HI Matt. Do I agree with Trump's style, no. Do I agree the Europeans need a frozen cod upside their heads for not investing in their own defense for 80 years, absolutely. Trump's berating Europe over the last 10 years, far more so than any other president, has moved them to a position of defending themselves rather than asking us to pay for their defense. Trump's style of win-lose is despicable, but it has produced results that reduces past abuses of the "relationship". A little balance please.
There is a cost to the man's methods, but I like him addressing the significant costs the U.S. has borne for decades because Europe found it could have its cake and eat it, too. I fail to see how this reset can redound on us in any consequential way. Yes, there will be lots of fiery speeches and posturing on both sides, but the economic benefits achieved by the entire world while under U.S. benign hegemony since WWII have been massive. I do not foresee too many leaders being able to adopt an autarky strategy and taking their economies completely out of this global market. They and we will adjust and then manage the collateral damage.
Trust is a currency -- an important one. Once lost, it is very difficult to regain.
If it were trust lost while we withdrew to our own secured borders, ameliorated our massive indebtedness, it would be one thing. But that's not happening. We are hurting our economy, not meaningfully reducing deficit spending, not withdrawing from anything except the allies who held fairly strong trust for us for generations, for what? So they defend themselves instead of us defending them? So we, rather than a European client state, have another power and potential adversary, given our actions? What happens when more and more of the world stops trusting us enough to invest more here than just about anywhere else?
My problem is that there is no discernable plan beyond vanity and an absurdly simplistic view of the world. Trump is not always wrong; in fact, his zero-sum thinking leads him to easily see some problems no one else does. His zero-sum thinking *also* means that every solution involves us ripping someone else off -- because it's either us or them who's losing, so he's going to make sure it's them. The world is not zero-sum (though some situations are!), and our and Europe's massive rise since World War 2 is a testament to that.
I am so embarrassed on a daily, and angered by our federal government & specifically the President. But, I appreciate your assessment , an important consideration.
According to Vance then, I am less of an American because my ancestors came here in the early 20th century. My uncle, who was killed during the Battle of the Bulge and is buried in the American Military Cemetery Luxembourg, did not give up his life for opportunists and charlatans.
Or perhaps that's a caricature of his views. It would seem to me that your uncle paid his membership dues in full and, indeed, you are to some extent the inheritor of those dues, as you yourself allege. To belabor the point, you deplore the idea that one's heritage matters, yet you claim just such a heritage for yourself. And whereas I would say you are justified in making that claim, you yourself should not be making it, to be consisted with your own position on the question.
> The Founders were powerfully influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, who argued that natural rights are the innate possession of every human being.
> ... take their oath to the creedal principles that Vance believes are secondary to heritage.
What people like Matt get wrong is that it's not that heritage is primary *over* creed, it is that creed come from heritage, thus if one ignores heritage one undermines creed. It's not that, say, the foundations of St. Peter's are more important than the cathedral itself, but rather that without those foundations the cathedral could not stand.
Yup, we hold these truths to be self-evident ... but the Ayatollah holds very different truths to be self-evident ... or rather to have been Revealed. The Enlightenment values that the FF held might well be adopted by, say, refugees from Somalia -- it's not impossible -- OTOH, as we see in Minnesota, refugees from Somalia might have no interest in Enlightenment values and might be more interested in how much money they can cheat the taxpayer out of to fund AlShabaab. I suspect, as does Vance, that one's deepest values are not put on as easily as changing shirts -- they do actually involve heritage. Matt might want to believe that Ilhan Omar is, in every atom, as deeply and profoundly American as is JD Vance, but I suspect he is mistaken.
Vance talks of those who fought in the civil war, yet omits the rather significant matter of which side. His supporters tend to be from the losing side, and maybe therefore have less credibility in terms of upholding the values of the republic they sought to break from.
Funny thing is that after the war many people felt that both sides were fighting for very American principles. RE Lee was held in honor by both his former opponents and his former confederates. It's a very deep thing, hard to even put words to but a fight between brothers does not mean they are not still brothers. 99% of Confederate volunteers never owned a slave, that really wasn't the point of it. As one Confederate prisoner said, on his capture when asked what he was fighting for replied: "Ahm fightin cuz yoah down heah." The Confederates thought that they has as much right to be free of Northern tyranny as their grandfathers had to be free of British tyranny. Still your point was fairly made.
And I could argue I'm twice as American as JD Vance, but it doesn't mean a damned thing. One is not "more American" or "less American." It's a binary. Either one is a US citizen or one is not.
If you want to talk about whose values comport more with the founding values of our country, I'd put Vance and Omar at best equals. Both seem pretty fucking content to shred the Constitution for their own side.
That's just the point in question. I'd agree with Vance that legal citizenship is quite a different thing than being a 'true' American. But the progressive notion is of course quite the contrary. There are no such things as roots. BTW I share your concerns as to the Constitution. He's guilty of Trumpery until proven innocent, however the question here is whether being 'an American' can be nothing more than noting one's legal citizenship. In my view Omar looks like a Somali, speaks Somali at her political events, thinks and acts like a Somali, is loyal to Somalia and is in my view a Somali who happens to have obtained American citizenship.
Any other context? People can say whatever they want, and it doesn't really mean anything to anyone except someone who gives a crap what they think. Vance wants to go around saying "I'm more American than thou"? Well, he's demonstrating that he's a tool, but other than that, I really don't care. He says we should make or interpret or enforce laws based on his definition of American? Hell no.
That is not what I am saying, I disagree with his "means." All I am saying is that he is the only one to expose the weak proselyting by the EU about "dealing" with Russia, Iran, et al, to the detriment of freedom loving people everywhere. His big stick has righted the ship. The big stick was necessary as the last 60 years of accommodation hasn't produced the appropriate outcome. Typical orientation of progressive politics to focus on inputs vs. outcomes. Peace.
You've expressed a sentiment and idea that many even-keeled Americans of all political stripes share, and certainly that former career American government officials like me can enthusiastically sign up to. (I can't speak for everyone, but still). As a former State Department foreign service officer who served in several fragile democratic states over a 30-year career, I came to think of it as the "democratic dilemma". I saw friends and counterparts in these countries weighing their options, but never thought we would have to do the same thing here at home. Until now.
To put what you've written in a slightly different way: Does the responsible citizen or the constitutional oath-bound government official (in our case) serve his country better by supporting an administration working at cross-purposes with the country's norms, laws, ideals and national interests... or by opposing it?
Or to rephrase the title of your piece Why I'm Rooting For My Country and Against This Lawless Government Led by an Unhinged President.
I won't be surprised if the Democrats put up another weak, mealy mouthed candidate in 2028. Come election time, the memory of Vance's churlish behavior toward Zelensky will go a long way toward losing my vote, even to a candidate as unappealing as Harris.
Most days it feels like "weak, mealy-mouthed" is the only options we have if we don't want "economically illiterate semi-Marxist" or "mini-totalitarian critical social justice ideologue" or both. Oh, or "power hungry void" (how I read people like Harris and Newsome).
Amen. God help those who have to chose between recent Dem offerings and whatever it may be that succeeds Trump. As a Canadian I take pleasure in the fact that our current PM is a competent adult.
I'm NOT rooting against my country, but I am rooting against my country's current political administration, its craven enablers in the Autocrat Party (the Republican Party is gone), AND the ideologically corrupt right wing of our Supreme Court. These latter two morally bankrupt entities are, in turn, but a symptom of the outcomes produced by a culture that worships money and power more than the well being of ALL its citizens.
HI Matt. Do I agree with Trump's style, no. Do I agree the Europeans need a frozen cod upside their heads for not investing in their own defense for 80 years, absolutely. Trump's berating Europe over the last 10 years, far more so than any other president, has moved them to a position of defending themselves rather than asking us to pay for their defense. Trump's style of win-lose is despicable, but it has produced results that reduces past abuses of the "relationship". A little balance please.
Ends justify the means? And make no mistake, there is a cost to the methods. The bill has simply yet to come due.
There is a cost to the man's methods, but I like him addressing the significant costs the U.S. has borne for decades because Europe found it could have its cake and eat it, too. I fail to see how this reset can redound on us in any consequential way. Yes, there will be lots of fiery speeches and posturing on both sides, but the economic benefits achieved by the entire world while under U.S. benign hegemony since WWII have been massive. I do not foresee too many leaders being able to adopt an autarky strategy and taking their economies completely out of this global market. They and we will adjust and then manage the collateral damage.
Trust is a currency -- an important one. Once lost, it is very difficult to regain.
If it were trust lost while we withdrew to our own secured borders, ameliorated our massive indebtedness, it would be one thing. But that's not happening. We are hurting our economy, not meaningfully reducing deficit spending, not withdrawing from anything except the allies who held fairly strong trust for us for generations, for what? So they defend themselves instead of us defending them? So we, rather than a European client state, have another power and potential adversary, given our actions? What happens when more and more of the world stops trusting us enough to invest more here than just about anywhere else?
My problem is that there is no discernable plan beyond vanity and an absurdly simplistic view of the world. Trump is not always wrong; in fact, his zero-sum thinking leads him to easily see some problems no one else does. His zero-sum thinking *also* means that every solution involves us ripping someone else off -- because it's either us or them who's losing, so he's going to make sure it's them. The world is not zero-sum (though some situations are!), and our and Europe's massive rise since World War 2 is a testament to that.
I am so embarrassed on a daily, and angered by our federal government & specifically the President. But, I appreciate your assessment , an important consideration.
According to Vance then, I am less of an American because my ancestors came here in the early 20th century. My uncle, who was killed during the Battle of the Bulge and is buried in the American Military Cemetery Luxembourg, did not give up his life for opportunists and charlatans.
Or perhaps that's a caricature of his views. It would seem to me that your uncle paid his membership dues in full and, indeed, you are to some extent the inheritor of those dues, as you yourself allege. To belabor the point, you deplore the idea that one's heritage matters, yet you claim just such a heritage for yourself. And whereas I would say you are justified in making that claim, you yourself should not be making it, to be consisted with your own position on the question.
> The Founders were powerfully influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, who argued that natural rights are the innate possession of every human being.
> ... take their oath to the creedal principles that Vance believes are secondary to heritage.
What people like Matt get wrong is that it's not that heritage is primary *over* creed, it is that creed come from heritage, thus if one ignores heritage one undermines creed. It's not that, say, the foundations of St. Peter's are more important than the cathedral itself, but rather that without those foundations the cathedral could not stand.
Yup, we hold these truths to be self-evident ... but the Ayatollah holds very different truths to be self-evident ... or rather to have been Revealed. The Enlightenment values that the FF held might well be adopted by, say, refugees from Somalia -- it's not impossible -- OTOH, as we see in Minnesota, refugees from Somalia might have no interest in Enlightenment values and might be more interested in how much money they can cheat the taxpayer out of to fund AlShabaab. I suspect, as does Vance, that one's deepest values are not put on as easily as changing shirts -- they do actually involve heritage. Matt might want to believe that Ilhan Omar is, in every atom, as deeply and profoundly American as is JD Vance, but I suspect he is mistaken.
Vance talks of those who fought in the civil war, yet omits the rather significant matter of which side. His supporters tend to be from the losing side, and maybe therefore have less credibility in terms of upholding the values of the republic they sought to break from.
Funny thing is that after the war many people felt that both sides were fighting for very American principles. RE Lee was held in honor by both his former opponents and his former confederates. It's a very deep thing, hard to even put words to but a fight between brothers does not mean they are not still brothers. 99% of Confederate volunteers never owned a slave, that really wasn't the point of it. As one Confederate prisoner said, on his capture when asked what he was fighting for replied: "Ahm fightin cuz yoah down heah." The Confederates thought that they has as much right to be free of Northern tyranny as their grandfathers had to be free of British tyranny. Still your point was fairly made.
... or was it a nasty innuendo? Not sure.
And I could argue I'm twice as American as JD Vance, but it doesn't mean a damned thing. One is not "more American" or "less American." It's a binary. Either one is a US citizen or one is not.
If you want to talk about whose values comport more with the founding values of our country, I'd put Vance and Omar at best equals. Both seem pretty fucking content to shred the Constitution for their own side.
> Either one is a US citizen or one is not.
That's just the point in question. I'd agree with Vance that legal citizenship is quite a different thing than being a 'true' American. But the progressive notion is of course quite the contrary. There are no such things as roots. BTW I share your concerns as to the Constitution. He's guilty of Trumpery until proven innocent, however the question here is whether being 'an American' can be nothing more than noting one's legal citizenship. In my view Omar looks like a Somali, speaks Somali at her political events, thinks and acts like a Somali, is loyal to Somalia and is in my view a Somali who happens to have obtained American citizenship.
Legally? Yes, citizenship. Only citizenship.
Any other context? People can say whatever they want, and it doesn't really mean anything to anyone except someone who gives a crap what they think. Vance wants to go around saying "I'm more American than thou"? Well, he's demonstrating that he's a tool, but other than that, I really don't care. He says we should make or interpret or enforce laws based on his definition of American? Hell no.
JD is so wrong about the US that I’m surprised he is the VP of anything.
That is not what I am saying, I disagree with his "means." All I am saying is that he is the only one to expose the weak proselyting by the EU about "dealing" with Russia, Iran, et al, to the detriment of freedom loving people everywhere. His big stick has righted the ship. The big stick was necessary as the last 60 years of accommodation hasn't produced the appropriate outcome. Typical orientation of progressive politics to focus on inputs vs. outcomes. Peace.
You've expressed a sentiment and idea that many even-keeled Americans of all political stripes share, and certainly that former career American government officials like me can enthusiastically sign up to. (I can't speak for everyone, but still). As a former State Department foreign service officer who served in several fragile democratic states over a 30-year career, I came to think of it as the "democratic dilemma". I saw friends and counterparts in these countries weighing their options, but never thought we would have to do the same thing here at home. Until now.
To put what you've written in a slightly different way: Does the responsible citizen or the constitutional oath-bound government official (in our case) serve his country better by supporting an administration working at cross-purposes with the country's norms, laws, ideals and national interests... or by opposing it?
Or to rephrase the title of your piece Why I'm Rooting For My Country and Against This Lawless Government Led by an Unhinged President.
All told, nicely done.
I won't be surprised if the Democrats put up another weak, mealy mouthed candidate in 2028. Come election time, the memory of Vance's churlish behavior toward Zelensky will go a long way toward losing my vote, even to a candidate as unappealing as Harris.
Most days it feels like "weak, mealy-mouthed" is the only options we have if we don't want "economically illiterate semi-Marxist" or "mini-totalitarian critical social justice ideologue" or both. Oh, or "power hungry void" (how I read people like Harris and Newsome).
Amen. God help those who have to chose between recent Dem offerings and whatever it may be that succeeds Trump. As a Canadian I take pleasure in the fact that our current PM is a competent adult.
I'm NOT rooting against my country, but I am rooting against my country's current political administration, its craven enablers in the Autocrat Party (the Republican Party is gone), AND the ideologically corrupt right wing of our Supreme Court. These latter two morally bankrupt entities are, in turn, but a symptom of the outcomes produced by a culture that worships money and power more than the well being of ALL its citizens.