| > push to expand rather than diminish state funded media like CPS, PBS and NPR I don't see why. If they were not planning on taking over the place long term, then they'd want to decrease state capacity not increase it. ( Furthermore in the US, corporate media conglomerates make up most of what we'd traditionally consider state run media ) > reduce the right to keep and bear arms Why exactly? In this context, small arms mainly just give the population more tools to harm each other as the place falls apart. > increase regulation and taxes to damage domestic industrial capacity and reduce competitiveness Regulation has been increasing for decades. But even overbearing regulations are a downright level playing field for innovation compared with having to bribe the administration (with money and political prostration) to avoid becoming the target of capricious attacks under the color of law. > invest $100B into TSMC Arizona or push Japanese car manufacturers and European pharmaceutical companies to build domestically These are beneficial, but it feels like we're back up against the limits of continuity and showmanship. Complete repudiation of constructive investment (eg CHIPS Act) would raise eyebrows. And a few big state-directed investments here and there aren't going to reverse the tariff assault on our distributed industry. Furthermore unless the economic bargaining power of workers drastically changes for the better, foreign-owned factories in the US are still going to result in most of their generated wealth leaving the US. And without that, the main benefit of domestic factories (nationalization in a time of need) is fundamentally abhorrent to the US political environment no matter who is in power. |