I remember as a child under the age of 10, watching JFK debate Richard Nixon. I was watching it alone, despite having only 1 tv, because I asked to watch the debate. 8 years old and I was interested in politics. JFK was talking to me. I remember how proud I was of him despite having two Republican parents. Hop to Ronald Reagan. Same feeling. We communicated without exchanging words. He was the last President to captivate me so and now we have a President specializing in self-enrichment while the Republican Party sits dormant. I too left the party over shortly after I realized they failed me. They demonstrated how easy it can be to have a ruler with no real opposition. The Dems offered no new ideas, only hate campaigns. The Reps could only say ...well, nothing except 'don't cross Trump.' How easy it is to become a dictatorship. I guess if Americans don't value freedom enough to fight for it, they deserve to lose it.
Thank you for the review of "Così fan tutte"; it's going to be run in local movie theaters. An hour's drive for a lot of us but sounds like it's worth it. I'm grateful to the Met for this project, bringing opera to rural America. (I smiled at the Lee Hoiby reference; he lived in our area for a time, although I knew his partner better. Mark ran used book stores, selling off his collection at the end, or trying to sell it. Can imagine him pressing a copy of "Put Out More Flags" into my teetering pile of books to buy, telling me why it was good, then cutting the price when I worried.)
Trump has done so much damage, but the one bright bit is that everyone sees the dangers of an executive with too much power. Can Future Americans discuss small government or shrinking the government without sliding back into hatred? I hope so.
Annemarie, one can only wish people possessed the wisdom to recognize when an executive has too much power. MAGA. can't. Dems say they can but then advocate a platform of government control. To be aware, one must know. Perceiving the slide into a non-democratic society requires observing the potential and occurring loss of human and corporate rights. You obviously do and I wish we weren't in the minority.
Thou shall not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do. DUMP TRUMP. VOTE FOR SCHEFFLER
I think The Don King Trump and the Secretary of Bore Wars Hegseth declared war for oil in Iran…because they thought it would be as easy a Venezuela…chop off the head of the snake and install a patsy, I mean Islamic Revolutionary Guard Council stooge Delcy Mohammedan….
Donald J Trump is a Neo Nationalist Sociopath who misappropriates our nations flag and drapes his ugly mug all over the place like the Austrian little turd…that used to like to tune in and drop out on movies from Mar a Lago, I mean The Berghof, about how white peoples from a little island had an empire the sun never set on…history only repeats itself if we the people let him get away with the likes of the Beer Hall Putsch, I mean January 6th. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment (hat tip James Taranto)
Manuel Quezon….He who saves a soul saves the world…Saint Pete will gladly shake your hand and tip His halo
I proudly say I am an ANTI ANTI ANTI TRUMPER…who, speaking of the little North Korean turd…on behalf of the more than 36,000 souls that did not return from the Korean War…my old man would have been proud of a marine Corp sniper making like L.H.O. on June 30, 2019…that’s when he would have been done murdering innocent people yearning to breathe free, Speaking of opposition to monstrous dictators, communist and sympathizer mobsters…Gone with the Wind forever.
God HELP U.S. We the Living in Super Idiocracy. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant Onward and Upward. Peace through superior mental firepower
President Trump is a big renamer of things. ‘Say “Gulf of America,’” not “Gulf of Mexico.” “Say ‘Department of War,’” not “Department of Defense.” “Say ‘Lake America,’” not “Lake Ontario.”’
The re-naming of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario is, I agree, ridiculous. The reversion of the name ‘Department of Defense’ to ‘Department of War’ is not in the same class. Whether intentionally or not, it’s a small victory in the battle against the obnoxious habit of euphemism that has characterized American English for decades.
It was the Department of War from the administration of George Washington to that of FDR, and that name was completely honest in its characterization. Truman changed it for propagandistic reasons during the Cold War War.
But has the government of the United States acted in purely defensive fashion since then? Hardly. Some tortured reasoning has been offered for calling this or that that military venture (e.g., the Afghan war) defensive, but never entirely persuasive. The truth, as Clausewitz observed, is that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and it is unapologetically engaged in by all states save those too small to afford it.
I favor the old name that served this country honestly and honorably for more than a century and a half.
It was thought many years ago the US would not start wars, only finish them. We wouldn't attack potential adversaries but wait for them to attack us, giving us a pretext to go to war. Good intention but outdated. Department of War is more accurate as a good defense is not always the best offense.
After more than a decade, I reread your 2016 Republican disaffiliation essay.
How prophetic you were!
None of us conservatives in 2016 could imagine how one man and his rump collection of supporters could destroy a Grand Old Party, and even more sadly our priceless institutions, alliances and public habits and mores.
Google AI’s answer to a question about a commenter’s criticism of Jay’s thinking “[we] have a right to know what our war aims are.”
GOOGLE AI:
The critique is philosophically legitimate because it raises a valid conceptual problem in the philosophy of law and ethics: whether a "right" can exist if its object is impossible, non-existent, or undefined. However, its conclusion relies on a questionable analogy.
In philosophy, rights are typically understood to correlate with duties. For a right to exist, it must be possible for someone to fulfill the corresponding obligation. The critic argues that "war aims" are often non-existent, shifting, or structurally impossible to define in real-time geopolitics. Therefore, asserting a right to know them is as empty as asserting a right to a biological impossibility like a 200-year lifespan—it is a "spherical ethical claim in a vacuum" because the object of the right does not exist in reality.
However, a defender of the original statement would argue the analogy is flawed:
• The nature of the object: A 200-year lifespan is a biological impossibility. War aims, by contrast, are a political choice. If they do not exist, it is because a government has failed to define them, not because they are inherently against the laws of nature.
• Rights as demands: In political philosophy (especially democratic theory), asserting a "right to know" is often a demand for accountability. It means the government has a moral duty to create and communicate those aims before sending citizens to war.
"I was thinking about the Iran war, and thinking: you and I have a right to know what our war aims are."
Is it philosophically legitimate to assert a "right" to something that doesn't exist? I think the "right to know what our war aims are" is equivalent to a "right to a 200-year lifespan." The spherical ethical claim in a vacuum may be asserted, but there's neither this nor there to the object.
I also departed the GOP in 2016, and I dred to imagine why so many choose to embrace the party standard bearer. What does that say about them?
I remember as a child under the age of 10, watching JFK debate Richard Nixon. I was watching it alone, despite having only 1 tv, because I asked to watch the debate. 8 years old and I was interested in politics. JFK was talking to me. I remember how proud I was of him despite having two Republican parents. Hop to Ronald Reagan. Same feeling. We communicated without exchanging words. He was the last President to captivate me so and now we have a President specializing in self-enrichment while the Republican Party sits dormant. I too left the party over shortly after I realized they failed me. They demonstrated how easy it can be to have a ruler with no real opposition. The Dems offered no new ideas, only hate campaigns. The Reps could only say ...well, nothing except 'don't cross Trump.' How easy it is to become a dictatorship. I guess if Americans don't value freedom enough to fight for it, they deserve to lose it.
Thank you for the review of "Così fan tutte"; it's going to be run in local movie theaters. An hour's drive for a lot of us but sounds like it's worth it. I'm grateful to the Met for this project, bringing opera to rural America. (I smiled at the Lee Hoiby reference; he lived in our area for a time, although I knew his partner better. Mark ran used book stores, selling off his collection at the end, or trying to sell it. Can imagine him pressing a copy of "Put Out More Flags" into my teetering pile of books to buy, telling me why it was good, then cutting the price when I worried.)
Trump has done so much damage, but the one bright bit is that everyone sees the dangers of an executive with too much power. Can Future Americans discuss small government or shrinking the government without sliding back into hatred? I hope so.
Annemarie, one can only wish people possessed the wisdom to recognize when an executive has too much power. MAGA. can't. Dems say they can but then advocate a platform of government control. To be aware, one must know. Perceiving the slide into a non-democratic society requires observing the potential and occurring loss of human and corporate rights. You obviously do and I wish we weren't in the minority.
Wonderful stuff, Annemarie -- thanks.
Thou shall not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those that do. DUMP TRUMP. VOTE FOR SCHEFFLER
I think The Don King Trump and the Secretary of Bore Wars Hegseth declared war for oil in Iran…because they thought it would be as easy a Venezuela…chop off the head of the snake and install a patsy, I mean Islamic Revolutionary Guard Council stooge Delcy Mohammedan….
Donald J Trump is a Neo Nationalist Sociopath who misappropriates our nations flag and drapes his ugly mug all over the place like the Austrian little turd…that used to like to tune in and drop out on movies from Mar a Lago, I mean The Berghof, about how white peoples from a little island had an empire the sun never set on…history only repeats itself if we the people let him get away with the likes of the Beer Hall Putsch, I mean January 6th. Ashli Babbitt still cannot be reached for comment (hat tip James Taranto)
Manuel Quezon….He who saves a soul saves the world…Saint Pete will gladly shake your hand and tip His halo
I proudly say I am an ANTI ANTI ANTI TRUMPER…who, speaking of the little North Korean turd…on behalf of the more than 36,000 souls that did not return from the Korean War…my old man would have been proud of a marine Corp sniper making like L.H.O. on June 30, 2019…that’s when he would have been done murdering innocent people yearning to breathe free, Speaking of opposition to monstrous dictators, communist and sympathizer mobsters…Gone with the Wind forever.
God HELP U.S. We the Living in Super Idiocracy. Gotta run on. Thanks for taking my rant Onward and Upward. Peace through superior mental firepower
Jay writes:
President Trump is a big renamer of things. ‘Say “Gulf of America,’” not “Gulf of Mexico.” “Say ‘Department of War,’” not “Department of Defense.” “Say ‘Lake America,’” not “Lake Ontario.”’
The re-naming of the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario is, I agree, ridiculous. The reversion of the name ‘Department of Defense’ to ‘Department of War’ is not in the same class. Whether intentionally or not, it’s a small victory in the battle against the obnoxious habit of euphemism that has characterized American English for decades.
It was the Department of War from the administration of George Washington to that of FDR, and that name was completely honest in its characterization. Truman changed it for propagandistic reasons during the Cold War War.
But has the government of the United States acted in purely defensive fashion since then? Hardly. Some tortured reasoning has been offered for calling this or that that military venture (e.g., the Afghan war) defensive, but never entirely persuasive. The truth, as Clausewitz observed, is that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and it is unapologetically engaged in by all states save those too small to afford it.
I favor the old name that served this country honestly and honorably for more than a century and a half.
It was thought many years ago the US would not start wars, only finish them. We wouldn't attack potential adversaries but wait for them to attack us, giving us a pretext to go to war. Good intention but outdated. Department of War is more accurate as a good defense is not always the best offense.
Good stuff as usual! Appreciate the reference to put out more flags, absolutely fantastic. Like you say, not to diminish the rest of Waugh‘s works.
Jay:
After more than a decade, I reread your 2016 Republican disaffiliation essay.
How prophetic you were!
None of us conservatives in 2016 could imagine how one man and his rump collection of supporters could destroy a Grand Old Party, and even more sadly our priceless institutions, alliances and public habits and mores.
Character is truly destiny!
Many thanks.
Google AI’s answer to a question about a commenter’s criticism of Jay’s thinking “[we] have a right to know what our war aims are.”
GOOGLE AI:
The critique is philosophically legitimate because it raises a valid conceptual problem in the philosophy of law and ethics: whether a "right" can exist if its object is impossible, non-existent, or undefined. However, its conclusion relies on a questionable analogy.
In philosophy, rights are typically understood to correlate with duties. For a right to exist, it must be possible for someone to fulfill the corresponding obligation. The critic argues that "war aims" are often non-existent, shifting, or structurally impossible to define in real-time geopolitics. Therefore, asserting a right to know them is as empty as asserting a right to a biological impossibility like a 200-year lifespan—it is a "spherical ethical claim in a vacuum" because the object of the right does not exist in reality.
However, a defender of the original statement would argue the analogy is flawed:
• The nature of the object: A 200-year lifespan is a biological impossibility. War aims, by contrast, are a political choice. If they do not exist, it is because a government has failed to define them, not because they are inherently against the laws of nature.
• Rights as demands: In political philosophy (especially democratic theory), asserting a "right to know" is often a demand for accountability. It means the government has a moral duty to create and communicate those aims before sending citizens to war.
"I was thinking about the Iran war, and thinking: you and I have a right to know what our war aims are."
Is it philosophically legitimate to assert a "right" to something that doesn't exist? I think the "right to know what our war aims are" is equivalent to a "right to a 200-year lifespan." The spherical ethical claim in a vacuum may be asserted, but there's neither this nor there to the object.