Malazan Empire: Grief - Viewing Profile - Malazan Empire

Cause, on 12 March 2026 - 06:16 PM, said:

The economics in these scenarios tend to be unpredictable and can be very counter-intuitive.

For example, sanctions put on short-term pressure but when you look at economies that have been heavily sanctioned for a long time - like Iran - in some ways that's insulating.

War economies are famously capable of churning on by creating their own jobs and demand, at least while it's necessary for war, and domestic rebuilding projects are in some ways comparable to growth.

Not saying Iran's economy is in a great shape or something, not remotely, more that I don't think we should expect economics to end the war in any near-term timeframe. Or if anything I think it's more likely America that will blink first economically.

The American economy has far further to fall and isn't starting from a strong position to handle short-term shocks due to previous waves of inflation, jobs disruption, and record debt levels. Republicans are not popular, Israel is not popular, and launching an aggressive war in the middle east is not popular. Even the American media sounds noticeably more critical about this war which typically signals a divided elite establishment.

I won't be surprised if that high gas prices force America to back off before Iran's economic woes force a regime change.

Meanwhile, Democratic senators claim that US military leadership are briefing that their war goals do not to extend regime change or to incapaciting Iran's nuclear programme.

Trump is classic as ever "if Iran has put out any mines in the Hormuz Strait, and we have no reports of them doing so, we want them removed, IMMEDIATELY!".

The reports come from two anonymous sources so taking it with a grain of salt is very fair.

Meanwhile, the US has moved through "we can escort commercial shipping and have already escorted one ship" through to "we did not in fact escort a ship and are currently unable to offer escort". The lack of professionalism still shocks me.

Lifting sanctions while Russia is reportedly supplying intelligence to Iran to target American troops. What a great look. If that isn't a slam dunk for the opposition you have to wonder what ever is.

Reports are also coming in that Iran might be preparing to mine the Strait of Hormuz. If that proves to be the case then the oil crisis could be very persistent as well as having knock-on effects into a huge range of fields, not least food. Crop futures have been volatile.

 HoosierDaddy, on 06 March 2026 - 05:20 PM, said:

Chiming in on this, because I think it's an interesting debate, the study you link highlights later on that "Trump’s hardline policies on illegal immigration found their mark".

After both of the seminal anglosphere right-wing upsets - Brexit and Trump - there has been this post-mortem debate on the losing side about how much to blame
1. economics: financial anxiety especially amongst "left behind" regions of the country
2. values: xenophobia, sexism, and similar "authoritarian" identity politics

It's an important question that has obvious implications for the strategy of left parties that want to regain ground.

I am not confident enough to say there is a consensus amongst political scientists, but generally what I have read suggests it is leaning towards #2.

Education predicts the Brexit vote better than income, and support for the death penalty predicts it better than either.

Similarly, measures of sexism and racism predict the likelihood that someone votes Trump in 2016 significantly more powerfully than economic dissatisfaction.

I'm finding it harder to find so much about the 2024 election at the moment. I definitely would expect the economy to play a bigger role than in 2016 given inflation, and from what I can find that does seem to be true. Nonetheless, studies still seem to suggest that values predict the vote highly, with a gulf in attitudes towards race, immigration, abortion, and whether women continue to face obstacles in society compared to men or not. Immigration was a massively more important topic for Trump voters in 2024 than Harris voters.

I think it's very tempting amongst liberals to focus on #1 as far as possible. It's certainly more comfortable than accepting that a large number of your neighbours are completely fine, even actively support, sinking small boats at sea or deporting people based on their skin tone (despite the evidence getting more and more blatant).

And I don't think it's just that it's more pleasant personally. It's also that there is a more obvious political playbook to respond to #1, and that it's a centrist liberal economic playbook that the political establishment can largely get behind.

Responding to #2 feels like a quagmire by comparison.

Werthead, on 09 March 2026 - 08:49 PM, said:

The "blame it on Israel" deflection is a truly hopeless, short-termist, maneuvre.

The narrative that they have been dragged into war by Israel is already damaging enough for Republicans. The fact that they have staunchly supported (and armed) Israel, and will no doubt continue to do so, makes it very tough to start blaming the worst of the war on Israel. And of course there will never be a unified front on that within your party, which already can't get its story straight about the war.

The fact that playbook seems like an actual possibility just shows how bad the politics look for party right now.

You are in a bad place when, a week after starting a war, you are eyeing up the blame game with the same ally you are supporting in the war... while at the same time hoping to sell that going to war was necessary and totally not a blunder.