Skip to main content

The war with Iran: Part Three, Cracks in the MAGA coalition


For a long time, much of the political appeal of  President Donald Trump has come from his professed opposition to “forever wars.”  

One of his many explicit statements to this effect dates from his State of the Union address in 2019.  He said, “Great nations do not fight endless wars.”  If you need a link for that: behold. Given his goal to make America “great again,” this language clearly amounts to a commitment to use his position as commander-in-chief to keep the United States out of endless wars.


Yet here we are, with Trump once again the commander-in-chief and with his commitment to war with Iran open-ended. He began the attack on Iran at the end of February and throughout March he has put his renunciation of his earlier view front-and-center. He has used his own proprietary social-media platform, “Truth Social,” to explain to us that “Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies (which are better than other countries finest arms!).” 


A literal reading of these words is that his complaint about endless/forever wars was really just a complaint that the munitions might run out.  Having been assured regarding the stockpile, he is now, it appears, an enthusiast. 


Fortunately, I gather, this has created cracks in the Trumpian political coalition. There may even be a rift brewing with his own vice president, J.D. Vance, who was silent for nearly 72 hours after the first strikes against Iran, a marked silence given his usual continuing activity in getting his own name out their in support of all things Trump via social media etc.


There has been some coverage, for example from Politico, that indicates that Vance was skeptical about the attack in the internal deliberations.


Vance was ‘skeptical’ voice in White House on Iran strikes - POLITICO


One will not at this point be surprised to learn that, when the issue of a possible Vance/Trump split on this subject came up with a gaggle of reporters, Trump sought to have both sides.


Vance “was, I’d say, philosophically a little different from me. I think he was maybe less enthusiastic about going, but he was still quite enthusiastic." There is a difference, there is not a difference.  I'm all for whiskey and all against it. If you have a sufficiently well-tuned enthusiasmometer there is a difference, but it is not one that makes a difference.


We will pay attention to a final aspect of the matter tomorrow and thereafter this blog shall say adieu to the war for some time.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
22 comments
Read more

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...
2 comments
Read more