I hate being lied to. Trump lied to people a lot, but I tolerated it emotionally way better than during the Obama administration (which I consider equally untrustworthy) because at least now, my friends and family all recognized we couldn't take what the president said at face value. Among my friends we could have clear conversations about Trump.
Instead of having to point out the president's lies, I find myself having to point out the media's lies - lying through over-emphasizing, censoring, slanting; by choosing whom to interview and whom not, by selectively projecting attitudes of disdain or humility as suits their desired narrative, by taking advantage of your predispositions to get you to believe things that seem plausible but are wrong - the media grooms people in a thousand ways. And they're really good at it.
The goal of this essay is to show how the media distorts our understanding, and I'll do that by contradicting one of the dominant media narratives of our time - that Trump never said anything of value, or never told the truth in a substantive way. My goal isn't to support Trump (if it was, I'd have posted this before the election), but rather to show that the media successfully suppressed some valuable points Trump tried to get across. And if we don't want the corporate or oligarch-influenced media to limit our awareness, we need to find alternative ways of seeking the truth.
Before diving in...
* This isn't a pro-Trump essay. I don't support 99% of his actions and words, and like all presidents he caused tremendous suffering and confusion in America and around the world. But the truths I highlight below are still worth recognizing.
* As you read, see if you notice a theme.
So, without further ado, here are some profound truths from Trump which I was grateful to hear.
It was a mistake for Bush to attack Iraq and Bush lied about his real motivation for attacking
As far as I know, Trump is the first big name politician to explicitly acknowledge Bush lied to get America into Iraq (a war Biden strongly supported too) and that America had no business invading that country. And this was spoken by a Republican at a presidential debate no less!
Politicians (and George Bush JR after 9/11 especially) commonly wrap themselves in the flag, pretending people who oppose their policies oppose the soldiers and America. This makes it hard to speak the truth publicly without risking friendships and having your name slandered. Finally a major politician publicly called Bush out on his lies.
Generals often push for war for personal and corporate profit
I was reminded of the great Smedley Butler (a US Marine General and author of the free book War is a Racket) watching this little clip of Trump speaking. Who thought a president would ever call out military corruption so directly! I'm not sure how to embed the short video, so please just click the link to watch it. Trump speaks in the first 40 seconds, but the whole thing is worth watching.
Smedley Butler's succinct book describes many ways American corporate and political leaders profit from war at public expense. One way is this: Many American generals will speak lofty words of respect and selfless honor even as they retire to go off to work on the boards of directors of large corporations which direct American foreign policy towards more war and more military spending, regardless the long-term benefit to America. It's a form of honest graft: like dishonest graft it's still self-serving and terrible for America, but since it's not punished by police and everyone does it, people who engage in this behavior can maintain a self-image of being good American public servants. And this is just one easy-to-summarize example of this war-related honest graft. For an excellent but partial list of the American generals and colonels from the Afghan war now working corporate gigs, and what that sort of 'work' looks like, click here. For an insider's perspective written by an officer which explains how the military produces generals like this, click here.
Hearing a president speak to the truth - that many high-ranking people in fancy suits and uniforms who pretend to be patriotic while supporting endless wars are actually full of shit and acting selfishly - this was good to hear. Obviously the Trump administration still brought much suffering around the world, so it's not like he's any anti-war hero, but I still found it gratifying to hear these words from a politician.
Calling American generals "losers" he "wouldn't go to war with"
When I see military leaders testifying before congress, they engage in so much pomp and circumstance. There's this presumption military leaders are very competent and that they're selfless servants seeking only to keep America safe. They're the 'serious people', the 'adults in the room'. In the previous section, we saw Trump call out generals for seeking war for profit. In this section, we see Trump calling out generals for being incompetent, obliterating this pretense of military competence in 2017 in a meeting with America's top generals and other top leaders.
Trump reportedly said[3], face-to-face with America's top generals:
"I want to win. We don’t win any wars anymore,"
and
"I wouldn’t go to war with you people."
and
"You're a bunch of dopes and babies."
Trump punctured this self-image of competence by calling out the consistent poor military performance, and the military leaders felt hurt and disrespected. Good. The first step to fixing anything is to tell the truth others are afraid to acknowledge.
There's so much to love in this article. How about this:
Trump questioned why the United States couldn’t get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump boomed. “Where is the f---ing oil?”
Remember the Republicans claiming Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion? Well it didn't! They didn't take this claim seriously, it was just BS to get America into a BS war. I suspect the generals also didn't take this claim seriously either.
Trump doesn't care about the collateral damage (ie all the unnecessary human and non-human suffering); he just wants American imperialism to pay for itself. Even that seems too much to ask. The generals tried to acknowledge non-financial and indirect ways in which war benefits US empire. In narrow ways they may have been correct, but US militarism is obviously not self-sustaining now, or else the empire wouldn't be collapsing as it clearly has over the past 15+ years. My sense is Trump recognizes this at a gut level and wanted to change course.
* Obviously, as this article describes, Trump's own attitude was very selfish, wanting so-called allies to pay for the American troops which America imposes on them and wanting imperial victims like Afghanistan to pay in oil or minerals for being conquered.
* I strongly prefer that the alternative to 'losing wars' is 'only fighting wars in actual self-defense', and Trump didn't mean that. I oppose US imperialism and support a transition away from an industrialized economy that requires foreign wars to maintain the American way of life.
* Little seems to have changed after this incident.
Even with these caveats, I'll take a little bullshit-puncturing truth-telling over none at all.
Allegedly calling soldiers 'suckers'
This is the only quote I include in this essay which Trump denies saying. So to be clear: some people claim they heard him say it, but I don't know whether he truly said this or not. It may just be a smear job. But it's still worth sharing as I describe below.
The story: Trump was scheduled in 2018 to take a helicopter to visit a cemetery in France where dead American soldiers are buried. When weather made this impossible, he supposedly discussed options for attending by car, but said he didn't want to go because the people buried there are 'suckers' and 'losers'.
Assuming Trump said this, it isn't 'false' or 'true' so much as an honest expression of his feelings. I include this quote because I suspect Trump believes it whether he said it or not, and more importantly, because I suspect it's actually a common attitude among American political and war-profiteer corporate elites towards soldiers: that they're suckers.
Put yourself in their shoes: Imagine if you were a con-man and all you had to do was keep saying the same sort of lie over and over, and people kept believing you even as they got killed and maimed and traumatized, and you kept getting richer and richer at no personal risk. Sounds like a pretty sweet scam, right? Sure, it causes tremendous suffering and waste and pollution, but the con-men bear no risk and consistently make huge profits - and the con never changes! The same dumb game keeps working over and over. From such a dishonest person's perspective, the people who believe the lies and bear all the personal risk with no prospect of reward might seem like suckers.
One example of this con is the life of Dick Cheney: he worked in the white house and congress for a few decades, then worked as secretary of defense in the early 90s under Bush 1. He left the government and become CEO of a major war contractor, Halliburton, and over 5 years earned $72.5 million dollars. Think about that: he had no experience working in business from the 1970s till leaving government in 1993, then was instantly made the top leader of a large war-profiteer company and made millions of dollars. Then he returned to government as the vice president, ordered or encouraged a bunch more wars with president Bush, and then left office again. He's now estimated to own $100 million dollars. He bore no personal risk and made big bucks while sending others to their death on all manner of false pretenses (see Iraq war for example).
This con, unfortunately, is not unique to America. It happens the same in every country, and was most succinctly described in an interview with the second-in-command Nazi Hermann Goering in 1946:
[Goering] "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
[interviewer] "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
[Goering] "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
This con is alive and well in America. Every war is based on lies[1] and makes a few very rich at the expense of many. Trump honestly expressed the callousness many elites feel[2], which was a big no-no. Unlike Trump's remarks about the generals, I didn't feel any gratification hearing this alleged comment of his. I felt sad, knowing how deeply many soldiers care for their country, and how American leadership violates their trust. It's just a reminder of one of the many scams we're all subjected to continuously in this culture.
Summary
At the top of this essay, I asked you to consider to look for a unifying theme.
Here's my answer:
* Every section involves war, one of the topics about which the media lies most consistently.
* In the first 3 sections, Trump basically points out the Emperor has no clothes. Consider this summary of the above sections:
- "A previous president lied about something really important"
- "Generals sometimes act selfishly, and not with the country's best interest at heart"
- "Many generals are not very competent and lose wars"
- "I [Trump] do not respect soldiers"
Items 1-3 are all pointing out major deficiencies in political and military leaders and institutions, and the military is one of the most trusted institutions in this country! These were major 'emperor has no clothes' moments, and so it's no wonder that the media downplayed, distorted, or ignored them.
Here are some key lessons I'm taking away from this:
- Know my biases: Progressives were already predisposed to dislike and distrust Trump, and so it was easy for the media to convince them he never said or did anything they might approve of. But certainly most progressives would support calling out lies and selfish behavior among politicians and military leadership. I must be aware of my biases so I'm not easily fooled.
- Avoid good-guy/bad-guy caricatures: No matter what, always see people as people and know them as they are, not as caricatures. There are no heroes and no uniquely bad devils, though I may trust some more than others, and there are some people whose actions I support more often than others'.
- The media will lie about "emperor has no clothes" moments: The reason everyone pretends the naked emperor has no clothes is because the media and other officials pretend. We must see that the media is already not on the side of bringing us deep awareness, and not let the media blind us to these moments of truth.
Gratitude
I've studied the media and history a lot, but far and away the two most helpful resources were Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent and the NakedCapitalism blog run by Yves Smith. Many other writings, such as Lies My Teacher Told Me and many works by Native Americans like Ohiyesa/Charles Alexander Eastman's The Soul of the Indian helped open my eyes and my heart to seek deeper truths than I learned growing up. Many thanks to those who helped me on this path. May I pay it forward.
Final words
It doesn't have to be this way. We don't need to keep falling for the same dumb war con (as described by the Nazi Goering) over and over. Native American cultures were healthier and show us a better way. According to his free autobiography, when the Apache Geronimo wanted to gather men to fight in defense of his people and land after Mexicans had attacked his village and killed his family, he visited campfires in village after village to speak and recruit face-to-face. Around these campfires people discussed the true threats to their communities and, as courageous and deeply caring men and women, they personally took responsibility for their collective well-being in making their own informed decision about whether to go to war. There was no con as they discussed war, no grifting. Every country in the world seems to fall for this war con, but indigenous cultures did not. We would be wise to learn from them.
Footnotes
=======
[1] Writing this, I wonder what wars I would have supported. I'd have supported self-defense in the war of 1812. But I can't think of a war of actual self-defense since then. The US goaded Japan to attack the US in 1941 by putting very damaging sanctions on Japan months before the Pearl Harbor attack. The US hid weapons in the passenger ship Lusitania and then pretended Germany attacked a helpless passenger ship as an excuse to enter WWI. The US said it didn't care about Iraq's relationship with Kuwait, tacitly encouraging Saddam Hussein to attack Kuwait in 1990 before using that as an excuse to attack Iraq, etc. The US constantly lied about indigenous people to justify attacking them for centuries, which continues today. Etc.
[2] I recognize there's more nuance here: you could definitely argue that Trump didn't mean 'suckers' in the way I described. Trump often calls people who die or "don't win" in some way 'losers'. In that sense, merely dying made these dead soldiers 'losers' to Trump. But 'suckers' is different: suckers die for somebody else's benefit while believing something false. While Trump also apparently doesn't believe in altruism at all, I suspect that Trump, ever the con-man, instinctually understands this dynamic I describe.
[3] Even in articles like this, you can see many subtle ways the author slants readers against Trump. This is easily done, because Trump often was ignorant and foolish. But he also seemed to call out bullshit in ways no others would, including significant parts of American foreign policy. He didn't defend his views with long analysis, but just by pointing out the idiocy he noticed. This brings to mind Nassim Nicholas Taleb's discussion in Antifragile of the difference between the educated and the uneducated: the educated have their intuition snuffed out and learn to believe obvious BS, whereas the uneducated are more likely to notice institutional idiocy. Trump was so full of shit so often, and so unable to articulate his useful insights when he had them, that he wasn't able to change much as president. But noticing that American empire is not paying for itself seems like a reasonable insight to me.
