Sixty-One Years Ago
Thursday, Nov. 22, was the 61st anniversary of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas. Heather Cox Richardson wrote about it in her ‘Letters from an American’ posting dated Nov. 22, 2024. Copy and paste
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/ on your browser line or CLICK HERE to read her posting. It concludes with Jacquline Kennedy’s words, after refusing to change from her bloodied suit, ‘I want them to see what they have done to Jack.’
(‘They’ are still around, in Texas and elsewhere.)
JL
* * *
But enough of URLs and clickable links for today!
Here’s Yale Professor Timothy Snyder’s ‘Thinking About’ posting dated Nov. 24 in its entirety, dealing with the totally unqualified Secretary of Defense proposed by the president-elect.
"Pete Hegseth: The Short Course’
(Thirteen Steps to National Destruction) - Timothy Snyder Nov 24, 2024
1. Pete Hegseth, Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, has no qualifications for the job. He has never run a large organization and has no national security expertise.
2. Hegseth has zero notion of which other countries might threaten America or how. In his books this is simply not a subject, beyond a few clichés.
3. Hegseth does not believe in alliances. For him, “NATO is a great example of dumb globalism.”
4. Hegseth wants a political army that bans women from combat roles, is purged of "cowardly generals," and is anti-woke.
5. Hegseth never notes that the politicized Russian army meets all of his standards perfectly, but it is ineffective and commits war crimes.
6. Hegseth never notes that the Ukrainian army, which does have women in combat, and is not politicized in the way he would like, has overperformed.
7. Hegseth has almost nothing to say about the most significant armed conflict of our time and has not visited Ukraine or learned anything about it.
8. Hegseth’s misogynist gender politics are consistent with his polygamy and the accusations of rape.
9. Hegseth's enemies are all internal: the Left, Muslins, and immigrants. He repeatedly claims that the Left wishes to annihilate everyone else, which is a call to violence.
10. Hegseth, a Christian Reconstructionist, believes that Americans should be governed not by law or by the Constitution but by God -- as interpreted of course by Hegseth and his friends.
11. Hegseth calls for a "holy war" and a "crusade" against Americans who think differently than he does because "God wills it." Trump is the pretext: Hegseth wants "to make crusade great again."
12. Hegseth, according to his books, could be counted upon to ignore threats to America from abroad, and to use a purged and politicized military against “enemies within.” This is consistent with Trump's avowed intention to build a kind of dictatorship on the ruins of a dysfunctional government.
13. Hegseth thus represents a policy of regime change. Trump’s nomination of Hegseth is best understood as part of a decapitation strike against the republic. A Christian Reconstructionist war on Americans led from the Department of Defense is likely to break the United States.
PS: I wrote a much longer post on this subject, hewing to a thought that I had about the usefulness of Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale as a lens to see dangers of Christian Reconstructionism for the American republic.
I think, though, that Hegseth's anti-qualifications for the position of secretary of defense are so blatant that they deserve a separate and clear presentation.
As before, I rely upon and draw quotations from his books ‘The War on Warriors: ‘Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free (2024);’ ‘Battle for the American Mind: Uprooting a Century of Miseducation’ (2023, with David Goodwin); and ‘American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free (2020).”
(Visit Professor Timothy Snyder’s ‘Thinking About’ blog at https://snyder.substack.com/ to see his other recent postings such as the ones supporting Ukraine, and those likening the religious orientation of the incoming administration to the Margaret Atwood novel he mentions.)
JL
* * *
Strange Bedfellows Department
Those whose votes on Election Day were motivated by a desire to restrict immigration, legal or otherwise, can find allies in most of the workers who clean their houses, tend to their landscaping, bus the tables and work in the kitchens of their favorite restaurants, and do the housekeeping chores in our hotels and motels, as well as working on our farms and at many construction sites.
They don’t want anyone coming into the country who can take away their jobs, regardless of what it took for them to get them in the first place … immigration, both legal or otherwise!
JL
* * *
When a Democratic Congressman Draws the Ire of More Progressive Democrats
Massachusetts Democratic Representative Seth Moulton has drawn criticism, if not hatred, from ‘progressive’ Democrats for statements he has made lately.
“We’ve worked so hard at becoming tolerant that we’ve become intolerant,” Moulton, who represents the suburbs north of Boston, was quoted on the Free Press site (11/25/24) as saying.
The ‘hatred’ started about two weeks ago, when Moulton in a New York Times article explaining why Kamala Harris lost, included that the Democratic Party had become overly focused on trans issues. “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face,” Moulton told the Times. “I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
Is not being able to say something like what Moulton said a concern or even a litmus test for office holders, even progressive Democrats?
Somewhere else I’ve read about the difference between ‘ignorance of what is true’ and ‘ignoring what is true,’ the latter requiring a conscious effort.
Both words, ‘ignorant’ and ‘ignore’ come from the same Latin root, ‘ignorare’ which means ‘to not know’ or ‘to be ignorant of.’ ‘Ignore,’ however, has come to mean to ‘willfully disregard something.’ That might be a dangerous choice to make. A pedestrian might be ignorant of what a red light at an intersection means, but ignoring it might be fatal.
JL
* * *
The Struggle for Constitutional Power in Washington
A great fear of many Americans is that the president-elect will get to do some of the things which were part of his campaign threats, actions which can push the Constitution to its breaking point, or beyond. How much independence will the Congressional and Judicial Branches of our government retain? The president-elect can, and is, attacking that independence.
One of his weapons are ‘recess appointments,’ intended in the time of the Founding Fathers to enable appointments to be made while Senators were often unavailable because of the distances from their home States to the halls of Congress, requiring trips on horseback or in horsedrawn vehicles. Trump can work with the House Speaker, beholden to him, to artificially create the need for such ‘recesses.’
House Speaker Johnson, whose staying in office is dependent on the votes of the president-elect's support among MAGA House members can create occasions for recess appointments |
The required ‘advise and consent’ role of the Senate can thusly be bypassed, and in effect, the intent of the Constitution thwarted.
Another trick, ‘impoundment,’ is refusing to spend the funds approved by Congress for specific purposes. The Constitution specifically gives the task of raising revenues to the House of Representative (Article 1, Sec. 7), but nowhere does it say the Executive Branch must use them.
Although the writers of the Constitution provided for three branches of government, it was clear that they placed Congress in a dominant position, with the Executive and Judicial branches secondary to the House and the Senate, when all of the Constitution’s checks and balances are weighed.
Clearly, the actions of a president who wants to upset this balance is disregarding the Constitution. Government officials, including those in the Armed Forces, take an oath to first support the Constitution, not the president, the judiciary nor the legislature, although one of a president’s duties is to be Commander-in-Chief of the military.
Right now, the president-elect and his supporters are behaving as if they have a mandate from the people to do these things on which he campaigned. Far from it. The election was a close one, certainly not a mandate. Those who support the president-elect, and those who do not, both recognize his lack of real qualification for the office of President, regardless of what they say.
He is dependent on others, some of whom he might appoint and others to whom he might just listen.
This results in the president-elect’s most ardent supporters inaccurately claiming a massive mandate for Trump to do whatever it is Trump wants to do over the next four years. The underlying message to Americans: ‘Whatever comes next, it’s exactly what you asked for — so there’s no use in complaining.’ That’s what they hope the public will swallow.
But it really is just a sign that governmental power really is up for grabs between a Congress elected by the people and the Executive Branch, populated by appointees who will do the president’s bidding.
If Congress does not bend to the president’s will, particularly in the Senate’s role of ‘advise and consent,' he can threaten them with primary challenges or right now, suggest that he will push for recesses so he can appoint his nominees without their constitutionally-mandated advice and consent.
It is entirely possible that MAGA Republicans will, in the end, force Congress into their camp, permitting Trump and his cronies to do whatever they wish. (There are about four Republican Senators who will find this difficult to do.) It is also possible that over the next four years, Republican Senators and Representatives will themselves develop spines and take back for Congress the power that has over the years gradually shifted to the presidency and check the most dangerous and unpopular of Trump’s plans and begin the process of restoring the balance of the three branches of government.
(Many of these thoughts come from opinion pieces by David French and Heather Cox Richardson written over the past few days, as well as from NPR’s brief, but valuable daily ‘Up Front’ feature.)
But what can YOU, as an individual, do amidst this struggle for power? First, you can follow news sources that deal with truth so that you are on top of what is going on. That isn’t as easy as it sounds. Dependence on TV and the internet is not enough. Then, you can remain politically active so that you are ready to support candidates in 2026 and 2028 who believe in the Constitution, and not in twisting it for their own personal benefit.
And finally, you must personally address the question of how a ‘government of the people, for the people, and by the people’ can best serve the ‘people.’ Imagine a buffet table presenting choices including laws (or their absence) that benefit businesses and the wealthy, whose successes will benevolently spread to all citizens … as well as social and economic programs that reach all citizens more directly, without victimizing others.
JL
* * *
A Final Thought About the Election Results
An administration that passed legislation to bring manufacturing back to the United States after decades of offshoring, and supported numerous infrastructure projects, all backed it up with more than $1 trillion in private-sector investments by the government, as President Biden has just boasted, sounds like something Republicans might do, with benefits ‘trickling down’ to American workers through job creation. Voters were usually unaware of this route which the money followed. And that’s why working people, who were only indirectly on the receiving end of part of that trillion dollars, felt abandoned and fell for Republican lies. Trump is no more a protector of working people than he is of the nation's women.
Perhaps President Biden should have insisted on billboards at the site of all businesses thusly benefited reading ‘Brought to the Working People of America by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Congress.’
JL
* * *
Housekeeping on Jackspotpourri
Forwarding Postings: Please forward this posting to anyone you think might benefit from reading it (Friends, relatives, enemies, etc.) If you want to send someone the blog, you can just tell them to check it out by visiting https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com or you can provide a link to that address in your email to them.
There’s another, perhaps easier, method of forwarding it though!
Google Blogspot, the platform on which Jackspotpourri is prepared, makes that possible. If you click on the tiny envelope with the arrow at the bottom of every posting, you will have the opportunity to list up to ten email addresses to which that blog posting will be forwarded, along with a brief comment from you. Each will receive a link to click on that will directly connect them to the blog.
Either way will work, sending them the link to https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com, or clicking on the envelope at the bottom of this posting.
Email Alerts: If you are NOT receiving emails from me alerting you each time there is a new posting on Jackspotpourri, just send me your email address and we’ll see that you do. And if you are forwarding a posting to someone, you might suggest that they do the same, so they will be similarly alerted. You can pass those email addresses to me by email at jacklippman18@gmail.com.
Again, I urge you to forward this posting to anyone you think might benefit from reading it.
JL
* * *