Ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich urges global boycott of travel to U.S. to protest Trump
Ex-Labor Secretary Robert Reich urges global boycott of travel to U.S. to protest Trump
It would send a clear signal, said the Bill Clinton-era Cabinet member.
Summary
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich urged a global boycott of U.S. travel to protest Trump’s policies, warning his administration is “brutally attacking U.S. democracy.”
In a Guardian op-ed, Reich called on foreign visitors, students, and skilled workers to reconsider coming, citing economic and safety concerns. He argued withholding tourism revenue could pressure Trump.
His plea follows Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown and rising tensions with Canada.
Reich’s call comes as Canadian travel to the U.S. has already shown signs of decline.
You're viewing part of a thread.
So I'm ... Binational i guess, 1 foot in the us and 1 in northern Europe.
Until recently I preferred the coasts of the US, but it was a close thing, both were nice, the lack of a patronizing state was quite pleasant.
Now clearly the balance shifted to shit and northern Europe knocks the us into a cocked hat.
But when the us is good, it's actually quite good.
You can have a civilization made of many civilizations, that's how our multiculturalism worked (when it worked) and it was incredible.
But like saying all of Europe has no civilization because they don't all share the same uniform culture.
You can't have one when everyone's alienated from each other, that's the point. Civilisation is more than the mere sum of its parts: When you do not care about someone else deciding to e.g. oppress a fellow compatriot you only have the sum, not the more. A population, but not a civilisation.
You can have a civilization made of many civilizations
That's not what e pluribus unum means. That's what in varietate concordia means.
What? This is nonsensical. I'm not alienated from my neighbors and community. A lot of us aren't. Obviously the US is and has a civilization. You're trying to redefine civilization and it is really not working. This is odd.
There may be traces left, true, but if OP's "The American way is to not care" ideal is lived by, what I described is exactly what you get.
And, yes, Americans are a lot more alienated from another than pretty much any other people.
You have no idea what's going on. We aren't in ruins. There aren't traces. We are a civilization. And that person worded it poorly, they should've said tolerance.
Not really. We are all pretty connected in our communities. We just have a bad government.
Pray tell, how is that rule of law going? Constructive political discourse? Good relations with your neighbours and allies?
"Not in ruins" my ass.
We just have a bad government.
Because you don't care to have a good one. Because you don't care to look over the brim of your burger, to connect with people who do not already happen to be in your in-group. None of those groups has any allies because each is saying "fuck you, got mine". Solidarity is a curse word. "Solidarity"? Them marchers is all commies, tell me kid are you a red??!
In ruins would mean the streets and buildings have decayed past the point of habitability and usability. "Traces of a civilization", ya know? We aren't even close to that. I'm walking around right now. Living in a home. Words have meaning.
We do care. We are being usurped by the powerful and our traditional army has yet to make a move. It's hard. I live in a diverse multicultural community. We preach tolerance and solidarity. You sound insane.
In ruins would mean the streets and buildings have decayed past the point of habitability and usability.
You're being overly literal. The standing of the US, its position in the world, all that is certainly in ruins. And, yes, so are plenty of buildings and infrastructure. Whole states are, economically, barely on the level of developing nations, if that.
I live in a diverse multicultural community.
Which is not the US. Your community might make up part of the population of the US, but what you have regarding the "more" part of "more than the sum of its parts" certainly isn't shared with the rest. It thus isn't part of the American civilisation, for that there would have to be a shared civilisation, a shared "more".
You're being overly figurative. Our hegemony is ending. Words have meaning. We are fifty countries united into one. Our infrastructure isn't failing nearly as much as you think.
Nation of immigrants = the US isn't diverse. Lol
Okay. I haven't traveled here extensively, you definitely know better. Please look up what a civilization is. I think you're confused with civility. I suggest you get offline in the meantime. Bye.
And you misunderstood entirely.
I'm speaking of respect for each other's uniqueness without embracing it.
You can be or do whatever you want, I respect your right to do so even if I think it's stupid. I just stay mostly quiet about it, maybe light mockery.
I think religious people are basically mentally disabled. But so long as they follow basic rules (don't enforce it on others or your kids strongly), then let the short bus morons believe whatever they want.
Would we be better off with religious eliminated by force? Possibly. But then someone else would have another crazy idea and decide things would be better if nonbelievers of that were eliminated by force, and the circle would begin again.
And you misunderstood entirely.
Last I checked, "not caring" has exactly the meaning I took it to have.
In America, we define respect of other peoples' beliefs and cultures as apathy.
We politely ignore them, they politely ignore us, so long as nobody crosses a line the arrangement works splendidly.
How can you know you cross lines when you don't care, are apathetic?
First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
...I don't think I need to attribute that quote.