#van jackson

[problematic-president]

My Little Democrat: Populism is Magic

[dustzvacuumcleaner]

Doodled this to keep myself awake on class but I failed lol

[problematic-president]

Old hickory and old kinderhook

[eelhound]

"[Van] Jackson 

Since the 1970s, America had repeated military buildups in response to perceived threats. Whether it’s the Soviet military buildup, or the War on Terror, there have been multiple periods where we do these large-scale buildups. This is why America’s military is so ginormous. We have done that under conditions where we don’t raise taxes in four different instances since the 1970s, and because we don’t raise taxes and spend so much on the military, we have to bring in large amounts of foreign capital to finance it. And so, you create global imbalances when you’re the giant sucking machine sucking foreign capital into your economy.

The result of that is not just global imbalances, which produce things like the Asian financial crisis, but it also produces imbalances in our own economy, too. It creates real estate bubbles. So, this is a giant volatility machine to the global economic order and the financial pipes that bring the capital to us. We know it’s a giant volatility machine. It’s driven by high risk financial instruments and speculation, and all of this is pretty destabilizing, in a financial and creating bubbles sense, but it also creates a system where all of these developing economies in Asia have to suppress labor rights to be competitive in the export market because their models of development rely on exports. This system that we perpetuate in the name of supporting military primacy, and military primacy is supposed to in turn support the system, prevents domestic redistribution and balanced capital labor relations in these other Asian economies and countries.

And so, not only are we creating conditions where labor rights get repressed, and imbalances in other countries, it creates systems of kleptocracy and oligarchy, which is rampant in Asia — not everywhere, but it’s pretty prominent. It’s structural violence, and structural violence is what gives way to greater political insecurity, and makes countries need Chinese capital. Chinese capital spreading around Asia is one of the things American foreign policy is so worried about, but we’re creating conditions that we don’t like, and then we do things that worsen those conditions.

[Nathan J.] Robinson 

Yes, it seems ultimately kind of self-defeating, even though we might say that what lies beneath the rhetoric of freedom and openness is the desire to pursue dominance and hegemony, or what the U.S. would call 'U.S. interests.' Ultimately, I think one of the conclusions of your work is that our current approach is not actually leading towards a world where the United States gets everything it wants, but, in fact, is putting not only other people but also ourselves in quite a bit of danger. 

Jackson 

Yes, the thing that Washington has to wake up to, and that I’m worried that it will not because it has incentives not to, is that the requirements of peace and primacy are deeply at odds with each other. Peace requires a certain degree of economic interdependence, regional cohesion, inclusivity in various ways, and above all, military restraint. Primacy requires the opposite of all of that. It requires the formation of rivalry and geoeconomic blocs. It requires containment against your rising rival, arms racing, and weapons proliferation.

It’s patently obvious that by pursuing primacy, we’re making ourselves the enemy of what remains of the Asian peace. It’s that insistence on primacy, coated rhetorically as openness, that is undermining the sources of the Asian peace. The preservation of stability the past 44 years is something that we somewhat take for granted in Washington, and we shouldn’t because it’s eroding rapidly, and Trump was simply a very vibrant data point along a larger trend line. And so, we’re not on a good track."

- Van Jackson being interviewed by Nathan J. Robinson, from "Why This Foreign Policy Expert Thinks Americans Dangerously Misunderstand China." Current Affairs, 16 May 2023.

[problematic-president]

I think the main reason why I love Jackson and Van Buren's relationship so much is because it's so funny and also kinda messed up???? Like you've got this scary asshole general from the south who can make everyone in a 5 mile radius instantly piss their pants. He puts ALL his trust on some funky lil northerner who looks like a batman villain. Meanwhile said funky lil northerner is secretly girlboss gaslighting him the entire time so he himself can become president. IT'S GOLD I TELL YA.

[problematic-president]

Ok I have a problem. So obviously I ship Clayhoun like a normal antebellum era tumblr user. But then there’s Jackson, I can’t decide between shipping Van Jackson or Polkson…. Van Jackson makes sense, but then there’s the whole friendship between Jackson and Polk. What do you think?

Glad we can all agree clayhoun is TOP TIER enemies to lovers that makes you go ballistic scratching at the walls. It's like the hamburr of the antebellum fandom. Truly unifies the nation

I'd pick van jackson because, as i said in that one post i made, their dynamic is SO FUNNY AND GOLDEN tbh i haven't really looked that much into jackson and polk's relationship but from what i can tell they had a sort of father son thing going on??????? So i definitely prefer it that way

[problematic-president]

Imagine Van Buren having Jackson on a chain, like a dog

I can't decide whether i hate or love thisbut either way IT IS ACCURATE

[problematic-president]

Andrew Jackson’s inaugural party but it’s actually just Twitter drama