"...Tom Nichols hammering home how crucial it is to be skeptical of contemporaneous reports on the fighting in Ukraine."
I don't think this can be hammered home too hard or too often.
The hysteria pumped up on Twitter is absolutely nauseating both from those who support Ukraine and those who support or minimize Russia's behavior. Brief c…
"...Tom Nichols hammering home how crucial it is to be skeptical of contemporaneous reports on the fighting in Ukraine."
I don't think this can be hammered home too hard or too often.
The hysteria pumped up on Twitter is absolutely nauseating both from those who support Ukraine and those who support or minimize Russia's behavior. Brief cell phone snaps and 10 second videos are not to be trusted without some journalistic exploration and educated understanding.
In the end the anti-social media will make a strong and effective response impossible because Putin has a pipeline of disinformation working for him at every level of American society. A political party that will support Ukraine--- but not the way Biden is doing it--- even though he is mostly doing what they say should be done... but "Let's Go, Brandon!"
Following WW2 we were able to hammer out a general bipartisan foreign policy that informed (for good or bad) our military posture. How to work the policy was debated but the overall objectives went unquestioned from Truman to George H. W. Bush. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire the bipartisan consensus began to fall apart. The Congressional slide into hyperpartisan "ownership" of the government beginning with newt Gingrich meant that both parties became hesitant to ratify the foreign policy choices of any administration. From then on a victory for America was a victory for "the other team" and credit could not be given lest the other team would be effective and popular. Better America fail than allow that to happen. That is where we are today.
The singular exception was the few months after 9/11 to election of 2002. Congress, under majorities of both parties, has not had the courage to declare war itself but ample acid to through in the face of administrations trying to engage militarily where it was felt necessary. George W. Bush and Obama could hardly rely on Congress for support at all.
So that is the vital and probably irreparably lost element to push America through any foreign crisis. Now an interloper like Trump can just cast any agreement made by a previous administration out the window and his party will support him. Anything a member of the other party does will be simply fodder to fuel the next election campaign. So until Americans elect politicians who are willing to commit to a unified bipartisan vision of where we are to go--- we will go no where.
Very well stated, Harley. I agree with everything you say here. In a nutshell, as you say, "The congressional slide into hyper partisan "ownership" of the government beginning with Newt Gingrich meant that both parties became hesitant to ratify the foreign policy choices of any administration. From then on a victory for America was a victory for "the other team" and credit could not be given lest the other team would be effective and popular. Better America fail than allow that to happen."
Newt Gingrich started this in Congress, and people like Rush Limbaugh in the media partnered with Gingrich in this successful attempt to do away with Democrats and Republicans in Congress working across the aisle with each other.
I am not sure that people remember any more that this is where our current pitiful state started.
"...Tom Nichols hammering home how crucial it is to be skeptical of contemporaneous reports on the fighting in Ukraine."
I don't think this can be hammered home too hard or too often.
The hysteria pumped up on Twitter is absolutely nauseating both from those who support Ukraine and those who support or minimize Russia's behavior. Brief cell phone snaps and 10 second videos are not to be trusted without some journalistic exploration and educated understanding.
In the end the anti-social media will make a strong and effective response impossible because Putin has a pipeline of disinformation working for him at every level of American society. A political party that will support Ukraine--- but not the way Biden is doing it--- even though he is mostly doing what they say should be done... but "Let's Go, Brandon!"
Following WW2 we were able to hammer out a general bipartisan foreign policy that informed (for good or bad) our military posture. How to work the policy was debated but the overall objectives went unquestioned from Truman to George H. W. Bush. With the collapse of the Soviet Empire the bipartisan consensus began to fall apart. The Congressional slide into hyperpartisan "ownership" of the government beginning with newt Gingrich meant that both parties became hesitant to ratify the foreign policy choices of any administration. From then on a victory for America was a victory for "the other team" and credit could not be given lest the other team would be effective and popular. Better America fail than allow that to happen. That is where we are today.
The singular exception was the few months after 9/11 to election of 2002. Congress, under majorities of both parties, has not had the courage to declare war itself but ample acid to through in the face of administrations trying to engage militarily where it was felt necessary. George W. Bush and Obama could hardly rely on Congress for support at all.
So that is the vital and probably irreparably lost element to push America through any foreign crisis. Now an interloper like Trump can just cast any agreement made by a previous administration out the window and his party will support him. Anything a member of the other party does will be simply fodder to fuel the next election campaign. So until Americans elect politicians who are willing to commit to a unified bipartisan vision of where we are to go--- we will go no where.
Very well stated, Harley. I agree with everything you say here. In a nutshell, as you say, "The congressional slide into hyper partisan "ownership" of the government beginning with Newt Gingrich meant that both parties became hesitant to ratify the foreign policy choices of any administration. From then on a victory for America was a victory for "the other team" and credit could not be given lest the other team would be effective and popular. Better America fail than allow that to happen."
Newt Gingrich started this in Congress, and people like Rush Limbaugh in the media partnered with Gingrich in this successful attempt to do away with Democrats and Republicans in Congress working across the aisle with each other.
I am not sure that people remember any more that this is where our current pitiful state started.