Economists want to see current behavior as a way of guessing what people believe. This is street “modified preferences.” I’ve always found it to be a variety of useful tools.
Recent statements by the top Trump administration have baffled observers on both sides of the political spectrum. This is a national review that is generally a conservative publication that supports Trump, but differs from his views on many important issues.
However, in his second period, which caused Russian invasions to Ukraine, Trump offered that Ukraine not to annex all and take over sovereign territory in the West, and that Ukraine would not join NATO, Putin of Ukraine I offered to. The war, and the US lifts sanctions against Russia. And Trump may even throw a 20,000 extra US retreat that Biden feels on the east side of NATO after the invasion of Ukraine.
And in exchange, Putin offered. . . Well, nothing really.
Critics complain that this is not something that politicians would pride themselves on being a skilled deal maker.
On August, I suggest that critics were wrong. They ran the mysterious assumption that Ukraine was an American ally and Russia was our enemy. In fact, Trump has long been a worshipper of Vladimir Putin and frequently calls the Ukrainian government. Rather than viewing pre-negotiation concessions as “mistakes,” I viewed them as tactics that undermine Ukraine’s negotiating position. Simply put, Trump considers America to be a friend of Russia and is allying against Ukraine and the EU.
Today, Trump confirms my point:
Regarding the war, President Donald Trump tells Ukrainians, “You should never have started it!” In Moscow, Vladimir Putin must be laughing from ear to ear.
As a result, the national reviews share my views.
Trump is flying off, rashing, trying to do anything to justify the current Russian stance.
It took me two days for my argument to move from Noam Chomsky-style heterodoxy to even among conservatives to traditional wisdom.
In the short term, issues such as budgetary and government efficiency issues occupy most online discussions. I award it. But in the long run, to paraphrase Trotsky, “You may not be intervened with ideology, but your ideology is entangled within you.”
In 2016, National Review carried out a special “Trump” issue. They then decided that they could move on from the concert they had expressed at the time. However, NR reporters are beginning to implement that reality for what reality may always want.
Speaking of poetry heterodox’s view, the new Substack blog uses the concept of revealing preferences under the Trump administration’s current foreign policy goals.
PPS It’s hard to believe this was only three years ago:
