I found this interesting and worth the 55-odd minutes. (I needed something to listen to while working out, though.) If you have the time, listen to it before judging or commenting. I don't agree with him about everything, but agree with him about many things.
What strikes me above all is that he's sane, coherent, thoughtful, and decent. The GOP had a choice; they could have nominated him--but chose Trump instead. That's truly an indictment. This nonsense about "the alternative was Hillary" is just that, nonsense.
What I read between the lines--perhaps mistakenly--is the way he understands why he's fallen in line behind Trump. It's a reasonable argument, if I've correctly understood it. The argument is, "We live in a democracy, and if they chose Trump,
it would be presumptuous, arrogant, and despotic for me to fail to respect that choice. I must therefore do my best both to try, respectfully, to understand that choice and respond to *their* desires, not mine--that's my role as a public servant--
while at the same fulfilling my role in a representative democracy, that is, to push policy in the direction that I--- someone who studies policy full-time--think best for the country." I think that's what he's getting at. There's some self-justifying cowardice in that view,
but there's also, I sensed, some real humility. He's politically trapped in many ways: He tries to emphasize the reality and seriousness of Russian interference in US politics while the same time dismissing as ludicrous the speculation that the President "is a Russian agent,"
this is weaselly; the serious question isn't whether the president is "a Russian agent" in the classic sense of the term, it's whether he's influenced by Russia, in debt to Russia, or so defective and unfit personally that he's unable to say what Rubio says plainly about Russia;
whatever the case, it's not a conspiracy theory on the order of "Clinton killed Epstein" to say, "Something is very wrong with the president. The evidence for this includes his inability to say frankly what Rubio says about Russia's role in in American politics."
But overall, I had the sense of a thoughtful and intelligent man who is doing his best to make sense of what's happening to the country and to serve it honorably. I disagree with his judgment: Even though the people chose Trump, there comes a point where his party has to say,
"Democracy is not the *only* value in the United States. We have an obligation, too, to be honest about the President."
But I understand the caution about telling voters, "Whoa, did you make a mistake."
I doubt that they're all so mouse-like simply because they're selfishly concerned for their careers. I suspect for many it's bound up in the sense that they can't just say to voters, "You're wrong. I know better than you do." Even if they do.
Saying such a thing *would* be fundamentally undemocratic. I get it.
Rubio seems to be doing his best here to listen to what the voters said, and figure out how what they want can be resolved with his own beliefs.
I suspect he's also excessively afraid if he speaks out against Trump, he'd be doing so out of vanity, or sour grapes: I get the sense he's wary of his own motives, and has trouble disambiguating what would be good for the country from what would be satisfying to his vanity.
What a shame, though, that out of a slate of some 18 candidates at least three or four of whom were as thoughtful, sane, and coherent as Rubio, Trump was the overwhelming choice of the GOP. I use the word "shame" literally; I don't mean "What a pity."
Shame on them all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes. I have no evidence that this was the deeper source of the tensions, but I sure hope this factors into NATO's thinking and that they're making plans in the full understanding that this could happen. I worry that they may be in some kind of total denial:
Maybe they're not. Maybe this is discussed at every step, but privately. But it's not beyond imagination that some kind of superstition, or fear of causing offense, prevents people from saying to Biden, "Whatever we do has to be Trump-proof."
e.g., "We need to get Ukraine what it needs *now,* because we don't necessarily have "as much time as it takes." And "we need to pass key treaties *now,* because we may not have the chance later."
You will never convince me that these kids are on the street because they’re sincerely worried that they’ll be forced to toil until the age of 64. When you’re that young, you can’t even truly conceive that one day you’ll be 64.
And the idea that *this* is the worry that keeps them up at night these days is risible. Have they not noticed that Vladimir Putin regularly threatens to nuke them?
That recent advances in artificial intelligence are so revolutionary that we can’t even imagine what work, retirement, or human life will be like by the time they’re old enough to retire?
On invading Mexico: open.substack.com/pub/claireberl… I wrote this because I find the lack of debate about this spooky. I think the GOP is *seriously* talking about invading Mexico!
I sometimes think I’ve been away from the US for so long that I’ve lost my feeling for US culture, because I just don’t get why some perfectly trivial controversies become absolute firestorms, with no one talking about anything else for days, whereas much more serious things--
--like the GOP seriously proposing to invade Mexico, and trying to pass an AUMF to do it--don’t even warrant an opinion piece in the NYT.
Are we just taking it for granted that these proposals aren't serious?
But why? Once you pass that AUMF, it can be used by *any* president.
Tucker Carlson's Ukraine war anniversary episode is obscene-an unrelenting firehose of anti-Americanism, Russian propaganda, and grotesque lies about Ukraine. It leaves me slack-jawed that this was aired in America.
Why is the most-viewed host on American cable television serving an unremittingly hostile and genocidal foe of the United States?
This isn't subtle; it's Baghdad Bob level insane.
We know from the Dominion filing that he knows perfectly well these are lies. But we also know he'd cut out his own tongue before saying anything that would displease his viewers. So he must know that this is what they want to hear--but *why* would they want to hear this?
It's deeply sinister that the West's central platform for sharing news and information is owned by a Putin apologist. Even Father Coughlin (or more aptly, Henry Ford) didn't have this kind of control over the arterials of public debate.
This can't be trivialized. He and Tucker Carlson are overtly on the side of the most dangerous enemy of the West and of humanity since Hitler. Given the influence they have on public debate, this is *deeply* sinister.
Together, they're capable of severely undermining Western unity, morale, and support for Ukraine. Despite the happy rhetoric about supporting Ukraine "as long as it takes," we all know we're only one election away from leaving Ukraine and Europe to Putin's mercy--
If you missed it in the newsletter, I want to point out a very good place to donate for earthquake victims in Syria. My friend @esi_zey is organizing it and I trust her implicitly: crowdfunding.copalana.org/mycampaign/109…
She writes: "The difference between this and donating to Kızılay or Support to Life for example is that this is a relatively small project and we know exactly where the money is going ... so this might give people a bit more sense of having helped.
"It’s a specific shelter. In Sheikh Bahar. And God knows the Syrians were already miserable, are at the mercy of the Syrian regime and Turkey, therefore largely cut off from the world and receiving aid.