thebulwark--2020-12-06--The GOP’s Burghers of Calais

The GOP’s Burghers of Calais

Great works of art , music , and literature have the power to seize our attention , evoke our admiration , arouse our emotions , amuse , and enlighten .
At times , they deepen and enrich our understanding of events .
So it is with Rodin ’ s monumental sculpture The Burghers of Calais and the recent news of Michigan ’ s Republican party officials ’ visit to the White House .
Rodin ’ s Burghers representation of hostages displaying courage and virtue in the face of tyranny offers a historical perspective on the Republicans who have meekly stood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who continue to stand by him .
Rodin ’ s sculpture depicts the city fathers of a French town on the English Channel .
The town was fought over by English and French kings and was the site of a famous siege .
The Metropolitan Museum of Art has one of the castings ( Gallery 548 ) , and offers this online description : Rodin closely followed the account of the French chronicler Jean Froissart ( 1333 or 1337–after 1400 ) stating that six of the principal citizens of Calais were ordered to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heads and feet bare , ropes around their necks , and the keys of the town and the castle in their hands .
They were brought before the English king Edward III ( 1312–1377 ) , who ordered their beheading .
Rodin portrayed them at the moment of departure from their city led by Eustache de Saint-Pierre , the bearded man in the middle of the group .
At his side , Jean d ’ Aire carries a giant-sized key .
Their oversized feet are bare , several have ropes around their necks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of despair , expecting imminent death and unaware that their lives will ultimately be saved by the intercession of the English queen Philippa .
When it emerged that Republican state officials from Michigan had been summoned to the White House in connection with President Trump ’ s already desperate struggle to unravel the results of this year ’ s general election , I thought of The Burghers of Calais .
How else to capture their defeat – ironically at the hands of the leader of their own party , rather than some foe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials to accept Trump ’ s invitation for a meeting that any objective observer would immediately identify as an effort to suborn them ?
Respect for his office ( as they claimed ) ?
Party loyalty ?
Vanity ?
Fear ?
It is true that they seemed not to yield to the President ’ s whims .
Indeed , they released a tepid declaration of independence after the meeting .
Yet they made the trip .
I wish they had not done so .
Refusing would have been a powerful gesture , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viability as they continue their careers in state politics .
More likely , they simply wished to spare themselves the vilification certain to descend upon them from the current leader of their party .
Other Republican heads are on pikes .
For example , President Trump has gone so far as to call Brad Raffensperger , the loyal Republican secretary of state of Georgia , an “ enemy of the people ” for truthfully asserting his state ’ s election was conducted fair and square .
The President has also lashed out at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , who finds himself in Trump ’ s crosshairs for refusing to aid and abet efforts to upset the state ’ s electoral results .
Ditto for Pennsylvania pols who journeyed to Gettysburg for a mock legislative hearing to which the President phoned in his preposterous claims of a stolen election .
And then there are the Republicans in the Senate and the House who either have personally drunk the President ’ s Kool-Aid or are simply afraid of being primaried at his behest due to perceptions of insufficient loyalty .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in principle , but how can it be that even officeholders who have just been elected to two- or six-year terms are consumed by such a fear ?
The answer , unfortunately for our country , is that this is what comes when a party is so single-mindedly devoted to or terrified of a leader that it can not even summon the energy to craft a platform in a presidential year .
It is that grip of fear that holds too many GOP leaders that brings The Burghers of Calais to mind in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a sense , they , like the actual burghers , were victims of circumstance .
They did not choose to place nooses around their necks or face beheading .
They maintained their dignity – as Rodin ’ s masterpiece makes clear .
Other Republican officials have also courageously stood their ground .
They deserve the country ’ s thanks for having done so .
The same can not be said for the many who , by remaining silent , have continued to enable Trump , giving him political oxygen , humoring him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thereby making it possible for him to soil American political life by feeding and amplifying baseless conspiracies .
Unless the Republican party takes the noose from around its collective neck , we will all be like the Burghers of Calais .

Great works of art, music, and literature have the power to seize our attention, evoke our admiration, arouse our emotions, amuse, and enlighten. At times, they deepen and enrich our understanding of events.
So it is with Rodin’s monumental sculpture The Burghers of Calais and the recent news of Michigan’s Republican party officials’ visit to the White House. Rodin’s Burghers representation of hostages displaying courage and virtue in the face of tyranny offers a historical perspective on the Republicans who have meekly stood up to Donald Trump versus the loyalists who continue to stand by him.
Rodin’s sculpture depicts the city fathers of a French town on the English Channel. The town was fought over by English and French kings and was the site of a famous siege. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has one of the castings (Gallery 548), and offers this online description:
Rodin closely followed the account of the French chronicler Jean Froissart (1333 or 1337–after 1400) stating that six of the principal citizens of Calais were ordered to come out of the besieged city with heads and feet bare, ropes around their necks, and the keys of the town and the castle in their hands. They were brought before the English king Edward III (1312–1377), who ordered their beheading. Rodin portrayed them at the moment of departure from their city led by Eustache de Saint-Pierre, the bearded man in the middle of the group. At his side, Jean d’Aire carries a giant-sized key. Their oversized feet are bare, several have ropes around their necks, and all are in various states of despair, expecting imminent death and unaware that their lives will ultimately be saved by the intercession of the English queen Philippa.
When it emerged that Republican state officials from Michigan had been summoned to the White House in connection with President Trump’s already desperate struggle to unravel the results of this year’s general election, I thought of The Burghers of Calais. How else to capture their defeat—ironically at the hands of the leader of their own party, rather than some foe? What was it that led those officials to accept Trump’s invitation for a meeting that any objective observer would immediately identify as an effort to suborn them? Respect for his office (as they claimed)? Party loyalty? Vanity? Fear?
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…
It is true that they seemed not to yield to the president’s whims. Indeed, they released a tepid declaration of independence after the meeting. Yet they made the trip. I wish they had not done so. Refusing would have been a powerful gesture, but they presumably wished to preserve their political viability as they continue their careers in state politics.
More likely, they simply wished to spare themselves the vilification certain to descend upon them from the current leader of their party. Other Republican heads are on pikes. For example, President Trump has gone so far as to call Brad Raffensperger, the loyal Republican secretary of state of Georgia, an “enemy of the people” for truthfully asserting his state’s election was conducted fair and square.
The president has also lashed out at Brian Kemp, the Republican governor of Georgia, who finds himself in Trump’s crosshairs for refusing to aid and abet efforts to upset the state’s electoral results.
Ditto for Pennsylvania pols who journeyed to Gettysburg for a mock legislative hearing to which the president phoned in his preposterous claims of a stolen election.
And then there are the Republicans in the Senate and the House who either have personally drunk the president’s Kool-Aid or are simply afraid of being primaried at his behest due to perceptions of insufficient loyalty. One can understand the fear of being primaried in principle, but how can it be that even officeholders who have just been elected to two- or six-year terms are consumed by such a fear? The answer, unfortunately for our country, is that this is what comes when a party is so singlemindedly devoted to or terrified of a leader that it cannot even summon the energy to craft a platform in a presidential year.
It is that grip of fear that holds too many GOP leaders that brings The Burghers of Calais to mind in the case of the Michigan legislators. In a sense, they, like the actual burghers, were victims of circumstance. They did not choose to place nooses around their necks or face beheading. They maintained their dignity—as Rodin’s masterpiece makes clear. Other Republican officials have also courageously stood their ground. They deserve the country’s thanks for having done so.
The same cannot be said for the many who, by remaining silent, have continued to enable Trump, giving him political oxygen, humoring him in his refusal to admit defeat, and thereby making it possible for him to soil American political life by feeding and amplifying baseless conspiracies.
Unless the Republican party takes the noose from around its collective neck, we will all be like the Burghers of Calais.


thebulwark--2020-12-06--The Devil Went Down to Georgia

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

When the defeated president of the United States holds a maskless , anti-democracy disinformation rally straight out of Vladimir Putin ’ s dreams during the most deadly week of a 100-year pandemic you should tune in .
It ’ s not every day that you have a chance to watch folks try to destroy the world ’ s oldest democracy .
But in case you did not watch , this is what happened Saturday evening : Over the course of a nauseating and embarrassing evening at Heaven ’ s Gate , President Trump claimed that American democracy is rigged with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suitcases and that he regrets not sending the military into majority-black U.S. cities to stop imaginary fraud .
In addition , the president explicitly tried recruiting Republican elected officials to go along with his ham-handed attempt to steal the election , telling them that if they break the law and help his attempt to overturn a free and fair election , then they will “ go down in history as great people.
” It is important to say , right here at the top , that the buffoonery is masking something deadly serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posting on Facebook after dark .
It is not a fringe congressman from some Texas district .
It ’ s the president of the United States .
The president of the United States .
Given the gravity of the undertaking , I was not satisfied to watch only the main event .
I poured a glass of wine and settled in an hour early to let the anticipation build with some of my favorite reporters and friends on YouTube .
In searching for the best outlet , a few “ news ” channels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ NTD America ” whose mission is to “ uplift and inform society by publishing quality content that embodies integrity , dignity , and the best of humanity.
” I knew these would be my people when I saw that they were branding the event as a “ victory rally.
” When I flipped on NTD they were airing Trump supporters calling for “ civil war ” to save the country from the “ satanic , ” “ communist ” Democrats who are stealing the election , and had a newsreader parroting Sidney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dominion voting machines .
The best of humanity indeed .
Between segments , NTD played this little earworm about “ tyranny at our doorstep.
” It will haunt my dreams .
A few words about NTD and their integrity and dignity .
The “ NTD ” in NTD America is short for New Tang Dynasty .
This is a propaganda network which is part of a group of pro-Trump outlets run by the Falun Gong , including the Epoch Times .
What sort of reach do they have ?
NTD has 935,000 subscribers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We The People ” conference-call hold music any longer , I flipped over to NTD ’ s slightly more popular counterpart “ Right Side Broadcasting Network , ” which has a full million YouTube subscribers .
On RSBN , the MyPillowGuy was ranting about how the election being stolen from Trump is “ the biggest story in the world for the biggest corruption in world history.
” According to MyPillowGuy , Trump was chosen by God and this election fraud is just one more instance of the forces of evil trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .
Really makes you think .
About buying pillows .
Because while MyPillowGuy was preaching , a chyron onscreen offered 66 percent off MyPillow with offer code RSNB .
Would have been super-duper cool if he ’ d offered 66.6 percent off .
YSWIDT ?
What ’ s funny—sorry , I mean “ horrifying ” —is as crazy as these off-brand OANN operations sounded , they were nothing compared to what came next , from the mouth of the president himself .
Just some baseline facts before we get started : Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes .
He became only the third president ever to lose the popular vote twice .
His opponent won the second-highest popular vote percentage in a generation .
This election wasn ’ t close .
It was a humiliating defeat .
So naturally President Trump came on stage to Queen ’ s “ We Are the Champions ” and was surrounded by an adoring cult waving “ Save America ” placards and chanting—unironically— “ Stop The Steal.
” He kicked off the rally by saying “ We won Georgia.
” Which , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , isn ’ t true .
He said that votes came out of ceilings and leather bags ( wrong ) , that Biden only did better than Hillary in the swing states ( wrong ) , that “ there ’ s no way this could have happened other than cheating or a rigged election ” ( wrong ) , that Stacey Abrams was “ harvesting ” votes ( nonsensical and also wrong ) , that poll watchers were thrown out in Pennsylvania ( wrong ) , that “ you wouldn ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( wrong ) , that they ’ ve caught the Democrats cold ( wrong ) , and that “ we have so much evidence but then you go to the court ” and they say we don ’ t have enough ( wtf ? )
.
This event was ostensibly about promoting the run-off campaigns of David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler , and to be fair , the president did pause to check those boxes in his own inimitable style .
He called their opponents “ communistic ” and said they want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( One of their Democratic opponents is a Christian minister . )
He said that Kelly Loeffler opposed Mitt Romney ( she was a major donor of his ) .
He then invited Loeffler and Perdue on stage where the latter claimed that he was still “ fighting ” to make sure Trump got a “ fair shake ” in the Georgia election that he lost and that has already been certified by the Republican governor .
After Perdue left the stage Trump made one final pitch for his coup .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some vague insinuations and then turned to the big screen where he aired a lengthy video purporting to show ballots that came from under the table in Fulton County , Georgia as aired by .
.
.
I shit you not .
.
.
Newsmax .
This video has , of course , already been investigated by the Georgia secretary of state , whose office determined that nothing improper happened .
Trump wound down saying once again that there was enough fraud to give him a huge victory , that “ we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and that state legislatures and the Supreme Court should act .
Looked at one way , this is the pathetic death rattle of a loser and crybaby who is desperate for one last gasp of adoration before he is forced into an early retirement that may be marked with legal troubles .
And it is that .
But it is also something more .
We can not let the preposterous nature of this rally distract us from what it was , under the hood of the clown car : It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president in a manner that is without modern analogue .
It was an explicit attempt to undermine faith in our democracy and to advocate for the overthrow of an election by extralegal means .
It was an abhorrent scam that is robbing tens of thousands of Americans of hundreds of millions of dollars in order to fund the Trump family ’ s travel and legal bills .
It was a rallying cry for the very people who before the event were telling “ news anchors ” that they think we need a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and a “ coup.
” It was a wildly irresponsible gathering during the height of a contagion that is almost certain to lead to even more unnecessary sickness and death .
Through it all , the Republican party sat silently , their souls having long ago been stolen , hoping that they could leverage all of this destruction to hold onto two Senate seats in Georgia .
As the stirring NTD America song goes , “ tyranny is at our doorstep.
” And Republicans don ’ t seem to mind .
Not @ @ @

When the defeated president of the United States holds a maskless, anti-democracy disinformation rally straight out of Vladimir Putin’s dreams during the most deadly week of a 100-year pandemic you should tune in.
It’s not every day that you have a chance to watch folks try to destroy the world’s oldest democracy.
But in case you did not watch, this is what happened Saturday evening: Over the course of a nauseating and embarrassing evening at Heaven’s Gate, President Trump claimed that American democracy is rigged with ballots coming out of ceilings and leather suitcases and that he regrets not sending the military into majority-black U.S. cities to stop imaginary fraud. In addition, the president explicitly tried recruiting Republican elected officials to go along with his ham-handed attempt to steal the election, telling them that if they break the law and help his attempt to overturn a free and fair election, then they will “go down in history as great people.”
It is important to say, right here at the top, that the buffoonery is masking something deadly serious.
This is not your drunk uncle posting on Facebook after dark.
It is not a fringe congressman from some Texas district.
It’s the president of the United States.
The president of the United States.
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…
Given the gravity of the undertaking, I was not satisfied to watch only the main event. I poured a glass of wine and settled in an hour early to let the anticipation build with some of my favorite reporters and friends on YouTube.
In searching for the best outlet, a few “news” channels caught my eye. The first was “NTD America” whose mission is to “uplift and inform society by publishing quality content that embodies integrity, dignity, and the best of humanity.”
I knew these would be my people when I saw that they were branding the event as a “victory rally.”
When I flipped on NTD they were airing Trump supporters calling for “civil war” to save the country from the “satanic,” “communist” Democrats who are stealing the election, and had a newsreader parroting Sidney Powell’s fantastical claims about rigged Dominion voting machines.
The best of humanity indeed.
Between segments, NTD played this little earworm about “tyranny at our doorstep.” It will haunt my dreams.
A few words about NTD and their integrity and dignity. The “NTD” in NTD America is short for New Tang Dynasty. This is a propaganda network which is part of a group of pro-Trump outlets run by the Falun Gong, including the Epoch Times. What sort of reach do they have? NTD has 935,000 subscribers on YouTube.
Not able to take “We The People” conference-call hold music any longer, I flipped over to NTD’s slightly more popular counterpart “Right Side Broadcasting Network,” which has a full million YouTube subscribers.
On RSBN, the MyPillowGuy was ranting about how the election being stolen from Trump is “the biggest story in the world for the biggest corruption in world history.” According to MyPillowGuy, Trump was chosen by God and this election fraud is just one more instance of the forces of evil trying to destroy him.
Powerful in their own right. Really makes you think. About buying pillows. Because while MyPillowGuy was preaching, a chyron onscreen offered 66 percent off MyPillow with offer code RSNB. Would have been super-duper cool if he’d offered 66.6 percent off. YSWIDT?
What’s funny—sorry, I mean “horrifying”—is as crazy as these off-brand OANN operations sounded, they were nothing compared to what came next, from the mouth of the president himself.
Just some baseline facts before we get started: Donald Trump was schlonged by over 7 million votes. He became only the third president ever to lose the popular vote twice. His opponent won the second-highest popular vote percentage in a generation. This election wasn’t close. It was a humiliating defeat.
So naturally President Trump came on stage to Queen’s “We Are the Champions” and was surrounded by an adoring cult waving “Save America” placards and chanting—unironically—“Stop The Steal.”
He kicked off the rally by saying “We won Georgia.” Which, if you want to be a nitpicking hair-splitter, isn’t true.
He said that votes came out of ceilings and leather bags (wrong), that Biden only did better than Hillary in the swing states (wrong), that “there’s no way this could have happened other than cheating or a rigged election” (wrong), that Stacey Abrams was “harvesting” votes (nonsensical and also wrong), that poll watchers were thrown out in Pennsylvania (wrong), that “you wouldn’t believe how many dead people” were voting (wrong), that they’ve caught the Democrats cold (wrong), and that “we have so much evidence but then you go to the court” and they say we don’t have enough (wtf?).
This event was ostensibly about promoting the run-off campaigns of David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, and to be fair, the president did pause to check those boxes in his own inimitable style. He called their opponents “communistic” and said they want to “take away your religion and Christmas.” (One of their Democratic opponents is a Christian minister.) He said that Kelly Loeffler opposed Mitt Romney (she was a major donor of his).
He then invited Loeffler and Perdue on stage where the latter claimed that he was still “fighting” to make sure Trump got a “fair shake” in the Georgia election that he lost and that has already been certified by the Republican governor.
After Perdue left the stage Trump made one final pitch for his coup.
He took aim at “Dominion” with some vague insinuations and then turned to the big screen where he aired a lengthy video purporting to show ballots that came from under the table in Fulton County, Georgia as aired by . . . I shit you not . . . Newsmax.
This video has, of course, already been investigated by the Georgia secretary of state, whose office determined that nothing improper happened.
Trump wound down saying once again that there was enough fraud to give him a huge victory, that “we’re going to do something about it,” and that state legislatures and the Supreme Court should act.
Looked at one way, this is the pathetic death rattle of a loser and crybaby who is desperate for one last gasp of adoration before he is forced into an early retirement that may be marked with legal troubles.
And it is that.
But it is also something more.
We cannot let the preposterous nature of this rally distract us from what it was, under the hood of the clown car:
It was seditious incitement against the duly elected incoming president in a manner that is without modern analogue.
It was an explicit attempt to undermine faith in our democracy and to advocate for the overthrow of an election by extralegal means.
It was an abhorrent scam that is robbing tens of thousands of Americans of hundreds of millions of dollars in order to fund the Trump family’s travel and legal bills.
It was a rallying cry for the very people who before the event were telling “news anchors” that they think we need a “revolution,” a “war,” and a “coup.”
It was a wildly irresponsible gathering during the height of a contagion that is almost certain to lead to even more unnecessary sickness and death.
Through it all, the Republican party sat silently, their souls having long ago been stolen, hoping that they could leverage all of this destruction to hold onto two Senate seats in Georgia.
As the stirring NTD America song goes, “tyranny is at our doorstep.”
And Republicans don’t seem to mind. Not one bit.


thebulwark--2020-12-07--Weakness from Washington and Seoul Has Emboldened North Korea

No matter how many illegal missile tests North Korea conducts , how bellicose the Dear Leader is in his threats , or how many South Korean citizens his administration murders , South Korean President Moon Jae-in will always reach back with open arms begging for Kim Jong-un ’ s embrace .
And Donald Trump has gone along with him .
Throughout Moon ’ s political career , he has been credulous towards North Korean leadership and their empty words about “ peace.
” As a “ human rights lawyer , ” he was a member of Minbyun ( Lawyers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law group that has utterly ignored human rights abuses in North Korea and at times harassed North Korean refugees residing in South Korea .
As a political strategist , he served as campaign manager for Roh Moo-hyun , the leftist successor to the Sunshine Policy who rode to power in 2003 on a wave of soft anti-American sentiment .
Now as president , he has appointed North Korea sympathizers to policy positions and constantly downplays North Korean aggression .
Moon and Korean liberals in general have also been more antagonistic towards the democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China than the previous conservative president .
In May , a North Korea soldier fired bullets that hit a South Korean guard post .
Moon was still trying to get the Panmunjom Declaration , the agreement Moon and Kim signed agreeing to cooperate on an official end to the Korean War , ratified by Korea ’ s National Assembly .
After North Korea blew up the joint liaison office , Moon appeared to be more disappointed that it stifled his plans for easing sanctions on North Korea than that it was an unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent and most brazen example , President Moon called for an official end to the Korean War at the UN one day after a South Korean fisheries official had been executed and had his body burned by North Korea .
The South Korean president ’ s weakness toward the abusive communist regime to its north isn ’ t concerning just for the 76 million Koreans on the peninsula .
It ’ s also concerning for the United States as it puts regional security in jeopardy .
North Korean leadership is emboldened by South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can get away with anything .
They have found that by pairing violent actions with personal letters and shallow apologies , the Moon administration has something reassuring to wave in front of the public .
North Korea is thus able to continue developing its missile capabilities , which could be aimed at U.S. troops in Korea or Japan , with little resistance .
Moon ’ s administration has pulled the United States along on its failed detente policy .
The U.S. made the decision to meet with Kim Jong-un at Moon ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to show for two years of unproductive talks but propaganda images legitimizing Kim ’ s regime and reduced Chinese pressure on the North .
To be sure , the United States never should have followed Moon as closely as Trump did .
Trump rashly announced he was willing to meet with Kim with no preconditions after being told by Moon ’ s national security advisor Chung Eui Yong at an impromptu White House meeting in March 2018 that Kim wanted to meet .
Chung was representing Moon ’ s desires , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned Trump against making such a haphazard decision , one which contradicted the administration ’ s maximum pressure policy .
But nonetheless , Trump directed Chung to make the announcement to the White House press that the U.S. was willing to meet .
For Trump to make major foreign policy decisions on the basis of what he is told by foreign officials compromises U.S. security .
Chung Eui Yong has been criticized by The Korea Herald for being soft on North Korea .
When North Korea conducted illegal missile tests in violation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , “ I don ’ t see missile capabilities now being developed by North Korea as a grave threat to our national security.
” Some of Moon ’ s other appointees have worrying histories of supporting socialism and sympathizing with North Korea .
His first chief of staff and current Special Advisor for Foreign Affairs Im Jong-seok was convicted of organizing a propaganda trip to Pyongyang in 1989 where radical South Korean student activists met Kim Il-sung .
Former Justice Minister Cho Kuk , a “ Gangnam socialist ” ( the Korean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a former member of the Socialist Labour League .
North Korea ’ s flagship state-run newspaper defended him against conservative criticism before he resigned last year .
Moon hails from a progressive movement tinged with socialism that has been pursuing “ decolonization ” —by which they mean getting rid of American troops and influence from the peninsula .
His instance on an end-of-war declaration and his push for “ unification ” would move in that direction .
Declaring a premature end to the war , however , could undermine the legitimacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remaining on the peninsula .
Should Korea be “ unified ” in a manner that does not displace the illegitimate Kim regime , human rights in South Korea could disappear .
Even if Korea were to be unified entirely on ROK terms , it is unclear what that might mean for the future of U.S. troops in Korea .
China would certainly demand that U.S. troops withdraw , and without the presence of North Korea staring down the Republic , it is not clear what rationale the U.S. would rely on to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for U.S. troops would remain within the Korean public .

No matter how many illegal missile tests North Korea conducts, how bellicose the Dear Leader is in his threats, or how many South Korean citizens his administration murders, South Korean President Moon Jae-in will always reach back with open arms begging for Kim Jong-un’s embrace. And Donald Trump has gone along with him.
The Moon administration’s weakness and naïveté, combined with Trump’s foreign policy ignorance and sympathies with dictators, presents a threat to Northeast Asian security and to America’s national interest.
Throughout Moon’s political career, he has been credulous towards North Korean leadership and their empty words about “peace.” As a “human rights lawyer,” he was a member of Minbyun (Lawyers for a Democratic Society), a progressive law group that has utterly ignored human rights abuses in North Korea and at times harassed North Korean refugees residing in South Korea. As a political strategist, he served as campaign manager for Roh Moo-hyun, the leftist successor to the Sunshine Policy who rode to power in 2003 on a wave of soft anti-American sentiment. Now as president, he has appointed North Korea sympathizers to policy positions and constantly downplays North Korean aggression. Moon and Korean liberals in general have also been more antagonistic towards the democratic Japan and softer towards an increasingly aggressive China than the previous conservative president.
Moon’s actions in 2020 are illustrative. In March, North Korea conducted four missile launches in violation of UN resolutions. Yet after the first missile test, Moon’s communications secretary praised Kim Jong-un for sending a letter that “showed his constant friendship and trust toward Moon.”
In May, a North Korea soldier fired bullets that hit a South Korean guard post. Moon was still trying to get the Panmunjom Declaration, the agreement Moon and Kim signed agreeing to cooperate on an official end to the Korean War, ratified by Korea’s National Assembly. After North Korea blew up the joint liaison office, Moon appeared to be more disappointed that it stifled his plans for easing sanctions on North Korea than that it was an unprecedented escalation.
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…
Now, in the most recent and most brazen example, President Moon called for an official end to the Korean War at the UN one day after a South Korean fisheries official had been executed and had his body burned by North Korea.
The South Korean president’s weakness toward the abusive communist regime to its north isn’t concerning just for the 76 million Koreans on the peninsula. It’s also concerning for the United States as it puts regional security in jeopardy.
North Korean leadership is emboldened by South Korea’s appeasement. They know they can get away with anything. They have found that by pairing violent actions with personal letters and shallow apologies, the Moon administration has something reassuring to wave in front of the public. North Korea is thus able to continue developing its missile capabilities, which could be aimed at U.S. troops in Korea or Japan, with little resistance.
In line with Moon’s present foreign policy, the latest South Korean defense white paper has removed the mention of North Korea as an “enemy.” This is a serious underestimation of the threat posed by the Kim regime.
Moon’s administration has pulled the United States along on its failed detente policy. The U.S. made the decision to meet with Kim Jong-un at Moon’s insistence, but the U.S. has nothing to show for two years of unproductive talks but propaganda images legitimizing Kim’s regime and reduced Chinese pressure on the North.
To be sure, the United States never should have followed Moon as closely as Trump did. Trump rashly announced he was willing to meet with Kim with no preconditions after being told by Moon’s national security advisor Chung Eui Yong at an impromptu White House meeting in March 2018 that Kim wanted to meet. Chung was representing Moon’s desires, and then-National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster explicitly warned Trump against making such a haphazard decision, one which contradicted the administration’s maximum pressure policy. But nonetheless, Trump directed Chung to make the announcement to the White House press that the U.S. was willing to meet.
For Trump to make major foreign policy decisions on the basis of what he is told by foreign officials compromises U.S. security. Chung Eui Yong has been criticized by The Korea Herald for being soft on North Korea. When North Korea conducted illegal missile tests in violation of UN resolutions, Chung dismissed them, saying, “I don’t see missile capabilities now being developed by North Korea as a grave threat to our national security.”
Some of Moon’s other appointees have worrying histories of supporting socialism and sympathizing with North Korea. His first chief of staff and current Special Advisor for Foreign Affairs Im Jong-seok was convicted of organizing a propaganda trip to Pyongyang in 1989 where radical South Korean student activists met Kim Il-sung. Former Justice Minister Cho Kuk, a “Gangnam socialist” (the Korean analogue of a limousine liberal), was a former member of the Socialist Labour League. North Korea’s flagship state-run newspaper defended him against conservative criticism before he resigned last year.
Moon hails from a progressive movement tinged with socialism that has been pursuing “decolonization”—by which they mean getting rid of American troops and influence from the peninsula. His instance on an end-of-war declaration and his push for “unification” would move in that direction.
Declaring a premature end to the war, however, could undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations Command and U.S. troops remaining on the peninsula . Should Korea be “unified” in a manner that does not displace the illegitimate Kim regime, human rights in South Korea could disappear.
Even if Korea were to be unified entirely on ROK terms, it is unclear what that might mean for the future of U.S. troops in Korea. China would certainly demand that U.S. troops withdraw, and without the presence of North Korea staring down the Republic, it is not clear what rationale the U.S. would rely on to maintain its military presence, nor whether broad support for U.S. troops would remain within the Korean public.
In the face of an assertive China and a stubborn North Korea, a strong U.S. presence in Northeast Asia is as important as ever—and will remain so after the election. Moon’s and Trump’s weaknesses put American security at risk. President Biden will have to contend with the mess their failed diplomatic groveling to Kim has created.


thebulwark--2020-12-07--What If Trump Is Trying To Break the GOP?

It ’ s hard for Republicans to think straight these days .
Stop the count , no , wait—do a recount .
Elections are rigged and fraudulent .
But the January 5 Georgia runoff will be legit , so GOP voters need to psyche up and turn out .
And in their confusion , Republicans seem not to have noticed the new dynamic which is emerging .
The combination of the “ Stop-the-Steal ” ragers and the fear of the silent Republican establishment types are mothers milk to Trump .
Angry and afraid people fighting—over him—is the very top of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s his version of self-actualization .
And while he may be forced to give up the office of the presidency , he will not give up being at the center of this storm .
Republicans don ’ t seem capable of understanding where this eventually leads .
So let me spell it out for them : Donald Trump is going to destroy their party .
Not because he wants to or even because he ’ s trying to .
But because the destruction of the GOP will be required in order to fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saturday morning on a RINO hunt , tweeting about a Washington Post report revealing only 25 Republicans in Congress—of 249 queried—would admit that Joe Biden had won the election .
His reaction : In the afternoon he asked Georgia ’ s Republican governor to overturn the election which had already been certified in his state .
Hours later Trump flew to Georgia for a rally that was supposed to be about boosting the two Republican Senate candidates , but was mostly about lying that he won Georgia .
Trump insisted that he really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rigged , ” and warned about the runoff that “ they ’ re going to try and rig this one , I ’ m sure.
” Georgia Gov .
Brian Kemp , who rebuffed Trump ’ s demands hours earlier took a beating at the rally .
Trump said that Kemp should be ashamed of himself and openly suggested that Rep. Doug Collins should primary him in two years .
Here ’ s the problem with living in Trump ’ s conspiracy world : There is no way for Trump partisans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ stole ” the election that Trump lost by a historic margin .
But now that Trump has demanded that specific elected officials break the law on his behalf , there will be a list of officeholders Trump ’ s people can mobilize against .
You can ’ t vote out Dominion .
But you can go after Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensberger and Doug Ducey and any ( and every ) other Republican who refused to steal the election on Trump ’ s behalf .
And that ’ s where the anger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is going to be channeled in the coming months .
Because it ’ s literally the only place it can flow .
Rudy Giuliani , has also put Republicans on notice , because while he won ’ t be taking the blame for the fruitless hunt for fake fraud , someone has to .
Last week he raged on Twitter at Republican state legislators who he said have let America down by not trying to overturn their states election results .
Who does Giuliani mean when he says “ Republicans ” ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days .
After all , Trump wasn ’ t a Republican before he ran for president .
Jared Kushner bragged to Bob Woodward , Trump “ basically did a full hostile takeover of the Republican Party ” because his resonance with voters was less about policy and more about “ attitude.
” And that sounds about right .
Which means that after the 2020 election , the definition of who is a “ real ” Republican will be made by simple binary answer : Were you with Trump in his attempt to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him ?
Are you in , or out , of the Trump personality cult ?
It ’ s amusing to watch conventional Republicans try to cling to the idea that Trumpism is about policy , or ideology , or something other than Donald Trump and his “ attitude.
” These people were happy to be complicit in Trumpism so long as they got their judges and nobody demanded that they break the law on Trump ’ s behalf .
Now some of them find themselves up against the wall while guys like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can act butch enough that Trump won ’ t demand a loyalty test of them the way he has of Kemp and Ducey..
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s true believers—the sometimes drunk and always-viral misfit toys—have pledged to die for the cause of Trump ’ s fake fraud , called for martial law and suspension of the Constitution , and the shooting of a high ranking former Homeland Security official .
What Mitch McConnell and company don ’ t seem to understand is that this is the endgame : The MAGA cult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Enemy Number One .
The Republicans who aren ’ t legally permitted to deny reality are now the big threat .
And Trump is going to spend the next two—or four—years at war them .
As Trump pretends he ’ s running for president in 2024 , he will batter the Republican party .
A Politico story this week quoted a donor who said he would immediately contribute to Trump ’ s new PAC , and noted that most donors would feel pressure to do the same , just to avoid his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign aide was quoted saying “ If he starts holding grudges against sitting officeholders and donors who decline to throw their support behind him , it is going to put Republicans in a bind.
” In the coming war Republicans wanting to win elections and hold power will do battle with Trumpkins who can ’ t win swing voters , but dominate primaries , fundraising , and the Parlersphere .
Georgia won ’ t see the only toxic primary in 2022 .
Lara Trump could run against Rep. Mark Walker in North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retiring Sen. Pat Toomey ’ s seat in Pennsylvania should be a doozy as 75 of the state ’ s Republican state legislators signed a letter this week to the state ’ s congressional delegation calling for them to dispute the 2020 election results in Congress .
This gives Democrats the upper hand in all those races , should Trumpkin candidates prevail in primaries .
Republicans will no longer benefit from MAGA devotees Trump mobilized in 2016 and 2020—but notably not in 2018—while the party loses swing voters by fashioning Trump into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
And all of this—every bit of it—was foreseeable .
As Jonathan V. Last wrote on October 8 : “ Go write this down : After November 3 , the price of admission to GOP politics is going to be an insistence that , actually , Donald Trump did win the election and/or would have won if it hadn ’ t been stolen/rigged.
” Republicans will soon notice that Trump won ’ t give a hoot about judges , just fighting .
Trump is telling aides and allies that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to see him fighting a Biden victory .
He will keep fighting Biden and the Democrats and the media but he will also pound any Republicans who do not bend the knee .
Relentlessly .
No policy or posture or line of propaganda will be pleasing enough to him .
They can expect frequent put downs , pressure to flatter him and demands that they flout reality .
Without the bully pulpit and the power of the presidency Trump will bully harder .
Behavior and conduct within the Constitutional order is unacceptable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Will Vice President Mike Pence be attacked as a “ cuck ” if he attends Joe Biden ’ s inauguration ?
Almost certainly , yes .
Which will mean that Pence will—again , almost certainly—decline to attend .
Just another loyalty test to stay in the good graces of the cult leader .
Michael Gerson wrote about the danger Trump ’ s assault on democracy inspires : “ Trump is not merely claiming instances of election fraud .
He is alleging that the American system of democratic government has failed , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding specific , unlawful acts to overturn results in a fair election , he is urging authoritarian solutions to his political problems.
” What awaits Trump , after the season of election fraud TV ends on January 20 , is serious legal exposure .
He will make sure the GOP pays a price at each twist and turn of his coming prosecutions for various and sundry crimes .
From obstruction of justice , to tax fraud , and so much more .
Trump ’ s legal morass will be a chronic story in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be asked to comment on each sordid discovery and ruling , and anyone unwilling to zealously defy the facts and fight back will be punished .
He will imply a right to revolution .
Republicans will have to soon accept Trump isn ’ t actually trying to be president again , or lead or unite a party .
He simply intends to dominate and there is never enough submission .
The next few years for Trump will be all about scalps .

It’s hard for Republicans to think straight these days. Stop the count, no, wait—do a recount. Elections are rigged and fraudulent. But the January 5 Georgia runoff will be legit, so GOP voters need to psyche up and turn out.
It’s all so confusing.
And in their confusion, Republicans seem not to have noticed the new dynamic which is emerging. The combination of the “Stop-the-Steal” ragers and the fear of the silent Republican establishment types are mothers milk to Trump.
Angry and afraid people fighting—over him—is the very top of his hierarchy of needs. It’s his version of self-actualization. And while he may be forced to give up the office of the presidency, he will not give up being at the center of this storm. Republicans don’t seem capable of understanding where this eventually leads. So let me spell it out for them:
Donald Trump is going to destroy their party.
Not because he wants to or even because he’s trying to. But because the destruction of the GOP will be required in order to fill his psychological needs.
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…
Trump started his Saturday morning on a RINO hunt, tweeting about a Washington Post report revealing only 25 Republicans in Congress—of 249 queried—would admit that Joe Biden had won the election. His reaction:
25, wow! I am surprised there are so many. We have just begun to fight. Please send me a list of the 25 RINOS. I read the Fake News Washington Post as little as possible! https://t.co/cEBM0bYuQ9 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2020
In the afternoon he asked Georgia’s Republican governor to overturn the election which had already been certified in his state. Hours later Trump flew to Georgia for a rally that was supposed to be about boosting the two Republican Senate candidates, but was mostly about lying that he won Georgia. Trump insisted that he really did win Georgia, despite it being “rigged,” and warned about the runoff that “they’re going to try and rig this one, I’m sure.”
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who rebuffed Trump’s demands hours earlier, took a beating at the rally. Trump said that Kemp should be ashamed of himself and openly suggested that Rep. Doug Collins should primary him in two years.
Here’s the problem with living in Trump’s conspiracy world: There is no way for Trump partisans to get revenge against the shadowy forces who “stole” the election that Trump lost by a historic margin.
But now that Trump has demanded that specific elected officials break the law on his behalf, there will be a list of officeholders Trump’s people can mobilize against.
You can’t vote out Dominion. But you can go after Brian Kemp and Brad Raffensberger and Doug Ducey and any (and every) other Republican who refused to steal the election on Trump’s behalf.
And that’s where the anger that Trump is stoking in Republican voters is going to be channeled in the coming months. Because it’s literally the only place it can flow.
Between Governor @DougDucey of Arizona and Governor @BrianKempGA of Georgia, the Democrat Party could not be happier. They fight harder against us than do the Radical Left Dems. If they were with us, we would have already won both Arizona and Georgia… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 5, 2020
Rudy Giuliani has also put Republicans on notice, because while he won’t be taking the blame for the fruitless hunt for fake fraud, someone has to. Last week he raged on Twitter at Republican state legislators who he said have let America down by not trying to overturn their states election results.
Republican Legislature let down America. I’m ashamed of them. They completely misled the President and me. All of us Republicans let them know what we think of them. — Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 4, 2020
Who does Giuliani mean when he says “Republicans”? That label doesn’t mean much these days. After all, Trump wasn’t a Republican before he ran for president.
Jared Kushner bragged to Bob Woodward, Trump “basically did a full hostile takeover of the Republican Party” because his resonance with voters was less about policy and more about “attitude.”
And that sounds about right. Which means that after the 2020 election, the definition of who is a “real” Republican will be made by simple binary answer: Were you with Trump in his attempt to steal a “rigged” election, or against him? Are you in, or out, of the Trump personality cult?
It’s amusing to watch conventional Republicans try to cling to the idea that Trumpism is about policy, or ideology, or something other than Donald Trump and his “attitude.” These people were happy to be complicit in Trumpism so long as they got their judges and nobody demanded that they break the law on Trump’s behalf. Now some of them find themselves up against the wall while guys like Ted Cruz look on nervously hoping that they can act butch enough that Trump won’t demand a loyalty test of them the way he has of Kemp and Ducey.
Meanwhile, Trump’s true believers—the sometimes drunk and always-viral misfit toys—have pledged to die for the cause of Trump’s fake fraud, called for martial law and suspension of the Constitution, and the shooting of a high ranking former Homeland Security official.
What Mitch McConnell and company don’t seem to understand is that this is the endgame: The MAGA cult no longer sees Democrats and the media as Enemy Number One. The Republicans who aren’t legally permitted to deny reality are now the big threat. And Trump is going to spend the next two—or four—years at war them.
As Trump pretends he’s running for president in 2024, he will batter the Republican party. A Politico story this week quoted a donor who said he would immediately contribute to Trump’s new PAC, and noted that most donors would feel pressure to do the same, just to avoid his wrath. Jon Thompson, a former Trump campaign aide was quoted saying “If he starts holding grudges against sitting officeholders and donors who decline to throw their support behind him, it is going to put Republicans in a bind.”
Duh.
In the coming war Republicans wanting to win elections and hold power will do battle with Trumpkins who can’t win swing voters, but dominate primaries, fundraising, and the Parlersphere. Georgia won’t see the only toxic primary in 2022. Lara Trump could run against Rep. Mark Walker in North Carolina, and the fight to fill retiring Sen. Pat Toomey’s seat in Pennsylvania should be a doozy as 64 of the state’s Republican state legislators signed a letter this week to the state’s congressional delegation calling for them to dispute the 2020 election results in Congress.
This gives Democrats the upper hand in all those races, should Trumpkin candidates prevail in primaries. Republicans will no longer benefit from MAGA devotees Trump mobilized in 2016 and 2020—but notably not in 2018—while the party loses swing voters by fashioning Trump into an eternal victim of a “stolen” election. And all of this—every bit of it—was foreseeable.
As Jonathan V. Last wrote on October 8: “Go write this down: After November 3, the price of admission to GOP politics is going to be an insistence that, actually, Donald Trump did win the election and/or would have won if it hadn’t been stolen/rigged.”
Republicans will soon notice that Trump won’t give a hoot about judges, just fighting. Trump is telling aides and allies that he’s doing all of this because his supporters need to see him fighting a Biden victory. He will keep fighting Biden and the Democrats and the media but he will also pound any Republicans who do not bend the knee. Relentlessly. No policy or posture or line of propaganda will be pleasing enough to him. They can expect frequent put downs, pressure to flatter him and demands that they flout reality.
Without the bully pulpit and the power of the presidency Trump will bully harder.
Behavior and conduct within the Constitutional order is unacceptable to Trump. As Charlie Sykes asks: Will Vice President Mike Pence be attacked as a “cuck” if he attends Joe Biden’s inauguration? Almost certainly, yes. Which will mean that Pence will—again, almost certainly—decline to attend. Just another loyalty test to stay in the good graces of the cult leader.
Michael Gerson wrote about the danger Trump’s assault on democracy inspires:
“Trump is not merely claiming instances of election fraud. He is alleging that the American system of democratic government has failed, which implies a right to revolution. By demanding specific, unlawful acts to overturn results in a fair election, he is urging authoritarian solutions to his political problems.”
What awaits Trump, after the season of election fraud TV ends on January 20, is serious legal exposure. He will make sure the GOP pays a price at each twist and turn of his coming prosecutions for various and sundry crimes. From obstruction of justice, to tax fraud, and so much more. Trump’s legal morass will be a chronic story in the years to come. Republicans will be asked to comment on each sordid discovery and ruling, and anyone unwilling to zealously defy the facts and fight back will be punished.
He will imply a right to revolution.
Republicans will soon have to accept Trump isn’t actually trying to be president again, or lead or unite a party. He simply intends to dominate and there is never enough submission. The next few years for Trump will be all about scalps.
Republican scalps.
Correction, Deb. 8, 2020, 1:33p.m.: An earlier version of this article reported that 75 Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers sent a letter urging Congress to dispute the state’s presidential electors. This article has been updated to reflect that 11 of those signatories were included by mistake.


thebulwark--2020-12-08--Lloyd Austin Should Not Become Secretary of Defense

War is too important to be left to the generals .
—Georges Clémenceau President-elect Joe Biden reportedly plans on announcing Lloyd Austin , a retired Army four-star general , as his nominee for secretary of defense .
And that ’ s terrible .
While Austin is not the candidate I was hoping Biden would select—I have been an advocate for Michèle Flournoy—I admire his military career .
My objection to Austin ’ s expected nomination is based on an important principle : The U.S. military should always remain under civilian control .
The National Security Act of 1947 , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military officers from becoming secretary of defense within ten years of retirement .
A later amendment reduced that to seven years .
Austin retired in 2016 .
There is a good reason for the requirement that recent officers not run the Department of Defense .
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in his memoir that “ I would often tell [ General David Petraeus ] that Iraq was his battlespace and Washington was mine.
” This is because military officers are taught to be apolitical , while the secretary of defense is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests of the Department of Defense as an institution , geopolitical concerns , and domestic political realities .
War is an instrument of policy , fought by troops but won by politicians .
In addition to battlefield violence , the successful prosecution of a war also requires the correct allocation of resources , the proper mobilization of industry and the economy , and the political support of the people .
It requires boosting public morale through ideological mobilization .
Military officers are not trained for this .
And they should not be .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on civil-society-military relations writes : Feaver mentions the president , but his advice extends to the secretary of defense as the president ’ s chief assistant on military matters .
As Samuel Huntington put it , “ the peculiar skill of the officer is the management of violence.
” In a democratic system like ours , officers can certainly debate strategy with their civilian superiors , but they must not engage in the formulation of policy—ever !
The secretary of defense , by contrast , ought to have experience with policy development .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s senior military advisers : the Joint Chiefs of Staff .
They are there to represent the institutional interests and views of the military .
Naturally , they come with their biases , biases that are important and that deserve to be represented .
The secretary , though , is not supposed to be an institutional figure within the department .
By design , the secretary of defense is supposed to be an outsider , free of institutional bias .
A recently retired senior officer may be too close with the military—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way by the department ’ s civilian staff .
That was a problem with James Mattis , President Trump ’ s first secretary of defense .
Mattis , a Marine four-star , had only retired from active service in 2013 .
As a result , his 2017 appointment required Congress to pass a bill to waive the requirement just for him .
In Mattis ’ s case , House and Senate Republicans voted for the waiver unanimously ( with the exception of Justin Amash in the House ) , while Democrats were split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense at the time : Donald Trump was a toddler and needed adult supervision .
As Eliot Cohen said in his testimony in support of the waiver , “ the president has to have somebody they listen to .
I guess I do tend to believe that President-elect Trump will be inclined to listen to General Mattis.
” In the extraordinary circumstance of a president so clearly unsuited for the office , it seemed that having a secretary of defense with the experience and steadiness of Mattis warranted the waiver .
Even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made a point of expressing their respect for Mattis and their understanding of Trump ’ s deficiencies .
Unfortunately , the expectations for Mattis ’ s tenure were not met .
First , as with the other so-called “ adults in the room , ” his moderating influence on Trump was hard to detect .
True , there were some instances , not widely known , in which military operations with potential for disaster were avoided because Mattis dissuaded Trump .
But anyone who hoped that Mattis could help make Trump more presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was disappointed .
Second , Mattis never quite fit into his suit as secretary ; it always seemed as though , in his mind , he was still wearing a uniform .
The leadership experience that served Mattis well at the highest ranks of the Marine Corps was a poor fit for leading a cabinet department .
The modest National Defense Strategy he published—which noticeably focused on the “ lethality ” of the force , language you would expect from a Marine—was heavy on the operational capabilities and light on the strategy side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closeness to his service was compounded by the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs , General Joseph Dunford , was also a Marine .
The two were old friends .
So the chairman of the JCS often reinforced , rather than constructively complemented , Mattis ’ s views .
It did not help that Mattis never made any serious push to have the president fill the vacant under secretary and assistant secretary positions to add high-level civilian insight and oversight to the department .
As Jim Golby wrote soon after Mattis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary Having said this , Golby concedes that Mattis ’ s tenure might have been worth it in the context of putting a brake on Donald Trump ’ s worst impulses .
But the Mattis record shows why it is important for the secretary of defense not to come from the Pentagon ’ s own bureaucracy .
And yet : Here we go again .
The divide between the civilians and the military in the Pentagon has sometimes been characterized this way : Every civilian is a “ Cohenian ” —that is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thesis that strategy belongs in civilian hands after consulting the military .
And every officer is Huntingtonian—they agree with Samuel Huntington that the military alone should formulate strategy .
Cohen ’ s thesis fits a liberal democracy better , but Mattis governed as a Huntingtonian .
We should be concerned that Austin—or any retired senior officer—will do the same .
And Austin has his own analogue of Mattis ’ s problem with Dunford : The current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff , General Mark Milley , is an Army officer who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Point graduate whose career was defined by the Army , Austin will inevitably face the reasonable suspicion of the other services that he and Milley will pick favorites against their interests .
Moreover , the context that seemed to justify a waiver in Mattis ’ s case—the unsuitedness of the president for the office—does not apply in Austin ’ s case .
In Joe Biden we have the prospect of an experienced and level-headed commander in chief .
Mattis and Austin are not the only men to have required a congressional waiver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George C. Marshall , who had been Army chief of staff until 1945 , to serve as secretary of defense .
Marshall needed the waiver even though he had already served as secretary of state under Truman .
Marshall was secretary of defense for only one year , but it was a fateful one .
On his watch , Douglas MacArthur began drifting away from the administration ’ s strategy in Korea , publicly criticizing the commander in chief .
Marshall understood the problem , but his military background and his old friendship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to navigate the problem passively and to protect MacArthur—but that only encouraged MacArthur further , which led to one of the biggest controversies of Truman ’ s tenure .
When Congress debated the waiver for Mattis , the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee , Jack Reed ( D-R.I. ) , said : That is the level of commitment to civilian supremacy that one should expect from our leaders .
Members of Congress should insist on holding to that standard again .

War is too important to be left to the generals.
—Georges Clémenceau
President-elect Joe Biden reportedly plans on announcing Lloyd Austin, a retired Army four-star general, as his nominee for secretary of defense. And that’s terrible.
While Austin is not the candidate I was hoping Biden would select—I have been an advocate for Michèle Flournoy—I admire his military career. My objection to Austin’s expected nomination is based on an important principle: The U.S. military should always remain under civilian control. The National Security Act of 1947, which created the Department of Defense, prohibited military officers from becoming secretary of defense within ten years of retirement. A later amendment reduced that to seven years. Austin retired in 2016.
There is a good reason for the requirement that recent officers not run the Department of Defense. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in his memoir that “I would often tell [General David Petraeus] that Iraq was his battlespace and Washington was mine.” This is because military officers are taught to be apolitical, while the secretary of defense is a politician who has to weigh the interests of the Department of Defense as an institution, geopolitical concerns, and domestic political realities.
War is an instrument of policy, fought by troops but won by politicians. In addition to battlefield violence, the successful prosecution of a war also requires the correct allocation of resources, the proper mobilization of industry and the economy, and the political support of the people. It requires boosting public morale through ideological mobilization. Military officers are not trained for this. And they should not be. As Peter Feaver, a leading expert on civil-society-military relations writes:
[Political concerns do not fall] within the scope of unique military expertise; on the contrary, [they hinge] on political or strategic considerations for which the professional competence resides at the presidential level. It is the president’s job to generate public support, and it is the president’s job to place the policy bet on how much the American people will tolerate.
Feaver mentions the president, but his advice extends to the secretary of defense as the president’s chief assistant on military matters.
As Samuel Huntington put it, “the peculiar skill of the officer is the management of violence.” In a democratic system like ours, officers can certainly debate strategy with their civilian superiors, but they must not engage in the formulation of policy—ever! The secretary of defense, by contrast, ought to have experience with policy development.
There is another place for the president’s senior military advisers: the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are there to represent the institutional interests and views of the military. Naturally, they come with their biases, biases that are important and that deserve to be represented. The secretary, though, is not supposed to be an institutional figure within the department. By design, the secretary of defense is supposed to be an outsider, free of institutional bias.
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…
A recently retired senior officer may be too close with the military—and is almost certain to be viewed that way by the department’s civilian staff. That was a problem with James Mattis, President Trump’s first secretary of defense. Mattis, a Marine four-star, had only retired from active service in 2013. As a result, his 2017 appointment required Congress to pass a bill to waive the requirement just for him. In Mattis’s case, House and Senate Republicans voted for the waiver unanimously (with the exception of Justin Amash in the House), while Democrats were split.
Waiving the law for Mattis made sense at the time: Donald Trump was a toddler and needed adult supervision. As Eliot Cohen said in his testimony in support of the waiver, “the president has to have somebody they listen to. I guess I do tend to believe that President-elect Trump will be inclined to listen to General Mattis.” In the extraordinary circumstance of a president so clearly unsuited for the office, it seemed that having a secretary of defense with the experience and steadiness of Mattis warranted the waiver. Even the Democrats who ultimately voted against the waiver made a point of expressing their respect for Mattis and their understanding of Trump’s deficiencies.
Unfortunately, the expectations for Mattis’s tenure were not met. First, as with the other so-called “adults in the room,” his moderating influence on Trump was hard to detect. True, there were some instances, not widely known, in which military operations with potential for disaster were avoided because Mattis dissuaded Trump. But anyone who hoped that Mattis could help make Trump more presidential, or at least less unpresidential, was disappointed.
Second, Mattis never quite fit into his suit as secretary; it always seemed as though, in his mind, he was still wearing a uniform. The leadership experience that served Mattis well at the highest ranks of the Marine Corps was a poor fit for leading a cabinet department. The modest National Defense Strategy he published—which noticeably focused on the “lethality” of the force, language you would expect from a Marine—was heavy on the operational capabilities and light on the strategy side. The problem of Mattis’s closeness to his service was compounded by the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs, General Joseph Dunford, was also a Marine. The two were old friends. So the chairman of the JCS often reinforced, rather than constructively complemented, Mattis’s views. It did not help that Mattis never made any serious push to have the president fill the vacant under secretary and assistant secretary positions to add high-level civilian insight and oversight to the department.
As Jim Golby wrote soon after Mattis left the Pentagon, his tenure as secretary
(1) blurred the lines of authority between civilian and military, as well as between active-duty and retired military; (2) enabled the rapid erosion of civil-military norms; and (3) widened gaps between the military and American society as well as between the military brass and elected political leaders.
Having said this, Golby concedes that Mattis’s tenure might have been worth it in the context of putting a brake on Donald Trump’s worst impulses. But the Mattis record shows why it is important for the secretary of defense not to come from the Pentagon’s own bureaucracy.
And yet: Here we go again.
The divide between the civilians and the military in the Pentagon has sometimes been characterized this way: Every civilian is a “Cohenian”—that is, they agree with Eliot Cohen’s thesis that strategy belongs in civilian hands after consulting the military. And every officer is Huntingtonian—they agree with Samuel Huntington that the military alone should formulate strategy. Cohen’s thesis fits a liberal democracy better, but Mattis governed as a Huntingtonian. We should be concerned that Austin—or any retired senior officer—will do the same.
And Austin has his own analogue of Mattis’s problem with Dunford: The current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, is an Army officer who is close with Austin. As a West Point graduate whose career was defined by the Army, Austin will inevitably face the reasonable suspicion of the other services that he and Milley will pick favorites against their interests.
Moreover, the context that seemed to justify a waiver in Mattis’s case—the unsuitedness of the president for the office—does not apply in Austin’s case. In Joe Biden we have the prospect of an experienced and level-headed commander in chief.
Mattis and Austin are not the only men to have required a congressional waiver. In 1950, President Truman nominated George C. Marshall, who had been Army chief of staff until 1945, to serve as secretary of defense. Marshall needed the waiver even though he had already served as secretary of state under Truman.
Marshall was secretary of defense for only one year, but it was a fateful one. On his watch, Douglas MacArthur began drifting away from the administration’s strategy in Korea, publicly criticizing the commander in chief. Marshall understood the problem, but his military background and his old friendship with MacArthur clouded his judgment. He tried to navigate the problem passively and to protect MacArthur—but that only encouraged MacArthur further, which led to one of the biggest controversies of Truman’s tenure.
When Congress debated the waiver for Mattis, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed (D-R.I.), said:
Waiving the law should happen no more than once in a generation. Therefore, I will not support a waiver for future nominees, nor will I support any effort to water down or repeal the statute in the future. This requirement has served the nation well for the past seven decades. It is up to this committee to ensure that the principle of civilian control of the armed forces, which is the bedrock of civilian-military relations, remains the defining tenet of our democracy.
That is the level of commitment to civilian supremacy that one should expect from our leaders. Members of Congress should insist on holding to that standard again.


thebulwark--2020-12-08--Media Ownership Rules, and Perhaps Much More, at Stake in FCC v. Prometheus

Some of the Supreme Court ’ s most consequential cases are technical .
They neither attract many headlines nor excite vehement emotions .
Not even the protesting class notices them , never mind the public at large .
One example is Gundy v. United States ( 2019 ) , which affirms prior decisions holding that Congress may delegate sweeping authority to administrative agencies .
Another is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council ( 1984 ) , which says that a court should generally defer to an administrative agency ’ s interpretation of an ambiguous statute .
Although the average person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every well-informed lawyer knows them to be central to modern administrative law .
They let Congress delegate legislative tasks to agencies—instructing them , for instance , to regulate “ in the public interest ” —and tell the judiciary to defer , within reason , to an agency ’ s choices about how to interpret and enforce those directives .
This delegation-plus-deference framework has caused , or at least enabled , governmental power to flow toward a “ fourth branch ” of government—the “ administrative state.
” Next month the Court will hear arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Project .
Certain to be , at minimum , a noteworthy telecommunications case , Prometheus has the potential to become a lasting commentary on Gundy and Chevron , and itself an exemplary important-but-not-famous decision .
On the surface , the case is about the FCC ’ s attempts to modify or repeal various local-media ownership rules .
That is no small issue .
Many of the rules were issued decades ago , when concentration in local-media markets was a legitimate concern .
There was a time when owning multiple outlets in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ television station—could give a media company substantial control over the area ’ s information ecosystem .
Those rules were already largely irrelevant by 1996 , when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act , a law centered around the promotion of free-market development of media and the Internet .
The act directs the FCC to periodically review its media-ownership rules , and to modify or repeal the ones that it “ determine [ s ] ” are , “ as a result of competition , ” no longer “ necessary in the public interest.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FCC tried to loosen local-media merger and cross-ownership restrictions .
It issued its first set of reforms in 2003 .
To this day , however , nothing has happened .
A single , divided panel of the Third Circuit ( which has retained exclusive jurisdiction over the matter ) has blocked the FCC ’ s efforts three times .
In its latest decision , the court instructed the FCC to look more closely at whether the existing media ownership rules promote race and gender diversity .
The advancement of such diversity is of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not something the act requires the FCC to consider when assessing restrictions that local broadcasters , but not their online competitors , must comply with .
The judges are imposing their policy preferences in place of the law .
They could not have found a worse industry to hold back .
In the 17 years since the court issued its first decision , print newspapers have lost 70 percent of their advertising revenue .
Broadcasters , meanwhile , have lost most of their viewers to cable ( which in turn is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To remain competitive , local media providers desperately need the freedom to adopt efficient ownership structures and achieve economies of scale .
So Prometheus ’ s practical impact is clear : the Supreme Court is being asked to let the FCC at last ease rules that disadvantage struggling local media .
Let us turn to the case ’ s more subtle , but quite significant , implications for administrative law as a whole .
Gundy , Chevron , and a number of other landmark Supreme Court decisions stand on an assumption that Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive could not function , without the help of an array of expert agencies .
The delegation-plus-deference framework aims to give those agencies room to craft policies that competently address the problems of an increasingly complex society .
The agencies can not create such policies—they can not fulfill a mandate to regulate “ in the public interest ” —if judges block regulation ( and deregulation ) for no better reason than personal disapproval .
If judges get to throw their policy wrenches in the regulatory motor , as the Third Circuit did here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place of decision-by-expert agency-specialist , it devolves into decision-by-roving-judicial-generalist .
And , in place of a relatively predictable regulatory process , there is a protracted tug-of-war between the agencies and the courts , with each side cheered on by swarms of lawyers .
The delegation-plus-deference framework is meant to operate as a complexity coping mechanism .
The Third Circuit ’ s approach in Prometheus , by contrast , is a complexity generator .
The court is making the regulatory process longer , messier , more expensive , more perplexing , more uncertain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three Justices proposed ( and a fourth said he is willing to consider ) placing new limits on Congress ’ s delegation power .
Justices Gorsuch and Thomas , meanwhile , have denounced Chevron with inflexible resolution .
And the Court ’ s two newest members , Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett , both seem like potential skeptics of boundless delegation and broad deference .
Is the Court about to require the legislature to write more of the law itself ?
And might it soon start holding the agencies more closely to legislative commands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suspect that a newly formed majority would like to constrain fourth-branch governance , and to bolster the three-branch structure of the Framers ’ design .
No party in Prometheus is asking that Gundy or Chevron be overturned .
But the case presents a chance , for any justice intent on doing so , to cite the Third Circuit ’ s behavior as evidence that the delegation-plus-deference framework is not working .
And an opinion indicting that framework for failing at its one job—helping the government handle complexity—could serve as a preview of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A bit speculative ?
Sure .
Still , keep an eye on Prometheus .
One day it might be known as the harbinger of an administrative-law revolution .

Some of the Supreme Court’s most consequential cases are technical. They neither attract many headlines nor excite vehement emotions. Not even the protesting class notices them, never mind the public at large.
One example is Gundy v. United States (2019), which affirms prior decisions holding that Congress may delegate sweeping authority to administrative agencies. Another is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), which says that a court should generally defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Although the average person has not heard of these decisions, every well-informed lawyer knows them to be central to modern administrative law. They let Congress delegate legislative tasks to agencies—instructing them, for instance, to regulate “in the public interest”—and tell the judiciary to defer, within reason, to an agency’s choices about how to interpret and enforce those directives. This delegation-plus-deference framework has caused, or at least enabled, governmental power to flow toward a “fourth branch” of government—the “administrative state.”
Next month the Court will hear arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project. Certain to be, at minimum, a noteworthy telecommunications case, Prometheus has the potential to become a lasting commentary on Gundy and Chevron, and itself an exemplary important-but-not-famous decision.
On the surface, the case is about the FCC’s attempts to modify or repeal various local-media ownership rules. That is no small issue. Many of the rules were issued decades ago, when concentration in local-media markets was a legitimate concern. There was a time when owning multiple outlets in the same city—say, both a newspaper and a television station—could give a media company substantial control over the area’s information ecosystem.
Those rules were already largely irrelevant by 1996, when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, a law centered around the promotion of free-market development of media and the Internet. The act directs the FCC to periodically review its media-ownership rules, and to modify or repeal the ones that it “determine[s]” are, “as a result of competition,” no longer “necessary in the public interest.”
Heeding Congress’s command, the FCC tried to loosen local-media merger and cross-ownership restrictions. It issued its first set of reforms in 2003. To this day, however, nothing has happened. A single, divided panel of the Third Circuit (which has retained exclusive jurisdiction over the matter) has blocked the FCC’s efforts three times. In its latest decision, the court instructed the FCC to look more closely at whether the existing media ownership rules promote race and gender diversity.
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 advancement of such diversity is of course a laudable goal, but it is not something the act requires the FCC to consider when assessing restrictions that local broadcasters, but not their online competitors, must comply with. The judges are imposing their policy preferences in place of the law.
They could not have found a worse industry to hold back. In the 17 years since the court issued its first decision, print newspapers have lost 70 percent of their advertising revenue. Broadcasters, meanwhile, have lost most of their viewers to cable (which in turn is now losing customers to streaming services). To remain competitive, local media providers desperately need the freedom to adopt efficient ownership structures and achieve economies of scale.
So Prometheus’s practical impact is clear: the Supreme Court is being asked to let the FCC at last ease rules that disadvantage struggling local media. Let us turn to the case’s more subtle, but quite significant, implications for administrative law as a whole.
Gundy, Chevron, and a number of other landmark Supreme Court decisions stand on an assumption that Congress could not legislate, and that the executive could not function, without the help of an array of expert agencies. The delegation-plus-deference framework aims to give those agencies room to craft policies that competently address the problems of an increasingly complex society.
The agencies cannot create such policies—they cannot fulfill a mandate to regulate “in the public interest”—if judges block regulation (and deregulation) for no better reason than personal disapproval. If judges get to throw their policy wrenches in the regulatory motor, as the Third Circuit did here, the delegation-plus-deference system malfunctions. In place of decision-by-expert agency-specialist, it devolves into decision-by-roving-judicial-generalist. And, in place of a relatively predictable regulatory process, there is a protracted tug-of-war between the agencies and the courts, with each side cheered on by swarms of lawyers.
The delegation-plus-deference framework is meant to operate as a complexity coping mechanism. The Third Circuit’s approach in Prometheus, by contrast, is a complexity generator. The court is making the regulatory process longer, messier, more expensive, more perplexing, more uncertain, and more wasteful.
In Gundy, three Justices proposed (and a fourth said he is willing to consider) placing new limits on Congress’s delegation power. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas, meanwhile, have denounced Chevron with inflexible resolution. And the Court’s two newest members, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, both seem like potential skeptics of boundless delegation and broad deference.
Is the Court about to require the legislature to write more of the law itself? And might it soon start holding the agencies more closely to legislative commands? Perhaps so. It is reasonable to suspect that a newly formed majority would like to constrain fourth-branch governance, and to bolster the three-branch structure of the Framers’ design.
No party in Prometheus is asking that Gundy or Chevron be overturned. But the case presents a chance, for any justice intent on doing so, to cite the Third Circuit’s behavior as evidence that the delegation-plus-deference framework is not working. And an opinion indicting that framework for failing at its one job—helping the government handle complexity—could serve as a preview of the framework’s imminent demise.
A bit speculative? Sure. Still, keep an eye on Prometheus. One day it might be known as the harbinger of an administrative-law revolution.