There’s Trump’s July 4th, and there’s all of ours

IMG_9942

Donald Trump’s plans for 4th of July celebrations in Washington, D.C., are just the latest indicator that the man doesn’t know America.

His desire to turn a celebration of our nation’s independence into a feeble, self-aggrandizing imitation of the Bastille Day display he fell in love with on his first state visit to France speaks volume’s about the small insecure man’s lack of understanding of our history, our country, our people, and our principles.

Military flyovers, tanks displayed on the National Mall, and a political speech made before political loyalists seated in a roped-off VIP section for cravens, cronies, and lickspittles, have nothing to do with the occasion we celebrate on July 4th. On this day we do not celebrate American military might. On this day we celebrate an act of political defiance, of 18th century #Resistance if you will.

Ratification of the Declaration of Independence on this day in 1776 was a statement of principles made on behalf of all Americans, even as we still struggle to fully live in to those principles.

The ratification of the Declaration came more than a year after the first shots of the War of Independence were fired at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, and nine years before victory was finally won on the field at the Battle of Yorktown in October 1789. Yet we celebrate neither the feats of arms that began our quest for independence nor those that concluded it. Instead, we celebrate the day that we formally proclaimed the principles that would motivate that dreadful struggle and see it through.

We are not a nation that flaunts its military might in gratuitous display, nor one whose calendar revolves around its martial history. We celebrate neither the great victories of our history nor commemorate our tragic defeats the way other, frankly less capable and self-assured, nations do.

Consider the other patriotic holidays that mark our national calendar. On Memorial Day we remember those who sacrificed all in the service of their country, on countless battlefields and duty posts abroad and at home. On Veterans Day we honor all those who served and celebrate their contribution to our collective freedom and security.

It is worth remembering that Veterans Day was once known as Armistice Day, a holiday marking neither victory nor defeat, but peace, the falling silent of the guns on the Western Front slaughterhouses of the First World War.

We mark our nation’s independence in celebrations that bring us together, despite our differences, not divide us. We celebrate not with partisan diatribes, neither with marching boots nor the rumble of tanks, but with picnics, cookouts, ballgames, carnivals, and neighborhood fireworks displays.

Donald Trump wants to change that, and make the day about himself. In true draft-dodging chickenhawk fashion, he wants to bathe himself in the reflected glory of one of the few American institutions that the vast majority of us still respect. He wants to change the day.

Donald Trump wants to change America. But he can’t.

Unless we let him.

At least someone was listening

You_Suck_Comment

Sometimes when I do a radio segment, like the one on the Trump administration’s Iran policy this morning on the local drive-time news/talk station, I wonder what the audience is thinking about my comments.

Now I know, at least in one instance.

Below is the text of the email I received about an hour after my segment was over. I am reprinting it in its entirety (minus the emoji). My motivation comes from a comment by a former student who listened to the segment from the Republic of Georgia where he now lives and works, who suggested that maybe my blunt assessment might get some of the station’s conservative listeners to rethink their position.

images-9Fat chance.

The email is not particularly scathing, nor is it in any way offensive. But it is a window into the way that I suspect a lot of Trump supporters view his policies, how they see the world, and what they believe motivates his critics. (For the record, I support neither socialism in America nor the establishment of a one-world order communistic government.)

Anyway, here’s how this listener reacted:

I heard you on the radio this morning sir. I just want to say you couldn’t of been more wrong except for one thing. President Trump decided not to retaliate. You agreed with that, and so did I. But probably for different reasons. The Democrats set him up and tried to get him to strike, Which would appear reckless under the conditions. You said the president backed himself into a corner. I don’t think so. So far what he is doing is right on the money. You said it was wrong to get rid of the deal that Obama and John Kerry made. I disagree. Our Intel told us that they never stoped producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. Our Intel told us that they were still supplying money and weapons to terrorist groups around the world. Till this day Kerry and Obama continue to work against the United States committing tyranny with regards to Iran. It would be best for the world if that regime was dismantled and replaced with a democracy. My guess is you want socialism for America or a one world order communistic type system for the United States. We the people are not going to let that happen. We are going to hold the deep state accountable for all the crimes they have committed. MAGA TRUMP 2020

Here’s a quick recap of the points I made that this listener took issue with:

  • The Iran nuclear agreement that the US walked out on in May 2018 was actually working and Iran was abiding by its restrictions.
  • The best course forward would be for the US to return to that agreement rather than continuing to pursue a policy of saber-rattling and sanctions that has failed to deliver for the last 40 years.
  • The additional sanctions against Iran announced yesterday by the White House will have no meaningful impact on Iranian policy.
  • Trump was right to cancel the military strike that he had previously ordered.
  • But, by taking such an aggressive line with Iran, Trump has backed himself into a corner.
  • If another US drone is shot down, which is entirely possible, Trump, given his tough talk, will find it very difficult if not impossible to avoid retaliatory military action.
  • This kind of escalation runs very real risks of getting out of hand, dragging both countries and the region down a path that no-one whose name isn’t John Bolton wants to tread.

If you’re hanging around a radio or a livestream tomorrow morning, you can catch me talking about Iran again on Detroit’s public radio station, WDET 101.9FM. I’ll be a guest on the Detroit Today show with Stephen Henderson. The show starts at 9 am with rebroadcast at 7 pm.

The scariest thing on television

Chernobyl-Season-1-HBO-Series-All-Episodes-Free-Download-English-720p-8480p-and-1080p-x264-x265-2

If you’ve decided to cancel HBO now that Game of Thrones is finished, let me suggest you wait long enough to watch all of the network’s terrifying miniseries, Chernobyl. It is, hands down, the best, and most frightening, show I’ve watched on TV in a very long time.

Thirty-three years ago, on April 26, 1986, the No. 4 reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near the Ukrainian city of Pripyat exploded, releasing catastrophic amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. An exclusion zone spreading 19 miles in all directions from the ruined reactor site has been deemed unsafe for human habitation for the next 20,000 years.

Because the disaster and its effects were so unbelievable, show creator Craig Mazin has said it was essential for the show to be as historically accurate as possible:

If I have a choice between going for something that sounds dramatic or something that sounds less dramatic, I actually try to opt for less because I think what is dramatic about Chernobyl doesn’t need extra.

Believe it or not, this is the restrained version of what actually happened because believe it or not, there are some accounts where it gets even worse.

Some of those who would know best, who lived through that era of Soviet life, have hailed the show for its remarkable realism.

Chernobyl is a simultaneously horrifying, inspiring, and infuriating chronicle of the catastrophe and the Soviet government’s response. As National Review puts it:

The show is not fun to watch, unless you take a certain grim satisfaction in watching Soviet Union officials squirm in their seats, so terrified of the consequences of telling the truth that they assent to brazen lies that will lead to the painful deaths of hundreds and perhaps thousands of their countrymen.

Chernobyl  is horrifying in showing the effects of acute radiation poisoning, burns, and runaway nuclear energy seeming to scorch the very sky. It is inspiring in depicting the extraordinary heroism of first-responders, medical staff, miners, scientists, and officials brave enough to force their superiors to face a reality they were desperately trying to ignore.

And it is infuriating in laying bare the cravenness of those bureaucrats and leaders unwilling to acknowledge, even actively deny, facts they deemed politically or professionally dangerous. It is this last point which makes Chernobyl especially relevant to our times. Back to National Review:

But it’s worth keeping in mind that shameless dishonesty in order to avoid embarrassment is a human trait, not just a Socialist one. In almost any governmental system on earth, those running the system can blur their sense of their personal interest and the national interest.

A bad leader will prioritize his image above all else and see every issue through that lens. A bad leader will deny the seriousness of threats because speaking honestly about an emerging danger would require admitting being wrong earlier. A bad leader will insist that a failing solution is really working. When challenged, those types of leaders focus on finding scapegoats instead of solutions.

Or, as venerable horror author Stephen King tweeted yesterday:

A deadly burden we expect others to bear

screen_shot_2018-10-08_at_3.24.00_pm

Memorial Day is behind us, the day when we honor those members of our armed forces who made the supreme sacrifice for their country. It is right that we do so.

But as I was reminded last Sunday, those we honor on Memorial Day were asked to do more for us than I think we are willing to acknowledge. When they agree to put on the uniform, we implicitly ask those men and women to be willing to die for the rest of us. That’s the easy one.

We also ask them to be willing to kill on our behalf. That truth is harder.

It is a truth that the great American writer Mark Twain knew all to well, and in his 1906 short story, “The War Prayer,” starkly laid at the feet of a country swept up by war-fueled patriotic fervor. Take a few minutes and let Twain’s words sink in:

As a society, this is a moral burden we today seem all too eager to deny, to cavalierly place on others’ shoulders with a glib “Thank you for your service.” But this is a hard, crucial thing we have a duty to acknowledge, especially those of us who never served, or those who, like some present and past presidents, did all they could to actively avoid service.

This is the reality that veteran journalist James Fallows wrote about in the pages of The Atlantic, describing a “chickenhawk nation” in which we treat our military

both too reverently and too cavalierly, as if regarding its members as heroes makes up for committing them to unending, unwinnable missions and denying them anything like the political mindshare we give to other major public undertakings, from medical care to public education to environmental rules.

These things we ask others to do, for us and in our names, are especially important for all of us to remember as we hear, once again, war drums sounding from Washington. This time the target may be Iran. A few months ago it was Venezuela. Before that North Korea. Before that Syria. Before that Iraq. You get the picture.

The patriotic holidays that have come to define our summers, Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, are opportunities for us to reflect on the burdens we ask others to shoulder on our behalf. And maybe, just maybe, to accept some responsibility for them ourselves.