It remains amazing to me that a man known for overselling himself, of stiffing others, a man who became notorious for saying, “You’re fired!” to a lot of ordinary people and a few celebrities as well, is somehow seen as a champion of little guys and gals. Of course, it’s not like the Democrats offered much of an alternative (Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris as working-class champions? I don’t think so). Nevertheless, Donald Trump is about the furthest thing from a public servant to America that I can imagine. When he’s not playing golf or stirring the pot or posing and preening, he’s finding new ways to cash in as president.
Well, as Richard Nixon famously argued, if the president does it, that means it isn’t illegal. Right?
Trump is a creature of Pottersville, the nightmarish alternative to Bedford Falls if George Bailey (played by Jimmy Stewart) had decided to jump off the bridge rather than serving the humble people of his community. Lurid Pottersville, shiny and decadent and shallow, where everyone’s on the make or on the take: that’s Trump’s kind of place. It’s a wonderful life—for Trump!
Which brings me to a fine article by Juan Cole at TomDispatch, Trump of Arabia, in which Cole recounts Trump’s grasping and greedy trip to the Middle East. You gotta hand it to Trump: he knows how to party down with the sheikhs, with all the hair-flipping and exotic dancing.
One thing is certain: Trump isn’t lecturing them about democracy and human rights. It’s just gimme-gimme-gimme. Trump puts the naked back in naked capitalism. The emperor who hath no clothes.
Well, at least America got a big beautiful jet out of the deal: a “free” luxury 747 from Qatar, the new Air Force One if Trump has his way. How sad is it that the new Air Force One that America was supposed to have is years behind schedule and billions over budget? Thanks a lot, Boeing!
Maybe on his next trip to the Middle East, Trump can convince the sheikhs to help fund Medicaid and SNAP for the poor. For struggling Americans, it sure would beat luxury jets and hair-flipping.
Are we living through a nightmarish simulacrum of reality, a Hollywood without happy endings? If so, let’s call it “Trumpwood.”
You may know that Donald Trump, who’s appeared in movies and had his own popular TV show, The Apprentice (where his signature line was, “You’re fired!”), has his very own star on Hollywood’s walk of fame (and shame). It’s rather amazing to recall that Trump was once seen as an entertaining billionaire buffoon, a friend to the Clintons, among other liberal A-listers. The relatable billionaire, so to speak, whose vulgar tastes ran to golden toilets. As they say, who cares if it’s true—go with the legend!
He’s a star! A star!
Trumpwood, I’d argue, is a twisted and bizarre version of Hollywood, where the Oval Office is just a set to him, where the world is just a stage where he manifests all his hatred and trauma and egotism. The rest of us are just bit players (or scenery, easily changeable and discardable) in his psychodrama.
It’s all show business to The Donald, all centered on himself, where he is (at least in his own mind) the ultimate A-lister. He is the “very stable genius,” the most powerful man in the world with the biggest nuclear button, the man who craves attention but who also demands obedience. Adoration is what fuels him. Without adoring masses, without his trumped-up towers to himself, he would wither away.
Trump is the ultimate taker, feeding off the adoration as well as the hatred of the rest of us. I wish we could ignore him, but he is the president, after all, so we can’t just wish him into the cornfield.
Perhaps in 2028, assuming we last that long, Americans might care to elect a public servant rather than a self-centered scene-stealing “star” as president. A man can dream.
P.S. Check out Tom Engelhardt’s latest at TomDispatch, which helped to inspire these thoughts of mine.
The so-called SignalGate scandal centered on the bombing of Yemen is highly revelatory. First, some resources. CNN has a useful annotated account of the chats exchanged at the highest levels of the Trump administration. At their respective Substacks, Lenny Broytman and Caitlin Johnstone have telling dissections of these chats as well. At Jacobin, Branko Marcetic has an important article that reminds us of the illegality of the attacks. As the article’s subheading puts it: The press [mainstream media] is mostly framing the Yemen group chat scandal as a story of incompetence. There’s little attention being paid to the deadliness, illegality, and ineffectiveness of the strikes themselves.
To me, among the most telling “chats” came from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. It highlights the “exceptional” nature of America:
*****
Pete Hegseth to Vice President JD Vance: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.
But Mike [Waltz, the National Security Adviser] is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing…
*****
This is precisely the problem for America since the Vietnam War, if not before then. We’ve created a monster military, a “global strike” force, that is capable of destroying any target anywhere around the globe. “Nobody else even close,” SecDef Hegseth correctly says. And because we can do it, because we are exceptional in military force, our leaders believe we should do it, even if it’s only to send a “message” to the world how tough we are, how committed we are to killing others.
Other countries—like those “free-loading” European ones—are PATHETIC because they don’t have America’s military might. Only we can smite evildoers around the globe, only we can do so while also arming Israel to the teeth and covering its flanks while it continues its annihilation of Gaza, and this is something we are immensely proud of.
My fellow Americans, this is not something to be proud of. Consider if America’s military in the 1960s had lacked the ability to deploy over half a million troops to Vietnam while also facing down the Warsaw Pact in Europe. Consider if America’s military had lacked the ability to invade Iraq in 2003 while also waging war in Afghanistan and garrisoning the globe with roughly 800 military bases. Consider how much blood would not have been spilled, and treasure wasted, if the U.S. military was smaller, focused on defense, and led by people who didn’t put muscle and flame emojis in their chats to celebrate U.S. military prowess at killing people in Yemen.
That U.S. military forces are the only ones who can kill globally with such comparative ease, that “nobody else even close,” is exactly what is wrong with our government. We place far too much faith and pride in military prowess, so much so that the Pentagon becomes the Pentagod, something we worship, something we make immense sacrifices to, as in budgets that approach $1 trillion yearly.
Not for nothing did President Dwight D. Eisenhower say in 1953 that this is no way of life at all—that we are crucifying ourselves on a cross of iron. Tell me again, who are the pathetic ones?
We must end our intoxication with military power before it ends us.
Officially, the U.S. has the DOD, the department of defense. But when was the last time the U.S. military was primarily oriented toward defense of the CONUS? (CONUS is a military acronym for continental United States.)
My old service, the U.S. Air Force, is far more open about its true aims. It boasts assertively of “global reach, global power” and notably of “global strike.” Not to be outdone, the U.S. Navy has “carrier strike groups,” what used to be termed carrier task forces when they fought real battles in World War II.
Here’s a recent official description: “A Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is a highly powerful, self-contained naval force, capable of projecting power globally, with an aircraft carrier as its core, supported by cruisers, destroyers, submarines, and an air wing, making it a formidable force capable of striking targets 1,000 miles away.”
Doesn’t sound defensive, does it? And of course the U.S. Marines are defined as “expeditionary” forces that are “forward-deployed” for all sorts of expected “contingencies” overseas.
The U.S. military is not about defense. It’s about “full-spectrum dominance.” That means dominance of the land, sea, air, space, cyber, information in all its forms, indeed just about any realm you can think of. No other military, moreover, divides the world into global commands (CENTCOM, AFRICOM, etc.) for the application of U.S. military power. This is not about defending America. It’s about dominating the world. Such a grandiose vision of defense dominance is partly what drives colossal Pentagon budgets that are climbing toward a trillion dollars a year.
SecDef Pete Hegseth, always talking warrior-tough (Doug Mills/NYT)
Consider here the recent kerfuffle about leaked U.S. strike plans for Yemen, which were inadvertently shared with the editor-in-chief at The Atlantic. Here’s an excerpt from those plans:
From Secretary of Defense Offense Pete Hegseth
“1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)”
“1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)”
“1410: More F-18s LAUNCH (2nd strike package)”
“1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets)”
Note the repetition of the word “strike” and the closing prayer to America’s “warriors.” And ask yourself: Is this truly what national defense should look like? Prayerful appeals to “warriors” as they strike weak and poor countries thousands of miles away in undeclared (and therefore unconstitutional) wars?
I confess I didn’t watch President Trump’s address last night nor the response from the Democrats. I’ve heard enough of Trump bloviating and I’ve had my fill of Democrats and their “resistance.”
Checking my news feed this AM, I see that the Democratic response was given by a “moderate,” Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan. She’s an ex-CIA agent, so I guess that means we can trust her? And she served alongside troops in the disastrous Iraq War, so I guess she’s patriotic and smart?
Senator Slotkin tackled Trump not by citing progressive ideas and Democratic worthies like FDR and George McGovern but by applauding a Republican President, Ronald Reagan. President George W. Bush also got a positive mention.
Her main complaint was the “chaos” unleashed by Trump/Musk. She made a big deal about protecting the “homeland” along with immigration reform. She dropped a lot of buzzwords. She stressed that Trump apparently doesn’t think that America is theexceptional nation. And that he’s too cozy with Russia and Putin. The usual charges.
What was missing was vision, especially moral commitments to peace and justice. I heard nothing concrete about enlarging unions, boosting wages, affordable health care for all, serious student loan debt relief, or putting a stop to genocide in Gaza.
We’re still exceptional. Apple pie!
Slotkin’s speech was a perfect product of the corporate Democrats, or, more accurately, the uniparty and the national security state. She’s for “responsible” change. She’s for the middle class. Even apple pie got a mention!
Apparently, the Democratic plan to win back the presidency in 2028 is to reanimate the body of Ronald Reagan with apple pie as his running mate. How’s that for “resistance,” America?
Bonus Lesson: Slotkin said America’s “superpower” is that we’re a nation of “strivers” and “risk-takers” who are “never satisfied.” I guess other nations and peoples don’t have innovators with ambition, or maybe they’re too easily satisfied, unlike Americans?
Will Tulsi Gabbard “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC?
Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is America’s Director of National Intelligence. Here’s a part of the ceremony, with President Trump’s introduction:
What struck me in watching the short ceremony was Trump’s words about “the threat of a warmongering military-industrial complex.” Bold words indeed, as well as his call for Tulsi Gabbard to “shrink the bloated bureaucracy” in DC.
In her brief remarks, Tulsi mentioned an almost forbidden word in DC: peace. She mentioned war as an absolute last resort rather than the first action selected by the “warmongering” (Trump’s word) military-industrial complex. I find that remarkable as well as encouraging.
There are many reasons why I like Tulsi as DNI, but the biggest one is this: She has President Trump’s respect. He likes her. Meaning he’ll listen to her when she briefs him on a daily basis about the threats facing America and the options he has to address those threats.
In his first term as president, Trump was notorious for not caring much about his daily intelligence briefing. Tulsi will change that—and that and her commitment to military action as a last resort is again highly encouraging.
Will anything good come from Trump-Musk DOGE chaos?
Despite our rebel reputations, Americans are often more than deferential to authority. Consider those who say: If you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide. As if authority figures were completely trustworthy; as if ordinary Americans didn’t have a Constitutional right to privacy.
Indeed, that saying needs to be turned around: If the government’s done nothing wrong, it has nothing to hide. The government, after all, is supposed to be transparent to the people. It is supposed to serve us. We pay for it as taxpayers; we elect its representatives; we should be able to hold it accountable when it goes wrong and does wrong.
Sadly, the few revelatory truths about “our” government usually come from whistleblowers, who are then persecuted and often prosecuted. Consider Daniel Ellsberg. Edward Snowden. Daniel Hale. Chelsea Manning. John Kiriakou.
The problem, of course, is that “our” government has done, and keeps doing, many things wrong, and many wrong things, meaning it has plenty to hide. Which is one big reason why President Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk are taking plenty of flak from the powers that be as they go after agencies like USAID, DOE, perhaps even the DoD (in which case they, or their efforts, may soon be DOA).
The wrecking balls are swinging (Reuters/Carlos Barria)
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t support Trump and Musk. Their methods and motives are less than noble. Or just plain ignoble. Put differently, their methods are akin to taking sledgehammers and wrecking balls to a house that has termite damage. Sure, as they demolish the house, some termite damage will be exposed, but shouldn’t the point be to fix the damage rather than destroying the house?
That said, can something good come from their “Hulk smash!” attacks on the federal government?
A slightly different question: Why has it taken so long for a little light to be shed on highly dubious government spending? Isn’t there another way, other than Trump/Musk engineered chaos, for citizens to gain insight into how our money is being spent? Why can’t we call to account powerful government agencies and agents for their budgets and their decisions? It’s our money, right?
Congress, of course, holds the purse strings. Our representatives are supposed to be providing oversight with respect to spending, ensuring a modicum of integrity and competence. Yet complicity (and personal enrichment) rather than oversight seems to be the default mode of operation adopted by most members of Congress.
Congress, instead of opposing Trump, should get ahead of him. Throw open the windows of the federal budget! Air out the dirty musty bloody laundry! Do your jobs! And by that I mean do the people’s work, rather than the work of the owners and donors who’ve bought you with their campaign donations, their promises of future high-paying positions, their threats to remove you from power by throwing their support to yet another politician with no moral spine.
Congress, instead of blocking Trump/Musk, should render them redundant by doing the people’s work. Make government accountable to the people again, and the people won’t feel that they need to vote for chaos agents like Trump.
If Congress was doing its job, a DOGE would be worse than useless. Who needs duplication of effort? It’s so inefficient!
President Donald Trump says he’s ready to tackle the Pentagon, which has failed seven audits in a row. He says America might save “trillions” after effective audits. Will it happen?
The Pentagon budget currently sits at roughly $900 billion for this fiscal year, representing more than half of federal discretionary spending. This vast sum doesn’t include (among other things) Homeland Security, nuclear weapons covered by the Department of Energy, the VA (Veterans Administration), and interest on the national debt due to wasteful failed wars in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
A successful audit of the Pentagon would be a monumental victory for what’s left of American democracy. It may also prove to be a bridge too far for Trump. The National Security State is America’s unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably its most powerful. It is a colossus that hides malfeasance and corruption behind a “top secret” security classification. It deters and prevents efforts at transparency by crying that those who try to expose its crimes are endangering national security. It expects your obedience and praise, not your questions and criticism.
Presidents, of course, are supposed to serve as the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. They rarely do. Not nowadays. The U.S. system may in theory rest on civilian control of the military, but the military has been out of control since at least 1947, when it rebranded itself the “Department of Defense” instead of the old War Department. Not coincidentally, every war America has fought since then has been undeclared, i.e. lacking a formal Congressional declaration of war.
America has fought a mind-blowing number of wasteful and illegal wars that have been sold to the people through lies, whether in Vietnam (“The Pentagon Papers”), Iraq (No WMD), Afghanistan (“The Afghan War Papers”), and elsewhere. Few things are needed more in America than an honest reckoning of Pentagon spending—and future Pentagon war plans.
Such a reckoning could very well save our lives—indeed, the world, if done honestly and transparently by true patriots. It could also prove to be a bridge too far—for any president.
You may recall that, late in 2022, I asked the AI platform ChatGPT to write a short critical essay on the military-industrial complex. That essay is here.
Recently, news out of China came of a new AI platform known as DeepSeek that reportedly is both cheaper and better than U.S. efforts. I asked DeepSeek for a 600-word critical essay on the MIC, and it complied with its human master (at least for now). Here’s the essay, which, you may agree, is quite good:
The Military-Industrial Complex: A Critical Examination [Written by DeepSeek]
The military-industrial complex (MIC) in the United States, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, refers to the symbiotic relationship between the nation’s armed forces, defense contractors, and the political institutions that support them. While Eisenhower warned of its potential dangers, the MIC has since grown into a colossal entity that wields significant influence over American society, economy, and foreign policy. This essay argues that the military-industrial complex is detrimental to the United States, perpetuating endless wars, distorting national priorities, and undermining democratic principles.
One of the most glaring consequences of the MIC is its role in perpetuating a state of perpetual war. The United States has been involved in military conflicts for the majority of its history, with the 21st century being no exception. The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere have been justified under the guise of national security, but they have often served the interests of defense contractors more than the American people. Companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon profit immensely from the production of weapons and military technology, creating a perverse incentive to maintain and escalate conflicts. This cycle of war and profit not only drains national resources but also results in the loss of countless lives, both American and foreign. The human cost of these wars is immeasurable, and the moral implications of prioritizing profit over peace are deeply troubling.
Moreover, the MIC distorts national priorities by diverting vast sums of money away from critical domestic needs. The United States spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined, with the defense budget often exceeding $700 billion annually. This staggering expenditure comes at the expense of underfunded sectors such as education, healthcare, infrastructure, and climate change mitigation. While the country boasts an unparalleled military capability, it lags behind other developed nations in key areas of social and economic well-being. For instance, the U.S. faces a crumbling infrastructure, a lack of universal healthcare, and a growing wealth gap. The prioritization of military spending over these pressing issues reflects a skewed set of values that favors corporate interests over the welfare of citizens.
The influence of the MIC also undermines democratic principles by eroding the separation of power and fostering corruption. Defense contractors spend millions of dollars annually on lobbying and campaign contributions, ensuring that politicians support policies favorable to the industry. This creates a feedback loop where elected officials are incentivized to approve bloated defense budgets and authorize military interventions, regardless of their necessity or public support. The result is a government that is increasingly beholden to corporate interests rather than the will of the people. Furthermore, the revolving door between the Pentagon, Congress, and defense contractors exacerbates this issue, as individuals move seamlessly between public service and lucrative private sector positions. This blurring of lines between public and private interests erodes trust in government and undermines the democratic process.
Critics of the MIC often face significant backlash, as questioning the necessity of military spending or the morality of war is frequently framed as unpatriotic or naive. This stifling of dissent is another way in which the MIC exerts its influence, creating a culture where alternative perspectives are marginalized. The media, too, plays a role in perpetuating this status quo, often uncritically echoing government narratives and failing to hold policymakers accountable. This lack of critical scrutiny allows the MIC to operate with minimal oversight, further entrenching its power.
In conclusion, the military-industrial complex represents a profound threat to the United States, perpetuating endless wars, distorting national priorities, and undermining democratic principles. Eisenhower’s warning about the dangers of the MIC remains as relevant today as it was in 1961. To address these issues, the United States must reevaluate its priorities, reduce its reliance on military solutions, and invest in the well-being of its citizens. Only by challenging the entrenched power of the MIC can the nation hope to achieve a more just, peaceful, and equitable future. The stakes are high, and the time for action is now. [End of essay.]
*****
Amen to that, DeepSeek! There are a few edits I’d make here. Raytheon is now RTX. The defense war budget is now $900 billion and rising, not $700 billion. I wouldn’t use the word “symbiotic” to describe relations among the Pentagon, the weapons makers, and Congress; more like “toxic,” corrupted as it is by greed, money and self-interest. I do very much like this line: “the moral implications of prioritizing profit over peace are deeply troubling.” Deeply troubling indeed!
Anyhow, if you’re interested, go to DeepSeek.com, create an account, and ask our future AI overlord a question. Perhaps you’ll be surprised by the result.
America, Land of Preemptive Pardons and Preemptive War
I woke this morning to the news that President Joe Biden has issued preemptive pardons for Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and members of the January 6th Congressional committee. These pardons are intended to shield them from persecution and prosecution by incoming President Donald Trump.
Preemptive pardons: I’m not a legal eagle, but are these in any sense Constitutional?
More and more, U.S. presidents are assuming the powers of popes and kings. A preemptive pardon is a form of absolution in advance, or perhaps a type of indulgence to spring one from the purgatory (or inferno?) of Trump’s wrath. Or perhaps a preemptive pardon is akin to the royal touch: the old belief that monarchs, as God’s representative here on earth, could touch their subjects and heal them.
America used to have an idea and ideal of the president as first citizen, as a public servant accountable to the people through our elected representatives in Congress as well as the courts. Now, it’s the “unitary executive,” the president as commander in chief of us all (not just the military), as supreme leader. It doesn’t bode well as Trump takes the reins today, does it? Expect to be ridden hard, America.
Partisan Democrats may be cheering Biden’s preemptive pardons today, but how about in four years when a lame duck President Trump issues his share of “get out of jail, free” preemptive pardons?
This idea of “preemption” recalls Vice President Dick Cheney and his idea of preemptive war. Basically, it went like this: If there’s a 1% chance a country might attack the United States, that’s all the justification a man like Cheney would need to launch a war (and without a Congressional authorization of the same, mind you). Again, it grants to presidents (and vice presidents like Cheney) the power of monarchs, which isn’t exactly what the Founders of America had in mind when they set up our government.
Preemptive pardons, preemptive war: What next? Preemptive censorship? (I know: we already have that.) Preemptive arrest and incarceration, as in the movie “Minority Report”? We think you may commit this act, this crime, this sin, so we must “preempt” it, and it’s all your fault for making us do this.
Bracing Views 