Tea at Trianon: Trump Meets the Press

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Tuesday, December 10, 2024

Trump Meets the Press

From Tierney's Real News:

TRUMP: Well, we’re going to do something with the border, very strong, very powerful. That’ll be our first signal — first signal to America that we’re not playing games. We have people coming in by the millions, as you know, and a lot of people shouldn’t be here. Most of them shouldn’t be here. But we have jails being emptied into our country. We have mental institutions from all over the world being emptied into our country. So we’ll be doing that.
We’re going to be extending within that period or as soon as we can the Trump tax cuts, because you know they’re coming due and they’re very substantial for people. It would be very — and I think it will anger a lot of people, frankly, if we don’t get an extension of that. That’s what led us to one of the greatest economies ever. And those two things are going to be very vital, very important.
We’re going to be focusing on crime in the cities, and we’ll work with Democrat governors. Most of them are, as you know, if you look at the 25 worst places, they’re just about all Democrat-controlled cities and states. And we’re going to be working with Democrat governors and Democrat mayors, and I look forward to doing it. But we have to do something about crime, and mostly in our cities.
And we’re going to have a lot of other things. We’ll be working on nominations. I think they’re going very well. It looks like Pete Hegseth is doing well now. I mean, people were a little bit concerned. He’s a young guy with a tremendous track record, actually. Went to Princeton and went to Harvard. He was a good student at both. But he loves the military, and I think people are starting to see it, so we’ll be working on his nomination along with a lot of others. (Read more.)

From The American Conservative:

In the national security realm, Trump has promised the American people “peace through strength” and found widespread support for this formula, which may hark back to the golden era of Ronald Reagan. And that’s one consistent theme among all of his foreign policy choices, who come from a variety of backgrounds.
Several of the picks could be considered classic conservative “hawks” in that they have continuously advocated for military escalation against rivals. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL), nominated to the key positions of secretary of state and national security advisor respectively, certainly fit in this category. Nonetheless, we can already see examples of Trump’s unique approach influencing his top advisors. Thus, Waltz actually decried President Joe Biden’s recent decision to allow Ukraine to fire U.S.-made missiles directly into Russian territory: “This is another step up the escalation ladder, and no one knows where this is going.”

Two other picks in the national security domain, Peter Hegseth for secretary of defense and Tulsi Gabbard for the director of national intelligence, correspond more closely with Trump’s vision for American foreign policy. Notably, they are both from a National Guard background, which may partially explain their shared strong inclination against U.S. military interventions abroad. Hegseth, for instance, endorsed a law in New Hampshire that would prohibit sending National Guard troops into conflicts overseas without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war from Congress. Hegseth, a veteran-turned–Fox News defense analyst, was one of the most unusual of Trump’s selections; now his nomination unfortunately seems to be in significant trouble due to allegations of malfeasance.

Like Hegseth, Gabbard also served with distinction in America’s wars in the Middle East and came away disturbed by what she saw there. During her service in Iraq, Gabbard witnessed first-hand the devastation and enormous costs of that war, including to her fellow American soldiers. As an Iraq War veteran, Gabbard may well be particularly suited to serve as director of national intelligence, coordinating America’s myriad, sprawling intelligence agencies. She is well aware that intelligence has too often skewed assessments—including with respect to nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction—with devastating results. The paradigmatic case for the misuse of intelligence is the Iraq War, but intelligence failure has also haunted the U.S. government more recently—for example, when overly optimistic estimates of “progress” in Afghanistan kept the U.S. stuck in that quagmire far longer than was necessary for U.S. national security. (Read more.)