Okay, here we go.
1. Lamb, meet pot 2. Make incisions deep with a small, sharp knife.

I might have more to say later, but all the reviews of Carter's presidency emphasize his character, his success in the Mideast, and inflation/gas prices.
But left out of all that: His Cold War policies were abject failures and left America in a precarious situation by 1980. /1 Not only did the Soviets run wild during Carter's presidency, they hated him personally, seeing him as an unserious man giving them Sunday School lectures. Some of America's allies felt the same way, esp after Carter hosed the Germans on the neutron bomb issue. /2

So, a few words about this new Russian nuclear doctrine, but here's the short version: It's not a doctrine, it's a ploy.
/1 The old Soviet Union had a formal military doctrine, and it mattered. (Trust me. Wrote my doctoral dissertation and first book on it.) It mattered because the regime believed in ideology, and in conforming its policies to ideology and communicating that to its institutions. /2

Okay, I admit, I've been kind of rope-a-doping some of the people angry over my "it's okay to drop friends over politics posts." So I'll wrap up:
I don't recall anyone on my right getting mad when I wrote this in a right-wing - now insanely right wing - magazine in 2016. /1 The reason I got very little pushback, I suspect, is that no one expected Trump to win. But now, people on the right are stuck having to defend what they've done and itchy about it.
But interestingly, the same magazine also now has this:
/2

It's right on brand for the "fuck your feelings" crowd to say their vote, and the things they advocated for, must have no effect on any of their relationships with friends or family. Not only is that unrealistic, it's definitely whiny.
(And now let's remember some history.) /1 As a kid, I saw relationships among friends and family break over several issues - and especially Vietnam. No one back then said "You must treat me like a beloved friend or family member no matter what I say." People were, you know, grownups. They owned their politics. /2

Just as in 2016, Trump voters are the angriest winners I've ever seen.
🧵
/1 The thing that unites Trump voters with other extremists from right to left is that they are totalitarians. For them, winning an election isn't enough. Deep down, they doubt their own cause so they want you not only to accept their win, but to affirm them.
/2

Uncharacteristically, I'll say that Dems should stop beating up on themselves and firing volleys back and forth. (They can get back to that later.) American voters - as I've been warning for years - are changing, and becoming more like Trump. That's hard to counteract. /1 Maybe the mistake we all made was thinking America would elect a Black woman. I had a gut feeling they would not. But in any case, when elections are about feelings, fantasies, boredom, and resentment, the candidate who services those delusions has a natural advantage. /2

I used to encounter this among some senior officers I worked with who didn't think war college faculty should have tenure. But those who disliked the word "tenure" didn't dislike it enough that they stopped their kids from applying to top schools with faculties built on it. /1

https://twitter.com/Timodc/status/1852790451499401682

And I know this because I asked. Many years ago, I asked an admiral where his colleagues sent their kids to college. He reeled off some impressive names. "Did they call and ask for the untenured faculty, or demand to see an ROI for one year at those schools?"
Response: 😡
/2

I've been thinking about this article, and have now read the full CSIS report. Eliot and Phillips make some important points about expertise. But the idea that the experts botched this at the beginning seems to me to be some unduly harsh revisionism. /1

Longish🧵

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1839677405704671398

The basic issue seems to be: Why did so many analysts overestimate RU and underestimate UKR? And the answer seems to be something like: Because they're intellectually ossified and they did stuff like count tanks instead of thinking more about social and political factors. /2

Okay, think about this "fact-checking" mania so many of you have for the debates: That's not how the public scores debates.
Look, when Reagan said "there you go again," he wasn't fact-checking Carter. He was emphasizing to the public: Aren't we tired of this guy?

/1 When Bentsen skewered Quayle with "You're no JFK," was it a fact-check, or was it: Get a load of this guy, thinking he's JFK.
When Clinton stood up between Perot and Bush in 1992, he wasn't fact checking. He was saying: I am the only guy here who gets you.

/2

I like to think @stephenfhayes and @JonahDispatch and @SarahLongwell25 and I all come from the same church but different pews. But I admit that I am over on Sarah's side of the aisle about what it means to be Never Trump: It means not only criticizing him, but stopping him. /1 I get Steve and Jonah's frustration that some conservatives seem born-again liberals. I don't think that's me (or Sarah), but until Trump is gone, many Never Trumpers (including me!) think policy differences just don't matter. That drives other conservatives nuts. I get that. /2

Here's a little Cold War nostalgia for you that relates to today. Back in 1983, Sam Huntington published an article in which he argued that one way to deter the Soviets from invading Western Europe was to threaten counter-invasions of Eastern Europe.


/1jstor.org/stable/2538699 The idea was they invade West Germany, we do airdrops into the GDR and CZ. A lot of folks thought he was nuts, and it was a pretty off-the-wall idea, especially NATO didn't have a lot of ability to pull that off. Here's an article about it:


/2nytimes.com/1984/02/05/wor…

I'm gonna say that I am surprised (and gladly so) by how fast the Democrats coalesced around Harris. First time in a while I've really gotten the sense that they know what the stakes are that maybe disbanding the circular firing squad is a good idea. VP was the obvious choice. /1

https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1815775569667059932

Many of you asked me WELL WHO DO YOU WANT, TOM in that "we dare you to name a name" way. I didn't say Harris or anyone else. All of them had risks, and I didn't want a pile-on, especially on a candidate who becomes "the one you Never Trumpers" want, and esp before Biden quit. /2

Before I head downstairs for some late-night TV, I am going to do something I’ve never done:
To see if I can get through to some of you, I AM GOING TO USE A SPORTSBALL ANALOGY!

/1 Bottom of the 9th, Team Democracy tied with Team Autocrat. Biden’s been pitching a great game, but he’s getting tired. Facing their top hitter, he goes for his fastball.
He unloads a wild pitch into the stands, hitting a fan in the head. Crowd hushes. Opposing team grins.
/2

I agree that there is a double-standard in covering Trump. I have complained about it a lot. (The way I complain about everything: At length.) But maybe many of you should consider what you were saying about Trump coverage back at the start.
"Stop covering him!"
/1 I was one of the people arguing for saturating the airwaves with him so people could see his emotional instability. "Shut up," many of you yelled. "You're giving him oxygen!" When he was POTUS, I opposed kicking him off Twitter, which made some of you go nuts.
/2

This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1

https://twitter.com/_themoman/status/1802425518400115192

During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2

I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1 Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2

Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1

https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/1798371642466537716

Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2

My (friendly) disagreement with @NoahCRothman reminds me of something that happened to me when I was doing a speaking engagement at a college. One of the faculty was - no, really - very Trumpy. And he made a comment to me that really encapsulates our political asymmetry. /1 He said: "Your contempt for the voters is palpable," because I was talking about The Death of Expertise and how voters vote based on not knowing stuff.
He felt that was very elitist.
"Your contempt is obvious as well," I said.
He was, uh, taken aback.
/2

Some Memorial Day reading about how much Trump, the man who would be Commander in Chief again if he gets the chance, disdains our military - especially those who gave their lives, who he calls "suckers and losers."
Gifting these articles:
🧵 The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…

I'm (a little) surprised at people who want to take issue with me and who insist that Americans, as a nation, really suffered through Afghanistan and Iraq, when the criticism I'm making is that we offloaded all that onto volunteers and then ignored them (and the wars). /1 I mean, normally, that might seem like a left-wing criticism, no? But I don't think it's either left/right, but just *true* in an empirical sense. A tiny fraction of the country serves in the military. We have not been a country "at war" in any meaningful sense since Vietnam. /2