return.

There are a lot of silly policies from foreign intervention to corporate protectionism (coal, corn, healthcare, communications) that could be improved, not to mention the housing situation.

I think the west will have to get more practical and less performative.

rockemsockem• 2 years ago

I wonder if they think having credible, believable sources of news would have helped prevent the end

Rinzler892• 2 years ago

De Spiegel lost its credibility long ago. It's been only parroting luxury beliefs and theatrics revolving how Elon is Trump and how Trump is the next Hitler and the end of democracy while ignoring the real issues.

bamboozled6• 2 years ago

Bingo.

jey• 2 years ago

Feels to me like it should read "End of the West's Hegemony" -- or more to the point, the end of US hegemony.

yokaze• 2 years ago

I think, that's the part from the article, which states its message succinctly:

The West as a block of liberal democracies no longer exists.

WillPostForFood• 2 years ago

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, "We Have to Deport People More Often and Faster."

bamboozled6• 2 years ago

Remember when immigration was going to save the west? Not enough kids, we need workers, etc etc.

I'm so sick of the hypocrisy and politics in general.

Everything is a lie, and then when we make progress, like on climate change, someone get elected and smashed it down for another 4 years.

Rinzler892• 2 years ago

Those in power who decide for mass immigration policies don't live in places that are affected by their decisions, they live in upper class gated communities with prices so high they're unaccessible to average people to move in, their kids don't go to those schools, etc. All luxury beliefs of idealists shielded from the real world.

Basically, it's easy to be charitable with other people's lives and money from your ivory tower.

At least the US got some good policies now but Germany is doubling down on more illegal immigration while ignoring the downsides.

The_Colonel5• 2 years ago

I'm starting to realize that after good times, bad times almost inevitably has to come. Good times are created by people who lived through bad times wanting to improve. But now most people were born into good times, not remembering the bad.

People today don't remember children dying from preventable diseases before the vaccination, so they don't fear the diseases.

Women don't remember not having reproductive rights, so they don't fear not having them.

(Most) people didn't lose their relatives in bloody wars, so they don't fear escalation, brinkmanship.

bamboozled6• 2 years ago

Strongly agree. Complacency.

"Why do we need allies?"

Reading the younger peoples comments on the JoeRogan sub-reddit is quite validating and inline with your reasoning in my opinion.

I think most young people were lied to but they believe it because as you said, they don't know any better.

deepfriedchokes• 2 years ago

Strauss–Howe generational theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generatio...

ugiox• 2 years ago

“Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.” (from a postapocalyptic novel by the author G. Michael Hopf)

yawpitch5• 2 years ago

… wow, interesting find, an entire, shockingly prolific, oeuvre seemingly in its entirety dedicated to and authored for weak, fearful men that really want to believe they were once strong.

bloppe10• 2 years ago

The biggest problem with democracy these days is a failure of education. According to Trump, the American economy is in shambles, Kamala wanted to imprison normal Republican voters, and cats and dogs are rapidly being hunted to extinction. The list goes on and on: fake pandemic, stolen election, migrant crime wave, space lasers, stable genius, not obese, "there wouldn't be a war" etc etc etc

Here's the thing: we don't equip far too many of our citizens with the ability to sniff out these lies. I think there are other countries that do a better job, notably Finland which has been effectively dealing with large scale Russian misinformation for a long time, but clearly this problem is not unique to America. Most trump voters actually value freedom, equal opportunity, fair rules i.e. liberal values. But they've been brainwashed to the point that liberal is a dirty word and everyone else is out to get them.

Either they come to their senses, or we all go down with them. I'm hoping we can take the former route without too much catastrophe first

drawfloat3• 2 years ago

The number one issue people say motivated them to vote for Trump/Boris/Wilders/et al is “cost of living”. Ie: wages have been falling behind for decades now.

The other issues may play in to it, but that only keeps the wheels on the cart for so long. 2024 we’re finally seeing the complete aversion to solving the cost of living crisis that has developed since the 90s become no longer avoidable.

I worry from a lot of responses from US democrats (and British Labour, and…) that we’re in for a rough ride because they fundamentally will never countenance that. It’s always an issue with the voter (education, Russia, misinformation, racism) instead.

As the piece said, pointing to GDP, economic data and saying things are actually good, while overlooking that this masks economic inequality is not engaging with that issue.

Edit: to clarify, this is not a dig at you. I have also continued to vote for centre left parties that ignored this inconvenient fact, doing little about house prices, wages, etc. But this can't continue if we don't want to see ever more authoritarian leaders.

bloppe10• 2 years ago

This is actually also a lie (at least in America). Real income (after adjusting for inflation) has been rising at the median [1]. The bottom quintile got reamed by Covid but have been the biggest beneficiaries of inflation [2] (which tends to be bad only for people with savings) and the covid slump was more than compensated for by stimmy checks [3]. The Gini coefficient has been pretty stable since 1990.

There's only a cost of living crisis in cities with epic nimby-induced housing shortages, but most Americans don't live in those cities.

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXU900000LB0102M

[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CXUINCAFTTXLB0102M

zxcb1• 2 years ago

Financialization — financial capitalism is not productive, it's extractive; eventually the host succumbs.

China, on the other hand ...

bamboozled6• 2 years ago

China also seems to have a sort of exciting world view in my opinion, belt and road, massive renewables investment, EVs, Nuclear. The USA seems like it's going backwards.

I think it will be harder to China to succeed without America, but I don't think it's impossible. Plenty of countries who will trade with them.

spwa4• 2 years ago

Except China IS doing financial engineering on a huge scale, creating the problems the West has. Except, they're not creating those problems over the course of a century or two, but a decade. They've had 2 massive crashes now and are currently having a 2008-style financial crisis.

And, of course, it turns out that the impressive control of the central government of China is worth nothing as soon as it means local politicians get any less money at any point.

The most recent WTF coming out of China: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/08/business/china-stimulus-e...

JSDevOps• 2 years ago

Too much leveraged debt and too many people doing useless jobs leaving everything real to someone else.

amai2• 2 years ago

„The resulting impression was that center-left parties did too little for workers, for the center of society.“

That might be true. But the right-wing parties on the rise will do even less for the workers.

CrispyKerosene• 2 years ago

but they are excellent at selling the opposite. Its amazing the average citizen cant look past a campaign catch phrase to the underlying values of the ideology, or demonstrated policy decisions

amai2• 2 years ago

Right-wing parties are even selling themselves as revolutionary and "against the system". But nothing could be further from the truth.

Revolutionary would be to stop using oil, gas and coal (and nuclear) for energy generation. It would be revolutionary to invest into public transport instead of building car dependent cities. Similarly demanding public code and open science for public money would increase transparency and outcome for the tax payers a lot. Destroying market monopolies and making sure we have a fair competition on the markets would be revolutionary. Stop making money by doing business with dictatorships is totally against the system of "money doesn't stink". And it would be absolutely against the "system of the rich" to demand high wealth and inheritance taxes (or at least a financial transaction tax) to make sure everyone has a fair chance in his life. In the end if you demand equality for women and men, that would be a social revolution humanity hasn't heard of since Adam and Eve.

None of these are goals of right-wing parties. The left-wing, woke, green, liberal parties are the really revolutionaries in our world. What they demand has never be tried before. That is risky and right-wing voters are in fact afraid of these disruptive changes.

Der Spiegel Proclaims the End of the West

Related Stories