An Indicator and a Warning

On November 18, 2023, men wearing red shirts indicating that they were members of a neo-Nazi white supremacist group, the Blood Tribe, and almost all wearing masks, marched in and around downtown Madison, Wisconsin’s capital, carrying swastika flags and reportedly chanting, “There will be blood.” (You can find images online; Twitter blocked the links I attempted to add here.)

One might find it as pathetic as terrifying that twenty guys – so brave and proud of their beliefs that they hid their identities, on a day when it was sunny and not too cold; no one wants to be a wet or frozen fascist – strutted through the U.S. city that may be the most liberal between the coasts.

It’s still an indicator.  It’s still a warning.

I am not aware that any violence was wrought by or upon the marchers.  Although they may have hoped to incite a violent reaction from onlookers by parading through Madison, I would guess that violence was not the group’s intention, at least this time.  It was simply to secure a square on the board, to establish a presence, to enter a preliminary gesture of menace, of intimidation.  We can unfortunately be confident that this won’t be the last such overture, by this group and others, here or elsewhere.

One can have reservations about how diligently Israel, the nation-state, has tried to protect the safety of Palestinian civilians while defending itself and its citizens against the Hamas terrorist group.  I suspect that these Neo-Nazis aren’t even aware of the dangers currently faced by innocent Palestinians; they hate Muslims as much as they hate Jews.  The Israeli-Hamas conflict has simply provided them a pretext to come out of their holes.

I truly believe that the vast majority of the American people are well-meaning, although some lack perspective.  May the overt acts by malign groups that we will inevitably see over the next year cause those of our well-intentioned citizens who are uncertain as to the best direction for our nation, due to sincere misgivings about what they perceive as progressives’ excesses, to recognize that democracy and humanity are more important than policy differences or cultural emphases, and that the actions of these hate groups – and those politicians and political groups who encourage them — must be confronted legally — but with all our strength. 

An Admittedly Conflicted View on Civilian Casualties in War

My father enlisted in the Marines right after Pearl Harbor, was a participant in the Battles of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima, was promoted for his service to his country and decorated for bravery.  The Marines were then and are now rightly celebrated in American lore for their courage and esprit de corps.  He, along with millions of others, left the American military for good in 1946.  Anybody who knows a Marine won’t be a bit surprised to hear that although I never served in the military, part of my rearing included an imprinting that all branches of the military are to be respected, but at bottom, there are the Marines … and then there’s everybody else.

Even so, but for a couple of humorous stories – mostly about brawls in bars between Marines and sailors while on leave – he never talked about the war.  Never.  Except once.

I recall him standing in front of our black-and-white TV, watching the network coverage of what is now known as the My Lai Massacre, a March, 1968, incident in which American soldiers commanded by Platoon Leader Lt. William Calley, who had been ordered to undertake a search and destroy mission, killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese men, women, and children in the village of My Lai.

As my father stood watching the coverage of the prosecution of Lt. Calley, he was shaking his head in disbelief – I realized not at what had been done to the villagers, but at the Lieutenant’s prosecution.  He said in an even tone – not soft, not loud; I think more to himself than to me – “When you’re ordered to clear an area out, you clear the area out.”

Infer from that – and consider whatever you infer from that – as you will.  Having never been near a battlefield, I don’t consider my own reflections worth much. During the Second World War, the Marines were engaged in a death struggle against an unyielding enemy to defend freedom.  War is messy; there is little time for deliberation; events spin.  Were all actions undertaken in that just cause warranted – or at least defensible — or not? 

Almost always when I publish a note in these pages, I have concluded – wisely or misguidedly – where I stand on an issue.  When it comes to the justification for inflicting civilian casualties as part of a war effort, I am uncertain.

Hamas’ attack on Israeli civilians on October 7 was horrific.  (As shocking to me have been the breadth of overt anti-Semitic and Islamophobic sentiments and violent incidents it unleashed around the western world; the attack ripped off a thin veneer of tolerance, exposing a depth of widespread religious bigotry in the democracies that I — clearly living in my own oblivious Ivory Tower — had not recognized.)  Hamas must be condemned in the most unequivocal terms; it is a Palestinian terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel, has done little to help civilian Palestinians during its almost two-decade control of the Gaza Strip, and employs Palestinian civilians and humanitarian facilities as shields in its assaults on Israel.  Israel has a right to defend its existence and its citizens – which now appears to mean destroying Hamas — and given Hamas’ modus operandi, such Israeli efforts are necessarily going to result in civilian Palestinian casualties.  At the same time, Israel has significantly expanded its control over the last 70 years into land intended by the international community to be inhabited and controlled by Palestinians when Israel was founded.  Although much of this expansion occurred not because Israel attacked, but because it was attacked, it has maintained its de facto grip over Palestinian lands because … it can, and such has suited Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu’s political purposes.  Before the current conflict, human rights groups had been referring to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as apartheid.  It is not anti-Semitism to suggest — using the Biden Administration, a clear friend of Israel, as the arbiter — that in its assaults, Israel has not been particularly discriminating about protecting Palestinian civilians.

Our acquiescence to civilian casualties may be determined by our view of the virtue of the cause in which they are inflicted and their necessity to achieve victory.  Such does not expunge the fact that cruel and unfair consequences can be inflicted upon noncombatants even in the pursuit of a just cause.  Christianity, and likely many other faiths, holds that protection of the innocent is paramount.  The reality of the flawed human condition makes clear that always prioritizing compassion would lead to subjugation of more peoples by the malignant – ultimately resulting in the maltreatment of a wider set of victims.

Union General William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 “scorched earth” march to the sea was a major part of subduing the South and thus preserving the Union and abolishing slavery.  At the same time:

“Sherman had terrorized the countryside; his men had destroyed all sources of food and forage and had left behind a hungry and demoralized people. … Sherman … burned or captured all the food stores that Georgians had saved for the winter months. As a result of the hardships on women and children, desertions increased in Robert E. Lee’s army in Virginia. Sherman believed his campaign against civilians would shorten the war by breaking the Confederate will to fight ….”

  • Anne Bailey, “Sherman’s March to the Sea,” New Georgia Encyclopedia 

Despite Gen. Sherman’s fearsome deeds and reputation, he understood the malign nature of war, but clearly felt that some causes were worth the devastation needed to bring them about.

“War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it … You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.  War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it …” 

  • Gen. Sherman, in a letter to James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson, S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta, September 12, 1864.

If there has been a more monstrous atrocity in human history than the Nazis’ systematic slaughter of the Jews, I’m not aware of it.  Allied forces were obviously justified in contesting the Nazis and their allies with all of their strength and means.  At the same time, a young friend recently reminded me of the American and British bombing of the German city of Dresden in February, 1945, that killed tens of thousands of civilians in a manufacturing city whose resources the Allies believed – in retrospect, apparently erroneously — that the Third Reich could effectively employ to mount a counteroffensive against our D-Day invasion.  Were the Allies’ efforts excusable?  I would say yes. Were the civilian casualties wrought commendable?  Obviously not.

The U.S. military estimated in the late 1940s that over 100,000 people died in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear explosions.  Others place the total of dead closer to 200,000.  A significant number of these were necessarily civilian.  At the same time, President Truman indicated in a letter in January, 1953, that Gen. George Marshall told him prior to dropping the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima “that such an invasion would cost at a minimum one quarter of a million casualties and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone.”  Faced with that kind of an estimate, if advising the President I would have supported using the Bomb.  Others would vehemently disagree, then and now.

We condemn the slaughter of Ukrainians civilians in Russia’s war of aggression.  At the same time, would we denounce Ukrainian operations against Russian civilians if such losses seemed likely to turn Russian public opinion against Putin’s war?  I’ll leave that one to you.

Increasing civilian casualties are a fact of modern war and technological weaponry.  They are not going to stop.  It is for one to ponder whether — and if so, when, and to what extent — these human tragedies are worth what is gained.   Americans should be more aware than they appear to be that they have the luxury – at least at present — of considering such philosophical issues from their armchairs.  Much of the world is not so fortunate.  It is those fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, and sisters and brothers whose lives are collateral sacrifice to the designs of others. 

“Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you destroy the good with the wicked?  If there be fifty just men in the city, will you then destroy the place and not spare it for the sake of the fifty just men within it?’ … And the Lord said, ‘If I find that there are fifty just men in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.’”

  • The Book of Genesis, 18: 24, 26.  It is little noted when this passage and the subsequent exchanges between Abraham and the Almighty are read in Christian churches that although the Lord God did allow the just Lot, his wife and daughters to escape, He ultimately did destroy the city and its inhabitants.

There is obviously no ray of enlightenment in this note.

“All cats are grey in the dark.”

  • Musing by the fictional James Bond; Ian Fleming, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

A Twitter Post: a Postscript

My apologies for disturbing you on consecutive days, but … I can’t resist.  In the last few days much has been made in the mainstream media as well as in yesterday’s post linking former President Donald Trump’s use of words and phrases describing Mr. Trump’s opponents – principally among them, the word, “vermin” — to the words and phrases used by Fascist Nazi Fuhrer Adolf Hitler during the 1930s to depersonalize Hitler’s opponents.  On his social media platform, Mr. Trump referred to his opponents (whom he clearly sees as enemies) as “Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”

During the day’s endeavors following yesterday’s post, I happened to see a report of a Trump Spokesman’s response to the outcry about Mr. Trump’s use of frankly fascist language, but I dismissed and ignored it because I really thought it was a spoof like many others one sees in liberal quarters to mock the former President.  Particularly given the substance of the sharp criticism being leveled against Mr. Trump, I didn’t think anyone on the Trump team would actually be dumb enough to say what was being reported as its response — the irony would be too think, even for MAGAs.

I was wrong.  It was real.  For those who missed it:

“Those who try to make that ridiculous assertion [comparing Mr. Trump’s rhetoric to that of Hitler] are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House [Emphasis Added].”     

We’ll come back to the breadth of Mr. Trump’s characterization of his opponents as a component of a future post.  Noting the blindingly oblivious fascist irony is sufficient for today.

A Twitter Post

This recently passed through my Twitter feed. It is perhaps the ugliest, most upsetting, and yet most apt entry I have ever published in these pages. I have never heard of Mr. Parkhomenko, but feel that this is worthy of your attention.

Observations of Messrs. Lincoln, Yeats, Archimedes and Stengel

As all who care are aware, recently the New York Times and Sienna published results of a poll taken from October 22 to November 3, 2023, of registered voters in the swing states Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.  In a matchup between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by an average of 5 points in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The outliers were Nevada – where the poll indicated that Mr. Biden trailed Mr. Trump by a whopping 11 points – and Wisconsin, where Mr. Biden was leading Mr. Trump by 2.  I actually have less faith in the accuracy of outliers than in the rest; it’s hard to believe that Mr. Biden is trailing by double digits in a state he won in 2020, and speaking as a Wisconsin resident, Mr. Trump fared better in the Badger State on Election Day in both 2016 and 2020 than preliminary polls indicated he would.  Averaging the two outliers together, I would venture that Mr. Biden is currently trailing Mr. Trump by about 5 points in all the polled swing states.  If one asserts that a majority of citizens will be concerned enough in the ballot box about preserving democracy or the emotive issue of abortion for Mr. Biden to overcome the apparent difference, I would counter:  the Times/Sienna poll shows Mr. Trump beating Mr. Biden by double digits on the Economy, the Israeli/Hamas conflict, National Security, and Immigration – the first three findings inexplicable to me, but it is what it is — so Mr. Biden’s relatively lesser overall deficit to Mr. Trump in these states arguably indicates that Mr. Biden’s advantages on democracy and women’s reproductive rights are already baked into the candidates’ top line numbers.

Given Mr. Biden’s effective – I would go so far as to say, save his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, top-tier — performance in office, a reasonable observer in a vacuum would presumably find the poll results perplexing.  Given our real-world hyper-toxic environment and the virulent effectiveness of the alt-right propaganda machine, I confess that I didn’t find them much of a surprise, although — judging by the thinly-veiled hand wringing by liberal talking heads I’ve seen since they were published – they were apparently a shock among some liberal political professionals and pundits.

Hearkening back to President Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 remarks recently quoted in these pages, which he uttered in circumstances in some ways completely different on the surface from, while in other ways strikingly similar at their core to, those we face today:  it’s now tenably clear “where we are, and whither we are tending”; it’s time to “judge what to do, and how to do it [Emphasis Mr. Lincoln’s].”

Mr. Biden’s subjective challenge lies in a telling characteristic of the voters he needs to retain the presidency:  they are engaging in critical thinking.  His doddering bearing and concerns about his continued health for another six years is an aspect that even those favorably disposed toward him are weighing.  (I would suggest that those pointing out the relatively small difference in the ages of Messrs. Biden and Trump are missing a key psychological factor:  on Election Day 2024, of the two only Mr. Biden will have turned … 80.  Then Republican Party Presidential Nominee Ronald Reagan first challenged the 70 barrier 43 years ago, and even in an electorate that had thereafter become conditioned by Mr. Reagan’s age, Mr. Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were considered pretty old at 70 when they ran in 2016.)  At the same time, the President has apparently lost support among some demographics he will need – minorities and the young – due to their perception that he hasn’t done enough for them (which I would submit is unfair, given the closely divided Congress with which he has had to deal).  Open-minded citizens can be justifiably concerned about inflation, the southern border, or what have you, and those focusing on concrete issues rather than preserving democracy are apparently considering whether Mr. Trump might do better than Mr. Biden has done; although one may question their discernment, priorities, or approach, the point here is that they are thinking.  Mr. Biden should already have surrogates out to persuade and reassure these critical electoral segments.

Without wishing to be too cavalier, I would suggest that Mr. Trump’s supporters have willingly suspended their capacity for critical thought with regard to his candidacy.  Even if one wants to institute an American Apartheid, one might logically conclude that MAGA FL Gov. Ron DeSantis, while boring, has the same instincts as Mr. Trump but stirs less enmity, and thus arguably has a better chance to win swing state swing voters to win the general election.  Mr. Trump’s cult nevertheless clings to him.

Irish Poet William Butler Yeats seemingly summed up Messrs. Biden’s and Trump’s current relative positions in verses of “The Second Coming,” published in November, 1920:

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”

Mr. Biden’s risk is erosion; his support is subject to apathy and doubt.  (His turnout will be boosted in Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania if, as I have seen reported, there are abortion rights measures on the 2024 ballot in these states.)  Mr. Trump’s challenge is addition; his supporters are an unbreakable bulwark, but those voters who detest him have such antipathy for him that he will never gain their support.  The issue is whether Mr. Biden’s support will erode in the swing states to the point that Mr. Trump’s militant support overtakes it.

In a note a while back suggesting what Mr. Biden should do to retain his office, I offered:

“ … [S]tick to the knitting.  … Recall that Mr. Biden entered the 2020 race with the avowed strategy of retaining all of the [Electoral College] votes that [Ms.] Clinton had won in 2016, and adding the EC votes of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin … He succeeded in that endeavor, while surprisingly (at least to me) winning Arizona and Georgia as well.  These latter two states gave Mr. Biden some breathing room against Mr. Trump’s subsequent seditious lies about election integrity, but weren’t numerically necessary to win the White House.  Mr. Biden and his team need to focus their efforts on the swing states they are most likely to win …”

Something I didn’t focus on then, but am now:  the effect of the 2020 Census.  On net, the states Mr. Biden won in 2020 have lost 3 Electoral College votes, while the states Mr. Trump won have correspondingly gained 3 Electoral College votes.  In 2020, it would have made no difference; Mr. Biden would have prevailed 303 – 235 rather than 306 – 232.  However, if in 2024 Mr. Biden were to lose Arizona (11) and Georgia (16) – potential outcomes which today, a handicapper has to take seriously – his margin shrinks to 276.  If he loses Nevada (6), it shrinks to 270 – literally the minimum.  There is no margin for error in a contest that seems destined to be determined by courts or partisan legislatures.

I’ll test neither my arithmetical expertise nor your patience by attempting to scope out all of the potential Electoral College outcomes (if I could do math, I might not have gone into law 😉 ).  That said, I suspect that if Archimedes, the “Father of Mathematics,” born in Sicily in 287 B.C., was here today and surveyed Mr. Biden’s challenge, he’d advise:  “Winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is not enough.  Nevada, even if you hold it, is too small to make a difference.  You need a bigger buffer.”  Recall that of the seven states with the closest margins in 2020, only one was a Trump state:  Mr. Trump won North Carolina (15 Electoral College votes) by 1.4%.  The Times/Sienna poll did not include the candidates’ current standing in the Tar Heel State.  I am encouraged by reports that the Biden Campaign is starting to make significant effort in North Carolina.  I think the President needs North Carolina; other 2020 Trump states seem beyond his reach.

Finally, a note of frustration:  Mr. Biden and his team seemingly remain focused on trying to win the election by reminding voters about their accomplishments.  I’ve seen a recent report indicating that the Biden Team has thus far spent millions on ads touting its achievements, and only about one hundred thousand dollars on negative ads about Mr. Trump.  I’m just a retired Midwest blogger and they’re political pros, but if this report was accurate, their current strategy is political malpractice.  If they stick to it, Mr. Biden will lose.  It is beyond dispute that negative ads work; the Biden Campaign needs to place its overwhelming emphasis on pounding Mr. Trump in the swing states.  Its reported “emphasize the positive” strategy has brought to my mind the legendary Hall of Fame Major League Manager Casey Stengel, who, after winning seven World Championships and 10 pennants with the New York Yankees, took over the helm of the expansion New York Mets.  If Mr. Stengel was here today and reviewed the state of the Biden Campaign efforts to date, he’d moan as he did in the midst of the Mets’ 42-120 season in 1962:  “Can’t anyone here play this game?”

MAGA Branding … and a Viewer Alert

It was only after a recent note published in these pages regarding U.S. LA Rep. Mike Johnson’s election as Speaker of the House of Representatives that the significance of one aspect of former President Donald Trump’s triumphant social media declaration about Mr. Johnson’s selection occurred to me:  in referring to Mr. Johnson as, “MAGA MIKE JOHNSON [my italics],” Mr. Trump made no reference to Mr. Johnson being a Republican.  I would venture that this omission was understandable and perhaps intentional.  Mr. Trump has an acute understanding of branding, and MAGA has become the brand for Mr. Trump’s political organization.  MAGAs are now so far from the principles of the Republican Party of Presidents Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon (recall that Mr. Nixon arguably had grounds to contest the 1960 presidential election outcome, and chose not to do so in order to maintain national stability), Ford, Reagan and Bushes that it is no longer accurate to refer to Mr. Trump’s supporters as “Republicans.”  Members of the Trump Sect shall hereafter be referred to in these pages strictly as “MAGAs.”  What this political transition augurs for those that are, indeed, still Republicans is likely to be the stuff of a future post.

On a personal note:  I have posted less over the last six months than in previous years; one major factor has been a desire to be respectful of your time.  It is obvious to anyone reading the majority of these notes in recent months that I have become fixed – perhaps fixated 😉 — on the rising authoritarian shift in our country brought about by the MAGA movement.  It is the most perilous threat to the existence of democracy on our planet since the rise of Adolf Hitler.  Even so, how many times can one impose on those who have done a blog the honor of following it by repeating in different ways the same message:  that while Mr. Trump and elected MAGAs are the venomous tip of the spear, the truly dangerous poison in our national psyche is that so many of our citizens either embrace it or abide it?

Given my level of alarm at the current sentiment within our polity and given the cathartic benefit these pages provide me, I am very likely to continue with the same theme at regular intervals between now and Election Day in November, 2024.  Your time is valuable; these notes many not warrant your attention. 

Now my Irish Catholic conscience can rest  🙂 . 

Mr. Lincoln on Our Current Political State

“MAGA MIKE JOHNSON”

  • Post by former President Donald Trump on his social media website, Truth Social.

Credible polling data indicates that over 40% of our citizens – not a fringe minority that can be comfortably ignored — have expressed a willingness to vote for Mr. Trump if he is the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee.  Republicans in the United States House of Representatives have elected U.S. LA Rep. Mike Johnson, whom I have seen described as, “[MAGA U.S. OH Rep.] Jim Jordan wearing a coat” and “a primary architect of the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election,” as the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  Mr. Johnson’s selection makes him, by law, second in succession to the presidency of the United States.

Long time readers of these pages may recall that way back, when Mr. Trump nominated William Barr to be his Attorney General, I indicated that we needed to give Mr. Barr a chance to see how he performed in office before declaring him Mr. Trump’s lackey.

We saw how that turned out.  I don’t care if Mr. Johnson is milder in manner than Messrs. Trump and Jordan or many in their cohort.  We no longer have the luxury of giving MAGAs the benefit of the doubt.  Say whatever else you will about them:  they make their intentions plain.  They intend to institute an American Apartheid. 

What is set forth below is the renowned part of one of Abraham Lincoln’s most renowned addresses, delivered on June 16, 1858, in Springfield, Illinois, over two years before he assumed the presidency.  Several preliminary notes:

The italics in the passage are as they appear in the text of Mr. Lincoln’s address in the volume from which it is drawn; presumably, he had underscored them to be sure that he emphasized them as he spoke.

In his speech, Mr. Lincoln provided no attribution for the quote, “A house divided,” presumably expecting that his listeners would understand his allusion to the Gospel of Matthew, 12:25.

I have substituted for only three words Mr. Lincoln declared 165 years ago.  As you read the speech, I expect that you’ll readily discern what three words I inserted – one of which is italicized, since it replaces a word Mr. Lincoln underscored in his remarks — and what three words my substitutions replaced.

“Mr. PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to fascism agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented. 

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half fascist and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect that it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing, or all the other.

Either the opponents of fascism, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?”

You get it.  One could argue that Mr. Lincoln’s words (as modified herein) have chillingly broader implications for our entire democracy today than they did even in the toxic circumstances in which they were uttered.  (Despite the South’s outrage at Mr. Lincoln’s election to the presidency in 1860 and its consequent attempt to secede from the Union, nobody claimed that the election outcome was “rigged,” or stormed the Capitol.) 

Since we are able, in Mr. Lincoln’s words, to determine “where we are, and whither we are tending,” I would submit that we must, as he suggested, “judge what to do, and how to do it.”

All that read these pages are well aware of the deep misgivings I have about Vice President Kamala Harris’ substantive readiness to assume the presidency.  That said, I am tired of democrats’ (small “d”) lack of imagination about the forces they face.  As long as Mr. Johnson holds the House Speakership, President Joe Biden and Ms. Harris should never – never – allow themselves be in the same place at the same time.

As to our future:  Are enough of our people sufficiently motivated to exert all legal (this qualification is vital; otherwise, neither side is better than the other) measures to protect our democracy?

Smart and Evil

Former President Donald Trump has been sharply criticized – for once, by Republicans as well as by Democrats – for declaring last week that Hezbollah, an Iran-backed Lebanese militant group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, is “very smart.”  The New York Times quoted a Biden Administration spokesman in response:  “Statements like this are dangerous and unhinged.  It’s completely lost on us why any American would ever praise an Iran-backed terrorist organization as ‘smart.’”  The Times quoted former Vice President Mike Pence as saying, “Look, Hezbollah are not smart.  They’re evil, OK.”

I located the video clip; I wanted to hear Mr. Trump’s tone.  I frankly couldn’t tell from his delivery whether he was actually praising Hezbollah – which, if he was, is as repulsive as any of the literally thousand other abhorrent statements he has made since he injected his brand of poison into our political fabric in 2015 – or simply making what he considered an objective observation as a launching point for his attack on Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu, who has seemingly invoked Mr. Trump’s wrath by praising President Joe Biden for his support of Israel since the Hamas attacked from the Gaza Strip on October 7. 

I don’t know if Hezbollah is smart.  I would, however, respectfully disagree with Mr. Pence’s seeming implication that there is a dichotomy between “smart” and “evil.”  A person or organization can be both smart and evil.  One need look no further than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf; the volume bulges with racism, malignance and hate, while it also contains Hitler’s brilliant – there is no other word for it — description of how best to create and wield propaganda to influence the masses.  (I have frequently wondered whether certain elements of alt-right media haven’t used the book as a text.)

No matter how depraved an enemy might be, it is a dangerous indulgence to deny or underestimate its intelligence.

As President Biden has noted, Hamas is evil; no organization with a shred of good could have carried out the horrific attack on Israeli civilians it executed on October 7.  I don’t know whether its leaders are smart; I do have trouble believing that it could have conducted its operation without the active participation, at least in the planning, by Iranian authorities, who are smart as well as evil.  I would submit that the very ferocity and brutality of the attack was intended to leave Mr. Netanyahu and his cabinet no practical political choice but to invade Gaza.  It took no prescience to anticipate that innocent Palestinian casualties would inevitably result in an Israeli invasion, which would in turn inflame the other Arab states.  Cui bono?  Who benefits?  It appears that Israel’s offensive against Hamas, precipitated by Hamas’ attack, will derail any prospective accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia – an accord that would have significantly weakened Iran’s strategic posture in the Middle East.       

At the same time, I would suggest that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other forces with similar aims were unwilling to wait for the inevitable Palestinian civilian casualties.  I will venture that an entity aligned with them, rather than Israel, is responsible for the hospital explosion that that killed hundreds of innocents on October 17.  I make this suggestion not based upon Israeli or U.S. denials, but upon what has happened since:  Cui bono?  The timing of the blast, from the standpoint of Iran and its satellites, was impeccable.  The explosion has predictably outraged the entire Middle East.  At the time it occurred, Mr. Biden was already committed to a trip intended to quiet tensions through meetings with Mr. Netanyahu, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi of Egypt, King Abdullah II of Jordan and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority; after the explosion, the King and Messrs. El-Sisi and Abbas cancelled, leaving Mr. Biden seemingly one-sidedly embracing Mr. Netanyahu – obviously no choir boy from a foreign or Israeli domestic perspective.  I fear that this well-intentioned trip has now become, due to a circumstance that I would submit was not reasonably foreseeable by Mr. Biden or his advisors (assuming that the blast wasn’t caused by Israel), a strategic backfire, likely damaging U.S. credibility in the region.

Again, as to Hamas’ initial terrorist attack:  Cui bono?  How much have you heard in the news about Ukraine since the Hamas attack?  Despite all the Administration and Congressional vows to get aid to Israel, I strongly suspect that Israel, now aroused, is militarily more than a match for Hamas whether it gets American aid or not.  Such is obviously not the case regarding Ukraine’s struggle against Russia.  As America’s attention has been diverted to the Middle East by the Hamas attack, Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia – Iran’s ally — are dwindling, and the House of Representatives – the majority of whom, if reports are accurate, wish to provide Ukraine further aid — are prevented from doing so by House Republican caucus dysfunction and MAGA U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan’s quest for the Speakership.

And again, as to Hamas’ attack:  Cui bono?  President Xi Jinping of China must be pondering whether this is the right time to make a move on Taiwan.  Given Mr. Biden’s resolve and the West’s collaborative response in responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, until recent days Mr. Xi might well have logically concluded that it was wiser to delay any overt action against Taiwan until it could be determined whether the American democratic fabric would further unravel during the upcoming U.S. presidential cycle.  Now, it would seemingly be impossible in his place not to consider whether America and its people, even if they have the Pacific military might to repel any attempted Mainland invasion of Taiwan, have the will to confront such an invasion, given all the demands upon them in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.  Does the octogenarian Mr. Biden have the stamina?

Although it serves little purpose to note these glaringly ironic facts, I can’t resist:  Hamas members are Sunni Muslims, and they – as well as their Iranian Shia Muslim collaborators – claim to be dedicated to the precepts of Allah communicated to them through Muhammad – the “Seal of the Prophets” — completely ignoring the fact that Muhammad peacefully allowed Jews to live within his kingdom; or that Jewish Israelis, who rue but accept that their Gaza offensive will inevitably cause injury and death to many innocent Palestinian civilians, subscribe to the Book of Genesis, which describes the Lord God’s efforts to protect innocents as he destroyed the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

I have indicated in these pages that I consider Mr. Biden the most consequential American president since Franklin Roosevelt.  Mr. Biden faces not only the foreign policy challenges described here but also the rise of formidable illiberal forces within our own borders.  During the next year, he has to persuade a majority of Americans in key swing states that the course he has and is pursuing is the wisest course for our nation and our citizens.  While I would not go so far as to say that the severity of the challenges Mr. Biden is addressing is yet as acute as those confronted by his predecessors Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt, I can think of no president in our history that has had to simultaneously confront such a wide array of truly critical crises as Mr. Biden does today. 

Likely nothing here you haven’t already thought of.  Sometimes, one just has to get it out.  May Mr. Biden and his team persevere against both the evil … and the smart and evil.

On the Passing of Dick Butkus

I am an oddity (obviously in more ways than just this 😉 ) in that, being raised in the Chicago area, I was a Bear fan from the early ‘60’s until the late ‘70’s or early ‘80’s before becoming a Packer fan.  (Perhaps being a glutton for punishment — I was also then a Cub fan — I transferred my allegiance to the Green and Gold as the Bears of Jim McMahon, Walter Payton, and Mike Singletary were ascending and Green Bay, floundering after the departure of Head Coach Vince Lombardi, had become the backest of NFL backwaters.)

This is to note the passing of Dick Butkus, the most feared defensive player of his era and arguably any era.  Since more Packer than Bear fans read these notes, here’s a fact of which some may not be aware:  in the 1965 NFL draft — not the ballyhooed affair that exists today — the Bears had the third and fourth picks in the first round, and chose Mr. Butkus with the third pick, and Kansas halfback Gayle Sayers with the fourth.  Although my knowledge of baseball has become dated, I obviously remain conversant with the NFL, and in my view Mr. Sayers (before he was injured in 1968), who passed away in 2020, still remains, after all these years, the best pure running back I have ever seen (with honorable mention to Barry Sanders 🙂 ).  I am sure that there are all sorts of pundits who rate which NFL teams have had the best drafts over these many decades; I am pretty confident that no team has ever had a better draft than the Bears in 1965.

In 1965 season, the Bears – as they did every year for decades while they shared Wrigley Field with the Cubs – played their first three games on the road, and started 0-3, including a loss to Mr. Lombardi’s Packers.  As I recall, at that point Bears Owner and Head Coach George Halas began to rely more heavily on Mr. Sayers.  Riding Mr. Butkus’ leadership on defense and Mr. Sayers’ skills as halfback and return man, the team went 9-2 the rest of the way (9-5 overall, including a 21-point victory over the Packers.)  Although Green Bay, by virtue of its 10 wins, proceeded on to the NFL title, by the end of that regular season it was Chicago, not Green Bay, that was the proverbial team “nobody wants to play.”

I recall an anecdote to the effect that legendary Green Bay linebacker Ray Nitschke was once asked by a teammate, “Have you ever seen anyone who hit as hard as you?”  Mr. Nitschke reportedly immediately replied, “Butkus.  Butkus hit harder.”

The news of Mr. Butkus’ passing has made me a Bear fan again, if only for a moment.

Requiescat in pace, No. 51.

On Kevin McCarthy’s Speakership Ouster

“The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker …”

  • Article I, Section 2; the Constitution of the United States of America

I had something ready to post yesterday morning, written on Tuesday after former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy was removed as Speaker and before I had heard much commentary from media talking heads, in which I queried whether the House Democratic caucus might not have missed an historic opportunity by failing to provide Mr. McCarthy the votes he needed to retain his office.

I am no fan of Mr. McCarthy.  I find him gutless and more interested in title and the trappings of power than in real power.  I consider him to have abided if not abetted in former President Donald Trump’s seditious attempt to thwart the results of the 2020 presidential election.  I have found it unnerving to have him, as Speaker, second in succession to the presidency. 

That said, I suggested in the unpublished post that the weak can serve a purpose; that Democrats might have been able to extract concessions from Mr. McCarthy that could have assured the quick passage of a clean aid bill for Ukraine, perhaps led to bipartisan collaboration on other initiatives between the less partisan members of both parties, and would at a minimum have eliminated the possibility that a MAGA would succeed Mr. McCarthy.

Even so, I pulled the post back because of a factor I heard frequently emphasized in media commentary about Mr. McCarthy after I had scheduled it:  Democrats didn’t believe that he could be trusted to keep his word.

One can’t do business with somebody who can’t be trusted.  If that was indeed the ground upon which Democrats decided to allow Mr. McCarthy’s ouster – rather than pique at Mr. McCarthy’s authorization of an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden, or his potshots at them to appease his base, or some other similar grandstanding gesture – I understand why they did what they did.

That said, Pandora’s Box has clearly now been opened.  At the time this is typed, U.S. LA Rep. Steve Scalise and U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan have announced their candidacies for the Speakership.  In a January note in these pages on Mr. McCarthy’s quest for the Speakership, I indicated: 

“If … I was a member of the House Republican Caucus, I’d be a hard No on Mr. McCarthy [due to his lack of fortitude] (unless the only alternative was U.S. OH Rep. Jim Jordan, whom I consider at this point to arguably present a greater danger to American democracy than former President Donald Trump). [Emphasis Added]”

I feel no differently about Mr. Jordan’s illiberal inclinations now than I did then [although I concede that given Mr. Trump’s statements and actions over the last nine months and given their respective positions in the MAGA universe, Mr. Jordan may not now present quite as great a danger to American democracy as Mr. Trump (but I am confident that he’ll make up the gap if given the opportunity)]. 

I fear that we may be descending into a political maelstrom.  We’ll soon know whether Democrats’ refusal to prop up Mr. McCarthy was a wise maneuver or regrettable blunder.