I commend Mr. Savodnik for listing the future professions of the students in this article. Notice that they all go on to elite professions in fields like finance and tech? It's clear that they are living inside the bubble. It's unfortunate that due to the bubble they are unable to comprehend that others may have a viewpoint different …
I commend Mr. Savodnik for listing the future professions of the students in this article. Notice that they all go on to elite professions in fields like finance and tech? It's clear that they are living inside the bubble. It's unfortunate that due to the bubble they are unable to comprehend that others may have a viewpoint different than their own due to factors like country of origin, culture or class. It is insanely dangerous that due to the bubble they are unable to view the world in an unbiased fashion and are consequently unable to accurately analyze current events. That makes prediction impossible: they were blindsided by Trump and now they have been ambushed by Putin. Their response to both is completely reactive and short sighted. Despite what the article states for Trump the response was political opposition so hysterical that it has exponentially worsened domestic partisan conflict. For Putin it is sanctions that in the short term drive Russia into closer partnership with China and in the long term will drive those countries to devise new financial systems that will bypass US oversight and dilute American influence in world financial markets.
We need better leadership. The leadership class has proven to be incompetent, insular and ossified. An injection of new blood and new ways of thinking is critical given the new challenges the US will face in the coming years of a new Cold War.
To start I think we would do well to just try getting people who don't come from the same ideological crèche into leadership positions in government and industry.
Trump's not interested in policy, he's invested in his personal brand. To compete with China and Russia we need somebody like Kennan to come up with a new grand strategy for the new Cold War.
However I would say that it's not like any President is responsible for the entirety of US foreign policy by themselves. Trump would be acceptable if he brings in the right people, because he certainly isn't going to be in charge of devising policy by himself.
Here's the problem I have with Trump. From everything I can determine, he mostly wanted to hear from people who told him what he WANTED to hear. I don't think George F. Kennan or anybody like him would get through to Trump, because of that.
From Your link, Sir Slaw. Spoke to issue in today's post, tho he died in 2005.
After the Soviet collapse, said Stent, Kennan supported robust engagement and opposed NATO enlargement on grounds that it might inflame nationalistic, anti-Western tendencies in Russia. Yet he continued to profess that the United States should not interfere in Russia's domestic affairs and should not preach, but influence countries through the force of example. He had written, "this whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vain-glorious, and undesirable."
I commend Mr. Savodnik for listing the future professions of the students in this article. Notice that they all go on to elite professions in fields like finance and tech? It's clear that they are living inside the bubble. It's unfortunate that due to the bubble they are unable to comprehend that others may have a viewpoint different than their own due to factors like country of origin, culture or class. It is insanely dangerous that due to the bubble they are unable to view the world in an unbiased fashion and are consequently unable to accurately analyze current events. That makes prediction impossible: they were blindsided by Trump and now they have been ambushed by Putin. Their response to both is completely reactive and short sighted. Despite what the article states for Trump the response was political opposition so hysterical that it has exponentially worsened domestic partisan conflict. For Putin it is sanctions that in the short term drive Russia into closer partnership with China and in the long term will drive those countries to devise new financial systems that will bypass US oversight and dilute American influence in world financial markets.
We need better leadership. The leadership class has proven to be incompetent, insular and ossified. An injection of new blood and new ways of thinking is critical given the new challenges the US will face in the coming years of a new Cold War.
Very excellent insights
When You're right, You're right, M. Slaw. In my OPINION, we need a new party.
But in this day and age of WANT-IT-NOW, who has the guts to see it through?
To start I think we would do well to just try getting people who don't come from the same ideological crèche into leadership positions in government and industry.
That's where we differ, I'm pretty sure. You think Trump's a good alternative, don't You?
Yip!!! The best we got in this century we should have taken much more care with our 2020 election
Trump's not interested in policy, he's invested in his personal brand. To compete with China and Russia we need somebody like Kennan to come up with a new grand strategy for the new Cold War.
However I would say that it's not like any President is responsible for the entirety of US foreign policy by themselves. Trump would be acceptable if he brings in the right people, because he certainly isn't going to be in charge of devising policy by himself.
Here's the problem I have with Trump. From everything I can determine, he mostly wanted to hear from people who told him what he WANTED to hear. I don't think George F. Kennan or anybody like him would get through to Trump, because of that.
Again, the heart doesn't work. Those are interesting thoughts. I'm ignoramoose. Who "Kennan?" Someone from 70s, 80s?
He's the guy that come up with the policy of "containment", which was the overriding US strategy against the USSR.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/remembering-george-f-kennan
From Your link, Sir Slaw. Spoke to issue in today's post, tho he died in 2005.
After the Soviet collapse, said Stent, Kennan supported robust engagement and opposed NATO enlargement on grounds that it might inflame nationalistic, anti-Western tendencies in Russia. Yet he continued to profess that the United States should not interfere in Russia's domestic affairs and should not preach, but influence countries through the force of example. He had written, "this whole tendency to see ourselves as the center of political enlightenment and as teachers to a great part of the rest of the world strikes me as unthought-through, vain-glorious, and undesirable."
TY Sir! Ah, found him. Just read beginning of wiki:
"He was also one of the group of foreign policy elders known as 'The Wise Men.'"