Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Who decides what the "national interests" are? Are there even such things?

One thing I know: the things politicians and talking heads in the media often bandy about as being "in the national interest" aren't things in my interest.

Things like waging war on countries that didn't attack the US. Or waging the War on Drugs. Or bailing out the banks. Or the US alliances with certain dictatorial states and human rights abusers. Fuck that. I'm not interested in that. I don't think these benefit the US either.

People bandy about the term "national interest" as if it's some kind of objective standard which we all agree on. But that completely ignores the many diverse and often conflicting interests of the hundreds of millions of people who are the citizens of the United States.

What these so-called "national interests" really are are the interests of those in power. That's why the things I say are in the national interest don't matter, but the things they say are in the national interest do.

So I'm not sure how useful it is to judge the actions of the "deep state" members by whether they're serving the "national interest". That's letting them make the rules to their own game.

Indeed - it's a term with a nebulous, vague and malleable definition that sounds good to people without any real specificity attached. That's why politicians and pundits love to use it.

Another good example might be a politician arguing for a particular trade deal by saying it will be "good for America" or in the "national interest". This intentionally glosses over important details, if in fact it will be good for some corporations headquartered in the US - and the senior executives thereof - while being bad for many more workers in the US.

The National Interest is pretty clearly defined each time the countries economic data is released. Because without acceptable employment, balanced trade, and a manageable budget you've got nothing. No money for social justice, for national defense, and no place for politicians to pay themselves and their friends ... except your savings account. So, the National Interest is easy to measure if focus on the foundation, not the fixtures.

Whenever I hear 'the American people' I inwardly cringe.

Is there a reason you dislike us?

Is there a reason you would mis-interpret that comment on purpose?

Obviously not. But the way it gets bandied around as if every politician speaks for everybody is something fairly unique to America. I've never heard a European leader (at least, not in recent times) speak out loud like that. And if they did it would make me cringe just the same.

Are you counting the UK as European? Because British prime ministers do this all the time. They get 55% of the house of commons on 40% of the vote and 25% of the electorate, and then proclaim "the people have spoken!".

Hm, never noticed that but I'll pay more attention. And yes, that is cringeworthy too.

The people have only spoken if a > 50% portion of those eligible to vote actually vote and all of them agree.

In that case you might make such a statement, and even then that leaves room for 49% (a) not to vote and (b) to disagree and whoever would make such a proclamation would have to qualify their statement to that effect. But it is of course so much easier to claim a mandate.

is 'the American critters' better?

No, because it still implies that whoever speaks speaks for an absolute majority of the electorate (so > 50% of those eligible to vote, not those who actually voted).

Given how many people simply don't bother to vote such statements are simply not true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com