duke_sam
4 days ago
It was an amazing achievement for the students list movement to get such a diverse group of new politicians elected. I’m very curious to see how government formation without a figurehead/leader goes. Most parliamentary democracies assume you are electing a person with the knowledge/hope the party leader will be sitting in the big chair at the end. Most also put a lot of power in that person’s hands with backbenchers sidelined from the day to day running.
I really hope their success carries over into governance.
akie
4 days ago
I love that they won and I love the hope and expectation surrounding their victory but MAN have you ever SEEN a working group of 80 academics?
There's definitely a chance of failure here.
necovek
4 days ago
I laughed out loud at this — my dad is a retired Uni professor, so I know exactly what you are talking about — but I'd point out that the "student list" has around 140 seats in the parliament, so 80 academics hopefully still has another 60 common sense people who are not all about being right all the time, and who bring other perspectives too.
miroslavr
4 days ago
Academia, especially senior academia (professors, academics, uni leaders, department heads) is the profession in my opinion closest to the politics, if not the exact same, just that you don't see them every day in media. So don't worry, they're more than qualified.
chermi
3 days ago
Do you really want someone qualified for politics in that sense?
anigbrowl
4 days ago
> common sense people
Just as we should keep in mind that brainy academic types can get carried away in theoretical flights of fancy, we should also acknowledge that 'common sense people' are not composed exclusively of experienced and unselfish pragmatists, but also wilfully ignorant and cynical anti-intellectual types.
evek
4 days ago
Umm, you might want to read a but on the (new) opposition, ex 12+ years of total unchecked control.
Bombthecat
4 days ago
I didn't, but I saw a friend go into a week long alcohol session because he wanted to leave academics and couldn't take it anymore...
It must be like a pit fight, but with connections and half truths
skeeter2020
4 days ago
"in academics the in-fighting is so vicious because the stakes are so low" - interesting to see what happens now that that stakes are just democracy and an entire country!
fsloth
4 days ago
I mean the whole point of democratic system _is_ you want rotating cliques and infighting. Because defaulting to consensus isn't really that democratic.
The large blocks need to be able to move forward in legislation but the more uglier and tumultuous the backroom dealing are (within legal bounds) the healthier the democracy is.
necovek
4 days ago
I believe this is also what colours our views of the general academic infighting — academics are rarely rotated out except in the lower ranks, so it's a different type of skillset of building long-term alliances that drives their progression through the academic field and available careers in a particular institution (not even talking about "academic points" through publishing in recognized journals, which is a different discussion altogether — even with that criteria satisfied, to move to the next rank of professorship, you need to be elected by your colleagues).
Basically, academic tenure is opposite from democracy.
throwitaway222
4 days ago
Potentially, but it might also be how humans work. See any season of survivor.
tsimionescu
4 days ago
Survivor is the opposite of how real human societies work - especially the tribal ones that thes show is aping. Real tribal societies are stable forever, and they are almost entirely related people (especially if we're talking about smaller tribes). You're reputation for helpfulness is crucial in any such society, so the kind of backroom dealing and betrayals the show is known for are almost entirely out of the question: if you are found out as a schemer, you don't get to go home to your real family, you risk being ostracized for the rest of your life.
toyg
4 days ago
The tension between effectiveness (cohesive decisions swiftly implemented) and representation (complex reduction of utterly disparate points of view to a workable compromise) is the main force at the core of democracy.
Most of the electorate doesn't really understand it, constantly clamoring for one or the other to be the only guiding principle, but you need both - and one has to find a way even when they appear completely irreducible. Democracy is beautiful in a very messy way, a bit like nature.
I-M-S
3 days ago
It might look beautiful to the winners of the mentioned "tension" - not so much to the losers.
toyg
2 days ago
A functioning democracy respects the rights of minorities. Otherwise it's just tyranny (of the majority).
O_H_E
3 days ago
Thanks for this comment, actually made me think about something new.
Danox
4 days ago
The usual grifters have had their chance in most Western governments. Lawyers, landlords, the gentry, etc… I am skeptical but the present bunch that is usually very well represented in most western/eastern governments have had plenty of time and opportunity and look where we are at now.
cvwright
4 days ago
> and look where we are at now.
Living easier, richer, safer lives than 99.99% of all humans who have ever existed?
SturgeonsLaw
4 days ago
Yes, largely due to the scientific and medical progress humanity has made despite the sleazebag politicians being in power
shakow
4 days ago
IMHO, the logical conclusion of your comment is that humans basically suck at prioritizing common good and very long-term vision, independently of their background.
From what I observed of my time in academia, I don't see any reason for academics to do any better than other groups. Like everywhere, the starry-eyed, altruistic ones always lose the fight against the political sharks.
fsloth
4 days ago
This is very general and I don't see the point honestly.
Different countries are very different.
You probably can name "the usual grifters" in your domicile but don't expect the same patterns to be transferrable to different regions.
Sometimes pathologies are portable like the the authoritarian state capture toolkit but even there _who are you doing it with_ can be quite different even though _how you are doing it_ may seem familiar.
Also by any metric the general unspecific list of countries "east and west" has lots of variance in life expectancy, happiness, poverty, literacy etc.
So I can only read this as pointless general venting or faux cynicism.
akudha
4 days ago
Maybe they will fail, maybe they will do very well - time will tell. Even if they fail badly, it still can't be as bad as an authoritarian rule, right?
falserum
4 days ago
Previous gov now is opposition. So if students fail, next election might bring back the old team.
iLoveOncall
4 days ago
Seems pretty obvious to me that it's not going to be 80 academics debating everything under the sun, but instead dedicated groups focusing on their expertise area...
Danox
4 days ago
There’s a chance of failure in any human endeavor. but I am sick of lawyers, bankers, landlords, lobbyists and various other grifters hanging on currently in most western governments no one can say that they haven’t had their chance. There needs to be a wider variety of professions involved at/in the legislative branch.
marnett
4 days ago
Isn’t China run by engineers?
billfor
4 days ago
It isn't a parliament though.
stinkbeetle
4 days ago
China has a parliament. It's part of the communist uniparty / dictatorship, but it's a parliament.
brnt
2 days ago
It's called a parliament, but it never was.
cmurf
4 days ago
They need historians and political scientists, and maybe some politicians, to constantly remind them not to allow perfection to be the enemy of good.
It is not always obvious how to lay ground work over a decade ... or four of them.
It isn't even mostly about fixing problems. But how to make government act as an expedient rather than as an impediment.
PeterStuer
4 days ago
Having spent a significant time in academia, the problem is you are never judged on what works, but on what idea you can take credit for. Now this is not great for innovation, but it is disasterous for keeping things running.
standardUser
4 days ago
You can either support the status quo or you can support change. You seem to have chosen the third option, blanket cynicism, which is more like opting out. Yes, there are bad examples of every-single-thing in the world, and you can choose to cling to those bad examples and throw your hands in the air instead of engaging more critically and looking for ways to build instead of mock. The cynic's path accomplishes nothing and, frankly, poisons the world for those who give a fuck.
refurb
4 days ago
I could not imagine a group more able to come up with new ideas and have no ability to actually execute!
Should be exciting
runarberg
4 days ago
A group of 80 academics sounds like the level of dysfunction that can only be superseded by a group of 80 politicians.
znpy
4 days ago
> There's definitely a chance of failure here.
I was thinking the same.
This can either go incredibly well or it can go incredibly wrong.
skeeter2020
4 days ago
which is why one or more gravitate to academic administrator, eventually become a professional politician and we're right back to where we started. In the meantime either something exciting or absolutely nothing might happen!
Brendinooo
4 days ago
"Winning was easy, young man. Governing's harder."
vconnor
4 days ago
Because a working group of 80 career politicians is more effective?
christophilus
4 days ago
Maybe. Politics is a skill, and not everyone has a knack for it. It’s dirty, requires compromise, and a willingness to work with your opponents. Or, well, at least it used to.
palata
4 days ago
> Politics is a skill
It very much is, but I don't believe it is the skill of "solving problems" or "making society better".
Politics is about getting elected. Convincing the people that it's all the others' fault, that you know better, that you will save the world. And then when they get elected... we naively expect them to solve problems. But we selected them for their capacity at being selected, not their capacity at understanding the big problems society is facing...
amiga386
4 days ago
CHA is not a dump stat.
Getting elected is table stakes and shows you have the soft skills needed to organise, campaign and convince. Which is the minimum you need to get disparate groups of humans to pull in the same direction and make progress in advancing the country.
Theres no consolation if you get experts to plan solutions to problems but 1) the people you need to implement the plans have their own opinions or priorities and 2) the public want focus in some other priority and are start rioting if they don't feel heard.
You need schmoozers as much as you need tacticians.
chunky1994
4 days ago
There are two largely non-overlapping skillsets when it comes to politics and governance. The soft skills being effective means you can get elected, that does not mean they are good at governing (and is often a detriment to having good solutions and governance).
I don't currently have any data that says otherwise and the counterfactual remains unexplored (but it will be with this parliament!), but things that people do and say to get elected often are things that if implemented...would not solve the problems the populace that elected is having.
I don't think we need schmoozers, we need people who understand the problems of their populace and have the structural power to implement their solutions. We shall see if they need more than this, but this would be the first exploration of the counterfactual.
People who have their "own" priorities don't end up upsetting the apple cart when we make success in implementing those solutions the same as their success (which if we are effective problem solvers, should be possible. See Deng Xiaoping)
Danox
4 days ago
The schmoozers/lobbyists aren’t working currently in America we need problem solvers and clear thinking.
II2II
4 days ago
That is an overly cynical view.
A lot of the problem can be attributed to voters accepting the blame game, overly simplistic solutions, and expedient absolutist views over debating a plurality of options.
I'm not saying that the political system isn't to blame here. At least where I live, it is structured in such a way that winner takes all and loyalty to the party is more heavily rewarded than representing the constituent. But, again, that is a system that we in some sense designed.
stinkbeetle
4 days ago
It's not an overly cynical view, it's a realist view. Every person and organization's behavior should be considered and predicted by its motivations and incentives. Deviation from that would be naive and non-scientific.
Western politicians and political parties incentives are to get elected while doing as much as possible for special interests (and by extension, as little as possible for the common good).
6510
3 days ago
If you need a qualified person for a job you need to make some effort checking if they are qualified and then they should be allowed to fail. You can make mistakes measuring qualifications, they can pretend to be more qualified than they are but the actual job can also turn out different from what either expected. If performance doesn't matter after the job interview there wont be any performance. It would be strange if a honest person got the job.
Same goes for voters. That people cherish their ignorance isn't an excuse. You need minimum information. Approving something you didn't read shouldn't count. It's basic signal to noise ratio.
I would force each election program down to a single page. Each voter gets two random programs and we remove the name of the party from it. They stay in the voting booth long enough to read both programs then they chose one. It gets +1 the other gets -1. Each party gets an equal amount of voters.
Then a new government department that reviews if an elected candidate or party is actually doing what they wrote in the election program.
When the election results are in voters provide an approval rating that they can change at any time. This can be a simple app. If they stay below some rating they get a warning and a chance to correct their mistakes, if the rating stays low for some time they are thrown out. The lower the rating the sooner they leave.
Other sensible metrics also lower the rating. Things like leaving the seat empty or being late for your job. Imagine how silly it is that this is even a topic. Not showing up for work?
If we don't count medical situations Nigel Farage is the absolute world record holder. He once missed 77 consecutive UK parliamentary votes over 11 weeks. He also had the lowest attendance records in the European Parliament. For the Fisheries Committee he attended 1 out of 42 meetings.
He provided us a great service by showing one can just do that. The EU created some weak 350 euro bonus system for each day the politician actually shows up. When they showed up only to have their name recorded then left the bonus was reduced by the % of absence.
If you are hired to do any job and chose to not do it you cant stay. If a garbage man doesn't collect the garbage at all they are fired the same day. If they collect [say] ~90% they are fired after a month. You could still pay them if you want but if someone is sick long enough you need to hire someone else or the garbage wont be collected.
Danox
4 days ago
Absolutely. the first time I found out the Chinese have quite a few engineers involved in government. I said that explains all the infrastructure being built. Mind you no human endeavors are perfect. But there was a time in the United States not too long ago where there was more of a can do attitude, I don’t understand why high-speed rail is not a thing.
I also don’t understand why the Pan American Highway or rail from Nome, Alaska to the tip of South America never got built. Nor can I understand why Oak Ridge, Tennessee Thorium Research Center and further development was left to rot. The Chinese are very close to throwing element 90 in our face.
scns
4 days ago
Democracy is a popularity contest
Forgeties79
4 days ago
Yes but the hope is we can make the popularity center on the solutions and ability to execute them.
dghlsakjg
4 days ago
Yes. That’s kind of the point. The words aren’t that far apart in etymology either. By Latin definitions the most popular (liked by the general public) candidate will be the democratically chosen (rule by the people) one.
ninkendo
4 days ago
> Politics is about getting elected
There's a lot under the umbrella of "politics" that happens after you get elected. If you want to accomplish anything after you get elected (heck, even if it's just personal enrichment) you have to be somewhat skilled at getting others to work with you, one way or another. As a politician you can have flawless convictions and be right and well-informed about all your decisions, but at the end of the day you're just one vote (to use legislators as an example) and it does nothing if you can't convince or work with others.
hibikir
4 days ago
It depends on the political system. In many a parliamentary system, voting differently than what you are told means you will not be in the party list ever again, so for the day to day, there's very little convincing effort when you have the majority. And especially in systems where there is very little legal money in politics, the carrot is just ability to get access for not-so-legal money. So party leadership is a matter of having enough businessmen friends, and having will to power in a rather unclean word.
The whole "you are just one vote" doesn't really apply there. As the 30th legislator on your party list, you show up and vote as you are told. And in systems like the one in the US, barring rare moments, it's also not all that different. The card that your party will abandon you, and that if you want a position of any importance you have to play ball means many a junior congressperson just votes as they are told, and spends time fundraising.
ninkendo
4 days ago
I think you're basically proving my point? (My point being: politics isn't just "getting elected".)
In such political systems where you essentially must vote the party line, what makes an individual "effective" (ie. what constitutes being "good" at your role)? I'd say it comes down to all kinds of political soft skills, ie. forging the right alliances, convincing the right people to change course, understanding motivations of others, etc.
All of these are generally called "politics", and are things that happen very much after you're elected.
hugodan
4 days ago
great comment, poetic and to the point
constipn
3 days ago
Politics is no skill, just for people who would not survive in the real world
bahmboo
4 days ago
As an engineer writing software and running a small team I'd flirt with the idea of "moving up". Then I'd really study what the VPs and CEOs actually did and realize that I didn't have any real desire to do that all day everyday. I could do it but it would require me to rewire my psyche and soul (not saying it's bad, just not for me).
ykonstant
4 days ago
In some clusters, senior academics are exactly like that.
t0bia_s
4 days ago
Competence of democratic politicians is to be liked and get most votes. Usually it means to be without values.
I hope more people will realize that voting for uknown politicians that offers empty promises for artificially made problems means givig up our responsibility and at the end, make things worse as we see in current democratic countries.
watwut
4 days ago
As opposed to voting for Vucic here? T
g-b-r
4 days ago
I'm not sure if it used to be like that, but the skill required to politicians now is to get themselves elected, and that largely means the ability to lie well
enaaem
4 days ago
The “skill” of career politicians is mostly loyalty and appointing people based on loyalty is the worst criteria.
ryu2k2
4 days ago
We'd be living in a better world if politics was a skill and our politicians were good at it.
Avicebron
4 days ago
I think he means polticians lying, being trecherous, compromising until nothing gets done and no ones career is hurt, etc is a skill. It would be better for the people if people with these skills were not in public office. Anything that takes away from being a servant to the constituents and become self-service needs to be removed from Politics.
Danox
4 days ago
In my lifetime, it has been a skill of procrastination. and milking the public…
subscribed
4 days ago
I would assume PhD holding people are smart enough to understand their limitations and strengths.
They've been elected during a very special events. They know what's expected of them. Looks like compared to the previous powers this lot at least gives the country a fighting chance.
xandrius
4 days ago
Ehhh, that's the flaw in the logic. Holding a PhD doesn't necessarily make you better at anything other than strictly the topic of the PhD (and sometimes not even that), maybe only following arbitrary orders from senior figures.
chunky1994
4 days ago
Holding a PhD at the very least means you can spend a sustained long amount of time on (potentially) intractable problems and try to arrive at solutions for them. That's a good skill to have when...you've been elected to solve problems.
crtified
4 days ago
Is not the average life of a non-PhD holder an equally-sustained and long amount of time spent on the intractable problem of reaching whatever incredibly complex state-of-humanity they embody?
subscribed
4 days ago
I agree, my thinking was orthogonal to what you're saying (or the other way round).
Seeing how many politicians are utterly corrupt and ignorant cunts certainly a parliament full of people who understand the importance of facts and capable of logical thinking is not worse than career politicians mostly skilled in the game for their team, nothing else.
cvwright
4 days ago
Clearly you’ve never been to a faculty meeting :)
dghughes
4 days ago
One could even say politics is also a science.
tejtm
4 days ago
One does tend to talk alot doesn't one
miroslavr
4 days ago
You should see the skill level of politicians that were there till now, I'm not even sure whether calling them politicians is fair - maybe something closer to criminals, I'd say. Serbia (like the majority of the planet) needs honest and unspoiled people in governance. Educated or not, academic or not - these folks made the personal sacrifices and didn't earn student trust easy. Time will tell... But please spare me of the politics as an amazing unique skill, I saw where that led. Let's begin with being more fair.
eagleal
4 days ago
Management is basically 99% people's relations/network. It doesn't matter how good the technical implementations are at the top, if they don't have the knowledge and capacity to enforce it downstream from middle layer to the base. There's so much people involved whose interests are farmed by your competitors.
Imposing it top down requires oppression. Imposing or pressuring this huge layer from the bottom requires a continuously updated base so you can squeeze from the top and the bottom to enact the changes needed quickly.
It's impossible for leaders at the top, to personally vet the members of a village or city council for example.
I think I've never seen any of such concatenation of events and organization to have ever happened.
user
4 days ago
necovek
4 days ago
I believe this is the usual tension that's present even in private companies: are professional managers better than field experts at managing work?
The pure ideal is to get a field expert who is good at management — but sometimes hard to attain!
The question then really becomes if — for a manager — a senior expert is better than an experienced manager who can detect exactly when to pull in the experts? A great manager would be great, but these are similarly rare (rarer than good experts in a field).
And this is probably always on a case-by-case basis: it completely depends on the circumstances, individual qualities, and supporting people around them to decide which is better for a given situation.
The same holds here: the best you can get is an expert with a wide grasp of the entire field they will be active in, supported by good, smart common-sense people to manage and guide their thinking and solutioning in the right way.
gojogs
4 days ago
Before you ask, Gyúcsány was better
meerita
4 days ago
This is an interesting experiment, although I wouldn't call it a technocracy just yet. Italy had technocratic governments under Mario Monti and, to a lesser extent, Mario Draghi, with mixed results.
Having highly educated people in parliament is one thing; actually governing a country is another. Political leadership requires negotiation, compromise, institutional knowledge, and the ability to execute decisions.
I'm curious to see how Serbia handles the transition from academic expertise to actual governance, especially without a conventional party leadership structure.
HPsquared
4 days ago
Liable to get hoodwinked by "academic publisher" types.
szundi
4 days ago
[dead]
scotty79
4 days ago
> MAN have you ever SEEN a working group of 80 academics?
As compared to what? A working group of 80 uneducated idiots?
If democracy doesn't work if you put smart, educated people in control then it doesn't work, period and we need to pay better attention to whatevere China is doing.
Danox
4 days ago
China has more engineers involved in their government. Who tend to be more clear- thinking let’s solve the problem at hand. Which explains why they have so many infrastructure projects going on across their country.
It also partially explains why they pursue are open to multiple solutions to a problem. And it certainly explains why they looked at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and that thorium research and built two thorium reactors and will probably build many more because guess what?
They figured out how to make it work and apparently solved that alloy molten salt problem, it took about 10-15 years but they are on schedule. to deploy many more reactors after 2029.
They also switched or are are in the process of switching from lithium batteries to sodium ion batteries which is something else they didn’t have to do, they could hung on to lithium through 2040 milking, but instead they are moving on, which is also something that can happen when you have a bunch of engineers involved in the decision-making as opposed to those finance/MBA people who have a tendency to want to milk people for as long as possible.
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/markets/china-emerg...
billfor
4 days ago
The US used Thorium reactors back in 1962 (Indian point 1). It wasn't retired because it didn't work. It was retired because Uranium was more efficient.
scotty79
4 days ago
I heard it was retired because it had no military use unlike Uranium that is dual use.
scotty79
4 days ago
The real question is, would their capable decision making survive in a democracy, where russian propaganda through American billionaire's media tell voters what to think and more importantly what to fear?
cvwright
4 days ago
Good luck protesting when that government of engineers does something you don’t like
vkou
4 days ago
In which country? The US is an aggressive total surveillance state that executes people in the street and gives out 30 year sentences for people who didn't even show up at a protest, the UK jails grannies for holding up Palestinian flags, and Canada something something something something truckers something something.
In the long term, the US is far more likely to turn into China than not.
scotty79
4 days ago
Yeah, because protesting billionaire bought laws has such a wonderul track record in the West that there are scarcely any left.
To protest in most places in Australia you need a government permit.
AllegedAlec
4 days ago
> A working group of 80 uneducated idiots
This is why people hate IT nerds.
scotty79
4 days ago
Stupid people are driven by their inferiority complex to poison the culture with ideas that intelligence and education have drawbacks. In reality there are no drawbacks. Intelligent and educated people are as capable as others in all areas of activity and are vastly more capable in some of them. Politely tolerating insults like that and this cultural poisoning is the reason why trump is the president.
AllegedAlec
4 days ago
[dead]
Brendinooo
4 days ago
> It was an amazing achievement
Yeah, the thing that really strikes me is that their movement _did not exist_ in the last election. Went from scratch to power in three years. Whatever you want to say about their politics or their ability to lead...sure. But that's an incredible thing to do.
ric2b
3 days ago
It really says a lot about how dissatisfied people were with the status quo.
ifwinterco
4 days ago
It simply can't work, somebody ultimately has to be in charge of a 15 person startup, it is literally impossible to run a country via committee
InsideOutSanta
4 days ago
The exact opposite is true. The only consistently working, stable democracies do not have a single leader of the executive branch, e.g. Switzerland.
The CIA sponsored extensive studies on this and came to the conclusion that democracies with a strong presidential role are associated with a greater risk of failure. It's not really surprising, and it can be seen in the US right now.
Barrin92
4 days ago
>that democracies with a strong presidential role are associated with a greater risk of failure.
Matthew Yglesias wrote a prescient article about this roughly a decade ago:
qwytw
4 days ago
> The only consistently working, stable democracies do not have a single leader of the executive branch, e.g. Switzerland.
That system had to develop organically over many generations to be successful (in the case of Switzerland it was 500+ years with only a few significant interruptions) . In a centralized country with no traditions of communal and local politics it can just result in chaos.
consensus1
4 days ago
The system we had in the US pre New Deal was much more like Switzerland. Decentralization works just fine out of the box. The problem is that human instinct tends towards power which requires more centralization to accumulate.
kubb
4 days ago
The system was introduced around 170 years ago and it was done very suddenly after a civil-religious war won by protestant liberals.
qwytw
4 days ago
On the federal level yes but that only reduced the autonomy that the cantons had, it didn't introduce a fundamentally different system of government, most decisions were still taken on the local level.
groundzeros2015
4 days ago
Liberalism is dead Switzerland is ground zero.
lossolo
4 days ago
> The exact opposite is true. The only consistently working, stable democracies do not have a single leader of the executive branch, e.g. Switzerland.
That's correlation, not causation. Switzerland made enormous amounts of money from its banking secrecy system over many decades until the US pressured it to end it. And the trends are not looking good for Switzerland based on data. We'll see how stable it remains as the cost of living keeps rising, real wages decline, and unemployment goes up.
If you provide wealth and a good lifestyle to your citizens, then almost any system will be stable.
deadbabe
4 days ago
The US has not failed yet, only grown unpleasant for certain groups of people.
CMay
4 days ago
Yes and no. The US presidency is very different than the way it's reported on, but it is true that the executive branch is being more assertive to make up for the disfunction of the legislation. We're doing that intentionally and for good reason, to demonstrate to China that the US can act with speed as one small part of the overall deterrent against World War 3. The US is almost always hugely misunderstood, because there isn't any other country in the world that actually works exactly like the US does.
jeremyjh
4 days ago
No one knows how the US works anymore because the current administration doesn't follow laws and just makes it all up as they go along. It turns out the court system is too slow to matter: illegal tariffs just move to new illegal justifications when the patently absurd ones are tossed out after more than a year of using tariffs to drive inflation and stroke Trump's ego.
CMay
4 days ago
How about ask AI for all the times all the US presidents did something that went against the constitution. I think you'll be shocked. The court system being a bit slow is part of the point, because we're in an environment where China wants to use the speed of democracy as a weakness. Since you're on HN maybe you understand the concept of slow journalism or the benefits of anything being slow. Most people agree with that, having things be a bit slower is a useful check against errors. We understand that, the US was literally founded on that. China does not care. In that environment, we have to make compromises.
Being less predictable makes it harder for our adversaries to calculate. We're still good people, but we're in bad times. You don't need to understand. Through most of history only a tiny number of people anywhere in the world truly understood what was going on and what was necessary to respond to the times. This is true in science as well. How many times in history was it only a few scientists that had a clearer picture? Everyone thinks their religion is _the_ religion. The same can apply to news and opinions.
If you think the US is about Trump's ego, you still don't understand.
jeremyjh
3 days ago
I did ask and what I found out is that this admin is having nationwide injunctions at about 5x the rate of the previous admin, with 50 through July 2026. Biden had 28 in his entire term. Trump 2 is on pace to blow well past the previous record holder, which was the first Trump presidency at 80 total.
Moreover, Trump has made public comments regarding treaty obligations and international law that makes it clear he has no respect for those things, and there are no principles he follows at all so no one can predict what he will do next.
CMay
3 days ago
The principle is simple. Stop World War 3 by rolling up the vulnerabilities and dependencies that would give Chinese analysts a favorable picture. Forcing Europe to invest more in its own defense reduces the vulnerability there. Controlling oil going from Venezuela to China reduces China's sanction-proofing. Destroying Iran's space program, AI research, nuclear research, navy, airforce and most of its industrial base weakens their ability to cooperate with Russia and China as well as their capacity to contribute to global instability if they synced up with China. Helping Ukraine target Russian oil infrastructure also puts oil trade from Russia to China at risk, so they can see their own vulnerabilities.
Renegotiating the deal around Greenland prevents the risk of Greenland becoming independent and falling out of NATO since it would not remain in NATO by default.
It's not normal to capture heads of state, but Maduro was not the head of state as he was not recognized as elected by the world. It's not normal to kill heads of state, like Saddam Hussein or the leadership of Iran, but Iraq and Iran have something in common. Both Iraq and Iran attempted to assassinate US presidents multiple times, not to mention the mass killing of their own people. When Iraq attempted to kill a past US president, Bill Clinton had Iraq's special services HQ obliterated and no love was lost eventually when Saddam was hanged by his own people.
Learn more about what China has been doing in their region, around the world and inside the US. China thinks they can break all of the rules and then feign cute innocence like everyone else is crazy as if they are the only one following international law, when it is nonsense. We're operating right at the edge of the rules for sure. You won't find me disagreeing about that.
Our current foreign policy is the most sane it has been in a while, yet it looks a bit more extreme as a result of being so far behind on it. This is mostly what catching up looks like, when being polite doesn't get the job done fast enough.
ric2b
3 days ago
That's a nice cherry picking to paint a narrative, but the US is trying to force Ukraine to stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure and putting tariffs on allies instead of just China and chinese allies pushes the world towards them.
The Greenland deal was always going to be renegotiated as it always has been, once again antagonizing allies was completely unnecessary.
The US is not operating at the edge of the rules, it is constantly breaking them and tearing down any respect that the world still had for the rules.
At this point I don't know why the world should even have a more positive view of the US than of China. China is far more peaceful and helpful.
CMay
2 days ago
The US doesn't have a problem with Ukraine hitting Russian oil infrastructure in general, just specific oil infrastructure that happens to hit US interests. As I said, we've been helping them do it. It's partially political and around diesel fuel specifically, which is not all of the oil Russia produces.
None of these countries want to be more reliant on China. While China may be benefiting from their propaganda against the general populations, western leadership is a little more clear eyed about the risks of China. It's more for China to lose if they try to take Taiwan.
Whether the rhetoric around Greenland was entirely unnecessary or not, it may have accelerated the timeline on getting a deal done and this is Trump's negotiation style since he's been doing it forever. It's also interesting strategically, because if you'll recall China's brand of communism was only partially class warfare, but was also anti-colonialism. Framing all such foreign interests as colonial acts even though that is not what we're doing, paints any action by China that looks similar to Cube or Venezuela (which are 2 variants of scenarios we have theorized China might use against Taiwan) will inevitably draw comparisons, even though the details around our actions are very different than the overall rhetoric we're using.
The rules aren't gone. If you look at the rules the US has historically tried to enforce in terms of international law, we're largely still doing that. Do people think that Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela have been following and promoting international law? No. They've been actively and aggressively breaking them, because they see it as a strategic advantage to do so. If we make it impossible for us to respond to their rule breaking, by not getting creative with the rules ourselves, then we allow them to legitimize their rule breaking as the new international norm. Putin says hey, don't do that, hey you can't do that! China says hey, that's against international law, we're stable, you can't do that! It's only to serve their own interests. Of course there are red lines, but they can't say we're crossing red lines of behavior that they themselves are engaging in. That is the game.
If you legitimately don't understand why China is bad, then learn. You're running out of time to do so.
mopsi
3 days ago
Chinese analysts consider the network of alliances that the US has built since WWII a key advantage over China. Nothing could be more favorable to China than Trump openly attacking the very concept of NATO as a platform for mutual cooperation and questioning US commitments to South Korea and Japan.
After years of mocking the sovereignty of allies like Canada and Denmark, are they more or less likely to support the US in the event of a war with China? Less likely, and the same applies to most other countries, too.
CMay
2 days ago
Exactly, and our allies aren't going away. There is no world arriving where these countries have more in common with China than the US. NATO isn't going anywhere either, that's all rhetoric. Go subscribe to NATO news and see how they talk about things. Go watch the many hours of recordings of what we say directly to NATO with our representatives. You'll come away with the exact opposite impression that you would get from popular opinion news. They are investing more into their own defense and industry. If China alienates them, then they will be a little more prepared to contribute to a World War 3 if it comes to that.
Chinese analysts have a long history of being hilariously wrong. After all, communism, merit based. Pick one.
Maybe you'll notice that Canada has been a bit leftist for a while. Maybe you'll notice that historically if a country's sovereignty is questioned or nationalist sentiments increase, these countries begin to lean back to the right. Maybe you'll notice we've been doing that intentionally around the world to make the world more conservative. Globalism went too far and for strategic reasons it would be beneficial to unwind that some. These are basic things. It has the extra benefit that China has less influence with conservatives, so by increasing the influence of conservatives around the world, we are simultaneously reducing China's influence in those places.
Maybe you'll notice that we haven't actually invaded Greenland or Canada. Maybe you'll notice that the countries we're actually physically acting against are dictatorships, not democracies.
We don't need you to understand. You will feel all your emotions and your emotions will control you and you will behave exactly like we're banking on you to. The reality is that the US remains the only superpower despite China's advancements and we're still using that power for good, whether you realize it or not.
mopsi
2 days ago
> Exactly, and our allies aren't going away.
NATO allies are already pivoting away from the US, and the French nuclear deterrence initiative, which is gaining steam, is a good example of that: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/frances-nuclear-forces-brin... The current military stack that heavily depends on the US is being slowly and methodically replaced with purely European solutions. This means that Washington will have less and less say in how and when it is used.Anything US-related is increasingly seen as a liability. Take the HIMARS, for example. An increasing number of countries that recently bought HIMARS are favouring South Korean Chunmoo for their next purchases. Chunmoo comes with technology transfer that allows customers to maintain the launchers and manufacture the ammunition themselves, whereas HIMARS is micromanaged from Washington, and poorly so.
> Maybe you'll notice that we haven't actually invaded Greenland or Canada.
The threat to Greenland got real enough that Denmark moved special forces to Greenland, rigged airport runways with explosives to disrupt US airborne assaults, and stocked up on blood to treat casualties. Only then did the rhetoric from Washington change. That burned through most of the goodwill Denmark (and many of its supporters) had towards the US. > The reality is that the US remains the only superpower
Doubtful if the US deserves to be called a superpower anymore. Instead of supporting Ukraine to the fullest extent possible and setting an example that America's partners are not to be messed with, the US government has consistently shown weakness by falling for Putin's bluffs and humiliating itself in the process. Witkoff calling Putin a "humanist" is a good recent example. Pathetic beyond words.The US is losing credibility as a security guarantor, because it has failed to impose its will even on countries such as Iran. From failing to adopt modern anti-drone warfare, and using very expensive interceptor missiles instead, and then running out of them, we can all see that the US military and industrial might is a postcard from the past.
Why does China even need to fight or even directly confront the US when it can simply bribe its government into halting military aid to Taiwan, pressuring Taiwan to surrender, and pressuring others to drop their sanctions? Putin offered Lukoil to Trump's buddies, and today's WSJ top story says that Trump is pressuring Europe to resume buying Russian gas so that his friends can use intermediaries like Lukoil to skim their share of the revenue and enrich themselves. China can offer TSMC to Trump's buddies, too. That would send decades of US wargaming down the toilet, just as Trump's actions have done regarding Iran and Russia.
CMay
2 days ago
> The current military stack that heavily depends on the US is being slowly and methodically replaced with purely European solutions.
Which is exactly what needs to happen.
> An increasing number of countries that recently bought HIMARS are favouring South Korean Chunmoo for their next purchases.
I don't see a problem with this.
> The threat to Greenland got real enough that Denmark moved special forces to Greenland, rigged airport runways with explosives to disrupt US airborne assaults, and stocked up on blood to treat casualties. Only then did the rhetoric from Washington change. That burned through most of the goodwill Denmark (and many of its supporters) had towards the US.
That sounds like performative politics. It says nothing about how real the threat actually was and is more likely a performative political demonstration to Greenland that being tied to Denmark has value, which would be a net win for the US since a large part of our concern about Greenland was that they were being given the option to become independent. So performative politics for Greenlanders that has strategic benefit to the US more than Denmark, or useful military practice. It doesn't make it any more real or not.
> Doubtful if the US deserves to be called a superpower anymore. Instead of supporting Ukraine to the fullest extent possible and setting an example that America's partners are not to be messed with, the US government has consistently shown weakness by falling for Putin's bluffs and humiliating itself in the process. Witkoff calling Putin a "humanist" is a good recent example. Pathetic beyond words.
We don't need the US industrial base ramping up for the Ukraine war. We need it ramping up for the war with China. Europe needs to be ramping up for the European war.
As far as Steve Witkoff goes, he's literally a special diplomatic envoy. The point of a diplomat is not to go and insult the people you're communicating with, it's to achieve results through diplomatic means. Saying positive things is also a way to get your message into Russia past the censors.
If you let the media tell you what to think and feel, then they will preserve your lack of understanding of what is happening which creates a self reinforcing cycle of you depending on their nonsense.
mopsi
a day ago
> Which is exactly what needs to happen. /---/ I don't see a problem with this.
Representatives of the US government do not share this sentiment and throw temper tantrums all the time. One example of many: BRUSSELS — U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau on Wednesday slammed European NATO allies for prioritizing their own defense industry over American arms suppliers, according to three NATO diplomats. /---/ Landau, a longtime NATO skeptic who spoke first at the closed-door meeting, told ministers not to “bully” his country’s defense firms out of participating in Europe’s rearmament.
https://www.politico.eu/article/christopher-landau-top-us-of...The expectations seems to have been that elevated military spending would flow to US arms manufacturers. Instead, it is flowing to European manufacturers, making them more competitive and reducing the influence that the US government had through export controls, which essentially gave the US veto power over the foreign and defence policies of other countries. That influence is now rapidly waning.
> That sounds like performative politics.
Certainly not. This was an European country preparing for an attack by a NATO ally. The forces on Greenland were issued live ammo and explosives to sabotage airports to prevent US airborne attacks from establishing bridgeheads, and ordered to engage the invading force without further instructions from the high command. Nothing about this is performative, especially given that it was not revealed to the public at the time.This was the moment when trust was broken beyond repair. No amount of flowers or apologies will restore the trust that was before. It is perhaps one of the most important events of the past decade in US-EU relations and a fundamental shift in the understanding that had stood since 1949 when NATO was established.
> We don't need the US industrial base ramping up for the Ukraine war. We need it ramping up for the war with China.
And how's it going? 400 Patriot missiles were manufactured in 2022. After years of "ramping up production", 620 were manufactured in 2025. The US inventory at the start of 2026 was 2300 missiles, 1700 of which were pointlessly wasted on Iran. It will take years to restore even the fairly small inventory (judging by how many were consumed in the war) that was at the start of the year, let alone anything needed for a major war. The picture with dumb munitions like 155mm artillery shells isn't much better. > The point of a diplomat is not to go and insult the people you're communicating with, it's to achieve results through diplomatic means.
A fair bit of latitude separates insulting someone from publicly licking their asshole and going, "Yum! So tasty!"There's a reason why the US government has not achieved any meaningful concessions from Russia since the 2021 ultimatum. The endless talks with Witkoff serve only as a humiliation ritual. Putin even got to walk down a red carpet on US soil while US officers saluted him, all without giving anything in return. Allegedly, that embarrassing Alaska summit happened because Witkoff misunderstood what Russians meant by "withdrawal from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson". He mistook Russian demand for Ukraine to withdraw from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson for an offer by Russia to withdraw its own forces. This led Trump to immediately annouce the summit in Alaska that produced flashy photos for Russian newspapers, but nothing else. My God, what a bunch of retards. They don't even understand what's being told to them, and you're trying to condescendingly convince me that they're playing clever reverse psychology on Europe. It's time to face the reality.
CMay
a day ago
Landau can have his opinion, and I think he mostly wants US industry to have a fair chance, but we do need Europe to build it's own capacity.
Purchases from US manufacturers have increased, which contradicts your claim that they have not. Europe industrial capacity is also increasing. So, this all sounds fine to me.
I think you vastly overestimate the importance of the Denmark and Greenland thing in terms of meaningful harm to US interests. This is very basic bread and butter foreign policy. Just because it's not what you're used to and makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it is actually wrong. Your feelings are worthless and reality gets all of the votes.
Re patriot missiles, there are a few things you need to understand. They are not the only kind of defense system we have. We do not publish actual numbers, they are secret. The way our defense acquisitions work is kind of political, so we have to get Congress to invest into any particular needs.
We don't need to scale up patriot missiles anyway, because they aren't the defense system of the future anymore. They have specific uses, but they've been getting used for purposes outside of their optimal. They're too expensive and complicated for the way the world is going.
So everyone has tried things that don't work with Russia. Somehow Trump failing at it in his own way is meaningful? Everything is emotion emotion emotion with you. It's about how you feel, how you project human emotion onto geopolitics. You're wasting your time trying to do that. Oh we should be so ashamed! The drama, the scandal! How inappropriate! The end is near!
Move beyond tabloid thinking and the world will make a lot more sense. Like I said though, we don't need you to understand and most people never will. It's fine.
HarHarVeryFunny
4 days ago
The ancient Roman republic (i.e. pre-Caesar) did just fine run by the senate without any emperor (they were vehemently opposed to the idea of putting so much power in the hands of one individual).
One of the ways they made this work was by assigning temporary powers to elected/appointed individuals appropriate and sufficient to get their job done, whether that was provincial governor, tribunus plebis, consul or whatever. A notable title was that of "dictator" (where the modern word derives from) which gave sweeping temporary powers to a general sufficient to execute a war.
Julius Caesar famously abused this system, effectively becoming the first emperor (despite no such position existing) by assuming the title of "dictator perpetuo" (perpetual dictator), although that did not end well for him. His successor, Augustus (whose adopted name later became the name of the office of emperor) initiated a more acceptable version of this by simultaneously holding multiple "elected" positions thereby having the power of them all.
consensus1
4 days ago
The Roman Republic was incredibly decentralized with more people working for the administration of the city of Rome than for the Roman state itself at the time of Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Extreme executive power existed, but not at the level of the imperial administration. Provincial governors had near absolute power and generals had control over their armies to a degree well beyond what any general today has. They were basically private mercenaries with the generals, not the state, being in charge of payroll for the soldiers. Local territories had near 100% control of their own affairs so long as they did not do anything to interfere with the tribute flowing to Rome.
This became more centralized over time and as it did more executive power was needed at the top level. Augustus centralized the army under state control. Emperors in the late empire had nearly dictatorial authority and a massive state bureaucracy under their control.
qwytw
4 days ago
> The ancient Roman republic (i.e. pre-Caesar) did just fine run by the senate without any emperor
If you don't count the 80 years of off and on civil wars and political and social upheavals.
> and sufficient to get their job done
Well they were extremely successful military, internal politics were a mixed bag and it slowly turned into chaos and constant gridlock as soon as they ran out of external enemies to fight.
Rome had an arcane deeply adversarial political system which basically relied different powerful men in the elite competing and keeping each other in check while trying to amass as much wealth and political power they could get away with (Ceasar was hardly an aberration besides just being way more successful than countless aristocrats playing the same game).
> effectively becoming the first emperor (despite no such position existing) by assuming the title of "dictator perpetuo" (perpetual dictator),
Sula did that first, in many ways Caesar just emulated him (of course the decision to not murder all of this potential enemies came back to bite him)
peterfirefly
4 days ago
Sulla even managed to resign and survive, which I think is even more impressive.
mikem170
4 days ago
Civil war. Social upheavals. Gridlock. Oligarchs.
Didn't the U.S. also have all those problems, despite having a president?
There was an assertion made in an ancestor comment that a committee without a leader can't function, but that doesn't seem proven by those problems in Roman history under their Senate, since the U.S. with a president had the same kinds of problems.
I assume other factors are at play, oligarchs for example. And I question the downside risk of having a strong presidency, cult of personality for example.
I agree that the term "did just fine" is subjective.
DrProtic
4 days ago
And they won't, system in Serbia is still the same - they will form ministries and prime minister leading them.
They will choose who will that be by a committee, but after that they have to function as usual.
vanderZwan
4 days ago
Nice example of Poe's Law. I genuinely can't tell if this is a sincere comment written by someone who spent too much time in the start-up bubble, or a satirical comment on that type of person said by someone who very much aware that start-ups are just one of many ways humans can organize themselves and who knows that parliamentary politics is nothing like that for very good reasons.
But I do find it hilarious that apparently everyone assumes it to be the former, and that is quite telling about how most of this site's visitors think the other visitors of this site look at the world.
ifwinterco
4 days ago
No it comes from spending a lot of time in my home country (the UK), which despite nominally being a parliamentary democracy is very clearly run by a small number of (largely unelected) people at the top.
The same as every company I've ever worked for, large or small.
Some systems obfuscate it more than others, but at the end of the day somebody has to have the executive power to make a decision when the chips are down, or you just have chaos
stackbutterflow
4 days ago
A country is not a business. The goals are different. The levers and constraints are different.
varun_ch
4 days ago
Switzerland effectively runs via committee
zeryx
4 days ago
"effectively" is doing some heavy work in this sentence
user
4 days ago
AdamN
4 days ago
The constitution will necessitate a certain structure so it's not like "it can't work". It is working and then at some point soon the structure will be reified and some will be given more power and different portfolios than others.
bojan
4 days ago
It worked really well so far.
corroclaro
4 days ago
I mean ... most countries are run by some sort of committee hierarchy / supervisor chain. Having consulted at many different levels of govt. over here in Europe, I can tell you there are way more committee decisions than Executive directives.
In many cases, the executives / politicians / directors just rubber stamp what a working group / committee has decided.
Also, see the Tomato guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqUBdX1d3ok
geraneum
4 days ago
> Most parliamentary democracies assume you are electing a person with the knowledge/hope the party leader will be sitting in the big chair at the end.
In Germany the focus is usually on the parties and not the figurehead for over 70 years now.
edit: for the election
WheelsAtLarge
4 days ago
Amateur politician have good intentions but are not very effective. It's hard to get consensus when everyone has their own opinion. Professional politician have the background to get somethings done but yes they have thier own issues. My suspicion is that the new group might get a few items thru. Things that have been burning in the majorities minds but after that there won't be much done. It very hard to get people to agree, specifically intelectuals that think they are always right and can put up a good argument.
user
4 days ago
betamagel
4 days ago
Sure, b/c all over history it shows students always know what for and why they protest... /s
rightnutwingjob
4 days ago
[flagged]
pacija
4 days ago
Whatever it is going to be it will hardly be worse than what we had for past 14 years of SNS / Vučić dictatorship.
InsideOutSanta
4 days ago
It's always funny to me when people say "overeducated", as if knowing things is only good up to a point. If you know too much, you suddenly turn bad.
TFNA
4 days ago
When people use the term, it is obviously not a reference to just "knowing things" but rather 1) the distinct socialization one gets in academia that leaves one rather divorced from the real world (and I say that as an academic), and 2) hyperspecialization to the point one loses the big picture, a problem in education today.
InsideOutSanta
4 days ago
I knew one or two profs like that when I was studying, but the vast majority of people in academia are just regular people with families and interests outside of academia. It's kinda disheartening to see the anti-intellectual bent this discussion has taken.
BoingBoomTschak
4 days ago
> but the vast majority of people in academia are just regular people with families and interests outside of academia
If most people realized that, we would have much less problems: academics are often shrouded in an aura of virtue and wisdom they don't deserve in the least. Like what you see in this thread, that their narrow (or worse, illusory) knowledge will somehow help them being good rulers/leaders.
rightnutwingjob
4 days ago
This is probably a much better way of putting it than mine.
However, scorn and ridicule are also reasonable at times. And it started a conversation.
hunterpayne
4 days ago
I've worked and known many, many academics in my life. I'm sorry, but if you think this is anti-intellectual, then there are some basic things you don't understand about people.
Academics really are naive and out of touch people. In a weird sort of way, being an academic means sacrificing your personal growth for either a) a deep love of their area of research or b) love of teaching. This means that the wider life skills one gains as an adult, they never get. They get to avoid consequences for being wrong but at quite a price. One of the worst things I have seen are what happens to academics who leave for the private sector later in their career. When they can't make it in the private sector, it is pretty crushing to many of them.
That being said, one of the prices of being an academics is being very "out of touch" with the rest of society. And that will take away your ability to read political situations or govern things well. Academics injecting themselves into such situations will almost always be disastrous as a result. Its just a consequence of how academia works. It doesn't have to be that way, but unless academia changes profoundly, it will be.
TFNA
4 days ago
As an OP here, I'd like to mention that I don't agree with this characterization at all. When I said academics are divorced from the real world, I was speaking of them largely conforming to particular demographics that make them a bit blind to broader trends in electoral politics and culture.
Academics do just fine picking up "adult life skills". Only a small minority of academics find academic employment from their mid-thirties or so on, so everyone moves to other sectors for the rest of their lives. It is not as if they are just hapless misfits or on the dole for the rest of their lives.
rainsford
4 days ago
That seems like the definition of anti-intellectualism because you're making an implicit value judgement that developing the skills to be successful in a corporate environment is more legitimate that developing the skills to be a successful researcher and/or teacher. Many people who began their careers in the private sector would make lousy academics, but few would hold that against them as evidence they failed to develop broader life skills.
Although in reality it probably doesn't make sense to talk about the private sector as some homogeneous representation of the rest of society in the first place. Many people outside of academia famously struggle to adapt their presumably well developed "wider life skills" to significantly different environments, like switching industries or going between large companies and small ones. There's really no universally applicable life skills or experience that everyone except academics pick up.
InsideOutSanta
4 days ago
> there are some basic things you don't understand about people.
> Academics really are naive and out of touch people
That's a hilarious juxtaposition of sentences.
rightnutwingjob
4 days ago
Seems entirely congruent.
The first sentence seems to suggest: you are naive.
The second sentence indicates the writer believes many academics are naive.
Where is this contracts you allude to?
InsideOutSanta
3 days ago
Author accuses me of not understanding people and then makes a sweeping generalization about a large number of people.
watwut
4 days ago
> distinct socialization one gets in academia that leaves one rather divorced from the real world
It is absurd claim. Academia is part of real world. It is not an isolated island cut off from everything else.
It is no more divorced from real world then any other group of people. No more divorced then rural farmer are divorced from it, businessmen are divorced from it, sports fans are divorced from it. They are all having limits of understanding other groups.
Tech workers as likely more divorced from average person even.
rightnutwingjob
4 days ago
[flagged]
watwut
4 days ago
I dont see any issue with those courses. There is nothing wrong with studying any of those topics.
And I dont know what your remark about rural farmers is meant to be. My point was, they are in general fearful of cities and are out of touch with cities where majority of people live, academia and basically any not-rural-farmer subculture.
rightnutwingjob
a day ago
Yeah, sorry, that line was suppose to read;
Rural farmers aren’t responsible for whatever the fuck this is supposed to be.
MentalM
4 days ago
That is true.
The problem is not in that they are divorced from the real world. The problem is in the model that science get financial support, which leads to the existence of filtering that eliminates from the science anyone who is not far-left loyal dog and supporter of the "current thing".
jeremyjh
4 days ago
> far-left loyal dog
Is this how a 60-day old account has negative karma?
Maybe the problem is that your ideas don't withstand any academic scrutiny, since they aren't based on sound research or well-reasoned arguments.
MentalM
4 days ago
> Maybe the problem is that your ideas don't withstand any academic scrutiny
My ideas do withstand the reality. Unlike their so called "sound researches" or "well-reasoned arguments".
So negative karma? I was banned on several platforms simply for saying that all available to me evidences point out that covid was developed in the lab, while ALL the scientist licked the communist China's boots and said that it is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible. So what does the karma means in front of the truth?
ric2b
3 days ago
And where is your evidence? The most accepted theory at the moment is that it was a natural virus that was being studied and leaked from a lab, not that it was developed there.
Yet you seem to be convinced that you have been proven correct that it was developed, so show it.
jeremyjh
4 days ago
Yes, that is the worst part about that letter. It destroyed a lot of credibility. It may have done more damage to public health than COVID - and in the long term almost certainly will.
rightnutwingjob
a day ago
Being ignorant of the data doesn’t make you right. You’re kinda proving that HN also has a Left-filter.
You can have any political opinion on HN so long as it’s a Liberal Progressive opinion.
In my “lived experience” <eye roll> this wasn’t so obvious here 15 years ago.
Everything you don’t agree with is just right wing nut jobs. Diversity of opinion, so long as it’s mine.
Between 1969 and 1998, the share of faculty identifying as “liberal” or “far-left” shifted only a tenth of a percentage point, from 44.7 percent to 44.8 percent.
Beginning with the next survey, in 2001, however, faculty opinion took a hard left turn such that professors on the political left are now approaching a supermajority in the academy (see figure 1)
https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoli...
mikem170
4 days ago
Does that include all the money spent on military resesarch?
I don't know that I'd characterize the military industrial complex, especially the private parts, as being made of up far-left types.
It seems that funding has become much more political lately, the problem getting worse.
watwut
4 days ago
That is just not true. By not true I mean "a lie".
rainsford
4 days ago
I definitely agree existing in a particular silo gives you a narrow view of the world, but I've never understood the idea that the silo of academia is somehow worse or less representative of the broader world than small town living or being in the military or any of the other silos many people exist in. The real world almost by definition is made up of the combination of all the things people do and the environments in which they exist.
Obviously being a truck driver is different than being a physics professor. But I'm not sure there is much of a coherent argument supporting the idea that the former exists in the real world while the latter does not.
rightnutwingjob
a day ago
Between 1969 and 1998, the share of faculty identifying as “liberal” or “far-left” shifted only a tenth of a percentage point, from 44.7 percent to 44.8 percent.
Beginning with the next survey, in 2001, however, faculty opinion took a hard left turn such that professors on the political left are now approaching a supermajority in the academy (see figure 1)
https://www.independent.org/tir/2022-23-winter/the-hyperpoli...
jeremyjh
4 days ago
People use the term to manage their cognitive dissonance. They do not want to put the work in to become educated, and do not want to admit that this puts them at distinct disadvantage in many ways that matter.
rightnutwingjob
4 days ago
Yes, this was, obviously, my intended usage.
Not the wet lettuce straw man usage posited by the other comment.
OroPla
4 days ago
A Jack of all trades is a master of none, but better than a master of one because he has broad, intersectional knowledge. Academia is designed for specialization and the more you specialize in something the more you lose the forest for the trees.
Everything looks like a nail if you are a hammer and all that.
simsla
4 days ago
While the extreme "master of one" exists, most academics I know have cross-cutting interests.
We also shouldn't forget that the vast majority of politicians today are lawyers by education. To whatever degree your assumption holds, it is true of the status quo today as well. Even in that case, having a more diverse set of "masters of one" would be an improvement.
OroPla
4 days ago
I was only addressing what "overeducated" refers to. Politicians of western democracies I know of have the problem that each leader is afraid to surround himself with people more capable than themselves, for the people around him are competitors for his position.
Unfortunately, eventually one of the people selected for being less capable get to be at the top and continue the whole play again, getting rid of anyone that is not less capable than themselves.
This is one disadvantage democracies have over monarchies, for a king can surround himself with more capable people all he wants as they are not direct competitors.
simsla
4 days ago
Slight correction (can't edit): law education is most common for politicians in Western countries, but not the majority.
For the US, 32% of the house and 47% of the senate holds a law degree.
consensus1
4 days ago
Academic credentials and knowledge have very little correlation. A master electrician knows things. So does an airline pilot in charge of hundreds of lives. Yet neither has letters after their name.
hippogod
4 days ago
Aren’t the letters after their names essentially signifying their level of understanding on a subject?
Just like “Master” before electrician or “Captain” or “PIC” for airline pilots.
rightnutwingjob
a day ago
You won’t find a single election who insists on being addressed by their trade qualification.
skew-aberration
4 days ago
Yeah, there's plenty of high-profile academic politicians in Europe with debatable legacies including Thatcher and Merkel. Time will tell.
A quick search suggests the economists associated with this movement are fairly 'mainstream' institutionalists of the type that's popular with government these days in the west. I don't think there will be big changes soon beyond dealing with corruption/nepotism.
Later on, I imagine they will push for faster EU integration on possibly slightly worse terms. Serbia may become marginally less independent in terms of fiscal policy at least and the markets might become even more exposed/beholden to foreign capital. This process has been in motion for years now and I don't expect the student movement to care - the upsides are broadly popular with younger people globally. Personally, I think it is deeply ironic that in the age of tariffs and huge government spending by the superpowers, small countries like Serbia are still signing up to be bound by the 'free market' consensus which is rapidly disintegrating globally.
robotresearcher
4 days ago
Thatcher was a scientist, but no more an academic than most politicians.
She had a honors bachelors degree. An Oxford MA is awarded three years later on application, and is not an earned master’s degree. Unusually for a politician, it was a science degree (chemistry), and she worked in a lab at school and after school briefly, but she got a law degree later, which is a typical politician thing.
If that bachelor’s degree was in humanities, like almost all elected officials, no one would refer to her as an academic.
In contrast, Merkel earned a PhD, and some of these newly elected Serbian reps are long-time professors.
fg137
4 days ago
There are more ardent second amendment supporters among tenured professors in US universities than you think.
bdangubic
4 days ago
it is the only amendment there is in the USA, all others are just for show. fourth amendment gotta be the biggest joke at this point that it even “exists” on paper so-to-speak. 2A holds it together though to make us feel like we are “free” :)
user
4 days ago
reeredfdfdf
4 days ago
Still beats the alternative of corrupt career politicians.
MentalM
4 days ago
> Still beats the alternative of corrupt career politicians.
Are you sure? After the covid and position of the scientific community on it's origin it is evident that most scientist are ready to do the exact things that corrupt career politicians are doing, but for free, purely for the love of the game.
consensus1
4 days ago
Alternative? The corrupt career politicians in the US mostly hold JDs.
dmantis
4 days ago
Average professional politician is a psychopath fighting for power no matter what.
At least these guys might be honest about their hubris and arrogance and won't smile to you while slaughtering your future or robbing your family.
whoanoway
4 days ago
[dead]
iLoveOncall
4 days ago
Why are russian bots always so easy to spot?
hunterpayne
4 days ago
Fun fact: The US has only had one academic hold the presidency. He is also considered to be the worst US president in history.
Academics don't have a great track record in politics or governance pretty much anywhere at anytime in history.
FLHerne
4 days ago
Considered by whom - you?
Most surveys, either of experts or the public, rank Wilson above average.
Worst are generally Buchanan, Johnson, Harding and of course Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_preside...
tensor
4 days ago
What anti-intellectual horse shit. Carney has a PhD in economics, for one. But there are many: Tomáš Masaryk, Manmohan Singh, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Ricardo Lagos, Mary Robinson, Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen, Mario Draghi, Angela Merkel, Claudia Sheinbaum.
All these people have been been at the forefront of b ringin freedom, democracy, and well being to their populations. If anything, the "fun facts" show that academics can make great leaders.
Braxton1980
4 days ago
You made that conclusion using one person?
dmd
4 days ago
I didn't know Trump held an academic appointment. (Other than John G. Trump, I mean.)
Dracophoenix
4 days ago
He means Woodrow Wilson.
dmd
4 days ago
well aware
hedora
4 days ago
Wilson isn't even bottom ten on the lists I could find. He got the US through WWI and helped establish the league of nations. His other accomplishments include the ftc, federal reserve, antitrust law, the farm act, US income tax, a precursor to the new deal and he lowered tariffs.
Wikipedia says he's generally regarded as above average, and the most successful progressive until the New Deal. He was certainly much better than any president the US has had in the last 73 years. JFK is arguable both ways - no one after that is.
Here's a survey of stack rankings of US presidents:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_preside...
The worst score Woodrow Wilson gets across all the rankings in the survey is 15. The best rating a post-Regan republican gets is 18. If we ignore Regan (still rated much worse than Wilson on average), we have to go all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower to find a Republican whose best score is better than Wilson's worst score.
The Democrats fare better. Truman and FDR clearly ranked better. If we ignore them, the next democrat is... Woodrow Wilson. Put another way, of the last 20 presidents, Wilson is ranked 3 or 4.
On the other hand, Trump is a Doctor of Business and a Doctor of Laws according the Liberty University. Surely, the poster meant Trump. They're a great school. The best schools.
grafmax
4 days ago
US government organizations such as USAID and the CIA-adjacent National Endowment for "Democracy" backed this movement to the tune of millions of dollars, funding "civil society groups" and other NGOs. Yet supposedly it is spontaneous and grassroots, and we wonder how its governance will be decided.
mstank
4 days ago
This is the standard claim by the Vucic regime and his media, still haven't seen any evidence. Please share if you have any.
wallentohm
4 days ago
Any sources?
grafmax
4 days ago
$10M+ US funding of "Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance" https://www.wheremytaxesgo.com/foreign-aid/serbia/
$500K+ NED funding listed here: https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Europe-Grant-...
$2.9M USAID->CRTA https://www.usaspending.gov/award/ASST_NON_72016923CA00002_0...
$10M USAID->Trag Foundation (Inspire2Action) https://2021-2025.state.gov/reports/2024-investment-climate-...
ric2b
3 days ago
And how is that related to this movement? You realize that most of that money was going to Serbia's government, the one this movement defeated?
grafmax
2 days ago
Read the section 'Who carried out the work, FY2025' from the first link. 39% and 31% went to NGOs and less than 32% went to "government" which includes the US and "partner governments". Even if we somehow assume all of that went to Serbia's government, the idea that "most" of this money went to Serbia's government contradicts the facts.
The financial ties are there. The NGOs I listed (CRTA and Trag foundation) have published support for the student movement. NED itself states that it funded journalism that triggered widespread the protests at the beginning of the student list movement - https://www.ned.org/game-changing-grants-in-2024.
The US supports dictatorships, genocide, and perpetual war across the world. It doesn't even have a democracy at home - its political process is entirely captured by the rich who call their pay-to-play system "democracy". Do you really believe the US out of the kindness of its heart is doling out charity for "leaderless" Serbian autonomy?
jephs
4 days ago
The Russians paying him.
Source: The Russians paying me.
964279964377
4 days ago
[dead]