To Bill Kristol: Maybe Mattis, Kelly, Romney, Bush, etc., cannot in good conscience "emphatically urge a vote for Harris." Maybe there are policies of Harris's that are so offensive to their long and deeply-held beliefs that they just can't do that. Maybe they really really dislike Trump but, as with the editors of the WSJ, don't share your view that he is a "fascist"? (Is the WSJ now considered fascist-adjacent?) Maybe, even, the lawfare that has been used against Trump has come to be too much even for them? Maybe they think that using the law against your political opponent has a whiff of fascism about it?
Dropping this again: Team Harris, VOTE EARLY and get everyone you know to VOTE EARLY. We all know how important this election is (it's like we're living in hell). Let's win it, the way we do that is by voting ASAP and reaching out to all our networks -- esp those young people -- to get to their ballots in NOW. Word to our peeps: absolutely no sitting out this election.
Put aside all the recent happenings with the police and minorities - we are to respect the police as an institution, I suppose. But when the National Fraternal Order of Police endorses Trump. how am I to respect any more the people who run that institution? This is not something that might excusably happen in the heat of an encounter; this is a cold and considered decision.
After January 6th, there is no excuse left for anyone to vote for Trump. It doesn't mean voting for Kamala Harris; but one cannot both owe allegiance to the Constitution and vote for Trump. It is seldom that life offers such a clear cut choice.
Yet, if we are lucky, maybe only 47% of the voters will choose Trump. It could be more.
In this regard, I wish the thinkers on the Bulwark will take up the question of "what does it mean to love the country" ? if one cannot have any respect for 47% of its voters?
Oh, I'm not going to waste any mental energy hating these 47%. But what meaning remains in this "United States of America" where an undocumented immigrant threatened with deportation at any moment has more love for its founding principles than someone with generations of ancestry here? How is one to navigate this contradiction?
Many of those people are gullible enough to believe the "rigged election" mythology, or pretty much anything Trump says.
But others are not stupid. They have the mental capacity to recognize that Trump is a malignant narcissist who preemptively delegitimizes any contest who loses; who imbibed the Roy Cohn philosophy of "Always claim victory, never admit defeat; attack, attack, attack "; who claims that whatever does not go his way is unfair and "corrupt." Those people CHOOSE to defend and endorse him nonetheless, because they see him as a useful weapon against their ideological enemies - regardless of how much damage he does to American institutions, which they have come to label as "corrupt" anyway.
What has been the reason these cowardly men haven’t spoken up? They’re retired from a political job. They owe their last thing for their country to be their warning of trump.
Maybe they don't speak out because they cannot in good conscience support Harris. I could give a half dozen reasons why they might feel that way but let me just pull one out of the hat. Here she is, a few months ago: "I have studied the map... the Israelis must not go into Rafah." You may not know any but there are a good number of good people (several writers for The Dispatch come to mind) who feel they cannot in good conscience support either candidate. The fact that you cannot understand or even countenance such people, and therefore don't know how to talk to them, may be one of the reasons Harris loses.
Good conscience? what exactly does that mean in an election, where not voting IS essentially a vote for Trump? Politics is not like going to the grocery store, where you get everything on your list, and go home satisfied. Politics is about voting for the person who most closely allies with your values. In this election it is quite clear: A vote for Harris is a vote for American democracy. A vote for Trump is vote for a would be dictator. And also is a vote for a 36 count convicted felon. How does that align with your values? A felon cannot get a job working for the USPS!
It's not a question of supporting Harris or not. They can speak out against trump without endorsing her. It's a question of defending the Constitution and our country's democracy. Plain and simple.
"Plain and simple," you say. I don't know you but think I can say without being insulting that the people in question (former presidents, generals, etc) probably have more experience with difficult decisions than you do. And they have decided not to speak out. So maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think. Maybe, even, they don't think the situation is as apocalyptic as you think.
You are just making things up. Mattis and Milley are the ones who made the statements to Woodward. Calling him facist to the core. Sure but Harris said not to go to Rafah. The fact that you think that those things are remotely the same is the problem here. You’re just a troll and perfect for the Dispatch. Jonah Goldberg? Please.
But there's a candidate who says that January 6th was a day of peace and love. I'll take Harris re-educating herself over Israel over a man who will NEVER admit that he was wrong.
They are certainly not men of valor. If Mattis, Kelley, and Bush don't care enough about the country to speak up when it is in danger, then to hell with all of them. I give Romney some grace because he has stood up several times and actually put himself and his family at risk by doing so. I have zero respect for the other three.
He was the only senate republican to vote to convict on the first impeachment. He was one of seven republicans who voted to convict on the second impeachment.
1) I know that this is completely idle speculation but I have a few theories about why Mattis, Kelly, et al., have not publicly endorsed Harris (in descending order of likelihood):
a) Those guys have served in the military their whole lives. They are identified as military people. And one of the basic precepts of military life is that you don’t get involved in politics. I understand that they are retired and would not be violating that precept should they speak out, but they may feel that because they are so closely identified with the military that many people would think that they are speaking for the military. And that includes those currently serving. I can believe that they would feel that it would be terribly disruptive to the morale of the military because if they did speak out, it would tend to force those currently serving to take sides. Not only in a “Trump vs. Harris” sense, but also in a “should he have said anything” sense.
b) I strongly suspect that these folks have rarely, if ever, voted for a Democrat and have generally very negative feelings about Democratic policies. And they’ve been in that belief structure for a long time. I know that this argument is weakened by the examples of Liz Cheney and (especially) Dick Cheney. But neither of those folks are military people.
c) It’s not a lack of physical courage (although they may be concerned about the safety of their families). But they would have to recognize the disruption in their personal lives that speaking out would cause.
But, in the end, only they can explain why.
2) But, as usual, I reserve my greatest rebuke to Bush (43). He doesn’t have the potential baggage that ex-military officers do in getting involved in politics. He has a clear lane to speak his mind. And he won’t do it. Even his father admitted to voting for Clinton in 2016.
Sorry but that’s just a cop out. It’s time to save the country. Both Mattis and Kelly went into politics. Was that speaking for the whole military? If they truly cared about the military they would not want Trump in charge of it. The just want to protect their access. Fools and cowards.
I watched the debate between former General Scott Perry in Pennsylvania who's going for his 4th term in Congress and Janelle Stelson who makes no bones about being an absolute beginner. He was SO negative about "today's military". He didn't seem to worry about current morale when he was lambasting them for not focusing more on "training for combat duty". Although I myself lean toward being a pacifist, I wondered about this combat emphasis. I think that a lot of military IS now about remote combat and intelligence ops. He still seems stuck in that belief that my parents had in the 1960s (although he's my generation, which makes it ironic) that "we had to go through tough things and so should you." And that informs his attitude about voting for military vets' relief, student loan issues, etc.
Anyway, as I looked at your points, Dick, I thought about that debate and how down on the military the ex General was. But, then again, Perry is the ultimate MAGA Republican so of course there's no question of where he stands.
Perry is a military dinosaur. He has the same mindset as the generals in Vietnam. They were fighting a conventional war when they should've been fighting a counterinsurgency war. Unfortunately our military has a long history of training for the "last war" we fought instead of for modern war and the modern battlefield which as you stated is comprised of remote combat and intelligence ops.
Trump is a an existential threat to the United States Constitution they swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is their duty as American patriots to speak out against him. No excuses!
Soldiers (or even ex soldiers) do or should not get involved in politics? One of my childhood memories of my childhood is Powell fighting Clinton on gays in the military.
"The IDF, which had lost some prestige following the October 7th massacre, has conducted a brilliant campaign that will be studied in American war colleges for years"
Yeah..... no.... the IDF has hyyyuuuuugee technical, logistical, weapons, and intelligence advantages... I'm not a zionist or a bigot but if likely over 30,000 innocent deaths qualifies as a "brilliant campaign" then we are truly living in the upside-down.... come on bulwark....
Thank you for pointing out what a perverse inversion of 'peace through strength' kind of military success is being praised here. This example only sets humanity back, not forward, on the complicated journey to becoming a much better example of the genius of Evolution - as a species worthy of being kept around, we have got such a long way to go.
Thank you for calling out Bari Weiss and The Free Press. TFP was good when it started, but went downhill fast. Now that they have VC money it’s even worse. Their two biggest investors are Marc Andreesen and David Sacks. That should tell you something. Not to mention all the NatCon people who write for them, like Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Niall Ferguson, Abigail Shrier, and more. HR McMaster wrote a piece for TFP, but he refuses to be interviewed by The Bulwark. John Cochrane has also written for TFP. So the entire GoodFellows team is now in love with Bari Weiss. It’s so disheartening.
And then there’s Victor Davis Hanson (another Stanford guy in tight with Ferguson, McMaster and Cochrane) in a recent TFP article extolling Elon Musk. “ We should reflect on the Musks in our midst,” writes Victor Davis Hanson for The Free Press. “They play a vital role in enriching culture and civilization.” 🤢
Several weeks ago, I caught a short video clip of VDH saying this election is a "battle for civilization" - with Donald Trump representing the side of "civilization." (And MAGAs huffed about how terribly incendiary it was to say he threatened "democracy," not civilization itself.)
In case that's no weird enough, Hanson went on to say that Trump has the "talent to appeal to the better angels of our nature." Which is borderline insane, or maybe just across that border.
Calling Elon Musk an enricher of culture when he's credulously amplifying conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic tropes and Kremlin propaganda is almost as nutty.
I would cross out the 'borderlines' and 'almosts' in your comment - such analysis in TFP, et al., is hubris & Nihilism made flesh; the biblical language of Good and Evil is better suited to framing MAGA and tRump for what they truly represent. Morals and Ethics have been thrown off the Maga bus in favor of mere ambition, avarice, and pure animus.
Mattis and Kelly and Romney and Bush are ALL cowards!
To Bill Kristol: Maybe Mattis, Kelly, Romney, Bush, etc., cannot in good conscience "emphatically urge a vote for Harris." Maybe there are policies of Harris's that are so offensive to their long and deeply-held beliefs that they just can't do that. Maybe they really really dislike Trump but, as with the editors of the WSJ, don't share your view that he is a "fascist"? (Is the WSJ now considered fascist-adjacent?) Maybe, even, the lawfare that has been used against Trump has come to be too much even for them? Maybe they think that using the law against your political opponent has a whiff of fascism about it?
VP Harris' bday today, please donate to help her close strong, the best gift we all could give! She's working hard for us: https://kamalaharris.com/
Dropping this again: Team Harris, VOTE EARLY and get everyone you know to VOTE EARLY. We all know how important this election is (it's like we're living in hell). Let's win it, the way we do that is by voting ASAP and reaching out to all our networks -- esp those young people -- to get to their ballots in NOW. Word to our peeps: absolutely no sitting out this election.
Put aside all the recent happenings with the police and minorities - we are to respect the police as an institution, I suppose. But when the National Fraternal Order of Police endorses Trump. how am I to respect any more the people who run that institution? This is not something that might excusably happen in the heat of an encounter; this is a cold and considered decision.
It's terrifying.
The message is: The enforcers don't have to follow rules themselves. He promises immunity to the enforcers who side with him.
After January 6th, there is no excuse left for anyone to vote for Trump. It doesn't mean voting for Kamala Harris; but one cannot both owe allegiance to the Constitution and vote for Trump. It is seldom that life offers such a clear cut choice.
Yet, if we are lucky, maybe only 47% of the voters will choose Trump. It could be more.
In this regard, I wish the thinkers on the Bulwark will take up the question of "what does it mean to love the country" ? if one cannot have any respect for 47% of its voters?
Oh, I'm not going to waste any mental energy hating these 47%. But what meaning remains in this "United States of America" where an undocumented immigrant threatened with deportation at any moment has more love for its founding principles than someone with generations of ancestry here? How is one to navigate this contradiction?
Many of those people are gullible enough to believe the "rigged election" mythology, or pretty much anything Trump says.
But others are not stupid. They have the mental capacity to recognize that Trump is a malignant narcissist who preemptively delegitimizes any contest who loses; who imbibed the Roy Cohn philosophy of "Always claim victory, never admit defeat; attack, attack, attack "; who claims that whatever does not go his way is unfair and "corrupt." Those people CHOOSE to defend and endorse him nonetheless, because they see him as a useful weapon against their ideological enemies - regardless of how much damage he does to American institutions, which they have come to label as "corrupt" anyway.
"What does it mean to love the country if one cannot have any respect for 47% of its voters?“
Excellent question.
Concerning Tim's interview with Bob Woodward - Woodward kept saying nuke-u-lar like George W Bush, instead of nuclear. I couldn't listen to it.
That is not much of a criticism. A lot of people also say "Irregardless".
What has been the reason these cowardly men haven’t spoken up? They’re retired from a political job. They owe their last thing for their country to be their warning of trump.
There needs to be a film or doco called All The Presidents Women with all these brave women.
Maybe they don't speak out because they cannot in good conscience support Harris. I could give a half dozen reasons why they might feel that way but let me just pull one out of the hat. Here she is, a few months ago: "I have studied the map... the Israelis must not go into Rafah." You may not know any but there are a good number of good people (several writers for The Dispatch come to mind) who feel they cannot in good conscience support either candidate. The fact that you cannot understand or even countenance such people, and therefore don't know how to talk to them, may be one of the reasons Harris loses.
Good conscience? what exactly does that mean in an election, where not voting IS essentially a vote for Trump? Politics is not like going to the grocery store, where you get everything on your list, and go home satisfied. Politics is about voting for the person who most closely allies with your values. In this election it is quite clear: A vote for Harris is a vote for American democracy. A vote for Trump is vote for a would be dictator. And also is a vote for a 36 count convicted felon. How does that align with your values? A felon cannot get a job working for the USPS!
It's not a question of supporting Harris or not. They can speak out against trump without endorsing her. It's a question of defending the Constitution and our country's democracy. Plain and simple.
"Plain and simple," you say. I don't know you but think I can say without being insulting that the people in question (former presidents, generals, etc) probably have more experience with difficult decisions than you do. And they have decided not to speak out. So maybe it's not as plain and simple as you think. Maybe, even, they don't think the situation is as apocalyptic as you think.
You are just making things up. Mattis and Milley are the ones who made the statements to Woodward. Calling him facist to the core. Sure but Harris said not to go to Rafah. The fact that you think that those things are remotely the same is the problem here. You’re just a troll and perfect for the Dispatch. Jonah Goldberg? Please.
But there's a candidate who says that January 6th was a day of peace and love. I'll take Harris re-educating herself over Israel over a man who will NEVER admit that he was wrong.
Great recap!
They are certainly not men of valor. If Mattis, Kelley, and Bush don't care enough about the country to speak up when it is in danger, then to hell with all of them. I give Romney some grace because he has stood up several times and actually put himself and his family at risk by doing so. I have zero respect for the other three.
I do remember the impeachment vote but can’t recall the several times. Now is the time. He’s really no better than they are.
He was the only senate republican to vote to convict on the first impeachment. He was one of seven republicans who voted to convict on the second impeachment.
Good on him for doing that. What he is he doing now?
A few comments...
1) I know that this is completely idle speculation but I have a few theories about why Mattis, Kelly, et al., have not publicly endorsed Harris (in descending order of likelihood):
a) Those guys have served in the military their whole lives. They are identified as military people. And one of the basic precepts of military life is that you don’t get involved in politics. I understand that they are retired and would not be violating that precept should they speak out, but they may feel that because they are so closely identified with the military that many people would think that they are speaking for the military. And that includes those currently serving. I can believe that they would feel that it would be terribly disruptive to the morale of the military because if they did speak out, it would tend to force those currently serving to take sides. Not only in a “Trump vs. Harris” sense, but also in a “should he have said anything” sense.
b) I strongly suspect that these folks have rarely, if ever, voted for a Democrat and have generally very negative feelings about Democratic policies. And they’ve been in that belief structure for a long time. I know that this argument is weakened by the examples of Liz Cheney and (especially) Dick Cheney. But neither of those folks are military people.
c) It’s not a lack of physical courage (although they may be concerned about the safety of their families). But they would have to recognize the disruption in their personal lives that speaking out would cause.
But, in the end, only they can explain why.
2) But, as usual, I reserve my greatest rebuke to Bush (43). He doesn’t have the potential baggage that ex-military officers do in getting involved in politics. He has a clear lane to speak his mind. And he won’t do it. Even his father admitted to voting for Clinton in 2016.
George W. Bush – the gift that keeps on giving.
Sorry but that’s just a cop out. It’s time to save the country. Both Mattis and Kelly went into politics. Was that speaking for the whole military? If they truly cared about the military they would not want Trump in charge of it. The just want to protect their access. Fools and cowards.
I watched the debate between former General Scott Perry in Pennsylvania who's going for his 4th term in Congress and Janelle Stelson who makes no bones about being an absolute beginner. He was SO negative about "today's military". He didn't seem to worry about current morale when he was lambasting them for not focusing more on "training for combat duty". Although I myself lean toward being a pacifist, I wondered about this combat emphasis. I think that a lot of military IS now about remote combat and intelligence ops. He still seems stuck in that belief that my parents had in the 1960s (although he's my generation, which makes it ironic) that "we had to go through tough things and so should you." And that informs his attitude about voting for military vets' relief, student loan issues, etc.
Anyway, as I looked at your points, Dick, I thought about that debate and how down on the military the ex General was. But, then again, Perry is the ultimate MAGA Republican so of course there's no question of where he stands.
Perry is a military dinosaur. He has the same mindset as the generals in Vietnam. They were fighting a conventional war when they should've been fighting a counterinsurgency war. Unfortunately our military has a long history of training for the "last war" we fought instead of for modern war and the modern battlefield which as you stated is comprised of remote combat and intelligence ops.
Trump is a an existential threat to the United States Constitution they swore to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. It is their duty as American patriots to speak out against him. No excuses!
Absolutely God damned right!!!!! (Please excuse my "French")
Soldiers (or even ex soldiers) do or should not get involved in politics? One of my childhood memories of my childhood is Powell fighting Clinton on gays in the military.
Eisenhower anyone?
The Free Press is as bad as the Federalist. What a disappointment all of those "principled" have become.
"The IDF, which had lost some prestige following the October 7th massacre, has conducted a brilliant campaign that will be studied in American war colleges for years"
Yeah..... no.... the IDF has hyyyuuuuugee technical, logistical, weapons, and intelligence advantages... I'm not a zionist or a bigot but if likely over 30,000 innocent deaths qualifies as a "brilliant campaign" then we are truly living in the upside-down.... come on bulwark....
Thank you for pointing out what a perverse inversion of 'peace through strength' kind of military success is being praised here. This example only sets humanity back, not forward, on the complicated journey to becoming a much better example of the genius of Evolution - as a species worthy of being kept around, we have got such a long way to go.
Thank you for calling out Bari Weiss and The Free Press. TFP was good when it started, but went downhill fast. Now that they have VC money it’s even worse. Their two biggest investors are Marc Andreesen and David Sacks. That should tell you something. Not to mention all the NatCon people who write for them, like Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Niall Ferguson, Abigail Shrier, and more. HR McMaster wrote a piece for TFP, but he refuses to be interviewed by The Bulwark. John Cochrane has also written for TFP. So the entire GoodFellows team is now in love with Bari Weiss. It’s so disheartening.
And then there’s Victor Davis Hanson (another Stanford guy in tight with Ferguson, McMaster and Cochrane) in a recent TFP article extolling Elon Musk. “ We should reflect on the Musks in our midst,” writes Victor Davis Hanson for The Free Press. “They play a vital role in enriching culture and civilization.” 🤢
Several weeks ago, I caught a short video clip of VDH saying this election is a "battle for civilization" - with Donald Trump representing the side of "civilization." (And MAGAs huffed about how terribly incendiary it was to say he threatened "democracy," not civilization itself.)
In case that's no weird enough, Hanson went on to say that Trump has the "talent to appeal to the better angels of our nature." Which is borderline insane, or maybe just across that border.
Calling Elon Musk an enricher of culture when he's credulously amplifying conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic tropes and Kremlin propaganda is almost as nutty.
I would cross out the 'borderlines' and 'almosts' in your comment - such analysis in TFP, et al., is hubris & Nihilism made flesh; the biblical language of Good and Evil is better suited to framing MAGA and tRump for what they truly represent. Morals and Ethics have been thrown off the Maga bus in favor of mere ambition, avarice, and pure animus.