I'm not offering speculative analysis with this point. The administration made this point:
Rubio contradicting themselves on this point one day after making it
No, America owns this.
Sure, in an existential sense I agree, but what then? Like what do I do with that conclusion that furthers my understanding? as in if I were to take this form of reductive analysis to geopolitics, how does that impact my ability to predict future states of the world? I take something like this sentiment and I ask "does this sentiment add to my models capacity to predict or does it detract?"
I would say this form of reductionism drops my predictive capacity to practically nothing. I can't make predictions of future states or back test previous states of the world effectively in that framework. Its a form of cliche or jingoism, which while emotionally satisfying, effectively halts critical thinking. Like it might be a more conscilient or parsimonious explanation, but parsimony and consilience are irrelevant if the models they are a being used to value aren't predictive. What matters first in a model is predictive capacity. After that you can update other values. But if the first thing you value in a model isn't predicative capacity in some manner, you aren't operating in the real world, by definition. You're valuing something other than a models ability to predict reality (simplicity of the model, or ones ability to understand the model, or how well the model rhymes with other things you think you know).