That’s true, but if you destroy someone’s house and then just leave the scene without offering any form of aid in at least attempting to repair it then you shouldn’t be surprised when that person sees you as an enemy for life.
We can’t expect them to differentiate between the branches of government and say “oh I hate the US army, but I don’t hate USAID since they at least try to help”.
If the US government can’t tell which one deserves the funding, don’t expect a homeless orphan being offered what they see as “an opportunity for revenge” to see the difference.
I don’t necessarily disagree, my point is only that in political discussion, treating the issue as solely the purview of the presidency is unhelpful and incorrect.
EDIT: and that fixing things and breaking them are two entirely different processes, and that breaking is often much easier to do unilaterally than fixing. It’s easy to do something ghoulish like breaking a man’s arm, but it’s much harder, even for that same person, to set and heal it.
So why do internet pundits think the US president can fix it with a wave of his hand?
Because the positions of internet pundits tend to be either:
“America is Jesus 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏and infinitely powerful”
or
“America is Satan 👿👿👿👿👿and infinitely powerful”
It may also be related to the fact that additional tension in the middle east was CAUSED by America’s “war on terror”
I mean, yes, but causing something and fixing it are two entirely different powers, neither of which are entirely in the hands of the executive alone.
It’s easy to destroy a building; hard to build the same.
That’s true, but if you destroy someone’s house and then just leave the scene without offering any form of aid in at least attempting to repair it then you shouldn’t be surprised when that person sees you as an enemy for life.
We can’t expect them to differentiate between the branches of government and say “oh I hate the US army, but I don’t hate USAID since they at least try to help”.
If the US government can’t tell which one deserves the funding, don’t expect a homeless orphan being offered what they see as “an opportunity for revenge” to see the difference.
I don’t necessarily disagree, my point is only that in political discussion, treating the issue as solely the purview of the presidency is unhelpful and incorrect.
EDIT: and that fixing things and breaking them are two entirely different processes, and that breaking is often much easier to do unilaterally than fixing. It’s easy to do something ghoulish like breaking a man’s arm, but it’s much harder, even for that same person, to set and heal it.
Ah, on that you’re right. It’s more of a systematic issue than an issue that a president can solve on their own