cover of episode Excerpt - Ambushed in the Oval Office? w/ Richard Seymour

Excerpt - Ambushed in the Oval Office? w/ Richard Seymour

2025/3/3
logo of podcast Politics Theory Other

Politics Theory Other

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
R
Richard Seymour
Topics
@Richard Seymour : 我观察到一种观点认为,对特朗普政府处理乌克兰危机的反应,与其说是某种新现象,不如说是对美国长期以来外交政策的延续。这种观点认为,特朗普和他的盟友们只是将美国外交政策中一直存在的侵略性和霸权主义元素公之于众。他们认为,美国长期以来一直以强权欺压弱国,与压制性政权结盟,而这些行为在特朗普政府时期只是表现得更加赤裸裸。 然而,我认为这种观点过于简单化了。虽然美国确实有侵略性和霸权主义的传统,但特朗普政府的所作所为与以往的政府相比,在某些关键方面有所不同。首先,特朗普政府公开表示要放弃全球自由主义秩序,并转向一种更加单边主义和交易性的外交政策。这意味着美国将不再致力于建立一个基于规则的国际体系,而是将更多地关注自身的短期利益。 其次,特朗普政府对全球事务的参与程度明显降低。例如,“你的大陆,你的问题”这种说法就体现了这种转变。这与美国以往的全球霸权地位形成了鲜明对比。 最后,特朗普政府对国际关系的处理方式更加粗暴和短视。他们更倾向于进行交易性的政治,而不是建立长期的战略伙伴关系。 总而言之,我认为特朗普政府对乌克兰危机的处理方式,虽然与美国以往的帝国主义传统存在联系,但它也代表着一种重大的转变。这种转变体现在美国对全球秩序的放弃,对自身利益的关注,以及对国际关系的粗暴处理方式上。这使得美国虽然仍然是一个强大的帝国,但却不再是一个全球霸权。

Deep Dive

Shownotes Transcript

Translations:
中文

So on sort of left social media, it's quite common to see people downplaying the significance of what happened at the White House and more generally arguing that the novelty of the second Trump presidency is massively overstated and that we see plenty of continuity with Biden and earlier administrations and that Trump and Vance are merely saying the quiet parts out loud and that what we're witnessing is just a more unvarnished articulation of actually quite conventional US foreign policy.

And, you know, obviously there's reason to have some sympathy for that perspective, because it is indeed pretty enraging to see liberal commentators suddenly discover that the United States bullies weaker actors in the world system, or to see them claim that there's something hugely novel in the US allying with repressive authoritarian regimes. And all of this, of course, is in the context of Biden's support for an enabling of the Gaza genocide.

But at the same time, it does seem a bit obtuse to watch what happened at the White House or to see the US openly allying with Russia against Ukraine at the UN or to see J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich Security Conference and respond with, you know, same as it ever was, nothing new to see here. You know, what's your view on what's truly novel here and what isn't?

Well, in terms of this stuff about saying quiet part out loud and all the rest of it, there's an element of truth in that, obviously. Do you remember Hitchens' book about Cyprus, where he describes an interaction between Lyndon Baines Johnson and the Greek ambassador over proposals for the island and Greeks have said no. Johnson says, well, fuck your parliament and your constitution.

He says America's an elephant, Cyprus is a flea, Greece is a flea. If these two fellows continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk. Whack good. And he goes on in that vein. So, I mean, I think it's partly a matter of style how one presents the threat or the humiliation, but it's always there. That's what it is to be an empire. But as to this idea that this is just continuity imperialism, I think that's rubbish.

First, this is transparently part of a pivotal way from a desiccating global liberalism, away from that global order. And Vance and Rubio and others have been saying that this no longer works, that we're in a multipolar world, and that global order is now being used against America. America First is basically withdrawing from global ambition in a particular way. For example, the message from a lot of Trump supporters has been,

"Your continent, your problem." You know, "We tried our best, you didn't do anything." Basically saying, "Let Europe handle it." Now, if you're an empire, you really can't afford to say that another continent is not your problem. America First involves basically saying, "Look, we're not that bothered about grand notions of strategic control of this or that space, the post-Soviet space. We're concerned more about tangible gains like, for example, accessing Ukraine's mineral reserves."

So they have an extremely crude, short-term sense of rail politic, of the national interest, and of kind of transactional politics, where we're not trying to create a global framework in which people will come to spontaneously depend on us and emulate us or do what we say. We are going to interact with people on the basis of what can you offer us?

America would end up being a world power, a powerful imperialism, but definitely not a hegemon. That's a big shift. If you'd like to hear the rest of this episode of PTO Extra, then please consider becoming a £5 supporter of this show on Patreon. Go to patreon.com forward slash polltheoryother to sign up.