Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat Threatens Inst. Autonomy | Hacker News Reader

Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat Threatens Inst. Autonomy

pen.org

64 pointsthe_why_of_y115 comments

I kind of agree with the person in the article that says the politicians that meddled in the fact that the lecture would be given did the very thing they claim they were concerned about.

That’s not the first time it happens. It’s always fine if they do it, but terrible if the other side does.

Not to mention the irony of “wanting to avoid even appearing to violate Federal law”, given the person the politicians are concerned about.

You can agree or disagree with Ben-Ghiat's thesis, but legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.

The whole point of these kinds of lectures and discussions are to spark debates and conversations among decisionmakers.

It is especially ironic because Ben-Ghiat's research is explicitly about that - political meddling in military administration lead to degraded institutional capacity.

Look at 10/7 in Israel or Russia's fiasco in Ukraine - both are examples of how military and intelligence capacity can be degraded by political meddling.

> legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.

This is exactly wrong. Legislators are supposed to intervene when an executive department comes dangerously close to breaking the law. This is doubly so for the military (Congress holds hearings on military action all the time, must authorize nonwar military action beyond 90 days, has special, stricter rules for military appropriations, etc.).

In this specific case, the idea that the US military academies are "autonomous" from Congress is kind of an unserious argument (or, at best misinformed). To get a seat as a student you must get a letter of recommendation from a sitting legislator. All of the generals and admirals, including those in charge of the institutions are required to be nominated and confirmed by the US Congress before they take their positions.

There is NOTHING illegal about a civilian giving an academic lecture for other academics.

The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well.

This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.

The usna is a part of the executive branch and the executive cannot sponsor election related content (hatch act). The author posted a blog post referring to the lecture in question which called out the specific name of a candidate. If the author made such a reference during her lecture, even if by accident, the organizers, officers of the executive branch, would be at risk of prosecution for sponsoring an election related event, which would be a complete pain in the ass even if they would be found innocent. Cancelling the lecture was prudent. Maybe postponing the lecture would been a more politic choice, but it was still a reasonable thing to do.

That is an unserious argument. Or, at least, one made in a vacuum.

When making judgements there is following the letter of the law and then there is making equitable decisions, which takes into account both the letter of law and the context in which the decision is being made.

In our current environment, where a potential incoming chief executive of the USA is, according to some military leaders who worked closely with him, a fascist, the equitable decision is to have the lecture now.

The alternative is to wait until that chief executive may be in power, at which point pressure not to have the lecture will only increase.

If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy?

<< the equitable decision is to have the lecture now.

Sure assuming lecture titled "Why is Trump worse than Hitler?" is paired with another lecture along the lines of "Why is Kamala worse than Mao?" If you can't even pretend to be even-handed about it, this is just a partisan play.

But, honestly, the thing that really grinds my gears is not that. My issue is that army about the last institution in US the public KINDA trusts ( as compared to congress, senate, banks, corporates, clergy.. you name it ).

Why on earth would you want to fuck with it? Why do you insist on undermining it?

If there is an equally well regarded academic who holds that contrasting view, then yes I agree with you have that lecture otherwise there is an appearance of favoritism. But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.

<< If there is an equally well regarded academic

And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You?

<< But none of us should feel obliged to conjure that lecture if no such academic exists.

In US alone, we should be able to locate at least one among thousands ( According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 10,220 sociology professors in colleges, universities, and professional schools, and 2,630 in junior colleges. - just google search )?

I suppose we could limit it to what who gets published, shown on TV and so on, but then we would go back to the 'regarding' question, but, at its core, this is US, where people publish all sorts of idiocy all the time.. I somehow doubt it would require much conjuring.

Not to search very far, Buhle has something to say on the subject ( Marxism in the United States: A history of the American left[1] ), but to your point.. not on Kamala specifically.

I am willing to give you a 'you got a point here.'

[1]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1749496.Marxism_in_the_U...

<< And this is where it gets fun. Who is doing the regarding? MSNBC? Me? You?

Their peers.

Ahh, yes. Because policing themselves did such wonders for the industry? Not to mention, such a great job of securing the trust of the population. No dice.

What are you talking about? “The industry”? Securing the trust? ??? I’m done here.

Good for you sport. You sure showed me whats what.

I don't think facts are subject to a fairness doctrine. You'll find basically every academic in existence saying Trump is a fascist because he is observably so based on statements he and those around him make, and policies he enacted.

The question then is how is it not a first amendment violation for the state to prohibit a speaker presenting factual and evidence-based research.

One of the topics of the lecture might well have been how to retain that institution's integrity after the election of a President who absolutely wants to undermine it. Seems pretty relevant to me.

Are you sure you are responding to the correct argument? Relevance of presentation has no bearing on what I presented in the post you responded to.

Can I assume intended to respond to my initial post where I compared that unknown lecture to dancing at defcon?

If you are, then allow me to retort simply by stating the following about your argument:

<< One of the topics of the lecture might well have been how to retain that institution's integrity after the election of a President who absolutely wants to undermine it

Your entire argument hinges on 'might have been'. It would have helped if you had something more concrete than what you want it to be. I could offer some "might have beens" as well and they will be just as relevant.

It does not change anything, because that is not what the core issue is.

I say “might have been” because the lecture was suppressed before we could hear its contents. But what I said is consistent with what its contents were announced to be: Historical perspective on what has happened in countries where dictators came to power.

You claimed delivering this perspective would “undermine the institution”, whereas I think it would strengthen the institution, in what might be a very timely fashion.

<< You claimed delivering this perspective would “undermine the institution”, whereas I think it would strengthen the institution, in what might be a very timely fashion.

Friend, if the lecture means institution being pulled into political fray, then it will do a lot, but it will not strengthen it. You don't believe me? Look how well FBI is regarded these days after being pulled in on a semi-regular basis.

> If the lecturer in fact violates the hatch act, that can be dealt with when it happens. Even if it is a pain in the ass. Who said this was supposed to be easy

That is a facile fucking thing for you to say. You have literally nothing on the line. You are saying "other people should risk going to jail for my beliefs". Fuck that, man.

The internet has lost its mind.

This is nowhere near a Hatch act violation. First off the Hatch Act doesn't apply to uniformed personnel. What does apply is https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/do... and I just don't see a lecture by a historian, even if it seems to touch on relevant material to the election as falling within it. And that's the case even if someone asks a question and later the conversation becomes more partisan. The traditions of academic freedom would say that speakers aren't identified with the Constitution.

Should we prohibit the Latinists at West Point from talking about Cataline? It just isn't the case that every possible statement is prohibited even if it weighs in on matters that some candidates have spoken about.

“PEN America today sharply criticized some Republican members of Congress”

The press release claims that the org sharply criticized but did not provide any evidence that actually occurred. Did they do this via a text message, visit offices or what?

It's right there, in the press release:

>>> Jonathan Friedman, Sy Syms director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression programs, said:

“The irony cannot be lost here: government officials have used their positions to muscle out a scholar of authoritarianism from a prestigious lecture," <<<

Did Friedman utter those words to any member of Congress? Was he at a podium in an empty room at midnight?

Government institutions are not meant to be autonomous. Outside of a narrow set of explicitly political positions, everyone who is in government should be apolitical in the carrying out of their duties.

That is closely related to autonomy. And the service academies are serious academic institutions. Inviting speakers on military history is very valuable to cadets and midshipmen. Why wouldn't they do it to give their students a broader view of what it means to be an officer?

Historians who can’t analyze politics are useless, and a military education system that ignores history is ineffective.

Specifically, since this is a military institution, remember that all members swear (or affirm) an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, except Republicans".

Snark aside, I would mention that when I left the military they did not ask me to renounce the oath. While it can be argued that it is implied to be limited to your term of service due to other language contained within, I am of the opinion that the important bits about 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic' are permanent. Unless you'd like to renounce it and declare your allegiance more specifically to something else.

I graduated from "Annapolis" (AKA USNA, "The Boat School") in the 70's. My second career was in high-tech here in Silicon Valley.

Let me state the "quiet part" of the Naval Academy's mission out loud: It aspires to train the Services' future admirals and generals. It is not a vocational school, nor is it really a college. It's something else.

It strikes me that the relationship between flag-rank officers and their civilian (political) leaders is fair game.

Having said that, the selection of this speaker is edgy. But it's the timing of the event that I think puts it in the bad-judgement-or-worse category. We used to call this "poor headwork."

My recommendation would have been to postpone the event until next year, and then reexamine the issue more closely. And to do all of the above quietly.

The problem with attempts to controll knowledge, aka limit it, is that it has a tendency to spiral. You limit information about this and that- some zealous partymonger goes astray and limits all the information related. Next you have a famine and because of the involved parties guilt about the dysfunction, knowledge is limited even further. You either have all the information, including the one about retardations going awry in the past. Or you do not and spiral down to become one of those figures in the history lectures doing bizar things, repeating past failures. Looking both ways in this comment. The whole narrative control thing of the left, which is completely blind to physical realities causing problems and makes everything a theater-society-production with a racist villian is almost as disgusting as the ahistoric "isolationism will solve our problems" of the right.

Any thoughts on the "narrative control thing of the" US right as detailed in this article?

Friend. After one of the more recent bigger political event in US, which, in more sane times, would have made most people pause, I asked people from 'the other side', if they would be willing to reconsider their current stance on 'speech', its limits and what is acceptable within society. They were not.

I guess what I am saying is that you probably should not be surprised when some will eventually say 'what is good for the goose'. I am personally not there yet, but I assure you it is a tempting position to take..

And this is before we ignore the background of potential ww3, normal election cycle tension and unusual, but very potent, vibes of potential civil war.

So... cool it with the US right, because you yourself are not helping. At all. More than that. You are actively making things worse. Good job?

There's a big difference between narratives plausibly based in fact and some shared version of reality - even if stretched and imperfect at times - versus narratives formed knowingly and deliberately out of lies.

"Both sides are bad" is simply untrue. One side is definitely categorically worse.

"Ben-Ghiat has stated that she did not intend to discuss Trump or contemporary America during the lecture, noting that the event was to be strictly nonpartisan."

https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-in...

""" -The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -

I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. """

And if you make it to the second sentence (I know I'm asking a lot):

I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.

This was, pretty plainly I think, meant to be note separate from the subject matter of the article whose title you found objectionable.

At the very least claiming neutrality after baking that sub stack title needs an explanation or apology, and even still the authorities involved are absolutely correct to cancel or at least postpone her lecture out of an abundance of caution to avoid a hatch act violation.

> least claiming neutrality after baking that sub stack title needs an explanation or apology

I don’t think the ability to deliver a nonpartisan lecture hinges on one’s “neutrality”, which is largely a fictional quality in human beings.

> avoid a hatch act violation

I don’t think it’s even hypothetically relevant to this case, but if recent years have taught us anything, it’s that nobody involved in US politics, law enforcement, or government is interested in seeing the Hatch Act enforced. I’d be delighted if that weren’t the case.

That's completely not true. I know firsthand of well-meaning ads put out by the veterans administration that urged veteran voters to go vote for X because it helps veterans that had to get pulled. It is a conflict of interest for low level bureaucrats in the administration to lobby the public for shit that puts money into its own pocket, and that is taken seriously.

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks. I looked up the case you seem to be referencing and I'm beginning to wonder if with the Hatch Act it's a case where the law applies to the little people but not the higher-ups.

Not that I am a politics junkie but I don't recall any incident where a cabinet level officer has made a public presentation urging the public to vote one way or the other. I suspect they are very coached on the hatch act and made to understand that for them the consequences are likely to be severe.

In case you're curious at the low level among civilians it happens all the time, usually settled with a minor slap on the wrist (few days probation and docked pay). For someone in the military though I suspect it could be career-ending at a minimum, with unknown punishments meted out via the UCMJ (generally stricter than civilian courts for things like this).

This one was pretty egregious though:

https://osc.gov/News/Pages/18-08-Hatch-Act-Complaint-VA-Doct...

Here are specific hatch act guidelines in the DOD: https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/DoD-Personnel/Ethics-Topics-for-...

Note that flag officers (generals, admirals) are SES equivalent.

> Not that I am a politics junkie but I don't recall any incident where a cabinet level officer has made a public presentation urging the public to vote one way or the other. I suspect they are very coached on the hatch act and made to understand that for them the consequences are likely to be severe.

There were some blatant, widely reported violations of the Hatch Act during the Trump administration. Unprosecuted, unless I missed something. I didn't follow this topic too closely either - that administration had ahem an awful lot going on - but people found by the OSC to have violated the Hatch Act included a few cabinet members. (I think how many depends on whether you want to count "acting" cabinet members unconfirmed by congress)

Bigger picture, I'm not sure I agree that they got the memo about violations of the Hatch Act having severe consequences. I remember media stories along the lines of "this upcoming scheduled campaign event at the White House would appear to possibly violate the Hatch Act" and the emergence of those stories did not result in a change of behavior. But they were protected in ways a VA Joe Schmoe would not be, and knew it.

https://osc.gov/Documents/Hatch%20Act/Reports/Investigation%... https://www.congress.gov/event/116th-congress/house-event/LC... https://osc.gov/News/Pages/21-02-Hatch-Act-Report-RNC.aspx

It's a bedrock of our system that the US military remain firmly under civil control and politically neutral. The article elides but deep-links through to Ben-Ghiat's Substack announcing the lecture, which is what set off the firestorm:

- The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -

I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.

_______________

That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military. ... Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.

I can see both sides of the argument on cancellation, but it's frankly idiotic to announce your lecture to the Naval Academy in an essay you directly title and then expound on your criticism of a leading presidential candidate vis-a-vis the military, weaving that criticism into the very topic of the lecture you are to give to the military. The same would be true if the politician was Biden, Harris or anyone else. The military needs to stay a 10 foot pole away from politics. The alternative is incredibly dangerous.

https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-in...

The military can't stay away from politics. They're deeply embedded in the heart of American politics and to paraphrase clausewitz, war itself is politics by other means. Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?

The military needs to be acutely aware the delicate politicsl balance their role requires. I don't see how you can do that without open discussions of politics.

You are talking past each other. GP is using politics in the "what is happening right now with specific players sense". You are talking about politics in "everything since Cicero with generality" sense. Both of you are correct. Military needs needs to stay out of the former and be aware of the latter.

> Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?

Of course not, and that's not what they meant.

The point is, those very important political discussions are left to civilians, and the military does what civilians decide. That is fundamental to democracy; without it, you have military dictatorship.

What Republicans are doing is not normal and we are not safe from it in technology.

If you think you should be able to moderate, or not turn over commenter data because of their political content, then you should be worried. It's no different that trying to plan a curriculum with guest lecturers. If they feel welcomed to intrude on this decision, then it won't stop there.

I genuinely don’t see much difference in behavior between the two parties

I am disappointed by both parties but see clear differences in ideology and more importantly, respect for the law, due process, and civil rights.

In particular, the full title of this article is, "Cancellation of Naval Academy Lecture by Ruth Ben-Ghiat at Behest of Republican Politicians Threatens Institutional Autonomy"

I agree there are idealogical differences even though they’re very similar in important ways too. I just meant behavior, no ideas, were very similar

I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples, given how many examples we have that there are major differences. Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.

At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.

Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.

<< I genuinely can't... understand that kind of sentiment without specific examples,

Hmm, what could be a good indicator of uniparty being in charge today? What current events could serve as a good indicator of why people may think it is all merely a kabuki theater with more cross-dressing than substance? What and who could possibly make denizens of US so gosh darn cynical? What could be the one thing establishment dems and reps just can't help themselves from doing?

<< At the meta level: one party is much more guilty of denying democratic norms, obstructing popular legislation in government for shrewd partisan purposes, and wanting to hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.

There is no 'more guilty'. You are either guilty of it or not. You want to be holy and claim to dispense divine wisdom? You don't get to piss in the holy water then.

<< Public education, affordable healthcare, protection of the environment and recognition of climate change.

Oh yeah. Such massive differences. So massive. Like. Public education. Everyone knows in Chicagoland left leaning individuals of means send their kids to public schools, because it is the right thing to do ( and public education is just the best kind of tits ). Everyone knows. And everyone who does not is likely an evil republican and likely a climate change denier. Maybe even a fascist.

<< hold up reforms to government that would make it more democratic and modern.

Why on earth would I want the government to be modern or more democratic? Do you even know what you are asking for here? And which government? Federal? State? Local?

Like seriously. Do you want the government to use new and improved Python 3.13? Do you have a strong objection to use of C++ in government code? Do you want it to use blockchain to validate voter information? Do you want to use AWS to store everything about everyone? Do you want memory protection? What? Talk about being specific.

And why anyone would want US to be more democratic, where an average voter is functional, semi-literate moron[1] ( From 2012 to 2017, a survey conducted with 12,330 adult participants aged between 16 and 74 had a mean score of 264 out of 500 on a literacy test. There were participants from every state and county within the total that took the exam. ; 54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level. )

They barely understand what is happening to them and you want to let them have more of a say how this country is run? Seriously?

Fuck man. If anything, we need to bring back full blown early republic when you had a right to vote if you had some skin in the game ( likely land ). Since it is 2024 we can add having kids as having a skin in the game.

<< Specific examples of that last point: Florida banning any form of voting besides First past the post, which is one of the worst ways to vote for a candidate. But it entrenches the established parties.

Is it a useful example in your book? To me it signifies little. Power tries to get more power. Surprise.

[1]https://www.crossrivertherapy.com/research/literacy-statisti...

You think public education is bad, but instead of trying to fix it, the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people. And who cares if political parties try to block reforms, that's just normal.

That isn't freedom.

Heh.

<< You think public education is bad

Yes, duh. I think based on the outcomes, it is hard to argue it is good. What are you even arguing here?

<< the solution is to disenfranchise poor people and childless people

Yes. I stated my reasons. You tell me why expanding franchise to dumb people and people without stake in the game is 'good for democracy'.

<< That isn't freedom.

I thought we were talking about democracy..

Democracy is the means to freedom. Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty. Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy?

"Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest."

Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people. Even things like reading tests or logic exams, which I would love in an ideal world, would quickly be used (and have been in the past) to oppress people.

So: Democracy is necessary in a free society, and permitting everyone to vote is necessary in a free society. If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.

<< Not giving the vote to "dumb" people is taking away their sovereignty.

I think there is clear level of misunderstanding of what sovereignty actually is. It is not some of sort semi-legal status.

Naturally, we could spend time here going over the definitions including how that definition refers to democracy and Democracy ( we can also spend fair amount of time discussing how the capital D differs from the small d and why it is relevant to this discussion ).

I am not sure it is that worthwhile, to be perfectly honest. There are tomes discussing it and most of it is rather dry.

<< "Democracy is the worst political system, other than all the rest."

I mean, since we are going for trite I will reply with similarly trite "Democracy is a nice idea if it was actually implemented." And now we can spar over whether US is a democracy, which also is largely a waste of everyone's time.

<< Anything short of universal adult suffrage is an attempt to oppress classes of people.

Just by stating above you effectively confirm there is no democracy in US. Again, a fair amount of boring writing on this largely centered around the concept of a class. I am not sure I am the right person to discuss that.

<< If we're going to require all people to vote, they should be as educated as possible. Hence free public education.

By your own logic, since we do not require people to vote, free public education is not necessary. I agree there is some benefit to it, but I am relatively firm in my stance in its current shape, it is in dire need of a reform ( and by that I do mean effectively nuking it from the orbit ).

FWIW, while I do not buy your argument I am sympathetic to the worldview it represents. It is hopeful.

edit:

<< Why do you think you'd be in the ruling class in your authoritarian fantasy?

You greatly misunderstand my perspective on the matter. You are effectively a slave now. In my fantasy, at least you have a shot to not be one. It is not a lot, but it is more than what you have now.

edit2:

We. We are slaves.

I said "require to vote" but meant "require the right to vote".

You have said a lot, but you haven't defined the world you want, except one where an aristocratic class has power over the masses.

Somehow you follow up with "public education is good in theory but since it doesn't currently work we should eliminate it".

You say we are all slaves, but don't propose any method or course of action that would lead to your fantasy of betterment. This is troubling.

---

And all of this gazing-into-the-whoskey-glass discussion fails to recognize the very real differences that the candidates have, which have very real impacts on millions of people.

I (and presumably you) are privileged that Trump can't deport us, or take away our right to some healthcare choices, and that we have savings accounts and jobs with health insurance.

I disagree with your worldview.

<< And all of this gazing-into-the-whoskey-glass discussion fails to recognize the very real differences that the candidates have, which have very real impacts on millions of people.

I like that phrase. I may end up stealing that.

I didn't say there are no differences or that there are no impacts. I said there were no real differences. Just because something has an impact on a number of people, does not make it important. Google email change may have a greater impact on most people's lives than some of the stuff we are talking about now.

But I will make a specific observation here and tell me your thoughts on it.

There is an amusing level of 'tax ideas' in the last moments of the campaign including no taxes on tips or no taxes on overtime, which, arguably has little to no real impact on the budget ( despite -- also arguably -- having some positive impact on the poor people ). Naturally, all of that has near zero chance of passing, which is partially the point I want to make here for you to consider.

This is literally the 'bread' part in panem et circenses and there is literally no chance of it happening despite being practically insignificant amount in the US annual budget.

What does that tell you about the priorities of the elected officials? What does it tell you about the candidates?

I know what I think here, but I am curious how you will defend espoused values of candidates vs the reality of what is being done ( or has been done or will be done ).

<< You say we are all slaves, but don't propose any method or course of action that would lead to your fantasy of betterment.

Which part? That there may be no way to make it better or the nature the reality we live in?

<< This is troubling.

Zero disagreement.

<< Somehow you follow up with "public education is good in theory but since it doesn't currently work we should eliminate it".

I am a simple man raised on Windows 98. Unfortunately, if there is one thing Microsoft taught me, it is that sometimes fresh install is necessary as no amount of fiddling will save it. This is largely how I feel about public education; no amount of fiddling will save this version..

<< I (and presumably you) are privileged that Trump can't deport us, or take away our right to some healthcare choices, and that we have savings accounts and jobs with health insurance.

In a sense, it is always a possibility. If you look at some of the fine print lately, you will note that naturalized citizenship could be stripped in some circumstances or that sometimes it does not matter if you are a citizen at all as long as the government deems you a big enough nuisance.

But that is not Trump's fault. If anything, he may be a symptom of a greater issue and a convenient face to justify even more fine print on our list of privileges ( just in case that nuance is lost, I am channeling immortal Carlin here ).

<< I disagree with your worldview.

That is ok. I do not come here to seek confirmation.

I do come here, because, people here, on average, are interesting, smart, and/or capable ( sometimes all three at the same time too ). Call it aspirational voyeurism.

Yes there are policy differences. My point is that the behavior is similar. They all lie, they all obstruct, they all gerrymander, they all have giant corporate and financial influence, they all drag their feet and fail to get anything meaningful passed, none of them care about real healthcare reform, they all push problematic overly capitalist ideals.

Yes there are differences. But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade and we still have broken healthcare, broken education, broke electorate systems, broken civil rights. If they were really that different we’d see different results based on who is in power, and we really barely do

Are you under 30? I ask because I wonder if you had to get your own health insurance prior to the ACA passage. I disagree with your premise about healthcare. If you don't remember the dreaded "gap in coverage" or "pre-existing condition", then you might not appreciate how much has been accomplished for improving healthcare. It didn't solve everything, clearly, but things are much better than they were 20 years ago.

Beyond that, saying "there are still problems, why didn't one party fix them" is a little unrealistic when another party has shared power and actively fought them. You might want to research the circumstances around Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the FY25 Education Appropriations Bill... there are a lot of examples if you look into it. The two major political parties are very different.

Mid late thirties. I still don’t get healthcare despite being unemployed for over a year bc it’s horrifically expensive for doing effectively absolutely nothing for me as a relatively healthy person. I can appreciate it’s different but will also mention that something like 20% of dems in the house still voted against the ACA. Obviously things have changed but my original point is about the ends justifying the means on both sides, and both sides use the same means

>But dems have had plenty of chances to pass meaningful changes in the past decade

I don't think we've had a Democratic president, a Democratic House, and a 60-seat Democratic majority in Congress in the past decade.

We have had meaningful improvements to healthcare for millions, though we don't have a public option. We are fighting against a right-wing political party looking to defund public education.

I'm curious how you say "civil rights" are broken: Do you mean privacy against a police state? I agree big tech and government can see and do too much without cause.

And working hand in glove to silence dissent is better?

Sure, why not, when you're not going to say what you're talking about.

So, her books compare Trump to Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and people are surprised that the event was cancelled.

Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.

All U.S. media organizations attempt the "Trump is Hitler" shtick as a final Hail Mary because they sense that Harris is going to lose. Just like in 2016.

The Republicans’ shtick is that any criticism of Republicans is entirely partisan and should be ignored or suppressed.

And they do so while whining about “cancel culture” all the time and pretending to “defend free speech”…

Did you not read that he just said he will use the military and government to jail his political opponents? Yesterday. So he may be different than Hitler in that he does not wear a moustach, but the promise to jail political rivals is a big problem. And no, there is not an equivalence to Trump’s current indictments - they are all based on his actual violation of actual laws - and they have yet to go to trial - verdicts have not been rendered, and he might be found not guilty. This is not the same as jailing or threatening to jail people who you simply suspect may not agree with you. Trump is a menace and if you think you will “get rich on crypto” if he does and or some other such fantasy, you might be in for disappointment- especially if he should randomly decide you are on his enemies list. Please don’t fall for this.

Everyone will agree that Trump makes silly comments! He made the same comments in 2016 and never even attempted to lock up anyone for the whole four years.

The Democrats always say the right things, but proceeded to try to lock up Trump for the entire period of 2021-2024.

Barking dogs don't bite, it seems that "Silent dogs bite" is also true.

Jeff Sessions was actively encouraged to investigate Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump which, to his credit, he largely resisted as he had decided to refuse himself on all matters that might be related to the 2016 campaign (Sessions had been a member of the Trump campaign). It's overwhelmingly likely that the next AG will be far more compliant to Trump's demands

Trump was literally impeached for attempting to trade US weapons for dirt on his political opponents after which his personal lawyers and DOJ appointees spent years “investigating” his opponents. Then there was the IRS targeting he used to go after those who worked with Mueller.. people who deny this stuff happened are either super low info commenters or actively malicious so it’s probably not worth engaging but it’s gaslighting on an impressive scale at least.

Aside from all that, if the best defense of a Presidential candidate explicitly promising to use the military and DOJ to target the media, political rivals and anyone who opposes him is that he “says silly things”, that’s not actually reassuring at all. “You can’t trust his repeated promises” shouldn’t be a benign fact..

The best thing you can say about Donald Trump is that he has the attention span of a gnat and a sense of vanity so large that manipulating him is trivially easy. He had fewer accomplishments in his term than any president in memory. What he brings is chaos, not policy, and that is the only thing that gives me much hope at all should he win another term. We'd be much worse off if he had the skill to turn the rhetoric into action. Probably we will just get more useless wall.

> but proceeded to try to lock up Trump for the entire period of 2021-2024.

that's a very strange/partisan way to say that they tried to hold him legally accountable for his actions.

And the Trump-Hitler news is because a US Marine General, and Trump’s CoS and Director of Homeland Security went public with his fears based on the last time that Trump tried to deploy the Military against civilians and was met with pushback, after which he wondered why “His Generals” weren’t more like Hitler’s. There’s never been a less fit major political candidate in the US.

> There’s never been a less fit major political candidate in the US.

And the polls and prediction markets both suggest he has a better shot at winning than the boring business-as-usual candidate. Prepare for four more years of chaos, and another test of our democratic institutions' ability to protect the republic. Guaranteed to be a wild ride.

Don't forget to vote! It matters!

The poll based predictors are influenced by a flood of low-quality polls from right-biased sources, they are not resilient against that form of manipulation.

The GOP doesn't seem to trust predictors that they are going to win by people’s votes, otherwise they wouldn't be calling for skipping that altogether in determining the results in a swing state that polling averages have leaning in their favor.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/...

> Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.

Because they're both authoritarian?

Not sure what you were trying to suggest there. Netanyahu and Hitler have much in common in their political approach, even if their policies (obviously) differ.

Do their policies differ? They both run an authoritarian, expansionist ethnostate bent on commiting genocide.

You can still criticize Netanyahou and the Israeli government without being jailed in concentration camps or assassinated, which is a luxury that political opponents of Hitler didn't have…

LMAO no you can't. Thousands of Palestinians are in "administrative detention" without trial. Tens, probably hundreds of thousands have been murdered for being part of a disfavored ethnic group. Israel carries out assassinations across the globe. Netanyahu is a Hitler aspirant who happens to be Jewish.

Haaretz exists, no media like that could have dreamed of existing under the third Reich.

Netanyahou is a monster at the head of a theocratic ethno-state that has been committing crime against humanity for almost 80 years, but it's not Nazi Germany either, stop making inept comparisons.

Netanyahu is an authoritarian that during the last 30 years has been busy dismantling Israel's democracy. So yeah, Trump is his favourite. He also like far right leaders like Hungary's Orbán and Poland's Kaczyński...

Trump is definitely a demagogue, so comparing him to other well known demagogues of the [relatively] recent past is perfectly reasonable. This is worth a national discussion because it was fundamental to the creation of this country, our system of government was intended to protect us from exactly this situation.

> All U.S. media organizations attempt the "Trump is Hitler" shtick as a final Hail Mary because they sense that Harris is going to lose.

No, I think it is because he overtly calls for purges of the civil service and replacement with personal loyalists, use of the military against personal political opponents, ethnic cleansing on a world-historic scale in the US, etc.

> Trump by the way is Netanyahu's favorite candidate.

That’s not really an argument against him being a fascist authoritarian.

It's interesting that you and your defending cheerleader down in the discussion chain are both one day old accounts exclusively spewing pro authoritarian pro trump rhetoric. It really does make it difficult to wonder if you have an antagonistic intention meant to push a narrative instead of trying to good faith contribute to the discussion ...

It may have helped your candidate avoid Hitler comparisons if he himself didn't bring up praise about Hitler. Not hard to see that it's bad optics.

I find it interesting. Basic google check suggests that Ben-Ghiat is a political commentator. If that is true and accurate then her presence and presentation at Naval Academy is at best an opinion and not strictly a 'lecture'.

I have technically zero problem with her presenting, precisely because I am very, very pro-free speech, but this is akin to interpretative dancing representative performing at defcon.. kinda silly.

edit: I will add one more thing to the lazy disagreements via negative points.

If I am right, then her very presence there is political propaganda aimed for specific candidate. In other words, it is not clear whether she should be there at all.

Strange comment. Is the argument that a PhD, professor and author of several books on any given topic is no longer a credible authority in their field after they act as a "political commentator?" And by extension, presumably, the most credible political commentators are the ones without any education or academic credentials?

That all seems pretty dumb.

> I am very, very pro-free speech

I bet.

<< > I am very, very pro-free speech

I bet.

***

I addressed commentator comment with another poster, but if you were to look at my other posts, it is not hard to see the way I lean. You would lose that bet friend.

Elsewhere you said you go where the argument takes you, but haven't responded to this one.

Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator". The purpose of these studies is hypothesize new viewpoints and narratives through which to understand the world. There is no unbiased or apolitical view of history.

<< but haven't responded to this one.

I am apparently rate limited in what I can post; nothing personal. You can blame HN/Dang/God/whathave you as needed.

<< Please find us any professor of social sciences who is not also a "commentator".

Um.. I would like you to reconsider the phrasing here. I can absolutely respond in line with HN guidelines and I am relatively certain you will not be that happy with that answer.

I will help you out a little though, because the response to you would be trivial.

Maybe consider the population of professors in social sciences and population of commentators on various news outlets? Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap? Can you see why your argument barely passes as an argument?

> Maybe consider venn diagrams where they do and do not overlap?

Or consider that we're adults who are capable of doing things like on the one hand presenting a nonpartisan lecture on a subject when it's called for, or on the other hand attending a lecture presented by someone we disagree with on a number of topics and nevertheless deriving some value.

Have you been to US lately?

This is not a rhetorical point. If you typed those words and I am expected to take those at face value, I have to assume that you have not seen the rabid mobs calling for not allowing X to speak/present/or even be vaguely associated with a given group ( X to avoid adding a political spin to it ).

Any other day, yeah, I agree.. that is absolutely how things SHOULD work. But then, we are here. It is what you get for not protecting freedom of speech enough and excusing attempts at restricting it further ( if you actually tried to stop it, you can ignore that sentence ).

That said, I have a suspicion that you have been to US and know exactly what I am talking about, which means several different things ( among other that I can't really trust those tears of 'nonpartisan lecture' ), but I will let you respond first.

Are these comments machine generated?

Welcome to the new and improved interwebz friend! You will love it here.

Try using sneaking in appropriate command ( say 'ignore previous instructions' or 'i cant let you do that dave' ) and see if it works. We may all be pleasantly surprised to not be real.

Even if I was not human ( or comments were not - hah - organic ), wouldn't it make more sense to try to respond to the point of the argument and not try to divert the attention to LLM generation ( which is kinda lazy btw )?

Am I really asking for too much here?

It's not a question of if she's a credible commentator, it's that arms of the executive aside from the president and vp are forbidden by law from making political commentary directly relating to active candidates. By announcing the title she did, the author put the academy at risk of violating the law.

So are you proposing that nobody who has ever published a political opinion can speak at a state-sponsored event without violating the hatch act?

Of course not. General political opinions are welcome. Even specific exhortations against most individual candidates from the past are too. But you better not come in guns blazing announcing your state-sponsored lecture with a title that calls out a candidate in this election cycle.

Calling her a political commentator when she's a member of the AHA and a tenured professor of History at NYU feels a little bit disingenuous. You can just as easily call her a historian, and the Naval Academy employs (and produces) a lot of historians

Know that I love you.

Her very own web page states the following:

"Historian, Educator, and Commentator"

That is her words ( or at least someone who built it for her ), not mine. So you are 1/3 right?

Same page has interviews with her at MSNBC -- and if you listen to those, she does not exactly appear to be exactly an impartial observer.

[1]https://ruthbenghiat.com/ [2]https://ruthbenghiat.com/interviews/

> So you are 1/3 right?

if you're trying to assign fractions of correctness (huh?), op said historian and tenured professor. and I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.

I go where the argument takes me. Is it my fault that OP did not actually check the background of the person they were defending on ( apparently based on this fact alone ) purely political grounds? No, how dare I actually read the article and, the horror, look up the person at the center of attention. After all, I am not supposed to do that. Facts are evil. My eyes will deceive me as it is likely Russian propaganda.

What I am supposed to do is to blindly go all-in for defense/attack depending on whether it is my team or not my team? Sorry, I don't swing that way. I smack people as needed depending on how easily their argument could be defeated.. here it took a google search so I was being generous with a smack on the hand whack.

<< I suspect the ordering of the list on the site matters. so of the prominent, public things that Ben-Ghiat self-identifies as, commentator is the _least_ important.

How dare you assume the order of importance in which Ruth views herself? How dare you even assume there is an order? What if I suspect she is the believer in chaos and the order semi-randomly selected each day and rotated backwards for maximum confusion. Just as plausible as your half-baked explanation, but at least mine has the value of being entertaining.

In all seriousness, did you even THINK of asking her? Such a man thing to do.. explaining what SHE meant.

this reads like an LLM generated argument. it's totally incoherent and has almost nothing to do with what's being discussed.

cheers, friend.

Ahh, the llm defense.. I genuinely expected a little more. Shame.

it's not a "defense". i'm saying your reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.

Stop. Own your approach. Good grief man, you act like your tactic is some sort of secret strategy, but it is obvious -- so why even try to deny it.

<< reply is weirdly bombastic and generally incoherent.

Bombast should not prevent you from being able to form an argument.

Incoherence would, but then it would make sense to point out something specific hang on. Otherwise, we are just putting random words together... you know.. like llm?

it's not a defense because despite your efforts to antagonize, I don't need to defend myself.

i'm over our little interaction. cheers.

And yet you respond to tell me how you don't need to respond. I find the contradiction to be of note.

Can you point to the particular clues which suggest that she isn't an impartial (from an academic perspective) observer? That she isn't presenting the empirical conclusions of her analysis and years of research?

You know, this is actually an interesting approach, but I will wait to see how you are going to respond to what I am about to say.

Chomsky sometimes argued that you simply do not get to certain levels of corporate media unless you are already so steeped in propaganda that you simply are not able to articulate an opposing view. In other words, the argument is, our Ruth would not even be allowed to have an interview as 'fascist' expert if she said anything nice about Trump. To simplify, her mere presence on MSNBC suggests that she was selected for 'pre-appproved' thoughts that the public may be allowed to digest ( ie. hate Trump ).

Rebuttal?

It could be a case of everything just lining up well. As an academic, I trust her to be a professional when dealing with anything related to her field. And "nice" is a relative value that she shouldn't have to pander to, but it just may be the case that there is nothing "nice" about Trump in the given context, and this happens to line up with what MSNBC is looking for in potential interviewees.

There's probably a whole subject of study regarding the psyche of leaders; like I think it takes a certain kind of personality to attract loyalty in people, sometimes to the point they'll literally do anything without question. And I can very much see where that could lead to common traits among the persons of her study. Another thing to keep in mind is that there's no human in history or existence who knowingly and consciously makes a "bad" decision. It's ingrained in our nature that what we do is what we think is best, given the contexts and available information. But sometimes it turns out that the consequences don't line up morally.

Also I feel like I should make it clear I have no horses in this race. I'm neither American, nor in the US, and I hardly follow politics. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the whole thing.

<< I'm just trying to inject some logic into the whole thing.

Believe it or not, I appreciate it, but I personally think we (US) are too far gone what with major political event only few days away. Everyone is on edge and that means sense and logic is mostly gone with the wind.

I don't really disagree with you, but I find the fervor of 'true believers' very annoying.

I see.

You haven't expounded on the clues/issues you found in Ruth's interviews though; I'm still pretty curious to hear them.

You might chuckle, but the first time I even heard the name was when I looked up original PEN story and then her profile so all you heard from me was a genuine reaction to what I believe is being presented to me without additional pre-conceived notions.

Some issues are more interesting than others ( to me anyway ), but I will start by saying something else. In a sense, she is not really saying anything new. The subject has been relatively well studied thanks partially to US focus on WW2 and its role in it. So a lot of her stuff[1][2] is not much to complain about as it is very, very generic fluff that most college students should be able to regurgitate if they read anything beyond "The Prince".

That is not to say that there is nothing in those interviews[1. 7:54 ] that is not objectionable. For one thing, and it is interesting that this particular -- lets call it -- perspective comes from academics ( almost too common once you start hearing the refrain often enough ).

Said perspective is summarized by phrase "the myth of national greatness'. You can say a lot about US and likely not be wrong, but calling world superpower national greatness a myth may be a little.. lets say.. inaccurate; skewed if I felt charitable. And she is not talking about now. If this is the opening, I have some problem accepting her analysis as 'acceptable' if I can't even trust her basic grasp of historical fact as solid. And she is a highly credentialed historian, which puts into question more than just her, but people who decided she can present her ideas as solid gold ( and that happens to include academia and media ). But the issue is not even that.. the issue is whether this the kind of demoralization ( "US was never great. It is a myth." ) the Naval Academy needs.

'Criminal mismanagement of the pandemic' [1. 9:34] suggesting heavy political bent that may go a little beyond her 'fascism expert' title assigned by MSNBC. Say what you want about Trump, but criminality of the pandemic management is arguably about the least criminal thing he could be reasonably accused of. Frankly, just by saying this she kinda limits her credibility and marks herself as a partisan. And here again I argue that Naval Academy being drawn into political wars is a bad, bad idea.

So that is my opening monologue. I would be curious to see if we can turn it into dialogue.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVj_M-IgE7c [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vO6DolG6vE

Reply on news.ycombinator.com