This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
Actually, that New Yorker piece is extremely interesting. It chimes with some of the stuff people have talked about here, but there's obviously a lot more detail about the defining characteristics of what has worked and not worked in the past.
2026-01-31 17:22:34
And since I'm posting links, here's one (I don't have a gift button, but let's hope it's viewable) from the New Yorker, called What MAGA Can Teach Democrats About Organising - and Infighting. I haven't read it, but it sounded as if it might (or might not) be of interest to the ObWi commentariat:
lj asked me to post a guest link to this conversation between Ezra Klein and Adam Tooze, headlined How the World Sees America, which I was very happy to do!
If I have said anything to you, or that would lead anyone here to think I would associate with anything like that, I sincerely apologize.
You didn't, bc. But it strikes me that you have not been exposed to the range of conservative voices that many of us have. It wouldn't be surprising, if so. It's easy to end up living in an information bubble, if one doesn't make an enormous effort not to do so. I see it all the time, and on many ideological sides, including the centrist, left and progressive.
2026-01-30 22:55:41
I've wondered about the difference between a dogpile and a pile-on, but from what I see today, they are roughly the same thing. I've previously assumed that if someone comes to ObWi and posts MAGA and Trump exculpating arguments (eg that the Minneapolis protesters will be largely to blame if as a result of their actions Trump invokes the Insurrection Act) that they are prepared to meet questioning, and refutation (an example of the latter is russell's upthread on rightwing v leftwing violence), but perhaps this isn't true? Maybe lj can explain how or to what extent this applies or doesn't....
2026-01-30 22:42:56
This is an interesting piece about the current incarnation of antifa, and their project to unmask ICE agents et al:
The Trump administration pledged to deport violent criminals—but instead, some of them have been on the payrolls of the federal government’s most aggressive agencies.
ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection employed at least 30 people with sexual and violent criminal histories in recent years, according to a report published Monday by the Ohio Immigrant Alliance with research from the Pacific Antifascist Collective.
At least 20 of those individuals committed offenses with underage victims, according to the report. The 30 listed individuals have been charged with a wide litany of crimes, including gunpoint sexual assault, child sex trafficking, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping, sexual abuse of a minor, and possession and production of child sexual abuse materials.
Their transgressions occurred between 2015 and 2025, with the bulk of abuse happening within the last two years.
it tends to indicate there is much more going on here than opposition to immigration policy
The ICE presence seems to me to be very little to do with "immigration policy", given the seizing and detention of such an amazing number of US citizens, or people otherwise legally engaged in the system, not to mention the astonishing paucity of criminal records or convictions despite the rhetoric about "criminal illegal immigrants".
bc, do you think it is acceptable for ICE to base their actions on the colour of people's skin, or their accents? And do you think that the number of people on the streets, protecting their neighbours and otherwise monitoring and recording what is happening, demonstrates an "apparent involvement of socialist organizations and other far left groups"? Or do you think that perhaps this might be like the White House's constant reference to "radical left lunatics" to describe anyone who disagrees with their actions? And what is your view, given the vexed question of States' rights, of the fact that the states in question have objected to the deployment, and are pretty much all blue states? Does this not raise a question in your mind about whether the issue is indeed "immigration policy", or perhaps something else?
2026-01-29 18:21:58
IMO, in the interests of mental health we all need somewhere to vent other than at our nearest and dearest. The world for people in our culture (for a wide definition of culture) is undergoing a prolonged and scary trauma, and bottling up our anxiety and anger doesn't do us any good. Particularly, as russell says, because we still have (at least) another three years to go.
2026-01-29 00:10:01
I can't now remember what subject prompted lj to suggest I post a column by Jamelle Bouie, but this is from today's NYT:
ICE and C.B.P. still roam the streets, and Trump’s authoritarian aspirations have not dimmed. But surveying the wreckage of Operation Metro Surge — of this reactionary administration’s crushing defeat at the hands of another band of tenacious Northerners — it does look to me like MAGA’s Gettysburg.
FHLTGE
2026-01-28 21:52:49
Bruce Springstein's The Streets of Minneapolis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWKSoxG1K7w
And here, for anybody interested, are the two conservatives I have been speaking about (Frum and Brooks) talking about the current political situation, and (oh so politely) arguing about what should be done when (if) it's over. Interestingly, I don't see either of them taking the bc line. There is a transcript:
And, further to my Atlantic link up thread which I called Moral Sanity, Josh Marshall has just pinged into my inbox with this, also from the Atlantic, on the same subject:
Cross posted with Tony P and hsh. What they said as well.
2026-01-27 21:58:52
Every word of what wj said 2 hours ago, and what nous says too. The extraordinary numbers of people showing valid US citizenship ID or proof that they're already legally in the system, which is completely ignored, makes a mockery of any suggestion that this is about criminal or illegal immigration. Not to mention the concentration on blue states. This is a vindictive campaign to retaliate against states who didn't go for Trump, and throw the red meat of "illegal" "criminal" "immigrants" to his bloodthirsty base, who are lapping it up. It's just a miracle that brave protesters with phones are providing evidence at the risk of their lives, and that Trump's people are so obviously incompetent and unfit (Noem, Bovino etc) that this is cutting through to the non-brainwashed and even the NRA, and that Renee Good and Pretti were "relatable" white people.
2026-01-27 00:16:16
This (the reaction of the Minneapolis public) is rather inspiring. You could say it's an example of Moral Sanity:
From where I stood, a few yards back from the scrum last Wednesday afternoon, it looked, at best, to be a savage caricature of our national divide: On one side, militarized men demanded respect at the butt of a gun; on the other, angry protesters screamed for justice.
But behind the violence in Minneapolis—captured in so many chilling photographs in recent weeks—is a different reality: a meticulous urban choreography of civic protest. You could see traces of it in the identical whistles the protesters used, in their chants, in their tactics, in the way they followed ICE agents but never actually blocked them from detaining people. Thousands of Minnesotans have been trained over the past year as legal observers and have taken part in lengthy role-playing exercises where they rehearse scenes exactly like the one I witnessed. They patrol neighborhoods day and night on foot and stay connected on encrypted apps such as Signal, in networks that were first formed after the 2020 killing of George Floyd.
*** Avalos told me that 65,000 people have received the training, most of them since December. “We started in a very different tone; it was preventive,” she said. Now, after Good’s death, “people are understanding the stakes in a different way.”
2026-01-26 02:14:09
Well, you certainly get no argument from me on the role played by the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society or the SCOTUS. And the roots of this have certainly been long in the growing, long before any dream of a Trump presidency. It just seems impossible to me to contemplate the particularly poisonous confluence of current circumstances without the craven behaviour of the GOP.
2026-01-26 00:42:39
lj, I went back and read that Brooks piece more carefully. I must say, when he writes:
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think he is deluded, although I hope not. But it seems crazily optimistic in a way that even wj isn't these days.
However, on the subject that you and Snarki raise of his having an "unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position", it seems to me that
the whole piece is a really scathing denunciation of Trump's character, conduct, motivations etc etc. And given, as we all see, that the GOP as a whole has cravenly and pathetically bent the knee to him, enabled him, acceded to his power grab from Congress and been totally mealy-mouthed about his attacks on the constitution, I think it's odd to say that he is supporting the GOP.
I have no desire or need to defend David Brooks, but also no desire or need to automatically or instinctively condemn him. This may be because I have not been reading him all my life, and have not formed a fixed idea of him from which I find it difficult to depart. But we are in a time of flux - I'm happy to retain the ability to be open to the ways in which people's views or prejudices might change, and to the ways in which they may be able to change the attitudes of people with whom I am in general disagreement.
2026-01-24 13:24:21
i’ve been thinking the same thing. if you disregard the direction of the things he’s done and only focus on their magnitude, it’s hard to say he hasn’t changed far more than anyone since FDR. the problem is that all he’s done is negative.
I agree.
Regarding his consequentialism in domestic policy, everybody here is without doubt a better judge of it than I.
But in foreign policy terms alone, he has single-handedly destroyed your allies' trust in the (within reason) goodwill of America, and therefore of a roughly stable world order. Nobody sane ever expected the US to act against its own interests, but it was taken for granted that your interests would not be seen purely in terms of short-term financial gain and might making right tout court.
The open contempt for your European and other allies by Trump and J D Vance, enthusiastically approved and magnified by their appalling henchpeople, has been an extraordinary wake up call. Everyone knows that every nation contains these kinds of amoral, ignorant bigots, but nobody really expected that the greatest power in the world, and one of the originators of the post-war settlement, would produce politicians who allowed one its two main political parties to become their creature.
2026-01-24 10:50:52
I understand that one can’t blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks’ mind.
LOL, classic!
As requested, I went looking for Jamelle Bouie's response, but it's not out yet, obvs.
as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.
Nor of russell's, and probably various others here. It's interesting, but I realise I don't really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they're worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I've deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I guess, quite properly, everybody's mileage varies....
2026-01-24 02:07:54
OK, on lj's formulation that this thread is about American reaction (as opposed to foreign reaction) to Trump, this is David Brooks in today's NYT. I know he is not any kind of favourite on ObWi, but since it is decades since I read Tacitus I was very struck by this:
Tacitus was especially good at describing the effect the tyrant has on the people around him. When the tyrant first takes power, there is a “rush into servitude” as great swarms of sycophants suck up to the great man. The flattery must forever escalate and grow more fawning, until every follower’s dignity is shorn away. Then comes what you might call the disappearance of the good, as morally healthy people lie low in order to survive. Meanwhile, the whole society tends to be anesthetized. The relentless flow of appalling events eventually overloads the nervous system; the rising tide of brutality, which once seemed shocking, comes to seem unremarkable.
As the disease of tyranny progresses, citizens may eventually lose the habits of democracy — the art of persuasion and compromise, interpersonal trust, an intolerance for corruption, the spirit of freedom, the ethic of moderation. “It is easier to crush men’s spirits and their enthusiasm than to revive them,” Tacitus wrote.
Yup. Four educational deferments, and eventually one bone spur exemption. But it's OK, we do know that his own personal Vietnam was risking STIs, and that was the "front line" he bravely risked...
2026-01-23 19:08:33
Meanwhile, talking of Moral Insanity, this is an extract from The Critic. I don't agree with the entirety of the piece (fairly reflexively anti-Europe), but you can't disagree with this:
Trump’s latest insult was to sneer that non-American troops who served in Afghanistan “stayed a little back”. This ignobly underplays the sacrifices of thousands of coalition troops — including those of 457 Britons who died — and is being received with outrage online. Actually, I am not sure I have ever seen such bipartisan condemnation.
Something else that Trump said seemed almost worse, though. “We’ve never needed them,” he said, dismissively, of his NATO allies. Now, I actually agree that the US didn’t “need” NATO support in 2001. It didn’t need to embark on a foolish and destructive war in Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people before the Taliban simply took control again. But it certainly claimed to need a “worldwide coalition”. So, if anything, Trump should be apologetic rather than dismissive. He is sneering at people for not sacrificing enough for the sake of American hubris.
Given that, for example, coalition casualties in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 included:
USA 7.96 deaths per million of population Denmark 7.82 deaths per million of population
UK 7.25 deaths per million of population
I'm sure you can imagine, even if you haven't seen them, the responses ricocheting around the world from former servicemen to Trump's and Hegseth's comments. One I've just seen from someone called Andrew Fox, alongside a picture of a chestful of medals, says
I always thought it was super nice of the Americans to give me that badge for “staying a little off” from the front lines.
It’s nice to be appreciated!
American friends, especially my former brothers in arms - I’m sorry your President shames you daily. You deserve better.
2026-01-22 22:10:10
lj: I had never read the whole of The Cure of Troy, only the end. The beginning which you quote is absolutely wonderful. I've just ordered the book - thank you for bringing this to ObWi.
This is David French in today's NYT on fairly simple measures that can be taken to protect the midterms, given Trump's "nationalise the election" rhetoric:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/opinion/trump-nationalize-elections-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.41j0.KnVRs-ShXqZm&smid=url-share
This, from Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT, seems a pretty succinct summing up of the governing idea behind the Trump presidency:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/04/opinion/trump-presidential-power-comments.html?unlocked_article_code=1.J1A.ZFRC.nNClfSmkgGZn&smid=url-share
Actually, that New Yorker piece is extremely interesting. It chimes with some of the stuff people have talked about here, but there's obviously a lot more detail about the defining characteristics of what has worked and not worked in the past.
And since I'm posting links, here's one (I don't have a gift button, but let's hope it's viewable) from the New Yorker, called What MAGA Can Teach Democrats About Organising - and Infighting. I haven't read it, but it sounded as if it might (or might not) be of interest to the ObWi commentariat:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/02/02/what-maga-can-teach-democrats-about-organizing-and-infighting
lj asked me to post a guest link to this conversation between Ezra Klein and Adam Tooze, headlined How the World Sees America, which I was very happy to do!
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-adam-tooze.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IlA.4-M0.6_WnTjSfoDKr&smid=url-share
If I have said anything to you, or that would lead anyone here to think I would associate with anything like that, I sincerely apologize.
You didn't, bc. But it strikes me that you have not been exposed to the range of conservative voices that many of us have. It wouldn't be surprising, if so. It's easy to end up living in an information bubble, if one doesn't make an enormous effort not to do so. I see it all the time, and on many ideological sides, including the centrist, left and progressive.
I've wondered about the difference between a dogpile and a pile-on, but from what I see today, they are roughly the same thing. I've previously assumed that if someone comes to ObWi and posts MAGA and Trump exculpating arguments (eg that the Minneapolis protesters will be largely to blame if as a result of their actions Trump invokes the Insurrection Act) that they are prepared to meet questioning, and refutation (an example of the latter is russell's upthread on rightwing v leftwing violence), but perhaps this isn't true? Maybe lj can explain how or to what extent this applies or doesn't....
This is an interesting piece about the current incarnation of antifa, and their project to unmask ICE agents et al:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/30/antifa-unmasking-ice
Well well, talking of undesirable criminals:
The Trump administration pledged to deport violent criminals—but instead, some of them have been on the payrolls of the federal government’s most aggressive agencies.
ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection employed at least 30 people with sexual and violent criminal histories in recent years, according to a report published Monday by the Ohio Immigrant Alliance with research from the Pacific Antifascist Collective.
At least 20 of those individuals committed offenses with underage victims, according to the report.
The 30 listed individuals have been charged with a wide litany of crimes, including gunpoint sexual assault, child sex trafficking, aggravated assault, robbery, rape, torture, kidnapping, sexual abuse of a minor, and possession and production of child sexual abuse materials.
Their transgressions occurred between 2015 and 2025, with the bulk of abuse happening within the last two years.
https://newrepublic.com/post/205719/ice-cbp-agents-alleged-sex-crimes-children
it tends to indicate there is much more going on here than opposition to immigration policy
The ICE presence seems to me to be very little to do with "immigration policy", given the seizing and detention of such an amazing number of US citizens, or people otherwise legally engaged in the system, not to mention the astonishing paucity of criminal records or convictions despite the rhetoric about "criminal illegal immigrants".
bc, do you think it is acceptable for ICE to base their actions on the colour of people's skin, or their accents? And do you think that the number of people on the streets, protecting their neighbours and otherwise monitoring and recording what is happening, demonstrates an "apparent involvement of socialist organizations and other far left groups"? Or do you think that perhaps this might be like the White House's constant reference to "radical left lunatics" to describe anyone who disagrees with their actions? And what is your view, given the vexed question of States' rights, of the fact that the states in question have objected to the deployment, and are pretty much all blue states? Does this not raise a question in your mind about whether the issue is indeed "immigration policy", or perhaps something else?
IMO, in the interests of mental health we all need somewhere to vent other than at our nearest and dearest. The world for people in our culture (for a wide definition of culture) is undergoing a prolonged and scary trauma, and bottling up our anxiety and anger doesn't do us any good. Particularly, as russell says, because we still have (at least) another three years to go.
I can't now remember what subject prompted lj to suggest I post a column by Jamelle Bouie, but this is from today's NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/28/opinion/minneapolis-ice-trump-gettysburg.html?unlocked_article_code=1.IFA.E1zv.ZSYzCWJWEKa_&smid=url-share
His concluding para:
ICE and C.B.P. still roam the streets, and Trump’s authoritarian aspirations have not dimmed. But surveying the wreckage of Operation Metro Surge — of this reactionary administration’s crushing defeat at the hands of another band of tenacious Northerners — it does look to me like MAGA’s Gettysburg.
FHLTGE
Bruce Springstein's The Streets of Minneapolis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWKSoxG1K7w
And here, for anybody interested, are the two conservatives I have been speaking about (Frum and Brooks) talking about the current political situation, and (oh so politely) arguing about what should be done when (if) it's over. Interestingly, I don't see either of them taking the bc line. There is a transcript:
https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/2026/01/david-frum-show-david-brooks-neocons-democratic-society/685787/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCWT_-SXzv123sF8bQgX3NY8&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
And, further to my Atlantic link up thread which I called Moral Sanity, Josh Marshall has just pinged into my inbox with this, also from the Atlantic, on the same subject:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defending-minnesota-from-ice/685769/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCVq2vs66WsP3aEH6Mssk-Ig&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Cross posted with Tony P and hsh. What they said as well.
Every word of what wj said 2 hours ago, and what nous says too. The extraordinary numbers of people showing valid US citizenship ID or proof that they're already legally in the system, which is completely ignored, makes a mockery of any suggestion that this is about criminal or illegal immigration. Not to mention the concentration on blue states. This is a vindictive campaign to retaliate against states who didn't go for Trump, and throw the red meat of "illegal" "criminal" "immigrants" to his bloodthirsty base, who are lapping it up. It's just a miracle that brave protesters with phones are providing evidence at the risk of their lives, and that Trump's people are so obviously incompetent and unfit (Noem, Bovino etc) that this is cutting through to the non-brainwashed and even the NRA, and that Renee Good and Pretti were "relatable" white people.
This (the reaction of the Minneapolis public) is rather inspiring. You could say it's an example of Moral Sanity:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/minneapolis-uprising/685755/?gift=cx0iluuWx4Cg7JjlT8ugCZ3XpunvY7eUEOPAgaybJ3M&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
From where I stood, a few yards back from the scrum last Wednesday afternoon, it looked, at best, to be a savage caricature of our national divide: On one side, militarized men demanded respect at the butt of a gun; on the other, angry protesters screamed for justice.
But behind the violence in Minneapolis—captured in so many chilling photographs in recent weeks—is a different reality: a meticulous urban choreography of civic protest. You could see traces of it in the identical whistles the protesters used, in their chants, in their tactics, in the way they followed ICE agents but never actually blocked them from detaining people. Thousands of Minnesotans have been trained over the past year as legal observers and have taken part in lengthy role-playing exercises where they rehearse scenes exactly like the one I witnessed. They patrol neighborhoods day and night on foot and stay connected on encrypted apps such as Signal, in networks that were first formed after the 2020 killing of George Floyd.
***
Avalos told me that 65,000 people have received the training, most of them since December. “We started in a very different tone; it was preventive,” she said. Now, after Good’s death, “people are understanding the stakes in a different way.”
Well, you certainly get no argument from me on the role played by the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society or the SCOTUS. And the roots of this have certainly been long in the growing, long before any dream of a Trump presidency. It just seems impossible to me to contemplate the particularly poisonous confluence of current circumstances without the craven behaviour of the GOP.
lj, I went back and read that Brooks piece more carefully. I must say, when he writes:
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think he is deluded, although I hope not. But it seems crazily optimistic in a way that even wj isn't these days.
However, on the subject that you and Snarki raise of his having an "unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position", it seems to me that
the whole piece is a really scathing denunciation of Trump's character, conduct, motivations etc etc. And given, as we all see, that the GOP as a whole has cravenly and pathetically bent the knee to him, enabled him, acceded to his power grab from Congress and been totally mealy-mouthed about his attacks on the constitution, I think it's odd to say that he is supporting the GOP.
I have no desire or need to defend David Brooks, but also no desire or need to automatically or instinctively condemn him. This may be because I have not been reading him all my life, and have not formed a fixed idea of him from which I find it difficult to depart. But we are in a time of flux - I'm happy to retain the ability to be open to the ways in which people's views or prejudices might change, and to the ways in which they may be able to change the attitudes of people with whom I am in general disagreement.
i’ve been thinking the same thing.
if you disregard the direction of the things he’s done and only focus on their magnitude, it’s hard to say he hasn’t changed far more than anyone since FDR. the problem is that all he’s done is negative.
I agree.
Regarding his consequentialism in domestic policy, everybody here is without doubt a better judge of it than I.
But in foreign policy terms alone, he has single-handedly destroyed your allies' trust in the (within reason) goodwill of America, and therefore of a roughly stable world order. Nobody sane ever expected the US to act against its own interests, but it was taken for granted that your interests would not be seen purely in terms of short-term financial gain and might making right tout court.
The open contempt for your European and other allies by Trump and J D Vance, enthusiastically approved and magnified by their appalling henchpeople, has been an extraordinary wake up call. Everyone knows that every nation contains these kinds of amoral, ignorant bigots, but nobody really expected that the greatest power in the world, and one of the originators of the post-war settlement, would produce politicians who allowed one its two main political parties to become their creature.
I understand that one can’t blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks’ mind.
LOL, classic!
As requested, I went looking for Jamelle Bouie's response, but it's not out yet, obvs.
as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.
Nor of russell's, and probably various others here. It's interesting, but I realise I don't really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they're worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I've deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I guess, quite properly, everybody's mileage varies....
OK, on lj's formulation that this thread is about American reaction (as opposed to foreign reaction) to Trump, this is David Brooks in today's NYT. I know he is not any kind of favourite on ObWi, but since it is decades since I read Tacitus I was very struck by this:
Tacitus was especially good at describing the effect the tyrant has on the people around him. When the tyrant first takes power, there is a “rush into servitude” as great swarms of sycophants suck up to the great man. The flattery must forever escalate and grow more fawning, until every follower’s dignity is shorn away. Then comes what you might call the disappearance of the good, as morally healthy people lie low in order to survive. Meanwhile, the whole society tends to be anesthetized. The relentless flow of appalling events eventually overloads the nervous system; the rising tide of brutality, which once seemed shocking, comes to seem unremarkable.
As the disease of tyranny progresses, citizens may eventually lose the habits of democracy — the art of persuasion and compromise, interpersonal trust, an intolerance for corruption, the spirit of freedom, the ethic of moderation. “It is easier to crush men’s spirits and their enthusiasm than to revive them,” Tacitus wrote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/opinion/trump-authoritarian-power.html?unlocked_article_code=1.G1A.6RhQ.aLVPTM4t9pmB&smid=url-share
Yup. Four educational deferments, and eventually one bone spur exemption. But it's OK, we do know that his own personal Vietnam was risking STIs, and that was the "front line" he bravely risked...
Meanwhile, talking of Moral Insanity, this is an extract from The Critic. I don't agree with the entirety of the piece (fairly reflexively anti-Europe), but you can't disagree with this:
Trump’s latest insult was to sneer that non-American troops who served in Afghanistan “stayed a little back”. This ignobly underplays the sacrifices of thousands of coalition troops — including those of 457 Britons who died — and is being received with outrage online. Actually, I am not sure I have ever seen such bipartisan condemnation.
Something else that Trump said seemed almost worse, though. “We’ve never needed them,” he said, dismissively, of his NATO allies. Now, I actually agree that the US didn’t “need” NATO support in 2001. It didn’t need to embark on a foolish and destructive war in Afghanistan, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people before the Taliban simply took control again. But it certainly claimed to need a “worldwide coalition”. So, if anything, Trump should be apologetic rather than dismissive. He is sneering at people for not sacrificing enough for the sake of American hubris.
Given that, for example, coalition casualties in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 included:
USA 7.96 deaths per million of population
Denmark 7.82 deaths per million of population
UK 7.25 deaths per million of population
I'm sure you can imagine, even if you haven't seen them, the responses ricocheting around the world from former servicemen to Trump's and Hegseth's comments. One I've just seen from someone called Andrew Fox, alongside a picture of a chestful of medals, says
I always thought it was super nice of the Americans to give me that badge for “staying a little off” from the front lines.
It’s nice to be appreciated!
American friends, especially my former brothers in arms - I’m sorry your President shames you daily. You deserve better.
lj: I had never read the whole of The Cure of Troy, only the end. The beginning which you quote is absolutely wonderful. I've just ordered the book - thank you for bringing this to ObWi.