The hubris of Secretary Rubio

Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently gave a speech in Athens.  He gave it in the Pnyx, where ancient Athenians met to practice their version of democracy, with the Acropolis prominently in the background.  Rubio’s goal was to hold  up the Greeks as manly models to rejuvenate our decadent present, but he succeeded mostly in displaying his own ignorance and corruption. 

Rubio, not known heretofore for his deep interest in the classics, invoked what he thinks are the close ties between America and the ancient Greeks.  He says some fine things about what we owe to Athens and to Greek civilization more generally: outstanding works of literature, philosophy, mathematics, and science.  The first historians.  Democracy.  He rightfully says that Western civilization would be unthinkable without the Greek contribution.

Rubio used the Greeks to argue for a particular set of virtues that he thinks Americans and especially Europeans have lost.  These include self-confidence, individualism, heroism, innovation, sacrifice, and the use of force to defend our way of life.  Once upon a time these defined the West but—for reasons Rubio fails to explain—they have weakened, and today we are floundering, not spending enough on defense, overwhelmed by immigrants, deferring to multinational organizations.  The Trump administration is turning things around in America, but Europe remains at risk and needs to step up.

Rubio invokes a Greek term to sum up what the Greeks had and we supposedly don’t:  thumos, often translated as ‘spiritedness.’ Thumos is a concept that incorporates pride, honor, courage, and self-respect; but also aggression, selfishness, and the desire for power.  It is not an unalloyed good, but as Plato and the Greek tragedians consider at length, a part of human nature that is necessary but must be properly controlled. 

What happens when thumos is not controlled is described by another Greek word that Rubio should have used but didn’t: hubris, excessive pride and self-confidence.  Hubris is a permanent danger in human affairs, especially for  people and regimes that have gained power and wealth. 

It is characteristic of the Greeks that they could acknowledge and describe their own failings.  It was hubris that Thucydides tells us brings down classical Athens.  Athens was the wealthiest and strongest of the Greek city-states.  It had been at the forefront of the coalition that defeated Persia, and went on to build an empire that rested on its powerful navy.  But Athens alienated its allies with ever-increasing demands for tribute, punished neutrals who refused to  align with Athens against Sparta, and followed the call of an ambitious populist, Alcibiades, to mount an invasion of Sicily that swallowed its resources and ended in disaster.  Sound familiar?

Rubio tries to surprise us by pointing out that the writer most often cited in the Federalist Papers is Plutarch, a Greek who wrote his famous Lives comparing notable Greeks and Romans.  Many of our founders were well acquainted with the classics.  This knowledge served them well, but the inference that the Greeks were a model for America is false.

Rubio would have been on firmer ground if he read what Alexander Hamilton has to say in Federalist #9: “It is impossible to read the history of the petty Republics of Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions, by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration, between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy.” 

Rubio is right that the founders learned from the Greeks, but what to avoid, not to emulate.  The Greeks failed to moderate their thumos and ended up squandering their collective strength in endless wars and internal divisions.  This made them vulnerable to foreign domination, first by the Macedonians, then the Romans.  The challenge for the authors of the Federalist Papers was to devise a system that kept in check the famous Greek agonistic spirit and directed it to productive ends.  Hence the careful construction of constitutional checks and balances so that, as James Madison says in Federalist 51, ‘ambition must be made to counter ambition.’

Rubio, like many conservatives, bemoans what he sees as a loss of Western confidence:  “Over time, we in the West came to feel ashamed of the very things that made us exceptional.”  Self-criticism can indeed go too far.  But it is hard to look at 20th and 21st century history and think the ‘West’ suffers from a shortage of thumos.  Our challenge has not been to revive our flagging animal spirits, but how to keep aggression and the lust for power from destroying civilization.

Until recently this was a task that America embraced, and the rationale for the complex of international organizations and alliances America helped construct after World War II and reinforced after the collapse of communism.  Trump has dedicated himself to trashing these institutions and convincing Americans that international relations have nothing to do with principles but only with ‘who has the cards.’  This dumbed-down realpolitik is exactly what took down Athens.  Under Trump we are moving quickly down the same path.

Despite its meaningful commitments to multilateralism and peaceful conflict resolution, the United States has frequently fallen prey to hubris with deeply damaging, Sicily-reminiscent adventures in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran.  These have all been justified as necessary unilateral uses of force by the world’s ‘indispensable power.’ 

Rubio himself was until recently a firm supporter of America’s alliances and its leading role in supporting democracy and freedom around the world.  He hopes that spouting off about the Greeks will make us forget how he abandoned his principles to gain power, and position himself for the Presidency in 2028.  Disguising self-interest as virtue is how dictators everywhere gain popular support. 

Rubio serves a President and a movement that prey on fears of weakness to exalt performative displays of testosterone and toughness.  Its model of strength is the playground bully, talking trash and trying to steal the lunch money of the smaller kids—Venezuela, Greenland, Canada— while carefully staying on the good side of anyone who might actually fight back, like China or Russia. 

Rubio wants to dress this up as a noble return to our Greek heritage, with the Greeks redefined as Hegsethian warriors whose only thought is to fight to the death for national pride.  This is an insult to the memory of Greece and to every citizen of the world who ever thrilled to Homer, wept with Antigone, was inspired by Socrates, learned from Thucydides.   

A modern thinker who has thought deeply about thumos is Francis Fukuyama.  In The End of History and the Last Man he talks extensively about two ways thumos can manifest itself:  isothymia, or the desire for equal recognition and dignity; and megalothymia, the desire to be recognized as superior.  The first is a powerful force in liberal society where it drives demands for equality of rights and conditions.  It can be seen in modern movements for women’s rights, civil rights, gay rights, and equal access for the handicapped.

Fukuyama thinks zeal for isothymia can go too far in trying to correct all differences due to nature or culture, but he is more worried about an excess of megalothymia:  “It is my intuition that it is the former [megalothymia] that will constitute the greater threat to democracy in the end.”  The desire to be the best, the richest, the most powerful, cannot be eradicated. 

Fukuyama thinks it can be directed under modern capitalism into largely beneficial forms of economic competition.  In traditional societies like ancient Greece, war and politics were the only outlets for ambition: “It is no wonder that the ambitious Alcibiades went into politics where…he invaded Sicily and brought destruction on the Athenian state.”  

However, the successful rich are always hard to contain.  They will not stay in their lane; without substantial legal and political constraints, their wealth  leads to the undue political and social influence of the Musks, Zuckerbergs, Bloombergs, Thiels, and other billionaires.  Elon Musk alone has given more money to support Trump in the midterm elections than any other donor, and more than he gave in the entire 2024 presidential race, according to the New York Times.

Rubio and Trump’s hysterical attacks on isothymia for weakening Western civilization are intended to divert our attention from the economic megalothymia that is the basis of their political power.  Even when this threatens to destroy democracy, the environment, or, with AI, the entire human race, there is little willingness to countenance regulations or guardrails.  Today’s wealthy techlords have become unabashed promoters of an anti-democratic creed that exalts the right to rule of the very rich.  (Another Greek concept Rubio should have incorporated is pleonexia, or greed, a vice that threatens to consume the soul in an endless pursuit of wealth and power and is strongly condemned by Plato and other Greek thinkers). 

Rubio’s speech is the latest salvo in the Trump administration’s campaign of Europe-scolding.  JD Vance and Rubio have given a number of speeches with the same message:  Europe should spend more on defense, be more aggressive about immigration, stop discriminating against right-wing parties, stop regulating online speech.  Europe in short should be more like Trump’s America.  The heart of the argument is that Europe and America should man the barricades together in defense of Christendom against woke atheistic socialism, enabled by victories for Europe’s far-right political parties.

The lack of concern about the linked desires for wealth and power underscores one of the failings of Rubio’s Athens speech: its cynical distortion of Christianity.  Nothing could be clearer than the Christian condemnation of an excessive focus on worldly things. 

Here is Rubio’s childish attempt to assert that the Greek and Roman virtues he admires blend easily with Christianity:  “This was the foundation of the Western mind: our math, our science, our medicine.  Our philosophy, ethics, and religion.  It paved the way for the gospel of Jesus Christ to find fertile soil in Europe and flourish into the empire of Christendom.”

What is Christianity if not a rebuke to all those Greek elements Rubio wants us to embrace: “fierce individuality and relentless ambition; daring exploration and invention; a yearning for discovery, for adventure, risk and glory.  An insatiable curiosity about the world and the principles by which it operates, a hunger to know the mysteries of nature and grasp the secrets of the cosmos.  An impatience with the notion of impossibility, chafing at all boundaries and limits, straining to peer into the depths of the unknown.”  We may greatly admire these things, but they are at odds with the teachings of the Bible and of Christianity.  They are at the heart of human pride, the sin of sins. 

The story of the intertwining of Greece and Jerusalem is long and complex; it amounts to the entire history of the West.  The successes of this civilization, very much including America, come when the energy and ambition of thumos is tempered by a recognition of limits and moral boundaries; when our natural tendencies to megalothymia and the worship of success and ‘great men’ meet a teaching that “all men are created equal.”   

There are people on the right, in the ‘national conservatism’ camp, who genuinely believe Trump is our last line of defense against the decline of the West.  (One of them probably drafted the speech). Rubio, the consummate opportunist, is not one of them.  His real aim is to gaslight us, and the people of Europe, into excusing the Trump administration’s assaults on democracy, the rule of law, and common decency, and above all its “unapologetic pursuit of national power.”  This is possible if we can be fooled into thinking they are grounded in the traditions of classical Greece and Christianity, traditions that retain great authority and power.  Trump and the MAGA movement embody a rejection of all that is best in both traditions.  Do not be fooled.

Stop the Political Advertising Machine

Every couple election cycles I write a version of this same essay.  So here goes again.

When I worked as a military analyst, it was common to cite the wisdom that ‘amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics’.  There is a parallel statement we could make about politics, that ‘amateurs talk about policy, professionals talk about fund-raising.’ 

We are now used to hearing political campaigns discussed in terms of how much money they’ve raised, who has the most cash on hand, what PAC is prepared to dump spending into a tight race, etc.  We are numb to the knowledge that our elected officials spend much of their time raising money, and that there are innumerable secret deals made to provide benefits to donors in return for their support.

We have gotten used to the reality that most Americans hate Citizen’s United and the interpretations of the constitution that tell us money is speech and corporations are people, but are unable to do much about it.  We look in anger and disgust and resignation at the ease with which billionaires and big corporations pump money into campaigns, not just the big national races but, more and more, in state and local races that used to be held under the national radar. 

Much effort has gone into examining the possibility of amending the constitution (highly unlikely), or putting different justices on the Supreme Court to change the law (equally unlikely).  The latest remedy aims at convincing individual states to use their power to charter corporations to take away their right to give to political campaigns—a worthy effort but slow and likely to be blocked by the Supreme Court.

Americans are angry about a lot of the wrong things, and not angry enough about the insane, corrupt system that we, you and I, have allowed to become entrenched.  It is not normal, it is not inevitable, it is not in our interest, and it must be stopped.  Now.

How? Stopping the supply of money is very difficult.  What goes unexamined is addressing the demand side.  Why do campaigns want money?  What is it used for?  Many things, but by far the largest expense for most campaigns is advertising, mostly on television and social media.  How much goes to what venue will depend on the particulars of demographics, political orientation, national trends, and other factors.  Television reaches older voters, social media the youth.  Direct mail can target undecided or low-propensity voters.     

Clearly political professionals think that advertising works.  This is why they need a lot of money.  Advertising is expensive, as are the pollsters and media experts needed to design and execute campaigns.  Of course many factors can allow the less well-funded to win, but other things being equal, it’s best to advertise, advertise, advertise. 

The advertising model is a major cause of political polarization.  Attracting attention is done most reliably by appealing to fear and anger.  Political aids are largely negative, designed to tar the image of opponents and link them to exaggerated dangers—immigrants, communists, transgender athletes, evil capitalists.  Advertising works in 30 and 60 second intervals, long enough to make you mad, too short to make you think.  

But what if advertising didn’t work anymore?  What if voters stopped paying attention—in fact, were repelled by political ads and started voting for the candidate who spent and advertised less?  That’s the demand side.  That’s what we should be trying to affect. 

How to do this?  Should candidates start running ads saying ‘don’t pay attention to political ads?’  Funny, but why not?  The thrust of messaging needs to incorporate a rejection of the advertising model.  Explain that the power of big money in politics that most voters hate comes entirely from the willingness of many voters to be swayed by ads.  You can take that power away.  Don’t pay attention.  Don’t watch.  Dump the flyers in the trash.

Go further.  Take a pledge not to vote for the candidate who spends the most on ads. Pledge to vote only for candidates committed to reversing Citizen’s United and stopping the flow of money to politicians from rich individuals and corporations. Put this pledge on bumper stickers and yard signs.  Make having the best-funded campaign something to be embarrassed about. 

This pledge may be difficult, at first.  Some of your favorite politicians will be the ones who have the biggest donations.  This is why I would structure the pledge as I have, to NOT vote for the candidate who spends the most money.  You don’t have to vote for someone you don’t like, but you shouldn’t vote for the biggest spender.

Americans are experts at dealing with ads, we’ve done it all our lives.  We know that ads are not reliable sources of information.  Most people would never make a major purchase like a car based on a television ad—they would do test drives, look at customer reviews, talk to people they know.  Choosing who to vote for is just as important. 

It’s doubtful either of our two major parties would embrace this.  Both are heavily invested in the current model and employ thousands of professionals whose livelihoods depend on the continued flow of big money—a ‘politics industry’ that lobbies to keep itself in business.  Countless consultants and accountants and lawyers live off contracts from the parties and their supporters.  Campaign advertising is a major revenue source for television and radio and social media and direct mail, all of whom will fight to keep the current model. 

This effort will have to come from elsewhere.  It will have to come from citizens who organize and make their views known.  And who, above all, make good on their pledges not to pay attention to or have their views changed by paid advertising.  When millions spent on ads don’t move the needle on voter choices, the whole house of cards will collapse.

Let Me Count the Ways: How Hegseth is Harming the US Military

Let Me Count the Ways: How Hegseth is Harming the US Military

Secretary of Defense Hegseth came on board champing at the bit to remake the culture of the US military.  He saw it as in the grip of the latest vogues in diversity and gender inclusion, to the detriment of traditional warrior virtues.  The military needed to purge itself of these foreign viruses and get back to its roots:  macho celebrations of strength, manliness, fitness, violence and tactical excellence.  Armies are designed to kill people and blow things up, and we have gotten away from this core understanding. 

Unfortunately this approach will exacerbate, not correct, the American military’s underlying problems.   Recently the Council on Foreign Relations conducted a survey of historians to rank the top 10 greatest foreign policy successes and failures in our 250 year history.  At the top of the failure list were #1, the Iraq War and #2, the Vietnam War.  Certainly the war in Afghanistan also belongs on this list. 

A possibly apocryphal exchange between an American and a Vietnamese general, long after the war, highlights the US problem.  American:  “You never beat us once.” Vietnamese: “True, but irrelevant.”  The US military has not fallen short at killing people and blowing things up.  It has won all the battles, but lost the wars.  Where it failed was at the strategic level, in understanding its enemy and what kind of wars it was fighting. The consistent cause of these failures has been the same:  over-confidence in our strengths in technology, weaponry, and logistics; under-estimation of the commitment and resilience of our enemies. 

History has not been kind to the commanders responsible for these campaigns.  William Westmoreland in Vietnam, and Tommy Franks in Iraq, vie for the title of America’s most incompetent general.  Westmoreland was convinced that the US could win by attrition and prioritized body counts as a way to judge progress; Franks focused on defeating Saddam’s military and failed to plan for the follow-on.  Both thought American superiority in firepower was all that mattered.  

Behind each of them looms a Defense Secretary—Robert McNamara for Vietnam, Donald Rumsfeld for Iraq—in the grip of the same blindspots.  McNamara was convinced his Systems Analysis Office would make warfare rational and cost-effective.  Rumsfeld was convinced modern intelligence and precision-strike munitions meant strategic effects could be achieved quickly and without the need for expensive humans. 

Today the United States is replicating these same mistakes in Iran.  Great tactical skills and awesome capabilities are being squandered by leaders who failed to define clear goals or bothered to understand the enemy.  Despite all the historic evidence, an air campaign is, by itself, expected to be decisive in achieving ambitious strategic aims.

The American military’s failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were not caused by the  cultural shifts that Hegseth and Trump detest.  Integrating African-Americans, women, gays and transgender soldiers into the force has been long and difficult, but there is no evidence it has reduced readiness or lethality or esprit de corps.  Hegseth’s focus on undoing these shifts is all about ensuring loyalty and pandering to the MAGA base—and perhaps to Hegseth’s reactionary religious convictions—not improving the military.

Hegseth is in fact reinforcing our strategic weaknesses by doubling down on stereotypes of what an effective military looks like.  In and out of the military there are many who blame our defeats on weak-kneed civilians imposing restrictive rules of engagement.  The story that ‘we were stabbed in the back’ follows many military failures. 

The Hegseth warrior image gains its strength from this myth.  If only the military took the gloves off, stopped worrying about civilian casualties and winning hearts and minds and just went out and kicked butt, we would win. This is the thinking we now see at work in the Iran war. 

The Hegseth warrior is all testosterone and no brains or morals.  Hegseth has intervened in the military education system to prevent officers from attending the country’s top universities.  He has prohibited them from going to professional conferences, like the prestigious Aspen Security Conference, claiming it “promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country and hatred for the President of the United States.”   He just fired the head of the Army’s chaplain service.  His rhetoric is a never-ending bombast about inflicting maximum pain, bombing enemies back to the stone age, and asking for Jesus’s blessing to see all our bullets find their mark. 

The American military has been tactically proficient but strategically deficient.  The United States badly needs more senior leaders equipped to think deeply about the country’s long-term goals and how to use our enormous wealth and power to achieve them.  Unfortunately the President and his Secretary of Defense are in the process of getting rid of any soldier who thinks of war as something other than a video game.  They are revamping military training and education to teach the same lessons.  Several more years of this will result in lasting damage to the entire defense establishment. 

The campaign against ‘wokeness’ has another purpose, to ensure loyalty.  Women and minorities are automatically suspected of not being on the Trump train; witness Hegseth’s recent insistence on refusing promotion to four officers, two women and two African-Americans—the only officers that Hegseth singled out.  

Hegseth is trying to destroy the idea that there might be honest disagreement or that military service might require questioning the judgment or legality of a course of action.  When Senator Mark Kelly, retired fighter pilot and Space Shuttle commander, joined with other members of Congress in reminding soldiers that they have a duty not to obey illegal orders, the Pentagon tried to punish him by docking his pension—a petty action dismissed in court, but designed to send a warning to others.  We will reward and punish you based on your loyalty to Donald Trump, not to the Constitution or the nation.

This paves the way for sycophancy.  Soldiers who think independently are not welcome here.  Such soldiers will see no chance for advancement and will leave, replaced by those willing to bend the knee.

It also paves the way for a military less willing to resist pressure to act improperly, both overseas and at home.  The longer this continues, the easier it will be to carry out Donald Trump’s impulsive and incoherent wishes.  Invade Greenland?  Yes, sir!  And the easier it will be to invoke the Insurrection Act and deploy active duty forces against the President’s internal enemies.   

The US military has long been respected by American citizens for its professionalism, its independence from politics, and its commitment to include every American who wants to serve.  These traditions are under assault.  Once gone they will be hard to restore.  

Jeremy Carl and Rubio’s Road to Munich

The Trump administration has from the start nominated some spectacularly unqualified people for senior jobs.  A few were so preposterous that even the MAGA Republicans in Congress vomited them up, like Florida Congressman and sexual predator Matt Gaetz for Attorney General.  But others equally bad were duly approved and still inhabit top positions, including top national security positions.  Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Security come to mind. 

Given those spectacular mishits, it is perhaps hard to get worked up about Jeremy Carl, the current nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations.  This is a mid-level job that primarily deals with the United Nations.  Carl’s nomination now appears to be doomed by his own intemperate remarks at his confirmation hearing, and the courage of Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah.  But understanding why he was put forward at all reveals the mindset now at the heart of American foreign policy.

Mr. Carl has, to begin with, no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs.  He is a conservative activist based at the right-wing Claremont Institute in California, where his expertise seems to be mostly about energy policy.  In the first Trump Administration he served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Interior Department.  Just to get a sense of the difference in approach, in the Biden administration the position was filled by Ambassador Michele Sison, a career diplomat who had served previously as Deputy US Representative to the UN, among other senior jobs.

That Trump and his supporters are not exactly fans of the United Nations is not news.  So perhaps picking someone who knows nothing about the UN is just a typical way to show your contempt.  Past Republican presidents have often appointed people largely to underscore how little the US thought of the UN.  Conservative flamethrower John Bolton, for instance, was Assistant Secretary for IO in the Bush I administration. 

Still, Bolton was at least a foreign policy expert and professional.  Carl is not. What then is behind his appointment?  What does he bring to the table, from the MAGA standpoint?

What Carl seems to offer is his unvarnished embrace of ‘national conservatism.’  This is the shorthand for the MAGA wing that sees its mission as protecting America from the dangerous influence of internal and external forces that seek to weaken our national fundamentals.  These fundamentals can be summed up in the words ‘white’ and ‘Christian’.  Hence our primary national security goals center around stopping and reversing immigration, except from South Africa; supporting similar anti-immigrant movements in Europe, the white homeland; turning away from globalization and any hint of subservience to  international organizations that give power to non-white peoples; and fighting to re-define what it means to be American, away from the Declaration’s creed that we are all equal, towards devotion to a largely mythic past that centers a story of white European success and Christian expansion, downplays the contributions of African-Americans, and rejects any need to reflect on the nation’s shortcomings.    

Carl is infamous for his full-throated warnings about the loss of white culture and the dangers of ‘liberal guilt’.  He has regularly endorsed the ‘Great Replacement Theory’ which says liberals are deliberately promoting immigration to make white people a minority.  In dealing with the UN he could be trusted to fight tooth and nail against any loss of US sovereignty to an organization dominated by non-Western peoples.       

National conservatives reject the idea that American identity is defined by an idea or commitment to a set of principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution.  Instead they see the United States as the exemplar and defender of ‘Western civilization,’ transferred here from Europe, where it is now weak and under assault. 

This understanding was front and center when JD Vance went to the Munich Security Conference a year ago and lambasted his European hosts for being weak on immigration and globalization.  It turns out that a year later nothing has changed, even though Marco Rubio’s rhetoric on February 14 was slightly less incendiary:

“We are part of one civilization: Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir…. This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.”

Rubio in his speech painted a picture of American history as an unbroken extension of European strength and expansionism, from Christopher Columbus—no apologies, no sir!—through the spread of Christianity, to westward expansion across North America. The only thing to worry about in all this is the prospect of losing confidence in our right to continue to dominate, continue to expand, continue to prioritize our unique ethnicity and culture.

Rubio seems oblivious to America’s self-understanding, from its inception, as something fundamentally new, as a place and people not bound by the aristocracy and militarism and intolerance of the Old World.  Would that Thomas Jefferson, an uncompromising advocate for America’s uniqueness, could return to refute Rubio and his fellow national conservatives with their nostalgia for European ways.  

Europe and America have indeed grown closer over the last 250 years.  This is largely because Europe has become more like us.  European countries in the 19th century slowly threw off ancient aristocracies in favor of democratic institutions and guarantees of human rights.  They haltingly embraced new identities tied to the creed of liberal democracy. 

At the same time millions of people fled from all corners of Europe to the New World, not to make America more European, but to escape from Europe’s miseries.  America benefited from the ordinary people who in America found opportunity denied them in their homelands, and from many of Europe’s greatest minds and talents, who helped make the United States a place of refuge for a civilization seemingly bent on collective suicide.   

Because not all of Europe, of course, moved in the American direction.  In the 20th century America stepped forward again and again and again to defend the Europe that resembled America from the Europe that didn’t: nationalist Germany, fascist Germany and Italy, the USSR.  Yes, we were defending a shared tradition.  A tradition largely made in the USA.   

Carl may be rejected. But the national conservatism he represents is alive and well in the Trump administration.  It is a dangerous and deeply un-American view, a view ironically resembling the blood and soil nationalism that flourished—and is still very much with us—in the parts of Europe Americans sacrificed so much to oppose.  

The World Factbook, Explained

The news last week that the Central Intelligence Agency was ceasing publication of its unclassified World Factbook would not, in ordinary times, be a big deal.  We could assume that well-meaning intelligence community leaders, after consulting with the appropriate stakeholders, and balancing the pros and cons, had decided it was no longer worth the money and other resources required.  They would explain clearly why they were deep-sixing one of their most popular and widely-used products, one that connected the CIA with the general public and was widely used around the world.  

But these are not ordinary times.  CIA offered no explanation. Some commentators pointed to Director John Ratcliffe’s commitment to “strict adherence to the CIA’s mission” as a possible explanation.  The Factbook is certainly not central to the Agency’s mission and could arguably be abandoned to focus on higher priorities.  But the Factbook has been publicly available for almost 50 years, surviving through plenty of lean times in the past.  Back in the 1980s analysts like me were tasked to support the Factbook by fact-checking and doing research, but the Factbook has for years been produced mostly by contractors.  Certainly the cost of this project was a rounding error in the Intelligence Community budget.

A more uncomfortable reason can be discerned if we look at how the Factbook was seen by the CIA, and by its many users.  In 2020 CIA described the Factbook as “an authoritative source of basic intelligence that has and will continue to be an essential part of CIA’s legacy.”  The New York Times in its obituary article concluded that “The Factbook, published by the world’s premier spy agency, was long considered an objective source in an increasingly subjective information ecosystem.”

“Authoritative.” “Objective.” We all know that we live in a world where information is easier to get than ever, but reliable information is harder to get than ever.  Anyone can go online or to a chatbot and get answers to questions—often hundreds of answers.  Which ones do you trust?  How do you know?  The CIA Factbook was one of those invaluable tools where you could be confident that the facts it provided were the result of careful research, done by experts, double and triple-checked for accuracy. It is this confidence that longtime users of the Factbook cite again and again.

Unfortunately even CIA insiders seem to misunderstand how today’s world works.  Retired senior Agency analyst Beth Sanner told the New York Times “When it started, it was important, because there was no such thing as the internet,” she said. “Now it’s like, what’s the point?”  The point is that ‘the internet’ is often a cesspool of disinformation and confusion.  A trusted guide is needed.

Who could be against this, you might think.  Who could want to make it harder for ordinary people to get objective information?  Sadly the answer is, a lot of people.  Including a lot of people in the current American administration.  This is an administration built on a foundation of lies.  Lies about elections.  Lies about immigrants.  Lies about the President’s corrupt dealings.  This is an administration that fired the head of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics because it didn’t like the jobs numbers she calculated.

The leaders of the intelligence community have as their first duty to seek the truth.  But today these leaders have unfortunately been active participants in misinforming the nation.  Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard reportedly fired senior members of the National Intelligence Council last spring because they accurately reported that Venezuelan gangs were not conspiring with the Venezuelan government to attack the United States.  The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency was let go after he questioned the effectiveness of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear program. 

At the center of the rot is Trump’s obsession with the Intelligence Community’s finding in 2016 that Russia was intervening to support his election.  Quelling this analysis is a central part of his campaign of revenge against anyone in government who participated in investigating his questionable or illegal activities.  One of the first acts of newly appointed CIA Director Ratcliffe last spring was to do yet another review of those findings.  The review confirmed that the analysis was sound and the conclusions warranted, but Ratcliffe went on TV to falsely claim the Agency had been biased.  

There is an interagency committee charged with uncovering and punishing all those on Trump’s enemy list.  Its chair?  DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

It is unlikely that any senior officer looked at the World Factbook and thought “we need to shut it down in case it contradicts our lies.”  The Factbook dealt with hard data—population numbers, names of obscure ethnic groups, trade statistics.  But it was nevertheless a standing affront to a worldview that asserts the truth is what we say it is.  To a set of leaders determined to paper over inconvenient ‘fake news’ and replace it with self-serving narratives. 

The World Factbook was, compared to much of today’s online world, a drab affair.  It had no influencers behind it, no dancers or singers touting its greatness, no fancy videos.  It had nothing to recommend it but its utility and the credibility that came with the CIA name. Along with thousands of other compilations of carefully scrutinized facts and data assembled the world over by hardworking scientists, bureaucrats, journalists, and scholars, it was one of the vertebrae in the hidden backbone of the modern world, the backbone of a shared reality.  

Observers of tyrants have long noted that one of their strategies is to attack the idea of truth. There is no truth, they say.  All sources are biased.  Everyone lies.  Once enough people believe this, they have no foundation for objecting to what the tyrant says and does.  As the great political philosopher and explainer of totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt, told us in her 1967 essay “Truth and Politics”:  “The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.  And for this trouble there is no remedy.”  

For this trouble, the CIA Factbook was, if not a remedy, a corrective.  A sign that your government believed there was truth out there, and you had a right to it.  We will miss you.

Homer’s Two Odysseuses

I recently re-read the Iliad and the Odyssey during a three-month seminar.  I found reading both poems together extremely helpful.  They are similar but different, reflecting in their styles and manner of writing their central characters:  Achilles in the Iliad, the embodiment of force, bios; Odysseus in the Odyssey, the embodiment of cunning, metis. 

The Iliad is straightforward, linear, told by an omniscient narrator who sees and describes directly and impartially the actions, the thoughts, the feelings of every character.  It takes place over a few weeks in a compressed space, a real space in front of a real city.  We can find the ruins and make maps of the likely terrain.  Yes, there are plenty of gods and some strange whisking-aways, and Achilles does fight a river.  But there are no monsters, no giants, no main actors who aren’t recognizable as part of our day-to-day world. 

The Odyssey jumps in time and space, and much is told indirectly, by people who are remembering long-ago events and have their own agendas.  Fantastic creatures, giants and monsters and goddesses, figure prominently.  Large parts take place off the map, on islands unknown to Greeks of the time, or any time.  Odysseus is both the main subject and one of the main narrators of his story, a story that shifts and changes as he tells it to different people.

Here is the question that prompts this essay:  is the Odysseus in the Odyssey the same Odysseus we see in the Iliad?  I want to argue that the answer is no, at least for most of his 10 years.  Odysseus at Troy is a product of war.  His combination of cunning, persuasive speech, and strategic thinking makes him indispensable to the Greek army.  Odysseus wins the war and earns Achilles’ armor as the best of the Greeks.  But afterwards he loses his way.  The same skills that served Odysseus well at Troy are now his undoing.  He loses everything and must find a new purpose before he is able to master himself and make the Odysseus who has emerged at Troy—perhaps—a fit for Ithaca. 

Odysseus Before Troy

We do not have a direct picture of Odysseus before he leaves for Troy.  In the later books of the Odyssey he is remembered by many as a good king, who treats subordinates like Eumaeus, his loyal swineherd, fairly and well.  His wife Penelope remembers him with real affection.  Only once does Homer describe directly an incident from his youth, in Book XIX, to tell us how he got his famous scar during a hunt at his grandfather’s estate; the story is a conventional hunting tale where the young prince bravely confronts and kills a cornered boar.  The only nod to the Odysseus we know is when Homer says “He told his tale with style” on coming home.

Odysseus rules a small, out of the way island, often described as rocky and poor. He does not seem to have been especially ambitious.   In Book XXIII when provoked by Penelope to recall his bed he describes in detail how he made it with his own hands;  “I built it myself, no one else,” suggesting someone deeply committed to his house and his wife.  (It is impossible to imagine Agamemnon building his own anything.)  In some stories—not told in Homer—he is portrayed as not wanting to go to Troy and only agreeing under compulsion.  In Book XXIV Agamemnon, in Hades, remembers “how hard it was to bring him round.”

Odysseus at Troy

When we see Odysseus in the Iliad almost ten years of war have changed him.  He is an important man.  He is seen as wily and cunning, a clever speaker, and therefore not entirely trustworthy, but also indispensable. 

These traits make him a good negotiator.  He is the one entrusted to return Chryses to her father in Book I to avert the wrath of Apollo.  He persuades the Greeks not to go home when they’re wavering in Book II, is part of the delegation sent to treat with Achilles when he is sulking in Book IX, and wins King Priam’s praise for his negotiations with the Trojans. 

When Thersites, a commoner and loudmouth, calls in Book II for the Greeks to go home and stop fighting for Agamemnon, it is Odysseus who steps in to humiliate and beat him.  This is a strategic, not an emotional response; Thersites threatens to sway the soldiers into abandoning the war.  For the sake of unity and victory he has to be silenced.

Odysseus is a strategist and counselor, along with ancient Nestor; they are the duo who make plans and advise Agamemnon.  Though the story doesn’t get told in the Iliad—it emerges in the Odyssey—he is of course the inventor of the great wooden horse and the strategy that ultimately wins the war.  Odysseus is also a collector of intelligence, who volunteers eagerly for the night-spying mission in Book X to see what the Trojans are planning.  In Book IV of the Odyssey Helen herself relates how he once slipped into Troy in disguise to learn its weaknesses.

Odysseus is a fine though calculating warrior, and excels at wrestling and running and other tests of skill and strength.  He is an outstanding archer, as we know from the climax of the Odyssey.  But his value to the Greeks does not lie on the battlefield. He is the glue that keeps the army together.  He is trusted by Agamemnon, perhaps because as we read in the famous Catalogue of Ships, Odysseus comes to Troy with only 13 ships, one of the smallest of the Greek contingents.   Agamemnon commands 100 ships.  So Odysseus, for all his strengths, is no threat to Agamemnon’s leadership. 

Odysseus’s contingent is placed in the center of the Greek armada, with Achilles and Ajax, the two greatest pure fighters, out on the wings.  He sits at the center where he can advise, mediate, plan, and stay informed.  While Achilles fights for himself and his glory, and will abandon the Greek cause if it conflicts with his greatness, Odysseus fights for all, for Greek victory. 

Odysseus After Troy

Odysseus as he is pictured in the Odyssey has the same skills and strengths, but it is clear that the talents that in the Iliad served to keep the Greeks united and win the war have now become problematic, if not dangerous.   Odysseus is no longer focused on a cause, on something that gives him purpose.  He is not working for the Greeks, not serving a single king, not subordinating himself to the goal of victory in a great war.  His one stated goal, to return to Ithaca along with his 600 fellow Ithacans, is frequently neglected.  He puts his men in danger, over and over, ultimately losing them all.  They in turn do not trust him and often disobey him.

What has happened?  Why has he changed?  

Odysseus had become a central player in the greatest drama of the age.  And then, it’s over. Now there is peace, and the need to consider what comes next.  Back to tiny Ithaca? Should the great Odysseus, known and praised throughout the Greek world, known and praised even by the gods, be confined to Ithaca?  After ten years of the intensity and clarity of life at war, the world of peace may seem confusing, disorienting, pallid.  The deep bonds with peers developed over years of danger and cooperation, suddenly gone.  The sense of purpose, gone.

Odysseus, like others in war, has not only discovered hidden strengths and accomplished great deeds. He has seen and done terrible things. He has lost close comrades.  Soldiers coming off the battlefield in any war face great difficulties in transitioning to peace, returning home to families and loved ones, coming to terms with what they’ve experienced. It’s not uncommon to be ambivalent about what awaits.  Have wives been faithful?  Do children remember me?  Do they understand and appreciate what I’ve been through?  Can I take my old place in the family, the community? 

Ten years of war, twenty years away (in the Iliad, no one seems to go back home for R and R) is a particularly long time.  Odysseus has risen to great heights, further away from his starting point than most soldiers. 

In the opening books of the Odyssey, Odysseus’ son Telemachus hears stories from Nestor, Odysseus’ partner at Troy, and Menelaus, the husband of Helen, portrayed in the Iliad as a second-rater and weak leader.  These stories, some of which Odysseus already knows from his visit to Hades many years before, reinforce these fears.  The two Greek leaders in particular have not fared well. King Agamemnon, leader of the Greek host, has gone home only to be murdered by his own wife.  Menelaus wanders for eight years before making it back to Sparta with the unfaithful Helen.  When Odysseus eventually lands back on Ithaca he gives thanks to Athena for keeping him from Agamemnon’s fate. 

When we finally get a direct picture of Odysseus, in book V, he is stranded on the goddess Calypso’s island where he has been for seven years.  He weeps daily to return home.  His many misfortunes have made him afraid of the gods.  Poseidon is his open enemy, and Calypso has held him captive. As he will complain later, he thinks Athena, his confidante and protector at Troy, has abandoned him.

Odysseus doesn’t know it but Athena has intervened to compel Calypso to set him free (we will discuss later what this might mean).  But when Calypso tells him he can go, he is immediately on his guard:  “Passage home?  Never. Surely you’re plotting something else, goddess.”   When he sails away Poseidon sends a storm to stop him; a sea-nymph offers help, and Odysseus is again suspicious:  “Oh no, I fear another immortal weaves a trap to snare me.”  When he finally sees land his first response is a lengthy moan of despair:  “Worse and worse!  Now that Zeus has granted a glimpse of land beyond my hopes, now I’ve crossed this waste of water, the end in sight, there’s no way out of the boiling surf—I see no way.” And so on for 15 more lines. 

When he does get on shore, more of the same:  “Man of misery, what next?  Is this the end?  If I wait out a long tense night by the banks, I fear the sharp frost and the soaking dew together will do me in…What if I’m spared the chill, fatigue and sweet sleep comes my way?  I fear wild beasts will drag me off as quarry.”

This is not the bold, confident Odysseus of the Iliad.  This is a man close to breaking, at the end of his tether.  What has happened?  Shortly Odysseus will tell us the story of his misadventures.  This will be at a banquet held by his hosts, King Alcinous and Queen Arete of the fantasy island of Phaeacia, a land not on any map or known to any Greek, where gods walk among men.  There Odysseus will spin his own fantasies of Cyclops and Circe and Hades. 

Telling His Story:  The Prelude

Before he speaks at the banquet, however, Odysseus is brought back to Troy.  There is a bard, Demodocus, who sings of a famous quarrel between Odysseus and Achilles about the best way to take Troy.  Achilles favors force, Odysseus guile.  Hearing this Odysseus—whose identity is not yet known to his hosts—breaks down and weeps.  For seven years he has been out of touch with the great war and his comrades from that time.  Now he sees they have become known to all, a subject for song.  Now he realizes that he too is well-known.  When he tells his story, he must place it in the context of this version of himself, the version known to bards and poets. 

Before starting Odysseus sets the stage.  Still anonymous, he asks Demodocus to sing about his great triumph, the wooden horse.  The bard tells how at Troy Odysseus “fought the grimmest fight he had ever braved but won through at last, thanks to Athena’s superhuman power.”  Again Odysseus breaks down in tears “as a woman weeps, her arms flung around her darling husband, a man who fell in battle.”  Hearing about his past glory makes the bitter aftermath, and Athena’s absence, more painful.  

Odysseus now reveals himself and launches into the iconic stories of the Odyssey.  He does not start with the war, however, and we wonder why.  Odysseus at Troy would impress his hosts and establish his greatness.  Since they know something about Troy already it would prove that he is who he says he is.  King Alcinous in fact invites Odysseus to tell that story:  “Why do you weep and grieve so sorely when you hear the fate of the Argives, hear the fall of Troy?…Did one your kinsmen die before the walls of Troy…Or a friend perhaps, someone close to your heart staunch and loyal?  No less dear than a brother, the brother-in-arms who shares our inmost thoughts.”

Instead, Odysseus begins when he leaves Troy.  Is the subject too painful?  Or does it tell us something fundamental about Odysseus; that he is alone, and a loner.  No one lost at Troy touches him the way Patroclus did Achilles.  On his voyage home none of the Ithacans emerges as a close friend, an equal or confidante.  His capacity for manipulation and trickery implies a certain cool distance from others, even those from his home country and his war companions.  

And they reciprocate.  Achilles tells Odysseus, in Book IX of the Iliad, “I hate like Hades’ gates the man who hides one thought inside his heart and says another.”  Agamemnon, though he needs Odysseus, rails at him in Book IV, “You are a genius at manufacturing your wicked schemes and plotting to advance your own self-interest.”

Something that Odysseus probably appreciates in telling about his post-war adventures is that he can say whatever he wants.  He is the only witness—all his companions are gone.  The Trojan war is a story he shares with the world.  His post-war story is his alone.  He can start over and show a different and possibly truer Odysseus.  And he is the unchallenged hero.  Achilles looms over the Trojan War and threatens to put even Odysseus in the shade.  Now Odysseus can take center stage.   

Story-telling is very important to him.  As he tells his hosts at the start of Book IX:  “The crown of life, I’d say.  There’s nothing better than when deep joy holds sway throughout the realm and banqueters up and down the palace sit in ranks, enthralled to hear the bard….This, to my mind, is the best that life can offer.”  Achilles’ idea of bliss is eviscerating his enemies; Odysseus’ is listening to someone tell the story of Achilles.  Or telling it himself. 

The Tall Tales

He starts by stressing that all he wants is to get home:  “So nothing is as sweet as a man’s own country…” But many of his tales show a man who has other goals, and is prone to disastrous errors in judgment.  His first adventure, for instance, and the only one that takes place in a real place with real people, is when he chooses to attack the Cicones, a Trojan ally.  The Ithacans sack their city and kill the men, apparently just for plunder.  But Odysseus says he cannot convince his men to leave with their loot; they are out of control, drinking and feasting.  The Cicones counter-attack and the Ithacans barely get away, with many men lost.

Something is terribly amiss here.  Why does Odysseus, the hero of the Trojan war, the right-hand of Agamemnon, need more spoils?  Hasn’t he been given his fair share from the fall of the rich city of Troy?  His ships should be fully laden.  But his first act is to plunder an innocent city, like a pirate, not a victorious king.  And why are his men out of control?  How has he lost their trust?

Nestor has given us a hint, when he tells Telemachus in Book III about the leave-taking after Troy has fallen.  According to him, at the end the two brothers, Menelaus and Agamemnon, had a bitter falling out, with Agamemnon wanting to stay longer to offer sacrifices to Athena (what sacrifices we are not told; we should remember that Agamemnon sacrificed his own daughter, Iphigenia, when leaving for Troy).  Menelaus and many others sail off, but then Odysseus changes his mind and turns back, “veering over to Agamemnon to shore his fortunes up,” according to Nestor.

Agamemnon has always been a controversial and difficult commander.  Now the Greek coalition has fallen apart in the face of his divisive leadership. In the past Odysseus has helped keep the Greeks united behind Agamemnon to defeat a common enemy, but with the war over Agamemnon no longer deserves his support.  Odysseus, wanting to keep his central place, fails to see this. He leaves angry and ashamed.  How can he and his 600 men go back to Ithaca empty-handed? 

After the Cicones Odysseus is swept away by a great storm, escapes the Lotus Eaters, and then comes to the land of the Cyclops.  Here it is Odysseus, still eager for gain—to know “what gifts he’d give”— who ignores the pleas of his men to leave the giant alone.  More of his men die at the hands of Polyphemus, and when Odysseus boasts and reveals his true name this allows Polyphemus to call on Poseidon to punish him, the cause of his subsequent woes. 

From here on Odysseus regularly recalls his clever escape from Polyphemus’s cave to rally his men and show his ability to get out of every tight spot.  He seems oblivious to how this must sound to them, boasting about a narrow escape made necessary only by his own poor judgment, where his men pay the price. 

Things now go from bad to worse.  On the island of Aeolus he is given the gift of winds, but within sight of Ithaca he falls asleep and his men, distrusting Odysseus and believing the bag of winds holds treasure he won’t share—he has not told them what it really is—open the bag and are again blown far away.  Most of his men are then quickly killed and eaten by the Lastrygonians, a second race of giants.  The one remaining ship limps to the goddess Circe’s island.  Odysseus masters and beds her and stays an entire year, only leaving when his crew tell him “Captain, this is madness!  High time you thought of your own home at last.”

All in all not the actions of a man focused on returning to his wife and son.

On leaving Circe Odysseus is told he must die; that is, he must go to Hades and get advice from the dead.  What this seems to mean is that Odysseus has lost his way and needs to be re-oriented.  In Hades the blind seer Tiresias offers guidance, and then Odysseus catches up on the news and speaks with some of his dead comrades from Troy.  All of them have been grievously damaged by the war:  Agamemnon killed by his angry wife;  Ajax unwilling to forgive Odysseus for winning Achilles’ armor; Achilles preferring to be a slave on earth than ‘reign in Hades.’  Odysseus must think, what did all my efforts and sacrifices gain?  Have I too been doomed by this terrible war?

But he also learns, partly from his own dead mother, that he still has a home.  Penelope and his son Telemachus are alive and loyal to him.  He has been damaged by war, but not destroyed.  He still has some men to bring back.  He can return to the land of the living with the possibility of healing. 

 With more advice from Circe, Odysseus passes by the Sirens and between Scylla and Charybdis—more Ithacans devoured—and to the Island of the Sun.  When Odysseus tries to get his exhausted crew to sail past they mutiny, led by his second-in-command, Eurylochus.   Marooned for a month his starving men disobey his orders not to kill Apollo’s cattle, while Odysseus again falls into inconvenient slumber, a sign that he has failed to exercise effective leadership.  They pay the price: a lightning bolt from Zeus.  Only Odysseus survives.  He lands on Calypso’s island where he is kept by the goddess for seven years, a long dark night of the soul.

The Odysseus now telling his story, on Phaeacia, has washed up on shore with literally nothing, not even clothes.  He has lost all his men.  He has lost all his treasure.  He has lost the chance to bring up his son, and have other children.  His mother has died of a broken heart.  He is fearful and unsure of himself.  He has nothing to show for his twenty years away. 

The Recovery

Can he pull himself together?  In Phaeacia we see him, bit by bit, come back to life. The delightful Princess Nausicaa’s immediate and natural attraction to the castaway begins to restore his confidence; Athena makes him handsome and strong once again.  The bard’s tales of Troy allow him to weep for himself and his former comrades.  He shows some of his old prowess in games held in his honor. 

Since he does this not as the great Odysseus but as someone anonymous, it proves to himself that he retains innate strengths, that when he finally reveals who he is he has already earned their respect.  He will repeat the exercise at greater length when he returns to Ithaca. 

But it is his lengthy tale-telling that perhaps does the most to bring about healing.  It is here that he can exercise what is most true in his character, his ability to speak well, to tell a story, to invent and manipulate.  It is in his story-telling that we see most clearly the many-twistedness, polytropos, the hard to translate quality he is assigned in the Odyssey’s opening lines.  The story shows a man of many turns, alternately far-sighted and blind, cunning and bold, favored and punished by the gods.  Seeking his wife and home, and running away.  Nothing is straight, starting with his track through the sea and its many islands.  And the ever-turning, multi-faceted hero is also the narrator. Or inventer.  We cannot tell. 

The tales show truths about their author, and also have another, immediate task.  Odysseus must make sure the Phaeacians will follow through on their promise to quickly send him on his way, back to Ithaca, with a great load of treasure.  Just before his story-telling, King Alcinous remembers a prophecy, an old tale from his father:   “That Lord Poseidon was vexed with us…One day, as a well-built ship of ours sailed home on the misty sea after such a convoy, the god would crush it, yes, and pile a huge mountain round about our port.”  Odysseus seems to see this as a challenge.  Can he admit to them that he is a special target of Poseidon, and despite the prophecy have them follow through?  Can he navigate this verbal Scylla and Charybdis?  Does he still have the old magic?

Yes!   The stories mesmerize his audience.  After he has finished, King Alcinous heaps more gifts on Odysseus, beyond what the lords of Phaeacia can afford—“a sumptuous tripod, add a cauldron!”—saying he will tax the people to pay for them.  They ignore the prophecy and use their magic ship to sail Odysseus home to Ithaca.   Sure enough, Poseidon imprisons them forever behind a great mountain.  But by then Odysseus is long gone.    

We too, the off-stage listeners and readers, are mesmerized.  It takes an effort to see past the glorious and diverting adventures to the man who is telling the tale.  Even if we do we admire the bard, maybe even overlook his failings out of gratitude for his imagination and the sheer pleasure of, as Odysseus has claimed, “the best that life can offer.”  For Odysseus it is a win-win.

Athena’s Return

After this lengthy prologue—we are now half-way through the Odyssey—Odysseus finally lands in Ithaca.  Here something notable happens:  Athena shows herself again.  She and Odysseus had once been the closest of allies; Nestor tells Telemachus “I’ve never seen the immortals show such affection as Pallas [Athena] openly showed him, standing by your father.”  But Odysseus has not knowingly seen her since leaving Troy.  He is not happy: “You were kind to me in the war years, so long as we men of Achaea soldiered on at Troy.   But once we’d sacked King Priam’s craggy city, boarded ship, and a god dispersed the fleet, from then on, daughter of Zeus, I never saw you.”   He accuses her of mocking him and telling him tales.

Athena’s excuse is that she didn’t want to oppose the powerful Poseidon.  Hardly credible; the Athena of the Iliad never shrank from butting heads with other gods.  But this abandonment and return seems to reflect how Odysseus at Troy used his talents usefully and beneficially, but away from the war these same talents have been his undoing.  Athena stresses that she and Odysseus are much the same:  “We’re both old hands at the arts of intrigue.  Here among mortal men you’re far the best at tactics, spinning yarns, and I am famous among the gods for wisdom, cunning wiles too.”   Her absence coincides with Odysseus’s wanderings and losses; her return signals that he now again has a purpose that will bring out his best.  

This does not mean all will be smooth sailing.  In Ithaca Odysseus will struggle to keep his suspiciousness, his talent for deception and intrigue, and his violent urges under control.  He will probe remorselessly to see who is faithful, especially Penelope, but even, cruelly and purposelessly, his aged father.  Telemachus has to confront him at one point to prevent an endless interrogation of everyone on the island:  “Reconsider, I urge you.  You’ll waste time roaming around our holdings, probing the fieldhands man by man.” 

He carries on a lengthy deception as a beggar in his own house, an act that he seems to enjoy for its own sake:  Odysseus can not only tell a fiction, he can be one.  In one of the most wrenching scenes in the book he will turn away from his beloved dog, who dies on a dunghill.  He will savagely kill all the suitors, even when they offer to repent, and even when he knows it will bring about a civil war.  (Most of the killing is done from a distance, with his great bow, a way of fighting disparaged in the Iliad; Odysseus however is less worried about his reputation than about getting the job done).  But in the end he finds his way back to Penelope, Telemachus, and his people. 

Odysseus and Penelope

When Odysseus and Penelope first speak in Book XIX he is disguised as a beggar and tells one of his many alternate histories, about being Diomedes’ brother from Crete.  But when the two of them are reconciled and spend their first night together in Book XXIII he tells her the same stories he had told on Phaeacia.  This it seems is the version that he wants those closest to him to hear.

Why is he comfortable telling his wife these tales of shifting commitment, not to mention many years bedding down with other women (goddesses, he claims)?  Perhaps because Penelope and he are alike; she too is a deceiver, as we are told, weaving by day and undoing by night to buy time.  She too is eager for gain and will dupe the suitors to get it: “Staunch Odysseus glowed with joy to hear all this—his wife’s trickery luring gifts from her suitors now”.  She too is suspicious and with the test of the bed wants proof that this version of Odysseus still remembers, and can be passionate about, their intimate secrets.

Penelope, like Odysseus, has grown and changed.  While not unfaithful in the way Odysseus admits, she has accepted the need to re-marry and give up the dream of her husband’s return.  She can be trusted to understand him, and to admire his fictions.

In this we can perhaps see that Penelope and Athena are mingled.  They share character traits, share the need to stand firm in a man’s world, and share a clear-eyed love for this flawed but intensely interesting man. The Athena who is by Odysseus’s side at Troy is also Penelope, who wants nothing more than Greek victory so that her husband can come back. The Athena who then leaves Odysseus in the lurch is also Penelope, who has to give up pining for her husband and focus on bringing up Telemachus, until he becomes a man and can take over the household. The Athena who returns is also the Penelope who wants her husband back, but has to uncover who he now is.

For his part, Odysseus the ‘many-turning’ must navigate perhaps the steepest turn of all.  This loner, this most self-contained of men, has to come to terms with the realization that this campaign is not like taking Troy; it’s not all up to him, and he can’t win through sheer cleverness.  Others have a say.  Telemachus has to accept him. The people of Ithaca have to accept him.  Above all Penelope has to accept him.  His temptation is always to succeed by tricking or sweet-talking, but in his own home this will be self-defeating.

Are these new relationships wholehearted, or provisional?  Odysseus is quick to warn Penelope that there is a further test, Tiresias’ obscure prophecy involving a seemingly impossible journey to find men who have never heard of the sea; only then will they have lasting peace.  At the end Odysseus disobeys a direct command from Athena (Penelope?) to stop killing his enemies, although they have thrown down their weapons.  It takes the ultimate intervention, a thunderbolt from Zeus, to make him stop and, perhaps, end the cycle of retribution.

Later poets will find it hard to believe Odysseus is ready for a peaceful life.  Dante places him in the 8th circle of Hell for his many deceptions and lies, and because at the end he sailed into the far West seeking what mortals should not.  Tennyson famously describes an Odysseus unable to stay at home:   

Come, my friends,
‘Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.

Somehow “and they lived happily ever after” doesn’t quite seem believable.  Odysseus has labored mightily to come to terms with the man he became at Troy, and now he has Penelope’s help. But the changes are deep. Homer is silent on the future. 

Quotes from the Iliad are from the translation by Emily Wilson.  Quotes from the Odyssey are from the translation by Robert Fagles.

Canada, We Hardly Knew Ye

The world’s longest land border is the over 5000 miles between the United States and Canada.  It is also the world’s longest unguarded border.

This may be changing.  Last week Canada revealed its military is modeling a US invasion.  The Canadian response would reportedly involve mimicking the Afghan mujahideen and using Canada’s size and harsh terrain to tie down invading forces and inflict unacceptable casualties. 

Americans take for granted the advantages the United States gains from living in a peaceful neighborhood.  But other major powers face potentially hostile countries next door and have to plan accordingly.  Russia borders China in the east—friendly for now, but not in the past—and NATO countries in the West.  China faces Russia, plus bitter enemy Vietnam to the south, nuclear-armed India to its west, and rich and powerful adversaries nearby, including South Korea and Japan. 

Unfriendly neighbors require extensive border infrastructure.  The Russian Border Guard Service, for instance, numbers some 170,000 troops.  In countries with dangerous neighbors, the military must continually plan, train, and equip for possible hostile action from next door.  There are almost always unresolved territorial disputes that can quickly escalate into armed confrontation.

The United States has been protected by two oceans but also by the absence of any threat from Canada or Mexico.  Neither country maintains forces designed to threaten the US, and the US is not postured to carry out operations in either country. 

Until now. Trump’s reckless statements about making Canada the 51st state have alarmed Canadians.  Trump and senior administration officials have made frequent hints about the need to intervene unilaterally in Mexico to fight criminals and terrorists.  The new National Security Strategy asserts an American right to rule the Western Hemisphere.  Tariffs on Canada and Mexico have been threatened, imposed and rescinded for blatantly political ends.  Unilateral action against Venezuela and threats to annex Greenland are further convincing Canadians and Mexicans that the United States could turn on them without warning.    

Americans may be surprised to know that Canada—Canada!— has emerged as perhaps the most outspoken opponent of the Trump administration’s vision for the world.  Two weeks ago at Davos Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (who is ironically only in power because Trump angered Canadian voters so much they turned against the Conservative Party in last spring’s elections) delivered a widely praised speech that distilled what Canada and many other countries fear, and how they plan to push back.

Carney said what we are experiencing now is not temporary, but a ‘disruption’ in the global order.  The United States is abandoning or weaponizing the multilateral institutions it helped create, and no longer sees itself as acting for the good of anyone other than itself. 

 “…great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security, that assumption is no longer valid. 

Canada is responding immediately by reducing its dependence on the US and strengthening ties with other economic and strategic partners.

We are fast-tracking $1 trillion of investments in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors and beyond. We’re doubling our defence spending by the end of this decade, and we’re doing so in ways that build our domestic industries. And we are rapidly diversifying abroad. 

We’ve agreed to a comprehensive strategic partnership with the EU, including joining SAFE, the European defence procurement arrangements. We have signed 12 other trade and security deals on four continents in six months.

In the past few days, we’ve concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar. We’re negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines and Mercosur.

The long run response is for ‘middle powers’ like Canada to cooperate and work around the United States to shore up the rules-based international system.

Our view is the middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour, or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.

The United States has always been willing to occasionally use its domination of international finance and its global military power for its own advantage.  Other countries have chafed but until now considered the benefits outweighed the costs, because the US was seen as committed to a system of mutual benefit.  But under Trump that is no longer the case.  Middle powers like Canada are actively seeking alternatives; over time, American power will drastically decline. The power of rivals such as China will increase.

One clear implication of Carney’s approach will be less defense cooperation. Canada is reportedly reconsidering whether to buy 88 American F-35 fighters, with Swedish Gripen aircraft as the likely alternative. Canada’s new Defense Investment Agency is prioritizing purchases from non-US suppliers, and Sweden is offering Canada a co-production agreement that would create 12600 Canadian jobs.

Many European countries have voiced concerns that military dependence on the US is no longer safe. The American supply chain may be abruptly broken for political reasons. US weapons could be designed with built-in kill mechanisms allowing the US to disable them when it pleases. Canada shares these fears.

Back to that long border. Today it is barely noticeable.  But tomorrow it may bristle with barbed wire, watch-towers, and sophisticated sensors.  Americans will miss the old Canada when it’s gone.  We will have only ourselves to blame.          

Trump’s Un-American National Security Strategy

The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy dropped on December 4.  The NSS is mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Act (1986) that requires each administration to produce a public statement of its goals and strategies.

A criticism of these efforts is that they end up being watered-down consensus documents that say little and try to cover every foreign policy base.  However, they can also reveal key assumptions and changes in strategic direction.  They are authoritative expressions of the President and his senior staff; when I was in government I saw them used to justify decisions and win interagency debates.   

According to press reports, the lead author of this NSS was Michael Anton.   Anton was head of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff until September, when he resigned, apparently upset at being passed over for a top job at the NSC.  While there are many fingerprints on this kind of document, Anton’s are the most visible.

Anton is an intellectual who embodies the nationalist and nativist side of the MAGA movement, along with Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Russell Vought and JD Vance.  He became famous in 2016 for his (initially anonymous) essay “The Flight 93 Election”, where he argued that electing Donald Trump was an existential necessity comparable to the decision by airline passengers on 9/11 to storm the cockpit of the hijacked jet over Pennsylvania.  After Trump was defeated in 2020, he was notorious for entertaining the idea of a ‘red Caesar’, a dictator who would do the necessary work of restoring order to a corrupted society.  His home port is the Claremont Institute, a right-wing thinktank that also harbors John Eastman, the recently pardoned legal architect of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2000 election.

The 2025 NSS reflects many of the positions held by Anton and his wing of the MAGA movement.  For them the starting point of all policy, including foreign policy, is that the United States is on the precipice of societal collapse, due to an insidious leftism that seeks to weaken our traditions and values through immigration, DEI, globalization, free trade, environmentalism and the like.   The section of the NSS titled ‘What We Want Overall’ climaxes with a call for “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health, without which long-term security is impossible. We want an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age.”  Our culture and heritage are under attack from within, and our foreign policy must be structured accordingly. 

To win this fight, Anton and other neo-nationalists argue it is appropriate for nations to nakedly pursue their own interests with little regard for any broader global order or the type of regime in other nations—‘America First.’  Supporting democracy abroad is a mistake; in fact, the word ‘democracy’ hardly appears in the entire NSS.  It astonishingly argues that our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, teaches that every nation’s distinct way of life should be respected; a sharp break with traditional American interpretations that say the rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are universal and always worthy of support.

The NSS criticizes American interventionism, but with telling exceptions.  One is Europe.  Europe is described as declining and in danger of ‘civilizational erasure,’ due largely to immigration.  Here the NSS echoes the criticism of Europe made by Vice-President Vance at the Munich Security Conference in February, who chastised European leaders for supposedly suppressing populism (see “The Dangerous Strategic Logic of Expanding the MAGAverse”). The NSS calls for the US to help Europe ‘correct its current trajectory’ by supporting ‘patriotic European parties’ and movements.

Behind this approach we can detect the ‘civilizationist’ view, highly influential in Moscow (and Beijing) via the mystic/philosopher Alexander Dugin, that the best of all possible worlds is one where distinct nations with different cultures and values protect and enhance these differences.  Diversity is a weakness.  It is dangerous to mix peoples via immigration, or weaken sovereignty via multinational institutions, or meddle abroad by trying to expand democracy.  Europeans are exhorted to fight the ‘loss of national identities and self-confidence.’

This view of Europe translates into US policy on Ukraine, which centers on a peace settlement and restoring ‘strategic stability’ with Russia.  The NSS claims Europeans ‘want peace’ but are being blocked by European elites who are engaged in ‘subversion of democratic processes’.  The US is therefore defending genuine democracy in Europe by pushing for a peace settlement over the head of Ukraine and against the wishes of Europe’s elected leaders.

While there is little discussion of Russia, it is easy to draw conclusions.  Russia is an example of a nation that, unlike Europe—and the US—is unabashedly nationalistic and proud of its history.   It apologizes for nothing in its pursuit of security and territory.  It spurns immigrants and asks its people to bear more children for the motherland.  (The NSS calls for Americans to have “growing numbers of strong traditional families that raise healthy children.”)  Russia is a model for the West.

While past administrations have put forward win-win strategies that aim for an interdependent global system, the world of the NSS is decidedly zero-sum.  There is no discussion of transnational issues—terrorism, non-proliferation, global warming, pandemics—that might require global cooperation, even with adversaries.  The portrayal of China is entirely as a threat and a competitor.   

In contrast to longstanding US policy, the NSS embraces a world divided into spheres of influence dominated by major powers:  “The outsized influence of larger, richer, and stronger nations is a timeless truth of international relations.”  The NSS makes our domain clear:   “The United States must be preeminent in the Western hemisphere.”  It describes in detail a ‘Trump corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine— the US must dominate our hemisphere militarily and economically, and prevent any other power from making inroads in the region. 

While not explicitly granting China and Russia their own similar spheres, this is the conclusion America’s allies can appropriately draw.  You are on your own. 

The Trump NSS attempts to draw a close to the era of American multilateralism and openness to the world that made the United States the strongest, wealthiest, and most respected nation on earth.  It makes selfishness a virtue and willfully ignores the long-term consequences for global stability, the American economy, and the well-being of the planet.  And it attempts to rewrite our national story by downplaying our Enlightenment origins and our commitments to universal principles and science-based progress, in favor of a worldview embraced by Moscow and Beijing that provides an intellectual justification for a new Caesar.

All this in the name of defending America against a wildly distorted version of modern liberalism.   Rather than ‘America First’ its real slogan should be ‘Un-American.’   

Winning Against the “Bigger Nation”

President Trump has frequently blamed Ukraine for getting in a fight with a bigger, more powerful state.  It’s a way to sound realistic in support of his desire to end the war on terms favorable to Russia.  The smart thing to do, for Ukraine, is to take the deal being offered by Moscow, and brokered by the United States.  Before things get even worse.  Because you can’t win.

A few days ago Trump said on Fox and Friends that “Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it’s a powerful nation. It’s a much bigger nation.  It’s not a war that should have been started. You don’t do that. You don’t take on a nation that’s 10 times your size.”

This is a puzzling thing for any American to say, since America owes its existence to a successful war against a much larger and more powerful nation.  In 1775 the population of the thirteen colonies is estimated to have been about 2.5 million, of whom some 460000 were slaves (this number does not include Native Americans).  The population of Great Britain was approximately 8 million, or some four times greater.

In calculating the actual number of soldiers these populations could provide, we have to remember that a considerable number of colonists were loyalists who supported the crown.  Others remained neutral, not actively supporting either side.  Estimates of the loyalist size range from 20-30% of the population.

·      If we assume that 25% were loyalists or stayed neutral, the population supporting the revolution was closer to 1.5 million, while that supporting Great Britain was 8.5 million, or 5.7 times greater.

·      The current population of Ukraine is 38 million, and of Russia 146 million, or 3.8 times greater.

Of course numbers alone are not a measure of military capacity.  Great Britain at this time was vastly superior to the colonies in almost every way: in weapons, in trained manpower, in military experience, and especially in naval power.  During the 18th century Britain had engaged in a series of successful major wars on land and sea, on the European continent as well as in North America, that had greatly strengthened its military capabilities.  In particular, by the time of the Revolution, Britain had the world’s largest and most powerful navy.

Great Britain was also vastly superior economically.  Apart from its American colonies, it controlled extremely valuable plantations in the Caribbean.  It was in the forefront of developing steam technology and exploiting its abundant coal reserves.  It had a developed manufacturing sector and global trade ties, while the Americas were overwhelmingly agrarian.  The British economy is estimated to have been some 10 times as large as that of the 13 colonies.  Britain was able to use its money to augment its regular forces with some 30,000 Hessian mercenaries, who made up 25% of British land forces during the war.

Using the Trumpian calculus, it was therefore foolish of the Americans to fight such a war.  There were plenty of nay-sayers at the time making the same hard-nosed arguments.  The rebels should accept British peace offers, such as those of the so-called Carlisle Commission in 1778. 

The Americans of course did not accept and went on to win.  But they didn’t do it on their own.  They were aided by a great European power, France, which provided money, training, and arms and eventually direct military support.  French assistance greatly complicated British strategy, boosted American morale, and kept the highly-motivated but outgunned Americans in the field long enough to wear down the British.  France at decisive moments, such as the battle of Yorktown in 1881 that effectively ended the war, was able to make up for the Americans lack of naval power. 

Ukraine too can win, provided someone plays the role of France.  The United States today has every reason to fill that role.    

·      France was eager to weaken its rival by separating it from a rich and strategically important colonial possession; the United States should not want Russia to colonize Ukraine and seize control of its mineral wealth, industrial capacity, rich farmland, and strategic position on the Black Sea.

·      France hoped an independent America would become an opponent of Britain and ally and trading partner of France; the United States, and its European allies, would benefit greatly from a strong, free Ukraine that helps check Russian expansionism, with an economy integrated into Europe and the West.

The American Revolution is of course only one of many examples of smaller forces defeating larger ones and changing the course of history.  Maybe we can’t expect Trump to be conversant with the Persian Wars, or the Siege of Malta.  But it isn’t too much to ask that the President of the United States know something about the history of his own country.

The Tragedy of Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk’s shooting was a tragedy, the full cause and ramifications of which we don’t yet know.  Killing someone in cold blood is unjustifiable.  Killing someone who, like Kirk, was engaging in public debate and discussion, is likely to convince many that talking is a waste of time and more violence is justified.

But that isn’t the tragedy I mean.  What seems tragic to me is the unfortunate direction of Mr Kirk’s brief life.  Charlie Kirk presented himself as someone dedicated to genuine debate, open to all arguments: “Prove me wrong.”  Genuine debate indeed implies the possibility of being proved wrong, of changing your mind about important things. 

But this was not what Kirk actually did.  Instead, he was a debater in the same way as a chess genius who agrees to play all comers, 10 at a time. It’s not impossible to lose, but highly unlikely. There is no real contest. Kirk was a skilled professional dismantling amateurs, mostly young college students. 

If you watch his debates and read analyses of how he conducted them, Kirk’s method was to win by using well-known tactics—false binaries, rapid-fire factual recitation, interruptions, slanted rephrasings, and questionable citations—to keep his interlocutors off-balance.  Further, the recordings of these interactions were carefully edited before being released to the public, to show Kirk in the strongest light and often humiliate those who disagreed with him.  These were not genuine attempts to understand or even to change minds.[1]  [2]They were performances designed to impress gullible bystanders and get people to join his highly partisan organization, Turning Point. [3]

In short, Kirk was a kind of sophist.  Socrates, the greatest critic of sophistry, was himself accused of being a sophist or someone who “makes the weaker argument appear the stronger. A professional sophist is skilled at rhetoric—in itself the neutral talent to be persuasive—and makes their living by winning arguments and teaching others to do the same. 

Whether the arguments are based on truth is beside the point.  According to a 2023 study by the Brookings Institute, Kirk’s regular podcast had one of the highest rates of unsubstantiated or false claims of all popular political podcasts.[4]  Kirk created and ran a growing Turning Point empire that relied on his rhetorical skills and, among other things, made him rich and famous.[5]   

The opposite of sophistry, as exemplified by Socrates, is philosophy.  This is the genuine search for truth.  It uses some of the same tools as sophistry but for a different end, not to win arguments and gain fame or power or money, but to discover what is real, what the difference is between opinion and knowledge. 

Key evidence that one is engaged in philosophy and not sophistry is a serious acknowledgement of ignorance, that one does not know what is true about the most important things.  What are beauty, truth, virtue, courage, piety, nature?   Socrates’s most famous ironic statement was that the only thing he knew, was that he knew nothing—which, however, put him immeasurably ahead of all those who claimed to know, but did not.  An awareness of one’s own ignorance, of the weakness of one’s cherished opinions, is an essential starting point in seeking knowledge and putting one’s beliefs on firmer ground.  Once you become convinced that your have found the truth and no longer need to search for it, you have, for Socrates, abandoned philosophy.

Charlie Kirk does not seem to ever have had any serious doubts about his own opinions.  He came from a conservative family and remained a conservative his entire life.  His core convictions were apparently formed in middle school, in part by reading Milton Friedman, and changed over time only in the direction of greater conservatism.[6] In his interview with Gavin Newsom in 2025 he said that early in his career he was a bit more libertarian, but that seems to be the extent of his flexibility.[7] Mr Kirk’s major ideological shift was in the direction of Christian nationalism and abandoning support for the separation of church and state.[8]

Mr Kirk didn’t go to college, something about which he boasted, claiming it made him more like the majority of Americans.[9]  I would never say college is necessary for genuine learning—bad teaching often ruins minds. But it is also the path for a precocious youngster like Kirk to be exposed to different ideas, to have their preconceptions challenged in an environment where changing your mind doesn’t destroy your career.

Mr Kirk started Turning Point when he was 18, so instead of college he committed to creating a ‘start-up’, as he describes it, a start-up that rested 100% on his sophistry and on never deviating from a given set of positions.  Kirk tells us that after speaking at a college conservative meeting, he was approached by Bill Montgomery, a wealthy right-wing businessman who told him how impressed he was, advised him to skip college, and offered to fund his new enterprise. They became co-founders of Turning Point USA.[10]  Montgomery and Kirk’s other rich donors and supporters expected Kirk to vigorously defend his established views, not adopt new ones.             

Plato in his dialogues shows Socrates interacting with many young men like Charlie Kirk.  Men with great promise but also great ambition.  They are attracted to the sophists, who promise success and fame.  Socrates tries, with limited success, to turn them in a different direction, towards the kind of reflection that would deepen their understanding of themselves and the communities they live in.  This reflection might, in time, make one able to engage in a different kind of politics, a politics informed by prudence and the realization that no one person has a monopoly on truth and virtue.  This was Aristotle’s defense of democracy, that it was able to incorporate the views of many people.       

The Greek sophists ultimately taught a kind of relativism.  Skillful rhetoric could change people’s opinions, in any direction.  What determines the direction is outside the realm of reason; it is whatever the skilled sophist, or his employer, wants. Charlie Kirk, of course, presented himself as a true believer—in right and wrong, in Christianity, in traditional values, in Donald Trump—and scourge of relativism.  But this is part of the sophist’s playbook, since most of us are attracted to people who seem certain of their beliefs, and are confused when someone is less confident.  Did he genuinely believe what he said, or was it a sham?  Kirk was known for taking extreme positions, such as calling for President Biden to be executed, or claiming black people were mentally inferior—were these genuine beliefs, or an easy way to get attention? The sophist is caught in a tangled web.

Everyone agrees that the youthful Charlie Kirk was someone of exceptional intelligence and poise, with great powers of persuasion.  I think his tragedy is that when he was very young, instead of a Socrates, he met people who told him how great he was and offered him money. It would be hard for any 18 year old to resist such flattery, and Kirk’s certainty about his beliefs made him especially susceptible. This path corrupted a promising soul.     

[1] https://www.salon.com/2025/09/17/how-debate-me-bro-culture-ruined-civil-discourse/

[2] https://newuniversity.org/2025/04/14/the-charlie-kirk-and-ben-shapiro-debate-trap/

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/09/27/us/politics/charlie-kirk-debate.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

[4] https://www.brookings.edu/articles/audible-reckoning-how-top-political-podcasters-spread-unsubstantiated-and-false-claims/

[5] https://www.propublica.org/article/at-this-trump-favored-charity-financial-reporting-is-questionable-and-insiders-are-cashing-in

[6] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-charlie-kirk-turning-point-campus-conservatives-profile-20181019-story.html

[7] https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-show/my-full-conversation-with-gavin-newsom-annotated

[8] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/charlie-kirk-turning-point-donald-trump-christian-nationalism-rcna156565

[9] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxqnkwerj7o

[10] https://www.msn.com/en-us/society-culture-and-history/pop-culture/who-are-charlie-kirk-s-parents-and-who-was-his-mentor-bill-montgomery/ar-AA1Mn3po