Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to Shield of the Republic, a podcast sponsored by

the Bulwark and the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Im Eric Edelman, Im counselor at the center for strategic and budgetary assessments and a Bulwark contributor and a non resident fellow at the Miller center. My normal partner in all things strategic, Elliot Cohen is traveling and will report back on his travels next week. But Im joined today by a very special guest, the Bulwark own Mona Charen, the policy editor of the Bulwark, a syndicated columnist. The host of Beg to Differ, the Bulwark Secret Podcast, and the author of many books and not just many books, but many good books.

Shes the author of do gooders, sex matters, hard right, and a book that particularly wanna talk to her about today. Beautiful idiots. Mona, welcome to shield of the Republic.

Its a privilege to be here, Eric. Im a huge fan of shield of the Republic, which I listened to faithfully and learned a lot from.

Well, thank you for that, and thank you for joining us today. As Ive told you in the past, useful idiots was a very important book for me. I remember reading it, while I was the US ambassador to Turkey and two thousand three to two thousand five time period. It came out in two thousand three. And it talked about a particular kind of homegrown anti Americanism, that helped me a lot because I actually think anti Americanism starts at home.

And, is picked up by, our adversaries overseas. Tell our listeners a little bit about useful idiots and the folks you profiled during the cold war before we move on to todays useful idiots.

Right. So What spurred me to write the book, was that during the, immediate aftermath of the Wests victory in the cold war. When the USSR basically folded its tent, pulled down its flag, said were done, The Berlin Wall came down. It was an unambiguous, victory for the forces of liberty and the defeat for the communist world. Obviously, there are still regimes, that that maintain fealty to communism, so theyre not all gone.

But it was a huge epical moment. And, and what I noticed was that there was a certain amount of revisionism that was taking hold in the US where people were saying, oh, yes, you know, like, for example, in the Clinton years, people were saying, yes, back during the Cold War, we were all on the same page. We were all cold warriors. We all were, pulling our wars in the same direction. I thought, well, hold on.

Thats not true. Thats not how I remember it. And in fact, you know, the subject of whether we were even on the right side in the Cold War was a matter of deep dis division in our society. And there were people who, were extremely anti communist, and I think its no surprise to any of your listeners that, there were people who went kind of, you know, who were who were a little bit crazed on the subject of finding communists under every bed. There was the McCarthy phenomenon.

So there were people who went too far on the side of anti communism, and that Then there were people who went too far in the other direction on the side of being, if not pro communist and some were, but, but anti anti communist. So that was the posture of, I think, big chunks of the, Democratic Party. During the cold war. They, after Vietnam, but, it wont go into too much detail, but Basically, there was a big, divergence within, liberal opinion after Vietnam. Many, many people decided that not only was the Vietnam war intervention on our part, a mistake, which I think most of us agree with.

But, but the entire struggle against communism itself was was misbegotten. And so there was a huge fight within, a huge domestic fight in the United States between those like the Reaganites who wanted to support forces of freedom around the world who wanted to do whatever we could to, hamper the goals of the worldwide communist movement and that was basically the position of the Republicans. And the position of the Democrats was actually no, some of some Democrats took that view, to be clear. But many more took the view that no. No.

The most important thing is to, is to negotiate arms control agreements and just make sure that this conflict doesnt become a World War. That was their big priority, and they believe that arms control led to peace, which is debatable. In fact, I dont believe that. And then finally, there were people, and I these are the ones who I called the useful idiots. And by the way, thats term of art.

Its, it not a phrase that I originated. It was traced to, Vladimir Lennon, who supposedly said that the Liberals in the West would be useful idiots for their cause. And so there were people in the Democratic party sort of on the left and part left part of the Democratic party who went beyond, believing in arms control, they were real cheerleaders. For these different communist regimes around the world. And so first, it was Russia.

Then when the Russians engaged in purges and, mass deaths. They moved on to China. And when China was no longer the bright young thing, they moved on to Cuba. Fair play for Cuba committee. And then on to nicaragua, we call them the Sandelistas, the people who traips down there to, to to to praise these regimes.

And, so in a nutshell, that was what my book was about. It was about the people who deluded themselves out of ideological affinity into overlooking the really horrendous, severe, human rights abuses and aggression, and, you know, just crushing of the human spirit that went on in these regimes, they they managed to overlook all that because they were broadly on the left. And it was, and so, this book provides chapter and verse. I I quoted them. I and and I I was trying to call them to account because they turned out to be so wrong, and the very people in those regimes, once they got a chance, once they were able to vote, or once they were out from under the the, heavy, militarized, you know, the use of force in those regimes to keep, to keep the population at bay.

They, they voted for democracy. They voted for for liberty and for a more Western way life. So thats a very long winded answer to your question.

I wanna pull on that thread, Mona, of, ideological self delusion, that you spoke about, you know, no enemies, on the left because I think theres some lessons perhaps for those of us on the right today about what happened to those folks you described on the left. I mean, the the other tradition youve described in essence in the book and just now in that beautiful capsule summary you gave, anti anti communism. And there was also a tradition in the Democratic Party. I mean, actually, I came out of that tradition before I became a Republican. Which was the tradition of liberal, anti communism.

It was a tradition, you know, I think represented by Harry Truman, when he ran in nineteen forty eight against a left wing Democratic candidate, Henry Wallace, who had been Roselts, vice president before Truman, it was represented by Ubert Humphrey, in the nineteen fifties and and scoop Jackson. And there was a whole wing of the Democratic party that essentially said these communist ideas are beyond the pale and cant be, you know, countenanced in in our politics because theyre fundamental.

Including including loom sorry. Let me just interrupt. Sure. One quick including union leaders like George Mimi.

Yes.

They were a very critical part of the anti communist liberal

Absolutely.

Consensus. And

the, yes, the effort to to kick the communist out of the, out of the CIO. And that was a very important part in my view of how and why the United States was successful in the cold war. Because not only did it it represent a policing by those on the center left of the extremists who would apologize for totalitarianism but it also represented, an ability to galvanize others in the west to stand up for for democracy and and freedom in, efforts like the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was funded by the CIA, but provided a space in Europe, where the left was ascendant after the defeat of fascism in in Europe and World War two, to regroup and repair and create a kind of center right politics that, and center left politics that could hold the totalitarians and communists at bay. So I wanna come back to that in a minute because I think theres some lessons for those of us on the right to learn. But, kit, yeah, what is it do you think that draws people on the alt right or the new right today?

To engage in the kind of apologetics for Putin and for Victor Orban in Hungary that liberals, you know, on the left engaged in for, Stalin and the whole litany of, subsequent communist regimes that you just walked through. I mean, they were always celebrating, you know, the next pure socialist triumph that would, you know, then immediately, you know, evaporate until they could find the next one. But what drives people on the right to do this?

Yeah. Well, Ill come to the right in a second. But what one of the things one of the patterns that Im sure you were call is thered be a new communist, you know, there will be a revolutionary movement in some country. Right? And so the first thing that would be said is that the communists were part of a broad coalition with a lot of other groups right, which would actually be true.

Right? And, and therefore not to worry, but then there would be the coup. And usually backed by the Soviets and sometimes the Chinese, right? So then theyd be the coup, and then they would say These arent the communists are not the ones whove succeeded here. These are, you know, great agrarian reformers.

Right? Then when they began to take money from the Soviets and cut shut down the press, the protesting press, and and, you know, a press the churches and so on, then they would say, well, you know, if the US hadnt been so hostile, these people would not have been forced into the arms of So its so on. I mean, isnt that wasnt that the the pattern again and again and again? It was always somehow the fault of, somebody other than the people who were, then the protagonists themselves.

Its what led Jean Kirk Patrick famously to, you know, describe the Democratic Party and, that met in San Francisco in nineteen eighty four as the blame America first party.

Exactly. Exactly. So, so it is a fascinating thing now. So perhaps I need to write, a sequel to usefulness. And this time, focus on the right because so much of the so many of the tendencies are similar.

So you see now Well, you saw then this, desire to find a country out there that was the kind of you know, fantasized, socialist, utopia. That would, by contrast with the US, show that, you know, its possible to have pure equality and to have, you know, peoples democracy and this play, you know, and so on. And because of that, the credulity was just amazing about places. I mean, Robert share, I think was his name, even waxed eloquent about North Korea for a while. Mino, it was just it was their their their credulity knew no bounds.

There was a lot of revolutionary tourism that was going on.

There thats right. Paul Hollander, wrote, book called Political pilgrims where he, you know, described these people traipsing off to to find joy. And and, you know, they, they, at as we were saying a second ago, you know, they they would fall out of love with one regime like Cuban, and, but find another one a few years later and, and, and not learn their lesson about the fact that the way you judge a they were very sympathetic to countries that were hostile to the US, because they did blame America first. But, but, the critique of them was, well, why dont you judge them by how they treat their own people? Rather than how much they hate the US.

Maybe thats a better guide to finding, whether a country is worthy of admiration. Well, so now you have, the political tourists on the right. Youve got John Sullivan, former, former editor of National Review Magazine, who now lives in, Buddhist part time. And is the head of something called the Danube Institute. Where does the Danube Institute get its money, well from Victor Orbans government?

And he has become, you know, a a cheerleader for Orban. And youve had CPAC inviting Orban to speak, and then, also holding one of their conferences, in Hungary. Youve had, Rod Drer, an intellectual, a writer for the American Conservative. Youve had, Lets see. So Rob Amari, heading over there.

Patrick Denine, Chris Demuth. Yoram Hazzoni Jordan Peterson.

Tucker Carlson.

Tucker. And most importantly, yes, Tucker Carlson. Making pilgrimages to Hungary and lauding the regime there. And again, doing exactly what I was identifying had been done by leftist, in earlier decades, with left wing regimes, you know, ignoring all of the all of the unflattering facts about the regime that they are lauding. And, I I wrote this down.

I thought it was great. Somebody wrote a a response to, Tucker, somebody who who was a Hungarian. And he said, He said that, you know, dear mister Carlson, he said, you desperately want to believe that somewhere on this planet there exists a Christian conservative Disneyland. And, and thats really, thats thats so well put. And, of course, the critics point out, well, you know, Orban is, is repressing free speech.

He is corrupt. He is in league with Putin. He is, you know, a very unreliable ally of the United States. And, and he is, you know, he he is not far from, you know, this this Christian utopia. Its, its quite a repressive place that unfortunately has taken a d a a u-turn You know, it had been a communist country.

It then went through a period of reform, and it was heading in the right direction. And now under Orban, its its taking a u-turn. And heading back to being a repressive country of the right wing variety instead of a left wing variety.

Yeah. I feel this keenly personally having been, you know, the US ambassador to Turkey and watched, Erdogan take this authoritarian turn and and It was already visible and outlined when I was there, and now, of course, very visible in the way he has, run the country for the last the last twenty years, but it strikes me as I was listening to you, Mona, that history doesnt repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes. You know, this is once again, sort of, you know, sort of ideological blinders leading, people to apologize for regimes that they are holding up as models in response to their own critique of of of home, of the United States.

Yes.

And and, you know, if you believe, you know, in American carnage that the that the US is going through terrible moment and that religion is, you know, being, persecuted in the United States and that you know, everything is, going to hell in a handbasket and that, you know, Victor Orbans hungry or even worse Vladimir Putins Russia are these havens for Judeo Christian values and conservative values and anti lgbtq, etcetera. You know, that can lead you, you know, to to this kind of inverted apologetics that you see coming, and its so its no surprise that, you know, Tucker Carlson now is a regular feature on, you know, nightly Russian, television propaganda broadcasts. But moreover, it, you know, theres a fundamental problem with all of this, which is if you look for instance at church attendance in Russia or Hungary, and compare it to the United States, we are still by far a more religious country with more religious self identified religious believers in in polling than either of those places.

Absolutely. And by a large margin, Look, one of the things that this reveals about the right is that, You know, and it does make me look back on some people on the right, not not people like you, and not people like Elliot and others, but Look at them and realize that, that the reason they were anti communist in the first place, maybe I misunderstood, okay, because I assume that the reason to be an anti communist is that they, are they they use violence. They dont permit elections. They repress freedoms, every kind of freedom, religious freedom, social freedom freedom to move. They wouldnt let people leave the country.

It was a big prison, the USSR, asked Nathan Cheransky, who wrote a fantastic, prison diary, which, by the way, as I understand it, Navalny is now reading in prison. But, sheer no evil, I think it was called. Yes. And, but so, you know, but it turns out, that if if youre the kind of person who can pivot from having been an anti communist to now being a pro Putin or pro orban person. Well, then it wasnt the repression that bothered you.

It was something else. Maybe it was, you know, the fact that, these places were anti religious. Or that they, you know, the the old communist regimes, or that they were, you know, against the rich, or at least they claimed to be where they had their own Nomen Kaltura as we know. You know, the when when people express admiration, whether theyre from the right or the left, for regimes that are repressive. They are not good Americans.

Right? Because to be a good American, you have to adhere in my judgment. And yes, I am being judgmental. You you have to respect our constitution, our way of life, our liberties. And if youre willing to apologize for any regime that doesnt respect those liberties, in the name of, you know, getting one over on, you know, your domestic opponents.

Then then youre showing youre not really dedicated to the principles that this country is founded upon and should be most proud of.

Couldnt agree more, and I think that leads very naturally into a discussion of the how one should frame the debate thats going on in the Republican Party even now over the twenty twenty four presidential nomination with regard to American foreign policy. I mean, both you and I served in the Reagan administration. I think we both consider ourselves proud reganoffs and and cold warriors. And what I see going on in the Republican primaries, I find both kind of mystifying to in one sense, but also depressing, which is to say that candidates who are advocating for this kind of, you know, admiration of Putin and hostility towards Ukraine in the current conflict. Like Donald Trump, like Vivek, Ramaswamy, like Ron DeSantis account for roughly eighty three percent of the Republican, primary electorate according to polls.

And those candidates who in the first debate spoke out strongly for Ukraine and critical of this sort of neo isolationist, trend and in favor of the kinds of things you know, that you and I would have found, you know, sort of the mainstream Republican approach for the last forty years, peace through strength, build up of American, you know, defenses, but willingness to negotiate at an appropriate time those candidates, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and and Chris Christie, as vigorous as theyve been. And by the way, Chris Christie in the let even in the last few days, on television, have been very vigorous in his defense of democracy and and arguing passionately the United States needs to stand up to, authoritarian aggressors who are, seizing territory of their neighbors. But the three of them represent something like, you know, in the aggregate, thirteen to fifteen percent of the party. What whats going on here? Do you think?

And and, you know, how should we think about it?

Well, not wanting to read too much into any particular snapshot in time, but lets think back on that debate for a second because I do think that its emblematic something of the moment were at because I think the, I think the cement is still wet. In terms of where Republican opinion is gonna go about our world role and about Ukraine and so on. It is trending No question. In a in a worrisome direction, very worrisome. Ill add to what you said.

I was looking at a poll that said, sixty two percent of Democrats back additional funding for Ukraine, compared with just twenty eight percent of Republicans. So thats thats where things have trended. This is down very dramatically from, eighteen months ago when, Putin first invaded and Republicans were, strongly in favor of aid to Ukraine. So its it has dropped off quite a bit. But at that debate, you saw, the crowd kind of, you know, at first, they were, you know, they cheered Ramaswamy with his really absurd and and, patronizing and demagogic appeals to ridiculous positions.

Like, you know, were gonna let, were were gonna map out a deal with Putin and, you know, he hes gonna promise to cut off his relations with China and in return. Were gonna give him parts of Ukraine. I mean, the whole thing is just separate postures. But the crowd was sort of energized by Ramas Swamy, they liked what he was saying, but then when Nikki Haley schooled him, They cheered for her too. And so thats what I mean by the cement is wet.

Like, public opinion hasnt really gelled completely on the Republican side, and leadership right now makes a huge, huge difference. And I cant say that Im optimistic about the direction that its going because, first of all, that debate was among people who are not gonna get the nomination or in all likelihood of probably not gonna get the nomination. And it seems very likely that its going to be trump. And we know that he is, Im not gonna use bad language, but he is, very fond of Putin. And, and in awe of Putin.

So thats, pretty clear what that would mean for you crane. If god forbid, he were to be reelected. But, and the other the other thing to say is that leaving the, you know, the the public is led by opinion leaders. And the way things are going on Fox and the other outlets of conservative opinion through Talk Radio and the internet and so on. The loudest voices, the Steve Bannons and others, is in a very authoritarian, friendly direction.

And that seems to be the, where the wind those people have the wind in their sails. And the very fact that Rava Swamy, has, you know, gotten all of this attention and buzz as the the Trump wannabe, but as, you know, somebody who whos foreign policy views are juvenile and, but extremely, autocrat friendly, tells you something about the, the base of the Republican Party now. And so it is, yeah, very, very scary.

Of course, I mean, theres a history here too, which is that, there always was a tradition of it was called isolationism. Im not sure thats exactly the right term. But the, Republican Party had a a strong wing. It wasnt just Republican Republicans, by the way. Also some, liberal, democrats, so called progressive Democrats in the twenties and thirties who did not wanna be involved in in Europes affairs, thought the United States could stay out.

Many of them advocated an Asia first policy rather than focusing on the storm clouds in in Europe in the late nineteen thirties. In nineteen forty, when Roosevelt ran for a third term, it looked for all the world, like the Republican nominee, was going to be Robert Taft, Mr. Conservative, the senator from Ohio, the Republican establishment at the time kind of intervened and and created a boom for Wendell Wilkey, who had actually been a Democrat, but was, a, actually an energy, executive at at the time, who was a a kind of internationalist and supported aid to the allies. This is before, Pearl Harbor and before Hitler declared war on the United States. Taff remained a very powerful force and the Republican Party, and that line of thought remained pretty powerful until Dwight Eisenhower came back from Europe as supreme allied commander in nineteen fifty two to prevent the Republican nominee from being Robert Taft, and and Eisenhower became the nominee.

And that the sort of, that sort of isolationist current kind of was dormant, I would say, in the Republican Party, until twenty sixteen. I mean, others came, you know, there were Rand Paul seemed to and Ron Paul seemed to represent that current as well, but it was very

Pap Buchanan.

Pap Buchanan, but it was very much a minority. It really took Trump in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen to sort of really revivify, all of this. So, you know, theres a kind of history to this that we shouldnt, I think, gain say. But I guess it it then

Could I just interrupt?

Yeah. Please. No. Go ahead.

Second just to say just to say that that Wendell Wilkey was one of the great heroes of American history in my opinion. It gets an unsung hero because at the price of his own political, fortunes, he he wanted to do the right thing, and he refused to demagogue the issue of giving aid to the allies. He was for it. He helped Roosevelt tremendously Sure.

on that score. Yes. And, and, you know, he he died tragically quite young, but, anyway, he was, a heroic figure.

Another figure, you know, I think is quite heroic was Arthur Vanderberg, who himself was, kind of of that Taphte isolationist, ilk, But after the impact of Pearl Harbor in World War II realized that in the modern world, that kind of approach just wouldnt work and became a very important part of the founding of NATO and and and the creation of a kind of internationalist consensus both left and right that, you know, really helped guide the country through the cold war helped helped to win the cold war. Because although there were debates, of course, during the cold war, as you rightly said earlier, not everybody was, you know, agreed about how best to deal with, with the Soviet challenge, there was a very broad consensus in the country, that that allowed us to to win. So I guess, you know, one of my questions is Kinda, what is the responsibility of those of us on the center right? You know, seeing this pattern of of useful idiocy you know, now occurring on our side of the political house as it were. What responsibility do we have for sort of policing that.

And Ill add one other provocative thought. You know, Ive said it before on the on the show, which is that you know, Leo Strauss famously said the argument at Hitler is always, you know, a bad argument. But I am reading, a biography of Hitler by Brendan Simms, the British historian. Its called a global biography, which is really a misnomer. It its really a kind of ideological biography of Hitler, and it actually makes a powerful case that Hitler was, very focused on the United States and and and and the anglosphere in general, the British and the Americans, which is one reason why he declared war on us in, in nineteen forty one after Pearl Harbor.

But if you look at the rhetoric that Simms, you know, walks you through as Hitler is becoming a a a powerful political figure in Germany in in the twenties and thirties. It is a critique of international finance capital, globalization, globalism, global elites. And for all of life, me, and Im not suggesting that, you know, Josh Holly or JD Vance are Hitler, But if you listen to their arguments, you know, it its very similar in terms of the ideological tenure. And character to go back to the point you were making that this is not the kind of conservatism that, you know, that Ronald Reagan thousand that you and I grew up in in the in the Republican Party?

It sure isnt. By the way, my husband read that book. So, he told me about that that thesis about his, preoccupation with the US, which is interesting. I recently reread, the rise and fall of the third right, which is, really an amazing piece of history. And, and there are Im sorry, but there are a lot of parallels.

There just are. Right. You know, with people who who dont really they dont approve, and they think hes crude and all of that. But, you know, he does make some good points, and You know, these people have been neglected and we have to listen to that, you know, all that stuff. So look, One thing is, you know, that in order to have influence, with people, you have to, you know, you have to have some common ground.

So I try to my appearance at CPAC in twenty eighteen because I was over conservative. I tried to say, you know, look, we cant criticize, you know, only Democrats for, you know, mistreating women and for me too episodes and all the rest of it. We have to be honest about those on our own side, or were gonna lack credibility. And I, and I couldnt have said that if I had been a lefty, right? You cant say that to CPAC audience.

You wouldnt have been invited etcetera. Of course, having done that once, Im not gonna be invited back to CPAC, so Im not gonna be in a position to

It is a very courageous appearance, and its a badge of honor that youre not being invited back.

Well, well, yeah. Thanks. I I, you know, I I thank you for that. I agree with that. But, still, you know, you you have to find, those voices on the conservative side.

That are brave enough to say the right things. So you need to elevate, the the Brad Rafhensburgers. The Ken Bucks, the, you know, the the the Gabe Sterling, all of the people And by the way, there was quite a long list of Republicans who, when it came to the twenty twenty election, including Mike Pence, who had they acted differently, we would been in a much more horrific constitutional crisis than what we faced on that day. So, Those people have to be, have to be lauded and elevated. And, you know, its its I to the degree that that you and I still have any credibility among, conservatives.

You know, hopefully, you know, we can do our small, parts but, the problem is with this kind of, severe polarized thinking. And Ive had this happen with even people in my own family where I was trying to argue them out of, support for Trump, and it comes down to the same argument all the time, which is, by the way, the same argument that you find historically as well. Which is theyll say, well, yeah. I mean, Trump, no question about it. I dont like him.

Theyll say. And I wouldnt want my kids to be like him. But when the other side is so extreme and so radical, you need a really vicious leader to take them on because the worst possible thing is for the left to get back in power. And, you know, thats the way their minds work, and it happens on both sides. But At the moment, I feel very strongly that as much as I vehemently disagree with many things about the Democratic Party.

And, and I I I think theyre misguided on many subjects. I agree. Particularly, I will say at the risk of getting a lot of hate mail. I think they are so wrong about the whole trans kids thing where I I think this is a big mistake that theyre heading down, but but When it comes to who poses a bigger threat to our democratic experiment, is it liberals or conservatives, its not its not a hard judgment. Its conservatives.

Its the right. The threat from the right now is much more immediate and much more serious. And I dont know how its how our country is going to do if Trump is reelected. I mean, I I really its almost

Its almost unthinkable. I but but on the other hand, you know, as one of my lines of work is nuclear deterrents. And as, you know, Herman Khan taught us, you have to think about the unthinkable. So its Yes. So its, its, and and JBL has been doing a, you know, a pretty good job of that and Charlie as well.

In other parts of the of the sprawling bulwark empire. I, I take some heart In the fact that I as as we speak, I think, Mike Pence is giving a speech, about, populism versus conservatism. And while I think hes, according to what I read in the press, he is not going to, you know, call out Trump by name. And, of course, he bears some responsibility for having like Chris Christie, normalized Trump. I think its a healthy sign, though, that he he sees this as a, sort of an ideological issue has to be taken on inside the party.

And and

so I think thats a, you know, a glimmering of some hope that, you know, maybe others will take up that mantle as well and and try and defend the more traditional. Hes doing it very explicitly as I understand as a defense of Reaganite, you know, sort of conservatism.

And it is, it is a good thing. I dont know how far it will go, but it is a good thing that on that debate stage, everybody except Ron DeSantis and Ram and Ramaswamy, said Well, eat well, no. Ron DeSantis did eventually say that Mike Pence did the right thing on January six.

Right.

Mike Pence was right to force the issue. And to make that because if the question was asked, and they sort of slid past it, and he made the math, you know, answer it again. And, And so, you know, that at least, at least is a marker of some kind. Im, Im not sure how how much dividends it Will Saletan also, again, you know, the it seems possible to me, that even though the Republican Party is circling the wagons around Trump, that this rally around the flag phenomenon is something that I dont wanna I dont wanna make predictions that Im gonna have to eat let me let me be very careful how I phrase this. Look, there are millions, maybe tens of millions of Americans who do not know what Trump is accused of having done.

They just dont. They say, oh, theyre theyre after him. He theyre theyre theyre always after him. And, its all political, but that When they actually see the evidence that is presented at a trial, some of them may be seeing it for the first time. Well see.

We certainly know that in terms of, like, this nightmare that were all worried about, whether he could get reelected, we know twenty percent of Republicans are telling pollsters. They will not vote for Trump. Period. So thats If that holds true, thats enough, perhaps, to pro prevent him from being reelected, though, by the way, its not enough for the democrat to win the popular vote. They have to win it by four or five points because of the electoral college, asymmetry.

But, but then if you look at independent voters who decide our elections, they are much closer in their views to Democrats about how much they dislike Trump than they are to Republicans. So we have to, you know, thats its cold comfort. Its not much, but thats what Im, thats what it may come down to.

I was laughing at you, and you said you didnt wanna have to, you know, eat some, you know, at some point in the future, a prediction made here on on shield of the Republic, I when I was serving in Moscow at the embassy back in the late eighties, which was a period of high pedestorica and we were going through the period of glossiness. A lot of historical revelations were coming out. A lot of documents were being opened, etcetera. And the joke was in in in the Soviet Union now. Its very hard to predict the past.

So Oh, thats good. Thats good. Yeah.

Mona, you are, a former speechwriter, for missus Reagan, and and you just, you wrote a column last year, at the outset of the war in Ukraine, about the speech that, Joe Biden should give to the nation about this, fight and why its important to Americans. I noticed that you reposted it yesterday. On Twitter or X, whatever it is now.

I think you reminded me.

So, what, you know, now that were a year and a half into this, And some of us have, and particularly on shield of the republic, weve been banging away at the fact that the president has yet to really present the case to the American public. He has not made a full throated defense of, you know, the policy He hasnt explained why its in the American interest to provide upwards of a hundred billion dollars in assistance, both military and, economic to Ukraine. Hes made all sorts of comments, you know, on the run to gaggles of you know, of news media folks, either getting on or off Air Force One or on a bike ride at Rehobeth. But hes not done. You know, the sort of, prime time oval office address that at least I think is necessary.

Maybe its, you know, not possible anymore because our media environment is so fragmented. You couldnt be sure that all the networks would cover it, etcetera, etcetera. Maybe you cant do that anymore the way president Reagan did, the way President Eisenhower and Kennedy and and, even John Or

even George w Bush?

View original post here:
The New Useful Idiots - Shield of the Republic - The Bulwark

KOZHIKODE: The discord within Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama (the influential body of Sunni clerics) over its stand towards CPM and its relationship with IUML (to which it was traditionally aligned) has become more pronounced with Sunni leader Nazar Faizi Koodathayi saying that as far as Islam was concerned, communism was an ideology that should always be kept away. Addressing the meeting organized by Sunni Mahal Federation on Wednesday, the general secretary of the Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Qutba committee said Communism and other materialists are synonymous with negation of religion and atheism. "Today in the name of fashion culture and campus politics, some are trying to bring negation of religion and anti-Islamic sentiments to campuses under the label of organizations like SFI," he said, adding that the affinity shown by some towards communism was dangerous. "The danger of standing aligned with communism is that there is a possibility that the idea of negation of religion will gradually creep into it. So, you shouldn't take a compromising stand with such materialistic movements," he added. Koodathayi said Muslims in Kerala were able to achieve renaissance when the Panakkad family, Samastha and IUML leadership stood united. The Left bashing by Koodathayi comes when influential members of Samastha, including president Syed Jifri Muthukoya Thangal, are adopting an independent stand, different from that of IUML. This is being viewed as the organization leaning towards the CPM. The bonhomie between some Samastha leaders and CPM has not gone down well with a section of Samastha leaders who are now more vocal against Communism. Samastha mushavara member and VC of Darul Huda Islamic University Bahaudeen Nadwi had recently said communists have a tradition of committing treachery against Muslims. Nadwi had then said that Communists have ideological opposition towards Islam and if there is anyone who does not have that opposition then he/she won't be a communist. Nadwi had then said that CPM was opposing all things Samastha was working towards.

Originally posted here:
Rift in Samastha over stand towards CPM - Times of India

Recent heated debate in South Korea about how its colonial-era independence movement should be remembered has exposed the deep faultlines that run through the countrys politics, between the conservative and liberal-progressive camps.

At the end of August, the Korean Military Academy announced its intention to relocate the statue of independence activist General Hong Beom-do from its front lawn, along with that of four other independence activists. In addition, South Koreas defence minister, Lee Jong-sup, openly considered renaming a navy submarine that had also been named after General Hong.

Hong Beom-do is remembered for leading the Korean Liberation Army to victory over Imperial Japan in the 1920 battle of Fengwudong. But the academy and the conservative Yoon Suk Yeol administration take issue with the fact that Hong later sought refuge in the Soviet Union and became a member of the Communist Party.

This furore over Hongs statue more broadly has come against a background of an intensification of red-baiting rhetoric by the Yoon administration. In his August 15 Liberation Day speech, Yoon argued that: The forces of communist totalitarianism have always disguised themselves as democracy activists, human rights advocates or progressive activists while engaging in despicable and unethical tactics and false propaganda. We must never succumb to the forces of communist totalitarianism.

The implication of such statements has been that any opposition to the Yoon governments policies are a result of the forces of communist totalitarianism.

Yoons actions are a recurrent feature of South Koreas increasingly polarised political culture. Incumbent administrations go to great lengths to differentiate themselves from their predecessors.

It is no coincidence that the bust of Hong and the other independence fighters had originally been placed there in 2018 by the preceding liberal-progressive Moon Jae-in government.

A more immediate factor is recent realignments in South Koreas foreign policy. Seoul is moving toward closer cooperation with the United States and Japan. For decades, tensions between Japan and South Korea have impeded Washingtons goal of bringing the two countries together in a trilateral alliance to tackle challenges from China and North Korea.

Anti-Japanese sentiment remains strong in South Korea. This is sustained by Japans perceived failure to address historical wrongdoings during the colonial and wartime eras. As a result, many Koreans remain wary of closer security cooperation. The Yoon government, however, has unilaterally abandoned longstanding Korean demands for Japan to show greater remorse, and for victims compensation.

Yet this pursuit of trilateral security cooperation at all costs has created a legitimacy crisis for the government, which is seen by many to be increasingly out of step with much of the public. Rather than seeking to convince the public through persuasive argument, the Yoon government has increasingly resorted to red baiting.

On September 1, Yoon gave a speech at the Korean National Diplomatic Academy in which he implied that any criticism of his administrations pro-US and pro-Japan leanings were again a result of communist totalitarian or anti-state forces.

In several respects Yoons approach reflects longer-term fissures within Korean politics since it transitioned to democracy in 1987. Since then, South Korean conservatives (and in particular the so-called chinilpa, or pro-Japanese faction whose wealth and power date back to collaboration with the Japanese) have suffered from a chronic deficit of legitimacy.

During the post-liberation era, they compensated for this with an ideology of virulent anti-communism. As a result, the main split in Korean society came to be defined as between communist and anti-communist rather than between nationalist and collaborator. Anything that was judged to go against the authoritarian conservatism of the era was defined as benefiting the North.

The firm grip held by the authoritarian regime in post-liberation South Korea meant that there was little need to develop any genuinely conservative ideology. But the democratic transition made it increasingly difficult for conservatives to adhere to the logic of communism versus anti-communism.

Liberal governments, backed by the rising power of new civic movements, were able to attack conservatives for their history of colonial collaboration and post-war authoritarianism. Conservatives were blamed for episodes seen as having caused national humiliation. These include the 1965 Japan-Korea Treaty and the Kwangju massacre of 1980 in which a pro-democracy movement in the southwest of the country was brutally suppressed by the Korean military.

One broad response to this challenge has been the emergence since the 2000s of an alternative so-called New Right history movement. This explicitly sought to establish a new moral grounding for South Korean conservativism. It aimed to address a perceived ideological vacuum through a strong belief in free market liberalism. This was combined with the promotion of a more positive view of the Japanese colonial occupation and the involvement of the US in Koreas modern development.

The New Right movement largely failed to make an impact in the academic study of history in Korea. But Yoon has appointed prominent New Right figures to key government positions. Their views have evidently had an impact on his thinking and rhetoric.

But his increasing reliance on red-baiting seems at odds with the aspirations of New Right ideologues to put conservatism on a firmer and more persuasive ideological basis. Instead it feels like a throwback to the cold war McCarthyism.

Yoons simple anti-communist rhetoric is unlikely to appeal to the majority of the South Korea public many of whom find themselves associated with the presidents notion of communist totalitarianism.

But while Yoons red-baiting may be politically ineffectual, it looks set to deepen the polarisation of politics in South Korea. This could threaten the principles of democracy in Korea by de-legitimising dissent.

Original post:
South Korean president's anti-communist taunts are opening up ... - The Conversation

(OSV News) -- As Argentines prepare to elect their new president Oct. 22, a group of clergy close to Pope Francis launched an unprecedented intervention in the highly charged political atmosphere in the South American country.

The Archdiocese of Buenos Aires group of curas villeros, Spanish for slum priests, celebrated a reparation Mass for the insults targeting Pope Francis by the presidential candidate who won the primaries in August, Javier Milei, who has been quoted as calling the pontiff an imbecile and said his support of the poor is evil.

Father Jos Maria Di Paola, known as Padre Pepe, said in his homily that it is unworthy of a candidate to say such things, including denigrating social justice, when social justice is part of the Gospel, part of the churchs social doctrine.

The priests who said the Mass explained the insults were heard more and more often, even boosting Mileis popularity and that was the reason the Mass was celebrated.

A large crowd turned out for the Mass in the villa 21-24 neighborhood in Buenos Aires Sept. 5, and faithful were seen holding pictures of Pope Francis in a sign of support. A big banner reading In solidarity with the Pope and the poor stretched above their heads.

Milei, an economist who describes himself as an anarcho-capitalist and was elected for Congress in 2021 with an anti-establishment rhetoric, has insulted the pontiff -- his countryman -- on numerous occasions during TV interviews and on social media posts over the past years.

Most of such attacks are apparently related to the popes endorsement of social justice, defined by Milei as an aberration. In 2022, when the pontiff defended the idea that people should pay taxes in order to protect the poors dignity, Milei tweeted that the pope is always standing on the evils side and accused him of having poverty as a model.

Those ideas have been customarily accompanied with insults. The long list includes calling the pontiff an imbecile who defends social justice, leftist son of a b* preaching communism, and the representative of the evil one.

Jair Bolsonaro, is a fierce supporter of the minimal state. His platform includes extreme measures, like adopting the U.S. dollar as the Argentine currency and closing the countrys Central Bank.

Although he professes the Catholic faith, Milei reportedly has a number of spiritualist beliefs and has been studying the Torah with a rabbi every week.

In his most recent interviews, he apparently preferred to avoid new controversies and declared that he respects Pope Francis as the churchs leader and as a head of state.

That new attitude was not enough to convince at least part of Argentinias Catholics, who account for 62,9% of the population, although according to the CIA World Factbook from July 2014, 92% of the country was nominally Catholic at the time. Analysts say that most people do not relate the elections and the pontiff, so those offenses may not have impacted the votes of many Catholics.

But some people, especially in the poor neighborhoods, have been outraged, said Father Lorenzo de Veddia, known as Padre Toto, a longtime cura villero in a slum in the Barracas district of Buenos Aires who was one of the priests celebrating the Sept. 5 Mass.

One can notice that many people have not liked so much aggressiveness, so many insults and so many lies, he told OSV News.

The Mass in support of Pope Francis -- and of the poorest in our country -- as the invitation said, was said at Padre Totos parish, one of the many which were accompanied with great interest by the then-Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The curas villeros movement was organized at the end of the 1960s to give special attention to the residents of the poor neighborhoods, which had a fast growth in the second half of the 20th century. The priests not only play a religious role among the poor, but also actively participate in the communities daily life, helping them to organize and fight for their rights to be respected.

During his tenure as a bishop and then as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, the pope had a special connection with many members of that movement. Dozens of them took part in the reparation Mass.

It is an attack on Catholic law, on the churchs social doctrine. He is virtually saying that the churchs social doctrine is bulls*** exactly because it points to social justice, Father di Paola declared.

According to sociologist Marcos Carbonelli, a researcher of Argentinas National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and an expert on the nations religious dynamics, said that although the curas villeros are prestigious agents, their ability to influence the election is low.

Father di Paola, Padre Pepe, a close friend of Pope Francis, said in an interview to radio La Patriada Sept. 3, that Mileis attacks are not only against the pontiff, but against the church as a whole.

The world of the poor in Argentina is very fragmented nowadays, he stressed.

Milei received significant support in many villas in Buenos Aires, which have been historically connected to Peronism, a left-wing movement based on the ideas and legacy of Argentine ruler Juan Pern (18951974).

With its devalued currency, Argentina has triple-digit inflation and 40% of the population lives in poverty -- which sparks anger toward traditional politics. The latest polls show that Milei remains ahead of challengers with at least 32% of support, while left-winger Sergio Massa is in second with 26% and right-winger Patricia Bullrich is behind with 20%.

Continued here:
Argentine priests celebrate reparation Mass after presidential ... - America: The Jesuit Review

In a break from his usual Hollywood blockbusters, Christopher Nolans latest release offers a dramatic and tense look at the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the bomb, exploring the politics of McCarthy-era America along the way.

Director Christopher Nolans latest epic, Oppenheimer, may appear an unusual subject for a summer blockbuster: a three-hour long biopic of Julius Robert Oppenheimer (played by Cillian Murphy), the American physicist who oversaw the development of the first atomic bomb.

This has certainly not dissuaded cinemagoers, however, with the film grossing over $80 million worldwide in its opening weekend.

A star-studded cast; online hype encouraging viewing as a double-feature, alongside tongue-in-cheek release Barbie; and Nolans well-earned reputation for making intense thrillers with impressive set-pieces: all of these ingredients, together, are a recipe for big profits.

And no doubt studio bosses will be grateful for this cash injection, given the strikes that are currently rocking Hollywood.

Based heavily on the biography American Prometheus: the Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolans film aims to cover the eponymous physicists complex life at a blistering pace, whilst maintaining excruciating dramatic tension throughout.

Murphys performance is particularly captivating especially as Oppenheimer comes to face not only personal and professional adversity, but also battles with his own conscience, as he realises the reality of the potential destruction that he has helped to unleash.

Nolans features often see spectacle triumph over substance. But Oppenheimer generally manages to avoid this. In fact, what is most surprising (besides former Nickelodeon child actor Josh Pecks cameo) is just how political the film is.

The storyline hinges around the investigation into Oppenheimers past associations with members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), and the revocation of his security clearance in 1954 which effectively ended his career during the peak of the McCarthyite witch-hunt that pervaded America.

The film uses this investigation as a means to explore how the physicists own moral values shifted before and after he became the father of the A-bomb. But in doing so, it also provides an insight into the shifting aims of US imperialism, as it became the worlds predominant superpower.

Given the well-known anti-communist hysteria of the post-war period, it may seem crazy to the modern viewer that Oppenheimer a man whose brother, wife, lover, and numerous friends and colleagues were all CPUSA members was ever allowed to head up the top-secret Manhattan Project.

The CPUSA grew rapidly throughout the 1930s and 40s, especially following the Great Depression and the ensuing industrial tumult. Consequently, it came to hold important positions within the US labour movement though unfortunately often playing a lamentable role.

At the same time, the party also gained a considerable reach amongst the US intelligentsia, such as the academics that surrounded Oppenheimer during his time at Berkeley, as the film portrays.

Oppenheimer himself, though never a card-carrying CPUSA member, was certainly a fellow traveller. He was a sympathiser of many working-class causes, such as that of Spanish republicanism, and the film also shows how he aided his university colleagues in their unionisation efforts.

The CPUSAs Stalinist Popular Frontism, however, no doubt also had some influence on him. The physicist therefore had few qualms about accepting the US governments invitation to join its top-secret programme to develop the bomb before the Nazis.

Put into historical context then, one can see how Oppenheimer ended up leading the Manhattan Project.

His belief that the bombs sole purpose, in the hands of US imperialism, would be to beat back the fascists and end the war was soon to unravel, however.

The strategists of US imperialism feared the USSR as a potential rival world power. The film shows how this was the real motivation behind the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki / Image public domain

American imperialists knew that there was a risk of potential leaks to the USSR, via communist-sympathising scientists such as Oppenheimer and his colleagues.

But they were willing to take this gamble, in order to build and demonstrate the nuclear bomb as quickly as possible not only before the Nazis could, but also to gain an upper hand over the Soviets.

Nolan does well to show how the battle lines of the Cold War were already being drawn before World War Two had even finished.

Stalin had dissolved the Communist International in 1943, and had vociferously disavowed the cause of international socialist revolution. Nevertheless, the strategists of US imperialism feared the USSR as a potential rival world power.

The film shows how this was the real motivation behind the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese imperialists were ready to surrender, but the US cynically used the country to showcase its deadly new weapon as a warning to the Soviet Union, and as a demonstration to the world that American imperialism was now top dog.

Within a matter of years, however, the Soviets also gained nuclear capability, due to leaks from the Manhattan Project. As a result, the Cold War picked up pace, especially following the Korean War.

The arms race was then on for developing the hydrogen bomb, a nuclear weapon of even greater power than the original atomic bomb.

Oppenheimer vocally opposed the US pursuit of the H-bomb. And the film shows his nave hope that as the father of the bomb, he was entitled to a say over his child.

The scientists vocal opposition became cause for concern for the authorities, and his loyalties began to be called into question.

At the same time, anti-communist hysteria was being whipped up everywhere, reaching its zenith with the Red Scare of the early 1950s.

The lives and livelihoods of thousands of CPUSA members and sympathisers were ruined, as they lost their jobs and effectively became exiles in their own country. Hundreds were also jailed.

It was in this context, spurred on by petty professional rivalries, that an investigation into Oppenheimers life and beliefs was launched, with a subsequent kangaroo court finding the eminent professor guilty of being a disloyal citizen.

Anti-communist hysteria reached its zenith with the Red Scare of the early 1950s / Image: public domain

His security clearance was revoked, bringing to an end his role as advisor on the Atomic Energy Commission. This resulted in a swift fall from grace, with Oppenheimer rapidly losing any influence that he had previously held in Washington.

The biopics ending (SPOILER ALERT) has Oppenheimer musing as to whether his creation has potentially set in motion events leading to inevitable nuclear armageddon, with Nolan depicting his horrifying vision.

With the ongoing war in Ukraine provoking such Cold-War-era fears, this is clearly intended as a reminder to audiences of just what a modern-day nuclear exchange would entail.

The Mutually Assured Destruction that would result if the worlds imperialist powers were to deploy their atomic arsenals, however, is enough to prevent the ruling classes everywhere from ever pressing the button. After all, there would be little profit to be made if the planet was transformed into a radioactive husk.

Alongside the enormous and growing strength of the working class, this MAD outcome is just one factor that rules out World War Three.

But this does not preclude wars altogether. Every year, across the world, tens of thousands die in battles over profits, markets, resources, and spheres of influence such as the civil wars in Sudan or Ethiopia today.

In fact, as capitalism plunges further into crisis, the coming period will see an intensification of proxy wars and regional conflicts between the imperialist powers, as in Ukraine, or Syria before it.

There is only one force on Earth that can put an end to this horror without end, as Lenin described it: the international working class.

To do this, the working class must first become conscious of its potential power and strength, and organise to overthrow capitalism the true destroyer of worlds.

Originally published at socialist.net

Read the original:
Oppenheimer: communism, McCarthyism, and the bomb | United ... - In Defence of Marxism