thebulwark--2020-05-09--I Like People Who Were Captured. Donald Trump? Not So much.

Like many Americans my age , I first became aware of Donald J. Trump with the publication of Trump : The Art of the Deal in 1987 .
At that time , I accepted the notion of him in passing .
I was a Navy lieutenant , a radar intercept officer ( think “ Goose ” in Top Gun ) , assigned to my first F-14 Tomcat squadron , and the idea of somebody brash and innovative making things happen—in his case , turning worn-out buildings and abandoned lots into skyscraper complexes with fresh vibrancy—had its appeal .
A few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty serving as the editor of Approach , the Navy ’ s aviation safety magazine .
The editor-in-chief , a civil servant who was a successful freelance writer on the side , introduced me to Spy , a brilliantly written satirical monthly helmed by Graydon Carter .
Before he went on to save Vanity Fair , Carter used the pages of Spy to humorously expose the elite ’ s myths , including those surrounding the still-ascendant Donald Trump .
It was Carter who popularized the notion that Trump was physically challenged in terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describing him as a “ short-fingered vulgarian ” and then writing about Trump ’ s responses that suggested the label had cut deep .
I rolled back to sea duty in another Tomcat squadron aboard an aircraft carrier about the time Graydon Carter left Spy , which , sadly , was the beginning of the end for that magazine .
The quality of the writing went down , and subscribers like me lapsed , and that was the end of my view into the underlying fiction that was the initial phase of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think much about him for the next ten years as I focused on leading sailors and flying airplanes .
( I do remember a squadronmate , a New Jersey native who was later an astronaut , characterizing Trump as a “ fake millionaire who always says stupid shit ” around the time that rumors were spreading of his first imminent bankruptcy . )
I retired from the Navy in 2002 to focus on my budding career as a novelist , which actually began when my debut was published at the very end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching at the Naval Academy .
By the time my third book was published it was obvious I wasn ’ t going to be “ the next Tom Clancy , ” in spite of the blurb on the back cover , so I accepted an offer to take over as the editor of the biggest military website on the internet , which was based in San Francisco .
Between flying between my home in metro DC and the west coast while trying to get a clue what my responsibilities were ( they had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writer ) , I had even less bandwidth to pay attention to what was going on in Trumpland than I ’ d had while flying Navy jets .
Like the average media consuming American I occasionally watched The Apprentice and scratched my head over his Obama birtherism obsession , but that was about it .
Trump came back into my scan when he descended the escalator with Melania in June of 2015 .
I was now working as the editor-in-chief of a startup military website based in Hollywood founded by a couple of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my previous website , among the subjects we covered were matters pertaining to those vying to be the next commander-in-chief .
And in spite of my early impressions , I was willing to withhold final judgement around this version of him until he had a chance to get his candidacy up and running .
Regardless of half-baked policy stances , the race-baiting elements of his kickoff speech , or his obvious love for the sound of his own voice , even Trump had to understand that aspiring to be President of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriousness than , say , being a reality TV star .
My personal grace period didn ’ t last long .
A month into the Trump candidacy , he pushed back on an interviewer ’ s assertion that Senator John McCain was a hero for how he conducted himself as a prisoner of war during Vietnam , saying that he liked “ people that weren ’ t captured.
” It wasn ’ t the first time he ’ d said it publicly , but it was the first time while seeking the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the first time I ’ d heard him say it .
Whatever his intent politically , the statement was deeply offensive , particularly coming from a guy who ’ d avoided military service on shaky medical grounds and then declared that “ Studio 54 was my Vietnam.
” Trump ’ s negative characterization of that part of McCain ’ s life was irreparably beyond the pale for me , a veteran .
My father was a Marine Corps attack pilot who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross during a mission supporting troops on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S .
Naval Academy primarily due to his influence ( although he went to Michigan State ) as well as that of those with whom he served .
My timing was ideal , in that during my four years as a midshipman at Annapolis , I was afforded the opportunity to be mentored by former Vietnam War POWs who were in the sunset of their active duty careers .
Paul Galanti ( who defiantly flipped off the camera in a North Vietnamese propaganda film ) was my battalion officer .
Mike McGrath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign to make all of us better writers in addition to his main duties as head of the Leadership , Ethics , and Law Department ) was one of my instructors during my junior year .
Ned Shuman was the head of the Naval Academy ’ s sailing program with whom I had regular contact as a member of the intercollegiate dinghy team .
Their lives all had common themes : Leadership has to be by example .
It ’ s not what you say , it ’ s what you do .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on what ’ s best for the group .
Own your mistakes ( in a POW ’ s case , this generally meant saying more than name , rank , and serial number while being tortured , for which there was great guilt afterwards ) and strive to do better the next time .
Keep faith in your god , your country ( few things lifted their spirits as much as the sound of B-52s bombing around them ) and your comrades .
And never , ever give up .
These men—humble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a man in spite of their myriad remarkable accomplishments—set the bar for all of us at Annapolis during those years .
Through them we were given the roadmap to navigate the trials that would inevitably come in the course of our duties and life in general .
Later , when I was the editor of Approach as a lieutenant , I had the gift of several sessions of quality time with Medal of Honor recipient James Stockdale , who had been the senior ranking POW in the Hanoi Hilton and therefore took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Along with his love of the American ideal , Stockdale credited the writings of Epictetus and the philosophy of stoicism for getting him through years of torture and isolation .
Stockdale also told me an incredible story that involved a Marine Corps pilot named John Glenn ( perhaps you ’ ve heard of him ) that I included in the April/May 1990 issue of Approach : John was a Test Pilot School classmate of mine .
He ’ s not a bookish fellow ; he ’ s a practical guy .
He came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ] major , but he didn ’ t have the college degree that was normally required .
He knew he was going to have to burn the midnight oil , so he left his wife at home in Ohio .
He ’ d be in the study room after hours all along .
If you were at home and you forgot what the assignment was , you could always call down there and ask John .
His flying was all seat-of-the-pants .
Before the school started , he took me flying in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full of theory and no practice in jets , and he was the other way around .
The first time we flew together , we went on a cross-country to get some instrument time in a TV-1 [ tandem-seating jet trainer ] .
I hopped in the back seat , and he showed me how to get things hooked up .
I ’ d never seen the inside of the plane .
He said , “ We ’ re going down to Masters Field in Miami .
Here ’ s the book .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was kinda just being nice to me because I was the new guy and he was a good fellow .
We got down there , and there were thunderstorms all around when we landed .
It had just turned dark .
We were eating a hot dog and drinking a Coke in front of the line shack [ where visiting airplanes were parked ] when he said , “ Why don ’ t you fly it back ?
” I said , “ Okay , John , but I ’ ve never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noticed the lightning all around .
He told me I could handle it .
He got me strapped into the front seat and then he stood up on the back and said , “ Okay , Jim .
Do you see that handle down there ?
No , not that one , the red one .
Now , push that outboard .
Now you ’ ve got it .
Now hit that button .
That ’ s your ignition .
Hold that for just a minute .
Now when it comes up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He had to start shouting once the motor started up and he yelled , “ Okay , I ’ ll get in and put the canopy down.
” He talked me all the way home .
But you can ’ t do that stuff now .
Those times were different .
The idea of Jim Stockdale and John Glenn—two of the greatest Americans of all time— cowboying it across the skies of the eastern seaboard together in the days before anyone knew who they were still blows my mind , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told to me firsthand .
Stockdale went on to be Ross Perot ’ s pick for Vice President during his 1992 presidential run as an independent , and—while his uneven performance during one of the debates earned him pop culture ridicule—political historians will note that none of the others on that stage claimed he wasn ’ t a hero or said they preferred people who weren ’ t captured .
And then once I retired from the Navy , I had my first direct interface with John McCain when he was a guest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Desk ” podcast during his 2008 presidential bid .
I was , naturally , aware of his story courtesy of his fellow POWs : third generation Navy officer and legendarily ne ’ er-do-well midshipman who found his calling as a Navy attack pilot .
He was in the cockpit of an A-4 waiting to launch when the disastrous flight deck fire started aboard the USS Forrestal and he was wounded by exploding fragments and barely escaped alive .
Several months later he was shot down over Hanoi .
He broke both arms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his stricken jet .
After he was pulled out of the lake he ’ d parachuted into , he was beaten and refused medical treatment .
When his four-star admiral father assumed responsibility for all forces in the region , the North Vietnamese offered him early release as a show of good faith .
McCain refused .
His torture intensified , and he wasn ’ t repatriated for another five years along with the rest of the American POWs .
I didn ’ t always agree with Senator McCain ’ s politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Vice Presidential candidate in 2008 and his opposition ( on budgetary grounds ) to the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2009 .
And I ’ m convinced that he lost the presidency to Barack Obama because the Republican Party apparatus dragged him way to the right out of the gate , and he was never comfortable after that .
But in my experience , McCain was always willing to make himself available when he could and never avoided the hard topics ( and there were many hard topics surrounding the military in those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articulate , and honest .
He exuded introspection and the calm confidence of a person with nothing left to prove in this life .
My last conversation with him was in the summer of 2016 on the rooftop of an office complex overlooking the Capitol .
We talked about flying jets .
The Navy was good to me in that they gave me flying orders 15 of the 20 years I was on active duty .
They sent me into harm ’ s way , specifically the skies over Bosnia during the Serbian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over Southern Iraq where I was always just one surface-to-air missile shot from becoming a POW myself .
But because of the lessons of the patriots mentioned here , I never feared I wouldn ’ t know what to do if that trial ever came .
All of these men were blown out of the sky doing their duty , and all of them honored America in how they endured for years under extremely challenging conditions .
Which brings me back to Donald Trump ’ s “ I like people that weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal for me and I decided he was unworthy of assuming the responsibilities of Commander-in-Chief .
What he said there—for whatever reason—goes beyond the political arena and all of its ad hominem sparring .
Trump ’ s words live in perpetuity as a profane judgement of all who found themselves as prisoners of war during the Vietnam Conflict and , more generally , any previous American war involving aerial combat .
( It should also be noted that many of them didn ’ t make it out alive . )
Of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and patronizing of the U.S. military didn ’ t stop with his attack on John McCain .
He insulted a Gold Star family .
After receiving a Purple Heart from a supporter at a rally ( a bizarre gesture ) , he quipped , “ I always wanted a Purple Heart , but this is easier , ” demonstrating that he didn ’ t know or didn ’ t care what the medal represented .
He laid claim to the savings created by the F-35 program multi year contract even though the deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , that time demonstrating that he didn ’ t know or didn ’ t care how the Pentagon procurement process worked .
He told the crew of the USS Gerald R. Ford , the Navy ’ s newest aircraft carrier , that they should switch the catapults from the new electronic impulse technology back to steam , demonstrating complete disrespect for the effort they were putting into solving the issue the new technology was presenting that would ultimately make the carrier able to launch airplanes more effectively .
He ’ s gone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , some of the greatest military leaders this country has produced since World War II , impugning their character and lives of national service ( that in several cases included serving him on the White House staff ) .
He ’ s shown deference , if not fealty , in the face of our peer competitors ( and potential enemies ) .
And the list continues to grow by the day .
Because of Donald Trump I ’ m now just a moderate instead of a moderate Republican .
I reject the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hello , classmates on Facebook ) who inexplicably continue to support him—that the desirable outcomes like a thriving economy , low unemployment ( remember those ? )
, or leaning out of government regulations are axiomatic to Trump being president .
If that ’ s true , then the Republic is broken—and it ’ s not broken .
I ’ ve been accused of being a Never Trumper , part of The Resistance , and having TDS .
I don ’ t know what any of those labels really mean , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deed ( not media bias ) Donald Trump has proved he is fundamentally an incurious narcissist and equal opportunity in terms of who he ’ s willing to offend in the pursuit of his own selfish motives and preservation of his fragile ego .
He ’ s said things in public that are sexist , misogynistic , xenophobic , racist , and otherwise offensive or just plain ignorant .
And in the face of criticism from most of the reasonable and compassionate members of the population and evidence that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fabric and hurting people , he ’ s shown no signs of mending his ways , even in a time of global pandemic .
Everyone has a personal reason to despise Donald J. Trump .
I ’ m good with mine .

Like many Americans my age, I first became aware of Donald J. Trump with the publication of Trump: The Art of the Deal in 1987. At that time, I accepted the notion of him in passing. I was a Navy lieutenant, a radar intercept officer (think “Goose” in Top Gun), assigned to my first F-14 Tomcat squadron, and the idea of somebody brash and innovative making things happen—in his case, turning worn-out buildings and abandoned lots into skyscraper complexes with fresh vibrancy—had its appeal.
A few years later, I was on shore duty serving as the editor of Approach, the Navy’s aviation-safety magazine. The editor-in-chief, a civil servant who was a successful freelance writer on the side, introduced me to Spy, a brilliantly written satirical monthly helmed by Graydon Carter. Before he went on to save Vanity Fair, Carter used the pages of Spy to humorously expose the elite’s myths, including those surrounding the still-ascendant Donald Trump. It was Carter who popularized the notion that Trump was physically challenged in terms of the size of his hands, describing him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” and then writing about Trump’s responses that suggested the label had cut deep.
I rolled back to sea duty in another Tomcat squadron aboard an aircraft carrier about the time Graydon Carter left Spy, which, sadly, was the beginning of the end for that magazine. The quality of the writing went down, and subscribers like me lapsed, and that was the end of my view into the underlying fiction that was the initial phase of the Donald Trump empire. I didn’t think much about him for the next ten years as I focused on leading sailors and flying airplanes. (I do remember a squadronmate, a New Jersey native who was later an astronaut, characterizing Trump as a “fake millionaire who always says stupid shit” around the time that rumors were spreading of his first imminent bankruptcy.)
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 retired from the Navy in 2002 to focus on my budding career as a novelist, which actually began when my debut was published at the very end of my time on active duty while teaching at the Naval Academy. By the time my third book was published it was obvious I wasn’t going to be “the next Tom Clancy,” in spite of the blurb on the back cover, so I accepted an offer to take over as the editor of the biggest military website on the internet, which was based in San Francisco. Between flying between my home in metro D.C. and the West Coast while trying to get a clue what my responsibilities were (they had little to do with actually being a writer), I had even less bandwidth to pay attention to what was going on in Trumpland than I’d had while flying Navy jets. Like the average media-consuming American I occasionally watched The Apprentice and scratched my head over his Obama birtherism obsession, but that was about it.
Trump came back into my scan when he descended the escalator with Melania in June 2015. I was now working as the editor-in-chief of a startup military website based in Hollywood founded by a couple of former MTV execs. Naturally, as with my previous website, among the subjects we covered were matters pertaining to those vying to be the next commander-in-chief. And in spite of my early impressions, I was willing to withhold final judgment around this version of Trump until he had a chance to get his candidacy up and running. Regardless of his half-baked policy stances, the race-baiting elements of his kickoff speech, or his obvious love for the sound of his own voice, even Trump had to understand that aspiring to be president of the United States demanded a higher level of seriousness than, say, being a reality TV star.
My personal grace period didn’t last long. A month into the Trump candidacy, he pushed back on an interviewer’s assertion that Senator John McCain was a hero for how he conducted himself as a prisoner of war during Vietnam; Trump said that he liked “people that weren’t captured.” It wasn’t the first time he’d said it publicly, but it was the first time while seeking the highest office in the land. And it was the first time I’d heard him say it.
Whatever his intent politically, the statement was deeply offensive, particularly coming from a guy who’d avoided military service on shaky medical grounds and then declared that “Studio 54 was my Vietnam.” Trump’s negative characterization of that part of McCain’s life was irreparably beyond the pale for me, a veteran.
My father was a Marine Corps attack pilot who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross during a mission supporting troops on the ground in Vietnam. I attended the U.S. Naval Academy primarily due to his influence (although he went to Michigan State) as well as that of those with whom he served. My timing was ideal, in that during my four years as a midshipman at Annapolis, I was afforded the opportunity to be mentored by former Vietnam War POWs who were in the sunset of their active-duty careers. Paul Galanti (who defiantly flipped off the camera in a North Vietnamese propaganda film) was my battalion officer. Mike McGrath (who—thank you, sir—singlehandedly led a campaign to make all of us better writers in addition to his main duties as head of the Leadership, Ethics, and Law Department) was one of my instructors during my junior year. Ned Shuman was the head of the Naval Academy’s sailing program with whom I had regular contact as a member of the intercollegiate dinghy team.
Their lives all had common themes: Leadership has to be by example. It’s not what you say, it’s what you do. It’s not about you; focus on what’s best for the group. Own your mistakes (in a POW’s case, this generally meant saying more than name, rank, and serial number while being tortured, for which there was great guilt afterwards) and strive to do better the next time. Keep faith in your God, your country (few things lifted their spirits as much as the sound of B-52s bombing around them) and your comrades. And never, ever give up.
These men—humble and selfless and full of humility to a man in spite of their myriad remarkable accomplishments—set the bar for all of us at Annapolis during those years. Through them we were given the roadmap to navigate the trials that would inevitably come in the course of our duties and life in general.
Later, when I was the editor of Approach as a lieutenant, I had the gift of several sessions of quality time with Medal of Honor recipient James Stockdale, who had been the senior ranking POW in the Hanoi Hilton and therefore took the worst of it from his captors. Along with his love of the American ideal, Stockdale credited the writings of Epictetus and the philosophy of stoicism for getting him through years of torture and isolation.
Stockdale also told me an incredible story that involved a Marine Corps pilot named John Glenn (perhaps you’ve heard of him) that I included in the April/May 1990 issue of Approach:
John was a Test Pilot School classmate of mine. He’s not a bookish fellow; he’s a practical guy. He came into the program [at the rank of] major, but he didn’t have the college degree that was normally required. He knew he was going to have to burn the midnight oil, so he left his wife at home in Ohio.He’d be in the study room after hours all along. If you were at home and you forgot what the assignment was, you could always call down there and ask John. His flying was all seat-of-the-pants. Before the school started, he took me flying in whatever had two seats. I was full of theory and no practice in jets, and he was the other way around. The first time we flew together, we went on a cross-country to get some instrument time in a TV-1 [tandem-seating jet trainer]. I hopped in the back seat, and he showed me how to get things hooked up. I’d never seen the inside of the plane. He said, “We’re going down to Masters Field in Miami. Here’s the book. You can do some navigating. He was kinda just being nice to me because I was the new guy and he was a good fellow. We got down there, and there were thunderstorms all around when we landed. It had just turned dark. We were eating a hot dog and drinking a Coke in front of the line shack [where visiting airplanes were parked] when he said, “Why don’t you fly it back?” I said, “Okay, John, but I’ve never been in the front seat.” I also noticed the lightning all around. He told me I could handle it. He got me strapped into the front seat and then he stood up on the back and said, “Okay, Jim. Do you see that handle down there? No, not that one, the red one. Now, push that outboard. Now you’ve got it. Now hit that button. That’s your ignition. Hold that for just a minute. Now when it comes up to 15 percent, go around the horn.” He had to start shouting once the motor started up and he yelled, “Okay, I’ll get in and put the canopy down.” He talked me all the way home. But you can’t do that stuff now. Those times were different.
The idea of Jim Stockdale and John Glenn—two of the greatest Americans of all time— cowboying it across the skies of the Eastern Seaboard together in the days before anyone knew who they were still blows my mind, and I feel incredibly lucky to have had it told to me firsthand.
Stockdale went on to be Ross Perot’s pick for vice president during his 1992 presidential run as an independent, and—while his uneven performance during one of the debates earned him pop-culture ridicule—political historians will note that none of the others on that stage claimed he wasn’t a hero or said they preferred people who weren’t captured.
And then once I retired from the Navy, I had my first direct interface with John McCain when he was a guest on my “From the Editor’s Desk” podcast during his 2008 presidential bid. I was, naturally, aware of his story courtesy of his fellow POWs: third-generation Navy officer and legendarily ne’er-do-well midshipman who found his calling as a Navy attack pilot. He was in the cockpit of an A-4 waiting to launch when the disastrous flight deck fire started aboard USS Forrestal and he was wounded by exploding fragments and barely escaped alive.
Several months later he was shot down over Hanoi. He broke both arms and a leg during the ejection from his stricken jet. After he was pulled out of the lake he’d parachuted into, he was beaten and refused medical treatment. When his four-star admiral father assumed responsibility for all forces in the region, the North Vietnamese offered him early release as a show of good faith. McCain refused. His torture intensified, and he wasn’t repatriated for another five years along with the rest of the American POWs.
I didn’t always agree with Senator McCain’s politics, most notably his choice of Sarah Palin as vice presidential candidate in 2008 and his opposition (on budgetary grounds) to the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2009. And I’m convinced that he lost the presidency to Barack Obama because the Republican party apparatus dragged him way to the right out of the gate, and he was never comfortable after that.
But in my experience, McCain was always willing to make himself available when he could and never avoided the hard topics (and there were many hard topics surrounding the military in those years). He was candid, articulate, and honest. He was introspective and exuded the calm confidence of a person with nothing left to prove in this life. My last conversation with him was in the summer of 2016 on the rooftop of an office complex overlooking the Capitol. We talked about flying jets.
The Navy was good to me in that they gave me flying orders 15 of the 20 years I was on active duty. They sent me into harm’s way, specifically the skies over Bosnia during the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, where I was always just one surface-to-air missile shot from becoming a POW myself.
But because of the lessons of the patriots mentioned here, I never feared I wouldn’t know what to do if that trial ever came. All of these men were blown out of the sky doing their duty, and all of them honored America in how they endured for years under extremely challenging conditions.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump’s “I like people that weren’t captured” statement—the point it got personal for me and I decided he was unworthy of assuming the responsibilities of commander-in-chief. What he said there—for whatever reason—goes beyond the political arena and all of its ad hominem sparring. Trump’s words live in perpetuity as a profane judgement of all who found themselves prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and, more generally, any previous American war involving aerial combat. (It should also be noted that many of them didn’t make it out alive.)
Of course, Trump’s apathy, ignorance, and patronizing of the U.S. military didn’t stop with his attack on John McCain. He insulted a Gold Star family. After receiving a Purple Heart from a supporter at a rally (a bizarre gesture), he quipped, “I always wanted a Purple Heart, but this is easier,” demonstrating that he didn’t know or didn’t care what the medal represents. He laid claim to the savings created by the F-35 program multi-year contract even though the deal was inked several years before he took office, thereby demonstrating that he didn’t know or didn’t care how the Pentagon procurement process worked. He told the crew of USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, that they should switch the catapults from the new electronic impulse technology back to steam, demonstrating complete disrespect for the effort they were putting into solving the issue the new technology was presenting that would ultimately make the carrier able to launch airplanes more effectively. He’s gone after flag and general officers I know well, some of the greatest military leaders this country has produced since World War II, impugning their character and lives of national service (that in several cases included serving him on the White House staff). He’s shown deference, if not fealty, in the face of our peer competitors (and potential enemies). And the list continues to grow by the day.
Because of Donald Trump I’m now just a moderate instead of a moderate Republican. I reject the thesis—often posited by previously reasonable people (hello, classmates on Facebook) who inexplicably continue to support him—that desirable outcomes like a thriving economy or low unemployment (remember those?), or desirable tendencies like leaning out of government regulations, are axiomatic to Trump being president. If that’s true, then the Republic is broken—and it’s not broken.
I’ve been accused of being a Never Trumper, part of The Resistance, and having TDS. I don’t know what any of those labels really mean, and I don’t care. Through word and deed (not media bias) Donald Trump has proved he is fundamentally an incurious narcissist and equal opportunity in terms of who he’s willing to offend in the pursuit of his own selfish motives and preservation of his fragile ego. He’s said things in public that are sexist, misogynistic, xenophobic, racist, and otherwise offensive or just plain ignorant. And in the face of criticism from most of the reasonable and compassionate members of the population and evidence that he’s doing damage to America’s social fabric and hurting people, he’s shown no signs of mending his ways, even in a time of global pandemic.
Everyone has a personal reason to despise Donald J. Trump. I’m good with mine.


thebulwark--2020-05-09--I Like People Who Were Captured. Donald Trump? Not So Much.

Like many Americans my age , I first became aware of Donald J. Trump with the publication of Trump : The Art of the Deal in 1987 .
At that time , I accepted the notion of him in passing .
I was a Navy lieutenant , a radar intercept officer ( think “ Goose ” in Top Gun ) , assigned to my first F-14 Tomcat squadron , and the idea of somebody brash and innovative making things happen—in his case , turning worn-out buildings and abandoned lots into skyscraper complexes with fresh vibrancy—had its appeal .
A few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duty serving as the editor of Approach , the Navy ’ s aviation-safety magazine .
The editor-in-chief , a civil servant who was a successful freelance writer on the side , introduced me to Spy , a brilliantly written satirical monthly helmed by Graydon Carter .
Before he went on to save Vanity Fair , Carter used the pages of Spy to humorously expose the elite ’ s myths , including those surrounding the still-ascendant Donald Trump .
It was Carter who popularized the notion that Trump was physically challenged in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him as a “ short-fingered vulgarian ” and then writing about Trump ’ s responses that suggested the label had cut deep .
I rolled back to sea duty in another Tomcat squadron aboard an aircraft carrier about the time Graydon Carter left Spy , which , sadly , was the beginning of the end for that magazine .
The quality of the writing went down , and subscribers like me lapsed , and that was the end of my view into the underlying fiction that was the initial phase of the Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think much about him for the next ten years as I focused on leading sailors and flying airplanes .
( I do remember a squadronmate , a New Jersey native who was later an astronaut , characterizing Trump as a “ fake millionaire who always says stupid shit ” around the time that rumors were spreading of his first imminent bankruptcy . )
I retired from the Navy in 2002 to focus on my budding career as a novelist , which actually began when my debut was published at the very end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Naval Academy .
By the time my third book was published it was obvious I wasn ’ t going to be “ the next Tom Clancy , ” in spite of the blurb on the back cover , so I accepted an offer to take over as the editor of the biggest military website on the internet , which was based in San Francisco .
Between flying between my home in metro D.C. and the West Coast while trying to get a clue what my responsibilities were ( they had little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , I had even less bandwidth to pay attention to what was going on in Trumpland than I ’ d had while flying Navy jets .
Like the average media-consuming American I occasionally watched The Apprentice and scratched my head over his Obama birtherism obsession , but that was about it .
Trump came back into my scan when he descended the escalator with Melania in June 2015 .
I was now working as the editor-in-chief of a startup military website based in Hollywood founded by a couple of former MTV execs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website , among the subjects we covered were matters pertaining to those vying to be the next commander-in-chief .
And in spite of my early impressions , I was willing to withhold final judgment around this version of Trump until he had a chance to get his candidacy up and running .
Regardless of his half-baked policy stances , the race-baiting elements of his kickoff speech , or his obvious love for the sound of his own voice , even Trump had to understand that aspiring to be president of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , say , being a reality TV star .
My personal grace period didn ’ t last long .
A month into the Trump candidacy , he pushed back on an interviewer ’ s assertion that Senator John McCain was a hero for how he conducted himself as a prisoner of war during Vietnam ; Trump said that he liked “ people that weren ’ t captured.
” It wasn ’ t the first time he ’ d said it publicly , but it was the first time while seeking the highest office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time I ’ d heard him say it .
Whatever his intent politically , the statement was deeply offensive , particularly coming from a guy who ’ d avoided military service on shaky medical grounds and then declared that “ Studio 54 was my Vietnam.
” Trump ’ s negative characterization of that part of McCain ’ s life was irreparably beyond the pale for me , a veteran .
My father was a Marine Corps attack pilot who earned the Distinguished Flying Cross during a mission supporting troops on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
Naval Academy primarily due to his influence ( although he went to Michigan State ) as well as that of those with whom he served .
My timing was ideal , in that during my four years as a midshipman at Annapolis , I was afforded the opportunity to be mentored by former Vietnam War POWs who were in the sunset of their active-duty careers .
Paul Galanti ( who defiantly flipped off the camera in a North Vietnamese propaganda film ) was my battalion officer .
Mike McGrath ( who—thank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make all of us better writers in addition to his main duties as head of the Leadership , Ethics , and Law Department ) was one of my instructors during my junior year .
Ned Shuman was the head of the Naval Academy ’ s sailing program with whom I had regular contact as a member of the intercollegiate dinghy team .
Their lives all had common themes : Leadership has to be by example .
It ’ s not what you say , it ’ s what you do .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s best for the group .
Own your mistakes ( in a POW ’ s case , this generally meant saying more than name , rank , and serial number while being tortured , for which there was great guilt afterwards ) and strive to do better the next time .
Keep faith in your God , your country ( few things lifted their spirits as much as the sound of B-52s bombing around them ) and your comrades .
And never , ever give up .
These men—humble and selfless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of their myriad remarkable accomplishments—set the bar for all of us at Annapolis during those years .
Through them we were given the roadmap to navigate the trials that would inevitably come in the course of our duties and life in general .
Later , when I was the editor of Approach as a lieutenant , I had the gift of several sessions of quality time with Medal of Honor recipient James Stockdale , who had been the senior ranking POW in the Hanoi Hilton and therefore took the worst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his love of the American ideal , Stockdale credited the writings of Epictetus and the philosophy of stoicism for getting him through years of torture and isolation .
Stockdale also told me an incredible story that involved a Marine Corps pilot named John Glenn ( perhaps you ’ ve heard of him ) that I included in the April/May 1990 issue of Approach : John was a Test Pilot School classmate of mine .
He ’ s not a bookish fellow ; he ’ s a practical guy .
He came into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major , but he didn ’ t have the college degree that was normally required .
He knew he was going to have to burn the midnight oil , so he left his wife at home in Ohio.He ’ d be in the study room after hours all along .
If you were at home and you forgot what the assignment was , you could always call down there and ask John .
His flying was all seat-of-the-pants .
Before the school started , he took me flying in whatever had two seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no practice in jets , and he was the other way around .
The first time we flew together , we went on a cross-country to get some instrument time in a TV-1 [ tandem-seating jet trainer ] .
I hopped in the back seat , and he showed me how to get things hooked up .
I ’ d never seen the inside of the plane .
He said , “ We ’ re going down to Masters Field in Miami .
Here ’ s the book .
You can do some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice to me because I was the new guy and he was a good fellow .
We got down there , and there were thunderstorms all around when we landed .
It had just turned dark .
We were eating a hot dog and drinking a Coke in front of the line shack [ where visiting airplanes were parked ] when he said , “ Why don ’ t you fly it back ?
” I said , “ Okay , John , but I ’ ve never been in the front seat.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ around .
He told me I could handle it .
He got me strapped into the front seat and then he stood up on the back and said , “ Okay , Jim .
Do you see that handle down there ?
No , not that one , the red one .
Now , push that outboard .
Now you ’ ve got it .
Now hit that button .
That ’ s your ignition .
Hold that for just a minute .
Now when it comes up to 15 percent , go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start shouting once the motor started up and he yelled , “ Okay , I ’ ll get in and put the canopy down.
” He talked me all the way home .
But you can ’ t do that stuff now .
Those times were different .
The idea of Jim Stockdale and John Glenn—two of the greatest Americans of all time— cowboying it across the skies of the Eastern Seaboard together in the days before anyone knew who they were still blows my mind , and I feel incredibly lucky to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Stockdale went on to be Ross Perot ’ s pick for vice president during his 1992 presidential run as an independent , and—while his uneven performance during one of the debates earned him pop-culture ridicule—political historians will note that none of the others on that stage claimed he wasn ’ t a hero or said they preferred people who weren ’ t captured .
And then once I retired from the Navy , I had my first direct interface with John McCain when he was a guest on my “ From the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 2008 presidential bid .
I was , naturally , aware of his story courtesy of his fellow POWs : third-generation Navy officer and legendarily ne ’ er-do-well midshipman who found his calling as a Navy attack pilot .
He was in the cockpit of an A-4 waiting to launch when the disastrous flight deck fire started aboard USS Forrestal and he was wounded by exploding fragments and barely escaped alive .
Several months later he was shot down over Hanoi .
He broke both arms and a leg during the ejection from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pulled out of the lake he ’ d parachuted into , he was beaten and refused medical treatment .
When his four-star admiral father assumed responsibility for all forces in the region , the North Vietnamese offered him early release as a show of good faith .
McCain refused .
His torture intensified , and he wasn ’ t repatriated for another five years along with the rest of the American POWs .
I didn ’ t always agree with Senator McCain ’ s politics , most notably his choice of Sarah Palin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his opposition ( on budgetary grounds ) to the Post-9/11 GI Bill in 2009 .
And I ’ m convinced that he lost the presidency to Barack Obama because the Republican party apparatus dragged him way to the right out of the gate , and he was never comfortable after that .
But in my experience , McCain was always willing to make himself available when he could and never avoided the hard topics ( and there were many hard topics surrounding the military in those years ) .
He was candid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introspective and exuded the calm confidence of a person with nothing left to prove in this life .
My last conversation with him was in the summer of 2016 on the rooftop of an office complex overlooking the Capitol .
We talked about flying jets .
The Navy was good to me in that they gave me flying orders 15 of the 20 years I was on active duty .
They sent me into harm ’ s way , specifically the skies over Bosnia during the Serbian siege of Sarajevo and the no-fly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was always just one surface-to-air missile shot from becoming a POW myself .
But because of the lessons of the patriots mentioned here , I never feared I wouldn ’ t know what to do if that trial ever came .
All of these men were blown out of the sky doing their duty , and all of them honored America in how they endured for years under extremely challenging conditions .
Which brings me back to Donald Trump ’ s “ I like people that weren ’ t captured ” statement—the point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided he was unworthy of assuming the responsibilities of commander-in-chief .
What he said there—for whatever reason—goes beyond the political arena and all of its ad hominem sparring .
Trump ’ s words live in perpetuity as a profane judgement of all who found themselves prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and , more generally , any previous American war involving aerial combat .
( It should also be noted that many of them didn ’ t make it out alive . )
Of course , Trump ’ s apathy , ignorance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t stop with his attack on John McCain .
He insulted a Gold Star family .
After receiving a Purple Heart from a supporter at a rally ( a bizarre gesture ) , he quipped , “ I always wanted a Purple Heart , but this is easier , ” demonstrating that he didn ’ t know or didn ’ t care what the medal represents .
He laid claim to the savings created by the F-35 program multi-year contract even though the deal was inked several years before he took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know or didn ’ t care how the Pentagon procurement process worked .
He told the crew of USS Gerald R. Ford , the Navy ’ s newest aircraft carrier , that they should switch the catapults from the new electronic impulse technology back to steam , demonstrating complete disrespect for the effort they were putting into solving the issue the new technology was presenting that would ultimately make the carrier able to launch airplanes more effectively .
He ’ s gone after flag and general officers I know well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country has produced since World War II , impugning their character and lives of national service ( that in several cases included serving him on the White House staff ) .
He ’ s shown deference , if not fealty , in the face of our peer competitors ( and potential enemies ) .
And the list continues to grow by the day .
Because of Donald Trump I ’ m now just a moderate instead of a moderate Republican .
I reject the thesis—often posited by previously reasonable people ( hello , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support him—that desirable outcomes like a thriving economy or low unemployment ( remember those ? )
, or desirable tendencies like leaning out of government regulations , are axiomatic to Trump being president .
If that ’ s true , then the Republic is broken—and it ’ s not broken .
I ’ ve been accused of being a Never Trumper , part of The Resistance , and having TDS .
I don ’ t know what any of those labels really mean , and I don ’ t care .
Through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Donald Trump has proved he is fundamentally an incurious narcissist and equal opportunity in terms of who he ’ s willing to offend in the pursuit of his own selfish motives and preservation of his fragile ego .
He ’ s said things in public that are sexist , misogynistic , xenophobic , racist , and otherwise offensive or just plain ignorant .
And in the face of criticism from most of the reasonable and compassionate members of the population and evidence that he ’ s doing damage to America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s shown no signs of mending his ways , even in a time of global pandemic .
Everyone has a personal reason to despise Donald J. Trump .
I ’ m good with mine .


thebulwark--2020-05-11--COVID-19 and the Limits of Science

COVID-19 and the Limits of Science

As attractive as it is to think that science exists on a distinctive , untarnished , untrammeled plane , this idealization is dangerously misleading .
Science is carried out by real people , within complex social organizations .
Debates about science—often civil , occasionally acrimonious—on methods and meaning are the rule .
Which is as it should be : That ’ s how knowledge advances .
Ignoring what scientists have to teach us about COVID-19 would be a mistake .
The virus is not a “ hoax.
” But it ’ s also a mistake to default to the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as if there ’ s an unambiguous perspective that all researchers share and that all scientific data are established with an equal degree of certainty .
This isn ’ t how science views itself .
So we shouldn ’ t view it that way , either .
Within the universe of the present pandemic , some information seems very well established—the identification of the virus responsible for the condition , for example .
Other data , including some very important essential facts , aren ’ t as clear .
We need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some people see these limitations are reason not to trust any of the information that comes out of the scientific establishment .
For them , the failure of models to perfectly predict the trajectory of the pandemic was enough .
What we ’ ve learned , said New York Post columnist Miranda Devine , is that “ computer models are unreliable when it comes to predicting the future.
” Instead of relying on supposed experts and their supposed models , she says , we should instead “ trust the innate common sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more responsible ways to understand the problems with modeling .
Respected biostatistician Ruth Etzioni , at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center in Seattle , recently wrote that the latest version of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation ( IHME ) model from the University of Washington “ makes me cringe.
” The changes revised the death projections significantly higher , and Etzioni argues that the modelers got there by making a number of obscure changes to the model , then presented these updates as reflecting simply the consequences of reduced social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story , ” Etzioni says , “ to tell the world that the reason your model ’ s predictions have changed is because the population ’ s behavior has changed .
The implication is it ’ s not the model ’ s fault , it ’ s the politicians and the people ’ s shifting behavior.
” The problem Etzioni says , isn ’ t the modeling team—which she believes is doing it ’ s best to “ deliver results that match the data and produce ever-more-complex predictions about the future.
” Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information is communicated .
Including “ acknowledging your model ’ s limitations and uncertainties.
” Which she says “ is never front and center in the IHME ’ s updates.
” The kicker here is that Etzioni strongly agrees with the public policy message many have taken from the latest IHME update : She worries about states “ opening prematurely , ” and says “ if some change their minds as a result of this update , it will be a good thing.
” But it ’ s not clear that anyone will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because while it can be sub-optimal when science pushes its way into the world of politics , the reverse is also true .
When the brilliant Stanford statistician John Ioannidis pointed to problems with existing data around COVID-19 , he was so vilified that two academic physicians who are often at odds with each other—Oregon oncologist Vinay Prasad and former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier—united to write a commentary headlined “ Scientists who express different views on COVID-19 should be heard , not demonized.
” That ’ s because scientists—unlike most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a helpful part of their process and that insisting on a sanitized story for the sake of the public good is less helpful than acknowledging areas of ambiguity and uncertainty .
Not that the scientific world is perfect .
If medicine has hurt itself by overstating the certainty of what it knows , it ’ s also hurt itself by failing to recognize the boundaries of knowledge and the tendency to offer narrowly defined solutions for what are often complicated problems .
Such medical advice may be accurate as far as it goes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ real world logic.
” For example , Podhoretz notes , a doctor might advise an overweight patient to eat less .
In theory , this is correct .
In practice , it might well be ineffectual , because the advice is nearly impossible to durably implement .
( There is a reason that long-term weight loss has been famously difficult for most patients to achieve , and for most doctors to successfully deliver . )
Well-intended medical advice focused relentlessly on the utility of quarantine risks being perceived the same way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantined perfectly , it would staunch the spread of the virus—but impossible to maintain .
That said , I ’ m not sure I ’ ve heard any physician advocate for perpetual quarantine , because doctors see every day the secondary health consequences of the crisis : the acutely ill patients who are apparently now dying at home because they ’ re too afraid of visiting a clinic ; the cancer patients who are missing their chemotherapy ; the children who are missing their vaccinations—to say nothing about the many patients with mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The broader issue—highlighted in this classic dialog between psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein—is that experts may have phenomenal intuition in certain domains ( generally considered “ kind , ” or predictable ) yet average intuition in others ( “ wicked ” ) .
Some professional domains lend themselves to such intuition , others don ’ t ; medicine turns out to be the canonical example of a domain characterized by “ fractionated expertise , ” involving areas where intuition and experience can be extremely powerful guides , as well as areas where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Worse : These boundaries can be as abrupt as they are indistinct .
A recent New Yorker piece argued that New York went wrong in its COVID-19 response because , unlike Seattle , it didn ’ t immediately place a scientist in charge .
Epidemiologists , after all , are experts in the management of pandemics , the article argued .
But is epidemiology the only expertise required in dealing with a monumental public health crisis ?
While there ’ s no question epidemiologists should be a critical part of the leadership team @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal more complex than the biology , even .
Think of it this way : We don ’ t let generals make every decision about war .
We have civilian control of the military because the use of force is a political question that , in order to be effective , must be married to statecraft , economics , domestic concerns , and a dozen other considerations .
The same is true for the management of a pandemic in a liberal democracy .
What we need is not scientific control over the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who can integrate and orchestrate—who are able to hear what multiple experts from a range of domains are saying , and then deliver a message that citizens are willing to follow .
So far , Governors Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom seem to have been extremely effective at this task .
President Trump , not so much .
In a perfect world , we society would not be forced to make a binary choice on “ science.
” We ’ d be able to engage the expertise of scientists while acknowledging and embracing—as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their work .
I ’ ve been struck by how seriously even famously independent scientists and thinkers such as Etzioni and Nassim Taleb take the risk of the coronavirus .
As Etzioni writes , “ I am in total agreement that the premature relaxation of social distancing will lead to an explosion of new cases and deaths , you don ’ t need a model to know that.
” Not a lot of hedging there .
Which , coming from Etzioni , ought to tell us something .
I heard something similar when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discuss a recent paper of his arguing that we may not be able to predict the details of a pandemic , but we should be sure not to underestimate the potential for harm .
I was intrigued by Taleb ’ s argument .
I was even more struck by the protective gear he told me he was wearing as he prepared to head into Costco : double mask , gloves , sanitizer , bleach at the ready .
As Taleb told me , it ’ s a situation where you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To me , this seems to be the right message : Yes , there is a great deal scientists still don ’ t know about the coronavirus and much that is hard to predict .
Scientists should be unafraid to acknowledge these uncertainties and recognize the boundaries of their expertise .
They should aspire to offer advice grounded in real-world considerations—as the best physicians often do .
But even given these limitations , there is also a set of shared facts : • The virus is contagious , dangerous , and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus basic measures ( such as wearing a mask ) reduces the chance of spread—particularly the “ superspreader ” events Taleb told me he was especially worried about .
• Our ability to treat the disease is likely to improve incrementally as we understand the illness better , and as more medicines come to market .
• Hopefully , a safe and effective vaccine will eventually be developed .
• But , despite optimistic estimates , huge resource investment , and the best of intentions , that could still be a long way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll need to find to way to live in the presence of COVID-19 .
Developing a healthier and more grounded relationship with science could make this fraught period considerably safer .

As attractive as it is to think that science exists on a distinctive, untarnished, untrammeled plane, this idealization is dangerously misleading. Science is carried out by real people, within complex social organizations. Debates about science—often civil, occasionally acrimonious—on methods and meaning are the rule. Which is as it should be: That’s how knowledge advances.
Ignoring what scientists have to teach us about COVID-19 would be a mistake. The virus is not a “hoax.”
But it’s also a mistake to default to the idea that we must “listen to Science,” as if there’s an unambiguous perspective that all researchers share and that all scientific data are established with an equal degree of certainty. This isn’t how science views itself. So we shouldn’t view it that way, either.
Within the universe of the present pandemic, some information seems very well established—the identification of the virus responsible for the condition, for example. Other data, including some very important essential facts, aren’t as clear. We need to recognize and acknowledge these limitations.
Some people see these limitations are reason not to trust any of the information that comes out of the scientific establishment. For them, the failure of models to perfectly predict the trajectory of the pandemic was enough. What we’ve learned, said New York Post columnist Miranda Devine, is that “computer models are unreliable when it comes to predicting the future.” Instead of relying on supposed experts and their supposed models, she says, we should instead “trust the innate common sense of the American people.”
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…
But there are more responsible ways to understand the problems with modeling.
Respected biostatistician Ruth Etzioni, at the Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center in Seattle, recently wrote that the latest version of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) model from the University of Washington “makes me cringe.” The changes revised the death projections significantly higher, and Etzioni argues that the modelers got there by making a number of obscure changes to the model, then presented these updates as reflecting simply the consequences of reduced social distancing.
“It makes a nice story,” Etzioni says, “to tell the world that the reason your model’s predictions have changed is because the population’s behavior has changed. The implication is it’s not the model’s fault, it’s the politicians and the people’s shifting behavior.”
The problem Etzioni says, isn’t the modeling team—which she believes is doing it’s best to “deliver results that match the data and produce ever-more-complex predictions about the future.” Rather, it’s the way the information is communicated. Including “acknowledging your model’s limitations and uncertainties.” Which she says “is never front and center in the IHME’s updates.”
The kicker here is that Etzioni strongly agrees with the public policy message many have taken from the latest IHME update: She worries about states “opening prematurely,” and says “if some change their minds as a result of this update, it will be a good thing.”
But it’s not clear that anyone will pay attention to that last part. Because while it can be sub-optimal when science pushes its way into the world of politics, the reverse is also true.
When the brilliant Stanford statistician John Ioannidis pointed to problems with existing data around COVID-19, he was so vilified that two academic physicians who are often at odds with each other—Oregon oncologist Vinay Prasad and former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier—united to write a commentary headlined “Scientists who express different views on COVID-19 should be heard, not demonized.”
That’s because scientists—unlike most of our contemporary political actors—believe that debate is a helpful part of their process and that insisting on a sanitized story for the sake of the public good is less helpful than acknowledging areas of ambiguity and uncertainty.
Not that the scientific world is perfect.
If medicine has hurt itself by overstating the certainty of what it knows, it’s also hurt itself by failing to recognize the boundaries of knowledge and the tendency to offer narrowly defined solutions for what are often complicated problems. Such medical advice may be accurate as far as it goes, but lacks what John Podhoretz describes as “real world logic.”
For example, Podhoretz notes, a doctor might advise an overweight patient to eat less. In theory, this is correct. In practice, it might well be ineffectual, because the advice is nearly impossible to durably implement. (There is a reason that long-term weight loss has been famously difficult for most patients to achieve, and for most doctors to successfully deliver.)
Well-intended medical advice focused relentlessly on the utility of quarantine risks being perceived the same way: scientifically “correct”—if everyone quarantined perfectly, it would staunch the spread of the virus—but impossible to maintain.
That said, I’m not sure I’ve heard any physician advocate for perpetual quarantine, because doctors see every day the secondary health consequences of the crisis: the acutely ill patients who are apparently now dying at home because they’re too afraid of visiting a clinic; the cancer patients who are missing their chemotherapy; the children who are missing their vaccinations—to say nothing about the many patients with mental health conditions aggravated by the pandemic.
The broader issue—highlighted in this classic dialog between psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Gary Klein—is that experts may have phenomenal intuition in certain domains (generally considered “kind,” or predictable) yet average intuition in others (“wicked”). Some professional domains lend themselves to such intuition, others don’t; medicine turns out to be the canonical example of a domain characterized by “fractionated expertise,” involving areas where intuition and experience can be extremely powerful guides, as well as areas where a doctor might be profoundly overconfident. Worse: These boundaries can be as abrupt as they are indistinct.
A recent New Yorker piece argued that New York went wrong in its COVID-19 response because, unlike Seattle, it didn’t immediately place a scientist in charge. Epidemiologists, after all, are experts in the management of pandemics, the article argued.
But is epidemiology the only expertise required in dealing with a monumental public health crisis? While there’s no question epidemiologists should be a critical part of the leadership team, managing a pandemic is a good deal more complex than the biology, even.
Think of it this way: We don’t let generals make every decision about war. We have civilian control of the military because the use of force is a political question that, in order to be effective, must be married to statecraft, economics, domestic concerns, and a dozen other considerations.
The same is true for the management of a pandemic in a liberal democracy. What we need is not scientific control over the whole of public policy, but gifted leaders who can integrate and orchestrate—who are able to hear what multiple experts from a range of domains are saying, and then deliver a message that citizens are willing to follow. So far, Governors Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom seem to have been extremely effective at this task.
President Trump, not so much.
In a perfect world, society would not be forced to make a binary choice on “science.” We’d be able to engage the expertise of scientists while acknowledging and embracing—as scientists themselves do—the limitations and uncertainties of their work.
I’ve been struck by how seriously even famously independent scientists and thinkers such as Etzioni and Nassim Taleb take the risk of the coronavirus. As Etzioni writes, “I am in total agreement that the premature relaxation of social distancing will lead to an explosion of new cases and deaths, you don’t need a model to know that.”
Not a lot of hedging there. Which, coming from Etzioni, ought to tell us something.
I heard something similar when I spoke with Nassim Taleb last weekend to discuss a recent paper of his arguing that we may not be able to predict the details of a pandemic, but we should be sure not to underestimate the potential for harm.
I was intrigued by Taleb’s argument. I was even more struck by the protective gear he told me he was wearing as he prepared to head into Costco: double mask, gloves, sanitizer, bleach at the ready.
As Taleb told me, it’s a situation where you can’t afford to be wrong even once.
To me, this seems to be the right message: Yes, there is a great deal scientists still don’t know about the coronavirus and much that is hard to predict. Scientists should be unafraid to acknowledge these uncertainties and recognize the boundaries of their expertise. They should aspire to offer advice grounded in real-world considerations—as the best physicians often do.
But even given these limitations, there is also a set of shared facts:
The virus is contagious, dangerous, and in some cases fatal.
Social distancing plus basic measures (such as wearing a mask) reduces the chance of spread—particularly the “superspreader” events Taleb told me he was especially worried about.
Our ability to treat the disease is likely to improve incrementally as we understand the illness better, and as more medicines come to market.
Hopefully, a safe and effective vaccine will eventually be developed.
But, despite optimistic estimates, huge resource investment, and the best of intentions, that could still be a long way off.
In the meantime, we’ll need to find to way to live in the presence of COVID-19.
Developing a healthier and more grounded relationship with science could make this fraught period considerably safer.


thebulwark--2020-05-11--Trump, Reagan, and “Mourning in America”

The Lincoln Project ’ s “ Mourning in America ” ad has been the defining spot of the 2020 campaign .
The ad is a play on Ronald Reagan ’ s classic 1984 reelection ad , “ Morning in America.
” And it seems to have triggered President Trump .
Which was interesting , because his response only served to further underscore how different Trump is from Reagan .
Trump has been remarkably successful at quashing intraparty dissent by bullying and attacking his critics—often until they lose their seats to Democrats .
Reagan—who also faced elite opposition early in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way .
Longtime aide Lyn Nofziger explained : “ The thing you have to understand about Ronald Reagan—which is one reason he ’ s a good politician for a non-politician—is he ’ s an includer .
He believes you bring people in.
” For example , Reagan ’ s most formidable opponent in the 1980 nomination contest was George H.W .
Bush , who defeated him in the Iowa caucuses .
Reagan tapped Bush as his running mate , and after their victory , he named Bush campaign manager James Baker as his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departed from the Reagan model on matters of policy .
His signature issue was a promise to build a physical wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border .
In 1980 , Reagan rejected precisely this idea .
“ Rather than making them , or talking about putting up a fence , why don ’ t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems ?
” In 1986 , he signed a landmark immigration reform bill that provided legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants .
Trump has imposed higher tariffs on Chinese goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump show at the Lincoln Memorial , Americans bear most of the cost .
Reagan made compromises on the issue , but he believed in free trade .
In fact , the proposal with which he launched his 1980 campaign was “ The North American Accord , ” which eventually became the North American Free Trade Agreement .
Trump called NAFTA “ a disaster , ” though he ended up signing an updated version of the pact .
Trump distrusts international cooperation—at least with allied democracies .
He has claimed that our allies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and once made a casual comment about breaking up NATO .
Reagan was old enough to remember the consequences of isolationism in the early part of the twentieth century .
He supported the Western alliance and he anticipated the kind of criticism that Trump would make .
While supporting more burden-sharing , he concluded that we “ should not give in to the temptation to transmute a small difference in a historic relationship into a major disagreement that might end up damaging the greatest foreign policy success of the postwar era.
” Reagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special role for the United States .
During his farewell address to the nation , he explained what this shining city on a hill meant to him : A proud city Trump not only wants to shut the doors ; he has disdained the whole idea of American exceptionalism .
“ I don ’ t like the term , ” he said in 2015 : I ’ ll be honest with you .
People say , “ Oh he ’ s not patriotic.
” Look , if I ’ m a Russian , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or I ’ m a person we do business with , why , you know , I don ’ t think it ’ s a very nice term .
We ’ re exceptional ; you ’ re not .
First of all , Germany is eating our lunch .
So they say , “ Why are you exceptional ?
We ’ re doing a lot better than you.
” I never liked the term .
Reagan understood , as Trump does not , the roots of our exceptionalism .
In his 1992 speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told America ’ s young people to “ love your country , not for her power or wealth , but for her selflessness and her idealism.
” By scorning such ideas , Trump has defined himself as the un-Reagan .
“ Mourning in America ” should be a fitting epitaph to his nightmare-zombie version of Republicanism .

The Lincoln Project’s “Mourning in America” ad has been the defining spot of the 2020 campaign.
Mourning in America
Watch this video on YouTube
The ad is a play on Ronald Reagan’s classic 1984 reelection ad, “Morning in America.” And it seems to have triggered President Trump. Which was interesting, because his response only served to further underscore how different Trump is from Reagan.
Trump has been remarkably successful at quashing intraparty dissent by bullying and attacking his critics—often until they lose their seats to Democrats.
Reagan—who also faced elite opposition early in his national career—united the GOP in a different way. Longtime aide Lyn Nofziger explained: “The thing you have to understand about Ronald Reagan—which is one reason he’s a good politician for a non-politician—is he’s an includer. He believes you bring people in.”
For example, Reagan’s most formidable opponent in the 1980 nomination contest was George H.W. Bush, who defeated him in the Iowa caucuses. Reagan tapped Bush as his running mate, and after their victory, he named Bush campaign manager James Baker as his chief of staff.
Trump has also departed from the Reagan model on matters of policy. His signature issue was a promise to build a physical wall along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. In 1980, Reagan rejected precisely this idea. “Rather than making them, or talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems?” In 1986, he signed a landmark immigration reform bill that provided legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants.
Trump has imposed higher tariffs on Chinese goods. As a caller suggested during the Trump show at the Lincoln Memorial, Americans bear most of the cost. Reagan made compromises on the issue, but he believed in free trade. In fact, the proposal with which he launched his 1980 campaign was “The North American Accord,” which eventually became the North American Free Trade Agreement. Trump called NAFTA “a disaster,” though he ended up signing an updated version of the pact.
Trump distrusts international cooperation—at least with allied democracies. He has claimed that our allies do not pay enough for defense, and once made a casual comment about breaking up NATO. Reagan was old enough to remember the consequences of isolationism in the early part of the twentieth century. He supported the Western alliance and he anticipated the kind of criticism that Trump would make. While supporting more burden-sharing, he concluded that we “should not give in to the temptation to transmute a small difference in a historic relationship into a major disagreement that might end up damaging the greatest foreign policy success of the postwar era.”
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…
Reagan combined internationalism with a belief in a special role for the United States. During his farewell address to the nation, he explained what this shining city on a hill meant to him: A proud city
teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace—a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
Trump not only wants to shut the doors; he has disdained the whole idea of American exceptionalism. “I don’t like the term,” he said in 2015:
I’ll be honest with you. People say, “Oh he’s not patriotic.” Look, if I’m a Russian, or I’m a German, or I’m a person we do business with, why, you know, I don’t think it’s a very nice term. We’re exceptional; you’re not. First of all, Germany is eating our lunch. So they say, “Why are you exceptional? We’re doing a lot better than you.” I never liked the term.
Reagan understood, as Trump does not, the roots of our exceptionalism. In his 1992 speech to the Republican National Convention, he told America’s young people to “love your country, not for her power or wealth, but for her selflessness and her idealism.”
By scorning such ideas, Trump has defined himself as the un-Reagan. “Mourning in America” should be a fitting epitaph to his nightmare-zombie version of Republicanism.


thebulwark--2020-05-12--Do the State Shutdowns Violate the U.S. Constitution?

Here ’ s something you probably didn ’ t know : states like Michigan , Maryland , Virginia , and Kentucky have all ceased in recent weeks to be organized in political terms as republican forms of government .
The culprits in each case are the states ’ governors—Gretchen Whitmer , Larry Hogan , Ralph Northam , and Andy Beshear respectively—and the actions each has taken in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus .
All four states , or so it would seem , are therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution , which specifies that every state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republican form of government .
That may sound like a wacky theory .
All right , let ’ s face it—it is a wacky theory .
But it ’ s a common thread in lawsuits filed against all four governors in recent weeks challenging the virus shutdowns .
Moreover , claims that the governors have violated the Constitution ’ s Guarantee Clause have been circulating in some populist corners of Trumpland for weeks , sometimes helping to furnish a scenario under which the president might have an inherent power to give direct orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House occupant briefly seemed to imagine he had the constitutional power to do .
There ’ s little prospect any of these notions will convince a judge to enjoin a shutdown anytime soon .
Since the 1849 case Luther v. Borden , involving a Rhode Island dispute , the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Guarantee Clause does not create any rights that can be enforced in federal court—as a nonjusticiable “ political question , ” it is instead entrusted to the elected branches .
Just last year , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cause , Chief Justice John Roberts reminded everyone that the clause creates no rights that can be sued over .
Ironically , while there has been no shortage of legal commentators yearning to breathe life into the clause as a means for courts to reshape state government , such interest has come above all from progressives .
Conservatives have a lot to lose policy-wise should the courts ever decide to rouse the Guarantee Clause from its slumber—and even more ironically , Trump fans may have more to lose than do conservatives .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the document—reads in its entirety : Scholars agree on one thing about this clause : It was meant to exclude monarchical forms of government , in which elections are dispensed with or high office could be inherited within a family .
And it worked : No state , not even Massachusetts with the Kennedys , has adopted formally dynastic methods of filling high office .
How much more than that does the clause require ?
Agreement soon breaks down , as many schools of thought will argue that their preferred ways of organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functioning republic and should be seen as implied requirements under the clause .
In the dispute that the Court refused to resolve in the 1849 case , Rhode Island had retained a high property qualification that essentially kept the government in the hands of larger landowners while excluding the majority of male citizens .
Later cases sought to challenge as departures from republicanism innovations that made government too democratic—for example , the use of initiative and referendum was assailed on this basis as bypassing the aspect of republicanism under which power is ordinarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the people .
Those challenges failed too .
In truth , the more modest readings of the clause are the most persuasive .
In our day , as in the Founders ’ , republics can be organized in all sorts of ways , including dysfunctional and regrettable ways , while still counting as republics .
Switzerland is an archetypal republic whose structure influenced the Founders ; its cantons are not all organized the same way , just as no two American states organize their legislature in the same way .
The Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in many ways , but it would be idle to deny it the status of republic .
Gerrymandering is an ill typical of republics , but it does not keep them from being so—in fact you might say it even perversely serves to confirm their status as republics , the way certain ailments specific to canines confirm that your suffering pet is indeed a dog .
And so forth .
As Ryan Williams recounts in the introduction of this Harvard Law Review piece , notable left-of-center law professors have long wished and hoped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would empower the Court to impose on the states modern ideas of how a good republic should function .
One early effort proposed that courts should begin forcing more equal spending on K-12 education because , after all , an educated populace is essential for a well-functioning republic .
Other , more recent proposals would use the clause to set the Court up as a corrector both of gerrymandering and of what critics blast as voter suppression .
Libertarian thinkers have sometimes gotten into the act as well .
Needless to say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin redesigning state voting and electoral systems would probably dismay many Republican partisans , as well as others who doubt the all-round reform competence of federal courts .
But the new round of lawsuits aimed at “ reopening ” the states—I analyzed the very bad Maryland one here , while Prof. Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan did the same for his state ’ s—are weirdly lacking in any real engagement with the electoral processes that you might think define a republic .
Of course the governors of all four states are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In each case the governors are purporting to act on the basis of public health and emergency powers conferred on them by statutes enacted by those same elected legislatures .
It is possible , of course , that one or more of the governors might have overstepped the letter of these authorizing laws , and if so the courts of those states can yank them back into line .
But unless one of the governors has sent out the National Guard to keep the state supreme court from hearing such a challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guarantee Clause claim , which contends that the whole system has ceased to be republican .
The Kentucky lawsuit contends that the governor ’ s “ impermissible exercise of exclusive and unaccountable executive authority ” violates “ the right of the people to choose their own governmental administration and pass their own laws.
” The suits in Virginia and the other states use similar language .
So if the complaints mean anything , it is that there is some sort of separation of powers problem going on here .
Maybe the thinking is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with legislators while using the emergency powers those legislators have expressly delegated to them—although that ’ s not actually how separation of powers works .
It may be worth noting that Virginia , Maryland , and Kentucky all have part-time legislatures that have adjourned for the year .
The whole idea of emergency power statutes , especially in states without continuously serving legislatures , is that emergencies sometimes come up while the legislature isn ’ t there to help hold the reins of the sleigh .
This isn ’ t new .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the way things work and are supposed to work in state government .
But imagine for a moment that the plaintiffs in these cases find a friendly jurist , one who decides that under proper republican principles judges should start rigorously scrutinizing a chief executive ’ s unilateral issuance of executive orders even when those orders are based on powers well spelled out in law , and even if that means second-guessing the traditional scope of executive discretion during an emergency .
Do you think that might open up a new front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actions of Donald J. Trump ?
They never think through the implications of these things , do they ?

Here’s something you probably didn’t know: states like Michigan, Maryland, Virginia, and Kentucky have all ceased in recent weeks to be organized in political terms as republican forms of government. The culprits in each case are the states’ governors—Gretchen Whitmer, Larry Hogan, Ralph Northam, and Andy Beshear respectively—and the actions each has taken in response to the spread of the novel coronavirus. All four states, or so it would seem, are therefore in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which specifies that every state in the union shall be guaranteed a republican form of government.
That may sound like a wacky theory. All right, let’s face it—it is a wacky theory. But it’s a common thread in lawsuits filed against all four governors in recent weeks challenging the virus shutdowns. Moreover, claims that the governors have violated the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause have been circulating in some populist corners of Trumpland for weeks, sometimes helping to furnish a scenario under which the president might have an inherent power to give direct orders to state governors, as the current White House occupant briefly seemed to imagine he had the constitutional power to do.
There’s little prospect any of these notions will convince a judge to enjoin a shutdown anytime soon. Since the 1849 case Luther v. Borden, involving a Rhode Island dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the Guarantee Clause does not create any rights that can be enforced in federal court—as a nonjusticiable “political question,” it is instead entrusted to the elected branches. Just last year, in the gerrymandering case of Rucho v. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts reminded everyone that the clause creates no rights that can be sued over. Ironically, while there has been no shortage of legal commentators yearning to breathe life into the clause as a means for courts to reshape state government, such interest has come above all from progressives. Conservatives have a lot to lose policy-wise should the courts ever decide to rouse the Guarantee Clause from its slumber—and even more ironically, Trump fans may have more to lose than do conservatives.
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 clause—Article IV, Sec. 4 of the document—reads in its entirety:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Scholars agree on one thing about this clause: It was meant to exclude monarchical forms of government, in which elections are dispensed with or high office could be inherited within a family. And it worked: No state, not even Massachusetts with the Kennedys, has adopted formally dynastic methods of filling high office.
How much more than that does the clause require? Agreement soon breaks down, as many schools of thought will argue that their preferred ways of organizing political life are indispensable to a properly functioning republic and should be seen as implied requirements under the clause. In the dispute that the Court refused to resolve in the 1849 case, Rhode Island had retained a high property qualification that essentially kept the government in the hands of larger landowners while excluding the majority of male citizens. Later cases sought to challenge as departures from republicanism innovations that made government too democratic—for example, the use of initiative and referendum was assailed on this basis as bypassing the aspect of republicanism under which power is ordinarily exercised through representative institutions rather than directly by the people. Those challenges failed too.
In truth, the more modest readings of the clause are the most persuasive. In our day, as in the Founders’, republics can be organized in all sorts of ways, including dysfunctional and regrettable ways, while still counting as republics. Switzerland is an archetypal republic whose structure influenced the Founders; its cantons are not all organized the same way, just as no two American states organize their legislature in the same way. The Republic of Italy may be a dysfunctional polity in many ways, but it would be idle to deny it the status of republic. Gerrymandering is an ill typical of republics, but it does not keep them from being so—in fact you might say it even perversely serves to confirm their status as republics, the way certain ailments specific to canines confirm that your suffering pet is indeed a dog. And so forth.
As Ryan Williams recounts in the introduction of this Harvard Law Review piece, notable left-of-center law professors have long wished and hoped for an invigoration of the Guarantee Clause that would empower the Court to impose on the states modern ideas of how a good republic should function. One early effort proposed that courts should begin forcing more equal spending on K-12 education because, after all, an educated populace is essential for a well-functioning republic. Other, more recent proposals would use the clause to set the Court up as a corrector both of gerrymandering and of what critics blast as voter suppression. Libertarian thinkers have sometimes gotten into the act as well.
Needless to say, the results of inviting courts to begin redesigning state voting and electoral systems would probably dismay many Republican partisans, as well as others who doubt the all-round reform competence of federal courts. But the new round of lawsuits aimed at “reopening” the states—I analyzed the very bad Maryland one here, while Prof. Sam Bagenstos of the University of Michigan did the same for his state’s—are weirdly lacking in any real engagement with the electoral processes that you might think define a republic. Of course the governors of all four states are duly elected, as are the legislatures. In each case the governors are purporting to act on the basis of public health and emergency powers conferred on them by statutes enacted by those same elected legislatures. It is possible, of course, that one or more of the governors might have overstepped the letter of these authorizing laws, and if so the courts of those states can yank them back into line. But unless one of the governors has sent out the National Guard to keep the state supreme court from hearing such a challenge, that doesn’t implicate a Guarantee Clause claim, which contends that the whole system has ceased to be republican.
The Kentucky lawsuit contends that the governor’s “impermissible exercise of exclusive and unaccountable executive authority” violates “the right of the people to choose their own governmental administration and pass their own laws.” The suits in Virginia and the other states use similar language. So if the complaints mean anything, it is that there is some sort of separation of powers problem going on here. Maybe the thinking is that governors should somehow be conferring more with legislators while using the emergency powers those legislators have expressly delegated to them—although that’s not actually how separation of powers works.
It may be worth noting that Virginia, Maryland, and Kentucky all have part-time legislatures that have adjourned for the year. The whole idea of emergency power statutes, especially in states without continuously serving legislatures, is that emergencies sometimes come up while the legislature isn’t there to help hold the reins of the sleigh. This isn’t new. It isn’t unconstitutional. It’s the way things work and are supposed to work in state government.
But imagine for a moment that the plaintiffs in these cases find a friendly jurist, one who decides that under proper republican principles judges should start rigorously scrutinizing a chief executive’s unilateral issuance of executive orders even when those orders are based on powers well spelled out in law, and even if that means second-guessing the traditional scope of executive discretion during an emergency. Do you think that might open up a new front by which federal judges could begin overseeing the actions of Donald J. Trump?
They never think through the implications of these things, do they?