"The potential implications of Trump's sovereigntist approach, as outlined in the text, are far-reaching and could reshape global and domestic dynamics in ways that raise serious concerns. Let’s break it down in plain language, addressing your questions about authoritarianism, expansionism, the risks to weaker nations, and the “fishy” vibe of Trump’s agenda."
1. Path Toward Internal Authoritarianism?
"Sovereigntism, paired with decisionism, leans heavily on concentrated power. The idea of a leader suspending normal rules during a “state of exception” (like a declared national emergency) can erode democratic checks and balances. If Trump justifies rapid-fire executive actions or tariffs as urgent responses to crises, it risks normalizing a system where the leader’s will trumps institutions like Congress or the courts. This aligns with Carl Schmitt’s view that sovereignty is about decisive action, not deliberation."
- Implications: "Over time, this could weaken democratic norms, concentrating power in the executive branch. Citizens might see less transparency or accountability, as decisions are framed as necessary for “national security” or “economic survival.” If dissent is painted as disloyalty (Schmitt’s “friends vs. enemies” mindset), it could chill free speech or marginalize opposition, inching toward authoritarianism."
- Comparison to China/Russia: "While China and Russia explicitly treat citizens as tools of the state (with surveillance, censorship, and limited rights), the U.S. under sovereigntism wouldn’t likely go that far—yet. But prioritizing national power over individual liberties could erode protections, especially if “enemies” (political opponents, media, or minorities) are scapegoated to justify control."
2. External Expansionism and Strong vs. Weak Nations
"Sovereigntism’s “my country first” ethos, coupled with mercantilist trade policies and military buildup, encourages a world where might makes right. The text mentions Trump’s musings about annexing places like Greenland or Canada, which, even if half-serious, signal a mindset that sees weaker nations as pawns or prizes. Strong nations, unbound by international norms, could feel freer to bully or absorb smaller ones through economic coercion, territorial grabs, or forced concessions."
- Implications: "Without a liberal international order (think UN, WTO, or NATO), there’s no referee to restrain powerful nations. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or China’s pressure on Taiwan already show what unchecked power looks like. A U.S. turn to sovereigntism could greenlight similar moves, as every major power prioritizes its own interests. Weaker nations—say, small Latin American or Pacific states—could face tariffs, sanctions, or demands to cede resources or territory to avoid economic ruin or military threat."
- Global Free-for-All: "The text warns of a “free-for-all where the strongest strive to prevail and the weaker must accommodate.” This could mean a world of constant power struggles, with alliances shifting based on raw strength rather than shared values. The EU, built on cooperation, and smaller nations with less leverage would be especially vulnerable."
3. China and Russia’s Playbook: A Model for the U.S.?
"You’re right to point out that China and Russia treat citizens as “cogs in the state machine.” Their systems prioritize state power over individual rights, using propaganda, surveillance, and repression to maintain control. Sovereigntism in the U.S. doesn’t mirror this exactly—American traditions of individualism and free speech are stronger—but it could borrow elements, especially if “national unity” becomes a rallying cry."
- Implications: "Trump’s approach might not aim for China-style total control, but his rhetoric about “enemies within” (e.g., media, political opponents) and his use of tariffs as a geopolitical weapon echo how illiberal powers operate. If the U.S. adopts a “might makes right” stance, it could normalize these tactics globally, legitimizing authoritarian playbooks. For example, using trade sanctions to force policy changes (like curbing immigration from Mexico) resembles how China uses economic leverage to silence critics."
- Risk of Emulation: "If the U.S., historically a democratic beacon, shifts toward authoritarian-leaning governance, it could embolden leaders in places like Hungary, India, or Brazil to double down on their own nationalist agendas, further eroding global democratic norms."
4. What’s Fishy About Trump’s Sovereigntism?
"Your gut feeling that something’s “extremely fishy” about this sovereigntism thing is worth unpacking. The text doesn’t explicitly say Trump wants to be “king of the world,” but his actions—centralizing power, rejecting global norms, and floating ideas like annexing territories—raise red flags about his intentions. Here’s why it feels off:"
- Personalized Power: "Sovereigntism’s focus on a strong, decisive leader fits Trump’s self-image as a dealmaker who alone can “fix” things. His boasts about tariffs (“When you are a pot of gold, tariffs are very good”) and his fixation on loyalty suggest a vision where national strength is tied to his personal authority. This blurs the line between serving the nation and serving himself."
- Unpredictability: "Unlike China or Russia, where authoritarianism follows a clear state-driven logic, Trump’s sovereigntism feels chaotic. His policies often seem driven by personal grudges or short-term wins (e.g., targeting Mexico or China to score points with his base) rather than a coherent strategy. This makes it hard to predict whether he’s aiming for global dominance or just domestic adulation."
- Erosion of Trust: "By dismantling the liberal order, Trump risks alienating allies like the EU or Canada, leaving the U.S. isolated if it overreaches. The “king of the world” fantasy falls apart if other powers band together against a rogue U.S., as history shows with empires that overextend."
5. Is Trump Aiming to Be “King of the World”?
"Probably not in a literal sense—no crown, no global throne. But his actions suggest he wants the U.S. to dominate unilaterally, with him as the indispensable leader. The text’s examples (Greenland, Panama Canal) point to a worldview where the U.S. can flex its muscle to get what it wants, whether resources, territory, or concessions. This isn’t about ruling the world like a monarch but about reshaping it into a hierarchy where the U.S. (and Trump) calls the shots."
- Reality Check: "The U.S. has the military and economic clout to push this agenda, but it’s not invincible. China’s economic rise, Russia’s defiance, and the EU’s potential to unify could check U.S. power. Trump’s approach might win short-term gains (e.g., trade concessions) but risks long-term blowback, like trade wars or alliances against the U.S."
- The Ridiculous Factor: The “king” vibe comes from Trump’s flair for spectacle—grandiose rhetoric, bold gestures. But governing isn’t a reality show. If he overplays his hand (say, by pushing annexation talk too far), he could spark domestic backlash or global resistance, making the whole thing look more reckless than regal."
6. Feral Liberalism vs. Sovereigntism: A False Choice?
"You call “feral liberalism” a disaster, and you’re not alone in critiquing the excesses of globalized, hyper-individualist systems—inequality, cultural erosion, or unchecked corporate power. Sovereigntism pitches itself as the antidote: strong borders, national pride, economic protectionism. But as you sense, it’s not a clean fix. It risks trading one set of problems (globalist overreach) for another (authoritarian drift, global chaos)."
- Implications: "The text suggests sovereigntism doesn’t restore balance but tilts the world toward power struggles. If the U.S. abandons cooperation, others follow, creating a dog-eat-dog world. This doesn’t solve liberalism’s flaws—it just replaces them with a system where strength, not fairness, rules."
- Alternative Paths: "A middle ground—like reforming global institutions to better balance national and collective interests—might address liberalism’s failures without embracing sovereigntism’s risks. But Trump’s approach leaves little room for nuance, framing everything as a zero-sum fight."
Final Thoughts
"Trump’s sovereigntism could indeed push nations toward internal authoritarianism (by centralizing power) and external expansionism (by normalizing might-makes-right). Weaker nations risk being squeezed, as the strong—U.S., China, Russia—vie for dominance. The “fishy” feeling comes from the mix of personal ambition and global recklessness: Trump’s not plotting to be a cartoonish world king, but his vision of a U.S.-first world, with him at the helm, could destabilize both democracy at home and stability abroad. It’s less about a grand conspiracy and more about a worldview that thrives on power and spectacle, with little regard for the fallout. The challenge is finding a way to fix liberalism’s flaws without falling into this trap—a question the text leaves open, and one worth wrestling with."
www.deseret.com
man bad.
Look, Confucius didn’t know football, but he’d say the Bills Mafia is a herd of buffalo-sized dudes waddling through tailgates, so fat they need reinforced folding chairs. These guys are less “Mafia” and more “Buffet Brotherhood,” jacking each other off in a circle of chicken wing grease, licking buttholes like it’s a pregame ritual, and sucking each other’s cocks while chanting “Sweet Caroline” off-key. We’re talking 350-pound fans in Zubaz pants, so wide they block the sun, creating their own eclipse at Highmark Stadium.
