Citizen Free Press, the conservative news aggregator that grabbed the niche from The Drudge Report after the latter went Trump Deranged, is constantly highlighting the National Debt’s explosion. This is legitimate news. Here is an item that appeared today:
“10 years ago today Trump promised to eliminate the national debt.Instead it has doubled to $39 trillion.“
Meanwhile, over the weekend, the Nation Debt was suddenly important to the Axis again, as those who were horrified over the minuscule number of casualties in the Operation Epic Fury were desperately looking for some way to criticize the amazing rescue of the downed pilot in Iran. All of a sudden, the Left was grousing about Trump spending all that money to rescue a single soldier (The Axis has no integrity at all. I hope that’s clear by now) and citing the National Debt.
Ethics Alarms 
I recall how the Axis, when Republicans proposed reducing the rate of spending growth, accused them of wanting to starve children.
Years ago, Gingrich had a great statement along those lines. This is a paraphrase:
“If we had five hundred dollars budgeted to buy a microwave and found one that did everything we needed for three hundred, Democrats would give a press conference lamenting how Republicans slashed two hundred dollars from the microwave budget.”
I’ll never forget what a pastor said many years ago while delivering a sermon about money: “When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall.”
No words were ever more appropriate for deficit spending at the national level than those.
You make a good point about DOGE – the monies it has saved, even if it’s in the billions of dollars, is still just a pittance when weighed against the overall debt. And we really haven’t even delved into the massive black hole that is the unfunded mandates, which are well beyond $100 trillion.
We obviously can’t afford all of this stuff forever, so riding this bomb – as if imitating Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove – all the way to detonation doesn’t seem like a good idea. It’s a shame no one in Washington wants to divest themselves of the power that the spending gives them.
sigh…
Sorry to monopolize, but one additional thing. It should also be clear by now that the Axis is really big on people getting killed as part of moving their agenda forward. Whether it’s Good or Pretti resisting ICE or soldiers and airmen in the Middle East, death has become a real “means to an end” for the Left. The Marxist ideal of creating martyrs is not just theoretical to them.
You could almost sense this weekend the frustration the Left felt with that rescue. They complained about the money…sure…but it’s almost as though they preferred the pilot be killed or (maybe even better) captured so they could complain about the cost, in U.S blood, of our endeavors in Iran. Imagine their bitter disappointment when all they got to lament was the cost in dollars rather than talking about how Trump was killing soldiers.
Joel,
I would caveat what you said by pointing to the general principle of “by any means available” that the Axis operates under. If it is a stick with which they can beat the Right, and Trump especially, they will use it. I wouldn’t say that they are big on getting people killed, specifically, but as long as they believe they’d get mileage out of people dying, they will salivate at any prospect of a new martyr. The lament over the rescued airman NOT dying is definitely over the lost opportunity to use an American casualty as an attack at Trump. Even the complaint over the National Debt is transparently about using whatever stick is available to beat Trump. After all, these are the people who believe the Keynesian economic theories of increased deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy. But they know that the Right wants to reduce the National Debt, and so they can go on the attack for every dollar Trump spends because of how it adds to the National Debt.
As far as I can tell, the only “ethical” principle the Left operates under is will to power. I feel the Right isn’t too far behind going down that path, too, but the Left has (to my observation) jettisoned all other considerations.
As far as I can tell, the only “ethical” principle the Left operates under is will to power. I feel the Right isn’t too far behind going down that path, too, but the Left has (to my observation) jettisoned all other considerations.
According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion action is reaction. If the Left operates under its will to power, the right has to follow suit to prevent that. Somehow I start to believe that the term United States of America is becoming an oxymoron, as the people of this country are deeply and fundamentally divided about everything. I do think that the Democrat Party and the Axis media are rooting in favor of Iran to spite Trump, and to bolster the Democrat Party’s power.
That may be true, though “rooting” is a bit strong. And unlikely.
On Easter morning, one imagines it is the most (“”) sacred day for even a post-christian nation, our narcissistic Julius Cesar promised to commit war crimes against civilian populations (the people we are supposedly defending) and murder (accurate use of the word) tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands; then used the f-bomb to make an emphatic point (about the stupidity of the Iranians) and topped it off by saying “Praise be to Allah”.
Please, lay out for me — for our nation and for the world — how exactly we should “support” Donald Trump or his administration in all of this?
Ugh. Waging war is not a war crime. One’s opponents in a war always can surrender, thus ending the war, the danger, the risk to their population, especially in a case like this, where the enemy has no adverse designs on the nation or its residents. Fact: the world will be a better, safer place with a defanged Iran, and Iran has been escaping the consequences of its own murderous nature for about 40 years too long. The current action can on;y be justified ethically by utilitarian principles, but war is always evaluated that way, like capital punishment. There are no ethical and rational arguments against this one, only emotional and absolutist ones.
There are no ethical and rational arguments against this one, only emotional and absolutist ones.
In this case — I say this with full, expressed respect — you seem to me quite wrong. And unless I am mistaken (I hope I am) it will soon be clear how wrong and destructive this adventure turns out to be.
How do you respond to the dozens and multiple dozens of “non-Axis” analysts who state, emphatically, insistingly and continuously that this war, under these conditions, is extremely unlikely to be resolved favorably in our nation’s favor? Are they all under a spell?
Waging war is not a war crime.
Yet I gather that you do admit “war crime” as a genuine category? Or is it that “no quarter” will be given and no restraint observed?
How do you respond to the dozens and multiple dozens of “non-Axis” analysts who state, emphatically, insistingly and continuously that this war, under these conditions, is extremely unlikely to be resolved favorably in our nation’s favor? Are they all under a spell?
Bias makes you stupid. Ade
Waging war is not a war crime.
Yet I gather that you do admit “war crime” as a genuine category? Or is it that “no quarter” will be given and no restraint observed?
How do you respond to the dozens and multiple dozens of “non-Axis” analysts who state, emphatically, insistingly and continuously that this war, under these conditions, is extremely unlikely to be resolved favorably in our nation’s favor? Are they all under a spell?
Bias makes them stupid, that’s all. That and Trump Derangement. They want the US to lose and be embarrassed so they can regain power. It is an irrational position.
Waging war is not a war crime. Yet I gather that you do admit “war crime” as a genuine category? Or is it that “no quarter” will be given and no restraint observed?
Torturing and murdering prisoners, setting out to kill civilians when there is no possible benefit to the war objectives? Genuine genocide? Sure. Iran’s randomly attacking no combatant countries as a form of extortion is a war crime. Trying to win a war by making the enemy’s population insist on surrender is not. Neither is refusing let the human shield tactic dissuade an attack.
Bias makes them stupid, that’s all.
That is an absurd, prejudiced statement. You are saying in effect: “Anyone who has a contrary opinion to my opinion is suffering ‘bias’.” But it is possible that you operate from more acute bias than they. Therefore, it is possible by your own construction that bias is making you less intelligent and circumspect than you could be.
Attacking civilian infrastructure with the defined purpose of harming and killing civilians has been defined as criminal. And the downside, for our country, is that if we do such to them, they are justified to do the same to us.
Those who rationally oppose the tactics and strategy of this operation quite simply point out that what is being done will not work. And this (according to numerous) was known and predicted.
Apparently, it is one more example of a badly thought out escapade that does not advance the nation, does not help it rebuild and recover, but drives it deeper into decline.
If this is so it undermines your argument completely. You also fail to understand and take into account that world opinion does not support this mode of achieving US ends.
No, I am saying that when one maintains an opinion that is objectively absurd and that in another context YOU would think is absurd, than it is clear that said opinion is based on what you wish were true rather than what is true. Nobody neutral and credible has “pointed out” that the operation “will not work.” It has already worked. The analogy with the Monty Python’s Black Knight is apt. The only aspect of the mission that “hasn’t worked” is that weak and indoctrinated media sources and reflex anti-war (bias), anti-Israel (bias) anti-Trump (bias), anti-military action even when it is critical and necessary (bias), anti-US (bias) in the nation are doing their best to undermine it.
Let me elaborate briefly, because I can see the “No True Scotsman” claim coming from a mile away. The US has wiped out layer after layer of the nation’s leadership. It has eliminated most of the nation’s nuclear capabilities, and is about to cripple its infrastructure. The only claims otherwise issue from Iran’s version of “Baghdad Bob” and the social media Fifth Column in the US. Meanwhile, the predicted “terror cell” retaliations haven’t occurred, and the number of US casualties are closer to what occurs in war game operations accidents than in actual combat. Iran’s capability of seeding terrorism in the region has been hugely reduced, and Israel, the only democracy in the region, has been bolstered and supported, as it must be. Since the UN is corrupted and feckless, the US is the default Guardian of the Universe, and reminding Russia, China et all of that is vital, especially after the Biden Era’s “Don’t.” style of fearful diplomacy.
I responded waaaaay down at the bottom. No space left here!
The people in Iran accept being collateral damage as their main desire is to be liberated from the rule of the Islamic death cult. Patrick Henry would understand “Give me freedom or give me death!”
The people in Iran accept being collateral damage as their main desire is to be liberated from the rule of the Islamic death cult. Patrick Henry would understand “Give me freedom or give me death!”
One person is saying that (if I understand your X image). There is much debate within diaspora Irani community however.
None of that is my main point. I do not see this war adventure as advancing America’s position or interests if, as many responsible people are saying, it will more likely than not work against the reconstruction of America. And a misadventure will likely ruin Republican chances at mid-term. Recent decisions made by Trump et al are working against him. It is called “Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory”.
But: we will all of very soon see. My sense? Seventy-five percent likelihood of failure. Twenty-five percent of merely neutral outcome.
The left and the Iranians were salivating over the prospect of humiliating that weapons officer if he was captured alive o dragging his corpse through the streets of Iran from the back of a Toyota pickup like they did the guys who were killed trying to extricate the embassy employees forty-seven years ago. They both thought it would end the war, Republican control of congress, and any Republican’s chance to win the White House in 2028. It would be a tri-fecta for that alliance made in hell.
I’ve read that almost all countries have a national debt. I have yet to understand who holds these markers (ref: Guys and Dolls).
In my Brooklyn neighborhood, if you owed the bookie and did not clear the “marker” as “politely “requested by the loan sharks representatives, there were consequneces. Your “line of credit” was also impeded.
Perhaps, its time to put “brooklynese economics” into practice!
The former Serial Sexual Predator In Chief got out just under the gun: The ticking Time Bomb of the far-reaching ripple effects of the Lefty vote-generation scheme (the Community Reinvestment Act) leading to the Mortgage Meltdown, and the Clintons deregulating Wall Street (CFMA, FSMA, Riegle-Neal, etc.) are subjects Lefty’d prefer weren’t discussed.
PWS
As a simple layperson when it comes to debt and finances and national spending, it seems obvious to me that there are a few examples out in the world of budgeting, spending, and moving to the future that we can actually look at and say “what the hell are we doing?”
First of all, I just posted elsewhere on a different post about not knowing what Donald Trump is doing from time to time. I see the move, I say “what?” and I take a beat to let it all play out. With DOGE it was obvious that it was all just a pittance and that we spend entirely too much on 1) Fraud and 2) Defense spending. When it comes to defense spending, a lot of that is driven by us picking up the slack for the rest of the world. If you think about it, we protect the world, we don’t have the money to pay for that, so instead of the rest of the world picking up the slack and taking out loans, we take out loans from them and put ourselves into debt, and pay them interest for the privilege of providing them a service.
Ugh.
But let’s look at Saudi Arabia and UAE because I think they’re the most prolific / intelligent on the matter. They have budget surplus and they don’t invest that money in 1.5% treasury bonds. They have a sovereign wealth fund and they’re investing in companies, business, industry, trade and doing what every household in America should have: a dividend portfolio.
Elizabeth Warren wants to complain about Jeff Bezos’s wealth and wants to have him pay a $7B wealth tax because she can’t find $7B in her $7 Trillion budget. But his wealth is actually just partial ownership of a company he created. To pay that tax, he’d sell $7B of his $200B position and crash the company stock price generating a lot of paper losses across the board for a lot of other investors.
The problem with our country is that it is addicted to spending and debt. Let’s create some sort of protected fund where taxes can be paid as shares and those holdings can’t be sold off, but only liquidated by a company merging or going private. The dividends of such holdings will be the only value given to the coffers of the U.S. and should first finance meeting the obligations generated by other debt buying programs (Social Security). Eventually, SS should be used to increase government holdings of company shares.
Ultimately, the fund will have to be managed and positions considered. Liquidations of one stock position should be mandated to other stock positions, not returned as money to the government and Social Security funds should eventually be invested in the Sovereign Fund rather than in low return T-Bills. When our companies succeed, our country should succeed. This is how you get your wealth tax and companies who consistently pay dividends to investors and increase their value through buybacks will ultimately be rewarding the US Government.
I know it’s probably “heresy” to the conservative side of the house…but I think if we take a serious consideration of the idea, it’s something that could work.
In other news, Saudi Arabia will be funding $22B for Skydance/Paramount’s $110B acquisition of Warner Bros. They will not have any control or influence to operations….but they’ll get that dividend check all the same.
A number of loose remarks here:
I think this problem is unsolvable in any democracy with a one person – one vote rule. In the past only the taxpaying classes had the franchise. We are of course not going back to that situation. But that means that this problem is not solvable due to lack of political will; only a financial debt crisis like that in Greece and Cyprus a decade ago may change that. In the meantime, as the title of one of Aaron Clarey’s books, enjoy he decline!
This is off topic but on the rescue of the weapons officer, it’s terrifying how close the operation came to being a total catastrophe. As in the disastrous attempt to rescue the embassy employees forty-seven years ago, the primary aircraft were rendered inoperable by the elements. There were really two rescue operations over the weekend: they rescued the weapons officer and then four hours later, they had to rescue the entire two hundred plus rescuers! Jesus, what a fuck-up! The C-130s got stuck in the sand?!!! There was no lighter option available to get the helicopters in? Embraer transports? Ospreys for the troops? Don’t they work? If there was a possibility the C-130s would get stuck, why weren’t the ATRs on site rather than four hours away? Jeeze, there could have been over two hundred guys surrounded and slaughtered like at the Alamo.
Curiously, some reports say the C-130s had mechanical problems. Trump said wet sand. Hmm.
Couple of points. First the driver of our debt is non-discretionary spending. The increases in debt under Trump and specifically attributable to him in his first term was Covid funding to attack the problem of insufficient capacity to deal with the strain. That spending came out of discretionary spending . Yes, his across the board tax cuts accelerated debt growth but before Covid the cuts actually yielded higher revenues.
Obamacare subsidies are increasing demand driving costs up by placing greater pressures on existing limited resources.
The fact that Americans by and large choose to eat in an unhealthy manner which is reinforced by SNAP exacerbates the situation.
Medicare costs are underfunded and coupled with many more now eligible for Medicaid the government is on the hook for increasing expenditures.
Blaming politicians for not cutting expenditures is unfair given that the electorate tells them not to so all blame should fall on the electorate. We can blame politicians who promulgate laws that create new spending programs as candy for the electorate.
It should be noted that Clinton’s success was largely a result of what Economic theory postulates as long wave technological cycles which occur every 70 years or so (Kondraetieff long waves). Moreover, the welfare rolls were slashed because Gringrich’s Contract with America forced the inclusion of work requirements which were later discarded under another administration ( I believe it was Obama or Biden but it could have been Bush)
Update: after checking it was Obama by EO that eliminated the “workfare” requirement of the welfare reform act of 1996.
Ah the tea party movement… I think this was the last effort towards fiscal responsibility. I’m not sure we have anyone elected that is a fiscal hawk like in the past. I suppose it’s hard to get elected on reform when the government gives out so many subsidies and is the largest employer in many parts of the country. Of course, most personal budgets are also a shambles so perhaps it’s becoming a lost skill set.
Let me elaborate briefly, because I can see the “No True Scotsman” claim coming from a mile away. The US has wiped out layer after layer of the nation’s leadership. It has eliminated most of the nation’s nuclear capabilities, and is about to cripple its infrastructure. The only claims otherwise issue from Iran’s version of “Baghdad Bob” and the social media Fifth Column in the US. Meanwhile, the predicted “terror cell” retaliations haven’t occurred, and the number of US casualties are closer to what occurs in war game operations accidents than in actual combat. Iran’s capability of seeding terrorism in the region has been hugely reduced, and Israel, the only democracy in the region, has been bolstered and supported, as it must be.
I understand, and those who are critical of this adventure also understand, that all the tactical achievements you describe have been achieved. Their argument is that strategic accomplishments are less likely to be achievable. That is their view, and it is considerable (one can consider it I mean). You can win all battles … and still lose a war. Fact.
Since the UN is corrupted and feckless, the US is the default Guardian of the Universe, and reminding Russia, China et all of that is vital, especially after the Biden Era’s “Don’t.” style of fearful diplomacy.
Absurd, outmoded idea. Jingoist, arrogant, and puffed up. Also: likely false now, in this present era. This is not the 1950s. Yet your ideological and geopolitical picture is more similar to the former model than to today’s reality. If what I observe as being true is true, you are in for a shock.
While I am largely sure your politics are outdated, I sincerely hope things do not turn out badly as many predict.
The war is already won; that’s what you’re missing. This isn’t Vietnam, with some amorphous “domino theory” to justify. The US isn’t going to install a new regime, or try to convert the country to Christianity. It’s eliminating a nuclear threat to our allies and the region, and punishing a nation that has killed many Americans and never been held to account, all while showing what the US military is capable of when it has resolve and isn’t run by cowards and weenies. If Iran’s oppressed people rise up and create a democracy in the chaos, great, but that’s their problem: we’ve given them a chance. It has nothing to do with “politics.” This is why we have a military and make having dominant military power a priority. It is a universal principle, borne out by the history of civilization.
The war is already won; that’s what you’re missing.
Incorrect assessment. First, don’t argue with me as if my mere opinion holds weight. What I have said is that many with strong standing have pointed out that tactical wins do not add up to strategic wins.
all while showing what the US military is capable of when it has resolve and isn’t run by cowards and weenies
It is also debated that this sort of adventure will turn out as it is intended to. My view? You are entranced by a romantic view of history and geo-politics that very well might not be able to work in this present. And it is precisely that — is it *attitude*? — that has many people quite worried. Such recklessness could well indicate not bravery and upstandingness, but sheer foolishness.
But anyway, there is going to be some great TeeVee tonight at 8:00 PM when the Iranian civilization is destroyed (for the good of Iraq of course). It’s going to be good!
This is why we have a military and make having dominant military power a priority. It is a universal principle, borne out by the history of civilization.
There are many different lessons borne out by ‘the history of civilization. And one of them touches on late empires when they get to a point where Cesar-like rulership gains power and makes consequential political choices. That are divided internally. Which are teetering on bankruptcy. That do not have the leadership that can carefully think things through and act strategically. That make blundering mistakes.
This is just as possible, indeed even more likely, than your romantic hope.
However, I have continually said: I hope that, somehow, this is pulled off without damaging the Nation’s interests.
Sorry: the good of Iran.
What I have said is that many with strong standing have pointed out that tactical wins do not add up to strategic wins.
Pure appeal to authority, and authority relying on fake tales and imagined intelligence they don’t have access to and relying on confirmation bias not to be laughed out of the room.
No, in no sense is my observation that well-prepared political theorists, with standing, is appeal to authority in my argument. That is a falsely premised claim. It is wise and balanced to consider a wide range of opinions and to be willing to listen and consider.
Your opinions as well.
My view? The pressure-cooker of American psychological life is approaching a dangerous point.
I think there will be explosions. Again, read Cg Jung’s Wotan. It traces a time when a nation went crazy …
Anyway, I made some calls. I got the Straight opened for a few weeks. Let’s everyone chill down … 🌸
So Caesar didn’t commit war crimes, didn’t obliterate the Iranian civilization, and didn’t allow our military to bomb a foreign country back to the Jazz Age…tonight.
Who would have guessed that outcome from a dictator-esque tyrant?
Estimado Sr. Mundt, I am not sure what you want to communicate? I think at times “you-plural” relish an opposing or doubting voice so that you can all chime together the views and notions that you appear to get from the Telescreen. You turn onto ideological attack dogs.
i voted for Donald Trump because of certain promises made, and you-plural, for reasons I can’t grasp, seem to abandon all critical perspectives when the cannons fire. You embody what the term “jingoist” refers to. You believe that this attitude will work in your favor, and you fail to even consider why it might not. The cautious historical perspective is on my side, not on yours.
You lack subtlety. It is clear as day that a comparison can be made to a period in Roman history where internal factors within the empire brought forward dictatorial rulers. This tendency began earlier than Trump. It is almost inevitable that this occur. Trump is perfectly emblematic of this! And you do see it except that you will not state it as long as you think (bizarrely) that you are getting what you want. Which is what? Spectacles of military missions, fire, explosions and swooping war planes. There is no guarantee that the Nation will or can get better (become great). And you seem not really to care!
And then there is the Specter of “Emmanuel Goldstein” all over again: the Hitlerian Figure that always stands behind the cosmic chaos Americanism always has in it sights.
For God’s sake man! This is all the machinery of propaganda. You can see it when you examine the (also “Hitlerian’) Democrats and their pernicious operatives …
… but your discretion turns off when your personalized (romanticized) commitments are activated.
I simply have a distance that you-plural cannot attain.
Alizia,
Let me dissect this response just a little bit. You write:
“I think at times “you-plural” relish an opposing or doubting voice so that you can all chime together the views and notions that you appear to get from the Telescreen.”
First, if the singular or plural use of “you” is not clear from context, you could write “you all”. That would be less jarring than “you-plural”. Second, because the commentariat on Ethics Alarms has become conservative heavy as the liberals have largely bailed, it can seem that contrary opinions face an onslaught of disagreement. That’s not because we want to all chime together, but because we all want to have substantive conversations with opinions that differ from our own. Those conversations do tend to run towards, “Here’s the flaws I see in your arguments, and here’s my best rebuttal,” but with a few exceptions, what is offered is legitimate dialogue, not simply unsubstantial attacks.
You write: “i voted for Donald Trump because of certain promises made, and you-plural, for reasons I can’t grasp, seem to abandon all critical perspectives when the cannons fire.”
I find this to be particularly frustrating, because time and again various commenters have explained why they are willing to accept what Donald Trump has been doing, and even why they don’t see it as violations of campaign promises. And those reasons have been varied and nuanced. They range from “Donald Trump is highly flawed, but the alternatives were worse” to “War is inevitable, and Trump is taking action to let the world know that we won’t be pushed around” to “I don’t like this, but I’m willing to wait and see how this plays out because I know I don’t have all the information”.
I’ve explained my perspective several times, to which you’ve never responded. If the United States wants to deter its enemies and ultimately reduce the number of wars, it has to demonstrate that it is willing to fight. The pusillanimous responses of Obama and Biden emboldened our enemies and thus factored into wars that are raging now. And yes, that even includes our strikes in Iran, because Obama and Biden in their soft diplomacy emboldened Iran to continue to fund terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, and to continue their pursuit of nuclear weaponry unabated. It is when our enemies believe that we won’t ever retaliate no matter what they do to us that the world becomes more dangerous and more fraught with peril. It is exactly like when police stop sending any patrols into a neighborhood. That neighborhood becomes even more crime ridden. Now, these may be explanations you don’t like, and I believe they are explanations you don’t agree with, but they do rely on critical reasoning.
You write: “You believe that this attitude will work in your favor, and you fail to even consider why it might not.”
If I don’t write about why the strikes on Iran might not work out according to how I envision, that’s partially due to time constraints, and it might be because we already have people (such as yourself) pointing out the contrary. Any endeavor contains risks. The fundamental one regarding Iran is the lack of willpower to see this war through to a satisfactory conclusion. Is there risk of losing good will from our other allies? Perhaps. But there’s been a longstanding suspicion of our European allies that they are too unwilling to defend themselves, they are too indolent, too repressive, unwilling to uphold traditional Western Civilization values, given over to socialist regimes that are antithetical to those values, and so on. What Trump is saying out loud is what many have been thinking for a while: are these countries really our allies, or are they an anchor that is drowning us? If we’re going to be allies, the one-sided nature of our alliance needs to end.
You write: “You lack subtlety.”
Rather, you are overlooking nuance and caricaturizing our position as lockstep following mindlessly some Illuminati-like hidden power. It is absolutely true that the United States is in decline. The political division, the lack of morals, the ballooning debt, all of that point to a great power heading down the tubes. But great powers don’t have to follow that slide all the way down. They can course correct. The Roman Empire went through several of those, with periods of decline followed by periods of renewal followed by periods of decline. The United States can course correct, and certainly one of the things necessary is to show the world that it is not some soft target to exploit. We don’t want bombs and explosions and firefights, but we also know that if we aren’t willing to use those things, then our decline is certain and unstoppable.
You write: “And then there is the Specter of “Emmanuel Goldstein” all over again: the Hitlerian Figure that always stands behind the cosmic chaos Americanism always has in it sights.”
Or maybe there are real threats in the world that require addressing, or they will grow to the point that they are either unmanageable or require a hundred times the blood and material than if they were handled early. Again, we’ve seen how the world situation deteriorates when the world’s super power goes soft and becomes unwilling to act. And yes, there are always going to be bad actors in the world, so the fight is never finished. The hope that is that diplomatic means will achieve most of our goals in keeping such bad actors contained. But diplomacy is backed by force, and that force only exists inasmuch as there is the willingness to use it.
You write: “For God’s sake man! This is all the machinery of propaganda.”
To which I could easily reply, “For God’s sake, woman! You’ve imbibed the Kool-Aid of conspiracy theorists!” Such statements don’t really advance the conversation any, nor win any arguments. But I would also caution that propaganda works best when it has a nugget of truth at its core. The trick then is to unwind the truth from the exaggerations, distortions, misframing, and outright lies. Just saying something is propaganda is not helpful unless you actually take the effort to untangle it all.
You write: “I simply have a distance that you-plural cannot attain.”
Aside from the arrogance of this statement, I would actually be tempted to agree with you. Chesterton once wrote in The Everlasting Man, “the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it.” By this he meant that critics of Christianity that were too close to Christianity could not disentangle themselves from their biases and regard Christianity fairly. A fair critic of Christianity would be, he proposed, a Confuscian. So a fair critic of the United States would be a distant, disinterested party that is truly outside of the USA. But said person would have to be far enough away to not live in the shadow of the USA, or have US intervention going on, or so on. I don’t know that you truly are outside, given you are close enough to the USA to have voted for Trump. I think that vested interest might not grant you the distance you believe you have.
First comment (part one of a small series of pamphlets) just below! No space left here.
Ryan wrote: Second, because the commentariat on Ethics Alarms has become conservative heavy as the liberals have largely bailed, it can seem that contrary opinions face an onslaught of disagreement.
I am not sure if you read in another post of mine that some of these designations (liberal, conservative, etc.) seem no longer to work very well. Since because when you use the term ‘Conservative” you actually mean more of a former Liberal. And you-all (heh heh) are not really Conservatives, you seem to me to be Liberals in a defensive posture. Speaking of the ‘Liberals’ who bailed, I wonder what happened to (I think her name was) Karen; and The Small Stuff; and Alicia Klein (she who rented out her womb to a Jewish investor…)(forgive me, that was slightly terrible, but funny)…
We actually need a better term for Genuine Conservative. I.e. a Conservative capable of conserving. I do not think there is even one on this blog. I am not coming from a position of Liberal or Progressive or Leftist. I attempt to define a position that is (at least more) Dissident Right — but I cannot quite pull it off.
I find this to be particularly frustrating, because time and again various commenters have explained why they are willing to accept what Donald Trump has been doing, and even why they don’t see it as violations of campaign promises.
I think you mean that this position is frustrating to you? I.e. that you wish they would be more critical? Or, that my general critique is too broad and I should take into consideration that numerous here are critical but are sort of trapped in the necessity of support because the alternatives are horrifying?
I was chastened to some degree when Jack listed Trump’s list of solid accomplishments, so what appears to be TDS on my part is not. My summation goes like this: This idiot seems to be screwing up the once-in-a-lifetime chance to do everything he set out to do by bad management of his PR. The way he conducted (or did not conduct) the illegal immigration thing; the horrible perception created by shooting an irritating woman protestor in the head; by conducting an operation that abducted the leader of another country and flew him back for a Show Traial; and now with this war that his donors seemed to have purchased. How else to explain the hundreds of millions given to Israelis with some connection to America, as if it is a room in their house, which so obviously indicates ‘divided loyalties’?
I think a critical posture is necessary and it is a good, not a bad.
I’ve explained my perspective several times, to which you’ve never responded. If the United States wants to deter its enemies and ultimately reduce the number of wars, it has to demonstrate that it is willing to fight.
The problem, as I understand it, is historical. This will bore you but here it is: The real problem is to have subverted the values of the Republic for the needs and desires of a powerful, and directive, business class. The very nature of the Republic becomes both dual and perverted. You cannot conquer lands and peoples, set up both dependencies and dictatorships (which the US most certainly did after WWll) and still declare that you are all for democracy and those ‘rights’ of our Constitution. I pointed out else where: When this shift happened (end of the 19th century, start of the 20th), it was noticed. There are books on the topic (the Spanish American Wars).
Now, in contrast to the US methods can I at least mention the tactical and strategic methods of the Chinese? There are, at least I think so, better ways to ‘conduct business’ and, I also suspect, better ways to reconstruct America. War-making (as over the last 40 years) has resulted negatively for America, socially, psychologically, materially. Right or wrong? And Trump ran on a platform of ending that destructive cycle. This is a simple fact and unless there is an amazing success in Iran HE WILL CAUSE THE REPUBLICANS TO LOSE BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE. What then?
Alizia wrote: “I simply have a distance that you-plural cannot attain.”
Ryan responded: “Aside from the arrogance of this statement, I would actually be tempted to agree with you.”
For the time-being it is kind of the way I actually see things. But I do not mean this in a haughty, superiorist way.
Alizia wrote: “For God’s sake man! This is all the machinery of propaganda.”
Ryan responded: “To which I could easily reply, “For God’s sake, woman! You’ve imbibed the Kool-Aid of conspiracy theorists!”
Except in no sense is it “conspiracy theory”. That is why I have been including some quote from Edward Bernays. The US is a creation of the PR industry. Propaganda is central to the administration of it. It has penetrated far more into the actual operations of the nation than in nearly any other country. Are you unaware of this?
Thank you Ryan for responding. I will try to get back later to comment on other important points I may have missed.
Alizia,
Just remember that at times fielding your comments is like drinking from a fire hydrant.
Regarding propaganda, though, I will confess to not studying the issue in any great depth. I would hazard that China, Russia, and Iran run far more insidious propaganda machines against their own people than the US does against its people. Nations, kingdoms, and empires have engaged in propaganda all through history. However, the US has much greater access to free, uncensored information than most anywhere else, and that has always acted as a counter propaganda. Watching for a time and seeing how the message plays out against lived experience always seems to defang the propagandists.
You cannot separate PR (propaganda) from American culture. But I did not claim it was insidious propaganda. Only that it is a highly conditioned society. Look up some of Bernays’ quotes. He is the “father of PR”. There are disturbing elements to this trade.
Psst. Culture is not propaganda, Culture is real. Propaganda is not.
In this area 1) you do not understand why I refer to “propaganda” (the essence of PR) and 2) I must guess that you might not have studied the question of the US’s development of the industry in the very early 20th century.
And ‘culture’ is indeed just that, and no, cultural trends are not propaganda. But public relations as a rational industry (involving applied psychology and applied anthropology) is best understood as “propagandistic”. Quite simply these are neutral facts.
And I still refuse to dye my hair magenta and lime green, so forget about it!
Alizia,
“I am not sure if you read in another post of mine that some of these designations (liberal, conservative, etc.) seem no longer to work very well.“
I’ll grant that “conservative” and “liberal” are terms of convenience rather than rock-solid descriptions of the underlying reality. Maybe a topic for an Open Forum could be to discuss what “true conservatism” would be. But this is all tangential to the critique I was making.
“I think you mean that this position is frustrating to you? I.e. that you wish they would be more critical? Or, that my general critique is too broad and I should take into consideration that numerous here are critical but are sort of trapped in the necessity of support because the alternatives are horrifying?”
Since this was a critique of your reply, my frustration is with your statement claiming that you cannot grasp why commenters here continue to support Trump. If you truly cannot grasp the variety of reasons offered, I would recommend spending more time trying to gain clarification, rather than denouncing us all as getting our ideas from “the Telescreen”. Certainly there are different values and ranking of priorities at play, but I wouldn’t think that those reasons are inscrutable.
“My summation goes like this: This idiot seems to be screwing up the once-in-a-lifetime chance to do everything he set out to do by bad management of his PR.”
I pretty much agree with this. Trump has the opportunity to accomplish a tremendous amount of good, but he keeps getting in his own way. That’s why I’ve described him elsewhere as a tragic hero. He’s doing the hero’s work, but he has a fatal flaw that will destroy him in the end.
“How else to explain the hundreds of millions given to Israelis with some connection to America, as if it is a room in their house, which so obviously indicates ‘divided loyalties’?”
Given that Trump, under tightly controlled conditions, has been shown to do whatever the hell he wants, I would hesitate to say the Iran war is because he’s beholden to his donors. And the hundreds of millions given to the Israelis is as easily explained as the hundreds of billions of dollars given to Ukrainians, or the vast amount of material provided to the USSR during World War II: let them do a great deal of the fighting and dying. I’m not saying that is the case, but it isn’t hard to conceive of other explanations. And this is another critique I’d make of your comments in general: you seem very locked into your perception of things, with as little willingness to consider alternatives as you accuse us of having.
“You cannot conquer lands and peoples, set up both dependencies and dictatorships (which the US most certainly did after WWll) and still declare that you are all for democracy and those ‘rights’ of our Constitution.”
There are a number of different angles with which I could respond to this. One is scope. The Constitution applies to the US and US citizens. If we set up a dictator elsewhere, such as how we propped up Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, there’s not any contradiction. We can also be pro-democracy (or pro-democratic Republic, or pro-representative democracy) and also understand that other peoples, nations, or cultures could not handle or would outright reject such governance. The handling of other countries that are at various levels of US influence is nuanced, and a one-size-fits-all policy simply cannot work. That you set this up as a contradiction is once again a failure to admit there are other explanations than what you propose in your thesis.
But I do love history, and I do recognize a myriad of ways the United States has evolved over times in ways that our framers never would have wanted. There are many aspects of the United States culture of which I am highly critical (especially in confusing the notions of freedom and license). But here’s the main point: there can be all kinds of things wrong with a nation, and it can still be correct in taking certain actions. There can be all kinds of things wrong with Trump, but he could still be correct about massive military strikes against Iran.
“Now, in contrast to the US methods can I at least mention the tactical and strategic methods of the Chinese?”
You can mention them. I’d suggest making a strong, explicit case for what you actually see the Chinese doing. Do you think the US should devalue its currency to make trade deals more lucrative? Do you think the US should suppress the news to only report government-approved messages, and ban access to websites that might carry anti-US messages? Do you think the US should be in a stronger habit of disappearing dissent? Do you think the US should increase the size of its military and conduct greater naval exercises around territory it would like to acquire? Do you think the US should press forward with intense persecution of its Muslim minorities? By all means, instruct us in the Chinese ways.
“War-making (as over the last 40 years) has resulted negatively for America, socially, psychologically, materially. Right or wrong?”
This cannot be boiled down to a simple answer. I could also argue that perhaps you are mixing causes and effects. Maybe there is a case to be made that American psychology has resulted negatively for American war-making. Or maybe war-making and psychology go in cycles. European powers believed war-making kept a nation strong, until it destroyed an entire generation in the Great War. The shock of the ruin of that war and unwillingness to fight created a vacuum filled by powers that did not back away from making war, and Europe ended up fighting an even bloodier war. There are arguments over Vietnam — could the United States have prevented the Vietcong from taking South Vietnam if the nation had backed the war effort? Could this have resulted in a hastening of the decline of communism? Who knows. Who knows how much of the US war-dissent was genuine, and how much of it was seeded by enemy agents. I will say that wars run poorly breaks the trust between governed and governors, because the ability to wage war is one of the reasons we pay our taxes in the first place.
“And Trump ran on a platform of ending that destructive cycle. This is a simple fact and unless there is an amazing success in Iran HE WILL CAUSE THE REPUBLICANS TO LOSE BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE. What then?”
So, we are back to my claim, which is that the philosophy at play is, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” War is going to come. But by demonstrating that the US is willing to fight, it will deter adversaries, which should reduce wars overall. But you are absolutely right that this Iran endeavor could cost the Republicans the House and Senate. But political considerations like that have to be balanced against other issues. If, and I do state this hypothetically, the President has classified information that some other nation is an imminent threat, a clear and present danger, and it will cost him the next election to address a critical situation like that, should he take the course that protects the nation or the course that protects him politically? Now, I also think that there’s a grave danger of letting the Democrats have control of the government again, so maybe in the current cycle of events that could be argued to be a worse event than whatever Iran could concoct. But certainly the situation is not anywhere as straightforward as you are making it seem.