US History

Ross Douthat: Who Are We? – The New York Times

…[L]iberalism, under pressure from the left, has become steadily more anxious about its political and cultural progenitors, with Woodrow Wilson joining Jackson and Jefferson in the dock. Meanwhile the right’s narrative has become steadily more exclusionary — religious-conservative outreach to

Posted in Noted & Quoted, Operation American Greatness, Politics, US History

Si Vis Bellum, Part 2: Catastrophes

America aims to be as much and as little interventionist and militarist as required in order to avoid ever becoming as catastrophically interventionist and militarist as she, in competition or cooperation with potentially many others, could be.

Posted in Neo-Imperialism, US History, War

Lee Drutman: How race and identity became the central dividing line in American politics – Vox

It is now Democrats who appear benefit from culture and identity being the central issue in American politics, at least in a national election like the one for president. And as the Democrats are increasingly split internally by class, this

Posted in Noted & Quoted, Politics, US History Tagged with: , ,

A Trump Rally Live-Tweeted

“Suv blaring I Am A Real American, waving Trump hats and flipping off homeless and car with Mexican flag. What reality is this…”

Posted in Politics, US History Tagged with:

The classics and the Constitution: The smokescreen of republicanism and the creation of the Republic – OUPblog

Neither Adams nor the authors of the Federalist Papers were classical republicans in either the Aristotelian, Sallustian, or Machiavellian sense of the term. In a way you could say, therefore, that the political theory of the Constitution and the ratification debates left

Posted in Noted & Quoted, Political Philosophy, US History

Subtweet (American Conservative Eschaton)

With less and less semblance of temperamental conservatism, ever more self-destructively, nominally conservative Americans have sought in vain to immanentize as eschaton the non-immanentization of eschaton.

Posted in Featured, Political Philosophy, Politics, US History

Ian W. Toll: The atomic bomb was not the only way – NY Daily News

In a diary entry on July 25, 1945, Truman wrote that he had asked his secretary of war “to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children… “The target will

Posted in Noted & Quoted, US History, War

Louis René Beres: America Becomes What Its Founders Feared – The National Interest

For Edmund Randolph, the evils from which the new country was suffering had originated in the “turbulence and follies of democracy.” Regularly, Elbridge Gerry spoke of democracy as “the worst of all political evils,” and Roger Sherman hoped that “the

Posted in Noted & Quoted, Political Philosophy, US History

The Argument for Reparations, and the Question of Justice

Coates vs Sanders… and Lincoln

Posted in Politics, US History

Still Doing It (the Animated American Way of War)

…highly prescient, from the vantage point of 1943, regarding the American reliance on technological solutions to political and military challenges.

Posted in US History, War Tagged with:

Ordinary Preliminaries to a Deconstruction of Strategic Counter-Revolution Etc.

When blog conversation (or “reading the comments”) works well, I think: The discussion under a very short (“Off the Cuff”) post (written on the occasion of some stray Twitter traffic and unrelated technical or “back-end” work) may have produced the

Posted in Internet, Political Philosophy, US History, War Tagged with: ,

Confederates in Love

“Chris” notes that Civil War monuments are much more common in the South than the North. Throughout much of the South, it is impossible to escape The War. It may be objected at this point, by those of you who

Posted in Featured, notes, Political Philosophy, US History, War Tagged with: , , ,

Chastising Their Insolence

It is hard to imagine a world in which acts like the murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff simply as Americans, in connection with an American decision to rescue others from imminent annihilation, did not produce among Americans a demand for punishment as both practical and moral necessity. Yet there is a tendency even among many would-be supporters of President Obama, or of his plans to “degrade and ultimately destroy” “the group known as ISIL,” to diminish and disdain politically aggravated homicides as actual and compelling bases for a specifically American reaction.

Posted in Featured, The Exception, US History, War Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Exceptionality vs Exceptionalism (Comment at S-USIH Blog)

Ben Alpers at the Society for US Intellectual History Blog provides a useful capsule history on American Exceptionalism: For most of the history of the term – which originally emerged in the 1920s in debates between Lovestoneites and Stalinists over

Posted in Neo-Imperialism, notes, US History Tagged with: , ,

Archived Storify dialogue on Cliven Bundy’s alleged racism

Viewable on Storify here.

Posted in Culture & Entertainment, notes, Politics, US History Tagged with: , , ,

The State of the Neo-Empire Is Strong

All the other guys and gals, the losers and the second-raters, the backworldspeople, are the ones who need policy and strategy: The Neo-Empire or Empire of Liberty is its own strategy and is by “being there” already the final determinant of every policy and politics. Hegemony is. It simply “lives hegemonically.” All else on Earth if not necessarily in Heaven (nor necessarily not) is secondary, though perhaps usefully diversionary, since an achieved new consensus, as we occasionally set out to remind ourselves, would be counterproductive compared to the actual, virtually inarticulable but pre-eminently successful one, and possibly the sole true danger to it.

Posted in Featured, Neo-Imperialism, US History Tagged with: , , ,

Standing athwart themselves

Nothing prevents those with a conservative outlook or temperament from remaining aware of dire and whole wide world-encompassing possibilities, even the possibility or perhaps the certainty of their own, or their community’s, or nation’s, or culture’s, or civilization’s eventual impossibilization, but any sensibly conservative regard for language, or any conservative understanding of the idea of a conservative understanding, does or ought to prevent its advocacy, with or without the yelling.

Posted in Anismism, Philosophy, Politics, US History

American conservatives

The war the fellows in the Minuteman costumes thought they were fighting was already lost generations if not centuries ago.

Posted in Neo-Imperialism, Political Philosophy, Politics, US History Tagged with: , ,

Notes on A Living Originalism

The purpose of this unusually long post is to review and expand upon a discussion under a set of posts by Tim Kowal and Burt Likko, who are practicing attorneys with interest in Constitutional Law, on doctrines of Constitutional interpretation. The perhaps still distant objective is a framework for a “synthetic originalism” or “vital originalism” or “living originalism,” or a Unified Theory or at least Adequate Description of American Constitutionalism…

Posted in Featured, Legal Philosophy, Political Philosophy, The Exception, US History Tagged with: , , , , , ,

Respecting an Establishment of Religion

Every nation gets the religion that it believes in.

Posted in Anismism, Philosophy, Politics, US History Tagged with: , , , , ,

Noted & Quoted

(0)

President Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics.

The allegations, if true, would appear to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and the former Soviet republics, even as US-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

Manafort pitched the plans to Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million (£8 million) annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP.

Comment →
(0)

The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Trump’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.

In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a trump supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Trump as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”

By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.

“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”

Comment →
(1)

If there's anything mitigating the bad news for the White House here, it is that Comey may have also sent subtle signals that the matters under investigation are not principally about the personal conduct of Trump himself. While this is speculation, I do not believe that if Comey had, say, validated large swaths of the Steele dossier or found significant Trump-Russia financial entanglements of a compromising variety, he would have said even as much as he said today. I also don't think he would have announced the scope of the investigation as about the relationship "between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government" or "coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts"; these words suggest one step of removal from investigating the President himself. If the latter were the case, I suspect Comey wouldn't have used words suggestive of the Flynn-Manafort-Page cabal.

But that's reading a lot into a relatively small number of tea leaves. What is clear is that this was a very bad day for the President. In it, we learned that there is an open-ended Russia investigation with no timetable for completion, one that's going hang over Trump's head for a long time, and one to which the FBI director is entirely committed.

Comment →

@CK_MacLeod

State of the Discussion

bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Yeah, I read C's comments as trying to do a variety of things at the same time, having the effect of making interpretation more difficult. Any [. . .]
Benjamin Wittes: How to Read What Comey Said Today – Lawfare
bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Sure, so why do they have "work Phones" they take home? Even if they don't have fate of the world responsibilities, who they work [. . .]
Isenstadt and Vogel: Paranoia seizes Trump’s White House – POLITICO

Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins

Categories

In Progress

Support This Site?