I have just listened to this entire podcast, I advise you to do the same - LISTEN to it, so that you can hear in John's voice the blatantly elitist point of view that is scornful of and which smears the voices of workers without jobs, and which ignores voices who see in Trump a power that will give them back their jobs and their dignity, to be able to support their families, and be the men and women who love this country and believe in its promises. John is a pampered academic utterly out of touch with working people.
I have never heard John express gratitude for the blessings of America. He just criticizes, and as such, he is a scold.
Glenn says that John is "his man" and he will not abandon him despite their differences, Glenn is a colossally forgiving man who sees in John an opponent ( not worthy, IMO) who presents another point of view that is reliably left wing, but not especially erudite. John is a left wing hack, with very little original thought outside of his field of linguistics. This is why Glenn so frequently, and readily, outclasses John.
Surprised to see Glenn give Mearsheimer so much credit on Ukraine. His narrative sounds really compelling, but none of the details stand up to scrutiny. It's like he's convincingly described a city, but when I looked into the buildings he'd mentioned, all were shadows. If that's the best the Putin apologists have got, there's probably no buildings there at all.
It's a lot like BLM, another great narrative about a fake phenomenon. Recall George Zimmerman, a civic role model billed as a racist psychopath, an infamous landmark which disappeared if you zoomed in. The Palestinian narrative also comes to mind. (And no, John, leftists don't know what happened in 1920, the year Amin al-Husseini incited a pogrom in Nebi Musa, the first outbreak of violence in the conflict.)
No, nobody provoked Putin into Ukraine. Believing that particularly kind of BS is not MAGA. MAGA is not having a clue where Ukraine even is, and that we're the having our elections stolen, unlike the people of the great Russian Federation. Just as the left-wing equivalent of MAGA is to believe that we live in a systemically racist country and that BLM is a solid org.
In support of Marti Holloway's earlier comments on Russia, Ukraine, etc., here's the intro to an article I started in 2021 based on the Financial Times 2019 interview of Putin:
Vladmir Putin: Classical Liberal, Intelligent Dignified Statesman, Thoughtful Russia Firster, Agile Interviewee, Funny, Insightful Observer of America’s Cultural Decline
Stuart H. Hurlbert, compiler
Vladimir Putin interviewed by the Financial Times | FT (90m video)
The Financial Times is the first major international newspaper to be granted an interview with the Russian leader for 16 years. Here is the exclusive interview with editor Lionel Barber and Moscow bureau chief Henry Foy in full (90min video), uploaded July 5, 2019.
Full Transcript: ‘All this fuss about spies ... it is not worth serious interstate relations’
“This is the transcript of a conversation between Vladimir Putin, Russian president, Lionel Barber, Financial Times editor, and Henry Foy, the FT’s Moscow bureau chief, which took place on Wednesday 26 June in the Kremlin. Mr Putin’s quotes are translated from the Russian.”
The Russian president on globalization, China, Trump and the end of the ‘liberal idea’. Vladimir Putin, Russian president, says the 'liberal idea' has outlived its purpose. NOTE: Putin uses the term "liberal" for what classical liberals in the U.S. would usually call "illiberal", “progressive”, “woke” or "politically correct."
Question for the reader: Should the U.S. borrow Putin to run for the U.S. presidency in 2024? He’ll be looking for a new challenge by then, and who better to root out cultural Marxism from the US! In some ways, Russia and the U.S. seem to have switched cultures over the last four to five decades. Clearly the overall trajectory during that time has been for more democracy in Russia and less democracy in the U.S., though the two trajectories have not yet crossed. Still, Putin seems much more like JFK than does Biden.
Reading of the full transcript, as well as listening to the interview, is highly recommended. The excerpts below have been selected, in part, to be those most surprising to those in the thrall of the highly biased US mainstream media. The 32,000+ online comments accompanying the video are also highly informative.
SELECTED QUOTES FROM PUTIN
(Here are the first two. If you want the other 4 pages worth, email me at hurlbert@sdsu.edu !)
Any suggestions as to a reputable venue to publish this?
***************
On Trump
“Mr Trump is not a career politician. He has a distinct world outlook and vision of US national interests. I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him. Russia has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the Mueller report, of mythical interference in the US election. What happened in reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.”
“Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s? China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty. What happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly benefited from globalisation. The take-home pay in the US (we are likely to talk later about real incomes in Russia, which need special attention from the government) .... The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up. The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference.”
*********************
America First, Russia First, all good
[Barber: “But what you said is absolutely fascinating. Here you are, the President of Russia, defending globalisation along with [China’s] President Xi [Jinping] whereas Mr Trump is attacking globalisation and talking about America First. How do you explain this paradox?” Putin: “I don’t think that his desire to make America first is a paradox. I want Russia to be first, and that is not perceived as a paradox; there is nothing unusual there.”
I must agree with John that it takes more effort to try to “educate oneself” about Critical Analysis because much of it it incomprehensible (some Critical Gender Studies) or is just nutty (DeAngelis comes to mind). Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than try to reread Marcuse (a brief try while a college student back in the 60s should have convinced me.)
Straightforwardly, I think John is grasping at straws, but Glenn’s reply was on point.
Having spent what may well be an inordinate amount of words on Trump, I will briefly switch gears, since the subject of Ukraine was brought up. Glenn mentions various commentators (none of which I've listened to, or indeed heard of) and comments he is (understandably) not an expert on the matter. I am, or perhaps I should say was, since it's been awhile, although my expertise is not yet entirely obsolete. What I see in the public discourse is a fundamental misapprehension of both Putin's personal motives and Russia's in general, but most particularly their leadership.
To put it succinctly, neither Putin nor his military has the slightest concern about NATO, it's threat of "encirclement" or feels in anyway "provoked" in a military sense. Putin (and Russian leaders in general) understand that this is an idea which resonates with us, and so they flog it, as they have always done with topics that they feel touch a nerve. Putin's motivations are rather different and steeped in Russian history (as well as his own).
As this is Glenn's substack, not mine, I will forbear to develop the truth of this at length. For those who wish to delve into it, I can suggest 3 sources: "The Russians" by Hendrick Smith, "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk, both of which provide valuable historical context, and "The Collapse of the Soviet Military" by General William E. Odom, for a more recent and in-depth examination.
In order to not close without a cogent data point, consider that the Soviet/Russian military has not conducted an exercise whose objective was defending against an attack by NATO since its inception, nor have they formulated a doctrine as to how to respond to to such an attack (anymore than the US military has a doctrine to respond to a military invasion by Canada. I will add that POV exercises have been done in support of Russian offensive ground operations). Understanding these things are key to finding a way to end the war in Ukraine.
So final point: no, we did not provoke Putin into invading Ukraine. Did the Biden administration encourage, by its actions, Putin to invade Ukraine? Absolutely. So we -- in the person of the Biden administration -- bear substantial responsibility for the invasion, but not in the way many think. That also must be firmly understood, both to resolve the situation satisfactorily and prevent similar things from happening in the future.
Again, with deep appreciation and gratitude to Glenn for all his efforts and the opportunity to post these thought.
My biggest beef with the inception of the Ukraine War is that we were not prepared for the possibility that Putin would invade.
Assume that Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. Ukraine is not in NATO and so is the obvious first target. By announcing that Ukraine is going to join NATO, you have accelerated Putin's plan to invade. He couldn't invade NATO member Ukraine without risking a war that he certainly can't win.
If you take the position that Putin is paranoid and does not want NATO on his doorstep, he may also invade to keep a buffer zone.
If you believe Putin is a paranoid expansionist then he has two reasons to invade-keep NATO away from Russia and acquire another satellite.
Regardless of how you view Putin, saying Ukraine was going to join NATO greatly increased the odds that he would invade, and yet we were not prepared for that possibility.
Lincoln was almost sure that when he sent the resupply ships to Fort Sumter they would be fired upon, and he was ready when the South started the Civil War. He called up an army the next day. Our defense spending doubled in 1941 in anticipation of WWII. Republicans, if they were smart, should have been ready for a Harris Presidential run, and should be running ads in swing states right now, defining her before she can make her case.
We have been on the back foot in Ukraine since Day 1. We've said we wouldn't give them F-16s and other weapons systems and then did; that Ukraine couldn't fire our weapons into Russia but now can to a limited extent; apparently weapons systems contractors are allowed in Ukraine now. Are advisors ala Vietnam next?
We have no idea what victory looks like. I highly doubt Ukraine can push Russia out of its territory-they don't have the tactical superiority needed to remove an entrenched enemy.
Absent a miraculous collapse of Russian society, I don't see how Ukraine can prevail in this war.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This is a topic that is well-nigh impossible to present a well-considered argument, one way of another. You are certainly correct that the Biden administration was unprepared for the invasion -- after all, look how they handled Afghanistan. As a result, we have indeed been on the back foot since Day 1 and our administration's policy (such as it isn't) has been incoherent. Some of those being vociferous in opposition have been (and are being) obtuse.
But NATO was not a factor in Putin's thinking; perhaps I should soften that to not the critical factor. Putin has been planning for the annexation of Ukraine since his Day 1. When I say "planning," I really mean intent, more than a rigidly formulated plan, ready for execution at a moment's notice, although the swiftness with which he was able to act after the botched withdrawal does show a significant degree of preparedness (and a considerable degree of misunderstanding).
What Putin saw was what he thought was his moment -- Putin would have invaded in that moment regardless of the NATO question; that's what I mean it was not a critical factor -- if the NATO idea was never floated or was taken off the table, it would not have prevented Putin's invasion.
I can't think of a way to present this without it sounding like a gross oversimplification, but here goes: Putin's invasion of Ukraine is more akin to a personal and national crusade; personal because the collapse of the USSR, followed by Russia's humiliation in Chechnya, are the signal humiliations of his life. His goal is to redeem them. What happened with expansion of NATO rankled, but those countries are not the Motherland the way Ukraine is perceived to be. Putin is realistic enough to be able live with them being in NATO, but he wants Ukraine back in the fold, regardless of the NATO question. It's a matter of personal pride, national pride, and has almost religious overtones in a way we find hard to comprehend.
So you are right in the sense that Ukraine in NATO would foreclose his life's ambition in his lifetime, and that is important to him. But it is not the case that the threat of the foreclosure moved him to act in a "now or never" way -- given the opportunity, he took it. Had there been credible deterrence, as there was during Trump's presidency, he would not have done so. Had Ukraine been brought into NATO, he would have used everything in his playbook, short of invasion, to break up the deal.
Why? Because the only thing worse to him than not getting Ukraine back would to try and lose face by failing. The sting of what happened in Chechnya has not faded and Putin is determined never to be "that guy" who lead them to humiliation there. So he'd have been furious about NATO expanding to include Ukraine, but he would have had to accept it if he thought he'd be shown up as weak or ineffective.
The Russian elite (generally) feels the same way and so do many of the Russian people. This is constant in Russian history. Again (oversimplifying), it's akin to Russian feeling about the "Mongol Yoke" and the Great Patriotic War. But the Russians have never been rash. They play the game of "two steps forward, one step back" and have, since roughly Peter the Great. The invasion of Ukraine was Putin's "two steps forward" (following on various other actions he's taken since coming to power). In my opinion, the best that can be hoped for now is a change of administration to convince him to take one step back. That's in his playbook. He will bluster and threaten (as he's been doing) but when he sees it's not working, he'll agree, since in his view, he's still one step ahead (whatever that looks like).
This is in keeping with another military maxim: "Allow your adversary to carry as much face as he can away from the battlefield. Do not allow him to carry away anything else." The task for Trump, should he be elected, is to negotiate on that basis.
I'll just add the Putin has seen that iconic photo, too. He's acquainted with Trump from before, but he's just had in confirmed who he might be dealing with. That photo, I believe, will make him more amenable to taking one step back, should Trump be elected.
Final point: I want to clear that I think the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO would be a really dumb idea, especially now. It would serve no practical purpose for us, and it would be a gratuitous insult to Putin and Russia. Our leaders need to handle this like adults, not (as my rough speaking acquaintances in the military might have said in bygone days) a "dick-pulling contest" which is a weak person's game. Time will tell.
Thanks again to Glenn for his generosity and forbearance.
I disagree with your characterization of the Biden Admin here on a couple of points.
1. Regarding Afghanistan, Trump left Biden an untenable situation. He cut a deal with the Taliban in which he agreed to a timetable for US withdrawal. What did Trump get in return for agreeing to withdraw? And end to attacks on US forces. This wasn't the worst tradeoff in the world, but it did mean that if Biden reneged on Trump's agreement, attacks would resume. But the really insidious thing Trump did was cut the Afghan government out of the negotiations entirely. This undermined the Afghan government, which resulted in leaders of all parts of the counrty outside of Kabul cutting their own deals with the Taliban because they knew the government in Kabul was living on borrowed time. The Biden admin is not blameless here, but the worst that can be said is that they inherited a very bad hand and played it badly.
2. In the runup to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Biden Admin made some brilliant moves involving the sharing of intelligence that deprived the Russians of any strategic surprise. Putin, in the Russian style, had some gamesmanship in the works (like absurd claims that Russia was provoked or Ukraine attacked first or whatever) that were completely undermined by the Biden Admin. Before the invasion started, everyone knew it was coming.
I agree with you in most other respects, although I do think there is a case to be made that earlier rounds of NATO expansion (eg, into the Baltics) were maybe not advisable. (I don't view than as in any way an adequate justification for Putin's invasion, however).
I should have clarified in my comment regarding the Biden administration's handling of Afghanistan that I was referring to the execution of the withdrawal itself, not the situation as a whole. The withdrawal was a shambles which signaled military incompetence to Putin, compounding the Biden administration's appearance of being weak and irresolute, and giving some additional impetus to Putin.
I do personally believe the earlier rounds of NATO expansion were not a great idea; how it improved our security is not clear to me, regardless of what the Russians felt. Large coalitions are by their nature less stable than smaller ones, and given the threat environment (which I feel the old NATO was adequate to deal with), it not evident what was gained. Further, the larger NATO is, the more likely it becomes that some event might trigger a cascade effect, with perhaps less flexibility to deal with it. So, overall, a poor move in my estimation. (My views were unclear in the original post.)
I take your point about the Biden administration's actions during the run-up to Putin's invasion. I also feel more could probably have been done then, and certainly after.
I also think there are unanswered questions (perhaps unanswerable in a definitive sense) as to why Putin's invasion was initially rather half-baked. When he perceived his moment had arrived, why wasn't his military better prepared? Was it simply a gross underestimation of what he was getting into? To what extent did he feel rushed before his window of opportunity narrowed? Did the possibility of bringing Ukraine into NATO at some point play a role there (not as an offensive threat in Russia but as foreclosing his ambitions)? Was he misinformed or misled? All of the above?
Such errors are not unusual and compound; many such incursions historically go badly, especially in the beginning (examples are too numerous to list, though in the Russian case, their invasion of Afghanistan might deserve a mention; I could also throw in Xerxes' invasion of Greece and Alcibiades' ill-considered invasion of Sicily just for fun). In many ways, this just looks like history repeating itself.
You raise an interesting point regarding the situation Trump left for Biden. Since Trump had no intention of losing the election, the "very bad hand" you mention was one Trump dealt to himself. How did Trump plan to play that hand in his second term? That's a moot point now (since I doubt very much anyone would credibly answer it). But I must suppose he believed it was the best hand he could get and he had some plan to deal with it. (That plan didn't account for COVID.)
In a way, it reminds me a bit of the situation Clinton inherited regarding Iraq. George H. W. Bush clearly didn't plan on losing that election, and absent Ross Perot, he almost certainly would not have. He believed he had another term to settle the situation, so he took a position that might be called either honorable or politically expedient (or both?) It backfired badly in the end, eventually resulting in two other invasions (by us), and here we are today.
Thank you for your input and thanks again to Glenn for graciously allowing this discussion.
Thank you for the reply. I did not mean to imply that I thought Trump was deliberately creating a mess in Afghanistan to leave it for Biden. On the contrary, I think that had Trump been elected he would have ended up being the one to reap that whirlwind - it was just bad policy and only a consequence of timing and the election result that it blew up on Biden's watch. Also a massive intelligence failure.
I agree with you that NATO expansion back in the day was probably not the wisest course, but I still think Putin reacts less out of responding to threat and more out of the desire to rebuild a fallen empire.
One of the craziest things to think about is that back a couple of decades ago, there was serious thought about allowing Russia to JOIN an expanded NATO, even after Putin was first elected but before he showed his true colors.
Yes, the idea things might have still gone sour had Trump been elected cannot be dismissed, although I doubt things overall would have turned out like they did. We will have to see what the future holds.
On your second point, quite so on both counts.
Yes, there were a lot of attempts at cooperation back then. I personally met with senior reps from Lavochkin to explore the possibility of a joint venture I had proposed. They gave us a briefing on the state of things in Russia at the time that was entirely eye opening. They also happened to be staying near where I lived, so I gave them a ride to their hotel. They showered me with gifts in return, including a bar of Russian chocolate. It was a fascinating experience. In the end, nothing came of it and that era (as I've heard) is not recalled fondly in Russia these days, for understandable reasons.
I have some memory of that (Russia joining NATO), though I never got the impression it was especially serious. You may be better informed than myself on that topic as my focus had shifted by that time, but I do recall a desire to enlist Russia's aid in the GWOT, and some overtures to that end. There seemed to be a spike in alarm after Beslan over Russia's possible response, but it faded (at least as far as I was aware) and Basayev's eventual death closed the issue. Around the time, awareness of Putin's true colors (as you say) I think was growing and became clear by 2008.
But I am being prolix now, and will close. You responses are appreciated, and as always, thanks again to Glenn.
Glenn makes cogent observations when he says: "With respect, I can’t help but feel that John is making a fetish of complexity here, which is something of a habit for his political tribe. Liberals sometimes act as though they have a monopoly on “nuance” ... If your argument against strong border policy is Trump makes it sound 'too easy,' you haven’t addressed the policy itself, only the messaging around it. That’s taking a different kind of easy way out."
I'll take the liberty to make a few other points, however peripheral they may seem. The appeal to "nuance" is a tried-and-true debating tactic, often used when one is insufficiently convinced of the weight of their arguments on their face. As a historian, I encounter this on subjects ranging from Heian court literature to Homeric scholarship. It is not uncommon to read that certain views are "illusory" due to those who hold them not sufficiently grasping all the nuance of the language, the culture, the history and the muddling effects of intervening centuries. When things get heated (which they do), the implication can be that "I can't adequately explain this to you because you are too ignorant, too parochial, and/or simply don't have the intellectual horsepower to fully appreciate what I'm saying."
But there is another factor at work here, and I will go out on limb to suggest that John suffers from it to a greater degree than Glenn. Among specialists who ascend to the rarefied heights of their field, there is a documented tendency for the nuances -- that is, the fine-grained or high-resolution understanding of the subject -- to take on outsized significance. This is to a degree natural, in that it is primarily this high-resolution understanding that separates the specialist from the layman, even it the layman's faculties are other wise on par, and it is source of pride, prestige and self-worth. There's nothing wrong with that; such understanding is achieved only with great effort and dedication and is certainly deserving of all of those things.
But without sufficient tethering to the "real world" -- or one might say, the foundations on which the expertise rests -- this amplified attachment to the fine-grained details can have a distorting effect. In this regard, I find it interesting that John is a linguist and Glenn is an economist. Linguistics is a rather rarefied field of endeavor; economics deals fundamentally with real-world issues which are objective and concrete. Which field provides a stronger tether to the real world? Which field provides stronger feedback in regards to the correctness of theories proposed? If Glenn advances a theory and it is believed and implemented, there are real world consequences for people's livelihood. If John advances a theory of the evolution of a language, is anyone's livelihood on the line? This is not to disparage John's work anymore than I, or anyone, should disparage the pursuit of higher mathematics or theoretical physics. The obvious value of these fields, as well as the arts and other realms of human endeavor that appear to lack immediate practical application, is not in question. But that John is drawn to one field and Glenn another says something about their character that likely informs their different views.
In regards to Trump, I believe it is safe to say that John's antipathy is an emotional predilection in search of a rational argument to support it. I don't think he holds a "nuanced" position here. I recall in another podcast that John's first response to the question of why he felt Trump was unfit to be president was that Trump is "a gorilla." He then went on to develop his theme, but that initial "knee-jerk" comment was hardly nuanced. The fact is that Trump is every bit as complex and nuanced a character as John is. They are both rather remarkable human beings.
The issue is that they approach life and issues in diametrically opposed ways. John is an academic; Trump is a builder and deal-maker. In both cases, there is the temptation to deride them with simplistic and cynical characterizations.
But there is something else about Trump that has transformed the situation: Trump is (in the argot of the day) a genuine badass. For time out of mind, politicians have been known for their posturing, assuming an appearance of strength or compassion, or trying to pass themselves off as a "common man" when raised in an environment of gold-plated privilege. In recent years, this lack of authenticity has metastasized into society at large (as the disturbing causal link between Instagram filters and the rise in cosmetic surgery alarmingly demonstrates).
Rarely does an event happen when the obscurations that some know of and many might suspect are ripped away. This has now happened twice in the past couple of months. The first was the debate and the second was the assassination attempt. The assassination attempt is the more catalyzing of the two, and revealed what was least suspected, and it happened while people were watching in real-time, utterly unfiltered.
The shock was not so much that someone took a shot at Trump (John's ill-considered previous comment is enough of a testimony to that). The shock is how Trump reacted. No one alive in this country has ever seen a political leader, former president and current candidate, react like that -- reveal the strength of his character in such a fundamental and galvanizing way.
It was a narrative-destroying moment -- the glass through which many viewed him, largely manufactured by his political opponents and outright enemies -- was shattered. The plain fact is that Trump is an authentic badass and that is causing many people, who either believed what they thought they saw or weren't sure what they saw but were nervous about it, to rethink and reassess. Trump has been president; he has a record to reflect on, he has a history that can now come into focus, independent of personal feelings about him.
There is also final point which should not be overlooked although it may currently be underappreciated. An authentic badass is not always going to be polite or temperate in their language or rhetoric. They are not always graceful and refined in their manner. They are not going wrap their positions or their arguments in the soft folds of "nuance." That is not who they are. That does not make them any less capable of compassion, of listening intently, of considering deeply, of appreciating nuanced arguments, but they will also "cut to the chase" and focus on the essentials.
Leadership is not about pondering all the "what if's" and "maybe's" and "but's" -- those are academic pursuits. Leadership is about identifying essential goals and devising workable strategies to accomplish them. Details are to be delegated (otherwise micromanaging happens with generally disastrous results); the leader's role is to monitor the progress and course-correct when needed: steadfast aim, flexible approach. To employ a military maxim: "A good plan executed now is far superior to a perfect plan executed next week (or next month)." To which can be added "A strong leader who makes some mistakes is far superior to a weak leader who makes none."
Finally, Clausewitz's dictum is apropos: "Everything in war is simple. But the simple is difficult (and can be complicated)." This, I think, puts paid to John's argument that MAGA is "'too easy' and overly simplistic to be reputable." (War being "the continuation politics by other means" and all that.) So John's comment about "it seems to me that the left requires you to work harder. The right doesn't require you to learn about Ukraine or to learn about what's happened in Palestine since the 1920s" reflects a blinkered "academic" view of the right. I could take an equally blinkered view and say something like: "The left doesn't require you to understand how to build a bridge that will survive a major earthquake." Neither view is much use. Lack of appreciation of the facts and inattention to them is not a "left-right" issue and making it one is a sign of emotional reasoning, not nuanced or or intellectually coherent view of the problem.
With deep appreciation and gratitude to Glenn for all his efforts and the opportunity to post these thoughts.
I thought John had the better of that exchange. MAGA was about bumper sticker claims first and then building a rationale for them afterward. A huge part of Trump convention speech was nothing but bumper sticker claims one after another.
Complexity is not always of the left and not always wrong. For example, consider the Reagan Republican-ish arguments about marginal tax rates. There, the simple argument belongs to the liberals ("people who earn more should pay more") and the more complicated but st leadt to some degree correct argument is the old conservative position, which relies on arguments about incentives and economic growth.
I will have to defer to you on Trump's convention speech. I have not heard it. I have not yet had occasion to watch a political convention of any party, attend a rally, etc. (I do see a wealth of bumper stickers, of course, as those as unavoidable.) I have found that rhetoric tends to be an unreliable indicator of policy, even if sincere, and policy is not always a reliable indicator of the ability to successful implement policy. I also believe that the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is true more often than not, that the devil is often in the details (but not always) and I largely take "The Gods of Copybook Headings" to heart. Since I am waxing metaphorical and dabbling in doggerel, I'll add "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. (Those who do learn from history will find new mistakes to make.)"
Who has learned what about which and how the Gods of the Copybook Headings will continue to weigh in remains to be seen. In my mind, the key question now is not so much about rhetoric, complexity, "ease" or even policy (though that remains important); the key question is about resilience in the face of adversity. Give me that, and I will happily debate all the rest. Fail in that, and the rest won't matter much.
"The idea from the Biden world is a little less intuitive but more constructive in the long term…" What idea exactly? The portion of these ideas that John has offered his opinion on, he seems to grudgingly disagree with. And he reverts to his default "well meaning liberal" position - usually undefined but with some sort of disgust to those on the other side. I'm fascinated with John in the same way that they both were fascinated with Vincent Lloyd - but his difficulty in expressing or thinking about big ideas and his deficiency in theory of mind is getting tiresome.
For all their talk of nuance, the Left is very good at conflating issues when it is in their interest. Immigration is the prime example. The Right will make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration; the Left elides that, deliberately lumping all immigrants into one category. We can't have a "real discussion about immigration" unless that crucial difference is acknowledged, and I don't know if the Left is willing to differentiate between these two populations.
Let me add that members of all political movements have a range of knowledge on issues, or reasons for supporting a policy. OWS protestors did not understand the mechanics of the banking system they were railing against; they just knew that the little guy was getting screwed while the big guys were getting bailouts.
The MAGA right doesn't make that distinction - when Trump was in office he famously refused border wall funding offered by the Democrats as part of an immigration reform bill that allowed people from, as he put it, "shithole countries" to come legally to the US.
Older school conservatives most certainly do, and if you go far back enough - to the time of GWB admin, there were a lot of Dems who opposed legal immigration because of union support.
Is John aware that the CIA/State Department (Victoria Nuland) orchestrated the overthrow of the elected 2014 Ukraine Government? Is he aware that in 2014 a telephone conversation between Nuland and the US Ambassador, discussing the political appointments, was published? The USA, using NATO, is directly responsible for the aggression against Russia. Is John aware that African-American political pressure on the United Kindom to improse immediate 'black majority rule in Africa' was catastrphic for those developing countries. It saw the imposition of black dictorships in Africa and the ruination of development through merit. John please inform yourself.
I'm a bit confused. John seems to be suggesting that progressive operate at a higher intellectual level. I see nothing of the sort. Granted, politics for all of time has relied on overly simplistic 'solutions'. Yes, Trump oversimplifies, but so does AOC, Maxine Waters, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff (outright liar), Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris (clueless idiot), Joe Biden (remember him?), anyone at CNN, and most other progressives.
I am not familiar with Saidiya Hartman's whole argument for "the afterlife of slavery". (Decides not to rant about frustration with first chapter of "Scenes of Subjection" in this space) But the people with three names I am not sure argue that racism hasn't changed at all but that if someone wants an excuse to hate Black people they will come up with one even if Black people improve their situation enough that the old excuse does not hold water.
Everyone would benefit enormously from a good dose of Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions, only compromises.”
Sowell also said we must always remember people have autonomy, they make choices, often bad ones. They need to live with the consequences of their choices or they won’t learn not to make them again. Something the Left, particularly the government-can-solve-all-your-problems types such as Kamala Harris, never seem to understand.
Sure. Conservatism is easier than liberalism. For instance:
- ignoring someone’s skin color is a lot easier than making it their primary characteristic
- working for a “for profit” company is a lot easier than working for a non-profit. The pursuit of earnings is so much simpler than the pursuit of benefits for many constituents, including the “community”.
- managing businesses and the environment with lots of rules is so much easier than managing without those rules created by the vastly smarter rule making liberals
- deciding to keep unborn babies is dramatically easier than the decision process to terminate a pregnancy, especially late in the gestation period.
- building weapons to nit have to use them is vastly easier than bringing them to the battlefield and killing a bunch of people.
It's easy to be MAGA; you just live in reality. That's glib, and a little tongue in cheek, but it's basically true.
I imagine it is hard to be a Democrat. You have to come up with a narrative why college loans are special loans and should be paid off by taxpayers. How Lia Thomas is a woman. That behind every failed Democrat voter is a white nationalist or racist or misogynist or xenophobe. And that the border laws are mere suggestions.
I love the way John envisions Trump voters, though. They don't want border laws enforced because our orderly society is based on rule of law. No, no. It's because they despise the "filthy people" coming in. Has anyone ever actually heard a Trump supporter say that? I sure haven't. All you can do is laugh. A lot of us remember the 1986 amnesty bill; the border toughening simply never happened. Fool me once, shame you you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In closing... If you are drinking coffee at the Cracker Barrel on a college football Saturday morning and someone says something about the "filthy people" crossing the border, you can be sure it's a Fed and he will soon be unveiling a plan to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer.
That was the quick and easy one but the slightly more complicated one is that Bannon is confusing a few immigrant kids with second generation crises of identity appropriate for peers of similar education with most immigrants. People with classic immigrant stories add to the self-confidence of America rather than subtract from it. Despite the fantasies of an "Emerging Democratic Majority" of 15 years ago Republicans can even now get 40% of the Latino vote easily by focusing on concrete practical issues.
Republicans are getting more of the Latino vote BECAUSE Republicans want the border controlled not in spite of that desire. Unlike the nuanced and complexity-loving Democrats, they understand how the open borders flood the land with fentanyl, with major human trafficking rings, with terrorists, and with many other forms of dysfunction that controlled legal immigration can and has limited. Besides that approach being decent in favoring the legal immigrants over the others.
The Trump voters I know are of course a mixed bag but they are very motivated to vote against the Democrat platform as much as vote for anyone in particular. Some are enamored with Trump but I think that most are drawn to his ability to fight and get things done, more so than his specific policies. Trump's policies evolved over his first stint as he did rely on the recommendations of his staff on most policy issues. I think he will appoint a more impressive staff if he is re-elected.
In general, it seems to me that most future Trump voters like the results of his last presidency and assume the second will be similar and hopefully even more effective in caving in the craziness of the Democrat party.
<<But there are slogans and then there are policies. With respect, I can’t help but feel that John is making a fetish of complexity here, which is something of a habit for his political tribe.>>
GLENN NAILS IT HERE. The left loves it whenever Trump emits a slogan or an off-the cuff remark because they can then disingenuously rail against it as a "policy." The discussion needs a concrete example of a MAGA policy.
Below I given an excerpt of one of his executive orders, that outlawing indoctrination and race and sex stereotyping in federal agencies. The left went hysterical over it, misrepresented it and then Biden canceled it his first day in office. Par for the course.
I'd be interested to hear John's spin on it.......
Executive Order 13950: Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, Donald J. Trump, Executive Office of the President, Federal Register, September 28, 2020.
“Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our forebears [sic], America has made significant progress toward realization of our national creed, particularly in the 57 years since Dr. King shared his dream with the country. Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans. ... Unfortunately, this malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country. Instructors and materials teaching that men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist are appearing in workplace diversity trainings across the country, even in components of the Federal Government and among Federal contractors. For example, the Department of the Treasury recently held a seminar that promoted arguments that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke' they are, contribute to racism,” and that instructed small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people's skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”...Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics. Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law. ... Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes. In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees. ... General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement.”
I have just listened to this entire podcast, I advise you to do the same - LISTEN to it, so that you can hear in John's voice the blatantly elitist point of view that is scornful of and which smears the voices of workers without jobs, and which ignores voices who see in Trump a power that will give them back their jobs and their dignity, to be able to support their families, and be the men and women who love this country and believe in its promises. John is a pampered academic utterly out of touch with working people.
I have never heard John express gratitude for the blessings of America. He just criticizes, and as such, he is a scold.
Glenn says that John is "his man" and he will not abandon him despite their differences, Glenn is a colossally forgiving man who sees in John an opponent ( not worthy, IMO) who presents another point of view that is reliably left wing, but not especially erudite. John is a left wing hack, with very little original thought outside of his field of linguistics. This is why Glenn so frequently, and readily, outclasses John.
Surprised to see Glenn give Mearsheimer so much credit on Ukraine. His narrative sounds really compelling, but none of the details stand up to scrutiny. It's like he's convincingly described a city, but when I looked into the buildings he'd mentioned, all were shadows. If that's the best the Putin apologists have got, there's probably no buildings there at all.
It's a lot like BLM, another great narrative about a fake phenomenon. Recall George Zimmerman, a civic role model billed as a racist psychopath, an infamous landmark which disappeared if you zoomed in. The Palestinian narrative also comes to mind. (And no, John, leftists don't know what happened in 1920, the year Amin al-Husseini incited a pogrom in Nebi Musa, the first outbreak of violence in the conflict.)
No, nobody provoked Putin into Ukraine. Believing that particularly kind of BS is not MAGA. MAGA is not having a clue where Ukraine even is, and that we're the having our elections stolen, unlike the people of the great Russian Federation. Just as the left-wing equivalent of MAGA is to believe that we live in a systemically racist country and that BLM is a solid org.
In support of Marti Holloway's earlier comments on Russia, Ukraine, etc., here's the intro to an article I started in 2021 based on the Financial Times 2019 interview of Putin:
Vladmir Putin: Classical Liberal, Intelligent Dignified Statesman, Thoughtful Russia Firster, Agile Interviewee, Funny, Insightful Observer of America’s Cultural Decline
Stuart H. Hurlbert, compiler
Vladimir Putin interviewed by the Financial Times | FT (90m video)
The Financial Times is the first major international newspaper to be granted an interview with the Russian leader for 16 years. Here is the exclusive interview with editor Lionel Barber and Moscow bureau chief Henry Foy in full (90min video), uploaded July 5, 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY0VpyjtuI
Full Transcript: ‘All this fuss about spies ... it is not worth serious interstate relations’
“This is the transcript of a conversation between Vladimir Putin, Russian president, Lionel Barber, Financial Times editor, and Henry Foy, the FT’s Moscow bureau chief, which took place on Wednesday 26 June in the Kremlin. Mr Putin’s quotes are translated from the Russian.”
The Russian president on globalization, China, Trump and the end of the ‘liberal idea’. Vladimir Putin, Russian president, says the 'liberal idea' has outlived its purpose. NOTE: Putin uses the term "liberal" for what classical liberals in the U.S. would usually call "illiberal", “progressive”, “woke” or "politically correct."
https://www.ft.com/content/878d2344-98f0-11e9-9573-ee5cbb98ed36
Question for the reader: Should the U.S. borrow Putin to run for the U.S. presidency in 2024? He’ll be looking for a new challenge by then, and who better to root out cultural Marxism from the US! In some ways, Russia and the U.S. seem to have switched cultures over the last four to five decades. Clearly the overall trajectory during that time has been for more democracy in Russia and less democracy in the U.S., though the two trajectories have not yet crossed. Still, Putin seems much more like JFK than does Biden.
Reading of the full transcript, as well as listening to the interview, is highly recommended. The excerpts below have been selected, in part, to be those most surprising to those in the thrall of the highly biased US mainstream media. The 32,000+ online comments accompanying the video are also highly informative.
SELECTED QUOTES FROM PUTIN
(Here are the first two. If you want the other 4 pages worth, email me at hurlbert@sdsu.edu !)
Any suggestions as to a reputable venue to publish this?
***************
On Trump
“Mr Trump is not a career politician. He has a distinct world outlook and vision of US national interests. I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him. Russia has been accused, and, strange as it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the Mueller report, of mythical interference in the US election. What happened in reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society, and he took advantage of this.”
“Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s? China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty. What happened in the US, and how did it happen? In the US, the leading US companies — the companies, their managers, shareholders and partners — made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly benefited from globalisation. The take-home pay in the US (we are likely to talk later about real incomes in Russia, which need special attention from the government) .... The middle class in the US has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up. The Trump team sensed this very keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory, rather than in any alleged foreign interference.”
*********************
America First, Russia First, all good
[Barber: “But what you said is absolutely fascinating. Here you are, the President of Russia, defending globalisation along with [China’s] President Xi [Jinping] whereas Mr Trump is attacking globalisation and talking about America First. How do you explain this paradox?” Putin: “I don’t think that his desire to make America first is a paradox. I want Russia to be first, and that is not perceived as a paradox; there is nothing unusual there.”
****************
I must agree with John that it takes more effort to try to “educate oneself” about Critical Analysis because much of it it incomprehensible (some Critical Gender Studies) or is just nutty (DeAngelis comes to mind). Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than try to reread Marcuse (a brief try while a college student back in the 60s should have convinced me.)
Straightforwardly, I think John is grasping at straws, but Glenn’s reply was on point.
Having spent what may well be an inordinate amount of words on Trump, I will briefly switch gears, since the subject of Ukraine was brought up. Glenn mentions various commentators (none of which I've listened to, or indeed heard of) and comments he is (understandably) not an expert on the matter. I am, or perhaps I should say was, since it's been awhile, although my expertise is not yet entirely obsolete. What I see in the public discourse is a fundamental misapprehension of both Putin's personal motives and Russia's in general, but most particularly their leadership.
To put it succinctly, neither Putin nor his military has the slightest concern about NATO, it's threat of "encirclement" or feels in anyway "provoked" in a military sense. Putin (and Russian leaders in general) understand that this is an idea which resonates with us, and so they flog it, as they have always done with topics that they feel touch a nerve. Putin's motivations are rather different and steeped in Russian history (as well as his own).
As this is Glenn's substack, not mine, I will forbear to develop the truth of this at length. For those who wish to delve into it, I can suggest 3 sources: "The Russians" by Hendrick Smith, "The Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk, both of which provide valuable historical context, and "The Collapse of the Soviet Military" by General William E. Odom, for a more recent and in-depth examination.
In order to not close without a cogent data point, consider that the Soviet/Russian military has not conducted an exercise whose objective was defending against an attack by NATO since its inception, nor have they formulated a doctrine as to how to respond to to such an attack (anymore than the US military has a doctrine to respond to a military invasion by Canada. I will add that POV exercises have been done in support of Russian offensive ground operations). Understanding these things are key to finding a way to end the war in Ukraine.
So final point: no, we did not provoke Putin into invading Ukraine. Did the Biden administration encourage, by its actions, Putin to invade Ukraine? Absolutely. So we -- in the person of the Biden administration -- bear substantial responsibility for the invasion, but not in the way many think. That also must be firmly understood, both to resolve the situation satisfactorily and prevent similar things from happening in the future.
Again, with deep appreciation and gratitude to Glenn for all his efforts and the opportunity to post these thought.
Hi Robin-
My biggest beef with the inception of the Ukraine War is that we were not prepared for the possibility that Putin would invade.
Assume that Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. Ukraine is not in NATO and so is the obvious first target. By announcing that Ukraine is going to join NATO, you have accelerated Putin's plan to invade. He couldn't invade NATO member Ukraine without risking a war that he certainly can't win.
If you take the position that Putin is paranoid and does not want NATO on his doorstep, he may also invade to keep a buffer zone.
If you believe Putin is a paranoid expansionist then he has two reasons to invade-keep NATO away from Russia and acquire another satellite.
Regardless of how you view Putin, saying Ukraine was going to join NATO greatly increased the odds that he would invade, and yet we were not prepared for that possibility.
Lincoln was almost sure that when he sent the resupply ships to Fort Sumter they would be fired upon, and he was ready when the South started the Civil War. He called up an army the next day. Our defense spending doubled in 1941 in anticipation of WWII. Republicans, if they were smart, should have been ready for a Harris Presidential run, and should be running ads in swing states right now, defining her before she can make her case.
We have been on the back foot in Ukraine since Day 1. We've said we wouldn't give them F-16s and other weapons systems and then did; that Ukraine couldn't fire our weapons into Russia but now can to a limited extent; apparently weapons systems contractors are allowed in Ukraine now. Are advisors ala Vietnam next?
We have no idea what victory looks like. I highly doubt Ukraine can push Russia out of its territory-they don't have the tactical superiority needed to remove an entrenched enemy.
Absent a miraculous collapse of Russian society, I don't see how Ukraine can prevail in this war.
Marty et al.,, you might find of interest my just-made post on Putin's 2019 interview by the Financial Times (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbY0VpyjtuI)
Hi Marty,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This is a topic that is well-nigh impossible to present a well-considered argument, one way of another. You are certainly correct that the Biden administration was unprepared for the invasion -- after all, look how they handled Afghanistan. As a result, we have indeed been on the back foot since Day 1 and our administration's policy (such as it isn't) has been incoherent. Some of those being vociferous in opposition have been (and are being) obtuse.
But NATO was not a factor in Putin's thinking; perhaps I should soften that to not the critical factor. Putin has been planning for the annexation of Ukraine since his Day 1. When I say "planning," I really mean intent, more than a rigidly formulated plan, ready for execution at a moment's notice, although the swiftness with which he was able to act after the botched withdrawal does show a significant degree of preparedness (and a considerable degree of misunderstanding).
What Putin saw was what he thought was his moment -- Putin would have invaded in that moment regardless of the NATO question; that's what I mean it was not a critical factor -- if the NATO idea was never floated or was taken off the table, it would not have prevented Putin's invasion.
I can't think of a way to present this without it sounding like a gross oversimplification, but here goes: Putin's invasion of Ukraine is more akin to a personal and national crusade; personal because the collapse of the USSR, followed by Russia's humiliation in Chechnya, are the signal humiliations of his life. His goal is to redeem them. What happened with expansion of NATO rankled, but those countries are not the Motherland the way Ukraine is perceived to be. Putin is realistic enough to be able live with them being in NATO, but he wants Ukraine back in the fold, regardless of the NATO question. It's a matter of personal pride, national pride, and has almost religious overtones in a way we find hard to comprehend.
So you are right in the sense that Ukraine in NATO would foreclose his life's ambition in his lifetime, and that is important to him. But it is not the case that the threat of the foreclosure moved him to act in a "now or never" way -- given the opportunity, he took it. Had there been credible deterrence, as there was during Trump's presidency, he would not have done so. Had Ukraine been brought into NATO, he would have used everything in his playbook, short of invasion, to break up the deal.
Why? Because the only thing worse to him than not getting Ukraine back would to try and lose face by failing. The sting of what happened in Chechnya has not faded and Putin is determined never to be "that guy" who lead them to humiliation there. So he'd have been furious about NATO expanding to include Ukraine, but he would have had to accept it if he thought he'd be shown up as weak or ineffective.
The Russian elite (generally) feels the same way and so do many of the Russian people. This is constant in Russian history. Again (oversimplifying), it's akin to Russian feeling about the "Mongol Yoke" and the Great Patriotic War. But the Russians have never been rash. They play the game of "two steps forward, one step back" and have, since roughly Peter the Great. The invasion of Ukraine was Putin's "two steps forward" (following on various other actions he's taken since coming to power). In my opinion, the best that can be hoped for now is a change of administration to convince him to take one step back. That's in his playbook. He will bluster and threaten (as he's been doing) but when he sees it's not working, he'll agree, since in his view, he's still one step ahead (whatever that looks like).
This is in keeping with another military maxim: "Allow your adversary to carry as much face as he can away from the battlefield. Do not allow him to carry away anything else." The task for Trump, should he be elected, is to negotiate on that basis.
I'll just add the Putin has seen that iconic photo, too. He's acquainted with Trump from before, but he's just had in confirmed who he might be dealing with. That photo, I believe, will make him more amenable to taking one step back, should Trump be elected.
Final point: I want to clear that I think the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO would be a really dumb idea, especially now. It would serve no practical purpose for us, and it would be a gratuitous insult to Putin and Russia. Our leaders need to handle this like adults, not (as my rough speaking acquaintances in the military might have said in bygone days) a "dick-pulling contest" which is a weak person's game. Time will tell.
Thanks again to Glenn for his generosity and forbearance.
I disagree with your characterization of the Biden Admin here on a couple of points.
1. Regarding Afghanistan, Trump left Biden an untenable situation. He cut a deal with the Taliban in which he agreed to a timetable for US withdrawal. What did Trump get in return for agreeing to withdraw? And end to attacks on US forces. This wasn't the worst tradeoff in the world, but it did mean that if Biden reneged on Trump's agreement, attacks would resume. But the really insidious thing Trump did was cut the Afghan government out of the negotiations entirely. This undermined the Afghan government, which resulted in leaders of all parts of the counrty outside of Kabul cutting their own deals with the Taliban because they knew the government in Kabul was living on borrowed time. The Biden admin is not blameless here, but the worst that can be said is that they inherited a very bad hand and played it badly.
2. In the runup to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the Biden Admin made some brilliant moves involving the sharing of intelligence that deprived the Russians of any strategic surprise. Putin, in the Russian style, had some gamesmanship in the works (like absurd claims that Russia was provoked or Ukraine attacked first or whatever) that were completely undermined by the Biden Admin. Before the invasion started, everyone knew it was coming.
I agree with you in most other respects, although I do think there is a case to be made that earlier rounds of NATO expansion (eg, into the Baltics) were maybe not advisable. (I don't view than as in any way an adequate justification for Putin's invasion, however).
Michael,
I should have clarified in my comment regarding the Biden administration's handling of Afghanistan that I was referring to the execution of the withdrawal itself, not the situation as a whole. The withdrawal was a shambles which signaled military incompetence to Putin, compounding the Biden administration's appearance of being weak and irresolute, and giving some additional impetus to Putin.
I do personally believe the earlier rounds of NATO expansion were not a great idea; how it improved our security is not clear to me, regardless of what the Russians felt. Large coalitions are by their nature less stable than smaller ones, and given the threat environment (which I feel the old NATO was adequate to deal with), it not evident what was gained. Further, the larger NATO is, the more likely it becomes that some event might trigger a cascade effect, with perhaps less flexibility to deal with it. So, overall, a poor move in my estimation. (My views were unclear in the original post.)
I take your point about the Biden administration's actions during the run-up to Putin's invasion. I also feel more could probably have been done then, and certainly after.
I also think there are unanswered questions (perhaps unanswerable in a definitive sense) as to why Putin's invasion was initially rather half-baked. When he perceived his moment had arrived, why wasn't his military better prepared? Was it simply a gross underestimation of what he was getting into? To what extent did he feel rushed before his window of opportunity narrowed? Did the possibility of bringing Ukraine into NATO at some point play a role there (not as an offensive threat in Russia but as foreclosing his ambitions)? Was he misinformed or misled? All of the above?
Such errors are not unusual and compound; many such incursions historically go badly, especially in the beginning (examples are too numerous to list, though in the Russian case, their invasion of Afghanistan might deserve a mention; I could also throw in Xerxes' invasion of Greece and Alcibiades' ill-considered invasion of Sicily just for fun). In many ways, this just looks like history repeating itself.
You raise an interesting point regarding the situation Trump left for Biden. Since Trump had no intention of losing the election, the "very bad hand" you mention was one Trump dealt to himself. How did Trump plan to play that hand in his second term? That's a moot point now (since I doubt very much anyone would credibly answer it). But I must suppose he believed it was the best hand he could get and he had some plan to deal with it. (That plan didn't account for COVID.)
In a way, it reminds me a bit of the situation Clinton inherited regarding Iraq. George H. W. Bush clearly didn't plan on losing that election, and absent Ross Perot, he almost certainly would not have. He believed he had another term to settle the situation, so he took a position that might be called either honorable or politically expedient (or both?) It backfired badly in the end, eventually resulting in two other invasions (by us), and here we are today.
Thank you for your input and thanks again to Glenn for graciously allowing this discussion.
Thank you for the reply. I did not mean to imply that I thought Trump was deliberately creating a mess in Afghanistan to leave it for Biden. On the contrary, I think that had Trump been elected he would have ended up being the one to reap that whirlwind - it was just bad policy and only a consequence of timing and the election result that it blew up on Biden's watch. Also a massive intelligence failure.
I agree with you that NATO expansion back in the day was probably not the wisest course, but I still think Putin reacts less out of responding to threat and more out of the desire to rebuild a fallen empire.
One of the craziest things to think about is that back a couple of decades ago, there was serious thought about allowing Russia to JOIN an expanded NATO, even after Putin was first elected but before he showed his true colors.
Yes, the idea things might have still gone sour had Trump been elected cannot be dismissed, although I doubt things overall would have turned out like they did. We will have to see what the future holds.
On your second point, quite so on both counts.
Yes, there were a lot of attempts at cooperation back then. I personally met with senior reps from Lavochkin to explore the possibility of a joint venture I had proposed. They gave us a briefing on the state of things in Russia at the time that was entirely eye opening. They also happened to be staying near where I lived, so I gave them a ride to their hotel. They showered me with gifts in return, including a bar of Russian chocolate. It was a fascinating experience. In the end, nothing came of it and that era (as I've heard) is not recalled fondly in Russia these days, for understandable reasons.
I have some memory of that (Russia joining NATO), though I never got the impression it was especially serious. You may be better informed than myself on that topic as my focus had shifted by that time, but I do recall a desire to enlist Russia's aid in the GWOT, and some overtures to that end. There seemed to be a spike in alarm after Beslan over Russia's possible response, but it faded (at least as far as I was aware) and Basayev's eventual death closed the issue. Around the time, awareness of Putin's true colors (as you say) I think was growing and became clear by 2008.
But I am being prolix now, and will close. You responses are appreciated, and as always, thanks again to Glenn.
Glenn makes cogent observations when he says: "With respect, I can’t help but feel that John is making a fetish of complexity here, which is something of a habit for his political tribe. Liberals sometimes act as though they have a monopoly on “nuance” ... If your argument against strong border policy is Trump makes it sound 'too easy,' you haven’t addressed the policy itself, only the messaging around it. That’s taking a different kind of easy way out."
I'll take the liberty to make a few other points, however peripheral they may seem. The appeal to "nuance" is a tried-and-true debating tactic, often used when one is insufficiently convinced of the weight of their arguments on their face. As a historian, I encounter this on subjects ranging from Heian court literature to Homeric scholarship. It is not uncommon to read that certain views are "illusory" due to those who hold them not sufficiently grasping all the nuance of the language, the culture, the history and the muddling effects of intervening centuries. When things get heated (which they do), the implication can be that "I can't adequately explain this to you because you are too ignorant, too parochial, and/or simply don't have the intellectual horsepower to fully appreciate what I'm saying."
But there is another factor at work here, and I will go out on limb to suggest that John suffers from it to a greater degree than Glenn. Among specialists who ascend to the rarefied heights of their field, there is a documented tendency for the nuances -- that is, the fine-grained or high-resolution understanding of the subject -- to take on outsized significance. This is to a degree natural, in that it is primarily this high-resolution understanding that separates the specialist from the layman, even it the layman's faculties are other wise on par, and it is source of pride, prestige and self-worth. There's nothing wrong with that; such understanding is achieved only with great effort and dedication and is certainly deserving of all of those things.
But without sufficient tethering to the "real world" -- or one might say, the foundations on which the expertise rests -- this amplified attachment to the fine-grained details can have a distorting effect. In this regard, I find it interesting that John is a linguist and Glenn is an economist. Linguistics is a rather rarefied field of endeavor; economics deals fundamentally with real-world issues which are objective and concrete. Which field provides a stronger tether to the real world? Which field provides stronger feedback in regards to the correctness of theories proposed? If Glenn advances a theory and it is believed and implemented, there are real world consequences for people's livelihood. If John advances a theory of the evolution of a language, is anyone's livelihood on the line? This is not to disparage John's work anymore than I, or anyone, should disparage the pursuit of higher mathematics or theoretical physics. The obvious value of these fields, as well as the arts and other realms of human endeavor that appear to lack immediate practical application, is not in question. But that John is drawn to one field and Glenn another says something about their character that likely informs their different views.
In regards to Trump, I believe it is safe to say that John's antipathy is an emotional predilection in search of a rational argument to support it. I don't think he holds a "nuanced" position here. I recall in another podcast that John's first response to the question of why he felt Trump was unfit to be president was that Trump is "a gorilla." He then went on to develop his theme, but that initial "knee-jerk" comment was hardly nuanced. The fact is that Trump is every bit as complex and nuanced a character as John is. They are both rather remarkable human beings.
The issue is that they approach life and issues in diametrically opposed ways. John is an academic; Trump is a builder and deal-maker. In both cases, there is the temptation to deride them with simplistic and cynical characterizations.
But there is something else about Trump that has transformed the situation: Trump is (in the argot of the day) a genuine badass. For time out of mind, politicians have been known for their posturing, assuming an appearance of strength or compassion, or trying to pass themselves off as a "common man" when raised in an environment of gold-plated privilege. In recent years, this lack of authenticity has metastasized into society at large (as the disturbing causal link between Instagram filters and the rise in cosmetic surgery alarmingly demonstrates).
Rarely does an event happen when the obscurations that some know of and many might suspect are ripped away. This has now happened twice in the past couple of months. The first was the debate and the second was the assassination attempt. The assassination attempt is the more catalyzing of the two, and revealed what was least suspected, and it happened while people were watching in real-time, utterly unfiltered.
The shock was not so much that someone took a shot at Trump (John's ill-considered previous comment is enough of a testimony to that). The shock is how Trump reacted. No one alive in this country has ever seen a political leader, former president and current candidate, react like that -- reveal the strength of his character in such a fundamental and galvanizing way.
It was a narrative-destroying moment -- the glass through which many viewed him, largely manufactured by his political opponents and outright enemies -- was shattered. The plain fact is that Trump is an authentic badass and that is causing many people, who either believed what they thought they saw or weren't sure what they saw but were nervous about it, to rethink and reassess. Trump has been president; he has a record to reflect on, he has a history that can now come into focus, independent of personal feelings about him.
There is also final point which should not be overlooked although it may currently be underappreciated. An authentic badass is not always going to be polite or temperate in their language or rhetoric. They are not always graceful and refined in their manner. They are not going wrap their positions or their arguments in the soft folds of "nuance." That is not who they are. That does not make them any less capable of compassion, of listening intently, of considering deeply, of appreciating nuanced arguments, but they will also "cut to the chase" and focus on the essentials.
Leadership is not about pondering all the "what if's" and "maybe's" and "but's" -- those are academic pursuits. Leadership is about identifying essential goals and devising workable strategies to accomplish them. Details are to be delegated (otherwise micromanaging happens with generally disastrous results); the leader's role is to monitor the progress and course-correct when needed: steadfast aim, flexible approach. To employ a military maxim: "A good plan executed now is far superior to a perfect plan executed next week (or next month)." To which can be added "A strong leader who makes some mistakes is far superior to a weak leader who makes none."
Finally, Clausewitz's dictum is apropos: "Everything in war is simple. But the simple is difficult (and can be complicated)." This, I think, puts paid to John's argument that MAGA is "'too easy' and overly simplistic to be reputable." (War being "the continuation politics by other means" and all that.) So John's comment about "it seems to me that the left requires you to work harder. The right doesn't require you to learn about Ukraine or to learn about what's happened in Palestine since the 1920s" reflects a blinkered "academic" view of the right. I could take an equally blinkered view and say something like: "The left doesn't require you to understand how to build a bridge that will survive a major earthquake." Neither view is much use. Lack of appreciation of the facts and inattention to them is not a "left-right" issue and making it one is a sign of emotional reasoning, not nuanced or or intellectually coherent view of the problem.
With deep appreciation and gratitude to Glenn for all his efforts and the opportunity to post these thoughts.
I thought John had the better of that exchange. MAGA was about bumper sticker claims first and then building a rationale for them afterward. A huge part of Trump convention speech was nothing but bumper sticker claims one after another.
Complexity is not always of the left and not always wrong. For example, consider the Reagan Republican-ish arguments about marginal tax rates. There, the simple argument belongs to the liberals ("people who earn more should pay more") and the more complicated but st leadt to some degree correct argument is the old conservative position, which relies on arguments about incentives and economic growth.
Michael,
I will have to defer to you on Trump's convention speech. I have not heard it. I have not yet had occasion to watch a political convention of any party, attend a rally, etc. (I do see a wealth of bumper stickers, of course, as those as unavoidable.) I have found that rhetoric tends to be an unreliable indicator of policy, even if sincere, and policy is not always a reliable indicator of the ability to successful implement policy. I also believe that the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is true more often than not, that the devil is often in the details (but not always) and I largely take "The Gods of Copybook Headings" to heart. Since I am waxing metaphorical and dabbling in doggerel, I'll add "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. (Those who do learn from history will find new mistakes to make.)"
Who has learned what about which and how the Gods of the Copybook Headings will continue to weigh in remains to be seen. In my mind, the key question now is not so much about rhetoric, complexity, "ease" or even policy (though that remains important); the key question is about resilience in the face of adversity. Give me that, and I will happily debate all the rest. Fail in that, and the rest won't matter much.
"The idea from the Biden world is a little less intuitive but more constructive in the long term…" What idea exactly? The portion of these ideas that John has offered his opinion on, he seems to grudgingly disagree with. And he reverts to his default "well meaning liberal" position - usually undefined but with some sort of disgust to those on the other side. I'm fascinated with John in the same way that they both were fascinated with Vincent Lloyd - but his difficulty in expressing or thinking about big ideas and his deficiency in theory of mind is getting tiresome.
For all their talk of nuance, the Left is very good at conflating issues when it is in their interest. Immigration is the prime example. The Right will make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration; the Left elides that, deliberately lumping all immigrants into one category. We can't have a "real discussion about immigration" unless that crucial difference is acknowledged, and I don't know if the Left is willing to differentiate between these two populations.
Let me add that members of all political movements have a range of knowledge on issues, or reasons for supporting a policy. OWS protestors did not understand the mechanics of the banking system they were railing against; they just knew that the little guy was getting screwed while the big guys were getting bailouts.
The MAGA right doesn't make that distinction - when Trump was in office he famously refused border wall funding offered by the Democrats as part of an immigration reform bill that allowed people from, as he put it, "shithole countries" to come legally to the US.
Older school conservatives most certainly do, and if you go far back enough - to the time of GWB admin, there were a lot of Dems who opposed legal immigration because of union support.
Is John aware that the CIA/State Department (Victoria Nuland) orchestrated the overthrow of the elected 2014 Ukraine Government? Is he aware that in 2014 a telephone conversation between Nuland and the US Ambassador, discussing the political appointments, was published? The USA, using NATO, is directly responsible for the aggression against Russia. Is John aware that African-American political pressure on the United Kindom to improse immediate 'black majority rule in Africa' was catastrphic for those developing countries. It saw the imposition of black dictorships in Africa and the ruination of development through merit. John please inform yourself.
I'm a bit confused. John seems to be suggesting that progressive operate at a higher intellectual level. I see nothing of the sort. Granted, politics for all of time has relied on overly simplistic 'solutions'. Yes, Trump oversimplifies, but so does AOC, Maxine Waters, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff (outright liar), Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris (clueless idiot), Joe Biden (remember him?), anyone at CNN, and most other progressives.
I am not familiar with Saidiya Hartman's whole argument for "the afterlife of slavery". (Decides not to rant about frustration with first chapter of "Scenes of Subjection" in this space) But the people with three names I am not sure argue that racism hasn't changed at all but that if someone wants an excuse to hate Black people they will come up with one even if Black people improve their situation enough that the old excuse does not hold water.
Everyone would benefit enormously from a good dose of Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions, only compromises.”
Sowell also said we must always remember people have autonomy, they make choices, often bad ones. They need to live with the consequences of their choices or they won’t learn not to make them again. Something the Left, particularly the government-can-solve-all-your-problems types such as Kamala Harris, never seem to understand.
No slogan or policy will fix stupid.
Tradeoffs - not compromises…
🎯
Yes, thank you for the correction, shame on me for relying on memory
Sure. Conservatism is easier than liberalism. For instance:
- ignoring someone’s skin color is a lot easier than making it their primary characteristic
- working for a “for profit” company is a lot easier than working for a non-profit. The pursuit of earnings is so much simpler than the pursuit of benefits for many constituents, including the “community”.
- managing businesses and the environment with lots of rules is so much easier than managing without those rules created by the vastly smarter rule making liberals
- deciding to keep unborn babies is dramatically easier than the decision process to terminate a pregnancy, especially late in the gestation period.
- building weapons to nit have to use them is vastly easier than bringing them to the battlefield and killing a bunch of people.
John, you are so right!
'ignoring someone’s skin color is a lot easier than making it their primary characteristic"
This does not appear to be true in the case of Republican politicians since Biden withdrew from the race for some reason.
Sarcasm
Great comment.
It's easy to be MAGA; you just live in reality. That's glib, and a little tongue in cheek, but it's basically true.
I imagine it is hard to be a Democrat. You have to come up with a narrative why college loans are special loans and should be paid off by taxpayers. How Lia Thomas is a woman. That behind every failed Democrat voter is a white nationalist or racist or misogynist or xenophobe. And that the border laws are mere suggestions.
I love the way John envisions Trump voters, though. They don't want border laws enforced because our orderly society is based on rule of law. No, no. It's because they despise the "filthy people" coming in. Has anyone ever actually heard a Trump supporter say that? I sure haven't. All you can do is laugh. A lot of us remember the 1986 amnesty bill; the border toughening simply never happened. Fool me once, shame you you; fool me twice, shame on me.
In closing... If you are drinking coffee at the Cracker Barrel on a college football Saturday morning and someone says something about the "filthy people" crossing the border, you can be sure it's a Fed and he will soon be unveiling a plan to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer.
Well, Steve Bannon told David Brooks that his pure MAGA followers want the southern border to be entirely shut.
And, at this point, what would be the argument against that position?
People who are entirely deserving of asylum would not get it.
I'm not agreeing with Bannon, but the asylum thing is an incredibly weak argument.
That was the quick and easy one but the slightly more complicated one is that Bannon is confusing a few immigrant kids with second generation crises of identity appropriate for peers of similar education with most immigrants. People with classic immigrant stories add to the self-confidence of America rather than subtract from it. Despite the fantasies of an "Emerging Democratic Majority" of 15 years ago Republicans can even now get 40% of the Latino vote easily by focusing on concrete practical issues.
40 percent? Gee, thanks.
Republicans are getting more of the Latino vote BECAUSE Republicans want the border controlled not in spite of that desire. Unlike the nuanced and complexity-loving Democrats, they understand how the open borders flood the land with fentanyl, with major human trafficking rings, with terrorists, and with many other forms of dysfunction that controlled legal immigration can and has limited. Besides that approach being decent in favoring the legal immigrants over the others.
As if Steve Bannon is some kind of authority...smh
He is probably an authority on the people who listen to his podcast even if they are not representative of everyone who will vote for Trump this year.
The Trump voters I know are of course a mixed bag but they are very motivated to vote against the Democrat platform as much as vote for anyone in particular. Some are enamored with Trump but I think that most are drawn to his ability to fight and get things done, more so than his specific policies. Trump's policies evolved over his first stint as he did rely on the recommendations of his staff on most policy issues. I think he will appoint a more impressive staff if he is re-elected.
In general, it seems to me that most future Trump voters like the results of his last presidency and assume the second will be similar and hopefully even more effective in caving in the craziness of the Democrat party.
(no immigrants legal or otherwise)
<<But there are slogans and then there are policies. With respect, I can’t help but feel that John is making a fetish of complexity here, which is something of a habit for his political tribe.>>
GLENN NAILS IT HERE. The left loves it whenever Trump emits a slogan or an off-the cuff remark because they can then disingenuously rail against it as a "policy." The discussion needs a concrete example of a MAGA policy.
Below I given an excerpt of one of his executive orders, that outlawing indoctrination and race and sex stereotyping in federal agencies. The left went hysterical over it, misrepresented it and then Biden canceled it his first day in office. Par for the course.
I'd be interested to hear John's spin on it.......
Executive Order 13950: Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, Donald J. Trump, Executive Office of the President, Federal Register, September 28, 2020.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/28/2020-21534/combating-race-and-sex-stereotyping
“Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our forebears [sic], America has made significant progress toward realization of our national creed, particularly in the 57 years since Dr. King shared his dream with the country. Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual. This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans. ... Unfortunately, this malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country. Instructors and materials teaching that men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist are appearing in workplace diversity trainings across the country, even in components of the Federal Government and among Federal contractors. For example, the Department of the Treasury recently held a seminar that promoted arguments that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke' they are, contribute to racism,” and that instructed small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people's skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”...Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics. Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial. The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law. ... Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes. In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees. ... General Provisions. (a) This order does not prevent agencies, the United States Uniformed Services, or contractors from promoting racial, cultural, or ethnic diversity or inclusiveness, provided such efforts are consistent with the requirements of this order. (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit discussing, as part of a larger course of academic instruction, the divisive concepts listed in section 2(a) of this order in an objective manner and without endorsement.”