One of your fans & Bulwark member from Australia. Really appreciate your Sunday (in our time zone - Saturday I think when you post it) Triad where you share 3 newsletters of interest to your readers. As a little payback, thought I would share a Substack article I stumbled across that I thought was really profound & thought provoking. Here’s the link & I hope you find it interesting.
If you're scared about the intel agencies operating this way just WAIT until you hear about federal, state, and county-level police departments all across the country.
Tangent: doesn't Russian war victory against other European countries usually require those other countries to be foolish enough to invade Russia from the west?
From another tack entirely, how useful has Belarus support been for Russia so far? Any reports of common Belarus soldiers or people being fervent Russia supporters or sullen order-followers?
That is scary that the military is rife with Trump supporters. When I was living in France 40 years ago I had several discussions about compulsory military service. Most French people supported it because they said then the army will support the average citizens. A volunteer Army will give their loyalty to their commanders, even if they are asked to fire upon citizens. I hope we don't have to find it if that's true.
We have a volunteer-contract system that tends to harvest more conservatives *in the Marine Corps and Army* compared to non-white/non-conservative members. Sure other groups belong to both the USMC & US Army, but they are far and away eclipsed by the number of white conservatives serving specifically in *combat branch* jobs. If liberals joined the military more--especially as pre-college enlisted members--things wouldn't look this way. But because liberals loath violence in general, they are eclipsed by their conservative neighbors in terms of who is more capable of coordinated violence as a group. If American liberals don't train with firearms, continue to allow the violent branches of government to be occupied by hardcore conservatives, and don't address either of these two rates of change, then it's going to be *really* easy for conservative authoritarians to rise to power and not give it up here. Remember, the paid volunteers you rely on to keep bad actors in check don't always share the same viewpoints as you do--see the FBI/DHS downplaying the Jan 6 rally and over-reacting to Antifa--and that the rule of law is only as strong as the dudes with guns willing to enforce it. This ain't your daddy's American electorate from the decadent 90's.
"We all went off to college to fuck each other and do drugs in the 2000's, how is it that the government we decided not to care much about suddenly became overrun with Trump conservatives you guys????" - Surprised liberals today
Well done as usual. If the piece about the intelligence community is real, some housecleaning needs to be done. Trump needs to be jailed. Along with his monkeys.
When Trump loyalists said "drain the swamp," they really meant "replace everyone with our own swamp creatures."
Trumpies were forever alleging that the "deep state" was sabotaging the "duly elected president," and thereby waging war on "the American people." They ignore Trump's obvious belief that federal employees owed personal loyalty to him; that he admires and envies the absolute power of despots; and that he views any impediment to his desires as intrinsically evil.
Remember this: "Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." Trumpies tried to spin it as not really meaning what it says, but I recall at least once former insider saying that Trump was surprised and disappointed to learn that being president didn't allow him to do whatever he wanted.
I'm not suggesting there was no partisan resistance in the bureaucracy, but Trumpies portray all obstacles or pushback or whistle-blowing, even by Trump appointees, as a function of some evil Leviathan that Trump was heroically battling against. And they do it because they chose to accept Trump's belief t hat his will is the measure of right, and that he should have been unrestricted in the exercise of power.
What's most chilling is that some apologists seem to want a despot they agree with, or at least a despot their enemies hate.
If there is a second Trump presidency, whatever little competence and objectivity we have in every federal agency will be out the door in no time. As bad as FEMA has been in responding to federal emergencies, can one imagine a Blue State seeking assistance from Trump next time? There was a big uproar during the Obama years on the IRS removing exemption for certain religious non-profit. Now think about what the IRS under Trump may do to his real and perceived enemies. Most Americans do not know how the government works is why half the country does not see a problem with Trump being president.
There was plenty of evidence for what you describe. I’m remembering particularly when Kushner hatched a scheme to delay needed Covid supplies to blue states, early in the pandemic. A continuation of this would be but one way in which a second Trump administration would be a crisis. I’m among those who think it would be the end of our democracy.
Hello Jonathan. I have been listening to and reading The Bulwark for the last few years and have so appreciated the quality of journalism, the breadth of guests interviewed, the conversational integrity of the various podcasts (favourites: Charlie, Sarah, Tim, Bill, and yourself), the unwavering commitment to questioning everything status quo, and the sense of humour which keeps the often heavy subject matter easier to bear. I am a Canadian living on Vancouver Island (we had our own trucker rally here in the genteel city of Victoria some weeks ago). I heard you lamenting the negative feedback you received regarding your recent livestream with Noah ( I just subscribed to his newsletter) on your show with Sarah and just wished to let you know that I very much appreciated him. I found myself saying outloud 'this guy is great' a few times during the LS and what struck me about him was his matter of factness, knowledge, and humour. The prototypical kind of guy you could have a beer with, as the saying goes. So.. there you have it. Perhaps a little wind under your sails:) I listen to many podcasts of the political variety and the Bulwark is amongst my favourites.
If there is another Trump takeover of the federal government, I will desperately try to find my way to Vancouver Island. So happy to see the Bulwark+ gaining international members.
Another international member here in Australia … for about 2 years now … my goto morning reads are Charlie’s Morning Shots & JVL’s Triad. Love the podcasts too though sometimes think you guys are too hard on Biden/Democrats. I would call myself centre-left & dislike a lot of the “wokeness”, but I think that’s the fringe & not the mainstream Democrat view even though it sometimes seems they all get tarred with that brush! BTW, this is my 1st ever comment even though I read them everyday!
Happy to hear from you, down under, as we say. Give a couple of examples, if you can, of how Bulwark is too hard on Dems. I myself am a Dem subscriber. Always happy to hear anything fact-based.
An example is Mona’s article “Thank god Trump isn’t President”. The first sentence states Joe Biden isn’t a very good President & the whole 1st paragraph is devoted to numerous criticisms. Whilst those views can be argued though with some nuance to be really fair it was unnecessary & took away from what her article was really all about ie. how bad it would’ve really been with Trump in power now. The headline was great & after the 1st paragraph the rest of the article was great but it almost seemed like he had to be criticised before he could be praised! Still love your values on freedom & democracy is you happen to read this Mona. 😉
Same with me, about emigrating. Elders especially need not apply. So I encourage my highly educated adult children, by tempting them with financial assistance in making the move to a saner locale. “Save the seed corn” is my motto!
FWIW, my negative feedback about Noah Smith on Thursday night's livestream was not about what Smith said. It was about his presentation which interfered with my getting what he said. That could easily be improved. I very much appreciated his knowledge so I hope he's a guest again.
Two thoughts re: Echirp. 1) If it's really an internal network, why wouldn't the hate speakers get canned, like in a police department? And 2) If it's not really or not quite internal, how do we know the hate speakers are not the same cyber operatives from adversary countries that have been poisoning discourse of all kinds in this country?
I have to disagree. First, the intelligence community are not all military. Second, a bunch of people are being dismissed from the military right now for militia-type associations. Third, you can definitely be fired from the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Trump fired about a dozen people from the FBI alone just for doing their job: Counter Intelligence.
I think China voted against liberal world order this week when they equated the breakup of the Soviet Union with increased chaos and erosion of world order ...which I think they did in their readout of the call w/ Biden.
The "unprofessional" comment was written by a moron. He wasn't prepared for video and was in a chair not really suitable for Zooming. He provided brilliant content for those who weren't too busy "self pleasuring" on the chat!
I listened to Noah the next day (Friday), because like a good Irishman, I was in bar on Thursday night for St. Patrick's day. I thought Noah was excellent! Please don't become more "professional" on your Thursday night live streams...People who want more formality can watch cable news. I think the informality is part of the attraction of those Thursday night sessions. Bulwark please keep up the good work!
FYI, my complaint wasn't about informality. All the other speakers were professional in their video presentation - they sat still, spoke clearly into the mic. Same with every other Bulwark livestream. What Noah had to say was excellent.
You know, he was late, he said, because he thought it was a podcast, not live streaming, so he had to move to a different location with better light. Maybe he just wasn't prepared for livestreaming. I hope he comes back, better prepared for video.
Hard to follow and not with the usual end of the day party vibe but really smart. The stuff he writes is easier to follow so maybe his smart shines better in that format. This is a great piece; read it a couple days ago and will re-read it here.
Wow, the SpyTalk piece is quite disheartening. It seems well within the realm of probability that persons drawn to clandestine work might not all be qualified.....I mean you want to lie and deceive for a living. Weeding out the nut jobs seems like that would be top of list.....no?
IMHO, if we have learned anything since this country elected Trump, we have learned that there are A LOT of people, and I mean a whole lot, who are simply not willing to live among various ethnicities, orientations, races, genders and religious faiths.
It's weird to me because my friend when I was younger, my niece and my son wanted to apply to the CIA. All smart and enthusiastic, but apparently only a certain group of people with specific qualifications references (I assume a politicians backing) .
I started the application process with the CIA when I was graduating from college in the 1980s. That was not my experience at all. That sounds more like what the military academies do.
Virtually all of the refresher training for people with clearances - DoD, intelligence agencies, etc - focuses on external threats and subversion. Case studies like Hanssen and Pollard. Not on internal threats; that needs to change posthaste.
I went through a clearance process in the early 90s for the lowest level since I had to work at a "Black" site. I don't remember: Do you take an oath to defend the Constitution as part of getting a clearance?
Hi JVL,
One of your fans & Bulwark member from Australia. Really appreciate your Sunday (in our time zone - Saturday I think when you post it) Triad where you share 3 newsletters of interest to your readers. As a little payback, thought I would share a Substack article I stumbled across that I thought was really profound & thought provoking. Here’s the link & I hope you find it interesting.
Cheers
Peter Young
https://refinedinsights.substack.com/p/russia-and-africa-are-too-similar?r=7xavs&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct
If you're scared about the intel agencies operating this way just WAIT until you hear about federal, state, and county-level police departments all across the country.
eChirp sounds awful. Imagine your racist Facebook uncle could drone strike your house after you cautiously expressed sympathy for Liz Cheney.
Politicization of intelligence organizations is a BAD idea for a stable country.
Tangent: doesn't Russian war victory against other European countries usually require those other countries to be foolish enough to invade Russia from the west?
From another tack entirely, how useful has Belarus support been for Russia so far? Any reports of common Belarus soldiers or people being fervent Russia supporters or sullen order-followers?
That is scary that the military is rife with Trump supporters. When I was living in France 40 years ago I had several discussions about compulsory military service. Most French people supported it because they said then the army will support the average citizens. A volunteer Army will give their loyalty to their commanders, even if they are asked to fire upon citizens. I hope we don't have to find it if that's true.
We have a volunteer-contract system that tends to harvest more conservatives *in the Marine Corps and Army* compared to non-white/non-conservative members. Sure other groups belong to both the USMC & US Army, but they are far and away eclipsed by the number of white conservatives serving specifically in *combat branch* jobs. If liberals joined the military more--especially as pre-college enlisted members--things wouldn't look this way. But because liberals loath violence in general, they are eclipsed by their conservative neighbors in terms of who is more capable of coordinated violence as a group. If American liberals don't train with firearms, continue to allow the violent branches of government to be occupied by hardcore conservatives, and don't address either of these two rates of change, then it's going to be *really* easy for conservative authoritarians to rise to power and not give it up here. Remember, the paid volunteers you rely on to keep bad actors in check don't always share the same viewpoints as you do--see the FBI/DHS downplaying the Jan 6 rally and over-reacting to Antifa--and that the rule of law is only as strong as the dudes with guns willing to enforce it. This ain't your daddy's American electorate from the decadent 90's.
"We all went off to college to fuck each other and do drugs in the 2000's, how is it that the government we decided not to care much about suddenly became overrun with Trump conservatives you guys????" - Surprised liberals today
Kent State says hello.
So does My Lai and Haditha.
That is very reassuring.
JVL is a fresh new source for me, a beneficiary of the bountiful Bulwark subscription.
I love the way you ALL are still doing things at the Bulwark. Please do not change. I share you when I can and try to get other interested.
Well done as usual. If the piece about the intelligence community is real, some housecleaning needs to be done. Trump needs to be jailed. Along with his monkeys.
When Trump loyalists said "drain the swamp," they really meant "replace everyone with our own swamp creatures."
Trumpies were forever alleging that the "deep state" was sabotaging the "duly elected president," and thereby waging war on "the American people." They ignore Trump's obvious belief that federal employees owed personal loyalty to him; that he admires and envies the absolute power of despots; and that he views any impediment to his desires as intrinsically evil.
Remember this: "Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." Trumpies tried to spin it as not really meaning what it says, but I recall at least once former insider saying that Trump was surprised and disappointed to learn that being president didn't allow him to do whatever he wanted.
I'm not suggesting there was no partisan resistance in the bureaucracy, but Trumpies portray all obstacles or pushback or whistle-blowing, even by Trump appointees, as a function of some evil Leviathan that Trump was heroically battling against. And they do it because they chose to accept Trump's belief t hat his will is the measure of right, and that he should have been unrestricted in the exercise of power.
What's most chilling is that some apologists seem to want a despot they agree with, or at least a despot their enemies hate.
If there is a second Trump presidency, whatever little competence and objectivity we have in every federal agency will be out the door in no time. As bad as FEMA has been in responding to federal emergencies, can one imagine a Blue State seeking assistance from Trump next time? There was a big uproar during the Obama years on the IRS removing exemption for certain religious non-profit. Now think about what the IRS under Trump may do to his real and perceived enemies. Most Americans do not know how the government works is why half the country does not see a problem with Trump being president.
There was plenty of evidence for what you describe. I’m remembering particularly when Kushner hatched a scheme to delay needed Covid supplies to blue states, early in the pandemic. A continuation of this would be but one way in which a second Trump administration would be a crisis. I’m among those who think it would be the end of our democracy.
Three great selections
Hello Jonathan. I have been listening to and reading The Bulwark for the last few years and have so appreciated the quality of journalism, the breadth of guests interviewed, the conversational integrity of the various podcasts (favourites: Charlie, Sarah, Tim, Bill, and yourself), the unwavering commitment to questioning everything status quo, and the sense of humour which keeps the often heavy subject matter easier to bear. I am a Canadian living on Vancouver Island (we had our own trucker rally here in the genteel city of Victoria some weeks ago). I heard you lamenting the negative feedback you received regarding your recent livestream with Noah ( I just subscribed to his newsletter) on your show with Sarah and just wished to let you know that I very much appreciated him. I found myself saying outloud 'this guy is great' a few times during the LS and what struck me about him was his matter of factness, knowledge, and humour. The prototypical kind of guy you could have a beer with, as the saying goes. So.. there you have it. Perhaps a little wind under your sails:) I listen to many podcasts of the political variety and the Bulwark is amongst my favourites.
Thanks, Dan.
If there is another Trump takeover of the federal government, I will desperately try to find my way to Vancouver Island. So happy to see the Bulwark+ gaining international members.
Another international member here in Australia … for about 2 years now … my goto morning reads are Charlie’s Morning Shots & JVL’s Triad. Love the podcasts too though sometimes think you guys are too hard on Biden/Democrats. I would call myself centre-left & dislike a lot of the “wokeness”, but I think that’s the fringe & not the mainstream Democrat view even though it sometimes seems they all get tarred with that brush! BTW, this is my 1st ever comment even though I read them everyday!
Happy to hear from you, down under, as we say. Give a couple of examples, if you can, of how Bulwark is too hard on Dems. I myself am a Dem subscriber. Always happy to hear anything fact-based.
Hi Sandy
An example is Mona’s article “Thank god Trump isn’t President”. The first sentence states Joe Biden isn’t a very good President & the whole 1st paragraph is devoted to numerous criticisms. Whilst those views can be argued though with some nuance to be really fair it was unnecessary & took away from what her article was really all about ie. how bad it would’ve really been with Trump in power now. The headline was great & after the 1st paragraph the rest of the article was great but it almost seemed like he had to be criticised before he could be praised! Still love your values on freedom & democracy is you happen to read this Mona. 😉
I absolutely agree with you, that the Biden bashing on The Bulwark pains me. I very rarely listen to Mona’s podcast because of that.
Got it.
I considered Canada prior to the 2016 election. You can visit easily but I found immigration is restricted.
Same with me, about emigrating. Elders especially need not apply. So I encourage my highly educated adult children, by tempting them with financial assistance in making the move to a saner locale. “Save the seed corn” is my motto!
FWIW, my negative feedback about Noah Smith on Thursday night's livestream was not about what Smith said. It was about his presentation which interfered with my getting what he said. That could easily be improved. I very much appreciated his knowledge so I hope he's a guest again.
Two thoughts re: Echirp. 1) If it's really an internal network, why wouldn't the hate speakers get canned, like in a police department? And 2) If it's not really or not quite internal, how do we know the hate speakers are not the same cyber operatives from adversary countries that have been poisoning discourse of all kinds in this country?
I don't think you can fire someone from the army unless he does something against the rules, and if his commanders agree with him, there you are.
I have to disagree. First, the intelligence community are not all military. Second, a bunch of people are being dismissed from the military right now for militia-type associations. Third, you can definitely be fired from the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. Trump fired about a dozen people from the FBI alone just for doing their job: Counter Intelligence.
I think China voted against liberal world order this week when they equated the breakup of the Soviet Union with increased chaos and erosion of world order ...which I think they did in their readout of the call w/ Biden.
That could be signaling to Russia.
Definitely worth the time to read
I want to listen to Noah. But after hearing he was so *unprofessional* on your totally informal livestream I'm hesitant. ;)
The "unprofessional" comment was written by a moron. He wasn't prepared for video and was in a chair not really suitable for Zooming. He provided brilliant content for those who weren't too busy "self pleasuring" on the chat!
I listened to Noah the next day (Friday), because like a good Irishman, I was in bar on Thursday night for St. Patrick's day. I thought Noah was excellent! Please don't become more "professional" on your Thursday night live streams...People who want more formality can watch cable news. I think the informality is part of the attraction of those Thursday night sessions. Bulwark please keep up the good work!
FYI, my complaint wasn't about informality. All the other speakers were professional in their video presentation - they sat still, spoke clearly into the mic. Same with every other Bulwark livestream. What Noah had to say was excellent.
Those were people who get creeped out by knuckle cracking. I thought he was excellent, and I definitely learned a few things.
He writes much better than he talks, IMO - especially in a give-and-take format like the livestream.
You know, he was late, he said, because he thought it was a podcast, not live streaming, so he had to move to a different location with better light. Maybe he just wasn't prepared for livestreaming. I hope he comes back, better prepared for video.
That would frazzle anyone.
He was so *unprofessional* that I had to punish him by subscribing to his Substack, with my $99 a year.
That will certainly show him ;-)
Hard to follow and not with the usual end of the day party vibe but really smart. The stuff he writes is easier to follow so maybe his smart shines better in that format. This is a great piece; read it a couple days ago and will re-read it here.
A great service for those of us who don’t have the time to find, seperate and read the newsletters that share!!!
Wow, the SpyTalk piece is quite disheartening. It seems well within the realm of probability that persons drawn to clandestine work might not all be qualified.....I mean you want to lie and deceive for a living. Weeding out the nut jobs seems like that would be top of list.....no?
IMHO, if we have learned anything since this country elected Trump, we have learned that there are A LOT of people, and I mean a whole lot, who are simply not willing to live among various ethnicities, orientations, races, genders and religious faiths.
It's weird to me because my friend when I was younger, my niece and my son wanted to apply to the CIA. All smart and enthusiastic, but apparently only a certain group of people with specific qualifications references (I assume a politicians backing) .
I started the application process with the CIA when I was graduating from college in the 1980s. That was not my experience at all. That sounds more like what the military academies do.
Perhaps it's changed. My son and niece would have looked into around 2010.
This the same with getting a job in the Chicago Police dept. If you don't have the backing of an alderman, forget about it.
Virtually all of the refresher training for people with clearances - DoD, intelligence agencies, etc - focuses on external threats and subversion. Case studies like Hanssen and Pollard. Not on internal threats; that needs to change posthaste.
I went through a clearance process in the early 90s for the lowest level since I had to work at a "Black" site. I don't remember: Do you take an oath to defend the Constitution as part of getting a clearance?