New York Times piece (PW penetrating linked here) on how Trump/Vance etc. aim to demean American ideals

[Muse]

This is a strong piece, close to perfect. The comments by NYTimes readers are almost uniformly positive, and worth reading.

This link will work for 14 days, i.e. until June 13, 2025

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

 

[pmv]

This is a strong piece, close to perfect. The comments by NYTimes readers are almost uniformly positive, and worth reading.

This link will work for 14 days, i.e. until June 13, 2025

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

No sure I agree with that article. The idea that 'soldiers don't fight for patriotism or grand ideals, they fight for the guys in the trench beside them' is one I've heard many many times before (including in accounts by actual former soldiers) - it's a very common argument. Not having been in a war myself I don't know, but it always sounded entirely plausible.

I also think the constant harping on about the US being founded on 'ideals' is part of the problem. It's not being honest about the real situation.

Also, I kind of think

that life is a zero-sum struggle between racial, national, partisan and ethnic groups

Is partially correct. Though, he lists the wrong categories. Very significantly, he misses out by far the most important one - 'economic' - in that list, but there are other ways of defining groups that also matter. Ultimately life is a zero-sum struggle between different groups, that's what politics is.

 

[Muse]

No sure I agree with that article. The idea that 'soldiers don't fight for patriotism or grand ideals, they fight for the guys in the trench beside them' is one I've heard many many times before (including in accounts by actual former soldiers) - it's a very common argument. Not having been in a war myself I don't know, but it always sounded entirely plausible.

I also think the constant harping on about the US being founded on 'ideals' is part of the problem. It's not being honest about the real situation.

Also, I kind of think



Is partially correct. Though, he lists the wrong categories. Very significantly, he misses out by far the most important one - 'economic' - in that list, but there are other ways of defining groups that also matter. Ultimately life is a zero-sum struggle between different groups, that's what politics is.

He doesn't counter the fight for your buddy in the trench, which is undeniable. What he counters is the assertion that ideology and idealism have no importance. You hear again and again if you pay attention that veterans are dismayed at goings-on and say "that's not what I fought for."