Since I share the books I read, thought I would share the last week or so of articles or longreads I've shared at my Pocket feed - those pieces that stoke my thinking fires - along with what my immediate reaction was upon reading/sharing...
1. "Donald Trump's takeover of his party is near complete" @ The Economist
Once again, I feel like The Economist gets so many things right; and one of the points of this article is something I feel I struggle to get some of my fellow liberals to understand - Trump is popular among Republicans (to the tune of 85%). He has become the Republican party standard bearer. It is do disjointing, truly, to realize this. Growing up, the Republican party seemed to campaign iteslef on the idea that it was th eparty of values and tough ideas; from a philosophical standpoint I was always in disagreement, but from a temperament standpoint, I felt I had much in common.
Not so much anymore. No matter how much I read, I struggle with seeing a man so devoid of what I feel are basic requirements - decency, thirst for knowledge - be a standard bearer for our country. But here we are. I suppose this article at least continues my process of processing it all.
2. "A Voyage Along Trump's Wall" - @ The New Yorker
One of the better examples of the benefit of long form journalism. The piece takes a look at the Rio Grande, the border river between the United States and Mexico. It discusses the impact of the political talk of a wall, not from the perspective of people; but how it will impact the surrounding environment, the wildlife, the river.
You join the author during a voyage down the river, and regardless of politics, gain an appreciation for landscape that would otherwise be unknown to many.
3. "McMaster and Commander" - @ The New Yorker
Terrific piece; one that speaks to the benefit of long form journalism, it takes us inside parts of McMaster's tenure as National Security Advisory.
There is insight here on the dynamic at play in serving a man who is not fit for the presidency, but is the President nonetheless. McMaster, who obtained his doctorate in part writing about the failure of military leaders to provide LBJ unvarnished advice about the Vietnam War, almost comes off as a Shakespearan character; he's trapped in the very scenario he railed against.
Great journalism; but the content of which makes me continually nervous for our country under Trump's presidency.
4. "Searching for a Future Beyond Facebook" - @ Longreads
This piece focused on Facebook, but it's not just Facebook. We live in a time that has some eerie parallels with the Gilded Age, which makes me wonder if we have the courage to enact similar/more expansive antitrust legislation.
5. "Two Decades of War Have Eroded the Morale of America's Troops" - @ The Atlantic
This feels like such an important read. The author, Phil Klay, is a veteran and a Marine, having served in Iraq. He emphasizes the importance of having clear objectives in any war for the morale of the troops, but also the value of those being recognized and debated by the President, Congress, and the American public. That debate, Klay contends, gives value and importance to the work the military is doing, and that sense of purpose boosts their morale. However, as Klay notes, the last ten years has seen us - as a government and as a society - to distance ourselves from the reality of war, to the point of not even recognizing that we are at war, or even having a thoughtful and meaningful conversations about it in Congress or in media.
One point continues to stick with me from Klay's piece -
"So while America as a whole chooses to express its love for its military in gooey, substance-free displays, our military waits, perhaps hopelessly, for a coherent national policy that takes the country’s wars seriously.
"What would such a thing look like? It would probably look like rescinding the open-ended Authorization for the Use of Military Force and making the president regularly go before Congress to explain where and why he was putting troops in harm’s way, what resources the mission required, and what the terms of success were. It would look like every member of Congress carrying out his or her constitutionally mandated duty to provide oversight of our military adventures by debating and then voting on that plan. It would look like average Americans taking part in that debate, and scorning anyone who tried to tell them they couldn’t. It would look like average Americans rolling their eyes in disgust when our leaders tell us we’re not at war while American troops are risking their lives overseas, or claim that Americans must support the wars their country engages in if they want to support the troops, or when a press secretary argues that anyone who questions the success of a military raid in which a service member died “owes an apology” to that fallen soldier. It would look like our politicians letting the fallen rest in peace, rather than propping up their corpses for political cover. And when service members die overseas in unexpected places, such as the four killed in Niger last year, it would look like us eschewing the easy symbolic debates about whether our president is disrespecting our troops by inartfully offering condolences or whether liberals are disrespecting our troops by seizing upon those inartful condolences for political gain. It would look like us instead having a longer and harder conversation about the mission we are asking soldiers to perform, and whether we are doing them the honor of making sure it’s achievable."
No comments:
Post a Comment