The Issue that Dare Not Speak Its Name

plus insights from all over

Democrats are patriots now. Phew. Well, Democrats always were patriots, of course, but they had a tradition—usually honorable—of opposing wars, but also—not at all honorable—disdaining, or being crashingly incurious, about the military. The situation was so dire twenty years ago that Truman Project was created to help hapless libs understand the difference between a battalion and a brigade, or the fact that you don’t “win” medals in the military, but receive them. The situation has improved, happily. A generation of post-9/11 veterans have become politicians; many of them are Democrats. I give you Reps. Mike Sherrill, Jason Crowe, Jared Golden, Senator Tammy Duckworth, Governors Wes Moore and Tim Walz and many others.

But what about patriotism? What does it mean? Certainly, it means more than the flag-waving, USA-chanting, authoritarian-tolerating current Republican version (as opposed to the classic conservative internationalist realism of the people who served George H. W. Bush). Ask any veteran, of either party, and they will tell you: patriotism involves service, and service often involves sacrifice, which Donald Trump seems to consider icky.

As I’ve written here before, everybody just loves the idea of national service, but nobody—since Bill Clinton—has done anything about it. (Although Joe Biden deserves points for creating an environmental service corps.) I am talking about serious service, full-time, multi-year service in the public sector. In schools and hospitals and on the street, as cops. That’s just too threatening to public employee unions. But…since patriotism is in the air, why not raise the issue of service, as a means to actual patriotic behavior? Steve Schmidt has some excellent advice for Kamala Harris:

Dust off the JFK speech folder. Use it as the template for three big initiatives that are easily understood and aligned with American values, including service, exploration, education, innovation and individualism.

Kamala Harris should call a generation of Americans to service. Specifically, she should call a generation of Americans to close the recruiting shortages facing the Armed Forces, and while doing so, she should commit to making sure that the disgrace of serving families relying on food stamps to eat ends…

The vice president should activate the American people to teach, nurse, pastor and serve all over America and all over the world. There is a generation of Americans in their 50s and 60s who are at the top of their game and ready to begin the adventure of second careers. Twenty-three years ago when America was attacked, the president told the country to go shopping. It wasn’t enough. The American people have always demanded more ambition from their presidents, and when the task is noble and great, have always responded.

I’m not holding my breath, but John Kennedy thrilled a generation—my generation—with the vision of Peace Corps service. And then killed the thrill in Vietnam. Kamala Harris is running a cautious campaign, but if patriotism and optimism are on the table, why not service, too?

Middle East Update

Tom Friedman is excellent, as always, on the current mess in the Middle East. Don’t hold your breath for a cease fire—speaking of holding one’s breath (see above). The problem is Bibi Netanyahu. A few months ago I suggested that Netanyahu was prosecuting the war in order to stay in office. A trusted Israeli intelligence source said I was going too far, that not even Bibi was that terrible; I wonder what he thinks now. Netanyahu, who could be a figment of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s imagination—One Hundred Years of Bibitude—not only is aligned with the worst racist trash the settler movement has on offer, but he is hoping for the worst political trash America has on offer to win the election. And he holds some cards. So here’s more of me not holding my breath: For a moment, the Biden Administration seemed to entertain the possibility of only sending defensive weapons to the Israelis. I’d favor that, temporarily, but it’s not going to happen now, two months before the election. One wonders: How many more hostages have to die for politics?

Economic Notes

I don’t know if I’m a liberal or a conservative when it comes to economics. Two stories today illustrate my dilemma:

I agree with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is ridiculous on the subject of taxation but sensible, sometimes, when it comes to free trade: it is craven in the extreme for Joe Biden to block the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel. (And so are Kamala, Don and J.D.) Nippon plans to invest billions in to U.S. Steel’s rusting plants. It has won the support of the steelmakers union. The deal will save jobs. It will only add to America’s national security strength. So no, Joe, don’t go there. You don’t have to announce anything until after the election—but let the sale happen.

I disagree with Megan McArdle when it comes to giving cash to poor people. She’s right, of course: an awful lot of this money is blown, literally and figuratively, but an awful lot enables parents to keep their children fed, clothed and housed, even while they’re wasting the rest on trivial pursuits. There are those who will argue that the children’s tax credit will only incentivize people to produce babies. No doubt true, to some small extent. But there is absolutely no surefire way to give poor children what they require, short of creating mandatory mother-and-child orphanages, which would be dreadful. So let’s at least err toward keeping them fed.

J.D. Vance is Horrible, Episode 5,368 (or so)

Will Selber of The Bulwark, an essential publication, has found more toxic stupidity from Vance, recently resurfaced comments sneering about the United States allowing special visas for Afghans who had helped our troops in war: “Apparently Afghanistan is a country of translators and interpreters, because every single person that’s coming in, that’s what they say this person is.”

Now, Senator Vance you don’t even need to talk to Democrats about this. You can ask the Republican members of the bipartisan For Country in the House, many of them Afghanistan veterans, who’ve been busting their butts trying to liberate Afghans who helped the U.S. military downrange. Here is the essential Vance: He’s concerned about the military equipment we left behind, but questions the human beings who helped us. Yecch.

Mediacrity

One of the thankless but essential beats in TV journalism is to embed with a political candidate. It can be excellent training for a young reporter, but only if you don’t go native. You need to stay skeptical. Neither of the young women covering the presidential candidates for CNN are doing that very well. The Trump reporter “reported” that the campaign is feeling more optimistic this week. On the basis of what? you might ask. Well, on the basis of a public memo written by Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, which says so. This was reported as if it were an actual on-the-ground truth, which it may be, given cosmic delusions of the Trump crowd. But, if you are actually reporting this, you need to raise the possibility that it’s just a ploy. I’ve noticed the woman assigned to Harris is tarrying at the trough with minimal skepticism, too. Come on, kids. It’s no fun when pols get angry at you. It may mean that you miss a feeding period down the road. It may mean you miss an “exclusive” interview. But it’s part of the job.