theamericanconservative--2020-07-23--Beyond Trump vs. Trump: We Have a Nation to Safeguard

President Trump is obviously not happy about about the highly unflattering portrait of him painted by his niece , Mary Trump , in her best-selling book , Too Much and Never Enough : How My Family Created the World ’ s Most Dangerous Man .
On July 17 , reacting to her description of him as “ narcissistic , ” “ dysfunctional , ” and “ perverted , ” the president jabbed back in a tweet , describing her as “ a seldom seen niece who knows little about me , says untruthful things about my wonderful parents ( who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and me.
” Of course , the Main Stream Media loves the new book ; indeed , pressies are always careful to insert that Mary Trump is a “ clinical psychologist , ” thereby seeking to assign greater weight to her judgment on the famous uncle ; she ’ s not just an estranged family member , she ’ s a trained clinician .
Thus when Mary declares that Donald ’ s “ pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neuropsychological tests that he ’ ll never sit for ” —the MSM treats her words as the voice of an oracular psycho-authority .
Indeed , speaking of long-distance diagnosis , it might be small comfort to the 45th president to know that plenty of other American presidents have been similarly psychoanalyzed .
In fact , no less than the father of psychoanalysis himself , Sigmund Freud , co-authored an unsparing assessment of our 28th president , Thomas Woodrow Wilson : A Psychological Study .
Moreover , we ’ ve learned , over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind of any individual , when perceived though the Freudian prism , appears to be nothing more than a heaving mass of Greek-named complexes and phobias .
And yet through it all , most people manage to get off the couch and do things , including becoming politicians—a very few even becoming president of the United States .
So how do they manage that ?
And what does that mean for the rest of us ?
Some enduring answers to such questions can be found in Harold Lasswell ’ s 1930 book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , but in his day , he was a professor at Yale Law School as well as president of the American Political Science Association .
Moreover , he was active when Freud was at the peak of his influence ; Psychopathology and Politics is much shaped along the contours of the Viennese Herr Doktor ’ s thought .
Evidently realizing that the word “ psychopathology ” in the title would send a strong signal , Lasswell opened his book , a bit defensively , with the declaration , “ The purpose of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicians are ‘ insane.
’ ” In fact , Lasswell , being mostly a political scientist , was careful to stipulate that “ the specifically pathological is of secondary importance to the central problem of exhibiting the developmental profile of different types of public characters.
” In other words , for all his fascination with individual minds , in the end , the author was actually most interested in collective political outcomes .
For purposes of analysis , Lasswell categorized three types of political personality : the “ agitator , ” the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To illustrate this triptych , Lasswell named a few names ; Herbert Hoover , for instance , was labeled an administrator , while Old Testament prophets were labeled as agitators , and Karl Marx labeled as a theorist .
Interestingly , Vladimir Lenin was listed as all three types .
Still , for the most part , Lasswell chose to focus , in the Freudian clinical style , on anonymized exemplars of each political personality type , detailing the mental circuities of “ Mr .
A , ” as well as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and so on .
From there , Lasswell considers how each type meshes with politics .
As he puts it , the state is a “ manifold , ” into which political figures enter , and through which political events “ are to be understood.
” He writes , “ political movements derive their vitality from the displacement of private affects upon public objects.
” Using dark Freudian terminology , Lasswell asserts that “ Political crises are complicated by the concurrent reactivation of specific primitive impulses.
” In that same bleak spirit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process by which the irrational bases of society are brought out into the open.
” Yet while phrases such as “ primitive impulses ” and “ irrational bases ” are the stuff of psychiatry , Lasswell also wrote in political science-y language , as when he laid out his equation for political action : p } d } r = P. Here , p stands for “ private motives , ” } stands for “ transformed into , ” d equals “ displacement on to public objects , ” r stands for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and P “ signifies the political man.
” In Lasswell ’ s formula , individuals bring their personality with them into the political arena , and then , if they wish to make a mark in politics , they must reconcile , somehow , their own personalities with the political environment .
As Lasswell explains , “ The distinctive mark of the homo politicus is the rationalization of the displacement in terms of public interests.
” We might note that in no sense was Lasswell saying that homo politicus was necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wise about their own well-being ; as he put it , oftentimes , “ people are poor judges of their own interests.
” And so the “ solution ” in politics , he continued , is “ not the ‘ rationally best ’ one , ” but rather , “ the emotionally satisfactory one.
” Still , Lasswell did not believe in autocracy or dictatorship ; he approvingly quoted another political scientist who argued , “ Society is not safe .
.
.
when it is forced to follow the dictations of one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s gloomy view of human nature , he argued for a sort of guided system , dubbing it “ preventive politics.
” As he put it , “ The politics of prevention draws attention squarely to the central problem of reducing the level of strain and maladaptation in society.
” Thus Lasswell endorsed the application of therapeutic psychology to the population as a whole—putting the country , as it were , on the therapist ’ s couch .
If that doesn ’ t sound like a plausible solution , we might note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our country ’ s leaders—and the latest instance is what Mary Trump has done to her uncle .
Yet even those who mistrust a long-distance diagnosis—and who might see Mary Trump ’ s book as opportunistically timed to the election—might nonetheless reflect on Lasswell ’ s political equation , p } d } r = P. After all , individuals do enter into the political system , and they do what they do—and so it ’ s best if we understand them as well as we can .
Indeed , each new entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , providing us with an opportunity to learn : What went right ?
Or , what went wrong ?
And who makes a good leader ?
Such cumulative study gives us all a chance to practice a Lasswellian “ politics of prevention.
” That is , while we don ’ t seem to be able to cure the mentally ill , we can nevertheless take sterner measures to keep the pathological out of political office , especially high political office .
In particular , we might take the view that the electoral political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filter , separating out the gold from the dross .
If , as Max Weber put it , politics is “ the slow boring of hard boards , ” then maybe we should favor politicians who actually know how to drill a hole , and who know to drill it in the right place—and not smash the board .
Indeed , if we think of prosaic electoral politics as a filtering process , we might gain more respect for those who prove themselves in a minor office before seeking a major office—and major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if a wannabe pol is maladaptive , let ’ s know early on , when the stakes are low .
This wisdom was well expressed by Sam Rayburn , the Texas politician who served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 48 years , as well as in the Texas state house for six years before that—and , remarkably , rose to be speaker in both chambers , in Austin as well as in Washington , D.C. As recorded in David Halberstam ’ s classic book about the origins of America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Best and the Brightest , in 1961 , then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson gushed to his old pal Rayburn about how smart and impressive were the men of John F. Kennedy ’ s administration , bandying about brilliant ideas for saving the world .
To which Rayburn responded to LBJ , “ You may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say , but I ’ d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.
” In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the soaring kites of their intellects were tethered to mundane human experience and political reality—including the reality of running for office .
As we know , absent such tethering , those best and brightest led us into an Asian quagmire , drowning even the political career of LBJ .
So now , in 2020 , in these extraordinarily trying times , the voters are about to run their political filter yet again .
Indeed , if the presidential polls are to be believed , this filtration system is favoring Joe Biden , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ extreme vetting ” of a half-century in elective politics .
So is this an instance in which Lasswell ’ s idea of “ preventive politics ” is being applied ?
We can never know from the Yale professor himself , of course , since he long ago went to that great ivory tower in the sky .
Yet still , one senses that the author of Psychopathology and Politics would be pleased .
Because , after all , the fate of the nation is more important than the strange case of Trump @ @ @

President Trump is obviously not happy about about the highly unflattering portrait of him painted by his niece, Mary Trump, in her best-selling book, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.
On July 17, reacting to her description of him as “narcissistic,” “dysfunctional,” and “perverted,” the president jabbed back in a tweet, describing her as “a seldom seen niece who knows little about me, says untruthful things about my wonderful parents (who couldn’t stand her!) and me.”
Of course, the Main Stream Media loves the new book; indeed, pressies are always careful to insert that Mary Trump is a “clinical psychologist,” thereby seeking to assign greater weight to her judgment on the famous uncle; she’s not just an estranged family member, she’s a trained clinician. Thus when Mary declares that Donald’s “pathologies are so complex and his behaviors so often inexplicable that coming up with an accurate and comprehensive diagnosis would require a full battery of psychological and neuropsychological tests that he’ll never sit for”—the MSM treats her words as the voice of an oracular psycho-authority.
Indeed, speaking of long-distance diagnosis, it might be small comfort to the 45th president to know that plenty of other American presidents have been similarly psychoanalyzed. In fact, no less than the father of psychoanalysis himself, Sigmund Freud, co-authored an unsparing assessment of our 28th president, Thomas Woodrow Wilson: A Psychological Study.
Moreover, we’ve learned, over the last century or so, that the mind of any individual, when perceived though the Freudian prism, appears to be nothing more than a heaving mass of Greek-named complexes and phobias. And yet through it all, most people manage to get off the couch and do things, including becoming politicians—a very few even becoming president of the United States. So how do they manage that? And what does that mean for the rest of us?
Some enduring answers to such questions can be found in Harold Lasswell’s 1930 book, Psychopathology and Politics. Lasswell is obscure now, but in his day, he was a professor at Yale Law School as well as president of the American Political Science Association. Moreover, he was active when Freud was at the peak of his influence; Psychopathology and Politics is much shaped along the contours of the Viennese Herr Doktor’s thought.
Evidently realizing that the word “psychopathology” in the title would send a strong signal, Lasswell opened his book, a bit defensively, with the declaration, “The purpose of this venture is not to prove that politicians are ‘insane.’” In fact, Lasswell, being mostly a political scientist, was careful to stipulate that “the specifically pathological is of secondary importance to the central problem of exhibiting the developmental profile of different types of public characters.” In other words, for all his fascination with individual minds, in the end, the author was actually most interested in collective political outcomes.
For purposes of analysis, Lasswell categorized three types of political personality: the “agitator,” the “administrator,” and the “theorist.” To illustrate this triptych, Lasswell named a few names; Herbert Hoover, for instance, was labeled an administrator, while Old Testament prophets were labeled as agitators, and Karl Marx labeled as a theorist. Interestingly, Vladimir Lenin was listed as all three types.
Still, for the most part, Lasswell chose to focus, in the Freudian clinical style, on anonymized exemplars of each political personality type, detailing the mental circuities of “Mr. A,” as well as “B,” “C,” and so on.
From there, Lasswell considers how each type meshes with politics. As he puts it, the state is a “manifold,” into which political figures enter, and through which political events “are to be understood.”
He writes, “political movements derive their vitality from the displacement of private affects upon public objects.” Using dark Freudian terminology, Lasswell asserts that “Political crises are complicated by the concurrent reactivation of specific primitive impulses.” In that same bleak spirit, he also avers, “Politics is the process by which the irrational bases of society are brought out into the open.”
Yet while phrases such as “primitive impulses” and “irrational bases” are the stuff of psychiatry, Lasswell also wrote in political science-y language, as when he laid out his equation for political action: p } d } r = P. Here, p stands for “private motives,” } stands for “transformed into,” d equals “displacement on to public objects,” r stands for “rationalization in terms of public interest,” and P “signifies the political man.”
In Lasswell’s formula, individuals bring their personality with them into the political arena, and then, if they wish to make a mark in politics, they must reconcile, somehow, their own personalities with the political environment. As Lasswell explains, “The distinctive mark of the homo politicus is the rationalization of the displacement in terms of public interests.”
We might note that in no sense was Lasswell saying that homo politicus was necessarily good-hearted, or that people were always wise about their own well-being; as he put it, oftentimes, “people are poor judges of their own interests.” And so the “solution” in politics, he continued, is “not the ‘rationally best’ one,” but rather, “the emotionally satisfactory one.”
Still, Lasswell did not believe in autocracy or dictatorship; he approvingly quoted another political scientist who argued, “Society is not safe . . . when it is forced to follow the dictations of one individual.”
Yet because Lasswell shared Freud’s gloomy view of human nature, he argued for a sort of guided system, dubbing it “preventive politics.” As he put it, “The politics of prevention draws attention squarely to the central problem of reducing the level of strain and maladaptation in society.” Thus Lasswell endorsed the application of therapeutic psychology to the population as a whole—putting the country, as it were, on the therapist’s couch.
If that doesn’t sound like a plausible solution, we might note that we often do just that to our country’s leaders—and the latest instance is what Mary Trump has done to her uncle.
Yet even those who mistrust a long-distance diagnosis—and who might see Mary Trump’s book as opportunistically timed to the election—might nonetheless reflect on Lasswell’s political equation, p } d } r = P.
After all, individuals do enter into the political system, and they do what they do—and so it’s best if we understand them as well as we can. Indeed, each new entry can be seen as a case study, providing us with an opportunity to learn: What went right? Or, what went wrong? And who makes a good leader?
Such cumulative study gives us all a chance to practice a Lasswellian “politics of prevention.” That is, while we don’t seem to be able to cure the mentally ill, we can nevertheless take sterner measures to keep the pathological out of political office, especially high political office.
In particular, we might take the view that the electoral political system should serve as a kind of filter, separating out the gold from the dross. If, as Max Weber put it, politics is “the slow boring of hard boards,” then maybe we should favor politicians who actually know how to drill a hole, and who know to drill it in the right place—and not smash the board.
Indeed, if we think of prosaic electoral politics as a filtering process, we might gain more respect for those who prove themselves in a minor office before seeking a major office—and major responsibility. To put the matter bluntly, if a wannabe pol is maladaptive, let’s know early on, when the stakes are low.
This wisdom was well expressed by Sam Rayburn, the Texas politician who served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 48 years, as well as in the Texas state house for six years before that—and, remarkably, rose to be speaker in both chambers, in Austin as well as in Washington, D.C. As recorded in David Halberstam’s classic book about the origins of America’s fiasco in the Vietnam War, The Best and the Brightest, in 1961, then-Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson gushed to his old pal Rayburn about how smart and impressive were the men of John F. Kennedy’s administration, bandying about brilliant ideas for saving the world. To which Rayburn responded to LBJ, “You may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say, but I’d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for sheriff once.”
In other words, it would be better if the soaring kites of their intellects were tethered to mundane human experience and political reality—including the reality of running for office. As we know, absent such tethering, those best and brightest led us into an Asian quagmire, drowning even the political career of LBJ.
So now, in 2020, in these extraordinarily trying times, the voters are about to run their political filter yet again. Indeed, if the presidential polls are to be believed, this filtration system is favoring Joe Biden, who has, after all, undergone the “extreme vetting” of a half-century in elective politics. (Update: Commenter “Mother124” makes a good point: Maybe the vetting of Biden hasn’t been extreme enough, in light of various unresolved questions swirling around the candidate and his family. So hopefully, more vetting of Biden will take places in the months to come, perhaps along the lines of Politico’s harsh examination of his Delaware milieux.)
So is this an instance in which Lasswell’s idea of “preventive politics” is being applied? We can never know from the Yale professor himself, of course, since he long ago went to that great ivory tower in the sky. Yet still, one senses that the author of Psychopathology and Politics would be pleased.
Because, after all, the fate of the nation is more important than the strange case of Trump vs. Trump.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-24--Is the Left Finally Learning to Care About the Federal Bootheel?

A member of the far-right militia , Boogaloo Bois , walks next to protestors demonstrating outside Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Metro Division 2 just outside of downtown Charlotte , North Carolina , on May 29 , 2020 .
- The protest was sparked by protests in Minneapolis , over the death of George Floyd , a black man who died after a white policeman kneeled on his neck for several minutes .
In Charlotte , CMPD Metro Division 2 was home to CMPD officer , Wende Kerl , who shot and killed Danquirs Franklin outside of a Burger King on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that officer Kerl operated in the constraints of the law but later a citizen review board would find that the officers actions were not justified .
No charges were ever brought .
( Photo by Logan Cyrus / AFP ) ( Photo by LOGAN CYRUS/AFP via Getty Images ) Reading Vox is like going to a puppet show , then waking up to a review recommending everybody go and see the fine stage play that ’ s just gone up downtown .
I was there , you might say .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ann ’ s posterior .
This being a perverse thing to say about the button-eyed Tony winner , insisting you saw what you saw doesn ’ t go over well .
A few days ago , a Vox writer tweeted , about the deployment of federal law enforcement personnel to Portland , “ Imagine if Obama had done this to Tea Partiers.
” The last several days have seen a reawakening of civil libertarianism on the left that was notably absent from 2008-2016 , and in some ways that ’ s welcome .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Tea Party effort to torch a federal courthouse , or a time when Jenny Beth Martin occupied several blocks of a major city ’ s downtown with the help of the Oathkeepers .
A heavy-handed crackdown on Tea Partiers didn ’ t happen , not because the administration back then didn ’ t think they were odious or suspicious enough to deserve it ( they did ) , and not because they didn ’ t have it in them , but because they didn ’ t need to .
They had the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ red tape for years , hindering their political effectiveness , and the more hard-edged militia types were likely already so heavily infiltrated that it wouldn ’ t have been necessary .
Frankly , there ’ s a political lesson for Trump in that .
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler arrived at the protest , and was both tear-gassed by the feds and shouted down and pursued by the same mob he was out there to show solidarity with .
Guess which part of the story Chuck Todd is running with ?
The Obama administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that if you go after the funding of your political enemies , it will be more effective and also provokes less backlash .
The strategy of Trump and the GOP in this crisis should be to do two things , neither of which involve any federal law enforcement .
One : do nothing to aid your enemy , a cardinal sin this deployment commits .
And two : drive wedges between the protestors in the streets , the local and state-level politicians who enable them , and their woke capitalist patrons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal officers would have been received if they had just waited until the mob had driven Wheeler back into his office , an inarguable sign that he had lost control of his city ?
The various Trumpists and populists champing at the bit for the feds to crack some antifa skulls don ’ t understand the way protests and crackdowns on them work , and that they do not redound equally to the benefit of right and left .
Political violence is almost always a game that the left can win , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mentioned on the podcast this week , when the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire in Saigon in 1963 , the monks and nuns supporting him carried signs written not in Vietnam ’ s second language , French , but in English .
This was for the benefit of the AP and New York Times reporters who showed up , the former , Malcom Browne , being the one who took the famous photo .
It worked like a charm .
By contrast , it ’ s not until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death that we now find out that , amid the peaceful protests , somebody appears to have burned to death in a pawn shop there .
In a similar way , when it comes to an imbalance in the federal law enforcement scrutiny of political groups , our friend at Vox has things exactly backwards .
Compare the dozens of felony charges related to the protests that have been dismissed in several cities to the four-year sentence for Proud Boys in New York City who got into a fight with antifa .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white nationalist group is going to have a hard time holding down a job at a gas station , but Bernardine Dohrn ended up teaching law at Northwestern after taking credit for multiple bombings on behalf of the Weather Underground .
FALN leader Oscar Lopez Rivera was granted clemency by President Obama before being fêted by the writer of “ Hamilton.
” The federal government has been involved in infiltrating and entrapping right-wingers for decades , arguably even playing a role in radicalizing some of them , according to J.M .
Berger ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to find federal law enforcement suppression of the Tea Party , here ’ s a possible one .
An Alaska militiaman named Schaeffer Cox is doing hard time in the GITMO of the lower 48 , the Communications Management Unit of the federal prison in Terre Haute .
One of his two convictions , solicitation to murder federal officials , was vacated in 2017 , leaving only the conspiracy charge .
A serious allegation to be sure , but several Fairbanks residents I ’ ve spoken to doubt that he ever would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All state charges against him were dismissed because they relied on FBI recordings made secretly without a warrant .
The federal government ’ s case rested heavily on the work of Bill Fulton , a paid FBI informant , and the Raggedy Andy of this story .
Fulton ’ s testimony put Cox in prison , and he then wrote a book about it .
Today he campaigns for progressive causes , namely gun control .
While he was in Alaska he was running a military supply store .
But one odd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time—along with Talking Points Memo—was that Fulton was also working for several Tea Party campaigns , including for Eddie Burke , a failed lieutenant governor candidate , and Joe Miller , the Tea Party senate candidate who beat Lisa Murkowski in a Republican primary .
During that general election campaign Fulton arrested a journalist , causing an enormous controversy that hurt Miller ’ s campaign and helped to burnish the image of the Tea Party as a bunch of dangerous thugs .
I don ’ t know , maybe it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s how it appears in Fulton ’ s telling .
But at this point I confess I have a hard time giving Robert Mueller ’ s FBI the benefit of the doubt .
The federal government ’ s campaign against right-wing militia groups has gone on for decades , and however you might feel about the justice of it , it is more sophisticated and more effective than providing security at federal courthouses .
If Republicans really want to do unto them as it ’ s been done unto you , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fights .
In Portland , the Trump administration should be very careful about playing into their enemies ’ hands .
As Napoleon ’ s chief of secret police said : it ’ s worse than a crime , it ’ s a mistake .

Reading Vox is like going to a puppet show, then waking up to a review recommending everybody go and see the fine stage play that’s just gone up downtown. I was there, you might say. I’m sure I saw a hand up Raggedy Ann’s posterior. This being a perverse thing to say about the button-eyed Tony winner, insisting you saw what you saw doesn’t go over well.
A few days ago, a Vox writer tweeted, about the deployment of federal law enforcement personnel to Portland, “Imagine if Obama had done this to Tea Partiers.” The last several days have seen a reawakening of civil libertarianism on the left that was notably absent from 2008-2016, and in some ways that’s welcome.
However, I am not aware of a Tea Party effort to torch a federal courthouse, or a time when Jenny Beth Martin occupied several blocks of a major city’s downtown with the help of the Oathkeepers. A heavy-handed crackdown on Tea Partiers didn’t happen, not because the administration back then didn’t think they were odious or suspicious enough to deserve it (they did), and not because they didn’t have it in them, but because they didn’t need to. They had the IRS to pettifog Tea Party groups with red tape for years, hindering their political effectiveness, and the more hard-edged militia types were likely already so heavily infiltrated that it wouldn’t have been necessary.
Frankly, there’s a political lesson for Trump in that. Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler arrived at the protest, and was both tear-gassed by the feds and shouted down and pursued by the same mob he was out there to show solidarity with. Guess which part of the story Chuck Todd is running with? The Obama administration understood, better than Trump’s, that if you go after the funding of your political enemies, it will be more effective and also provokes less backlash.
The strategy of Trump and the GOP in this crisis should be to do two things, neither of which involve any federal law enforcement. One: do nothing to aid your enemy, a cardinal sin this deployment commits. And two: drive wedges between the protestors in the streets, the local and state-level politicians who enable them, and their woke capitalist patrons. Imagine how much better the deployment of federal officers would have been received if they had just waited until the mob had driven Wheeler back into his office, an inarguable sign that he had lost control of his city?
The various Trumpists and populists champing at the bit for the feds to crack some antifa skulls don’t understand the way protests and crackdowns on them work, and that they do not redound equally to the benefit of right and left. Political violence is almost always a game that the left can win, but the right can’t. As I mentioned on the podcast this week, when the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire in Saigon in 1963, the monks and nuns supporting him carried signs written not in Vietnam’s second language, French, but in English. This was for the benefit of the AP and New York Times reporters who showed up, the former, Malcom Browne, being the one who took the famous photo. It worked like a charm. By contrast, it’s not until two months after George Floyd’s death that we now find out that, amid the peaceful protests, somebody appears to have burned to death in a pawn shop there.
In a similar way, when it comes to an imbalance in the federal law enforcement scrutiny of political groups, our friend at Vox has things exactly backwards. Compare the dozens of felony charges related to the protests that have been dismissed in several cities to the four-year sentence for Proud Boys in New York City who got into a fight with antifa. More broadly, some methhead who joins a white nationalist group is going to have a hard time holding down a job at a gas station, but Bernardine Dohrn ended up teaching law at Northwestern after taking credit for multiple bombings on behalf of the Weather Underground. FALN leader Oscar Lopez Rivera was granted clemency by President Obama before being fêted by the writer of “Hamilton.” The federal government has been involved in infiltrating and entrapping right-wingers for decades, arguably even playing a role in radicalizing some of them, according to J.M. Berger’s research.
But if the challenge is to find federal law enforcement suppression of the Tea Party, here’s a possible one. An Alaska militiaman named Schaeffer Cox is doing hard time in the GITMO of the lower 48, the Communications Management Unit of the federal prison in Terre Haute. One of his two convictions, solicitation to murder federal officials, was vacated in 2017, leaving only the conspiracy charge. A serious allegation to be sure, but several Fairbanks residents I’ve spoken to doubt that he ever would have followed through on his extreme rhetoric. All state charges against him were dismissed because they relied on FBI recordings made secretly without a warrant.
The federal government’s case rested heavily on the work of Bill Fulton, a paid FBI informant, and the Raggedy Andy of this story. Fulton’s testimony put Cox in prison, and he then wrote a book about it. Today he campaigns for progressive causes, namely gun control. While he was in Alaska he was running a military supply store. But one odd detail that raised eyebrows among some Alaskans at the time—along with Talking Points Memo—was that Fulton was also working for several Tea Party campaigns, including for Eddie Burke, a failed lieutenant governor candidate, and Joe Miller, the Tea Party senate candidate who beat Lisa Murkowski in a Republican primary. During that general election campaign Fulton arrested a journalist, causing an enormous controversy that hurt Miller’s campaign and helped to burnish the image of the Tea Party as a bunch of dangerous thugs. I don’t know, maybe it’s all a coincidence, that’s how it appears in Fulton’s telling. But at this point I confess I have a hard time giving Robert Mueller’s FBI the benefit of the doubt.
The federal government’s campaign against right-wing militia groups has gone on for decades, and however you might feel about the justice of it, it is more sophisticated and more effective than providing security at federal courthouses. If Republicans really want to do unto them as it’s been done unto you, it’s going to take more than street fights. In Portland, the Trump administration should be very careful about playing into their enemies’ hands. As Napoleon’s chief of secret police said: it’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-24--How Intellectuals Cured ‘Tyrannophobia’

How Intellectuals Cured ‘Tyrannophobia’

Almost 400 years ago , English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote a book scoffing at tyrannophobia—the “ fear of being strongly governed.
” This was a peculiar term that Hobbes invented in Leviathan , since civilized nations had feared tyrants for almost 2000 years at that point .
But over the past 150 years , Hobbes ’ totalitarianism has been defined out of existence by apologists who believe that government needs vast , if not unlimited power .
Hobbes ’ revival is symptomatic of the collapse of intellectuals ’ respect in individual freedom .
Writing in 1651 , Hobbes labeled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God.
” Leviathan signifies a government whose power is unbounded , with a right to dictate almost anything and everything to the people under its sway .
Hobbes declared that it was forever prohibited for subjects in “ any way to speak evil of their sovereign ” regardless of how badly power was abused .
Hobbes proclaimed that “ there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Sovereign ; and consequently none of his subjects , by any pretense of forfeiture , can be freed from his subjection.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ No man that hath sovereign power can justly be put to death , or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished.
” Hobbes offered what might be called suicide pact sovereignty : to recognize a government ’ s existence is to automatically concede the government ’ s right to destroy everything in its domain .
Hobbes sought to terrify readers with a portrayal of life in the “ state of nature ” as the “ war of all against all ” that made even perpetual political slavery look preferable .
John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government published a few decades later , scoffed at Hobbes ’ “ solution ” : “ This is to think that men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by polecats and foxes , but are content , nay think it safety , to be devoured by lions.
” As Charles Tarlton , a professor at the State University of New York in Albany , noted in a superb 2001 article in The History of Political Thought , Hobbes “ despotical doctrine ” rests upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined with a moral demand for complete , simple and unquestioning political obedience and , second , the concept that no action of the sovereign can ever be unjust or even criticized.
” Hobbes ’ treatise succeeded in making “ Leviathan ” the F-word of political discourse .
In the century after Hobbes wrote , there was rarely any doubt about the political poison he sought to unleash .
David Hume , writing in his History of England declared that “ Hobbes ’ s politics were fitted only to promote tyranny.
” Voltaire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between kingship and tyranny … With him force is everything.
” Jean Jacques Rousseau condemned Hobbes for viewing humans as “ herds of cattle , each of which has a master , who looks after it in order to devour it.
” Hobbes ’ views were derided as long as political thought was tethered to the Earth .
Unluckily for humanity , philosophers found ways to sever ties to both history and reality .
The most influential political philosopher of the 19th century may have been Germany ’ s G.W.F .
Hegel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Divine Idea as it exists on earth ” and is “ the shape which the perfect embodiment of Spirit assumes.
” Hegel also declared that “ the State is … the ultimate end which has the highest right against the individual , whose highest duty is to be a member of the State.
” Hegel had a profound influence on both communism ( via Marx ) and fascism .
Political scientist Carl Friedrich observed in 1939 , “ In a slow process that lasted several generations , the modern concept of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a tool of propaganda for absolute monarchs .
They wished to give the king ’ s government a corporate halo roughly equivalent to that of the Church.
” By the twentieth century , as Tarlton noted , “ Hobbes ’ s interpreters and commentators had worked to make Hobbes ’ s appalling political prescriptions more palatable.
” Experts scoffed at “ tyrannophobia ” because they believed tyrants were necessary to “ fix ” humanity .
Hobbes ’ revival in America was aided by John Dewey , probably the philosopher with the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of the 20th century .
In 1918 , Dewey shrugged off Hobbes ’ affection for despotism : “ Undoubtedly a certain arbitrariness on the part of the sovereign is made possible , [ it ] is part of the price paid , the cost assumed , in behalf of an infinitely greater return of good.
” And why presume “ an infinitely greater return of good ” ?
Because the government would be following the prescriptions of Dewey and his intellectual cronies .
Two years earlier , Dewey championed government coercion as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are accomplished without the use of force .
It is consequently no presumption against a measure , political , international , jural , economic , that it involves a use of force.
” Dewey declared that “ squeamishness about [ the use of ] force is the mark not of idealistic but of moonstruck morals.
” Two decades later , Dewey discovered utopia during a visit to Moscow and proclaimed that the Soviet people “ go about as if some mighty , oppressive load had been removed , as if they were newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Dewey had no qualms about the artificial famine that Stalin caused in the Ukraine that killed more than five million peasants .
Perhaps Dewey agreed with Stalin : “ One death is a tragedy , a million deaths a statistic.
” President Franklin Roosevelt never invoked Hobbes but his Hobbesian approach to power made FDR a darling of the intelligentsia .
In his first inaugural address , FDR called for a Hobbesian-like total submission to Washington : “ We now realize… that if we are to go forward , we must move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline , because without such discipline no progress is made , no leadership can become effective.
” The military metaphors and call for everyone to march in lockstep was similar to rhetoric used by European dictators at the time .
Roosevelt sometimes practically portrayed the State as a god .
In his 1936 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention , he declared , “ In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the members of political parties for respecting “ as sacred all branches of their government.
” In the same speech , Roosevelt assured listeners , in terms Hobbes would approve , “ Your government knows your mind , and you know your government ’ s mind.
” As governments throughout the western world seized vastly more power , British professors took the lead in consecrating Hobbes .
In 1938 , on the eve of World War Two , British philosopher A.E .
Taylor wrote an influential book that bizarrely proclaimed “ that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what Hobbes is trying to express by the aid of his legal fictions is the great democratic idea of self-government.
” Eight years later , Michael Oakeshott , one of favorite British philosophers of American conservatives , hailed Leviathan as “ the greatest , perhaps the sole masterpiece of political philosophy written in the English language.
” Oakeshott assured readers that “ we need not greatly concern ourselves ” about critics who warned of Hobbes ’ dark side because Hobbes ’ vision “ could never amount to despotism.
” Signaling the total vanquishing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic review of recent writings on Hobbes declared in 1982 that “ seeing Leviathan as tyranny is now only to be found in new editions of old books.
” In the United States , many liberals display a Hobbesian love of vast government power .
University of Chicago professor Stephen Holmes gushed in his 1995 book , Passions and Constraint : On the Theory of Liberal Democracy : “ It now seems obvious that [ contemporary Statist ] liberalism can occasionally eclipse authoritarianism as a technique for accumulating political power… .
For good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most effective philosophies of state building ever contrived.
” Holmes hailed Hobbes as a “ pre-liberal ” —which makes as much sense as touting Hitler as a “ post-liberal.
” “ Leviathan ” has long since lost its onus among the academic elite .
In 2012 , Princeton University professor John Ikenberry ’ s Liberal Leviathan : The Origins , Crisis , and Transformation of the American World Order was published .
The publisher , Princeton University Press , summarized the book : “ In the second half of the twentieth century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most ambitious and far-reaching liberal order building the world had yet seen .
This liberal international order has been one of the most successful in history.
” Tell that to the Iraqis , Afghans , Libyans , Somalians , and many other victims of U.S. foreign policy .
Writing recently in the Washington Post , DePaul University political science professor David Lay Williams hailed Leviathan as “ perhaps the greatest work of political philosophy ever written in English.
” DePaul is finishing a book titled , The Greatest of All Plagues : Economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps he favors tyranny as the cure for inequality .
Especially since 9/11 , America has suffered presidents who acted entitled to Hobbesian-levels of unlimited power .
Bush administration lawyers secretly decided that neither federal law nor the Constitution could limit the power of the president , who was even entitled to declare martial law in America at his whim .
President Barack Obama promised to restore civil liberties but vastly expanded illegal surveillance , bombed seven nations , boosted drone attacks by 500 % , and claimed a prerogative to kill American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump proclaimed earlier this year , “ When somebody is President of the United States , his authority is total.
” Trump neglected to clear his statement with the ghost of James Madison , the father of the Constitution .
The issue here is not the reputation of one long-dead philosopher but the seachange in verdicts on tyranny .
The more powerful government becomes , the more homage Leviathan receives from professors and pundits .
Will average citizens recognize the folly of a bunch of intellectual lemmings plunging over a cliff ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory of Hobbes is a theory of unadulterated despotism , or it is nothing.
” Is it too much to ask the champions of despotism to cease pretending to be friends of liberty ?
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .

Almost 400 years ago, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote a book scoffing at tyrannophobia—the “fear of being strongly governed.” This was a peculiar term that Hobbes invented in Leviathan, since civilized nations had feared tyrants for almost 2000 years at that point. But over the past 150 years, Hobbes’ totalitarianism has been defined out of existence by apologists who believe that government needs vast, if not unlimited power. Hobbes’ revival is symptomatic of the collapse of intellectuals’ respect in individual freedom.
Writing in 1651, Hobbes labeled the State as Leviathan, “our mortal God.” Leviathan signifies a government whose power is unbounded, with a right to dictate almost anything and everything to the people under its sway. Hobbes declared that it was forever prohibited for subjects in “any way to speak evil of their sovereign” regardless of how badly power was abused. Hobbes proclaimed that “there can happen no breach of Covenant on the part of the Sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection.”
Hobbes championed absolute impunity for rulers: “No man that hath sovereign power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished.” Hobbes offered what might be called suicide pact sovereignty: to recognize a government’s existence is to automatically concede the government’s right to destroy everything in its domain. Hobbes sought to terrify readers with a portrayal of life in the “state of nature” as the “war of all against all” that made even perpetual political slavery look preferable. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government published a few decades later, scoffed at Hobbes’ “solution”: “This is to think that men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by polecats and foxes, but are content, nay think it safety, to be devoured by lions.” As Charles Tarlton, a professor at the State University of New York in Albany, noted in a superb 2001 article in The History of Political Thought, Hobbes “despotical doctrine” rests upon “an absolute and arbitrary political power joined with a moral demand for complete, simple and unquestioning political obedience and, second, the concept that no action of the sovereign can ever be unjust or even criticized.”
Hobbes’ treatise succeeded in making “Leviathan” the F-word of political discourse. In the century after Hobbes wrote, there was rarely any doubt about the political poison he sought to unleash. David Hume, writing in his History of England declared that “Hobbes’s politics were fitted only to promote tyranny.” Voltaire condemned Hobbes for making “no distinction between kingship and tyranny … With him force is everything.” Jean Jacques Rousseau condemned Hobbes for viewing humans as “herds of cattle, each of which has a master, who looks after it in order to devour it.”
Hobbes’ views were derided as long as political thought was tethered to the Earth. Unluckily for humanity, philosophers found ways to sever ties to both history and reality. The most influential political philosopher of the 19th century may have been Germany’s G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel proclaimed, “The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth” and is “the shape which the perfect embodiment of Spirit assumes.” Hegel also declared that “the State is … the ultimate end which has the highest right against the individual, whose highest duty is to be a member of the State.” Hegel had a profound influence on both communism (via Marx) and fascism. Political scientist Carl Friedrich observed in 1939, “In a slow process that lasted several generations, the modern concept of the State was … forged by political theorists as a tool of propaganda for absolute monarchs. They wished to give the king’s government a corporate halo roughly equivalent to that of the Church.”
By the twentieth century, as Tarlton noted, “Hobbes’s interpreters and commentators had worked to make Hobbes’s appalling political prescriptions more palatable.” Experts scoffed at “tyrannophobia” because they believed tyrants were necessary to “fix” humanity.
Hobbes’ revival in America was aided by John Dewey, probably the philosopher with the most impact on public policy in the first half of the 20th century. In 1918, Dewey shrugged off Hobbes’ affection for despotism: “Undoubtedly a certain arbitrariness on the part of the sovereign is made possible, [it] is part of the price paid, the cost assumed, in behalf of an infinitely greater return of good.” And why presume “an infinitely greater return of good”? Because the government would be following the prescriptions of Dewey and his intellectual cronies. Two years earlier, Dewey championed government coercion as a social curative: “No ends are accomplished without the use of force. It is consequently no presumption against a measure, political, international, jural, economic, that it involves a use of force.” Dewey declared that “squeamishness about [the use of] force is the mark not of idealistic but of moonstruck morals.”
Two decades later, Dewey discovered utopia during a visit to Moscow and proclaimed that the Soviet people “go about as if some mighty, oppressive load had been removed, as if they were newly awakened to the consciousness of released energies.” Dewey had no qualms about the artificial famine that Stalin caused in the Ukraine that killed more than five million peasants. Perhaps Dewey agreed with Stalin: “One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic.”
President Franklin Roosevelt never invoked Hobbes but his Hobbesian approach to power made FDR a darling of the intelligentsia. In his first inaugural address, FDR called for a Hobbesian-like total submission to Washington: “We now realize… that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership can become effective.” The military metaphors and call for everyone to march in lockstep was similar to rhetoric used by European dictators at the time. Roosevelt sometimes practically portrayed the State as a god. In his 1936 acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he declared, “In the place of the palace of privilege we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.” In 1937, he praised the members of political parties for respecting “as sacred all branches of their government.” In the same speech, Roosevelt assured listeners, in terms Hobbes would approve, “Your government knows your mind, and you know your government’s mind.”
As governments throughout the western world seized vastly more power, British professors took the lead in consecrating Hobbes. In 1938, on the eve of World War Two, British philosopher A.E. Taylor wrote an influential book that bizarrely proclaimed “that, in spite of his absolutist leanings, what Hobbes is trying to express by the aid of his legal fictions is the great democratic idea of self-government.” Eight years later, Michael Oakeshott, one of favorite British philosophers of American conservatives, hailed Leviathan as “the greatest, perhaps the sole masterpiece of political philosophy written in the English language.” Oakeshott assured readers that “we need not greatly concern ourselves” about critics who warned of Hobbes’ dark side because Hobbes’ vision “could never amount to despotism.” Signaling the total vanquishing of classical liberal interpretations, a major academic review of recent writings on Hobbes declared in 1982 that “seeing Leviathan as tyranny is now only to be found in new editions of old books.”
In the United States, many liberals display a Hobbesian love of vast government power.
University of Chicago professor Stephen Holmes gushed in his 1995 book, Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy: “It now seems obvious that [contemporary Statist] liberalism can occasionally eclipse authoritarianism as a technique for accumulating political power…. For good or ill, liberalism is one of the most effective philosophies of state building ever contrived.” Holmes hailed Hobbes as a “pre-liberal”—which makes as much sense as touting Hitler as a “post-liberal.”
“Leviathan” has long since lost its onus among the academic elite. In 2012, Princeton University professor John Ikenberry’s Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order was published. The publisher, Princeton University Press, summarized the book: “In the second half of the twentieth century, the United States engaged in the most ambitious and far-reaching liberal order building the world had yet seen. This liberal international order has been one of the most successful in history.” Tell that to the Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans, Somalians, and many other victims of U.S. foreign policy. Writing recently in the Washington Post, DePaul University political science professor David Lay Williams hailed Leviathan as “perhaps the greatest work of political philosophy ever written in English.” Williams is finishing a book titled, The Greatest of All Plagues: Economic Inequality in Western Political Thought, so perhaps he favors tyranny as the cure for inequality.
Especially since 9/11, America has suffered presidents who acted entitled to Hobbesian-levels of unlimited power. Bush administration lawyers secretly decided that neither federal law nor the Constitution could limit the power of the president, who was even entitled to declare martial law in America at his whim. President Barack Obama promised to restore civil liberties but vastly expanded illegal surveillance, bombed seven nations, boosted drone attacks by 500%, and claimed a prerogative to kill American terror suspects without a trial. President Donald Trump proclaimed earlier this year, “When somebody is President of the United States, his authority is total.” Trump neglected to clear his statement with the ghost of James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
The issue here is not the reputation of one long-dead philosopher but the seachange in verdicts on tyranny. The more powerful government becomes, the more homage Leviathan receives from professors and pundits. Will average citizens recognize the folly of a bunch of intellectual lemmings plunging over a cliff? As Professor Tarlton warned, “The theory of Hobbes is a theory of unadulterated despotism, or it is nothing.” Is it too much to ask the champions of despotism to cease pretending to be friends of liberty?
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-24--Stress Test of a Straining Superpower

Stress Test of a Straining Superpower

The Old Republic is facing its greatest test since the Civil War .
Demonstrators confront secret service police and Park police officers outside of the White House on May 30 , 2020 in Washington DC , during a protest over the death of George Floyd , an unarmed black man , who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for several minutes .
( Photo by Eric BARADAT / AFP ) ( Photo by ERIC BARADAT/AFP via Getty Images ) How great a burden can even an unrivaled superpower carry before it buckles and breaks ?
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rome was the superpower of its time , ruling for centuries almost the entirety of what was then called the civilized world .
Great Britain was a superpower of its day , but she bled , bankrupted and broke herself in the Thirty Years War of the West from 1914-1945 .
By Winston Churchill ’ s death in 1965 , the empire had vanished , and Britain was being invaded by a stream of migrants from its former colonies .
America was the real superpower of the 20th century and became sole claimant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991 , an event Vladimir Putin called “ the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.
” Has America ’ s turn come ?
Is America breaking under the burdens it has lately assumed and is attempting to carry ?
Today , at the presidential library of Richard Nixon , who ushered Mao ’ s China onto the world stage , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is laying out a strategy of containment and confrontation of a China that is far more the equal of the USA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1960s , manufacturing made up 25 % of U.S. gross domestic product .
It ’ s barely 11 % today .
More than five million American manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000.
” China controls the production of 97 % of the antibiotics upon which the lives of millions of Americans depend .
She provides critical components in the production chains of U.S. weapons systems .
Beijing commands more warships than the U.S. Navy and holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt .
Moscow never had this kind of hold on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2000 , America ’ s defense industry has shed more than 20,000 U.S.-based manufacturing companies .
As the work those companies once did domestically has shifted overseas , much of it has gone to China .
From rare-earth metals and permanent magnets to high-end electronic components and printed circuit boards , the Pentagon has slowly become dependent on Chinese industrial output .
Asia produces 90 % of the world ’ s circuit boards — more than half of them in China .
The U.S. share of global circuit-board production has fallen to 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-industrializing America would be an immense undertaking .
But unless and until we do it , we remain vulnerable .
Another decades-long struggle , this time with China , like the Cold War that consumed so much of our attention and wealth from the 1940s to 1991 , is not the only challenge America faces .
Through NATO , the U.S. is still the principal protector of almost 30 European nations .
And despite Donald Trump ’ s promise to end our forever wars , 8,500 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan , 5,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands more in Kuwait and Bahrain .
There are other huge new claims on America ’ s time , attention and resources .
Some 145,000 Americans have perished in five months of the coronavirus pandemic , more U.S. dead than all the Americans soldiers lost in Korea , Vietnam , Iraq and Afghanistan .
A thousand Americans are dying every day , a higher daily death toll than in World War II and the Civil War combined .
The U.S. economy has been thrust into something approaching a second Depression .
The 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Our national debt is now far larger than our GDP and soaring .
Tens of millions are unemployed .
And the shutdowns are beginning anew .
From the protests , riots , rampages and statue-smashing of the last two months , it is apparent that millions of Americans detest our history and heroes .
Though nowhere in recorded time have 42 million people of African descent achieved the measures of freedom and prosperity they have in the USA , we are daily admonished that ours is a rotten and sick society whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systemic racism.
” The racial divisions are almost as ugly as during the riots of the 1960s in Harlem , Watts , Newark and 100 cities that exploded after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King .
In the numbers of citizens now shot and killed every week , great American cities such as Baltimore , St. Louis , Detroit and Chicago are looking more like Baghdad .
The Democratic Party is promising to take up the issue of racial reparations for our original sin of slavery .
The first order of business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality — of income , wealth , educational attainment and health care .
The racial disparity in police arrests , prosecutions , incarcerations and school expulsions , must end .
But if the trillions we have spent to address these inequalities since the Great Society days have failed to make greater progress , why should we believe that we even know how to succeed , absent the imposition of a rigid socialist egalitarianism of results ?
The Old Republic is facing a stress test unlike any it has known since the Union was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever .
”

How great a burden can even an unrivaled superpower carry before it buckles and breaks? We may be about to find out.
Rome was the superpower of its time, ruling for centuries almost the entirety of what was then called the civilized world.
Great Britain was a superpower of its day, but she bled, bankrupted and broke herself in the Thirty Years War of the West from 1914-1945.
By Winston Churchill’s death in 1965, the empire had vanished, and Britain was being invaded by a stream of migrants from its former colonies.
America was the real superpower of the 20th century and became sole claimant to that title with the collapse of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991, an event Vladimir Putin called “the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.”
Has America’s turn come? Is America breaking under the burdens it has lately assumed and is attempting to carry?
Today, at the presidential library of Richard Nixon, who ushered Mao’s China onto the world stage, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is laying out a strategy of containment and confrontation of a China that is far more the equal of the USA than was the USSR.
Writes Hudson’s Institute’s Arthur Herman:
“In the 1960s, manufacturing made up 25% of U.S. gross domestic product. It’s barely 11% today. More than five million American manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000.”
China controls the production of 97% of the antibiotics upon which the lives of millions of Americans depend. She provides critical components in the production chains of U.S. weapons systems.
Beijing commands more warships than the U.S. Navy and holds a trillion dollars in U.S. debt. Moscow never had this kind of hold on us.
Writes Herman: “Since 2000, America’s defense industry has shed more than 20,000 U.S.-based manufacturing companies. As the work those companies once did domestically has shifted overseas, much of it has gone to China. From rare-earth metals and permanent magnets to high-end electronic components and printed circuit boards, the Pentagon has slowly become dependent on Chinese industrial output. Asia produces 90% of the world’s circuit boards — more than half of them in China. The U.S. share of global circuit-board production has fallen to 5%.”
Decoupling from China and re-industrializing America would be an immense undertaking. But unless and until we do it, we remain vulnerable.
Another decades-long struggle, this time with China, like the Cold War that consumed so much of our attention and wealth from the 1940s to 1991, is not the only challenge America faces.
Through NATO, the U.S. is still the principal protector of almost 30 European nations. And despite Donald Trump’s promise to end our forever wars, 8,500 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, 5,000 in Iraq, hundreds in Syria, thousands more in Kuwait and Bahrain.
There are other huge new claims on America’s time, attention and resources. Some 145,000 Americans have perished in five months of the coronavirus pandemic, more U.S. dead than all the Americans soldiers lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
A thousand Americans are dying every day, a higher daily death toll than in World War II and the Civil War combined.
The U.S. economy has been thrust into something approaching a second Depression. The 2020 deficit runs into the trillions of dollars. Our national debt is now far larger than our GDP and soaring. Tens of millions are unemployed. And the shutdowns are beginning anew.
From the protests, riots, rampages and statue-smashing of the last two months, it is apparent that millions of Americans detest our history and heroes. Though nowhere in recorded time have 42 million people of African descent achieved the measures of freedom and prosperity they have in the USA, we are daily admonished that ours is a rotten and sick society whose every institution is shot through with “systemic racism.”
The racial divisions are almost as ugly as during the riots of the 1960s in Harlem, Watts, Newark and 100 cities that exploded after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King.
In the numbers of citizens now shot and killed every week, great American cities such as Baltimore, St. Louis, Detroit and Chicago are looking more like Baghdad.
The Democratic Party is promising to take up the issue of racial reparations for our original sin of slavery. The first order of business, we are told, is ending inequality — of income, wealth, educational attainment and health care. The racial disparity in police arrests, prosecutions, incarcerations and school expulsions, must end.
But if the trillions we have spent to address these inequalities since the Great Society days have failed to make greater progress, why should we believe that we even know how to succeed, absent the imposition of a rigid socialist egalitarianism of results?
The Old Republic is facing a stress test unlike any it has known since the Union was threatened with dissolution in the Civil War.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


theamericanconservative--2020-07-27--Our Foreign Policy Nightmare: Vice President Susan Rice

Libya , Syria , Afghanistan -- -Rice was at the table for every Obama debacle .
And she has no solid positions of her own .
US President Barack Obama , US Secretary of State John Kerry , and White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice during a NATO summit on July 8 , 2016 in Warsaw , Poland .
( WOJTEK RADWANSKI/AFP via Getty Images ) Susan Rice , former national security advisor to President Obama , is reportedly under consideration for the vice presidential slot in presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s administration .
Biden is currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president , among them Sen. Kamala Harris of California , Rep. Val Demings of Florida , Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms , Rep. Karen Bass of California , and Rice .
Biden said he will make his final decision in early August ahead of the Democratic National Convention which will take place in Milwaukee from Aug. 17 to 20 .
All the women Biden is considering have had “ some exposure to foreign policy and national defense issues , ” Biden has said , and he wants someone who can serve as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice ” and with whom he is “ simpatico.
” Rice , whose office was next door to Biden ’ s during Obama ’ s second term , checks all those boxes .
“ The most important attribute that I have is almost two decades of experience in senior ranks of the executive branch , ” Rice told the Washington Post .
While VP contender Sen. Kamala Harris ( D. , Calif. ) has been accused of planting negative stories about potential rivals in the media , Rice has been keeping her name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the New York Times and appearing on a spate of TV shows .
In The New York Times , Rice wrote that Trump “ is utterly derelict in his duties , presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk .
At worst , the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary ’ s nefarious interests.
” On NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing nothing ” about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan .
On the “ Daily Show with Trevor Noah , ” she trashed Trump ’ s response to the Covid-19 pandemic .
The Obama administration gave the Trump administration a playbook for a possible pandemic , Rice said , and she personally participated in a tabletop exercise with the incoming Trump cabinet where they discussed the possibility of “ a novel SARS-like virus emerging from China , ” said Rice .
All that preparation , she said , “ seemed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years into office , President Trump dismantled the office that I set up on global health security ; they trashed that playbook or stuck it in some drawer , some shelf and never pulled it out .
For two months , January , February and part of March , [ Trump ] really denied the reality of this virus , equated it to the seasonal flu … and by that time , it was already well-embedded in our country.
” Whether it ’ s due to her strengths as a potential VP candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reappearance on the national stage earned the Trump administration ’ s ire , and senior Trump officials have returned fire .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed Rice on Fox News for what he called her “ history of going on Sunday shows and lying ; ” this week , White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Rice had issued a “ stand down ” order on Russian cyber attacks and did nothing to combat Russian election meddling .
Rice may be about to reprise her role as “ the right ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commentator dubbed her back in 2012 .
Following the Sept. 11 , 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi , Libya , Rice appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows and recited CIA talking points .
Those points , which were based on intelligence assessments at the time , turned out to be incomplete and misleading , and Rice was accused of being “ incompetent , ” “ untrustworthy , ” and soft-pedaling terrorism .
She has also been criticized for her decision to unmask the identities of senior Trump officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rice , who was Obama ’ s national security advisor at the time , told House investigators that she asked for the unmasking in order to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late in 2016 .
Her explanation satisfied influential Republicans on the House committee that investigated .
“ I didn ’ t hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal , ” Florida Republican Rep. Tom Rooney told CNN of Rice ’ s testimony , which is classified .
Although it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice , who played the lead role in the decisions that led to the Benghazi attacks , Rice has been widely panned in conservative media as responsible for the embassy attack .
A Biden selection would give Republicans an opportunity to resurrect Rice as their bogey-woman .
But with Democrat voters , there ’ s a possibility those attacks could backfire , and the left could spin them as Fox News baselessly attacking a blameless black woman .
Whether Rice is chosen as Biden ’ s vice presidential pick or not , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence within a Biden administration , particularly on foreign policy .
She had a seat at the table during some of the Obama administration ’ s most momentous decisions .
She was Obama ’ s ambassador to the UN during his first term ; during his second , she served as national security adviser .
What , if any , lessons did she learn ?
What would U.S. foreign policy look like with Biden and Rice working in the West Wing again ?
“ Even if she is not chosen as Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line for Secretary of State , or another position of that elevated nature .
I ’ m aghast at the thought of her becoming president , because she ’ s such a hawk , ” said historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter , in an interview with The American Conservative .
Porter pointed to Rice ’ s influence on the Obama administration decision to bomb Libya and Syria , as well as her push for escalation in Afghanistan and her support of aid to the Syrian rebels .
“ In each case I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Obama ’ s clear-cut instincts or preferences in White House meetings or in a situation where he was hesitant , ” and that she was part of the pressure he received from “ a coalition of hawks ” in the administration .
Obama ultimately overruled Rice on Syria , a decision that she says was the right call .
Here ’ s how she describes it : It is difficult to imagine a situation worse than Syria , where nearly half a million have died in a civil war that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrative ; has Rice learned from her mistakes ?
Her nearly 500 page memoir Tough Love : My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For , published in 2019 , meticulously documents a great deal .
Rice is careful to thank nearly everyone she ever worked with , including the White House chef !
Unfortunately , she studiously avoids drawing overarching policy conclusions .
Rice , a Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. in international relations , is simply too smart to jeopardize her future Washington career ambitions by offending or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with again .
Her book is , therefore , a typical one by someone hoping for a position in a future president ’ s administration .
“ Susan Rice is right in the middle of the road , when you think about foreign policy hands in DC , ” said John Glaser , director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute , in an interview with The American Conservative .
“ She has a lot of high level experience in foreign policy , but I ’ ve never been able to detect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unique thinker , in that she had something to say about the way she ’ d prefer the U.S. to go .
She says things that are plastic , packaged to be right in the center of the foreign policy consensus in D.C. That ’ s how I see her : run of the mill , not an extraordinary pick … If she were VP , our foreign policy would not be different than what we ’ ve seen the past 30 years.
” Given that Biden is campaigning on a “ return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the last 30 years isn ’ t necessarily something that Biden views negatively .
A Biden-Rice presidency would seek a return to the Paris climate accords , the JCPOA Iran deal negotiated during Obama ’ s second term , and would expand and strengthen NATO .
They would likely avoid engaging in any new ground wars like Libya or Syria .
Biden and Rice would be more hawkish on Russia , and if Rice ’ s latest op-eds are any measure , they would likely be more assertive with China as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end of a Biden administration , we will still be arguing about getting out of Afghanistan , and ( about ) stopping the bombing of places like Iraq , ” Glaser said .

Susan Rice, former national security advisor to President Obama, is reportedly under consideration for the vice presidential slot in presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s administration. Biden is currently considering four black women to be his vice president, among them Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Rep. Karen Bass of California, and Rice.
Biden said he will make his final decision in early August ahead of the Democratic National Convention which will take place in Milwaukee from Aug. 17 to 20.
All the women Biden is considering have had “some exposure to foreign policy and national defense issues,” Biden has said, and he wants someone who can serve as president at a “moment’s notice” and with whom he is “simpatico.”
Rice, whose office was next door to Biden’s during Obama’s second term, checks all those boxes.
“The most important attribute that I have is almost two decades of experience in senior ranks of the executive branch,” Rice told the Washington Post.
While VP contender Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) has been accused of planting negative stories about potential rivals in the media, Rice has been keeping her name in the news by writing regular op-eds in the New York Times and appearing on a spate of TV shows.
In The New York Times, Rice wrote that Trump “is utterly derelict in his duties, presiding over a dangerously dysfunctional national security process that is putting our country and those who wear its uniform at great risk. At worst, the White House is being run by liars and wimps catering to a tyrannical president who is actively advancing our arch adversary’s nefarious interests.”
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rice accused Trump of “doing nothing” about Russian bounties on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On the “Daily Show with Trevor Noah,” she trashed Trump’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Obama administration gave the Trump administration a playbook for a possible pandemic, Rice said, and she personally participated in a tabletop exercise with the incoming Trump cabinet where they discussed the possibility of “a novel SARS-like virus emerging from China,” said Rice.
All that preparation, she said, “seemed to be for naught, because a couple of years into office, President Trump dismantled the office that I set up on global health security; they trashed that playbook or stuck it in some drawer, some shelf and never pulled it out. For two months, January, February and part of March, [Trump] really denied the reality of this virus, equated it to the seasonal flu … and by that time, it was already well-embedded in our country.”
Whether it’s due to her strengths as a potential VP candidate or her criticism, Rice’s reappearance on the national stage earned the Trump administration’s ire, and senior Trump officials have returned fire. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo slammed Rice on Fox News for what he called her “history of going on Sunday shows and lying;” this week, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Rice had issued a “stand down” order on Russian cyber attacks and did nothing to combat Russian election meddling.
Rice may be about to reprise her role as “the right’s favorite chew toy,” as one commentator dubbed her back in 2012.
Following the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, Rice appeared on the Sunday morning talk shows and recited CIA talking points. Those points, which were based on intelligence assessments at the time, turned out to be incomplete and misleading, and Rice was accused of being “incompetent,” “untrustworthy,” and soft-pedaling terrorism. She has also been criticized for her decision to unmask the identities of senior Trump officials, which President Trump called a crime.
Rice, who was Obama’s national security advisor at the time, told House investigators that she asked for the unmasking in order to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late in 2016. Her explanation satisfied influential Republicans on the House committee that investigated.
“I didn’t hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal,” Florida Republican Rep. Tom Rooney told CNN of Rice’s testimony, which is classified.
Although it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not Rice, who played the lead role in the decisions that led to the Benghazi attacks, Rice has been widely panned in conservative media as responsible for the embassy attack. A Biden selection would give Republicans an opportunity to resurrect Rice as their bogey-woman. But with Democrat voters, there’s a possibility those attacks could backfire, and the left could spin them as Fox News baselessly attacking a blameless black woman.
Whether Rice is chosen as Biden’s vice presidential pick or not, she will likely have a great deal of influence within a Biden administration, particularly on foreign policy. She had a seat at the table during some of the Obama administration’s most momentous decisions. She was Obama’s ambassador to the UN during his first term; during his second, she served as national security adviser. What, if any, lessons did she learn?
What would U.S. foreign policy look like with Biden and Rice working in the West Wing again?
“Even if she is not chosen as Biden’s VP, Rice would be in line for Secretary of State, or another position of that elevated nature. I’m aghast at the thought of her becoming president, because she’s such a hawk,” said historian and investigative journalist Gareth Porter, in an interview with The American Conservative. Porter pointed to Rice’s influence on the Obama administration decision to bomb Libya and Syria, as well as her push for escalation in Afghanistan and her support of aid to the Syrian rebels. “In each case I would argue she was coming out either against Obama’s clear-cut instincts or preferences in White House meetings or in a situation where he was hesitant,” and that she was part of the pressure he received from “a coalition of hawks” in the administration.
Obama ultimately overruled Rice on Syria, a decision that she says was the right call.
Here’s how she describes it:
“Ultimately, we would fail to garner the necessary support for a congressional authorization to use force. Republicans and Democrats had acted precisely as I predicted. Ironically, it turns out, I was right about the politics; but President Obama was right about the policy. Without the use of force, we ultimately achieved a better outcome than I had imagined.”
It is difficult to imagine a situation worse than Syria, where nearly half a million have died in a civil war that has been ongoing since 2011.
This incident is illustrative; has Rice learned from her mistakes?
Her nearly 500 page memoir Tough Love: My Story of the Things Worth Fighting For, published in 2019, meticulously documents a great deal. Rice is careful to thank nearly everyone she ever worked with, including the White House chef!
Unfortunately, she studiously avoids drawing overarching policy conclusions. Rice, a Stanford graduate and Rhodes scholar with a Ph.D. in international relations, is simply too smart to jeopardize her future Washington career ambitions by offending or criticizing anyone she might have to work with again. Her book is, therefore, a typical one by someone hoping for a position in a future president’s administration.
“Susan Rice is right in the middle of the road, when you think about foreign policy hands in DC,” said John Glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in an interview with The American Conservative. “She has a lot of high level experience in foreign policy, but I’ve never been able to detect a way she stands out as a unique thinker, in that she had something to say about the way she’d prefer the U.S. to go. She says things that are plastic, packaged to be right in the center of the foreign policy consensus in D.C. That’s how I see her: run of the mill, not an extraordinary pick … If she were VP, our foreign policy would not be different than what we’ve seen the past 30 years.”
Given that Biden is campaigning on a “return to normalcy,” the foreign policy of the last 30 years isn’t necessarily something that Biden views negatively.
A Biden-Rice presidency would seek a return to the Paris climate accords, the JCPOA Iran deal negotiated during Obama’s second term, and would expand and strengthen NATO. They would likely avoid engaging in any new ground wars like Libya or Syria. Biden and Rice would be more hawkish on Russia, and if Rice’s latest op-eds are any measure, they would likely be more assertive with China as well.
“But, I worry that at the end of a Biden administration, we will still be arguing about getting out of Afghanistan, and (about) stopping the bombing of places like Iraq,” Glaser said.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-28--Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney Unite Against Putting America First

Ending wars is the one truly heretical act in Washington .
WASHINGTON , DC - JULY 21 : U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney ( R-WY ) speaks during a news conference with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) and other Republican members of the House of Representatives at the Capitol on July 21 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
( Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images ) After President Trump stated his desire to withdraw troops from Afghanistan , Germany and South Korea , the bipartisan war party sprang into action .
Veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 740 billion in military spending .
Along with all the other dubious and downright awful provisions , the House ’ s version of the bill has included a measure designed to thwart the president from bringing troops home .
House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney ( R-WY ) on an amendment putting several conditions on the administration ’ s withdrawal from Afghanistan , requiring the White House to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn ’ t jeopardize counterterrorism or national security .
This episode captures why the Washington establishment loathes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to do with the smears accusing him of racism or Russian sympathies .
Trump is the only president to challenge the internationalist interventionist orthodoxy that ’ s ruled Washington unquestioned for the last 70 years .
Let ’ s go back to 1949 , to the creation of NATO and the initial deployment of troops to Europe .
Joe Stalin and world communism was on the march , we were told .
Russia controlled half of Europe and would take the rest—along with Korea—unless we acted .
President Truman demanded American boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Japan , Greece , Turkey , Korea , wherever .
But even in that climate of crisis , support for permanent war was not unanimous .
Senator William “ Wild Bill ” Langer ( R-North Dakota ) , one of the eleven Republicans in opposition ( along with just two Democrats ) called NATO “ a barren military alliance directed to plunge us deeply into the economic , military and political affairs of the other nations of Europe.
” We ’ re still plunging new depths , ever seeking new frontiers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When President Trump declared before the immobile faces of Mt .
Rushmore , “ A nation must care for its own citizens first .
We must take care of America first , ” he was channeling that original America Firster , Joe Kennedy .
The man who would father three senators and a president offered this advice in 1950 ( none of his children took it ) : America needs “ to get out of Korea ” and “ apply the same principle to Europe.
” We must “ conserve American lives for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the freezing hills of Korea or the battle-scarred plains of Western Germany.
” Or in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of the Middle East .
When you hear President Trump ask NATO countries to up their defense spending , compare that to the words of Joe Kennedy : “ We can not sacrifice ourselves to save those who do not wish to save themselves.
” Nancy Pelosi and her ilk call Trump a Russian asset for daring to put the interests of this country before empire .
Nothing new there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same cloth as an earlier generation of liberals .
In 1951 , The Nation magazine accused “ Herbert Hoover and a good portion of the Republican Party ” of being captured by Moscow—that portion opposed to NATO , because Hoover doubted the effectiveness of deploying ground troops against the communist nations .
The New Republic seconded the motion : refusing to commit American troops to NATO “ may lead Stalin to attack Western Europe ” and keep advancing until his minions “ would bring out in triumph the first Communist edition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his fellow impeachment travelers remain convinced we must fight the Russians over there so we don ’ t have to fight them over here !
Back then , the bipartisan war party insisted the president could send troops abroad without asking Congress .
Now when President Trump wants to bring them home , Congress claims it has the authority to stop him .
Whatever it takes to keep the war machine properly greased .
Until Trump , George McGovern was the only candidate of a major party to call for drawing down troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in McGovern ’ s 1972 acceptance speech is pure America First : “ This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to rebuilding our own nation.
” The establishment has hated McGovern ever since for the same reason they hate President Trump .
The America First program would dismantle the imperial project that brought us NATO and has kept us on permanent war footing until today .
The foreign policy sachems built a “ post-war rules based international order ” on the premise the United States can and must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troops abroad and launched wars with no end .
They merged the American economy with that of the rest of the world , destroying America ’ s industries , high wage scales and standard of living in the process .
They constructed a permanent national security state with unchecked powers to pursue anyone including the president .
The precious “ rules based international order ” is empire by another name .
To those who support it—Democrat , Republican , liberal , conservative , neoconservative , academics , lobbyists and pundits—it is the One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is anathema .
Even the elected President of the United States .

After President Trump stated his desire to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany and South Korea, the bipartisan war party sprang into action.
Veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved a defense appropriations bill that authorizes $740 billion in military spending. Along with all the other dubious and downright awful provisions, the House’s version of the bill has included a measure designed to thwart the president from bringing troops home. House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney (R-WY) on an amendment putting several conditions on the administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, requiring the White House to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn’t jeopardize counterterrorism or national security.
This episode captures why the Washington establishment loathes President Trump. Hint: it has nothing to do with the smears accusing him of racism or Russian sympathies.
Trump is the only president to challenge the internationalist interventionist orthodoxy that’s ruled Washington unquestioned for the last 70 years.
Let’s go back to 1949, to the creation of NATO and the initial deployment of troops to Europe.
Joe Stalin and world communism was on the march, we were told. Russia controlled half of Europe and would take the rest—along with Korea—unless we acted. President Truman demanded American boys be ready to fight Russia in Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Korea, wherever.
But even in that climate of crisis, support for permanent war was not unanimous.
Senator William “Wild Bill” Langer (R-North Dakota), one of the eleven Republicans in opposition (along with just two Democrats) called NATO “a barren military alliance directed to plunge us deeply into the economic, military and political affairs of the other nations of Europe.”
We’re still plunging new depths, ever seeking new frontiers and new missions for the barren alliance.
When President Trump declared before the immobile faces of Mt. Rushmore, “A nation must care for its own citizens first. We must take care of America first,” he was channeling that original America Firster, Joe Kennedy.
The man who would father three senators and a president offered this advice in 1950 (none of his children took it): America needs “to get out of Korea” and “apply the same principle to Europe.” We must “conserve American lives for American ends, not waste them in the freezing hills of Korea or the battle-scarred plains of Western Germany.”
Or in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of the Middle East.
When you hear President Trump ask NATO countries to up their defense spending, compare that to the words of Joe Kennedy: “We cannot sacrifice ourselves to save those who do not wish to save themselves.”
Nancy Pelosi and her ilk call Trump a Russian asset for daring to put the interests of this country before empire. Nothing new there. Today’s Russia-baiters are cut from the same cloth as an earlier generation of liberals.
In 1951, The Nation magazine accused “Herbert Hoover and a good portion of the Republican Party” of being captured by Moscow—that portion opposed to NATO, because Hoover doubted the effectiveness of deploying ground troops against the communist nations.
The New Republic seconded the motion: refusing to commit American troops to NATO “may lead Stalin to attack Western Europe” and keep advancing until his minions “would bring out in triumph the first Communist edition of the Chicago Tribune.” Mitt Romney and his fellow impeachment travelers remain convinced we must fight the Russians over there so we don’t have to fight them over here!
Back then, the bipartisan war party insisted the president could send troops abroad without asking Congress. Now when President Trump wants to bring them home, Congress claims it has the authority to stop him. Whatever it takes to keep the war machine properly greased.
Until Trump, George McGovern was the only candidate of a major party to call for drawing down troops in Europe and Korea. The sentiment in McGovern’s 1972 acceptance speech is pure America First: “This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to rebuilding our own nation.”
The establishment has hated McGovern ever since for the same reason they hate President Trump.
The America First program would dismantle the imperial project that brought us NATO and has kept us on permanent war footing until today.
The foreign policy sachems built a “post-war rules based international order” on the premise the United States can and must remake the world. They stationed our troops abroad and launched wars with no end. They merged the American economy with that of the rest of the world, destroying America’s industries, high wage scales and standard of living in the process. They constructed a permanent national security state with unchecked powers to pursue anyone including the president.
The precious “rules based international order” is empire by another name. To those who support it—Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, neoconservative, academics, lobbyists and pundits—it is the One True Faith.
Anyone who opposes it is anathema. Even the elected President of the United States.