thebulwark--2020-06-15--Trump, West Point, and Immortan Joe

Trump, West Point, and Immortan Joe

Do you remember this video ?
Way back when , Americans regarded Vladimir Putin as something of a clown .
He was the guy who performed “ Blueberry Hill ” and allowed himself to be filmed “ sparring ” with the Russian national judo team .
There was the shirtless horseback riding .
And of course , the skin diving .
My favorite moment of Putin propaganda was when Vlad went for a swim in the Black Sea and —by total coincidence !
—found two 6th Century Greek urns at the bottom and then—by an even greater coincidence !
—was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like Neptune , or King Triton , or Black Manta .
Do you remember how entertaining this was ?
We all laughed at the ridiculousness of it .
How could Putin think that these obviously staged pieces of buffoonery would convince the Russian people of his physical prowess ?
And of course , the joke was on us .
Because the point of these stunts wasn ’ t to convince Russians that Vladimir Putin was an amazing physical specimen .
The point was to instruct Russians that Vladimir Putin could say whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because he knew it was BS .
And they knew it was BS .
And he knew that they knew .
But the Russian people would go along with it anyway .
Because he was powerful and they were weak .
It was a display of dominance over the very idea of truth .
I was thinking about these old pictures of Putin this weekend watching Donald Trump struggle to lift a glass of water and walk down a simple ramp at the West Point graduation .
The image of an old man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t what was striking , though .
What got me was Trump ’ s reaction to people observing his frailty .
As the Washington Post ’ s Philip Rucker put it , this explanation “ strained credulity ” : This isn ’ t the first time .
Back in early March , Donald Trump ’ s surgeon general , Jerome Adams , went on Jake Tapper ’ s show and said this : Just to underline : Adams , who is trim , in his mid-40s , and a doctor who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ is healthier than what I am.
” This is not possible .
Unless Dr. Adams is suffering from a serious disease , there is simply no measure by which Trump could be deemed “ healthier ” than Adams .
Back in 2018 , Mike Huckabee—who knows from obesity—patiently explained to Fox Business that the reason there was such high turnover in the White House among senior staff was because the president ’ s aides simply couldn ’ t keep up with him .
Physically .
I think [ turnover ] may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s always transitions going on in the White House staff .
More so in this case for two reasons .
One , this is a tough president to work for , and not because he ’ s a difficult person individually , but he is very demanding and very few people can keep up with him .
He may be 72 years old but he ’ s got the vigor of somebody who ’ s about 32 years old .
.
.
.
And he absolutely is just without the capacity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on the campaign trail and was shocked at his stamina .
Lord , yes .
When you look at Donald Trump , “ vigor ” is the first word that comes to mind .
I mean , after “ butter.
” In March , when the president had not yet saved “ millions of lives ” because he was still pretending that the outbreak was a hoax , White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham was asked whether or not Trump still planned on holding mass rallies .
She took the opportunity to add @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazing physical vigor , telling reporters : Does Donald Trump “ work ” 15 or 16 hours a day ?
Maybe he does !
Judging by his Twitter output , it would not surprise me , since he seems to spend a great many hours every day staring at his phone .
But the idea that his low-sleep regimen would keep him immune to a pathogen ?
This was either ill-informed nonsense or blatant propaganda : Trust the Dear Leader , because he is not like you mortals .
My favorite testimonial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his personal physician , Dr. Harold Bornstein .
In December of 2015 , the good doctor issued a letter to the general public declaring : This assessment was ridiculous on its face .
To take just one example , when George W. Bush arrived at the White House , he was 55 years old , weighed 189 lbs , and had a resting heart rate of 43 bpm—which is what you would expect for a high-level athlete .
The truth about Trump is what was revealed in this photo last February : That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jowly geriatric , whose pale skin is hidden by makeup while his bleached hair struggled to maintain its highly manufactured structural integrity .
The photo made it clear that putting Donald Trump together each morning is a little like how Immortan Joe hides the old man underneath .
None of this is important to Trump ’ s abilities as president .
We have had excellent presidents who were infirm and bad presidents who were in excellent physical health .
It ’ s not the physicality that ’ s interesting .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertion of physical dominance by leaders is always less about vanity and more about authoritarian power dynamics .
Whether it ’ s Putin ’ s judo or Mussolini popping Hormovin in order to prove his virility or Jair Bolsonaro bragging that he couldn ’ t possibly be harmed by the coronavirus because he is “ an athlete.
” The point isn ’ t to actually convince us that these men really are physically strong .
It ’ s to remind us that no matter how ridiculous their lie is—the Greek urns were just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ healthiest president ever ; the ramp was slippery—they will get away with it .
Because they are powerful .
And we are weak .

Do you remember this video?
Singing PM: 'Fats' Putin over the top of 'Blueberry Hill' with piano solo
Watch this video on YouTube
Way back when, Americans regarded Vladimir Putin as something of a clown. He was the guy who performed “Blueberry Hill” and allowed himself to be filmed “sparring” with the Russian national judo team. There was the shirtless horseback riding. And of course, the skin diving.
My favorite moment of Putin propaganda was when Vlad went for a swim in the Black Sea and —by total coincidence!—found two 6th Century Greek urns at the bottom and then—by an even greater coincidence!—was photographed as he emerged from the surf, like Neptune, or King Triton, or Black Manta.
Do you remember how entertaining this was? We all laughed at the ridiculousness of it. How could Putin think that these obviously staged pieces of buffoonery would convince the Russian people of his physical prowess?
And of course, the joke was on us. Because the point of these stunts wasn’t to convince Russians that Vladimir Putin was an amazing physical specimen. The point was to instruct Russians that Vladimir Putin could say whatever he wanted—no matter how patently absurd. Because he knew it was BS. And they knew it was BS. And he knew that they knew.
But the Russian people would go along with it anyway. Because he was powerful and they were weak. It was a display of dominance over the very idea of truth.
Workers of the world, Unite!
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
I was thinking about these old pictures of Putin this weekend watching Donald Trump struggle to lift a glass of water and walk down a simple ramp at the West Point graduation.
The image of an old man carefully making his way down a ramp wasn’t what was striking, though. What got me was Trump’s reaction to people observing his frailty.
The ramp that I descended after my West Point Commencement speech was very long & steep, had no handrail and, most importantly, was very slippery. The last thing I was going to do is “fall” for the Fake News to have fun with. Final ten feet I ran down to level ground. Momentum! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 14, 2020
As the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker put it, this explanation “strained credulity”:
Trump’s claim that the ramp had been “very slippery” was inconsistent with the weather, which on Saturday in West Point, N.Y., was sunny and clear-skied. The grass plain on which the commencement took place was dry.
This isn’t the first time. Back in early March, Donald Trump’s surgeon general, Jerome Adams, went on Jake Tapper’s show and said this:
Tapper presses surgeon general: You can't even give me a yes or no answer?
Watch this video on YouTube
Just to underline: Adams, who is trim, in his mid-40s, and a doctor who understands health outcomes—said that Trump—an obese then-73-year-old—“is healthier than what I am.”
This is not possible. Unless Dr. Adams is suffering from a serious disease, there is simply no measure by which Trump could be deemed “healthier” than Adams.
It’s preposterous.
Back in 2018, Mike Huckabee—who knows from obesity—patiently explained to Fox Business that the reason there was such high turnover in the White House among senior staff was because the president’s aides simply couldn’t keep up with him. Physically.
No, really:
I think [turnover] may be a little higher than normal but there’s always transitions going on in the White House staff. More so in this case for two reasons. One, this is a tough president to work for, and not because he’s a difficult person individually, but he is very demanding and very few people can keep up with him. He may be 72 years old but he’s got the vigor of somebody who’s about 32 years old. . . . And he absolutely is just without the capacity of exhaustion. I’ve been with him on the campaign trail and was shocked at his stamina.
Lord, yes. When you look at Donald Trump, “vigor” is the first word that comes to mind. I mean, after “butter.”
In March, when the president had not yet saved “millions of lives” because he was still pretending that the outbreak was a hoax, White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham was asked whether or not Trump still planned on holding mass rallies. She took the opportunity to add her own testimonial to Trump’s amazing physical vigor, telling reporters:
Yes, he plans on still holding rallies. And I’ll tell you what, with our president—this man who doesn’t sleep and who I have seen work 15-16 hours a day every day—I have no problem thinking that he’s going to be just fine and just healthy.
Does Donald Trump “work” 15 or 16 hours a day? Maybe he does! Judging by his Twitter output, it would not surprise me, since he seems to spend a great many hours every day staring at his phone.
But the idea that his low-sleep regimen would keep him immune to a pathogen? This was either ill-informed nonsense or blatant propaganda: Trust the Dear Leader, because he is not like you mortals.
My favorite testimonial to Trump’s physical dominance came from his personal physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein. In December of 2015, the good doctor issued a letter to the general public declaring:
“If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”
This assessment was ridiculous on its face. To take just one example, when George W. Bush arrived at the White House, he was 55 years old, weighed 189 lbs, and had a resting heart rate of 43 bpm—which is what you would expect for a high-level athlete.
The truth about Trump is what was revealed in this photo last February:
That picture was not photoshopped. It showed a jowly geriatric, whose pale skin is hidden by makeup while his bleached hair struggled to maintain its highly manufactured structural integrity. The photo made it clear that putting Donald Trump together each morning is a little like how Immortan Joe hides the old man underneath.
None of this is important to Trump’s abilities as president. We have had excellent presidents who were infirm and bad presidents who were in good physical health.
It’s not the physicality that’s interesting. It’s the psychology.
Because the false assertion of physical dominance by leaders is always less about vanity and more about authoritarian power dynamics.
Whether it’s Putin’s judo or Mussolini popping Hormovin in order to prove his virility or Jair Bolsonaro bragging that he couldn’t possibly be harmed by the coronavirus because he is “an athlete.”
The point isn’t to actually convince us that these men really are physically strong. It’s to remind us that no matter how ridiculous their lie is—the Greek urns were just sitting there; he’s the healthiest president ever; the ramp was slippery—they will get away with it.
Because they are powerful. And we are weak.
Until Election Day.


thebulwark--2020-06-15--The Social-Media Tail Wags the News-Media Dog

Facebook serves two useful purposes : maintaining contact with extended family and monitoring developments in the culture war , like a scout on a recon mission into the dark heart of the News Feed .
These two activities converged last week when I noticed that a family member had shared a report about the children ’ s cartoon PAW Patrol , which features a crew of anthropomorphic dogs working a variety of emergency-services jobs to protect the fictional community of Adventure Bay .
The show is all the rage in the under-5 demographic .
Per the story I saw on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to cancel the character of Chase , a German shepherd who is a police officer , because the cute canine cop doesn ’ t accurately represent the ugly , irredeemable reality of law enforcement .
Skeptical , I did my own detective work .
I traced the story from my family member on Facebook to a local TV station ’ s blurb about the controversy , whose sole source was an article in the New York Times with the headline “ The Protests Come for ‘ Paw Patrol ’ .
” The top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , when the show ’ s official Twitter account put out a bland call for “ Black voices to be heard , ” commenters came after Chase .
“ Euthanize the police dog , ” they said .
“ Defund the paw patrol.
” “ All dogs go to heaven , except the class traitors in the Paw Patrol.
” .
.
.
It ’ s a joke , but it ’ s also not .
As the protests against racist police violence enter their third week , the charges are mounting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big-hearted cartoon police dogs—or maybe especially big-hearted cartoon police dogs—are on notice .
The effort to publicize police brutality also means banishing the good-cop archetype , which reigns on both television and in viral videos of the protests themselves .
“ Paw Patrol ” seems harmless enough , and that ’ s the point : The movement rests on understanding that cops do plenty of harm .
The remainder of the Times story is not about PAW Patrol , but the broader rethinking of how TV fiction should portray the police given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re presented in popular shows such as Monk , Brooklyn Nine-Nine , and , of course , Law & Order and its innumerable spinoffs .
Since the criticism of PAW Patrol—the raison d ’ etre of the Times item—was sourced to a single tweet thread , I wondered : Were some of these tweets sent by activists or brand accounts of organizations prominent within the Black Lives Matter or police-reform movements ?
Were the tweets indicative of some wider push at work ?
Did they link to any petitions of note , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program ’ s crew ?
Upon investigation , the answers are no , no , no , and no .
Look at the sources for the tweets quoted in the Times article .
The message “ All Dogs Go To Heaven , EXCEPT FOR THOSE CLASS TRAITORS IN THE PAW PATROL ” seems to have originated with an anonymous account that was called “ flaming hippo cheese ” ( since renamed ) with just 109 followers .
The message “ DEFUND CHASE ” is from an anonymous account with 50 followers , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an anonymous account with 62 followers .
The “ euthanize the police dog ” comment is from an anonymous account with 92 followers—this account , “ Marmalade Mark , ” made its header image a screengrab of a FOX News segment that featured its tweet .
This is convincing evidence of trolling , not news .
But it was apparently considered newsworthy in the broken economy of digital media , whose market participants flock to the picked-over carcasses of clickbait : local TV media all over ( I mean everywhere ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media left and right , international media , mainstream media .
It was news to the outrage merchants of social media whose 93-octane righteous indignation keeps the internet moving forward a few miles at a time .
It caught the attention of Snopes : “ Was the Kids ’ TV Show ‘ Paw Patrol ’ Canceled ?
” it asked .
No .
No , it was not .
“ Flaming hippo cheese ” and “ Marmalade Mark ” just don ’ t have that kind of power—even if they had enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lede for a story that spawned a thousand other stories , which in totality willed a nonexistent controversy into being .
A couple of years ago I wrote a piece about the way that outrageous “ news ” on social media—indicated , essentially , by its level of virality—can become “ news ” in the mainstream press , even about topics as serious as a Supreme Court confirmation hearing .
Today the topics are as essential to American life as systemic police abuse and racism in law enforcement .
They are matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and misunderstanding , that there is no room for sideshows : for average Americans to see vital debates about the social fabric as a farcical debate about a children ’ s show .
And yet , through the spontaneous and decentralized cooperation of irrelevant social media trolls , the leading U.S. newspaper , digital media , and culture warriors , here we are .
On June 15 , 1859 , an American settler of the disputed territory of San Juan Island named Lyman Cutlar killed a pig that had invaded his garden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it turned out—the pig belonged to a worker from a San Juan ranch owned by the Hudson ’ s Bay Company , the British trading firm .
The killing precipitated a military buildup .
Within two months , 461 American soldiers opposed three British warships that carried more than 2,000 men .
Still , all parties seemed aware of the absurdity of the situation , including British Rear Admiral Robert Baynes .
He wrote the governor of British Columbia that he would not help start “ a war over a squabble about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the animal responsible for it both had the virtue of being real .

Facebook serves two useful purposes: maintaining contact with extended family and monitoring developments in the culture war, like a scout on a recon mission into the dark heart of the News Feed. These two activities converged last week when I noticed that a family member had shared a report about the children’s cartoon PAW Patrol, which features a crew of anthropomorphic dogs working a variety of emergency-services jobs to protect the fictional community of Adventure Bay. The show is all the rage in the under-5 demographic. Per the story I saw on Facebook, there is a protest movement to cancel the character of Chase, a German shepherd who is a police officer, because the cute canine cop doesn’t accurately represent the ugly, irredeemable reality of law enforcement.
Skeptical, I did my own detective work. I traced the story from my family member on Facebook to a local TV station’s blurb about the controversy, whose sole source was an article in the New York Times with the headline “The Protests Come for ‘Paw Patrol’.” The top of the piece includes this:
Last week, when the show’s official Twitter account put out a bland call for “Black voices to be heard,” commenters came after Chase. “Euthanize the police dog,” they said. “Defund the paw patrol.” “All dogs go to heaven, except the class traitors in the Paw Patrol.” . . . It’s a joke, but it’s also not. As the protests against racist police violence enter their third week, the charges are mounting against fictional cops, too. Even big-hearted cartoon police dogs—or maybe especially big-hearted cartoon police dogs—are on notice. The effort to publicize police brutality also means banishing the good-cop archetype, which reigns on both television and in viral videos of the protests themselves. “Paw Patrol” seems harmless enough, and that’s the point: The movement rests on understanding that cops do plenty of harm.
The remainder of the Times story is not about PAW Patrol, but the broader rethinking of how TV fiction should portray the police given the generally positive manner in which they’re presented in popular shows such as Monk, Brooklyn Nine-Nine, and, of course, Law & Order and its innumerable spinoffs.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Since the criticism of PAW Patrol—the raison d’etre of the Times item—was sourced to a single tweet thread, I wondered: Were some of these tweets sent by activists or brand accounts of organizations prominent within the Black Lives Matter or police-reform movements? Were the tweets indicative of some wider push at work? Did they link to any petitions of note, or provide evidence of direct advocacy to the program’s crew?
Upon investigation, the answers are no, no, no, and no. Look at the sources for the tweets quoted in the Times article. The message “All Dogs Go To Heaven, EXCEPT FOR THOSE CLASS TRAITORS IN THE PAW PATROL” seems to have originated with an anonymous account that was called “flaming hippo cheese” (since renamed) with just 109 followers.
The message “DEFUND CHASE” is from an anonymous account with 50 followers, and the message “Abolish Chase” is from an anonymous account with 62 followers. The “euthanize the police dog” comment is from an anonymous account with 92 followers—this account, “Marmalade Mark,” made its header image a screengrab of a FOX News segment that featured its tweet.
This is convincing evidence of trolling, not news.
But it was apparently considered newsworthy in the broken economy of digital media, whose market participants flock to the picked-over carcasses of clickbait: local TV media all over (I mean everywhere), entertainment media, tabloid media, partisan media left and right, international media, mainstream media. It was news to the outrage merchants of social media whose 93-octane righteous indignation keeps the internet moving forward a few miles at a time. It caught the attention of Snopes: “Was the Kids’ TV Show ‘Paw Patrol’ Canceled?” it asked. No. No, it was not. “Flaming hippo cheese” and “Marmalade Mark” just don’t have that kind of power—even if they had enough to provide a New York Times cultural critic a lede for a story that spawned a thousand other stories, which in totality willed a nonexistent controversy into being.
A couple of years ago I wrote a piece about the way that outrageous “news” on social media—indicated, essentially, by its level of virality—can become “news” in the mainstream press, even about topics as serious as a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Today the topics are as essential to American life as systemic police abuse and racism in law enforcement. They are matters so sensitive, drowning in pain and history and misunderstanding, that there is no room for sideshows: for average Americans to see vital debates about the social fabric as a farcical debate about a children’s show. And yet, through the spontaneous and decentralized cooperation of irrelevant social media trolls, the leading U.S. newspaper, digital media, and culture warriors, here we are.
On June 15, 1859, an American settler of the disputed territory of San Juan Island named Lyman Cutlar killed a pig that had invaded his garden. Unfortunately for him—and the United States, it turned out—the pig belonged to a worker from a San Juan ranch owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company, the British trading firm. The killing precipitated a military buildup. Within two months, 461 American soldiers opposed three British warships that carried more than 2,000 men. Still, all parties seemed aware of the absurdity of the situation, including British Rear Admiral Robert Baynes. He wrote the governor of British Columbia that he would not help start “a war over a squabble about a pig.”
At least that incident and the animal responsible for it both had the virtue of being real.


thebulwark--2020-06-16--Why People Don’t Vote

Why People Don’t Vote

There are approximately 250,000,000 voting-aged people in the United States today .
Of the people who were eligible to vote in the last presidential election—that is , citizens who were then over the age of 18—Hillary Clinton got 29 percent of their votes ; 28 percent went to Donald Trump .
The biggest winner ?
The 39 percent of eligible voters who voted for nobody .
They didn ’ t cast a vote for president at all .
This widespread apathy—not voter suppression schemes , broken machines , or long lines at the polls—is the single biggest factor plaguing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Knight Foundation—a First Amendment-focused nonprofit foundation—issued a report on its comprehensive study of people who choose not to vote , based on a survey of 12,000 “ chronic non-voters ” across 10 swing states .
Non-voters span the categories of gender , race , political ideology , income , and education ( although they are “ significantly less likely to have graduated from college than their active voter counterparts ” ) .
Some 38 percent of the respondents said they stayed home from the polls because they believe that their votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system is rigged.
” And they are skeptical that politicians in Washington make decisions that actually impact their lives .
Non-voters are also unimpressed and uninspired by the candidates for office .
One female non-voter from Las Vegas stated , “ I hate the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils .
That just turns my stomach.
” Another from Milwaukee said , “ The times that I ’ ve spent to get a little bit more educated , all the options suck .
I don ’ t feel like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not going to vote at all.
” Crucially , though , they feel markedly underinformed .
Non-voters are twice as likely as regular voters to get their news in passing rather than by seeking it out .
They feel less informed about the candidates and are relatively uninterested in politics .
“ Voting is very hard to prioritize , ” reported another male non-voter from Philadelphia .
“ If I need to feed my kids or if I need to vote , I ’ m feeding my kids.
” What does all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , it ’ s important to underscore that getting people to the polls should not be a politically polarizing issue .
According to the report , “ if they all voted in 2020 , non-voters would add an almost equal share of votes to Democratic and Republican candidates ” ( despite some differences in swing states , such as an even lower interest in politics ) .
To date , politicians affiliated with the Republican party—including the current occupant of the Oval Office—tout voter fraud as a reason not to expand access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , evidence suggests that mail-in options do not benefit one party over the other .
Nonetheless , the Knight Foundation survey revealed that only 18 percent of respondents were “ very confident ” that the results of an election represented the will of the people .
So they stay home on Election Day .
But this is a non-solution solution .
Staying home is not merely a non-vote : It has the effect of enhancing the value of the votes that are ultimately cast .
Around 137 million Americans—or 60 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meaning their political choices dictated the outcome for the remaining 40 percent who declined to participate .
Recall that George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election over Al Gore by a paltry 537 votes in a single state : Florida .
The belief that votes don ’ t matter is not borne out by statistics—or by the very fact of the relentless attempts by foreign powers such as Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to skew American elections by scamming voters to cast ballots based on false information planted on the Internet .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support and promote basic civic education in America , especially around voting .
People care a lot about national and international issues like immigration , race relations , climate change , the economy , poverty , and LGBTQ rights .
They also care about “ kitchen table ” issues like access to health care , job security , food security , and housing .
All of these issues are affected by elected politicians one way or another .
Voting is the fulcrum of anything else we care about when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet in a survey conducted in 2019 , the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 3 in 5 Americans could not correctly name all three branches of government : executive , legislative , and judicial .
That result , which has been relatively consistent in surveys across more than a decade , suggests that more than half of the population does not understand basic civics .
It ’ s folly to expect them to understand how important voting is for themselves and their families .
Third , people need to understand that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use-it-or-lose-it moment for American democracy .
Some respondents in the Knight Foundation survey ( it ’ s unclear how many ) reported feeling “ depressed , discouraged or distracted when consuming news content ” ; they distance themselves from it .
This is tragic , as stoking fear and anxiety as a means of nefariously consolidating power is not new to history .
As Masha Gessen recently explained in The New Yorker , “ a population gripped by terror creates extraordinary opportunities for this President , who has been groping his way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall is not between Trump and the presumptive Democratic nominee , Joe Biden , but between democracy and another form of government—a degraded , lesser democracy that is approaching authoritarianism .
Still , social-science studies show that scaring people is not the best way to prompt action .
Messages are better framed in ways that connect with individual values and worldviews .
Conveying important concepts with imagery rather than words , with positive versus negative emotional hooks , with meaningful—versus superfluous—calls to action , and through powerful storytelling are also more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change their behavior accordingly .
Voting should be as natural as brushing teeth in the morning—because it ’ s good for you .
Fourth , and importantly , non-voters “ also struggle the most with the voting process.
” They find voting annoying .
In the United States , voting is not a single system , or even 50 separate state-sponsored systems , but hundreds of mini-systems that vary precinct by precinct .
Keeping anything on track with so many varying standards and individual players is virtually impossible .
Particularly in the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash with myriad pressing priorities .
Congress hasn ’ t invested serious dollars in voting equipment since 2002 , leaving states with broken and outdated machinery that lead to long lines and even chaos , as last week ’ s Georgia primary revealed .
There are menacing forces behind efforts to suppress the vote .
But the practical challenges are real , too .
Training seasonal poll workers—most of whom tend to be older and potentially more susceptible to the coronavirus—and then educating the voting public about system changes are daunting tasks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in multiple languages , which requires money , training , cooperation by third-party vendors—and time .
Mail-in voting is rightly touted as a remedy to disenfranchisement during a pandemic , but as the nation has seen in multiple recent primaries , the U.S .
Postal Service is not as reliable as it should be : Some ballots didn ’ t get to voters—or to precincts—in time to be counted , and President Trump has vowed to veto any legislation that would bail out the bankrupt USPS in time for the November election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear a discrete—and concrete—call to action between now and November that does not rely on state politicians and congressional bailouts .
Data going back more than a decade shows that social pressure gets Americans to vote .
Before a special election in 2008 , a flier was sent to 100,000 Michigan residents proposing to reveal neighbors ’ voting histories with the question , “ What if your neighbors knew whether you voted ?
, ” resulting in “ substantially higher turnout.
” Political organizers nonetheless mostly rebuff the shaming strategy , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since Trump ’ s win in 2016 , voting advocates have been giving the idea another look , with turnout apps like VoteWithMe gaining traction—particularly when it comes to younger voters .
Only about half of the eligible under-35s voted in 2016 .
Increasing this demographic ’ s participation this year could clinch the election for Biden .
So here ’ s an easy ask that can make all the difference in November : Grab a friend , coworker , neighbor , or family member or two who doesn ’ t participate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if just this once .
The future of America depends on it .

There are approximately 250,000,000 voting-aged people in the United States today. Of the people who were eligible to vote in the last presidential election—that is, citizens who were then over the age of 18—Hillary Clinton got 29 percent of their votes; 28 percent went to Donald Trump. The biggest winner? The 39 percent of eligible voters who voted for nobody. They didn’t cast a vote for president at all. This widespread apathy—not voter suppression schemes, broken machines, or long lines at the polls—is the single biggest factor plaguing the American electoral system today.
In February, the Knight Foundation—a First Amendment-focused nonprofit foundation—issued a report on its comprehensive study of people who choose not to vote, based on a survey of 12,000 “chronic non-voters” across 10 swing states. Non-voters span the categories of gender, race, political ideology, income, and education (although they are “significantly less likely to have graduated from college than their active voter counterparts”). Some 38 percent of the respondents said they stayed home from the polls because they believe that their votes don’t matter or that “the system is rigged.” And they are skeptical that politicians in Washington make decisions that actually impact their lives.
Non-voters are also unimpressed and uninspired by the candidates for office. One female non-voter from Las Vegas stated, “I hate the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils. That just turns my stomach.” Another from Milwaukee said, “The times that I’ve spent to get a little bit more educated, all the options suck. I don’t feel like one is great so I’m not going to vote at all.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Crucially, though, they feel markedly underinformed. Non-voters are twice as likely as regular voters to get their news in passing rather than by seeking it out. They feel less informed about the candidates and are relatively uninterested in politics. “Voting is very hard to prioritize,” reported another male non-voter from Philadelphia. “If I need to feed my kids or if I need to vote, I’m feeding my kids.”
What does all of this mean for the November election?
First, it’s important to underscore that getting people to the polls should not be a politically polarizing issue. According to the report, “if they all voted in 2020, non-voters would add an almost equal share of votes to Democratic and Republican candidates” (despite some differences in swing states, such as an even lower interest in politics). To date, politicians affiliated with the Republican party—including the current occupant of the Oval Office—tout voter fraud as a reason not to expand access to voting. But even among regular voters, evidence suggests that mail-in options do not benefit one party over the other.
Nonetheless, the Knight Foundation survey revealed that only 18 percent of respondents were “very confident” that the results of an election represented the will of the people. So they stay home on Election Day. But this is a non-solution solution. Staying home is not merely a non-vote: It has the effect of enhancing the value of the votes that are ultimately cast. Around 137 million Americans—or 60 percent of those eligible—voted in the last presidential election, meaning their political choices dictated the outcome for the remaining 40 percent who declined to participate. Recall that George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election over Al Gore by a paltry 537 votes in a single state: Florida. The belief that votes don’t matter is not borne out by statistics—or by the very fact of the relentless attempts by foreign powers such as Russian dictator Vladimir Putin to skew American elections by scamming voters to cast ballots based on false information planted on the Internet.
Second, it’s absolutely vital to support and promote basic civic education in America, especially around voting. People care a lot about national and international issues like immigration, race relations, climate change, the economy, poverty, and LGBTQ rights. They also care about “kitchen table” issues like access to health care, job security, food security, and housing. All of these issues are affected by elected politicians one way or another. Voting is the fulcrum of anything else we care about when it comes to government solutions in a democratic republic.
Yet in a survey conducted in 2019, the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 3 in 5 Americans could not correctly name all three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. That result, which has been relatively consistent in surveys across more than a decade, suggests that more than half of the population does not understand basic civics. It’s folly to expect them to understand how important voting is for themselves and their families.
Third, people need to understand that the stakes are extremely high—it’s a use-it-or-lose-it moment for American democracy. Some respondents in the Knight Foundation survey (it’s unclear how many) reported feeling “depressed, discouraged or distracted when consuming news content”; they distance themselves from it. This is tragic, as stoking fear and anxiety as a means of nefariously consolidating power is not new to history. As Masha Gessen recently explained in The New Yorker, “a population gripped by terror creates extraordinary opportunities for this President, who has been groping his way to autocratic rule.” The choice in the fall is not between Trump and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, but between democracy and another form of government—a degraded, lesser democracy that is approaching authoritarianism.
Still, social-science studies show that scaring people is not the best way to prompt action. Messages are better framed in ways that connect with individual values and worldviews. Conveying important concepts with imagery rather than words, with positive versus negative emotional hooks, with meaningful—versus superfluous—calls to action, and through powerful storytelling are also more likely to make people care about an issue and change their behavior accordingly. Voting should be as natural as brushing teeth in the morning—because it’s good for you.
Fourth, and importantly, non-voters “also struggle the most with the voting process.” They find voting annoying. In the United States, voting is not a single system, or even 50 separate state-sponsored systems, but hundreds of mini-systems that vary precinct by precinct. Keeping anything on track with so many varying standards and individual players is virtually impossible. Particularly in the wake of COVID-19, states are strapped for cash with myriad pressing priorities. Congress hasn’t invested serious dollars in voting equipment since 2002, leaving states with broken and outdated machinery that lead to long lines and even chaos, as last week’s Georgia primary revealed.
There are menacing forces behind efforts to suppress the vote. But the practical challenges are real, too. Training seasonal poll workers—most of whom tend to be older and potentially more susceptible to the coronavirus—and then educating the voting public about system changes are daunting tasks. Ballots must be printed for multiple elections and in multiple languages, which requires money, training, cooperation by third-party vendors—and time. Mail-in voting is rightly touted as a remedy to disenfranchisement during a pandemic, but as the nation has seen in multiple recent primaries, the U.S. Postal Service is not as reliable as it should be: Some ballots didn’t get to voters—or to precincts—in time to be counted, and President Trump has vowed to veto any legislation that would bail out the bankrupt USPS in time for the November election.
Fifth and finally, Americans need to hear a discrete—and concrete—call to action between now and November that does not rely on state politicians and congressional bailouts. Data going back more than a decade shows that social pressure gets Americans to vote. Before a special election in 2008, a flier was sent to 100,000 Michigan residents proposing to reveal neighbors’ voting histories with the question, “What if your neighbors knew whether you voted?,” resulting in “substantially higher turnout.” Political organizers nonetheless mostly rebuff the shaming strategy, because it makes people feel bad.
But since Trump’s win in 2016, voting advocates have been giving the idea another look, with turnout apps like VoteWithMe gaining traction—particularly when it comes to younger voters. Only about half of the eligible under-35s voted in 2016. Increasing this demographic’s participation this year could clinch the election for Biden.
So here’s an easy ask that can make all the difference in November: Grab a friend, coworker, neighbor, or family member or two who doesn’t participate in elections, and get them to vote—even if just this once. The future of America depends on it.


thebulwark--2020-06-16--The Presidency as Performance Art

The Presidency as Performance Art

Donald Trump is a real president , though mostly he seems to enjoy playing the role of “ President Trump ” on Twitter ( and TV ) .
His recent stunt , using force to clear Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters so he could snap a photo of himself in front of St. John ’ s Episcopal Church holding a Bible , is only the most grotesque example of his performance art .
Using the Bible as a prop , not a book of wisdom or instruction that might offer illumination or healing , is altogether consistent with his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about the Bible , it ’ s clear he has no idea what ’ s inside .
( Ditto the Constitution . )
It ’ s been that way since he descended from the gold escalator at Trump Tower to announce he was running for president , where he blathered on about all manner of nonsense .
He knew nothing about anything .
A month later , he insisted John McCain wasn ’ t a war hero because , you know , war heroes don ’ t get captured .
What did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorant of history , the lawful rules of combat , and how war actually works—not to mention moral sense , human empathy , and patriotism .
But meaning wasn ’ t really the point .
The point was the performative act of saying something outrageous .
Like generations of avant-garde artistes before him , the point of Trump ’ s art is not to make an argument or do something constructive .
It ’ s to épater la bourgeoisie .
And so it has been for the last four years—which only seems like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance art—is the hallmark of the Trump aesthetic , embraced by MAGA world intellects , citizens , and politicians .
The Flight 93 Election ?
The idea was preposterous on its face : An intellectually preening essay , dressed up with citations to political philosophy .
It was not a proposal , but a pose .
The idea that the banal Hillary Clinton was an existential threat to the American constitutional experiment was , even then , pathetically silly .
The idea that stopping her required the intervention of the deeply illiberal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sillier .
Worse , large swaths of the essay were devoted to an illiberal political understanding completely at odds with American constitutionalism .
From the overwrought metaphor , we already get a sense of an executive that owes more to Carl Schmitt than Alexander Hamilton .
Let forth the forces of illiberalism to save America ’ s liberal constitutional order ?
The groundlings are in on the act , too .
Witness the Trump supporters who play army dress-up at rallies and protests .
Their long guns aren ’ t tools for protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enable the MAGA-heads to play-act at being saviors of the Republic .
Just a few weeks ago , armed protesters in Michigan gathered at the capitol building in Lansing , protesting Governor Gretchen Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home order .
They chanted “ Lock her up !
” “ Lock her up ” was originally used by Trump supporters as a rallying cry demanding that Hillary Clinton be sent to prison for various alleged criminal acts .
In the case of Whitmer , there were no alleged criminal acts .
It was like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s greatest hits—like some sad , off , off , off-Broadway jukebox musical .
Others chanted “ Let us in !
” and made vague attempts to force their way onto the floor of the state legislature , where Michigan ’ s elected legislators were debating whether or not to extend Governor Whitmer ’ s order .
Ask yourself this : What would these people have done if they had forced their way through the police ?
Point their rifles at the legislators and demand repeal of the governor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they didn ’ t ?
Hold the governor hostage ?
But of course , the answer is : None of these things .
That ’ s why they only pretended to try to force their way in and were happy to be turned away .
This was nothing more than play-acting as revolutionaries .
And why only play-acting ?
Because these people understand as well as you and I do that they have the right to peacefully protest .
They can vote .
They can file lawsuits .
In other words , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our constitutional republic available to them in order to get redress for their grievances and they would have had these tools even if they had stayed at home .
The weapons , like the confederate flags and nooses , were all just part of a performance .
It ’ s curious that Sen. Tom Cotton had nothing to say about the armed Michigan protesters who literally went inside the state ’ s capitol .
You may recall that Sen. Cotton has been eager to show force against any sign of “ insurrection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the deployment of the military in American cities .
Yet that call only materialized after the men with guns had left the Michigan statehouse .
Cotton ’ s call for “ no quarter ” for protesters was only for the unarmed protesters on the public streets of Washington , D.C .
So we are to believe that Cotton had no fears of an “ insurrection ” against these protesters : But against these protesters , he wanted to call in the 101st Airborne , offering “ no quarter ” —that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American soldiers to kill looters and arsonists would be ridiculous if Cotton had been serious .
But he wasn ’ t .
As an aspiring heir to Trumpism , he was merely engaged in a masterful piece of performance art .
Though , to be fair to Cotton , his intended audience was not the bourgeoisie , but the Trumpenproletariat , who remain suspicious that he might , after all , not be one of them .
It ’ s a sad state of affairs where a man like Cotton—genuinely brave and genuinely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convince his would-be supporters that he is something else .
But this is where we are .
Trump has invited a postmodern play into our politics .
He doesn ’ t care about values , truth , or justice .
Republicans and conservative intellectuals play along—indeed , the truly virtuous of MAGA world actually egg him on .
Even as he encourages extralegal violence .
Our real president who prefers being a pretend president has unleashed a deeply illiberal and undemocratic strand of politics and thinking into the American theater .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all a game .

Donald Trump is a real president, though mostly he seems to enjoy playing the role of “President Trump” on Twitter (and TV). His recent stunt, using force to clear Lafayette Square of peaceful protesters so he could snap a photo of himself in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church holding a Bible, is only the most grotesque example of his performance art.
Using the Bible as a prop, not a book of wisdom or instruction that might offer illumination or healing, is altogether consistent with his presidency. And if you listen to him talk about the Bible, it’s clear he has no idea what’s inside. (Ditto the Constitution.)
It’s been that way since he descended from the gold escalator at Trump Tower to announce he was running for president, where he blathered on about all manner of nonsense. He knew nothing about anything. A month later, he insisted John McCain wasn’t a war hero because, you know, war heroes don’t get captured. What did that statement even mean? It was ignorant of history, the lawful rules of combat, and how war actually works—not to mention moral sense, human empathy, and patriotism.
But meaning wasn’t really the point. The point was the performative act of saying something outrageous. Like generations of avant-garde artistes before him, the point of Trump’s art is not to make an argument or do something constructive. It’s to épater la bourgeoisie.
And so it has been for the last four years—which only seems like since time immemorial.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
This style—politics as performance art—is the hallmark of the Trump aesthetic, embraced by MAGA world intellects, citizens, and politicians.
The Flight 93 Election? The idea was preposterous on its face: An intellectually preening essay, dressed up with citations to political philosophy. It was not a proposal, but a pose.
The idea that the banal Hillary Clinton was an existential threat to the American constitutional experiment was, even then, pathetically silly. The idea that stopping her required the intervention of the deeply illiberal, ignorant, and inexperienced Donald Trump even sillier. Worse, large swaths of the essay were devoted to an illiberal political understanding completely at odds with American constitutionalism. From the overwrought metaphor, we already get a sense of an executive that owes more to Carl Schmitt than Alexander Hamilton. Let forth the forces of illiberalism to save America’s liberal constitutional order?
Again: This isn’t a treatise. It’s performance art.
The groundlings are in on the act, too. Witness the Trump supporters who play army dress-up at rallies and protests. Their long guns aren’t tools for protection. They’re stage props that enable the MAGA-heads to play-act at being saviors of the Republic.
Just a few weeks ago, armed protesters in Michigan gathered at the capitol building in Lansing, protesting Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s stay-at-home order. They chanted “Lock her up!”
“Lock her up” was originally used by Trump supporters as a rallying cry demanding that Hillary Clinton be sent to prison for various alleged criminal acts. In the case of Whitmer, there were no alleged criminal acts. It was like the cosplay militia were simply staging a revue of Trump’s greatest hits—like some sad, off, off, off-Broadway jukebox musical.
Others chanted “Let us in!” and made vague attempts to force their way onto the floor of the state legislature, where Michigan’s elected legislators were debating whether or not to extend Governor Whitmer’s order.
Ask yourself this: What would these people have done if they had forced their way through the police?
Point their rifles at the legislators and demand repeal of the governor’s executive order? Shoot the legislators if they didn’t? Hold the governor hostage?
But of course, the answer is: None of these things. That’s why they only pretended to try to force their way in and were happy to be turned away. This was nothing more than play-acting as revolutionaries. And why only play-acting? Because these people understand as well as you and I do that they have the right to peacefully protest. They can vote. They can file lawsuits. In other words, they have all of the tools of our constitutional republic available to them in order to get redress for their grievances and they would have had these tools even if they had stayed at home.
The weapons, like the confederate flags and nooses, were all just part of a performance.
It’s curious that Sen. Tom Cotton had nothing to say about the armed Michigan protesters who literally went inside the state’s capitol.
You may recall that Sen. Cotton has been eager to show force against any sign of “insurrection,” even going so far to call for the deployment of the military in American cities.
Yet that call only materialized after the men with guns had left the Michigan statehouse. Cotton’s call for “no quarter” for protesters was only for the unarmed protesters on the public streets of Washington, D.C.
So we are to believe that Cotton had no fears of an “insurrection” against these protesters:
But against these protesters, he wanted to call in the 101st Airborne, offering “no quarter”—that is, killing rather than taking prisoners.
Using American soldiers to kill looters and arsonists would be ridiculous if Cotton had been serious. But he wasn’t. As an aspiring heir to Trumpism, he was merely engaged in a masterful piece of performance art. Though, to be fair to Cotton, his intended audience was not the bourgeoisie, but the Trumpenproletariat, who remain suspicious that he might, after all, not be one of them.
It’s a sad state of affairs where a man like Cotton—genuinely brave and genuinely smart—must stage kabuki exhibitions in order to convince his would-be supporters that he is something else.
But this is where we are. Trump has invited a postmodern play into our politics. He doesn’t care about values, truth, or justice. Republicans and conservative intellectuals play along—indeed, the truly virtuous of MAGA world actually egg him on. Even as he encourages extralegal violence.
Our real president who prefers being a pretend president has unleashed a deeply illiberal and undemocratic strand of politics and thinking into the American theater.
And the sophisticates laughed, thinking that it was all a game.
Until people got hurt.


thebulwark--2020-06-16--Supreme Court Rules on Sex Discrimination. “But Gorsuch” Hardest Hit.

The Supreme Court ruling to protect Americans from being fired for their sexuality is the latest betrayal that degrades family , community , industrial bases , and nations !
!
That lede might seem a bit dramatic—nay , flamboyant !
—to you .
But the people of Appalachia put Donald Trump in office precisely because their lives could not improve unless queers and transgenders could be fired willy-nilly by their employers .
The expert on such matters—America ’ s own hillbilly-whisperer-cum-Hollywood-producer , J.D .
Vance—said as much following Monday ’ s ruling .
And while Vance ’ s warning about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rococo response to the Supreme Court decision holding that the 1964 Civil Rights Act ’ s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment also banned employee termination based on sexual orientation or gender identity , he was joined by a parade of conservatives for whom BUT GORSUCH has gone from a Trumpist clarion call to an incubus that haunts their dreams .
If you ’ ll allow me a brief respite from the schadenfreude , here follows an interlude on the merits of the matter at hand .
I am not a lawyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on TheBulwarkDOTCOM .
However I ’ m certain that there are legitimate and wonky complaints that good-faith constitutional scholars such as Ted Cruz .
.
.
Sorry .
Such as Josh Hawley .
.
.
Look , I ’ m sure there are some good faith constitutional scholars out there who have genuine objections to Monday ’ s ruling and the legal implications therein .
So let ’ s stipulate that a good-faith objection can be made .
What we do not have to assume is that a lot of the “ constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero interest in legal theory .
They had an outcome they wanted and they just want someone who is willing to vote with the team and justify it in whatever means necessary .
And another thing we do not have to assume is that Monday ’ s landmark ruling of Bostok v. Clayton County will bring long-overdue protection to the workplace .
Because while many people seemed surprised that the risk of job loss over sexuality is still something to be concerned about in the Year of Our Lord 2020 , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big city pockets of fabulousness along the coasts , there are many gay , lesbian , and transgender Americans who have lost jobs , been forced to hide their sexuality or gender identity , or been discriminated against in their places of employment .
I have heard their stories and been called to their aid .
I once called a gay friend-of-a-friend—you may have heard about our mafia—who runs a company so I could ask him to interview a person who needed a job because he had been fired for being gay .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of : “ If I hired every gay who had been cast out of their job we wouldn ’ t have room for anyone else in the company.
” So for those who think this was just virtue signaling from the bench , or that gays are not treated differently from their straight counterparts , I ’ d like to disabuse you of that notion .
Many , many people worked very hard to make Bostok a reality for decades .
I salute them and am indebted to their effort .
Because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great Americans , I get to dunk on the integralists like 1990-era Shaq terrorizing the SEC .
Wait .
.
.
let me try that again .
Because thanks to the hard-earned toil of those great Americans , I get to shablam on the Ahmarists like a lip-sync assassin .
Sorry Not Sorry .
It is settled science that we live in the worst possible timeline .
And yet , on Monday the very people who have been triggered by drag-queen story hour had their illiberal fantasies dashed—crucified ?
—by a conservative man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vale of tears , life does sometimes deliver us small joys .
Consider Sohrab Ahmari , the former Muslim , turned atheist , turned socialist , turned free marketeer , turned passionate advocate for classical liberalism .
This year Ahmari is crusading for a Catholic theocratic junta .
And so , having previously celebrated the great and good Supreme Court appointments of Donald Trump , he surveyed the Bostok ruling , declared it “ disordered and bizarre , ” and announced that it was proof that “ originalism has failed.
” In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ahmari said that this ruling was the moment to leave classical liberalism behind once and for all in favor of ordered liberty that upholds traditional values .
( That same afternoon the newspaper whose opinion section Ahmari edits tweeted a picture of Central Park that included two visible male erections .
State-managed ordered liberty is a great idea—just so long as it doesn ’ t interfere with you drawing a paycheck . )
Ahmari wasn ’ t the only keyboard warrior in Operation Rolling Thunderfuck .
Another of them , Josh Hammer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post titled : “ Neil Gorsuch slapped conservatives by creating new gay rights.
” ( It is of note that the same headline could ’ ve been written by Towleroad , though they probably would ’ ve added some additional color to “ slapped.
” ) Hammer goes on to describe as “ harrowing ” the threat to conservatism that comes from gays being extended the right to not be fired for being gay .
( Not mentioned as harrowing : being fired for being gay . )
Hammer specifically cites the outrage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teachers “ whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching.
” Set aside the fact that the Court ’ s Monday ruling does not settle the relevant religious-liberty questions .
What ’ s striking is Hammer ’ s concern about Catholic schools being allowed to keep firing gays , which seems to make up the preponderance of the schools ’ firings—you don ’ t seem to hear nearly so much about Catholic schools firing straight teachers for living in sin with their significant others , or for divorce or masturbating or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the hissy fit didn ’ t just happen over at the New York Post .
At the Conservative Review , Daniel Horowitz sent several tweets decrying the “ right to transgenderism , ” declared that the GOP is now the “ Transgender Party ” ( if only ! )
, and suggested that this is just one step on the path to rape victims being sent to reeducation camp for complaining about being sodomized in a woman ’ s bathroom by a cross-dresser .
At the Daily Wire , Michael Knowles said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of our nature ” and proffered that most conservatives prefer to be cucked than to do something to upset the status quo .
( Nothing upsets the status quo more than giving a pink slip to the privileged homos . )
Though , to be fair , Knowles concluded that this decision might make Gorsuch an accelerationist , a term that has gained recent favor on the far right , describing ( favorably ) events that will hasten a race war and lead to a white ethnostate .
The Judicial Crisis Network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bostok decision was an “ imposter parading as originalism ” and an “ ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy.
” Over at Judicial Watch , Tom Fitton declared Bostok “ an attack on our republican form of government.
” Degrading nations .
Causing the advancement of the white ethnostate .
Putting the very existence of representative democracy at threat .
Well , that ’ s just another Monday for the gays .
For Neil Gorsuch on the other hand , this is new territory .
Unfortunately for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crosshairs of the ultimate marginalized group : the zealots who sold their soul to a Bad Orange Man and no longer like what they got in the deal .
The only question is whether the end of BUT GORSUCH is enough to make them finally sashay away from their heathen president .

Note: This article includes drag queen themes and graphic images.
The Supreme Court ruling to protect Americans from being fired for their sexuality is the latest betrayal that degrades family, community, industrial bases, and nations!!
That lede might seem a bit dramatic—nay, flamboyant!—to you. But the people of Appalachia put Donald Trump in office precisely because their lives could not improve unless queers and transgenders could be fired willy-nilly by their employers.
The expert on such matters—America’s own hillbilly-whisperer-cum-Hollywood-producer, J.D. Vance—said as much following Monday’s ruling. And while Vance’s warning about the end of nations may have been a rococo response to the Supreme Court decision holding that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination in employment also banned employee termination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, he was joined by a parade of conservatives for whom BUT GORSUCH has gone from a Trumpist clarion call to an incubus that haunts their dreams.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
If you’ll allow me a brief respite from the schadenfreude, here follows an interlude on the merits of the matter at hand.
I am not a lawyer and I won’t play one on TheBulwarkDOTCOM. However I’m certain that there are legitimate and wonky complaints that good-faith constitutional scholars such as Ted Cruz . . .
Sorry. Such as Josh Hawley . . .
Look, I’m sure there are some good faith constitutional scholars out there who have genuine objections to Monday’s ruling and the legal implications therein. So let’s assume that a good-faith objection can be made.
What we do not have to assume is that a lot of the “constitutional scholars” presently huffing and puffing had zero interest in legal theory. They had an outcome they wanted and they just want someone who is willing to vote with the team and justify it in whatever means necessary.
And another thing we do not have to assume is that Monday’s landmark ruling of Bostock v. Clayton County will bring long-overdue protection to the workplace. Because while many people seemed surprised that the risk of job loss over sexuality is still something to be concerned about in the Year of Our Lord 2020, I’m here to report that outside the big city pockets of fabulousness along the coasts, there are many gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans who have lost jobs, been forced to hide their sexuality or gender identity, or been discriminated against in their places of employment. I have heard their stories and been called to their aid.
I once called a gay friend-of-a-friend—you may have heard about our mafia—who runs a company so I could ask him to interview a person who needed a job because he had been fired for being gay. He told me something to the effect of: “If I hired every gay who had been cast out of their job we wouldn’t have room for anyone else in the company.”
So for those who think this was just virtue signaling from the bench, or that gays are not treated differently from their straight counterparts, I’d like to disabuse you of that notion.
Many, many people worked very hard to make Bostock a reality for decades. I salute them and am indebted to their effort.
Because, thanks to the hard-earned toil of those great Americans, I get to dunk on the integralists like 1990-era Shaq terrorizing the SEC.
LSU Great Shaquille O'Neal
Watch this video on YouTube
Wait . . . let me try that again.
Because thanks to the hard-earned toil of those great Americans, I get to shablam on the Ahmarists like a lip-sync assassin.
Sorry Not Sorry.
Brooke Lynn Hytes vs Yvie Oddly (Sorry, Not Sorry) Lip Sync | RPDR Season 11 HD
Watch this video on YouTube
It is settled science that we live in the worst possible timeline.
And yet, on Monday the very people who have been triggered by drag-queen story hour had their illiberal fantasies dashed—crucified?—by a conservative man in a dress. Even in this vale of tears, life does sometimes deliver us small joys.
Consider Sohrab Ahmari, the former Muslim, turned atheist, turned socialist, turned free marketeer, turned passionate advocate for classical liberalism.
This year Ahmari is crusading for a Catholic theocratic junta. And so, having previously celebrated the great and good Supreme Court appointments of Donald Trump, he surveyed the Bostock ruling, declared it “disordered and bizarre,” and announced that it was proof that “originalism has failed.”
In a series of tweets later that afternoon, Ahmari said that this ruling was the moment to leave classical liberalism behind once and for all in favor of ordered liberty that upholds traditional values. (That same afternoon the newspaper whose opinion section Ahmari edits tweeted a picture of Central Park that included two visible male erections. State-managed ordered liberty is a great idea—just so long as it doesn’t interfere with you drawing a paycheck.)
Ahmari wasn’t the only keyboard warrior in Operation Rolling Thunderfuck. Another of them, Josh Hammer, wrote a piece for the New York Post titled: “Neil Gorsuch slapped conservatives by creating new gay rights.” (It is of note that the same headline could’ve been written by Towleroad, though they probably would’ve added some additional color to “slapped.”)
Hammer goes on to describe as “harrowing” the threat to conservatism that comes from gays being extended the right to not be fired for being gay. (Not mentioned as harrowing: being fired for being gay.)
Hammer specifically cites the outrage that Catholic schools can no longer fire teachers “whose sexual lifestyle blatantly flouts millennia of Catholic moral teaching.” Set aside the fact that the Court’s Monday ruling does not settle the relevant religious-liberty questions. What’s striking is Hammer’s concern about Catholic schools being allowed to keep firing gays, which seems to make up the preponderance of the schools’ firings—you don’t seem to hear nearly so much about Catholic schools firing straight teachers for living in sin with their significant others, or for divorce or masturbating or various other violations of Catholic doctrine.
But the hissy fit didn’t just happen over at the New York Post.
At the Conservative Review, Daniel Horowitz sent several tweets decrying the “right to transgenderism,” declared that the GOP is now the “Transgender Party” (if only!), and suggested that this is just one step on the path to rape victims being sent to reeducation camps for complaining about being sodomized in a woman’s bathroom by a cross-dresser.
At the Daily Wire, Michael Knowles said that Gorsuch redefined “the most fundamental aspect of our nature” and proffered that most conservatives prefer to be cucked than to do something to upset the status quo. (Nothing upsets the status quo more than giving a pink slip to the privileged homos.) Though, to be fair, Knowles concluded that this decision might make Gorsuch an accelerationist, a term that has gained recent favor on the far right, describing (favorably) events that will hasten a race war and lead to a white ethnostate.
The Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino declared that the Bostock decision was an “imposter parading as originalism” and an “ominous sign for anyone concerned about the future of representative democracy.”
Over at Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton declared Bostock “an attack on our republican form of government.”
Degrading nations. Causing the advancement of the white ethnostate. Putting the very existence of representative democracy at threat. Well, that’s just another Monday for the gays.
For Neil Gorsuch on the other hand, this is new territory.
Unfortunately for the mild-mannered Coloradan, he has found himself in the crosshairs of the ultimate marginalized group: the zealots who sold their soul to a Bad Orange Man and no longer like what they got in the deal. The only question is whether the end of BUT GORSUCH is enough to make them finally sashay away from their heathen president.
Correction: A previous version of this article misspelled the name of the plaintiff.


thebulwark--2020-06-16--“Thank You for Your Service” Gets a Stress Test

On a recent edition of Fox News Sunday , former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen , the retired admiral who led the charge of four-stars taking to the web to criticize President Trump ’ s Bible stunt and threat to invoke the Insurrection Act , said this : Mullen knows of what he speaks .
He graduated from the Naval Academy in the spring of 1968 and was immediately sent to the Vietnam War .
In the months that followed , public opposition to the war grew as the North Vietnamese Army launched the Tet Offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the My Lai massacre .
Whatever justification a succession of presidents had sold to the American people as they escalated the effort ( including increasing draft quotas ) , Baby Boomers were by and large rejecting the notion given them by the Greatest Generation that the war would be quick or just .
Images of soldiers and Marines burning huts and displacing innocents were beamed into homes nightly , and CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite— “ the most trusted man in America ” —declared the war would end as a stalemate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way out of .
The anti-war movement spread beyond college campuses and into the streets of cities and towns across the nation , and as it did , those returning from battle were treated not as heroes but , at best , victims and , at worst , criminals .
As a result , service members hid whatever pride they had in their job status as they dared to venture outside of their bases lest they be insulted or even assaulted .
I saw this firsthand as the son of a Marine Corps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , as any schoolboy would be , but because we lived in a regular neighborhood and not on a base , I was also acutely aware that not everyone around our family shared my pride .
And while my dad did his best to instill in my brothers and me the fundamentals of service and duty , he also advised us that we should be cautious about telling our friends that he ’ d served in Vietnam because there was no telling how their teenaged siblings or parents might react .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow Americans were treating those who answered the call to serve—traditionally a respected and laudable act—that he accepted attaché duty , which moved the family to Holland for three years , so that we might not have to be exposed to it .
When we got back to the States , the Vietnam War was over , and the national healing process had begun .
While 18-year-old males still had to register for selective service , the draft was ended , which by itself was a big step toward regaining public support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and their parents who no longer had to worry about getting dragged into an occupation not of their choosing , not to mention a war .
By the time I walked out of the Naval Academy as a newly commissioned ensign , the Reagan years were in full swing .
Massive defense spending underwrote the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the sole global superpower .
The U.S. military ’ s post-Vietnam reputational rehab continued with Desert Storm , the first war featuring technology custom-suited for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle briefs made stars out of military leaders like Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf as they used footage from stealth fighter forward-looking infrared cameras to show the cable TV-watching world how war could be fought with great precision without hazarding civilians .
The whole thing was over in 100 days , and the original objective was achieved .
No mission creep .
No nation building .
There was even a victory parade in D.C. when the troops returned home .
The all-volunteer force had cool stuff and they could win .
Just over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked by 19 Islamic terrorists who hijacked four airliners and turned them into cruise missiles that took down the World Trade Center , severely damaged one side of the Pentagon , and killed 2,977 civilians .
President George W. Bush sent the military to Afghanistan using the logic of “ we ’ ll fight them there , so we don ’ t have to fight them here.
” A year and a half later , he doubled down on that thesis and invaded Iraq .
For their part , the American people responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how they felt about the wars .
At its peak , the “ Sea of Goodwill ” consisted of over 40,000 organizations created to give the military—both active duty and veterans—and their families goods and services ranging from employment assistance , access to top-notch medical care ( especially for the wounded ) and educational benefits to reduced pricing on meals and movie tickets .
“ Thank you for your service ” went from a simple expression of gratitude to a national tagline , and the “ hero ” label was liberally applied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in boot camp or attending service academies .
But , like Admiral Mullen , those who bear the scars of a time when the military was out of favor across the cultural landscape know this phenomenon isn ’ t permanent , and we saw evidence of that fact with President Trump ’ s most recent threats to deploy active duty units to quell the rioting and looting in cities across America .
He even went so far as to direct the secretary of defense to mobilize one of the U.S. Army ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to foreign threats on short notice , to Washington , D.C. Of course , in what is another data point proving the fact that irony has died during the Trump presidency , on May 18 , in an attempt to counter the assertion made in a Wall Street Journal editorial that he was being impulsive with his Afghanistan exit strategy , POTUS tweeted that his pullout was justified because “ we never really fought to win .
We are more of a police force than the mighty military that we are , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a month later , he was spring-loaded to use the military ’ s most elite troops as—wait for it—a police force , and worse , a domestic police force .
At the same time , it was widely reported that his secretary of defense advised governors to “ dominate the battlespace ” in dealing with uprisings in their states .
And with those actions came the beginnings of an attitude—particularly in protesters who don ’ t share the “ Boomer guilt ” of those who avoided service during the Vietnam era or are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 9/11—that the military is a tool for evildoers and those in it aren ’ t automatically heroes worthy of discounts and priority access to events .
Videos surfaced of crowds booing military convoys as they arrived on the scene .
These civilians don ’ t discriminate between the 82nd Airborne and Maryland National Guard ( plus the post-9/11 wars have blurred the distinction in how they ’ ve been used ) .
To them it ’ s all just a sea of khaki-colored body armor ready to inflict harm .
They aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re an occupying force , and in short order , the locals treat them with disdain instead of respect .
The current commander-in-chief accuses those who preceded him of not fighting to win when pulling the lever of military power , but what does “ winning ” mean if troops are used as police in American streets ?
Military failures like the Beirut bombing in ’ 83 have shown the folly of “ presence as deterrence ” as the sole objective .
What are the rules of engagement in urban environments ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The fact no official articulated any of this before the fact is evidence that none of them considered the details or , worse , the unintended consequences of indulging the most cowardly and impulsive president in modern times .
“ Thank you for your service ” has a shelf life .
All Americans , particularly veterans , would do well to remember that and do their part in guarding against the misuse of the military for other than its constitutionally mandated purpose .
With a single trigger pull by an active duty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense—we could be at Kent State circa ’ 70 all over again .

On a recent edition of Fox News Sunday, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, the retired admiral who led the charge of four-stars taking to the web to criticize President Trump’s Bible stunt and threat to invoke the Insurrection Act, said this:
I see [Trump’s willingness to use U.S. military troops in a domestic policing role] reemerging from a war . . . where the United States military lost the respect and the trust of the American people. We’ve regained that and in very short order should we get into conflict in our own streets, there’s a very significant chance we could lose that trust that has taken us fifty-plus years to restore.
Mullen knows of what he speaks. He graduated from the Naval Academy in the spring of 1968 and was immediately sent to the Vietnam War. In the months that followed, public opposition to the war grew as the North Vietnamese Army launched the Tet Offensive and Life magazine published graphic photos of the My Lai massacre. Whatever justification a succession of presidents had sold to the American people as they escalated the effort (including increasing draft quotas), Baby Boomers were by and large rejecting the notion given them by the Greatest Generation that the war would be quick or just.
Images of soldiers and Marines burning huts and displacing innocents were beamed into homes nightly, and CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite—“the most trusted man in America”—declared the war would end as a stalemate that the United States needed to negotiate its way out of. The anti-war movement spread beyond college campuses and into the streets of cities and towns across the nation, and as it did, those returning from battle were treated not as heroes but, at best, victims and, at worst, criminals. As a result, service members hid whatever pride they had in their job status as they dared to venture outside of their bases lest they be insulted or even assaulted.
I saw this firsthand as the son of a Marine Corps attack pilot. I was proud of him, as any schoolboy would be, but because we lived in a regular neighborhood and not on a base, I was also acutely aware that not everyone around our family shared my pride. And while my dad did his best to instill in my brothers and me the fundamentals of service and duty, he also advised us that we should be cautious about telling our friends that he’d served in Vietnam because there was no telling how their teenaged siblings or parents might react. My father grew so frustrated with how his fellow Americans were treating those who answered the call to serve—traditionally a respected and laudable act—that he accepted attaché duty, which moved the family to Holland for three years, so that we might not have to be exposed to it.
When we got back to the States, the Vietnam War was over, and the national healing process had begun. While 18-year-old males still had to register for selective service, the draft was ended, which by itself was a big step toward regaining public support for the military, especially among college-aged citizens and their parents who no longer had to worry about getting dragged into an occupation not of their choosing, not to mention a war. By the time I walked out of the Naval Academy as a newly commissioned ensign, the Reagan years were in full swing. Massive defense spending underwrote the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the sole global superpower.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The U.S. military’s post-Vietnam reputational rehab continued with Desert Storm, the first war featuring technology custom-suited for the 24/7 news cycle. The multiple-times-daily battle briefs made stars out of military leaders like Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf as they used footage from stealth fighter forward-looking infrared cameras to show the cable TV-watching world how war could be fought with great precision without hazarding civilians. The whole thing was over in 100 days, and the original objective was achieved. No mission creep. No nation building. There was even a victory parade in D.C. when the troops returned home. The all-volunteer force had cool stuff and they could win.
Just over a decade later, the homeland was attacked by 19 Islamic terrorists who hijacked four airliners and turned them into cruise missiles that took down the World Trade Center, severely damaged one side of the Pentagon, and killed 2,977 civilians. President George W. Bush sent the military to Afghanistan using the logic of “we’ll fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” A year and a half later, he doubled down on that thesis and invaded Iraq.
For their part, the American people responded with overwhelming support for the troops regardless of how they felt about the wars. At its peak, the “Sea of Goodwill” consisted of over 40,000 organizations created to give the military—both active duty and veterans—and their families goods and services ranging from employment assistance, access to top-notch medical care (especially for the wounded) and educational benefits to reduced pricing on meals and movie tickets. “Thank you for your service” went from a simple expression of gratitude to a national tagline, and the “hero” label was liberally applied to all who served, even those in boot camp or attending service academies.
But, like Admiral Mullen, those who bear the scars of a time when the military was out of favor across the cultural landscape know this phenomenon isn’t permanent, and we saw evidence of that fact with President Trump’s most recent threats to deploy active duty units to quell the rioting and looting in cities across America. He even went so far as to direct the secretary of defense to mobilize one of the U.S. Army’s “ready brigades,” designed to respond to foreign threats on short notice, to Washington, D.C.
Of course, in what is another data point proving the fact that irony has died during the Trump presidency, on May 18, in an attempt to counter the assertion made in a Wall Street Journal editorial that he was being impulsive with his Afghanistan exit strategy, POTUS tweeted that his pullout was justified because “we never really fought to win. We are more of a police force than the mighty military that we are, especially now as rebuilt.” Less than a month later, he was spring-loaded to use the military’s most elite troops as—wait for it—a police force, and worse, a domestic police force. At the same time, it was widely reported that his secretary of defense advised governors to “dominate the battlespace” in dealing with uprisings in their states.
And with those actions came the beginnings of an attitude—particularly in protesters who don’t share the “Boomer guilt” of those who avoided service during the Vietnam era or are too young to remember the national feelings around 9/11—that the military is a tool for evildoers and those in it aren’t automatically heroes worthy of discounts and priority access to events. Videos surfaced of crowds booing military convoys as they arrived on the scene. These civilians don’t discriminate between the 82nd Airborne and Maryland National Guard (plus the post-9/11 wars have blurred the distinction in how they’ve been used). To them it’s all just a sea of khaki-colored body armor ready to inflict harm. They aren’t a calming presence; they’re an occupying force, and in short order, the locals treat them with disdain instead of respect.
The current commander-in-chief accuses those who preceded him of not fighting to win when pulling the lever of military power, but what does “winning” mean if troops are used as police in American streets? Military failures like the Beirut bombing in ’83 have shown the folly of “presence as deterrence” as the sole objective. What are the rules of engagement in urban environments? What’s the desired end state? The fact no official articulated any of this before the fact is evidence that none of them considered the details or, worse, the unintended consequences of indulging the most cowardly and impulsive president in modern times.
“Thank you for your service” has a shelf life. All Americans, particularly veterans, would do well to remember that and do their part in guarding against the misuse of the military for other than its constitutionally mandated purpose. With a single trigger pull by an active duty soldier directed toward a fellow American—even in self-defense—we could be at Kent State circa ’70 all over again.


thebulwark--2020-06-17--China Flexes Its Muscles While America Sleeps

This week , twenty Indian soldiers were killed and apparently dozens more were captured in a battle with Chinese forces—one that reportedly involved not a single shot being fired but saw the combatants go at it with “ fists , rocks and wooden clubs , some possibly studded with nails or wrapped in barbed wire.
” The conflict is over disputed territories in the Himalaya region .
China and India are the two most populous countries in the world .
The last time they went to war over these disputed borders , in 1962 , neither country possessed nuclear arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war between the two countries could be catastrophic in terms of casualties .
It could also be catastrophic for the United States .
Even if the United States were somehow not dragged into that war , China is still America ’ s largest trading partner and India is the ninth-largest .
U.S. businesses have significant investments in both countries .
The economic impact of a war could be ruinous , adding on to the global economic shock of 2020 .
Then there ’ s Taiwan .
In April , a Chinese aircraft carrier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A few weeks ago , the Chinese premier , Li Keqiang , left out the word “ peaceful ” when talking about unification with Taiwan—an unprecedented signal that set hairs on fire .
And don ’ t forget Hong Kong .
China ’ s pseudo-parliament last month approved of a national security law that , if enacted , would legally end Hong Kong ’ s autonomy .
A day earlier , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had announced that the United States no longer considers Hong Kong autonomous .
So why is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a sudden ?
One possibility : China was the first country hit by COVID-19 , and it was the first major power seemingly to come out of the pandemic .
A second wave of the pandemic may be about to begin in China .
But in the meantime , Chinese strategists might have thought that the West ’ s distraction with the pandemic—and especially the dysfunction that the pandemic has helped to cause in the United States—creates a golden opportunity for China to flex its muscles .
Or Chinese leaders might be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic has hurt them with the Chinese people .
As the Chinese Communist Party is moving more and more towards nationalism to re-establish its diminishing legitimacy , a military adventure or two , ones that could expand China ’ s territory , might rally the people ’ round the flag and boost the leaders ’ popularity the way that Putin ’ s annexation of Crimea did .
Meanwhile , the U.S. president has already shown his hand , and there ’ s no card he would play other than sanctions and tariffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater than China ’ s , but , in the region , the conventional military balance strongly favors China .
Surely , one can not expect Donald Trump to risk a nuclear standoff with a strongman , like Xi Jinping , whom he respects—and perhaps envies—over somebody else ’ s country , especially amid multiple crises and during his re-election campaign .
But China must be put back in its place .
Its control over Asia ’ s trade routes alone is too much of an economic hit to the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ’ s military threat and ambitions of territorial expansion , especially when U.S. deterrence is exposed as a bluff .
Returning to the China-India conflict : We have there a totalitarian nuclear-armed state , superior to India conventionally and in its nuclear arsenal , against a populist , nationalist , and semi-authoritarian government in India .
What could go wrong ?
Here is where the abdication by the United States of its hegemonic power and leadership matters .
This is not entirely Donald Trump ’ s fault .
The Obama administration paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. credibility after it did not enforce its red line in Syria .
The Bush administration , deeply involved in the Middle East after 9/11 , also gave scant attention to Asia—and it , too , failed to enforce a red line , in that case against North Korea .
These and other factors—including the sequestration-mandated military budget cuts and President Trump ’ s lack of interest in and care for foreign policy and U.S. leadership in military matters—left U.S. hegemony , and by extension the peaceful international order , exposed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of planning , and malice toward U.S. allies have made all these matters worse .
The future ’ s not looking good .
Buy gold !

This week, twenty Indian soldiers were killed and apparently dozens more were captured in a battle with Chinese forces—one that reportedly involved not a single shot being fired but saw the combatants go at it with “fists, rocks and wooden clubs, some possibly studded with nails or wrapped in barbed wire.” The conflict is over disputed territories in the Himalaya region. China and India are the two most populous countries in the world. The last time they went to war over these disputed borders, in 1962, neither country possessed nuclear arms. Now they both do. A war between the two countries could be catastrophic in terms of casualties.
It could also be catastrophic for the United States. Even if the United States were somehow not dragged into that war, China is still America’s largest trading partner and India is the ninth-largest. U.S. businesses have significant investments in both countries. The economic impact of a war could be ruinous, adding on to the global economic shock of 2020.
Then there’s Taiwan. In April, a Chinese aircraft carrier sailed into Taiwanese waters and near Japan. A few weeks ago, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, left out the word “peaceful” when talking about unification with Taiwan—an unprecedented signal that set hairs on fire.
And don’t forget Hong Kong. China’s pseudo-parliament last month approved of a national security law that, if enacted, would legally end Hong Kong’s autonomy. A day earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had announced that the United States no longer considers Hong Kong autonomous.
So why is China noticeably so much more aggressive all of a sudden?
One possibility: China was the first country hit by COVID-19, and it was the first major power seemingly to come out of the pandemic. A second wave of the pandemic may be about to begin in China. But in the meantime, Chinese strategists might have thought that the West’s distraction with the pandemic—and especially the dysfunction that the pandemic has helped to cause in the United States—creates a golden opportunity for China to flex its muscles.
Or Chinese leaders might be worried that their coverups and mishandling of the pandemic has hurt them with the Chinese people. As the Chinese Communist Party is moving more and more towards nationalism to re-establish its diminishing legitimacy, a military adventure or two, ones that could expand China’s territory, might rally the people ’round the flag and boost the leaders’ popularity the way that Putin’s annexation of Crimea did.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Meanwhile, the U.S. president has already shown his hand, and there’s no card he would play other than sanctions and tariffs. The U.S. nuclear arsenal is much greater than China’s, but, in the region, the conventional military balance strongly favors China. Surely, one cannot expect Donald Trump to risk a nuclear standoff with a strongman, like Xi Jinping, whom he respects—and perhaps envies—over somebody else’s country, especially amid multiple crises and during his re-election campaign.
But China must be put back in its place. Its control over Asia’s trade routes alone is too much of an economic hit to the United States, and that hit is nothing compared to China’s military threat and ambitions of territorial expansion, especially when U.S. deterrence is exposed as a bluff.
Returning to the China-India conflict: We have there a totalitarian nuclear-armed state, superior to India conventionally and in its nuclear arsenal, against a populist, nationalist, and semi-authoritarian government in India. What could go wrong?
Here is where the abdication by the United States of its hegemonic power and leadership matters. This is not entirely Donald Trump’s fault. The Obama administration paid lip service to Asia, but damaged U.S. credibility after it did not enforce its red line in Syria. The Bush administration, deeply involved in the Middle East after 9/11, also gave scant attention to Asia—and it, too, failed to enforce a red line, in that case against North Korea. These and other factors—including the sequestration-mandated military budget cuts and President Trump’s lack of interest in and care for foreign policy and U.S. leadership in military matters—left U.S. hegemony, and by extension the peaceful international order, exposed. The Trump administration’s incompetence, lack of planning, and malice toward U.S. allies have made all these matters worse.
The future’s not looking good. Buy gold!