For some of us one of the most vivid “tells” (which should raise the hackles of all Americans) is censorship which has made its way through virtually every government department to those even government adjacent such as scientists receiving NIH grants. (Quite astonishing for a regime which has just had the gall to lecture Germany on its curtailing of fascist rhetoric).
The banning of books in schools run by the Department of Defense is clearly just a test balloon to more widespread book banning (a movement that’s been amping up on the right). How soon will every classroom be required to hang a portrait of Trump and every schoolchild be required to mouth an altered pledge of allegiance?
And now the desperate DeSantis is suing Target for selling Pride Month themed paraphernalia (on its face one of the dumbest lawsuits in history).
DeSantis is a sociopath (ASPD) which has historically been common in fascist leadership. His gender bigotry and political bigotry fit the fascist mold as well.
Just the sort of thing one can imagine, with the manic, drug addled Musk wielding a chainsaw and dancing round the blaze. In his underwear. Maybe with one of his kids on his shoulders.
Thank you for the response. Well, that was shameful. An example of obeying in advance. I see you are on live with AG this morning. I will be there in full support of you and this community.
Loyalty to whom or to what, David? Ruth is loyal to the Constitution and the truth, unlike Mr. Trump, who is only loyal to his appetites and associated insecurities.
Ruth showed us the list (maybe a partial one?) a couple years ago. The list is real and it will be used. Back then, I don't remember if it was touted as being as ostensibly stupid as passing a loyalty test for an insecure narcissist but it was a list of people who spoke against the insolent child.
I wonder if and when colleges and education become important again, if psychology classes will be updated to take into all the DSM codes on display by those pulling the puppet strings.
"Back for more"... Aren't they always? Thank you Professor for your clarity. Lucid is a very appropriate title for your essays. The coup in Chile was a practice run. The GOP has been working on this one since the 1939 attempt they were busted for.
In 1987 a Chilean refugee warned me that someday someone would take over our democracy and destroy it, and we wouldn't be able to stop them. I never forgot his words.
There was a fascist coup attempt in 1933 headed by Prescott Bush, with the purpose of ousting FDR. Big business has wanted fascism here for quite some time.
The fact that so many Republicans Reps. and even the Heritage Foundation tried to cancel your Bancroft lecture even though you explicitly promised not to mention Trump is absolutely horrifying. Why not simply counter-argue, if they'd disagree with anything that you would say? And the fact that this already happened in September 2024, long before Trump would win the election and become president, is even more appalling.
At the same time, I'm afraid that the left is not without any blame here. Progressives on campuses have been calling (successfully) for the cancellation of centrists such as Christine Lagarde (director of the IMF) or even the Obama AG Eric Holder for decades already. No Democrat ever wanted to install fascism in the US, contrary to what the GOP is doing right now and what the Heritage Foundation wanted for years already. Still, if you read Peter Thiel and other neofascists, the leftwing cancel culture was precisely one of the reasons why they switched from being libertarian to neofascist in the first place. As a progressive, I hope that we will soon have a public debate about this, because if not, part of our fight against neofascism will always sound hollow.
Yep, this is a case of “pot meet kettle”. Once I saw that Ben-Ghiat had announced her lecture in a Lucid essay that specifically referenced Trump as an example of an authoritarian in waiting, it made sense that the GOP would try to have the lecture cancelled as a violation of the military’s duty to stay out of politics, especially right before an election for President in which Trump was a candidate. Big time mistake on Ben-Ghiat’s part. And “woke” secular universities have been cancelling conservative voices for years recently. So this is a case of hypocrisy on Ruth’s part. Had she kept her mouth (pen) shut, the lecture might have gone on as scheduled. Pot Meet Kettle.
No Democrat in office has EVER tried to end democracy and install fascism, so no, I don't see how you could call this a "pot meets kettle" situation. It's one thing to have progressive students cancel people on campuses. It's an ENTIRELY different thing to start using the force of government to end democracy altogether, as the GOP is now doing. Also, Ben-Ghiat is right, Trump IS an authoritarian, so in this case, how to give a lecture about authoritarianism that doesn't sound political, at a time when many people had already called Trump a fascist, including many of his closest first term advisors and four-star generals... ?
This is not just any old college or university. It’s the Naval Academy (and my father graduated from the Naval Academy fwiw). It’s illegal for them to have even the appearance of “politics” in any of their on or off campus events. The midshipmen (students) are considered active duty military. Many of the professors are active duty military. Much of the administration is active duty military. They are all bound by military law, rules, and regulations to maintain total neutrality with respect to politics, and especially elections. They had no business scheduling this lecture, and Ruth had no business announcing it in this newsletter in such an overtly partisan way. And it was ultimately the Naval Academy that cancelled her lecture, so it’s exactly like MIT cancelling the U Chicago professor for his lecture. Just because they got a bunch of letters from congressmen complaining, it was still their decision. Ruth made a giant mistake, and she should own it.
Clearly, political topics are allowed, since they knew that the lecture would be about authoritarianism. So it's PARTISAN politics that wasn't supposed to be addressed, if I understand correctly. "Partisan politics" means: pro GOP or pro Democratic Party advocacy, knowing that not everyone in the audience would agree if you'd adopt a typical Republican or Democratic outlook on any given topic. What both parties have in common (or had, until recently), however, is that they both follow the Constitution and are pro-democracy. What this lecture was about it what BOTH parties strongly rejected, namely authoritarianism. Only now that the GOP became neofascist did the topic of democracy versus authoritarianism become a partisan issue too. So what about lectures that appeal to what the traditional Grand Old Party and the Democratic Party always had in common, namely the rejection of fascism? Imho, there is no good reason to refuse a lecture about that topic at all. And the fact that GOP Congressmen complained PROVES her point, namely the GOP has become a neofascist party.
Partisan politics are not allowed, you say? Clearly, this is exactly what Ruth intended, a lecture on the military and authoritarianism prefaced by an announcement that directly tied that lecture to a diatribe about Trump wanting to be a dictator and how he would seek to control the military in pursuit of that goal. There is no other way to read that announcement, no matter what clever tricks (a typographical line of separation) she employed in writing the essay here in Substack.
Every paragraph in that essay written in bold accuses Trump of being the dictator in waiting, chomping at the bit to control the US military to his own nefarious ends. And she does it more than once. Ruth starts the announcement innocently enough, but immediately, as she herself says in so many words, she pivots to threat Trump will pose as President:
“ That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military.… Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims...”
Only someone incredibly naive or fully aligned with Ruth’s aims could read this essay and remain unaware of her intentions. I agree with her assessment of Trump and I agree with the danger. But right before a president election in which he was one of the two primary candidates, this was partisan politics and the Naval Academy had no business going along with it after Ruth so blatantly gave her intention away.
As I said, "partisan", in a democracy, refers to left-wing versus right-wing ideologies, INSIDE a pro-democracy view on the government. Democracy versus fascism doesn't fall into the category of "partisan" - UNLESS you are a fascist, of course, because then you'll reject all pro-democracy views as being partisan too.
What Ruth does in the essay and what she would NOT have done during the live lecture is indeed showing that Trump is a fascist. She clearly mentions that fact in her article above herself already. And by now, we have all the evidence needed to know that she was right. Still, by avoiding to name him, she could have easily given a non-partisan lecture, because, once again, "partisan", INSIDE a democracy, refers to liberal versus conservative worldviews, not democracy versus autocracy.
Since I already wrote this in my previous reply to you, however, and you didn't address it in your latest reply: any comments on substance, by chance?
I disagree. Following your logic, the Naval Academy could never have any speaker who expressed an opinion in favor of any political view in their professional view.
Of course, the lecture must have no political bias - and it did not. And her bibliography is full of excellent work that deals purely in historical analysis with no political bias. There's no reason to believe her speech would be biased.
As for her announcing it on her substack, that's also irrelevant. She can announce her activities however she likes. That has no influence on the midshipmen... unless she announced it in the context of "I'm talking at the NA, but I plan to slip in some criticism of Trump"
I’ll quote the relevant parts. After a simple announcement of her upcoming lecture (only a few weeks away), she says:
“That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military.… Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims...”
“… If you are aligned for ideological, financial or other reasons with autocrats whose goal is to take down America as a superpower, then you will see the immensely powerful and professional U.S. military as a big obstacle.
Everything Trump wants to do with and to the U.S. military may be seen as minimizing the global reach and influence of our armed forces abroad: withdraw from NATO, reorient some military resources to domestic repression, and pursue "non-intervention" —a path that would make the imperialist conquests of Russia in Eurasia and China in the Pacific far easier…”
Yeah, I believe you're arguing in bad faith - so this is the only response I'll make to you.
Everything you quoted is from Ruth's standard newsletter. Which are her own views and comments shared with her followers. Similar to her own comments she makes when asked to speak on TV or other context where she is asked to comment on current affairs. Everyone has opinions and everyone has a 1A right to express those views.
Now, the Naval Academy is composed of active duty servicepeople and has an obligation to have a non-partisan view. So, they quite rightly should ensure *not* that they only have people with no views at all, but only that partisan views are not part of the training.
So it is quite noteworthy that you skipped over the very first paragraph of Ruth's post - announcing this Naval Academy lecture and what she would be discussing there. It says:
"I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine."
So that directly backs my point. Ruth announces what she would be discussing at the NA ... and it wasn't Trump or current affairs. It very explicitly said she's going to talk about militaries under authoritarians, using examples from Italy, Chile and Russia. I'm sure this was discussed upfront with the Naval Academy - and (originally) deemed acceptable. Why wouldn't it, if midshipmen didn't do their own additional research, they'd hear a purely non-partisan historical lecture. And as any high-level military person knows, knowledge of military history is extremely valuable.
But history is dangerous to autocrats, so one specific party decided to make this an issue. Aligned with rightwing pressure groups, they ginned this up into a scandal and forced the event's cancellation.
Absolutely no "partisan" views were kept from the midshipmen, only a richer knowledge of history.
So, again, I think your premise is deeply flawed - and now I see because you are cherrypicking your facts. In my analysis, the Naval Academy was fundamentally wrong and (dangerously) complying in advance with partisans and autocrats. Have a nice life.
Ruth, the fact that so much effort was put into silencing you speaks volumes. Me thinks that the forces of tyranny fear you. They should fear ALL of us!
Fair enough in general but Thiel’s despicable political ops are not justified by hurt sensibilities and general disapproval of liberal arts college campus culture…look at the outrageous falsehoods and racist propaganda that his boy Vance has been pumping out into the public forum. There is a difference of significance between cancelling certain speakers (albeit problematic) and using a public podium to whip up hate towards chosen scapegoats towards gaining/consolidating power to then exclude/jail/disempower.
Nothing JUSTIFIES fascism. But human experiences do explain why people feel as if it is sincerely the best way to "save humanity"... so if we want to defeat it, we need to understand where it comes from and address the root causes.
Cancelling former AG Eric Holder?!?! WTH 🤦♀️ Wgat subversive stuff was Mr Holder going to talk about? It’s my understanding that he tends to focus on getting rid of gerrymandering & other forms of voter suppression.
A bunch of self-declared progressive students claimed that it would be "unsafe" for them to have to be subjected to the opinions of an AG who failed to jail those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis... . Utterly absurd indeed. For the details, see the outstanding book by Jonathan Haidt, "The Coddling of the American Mind." Something has been going wrong on US campuses for quite a while already, and the book explains how we got there (Haidt is a progressive himself). Obviously, this doesn't justify the installation of fascism at all, but it does help to understand where the backlash is coming from.
The difference is that campus progressives who sought to cancel speakers with whom they disagreed didn't have the Brookings Institution on their side nor did they rally AOC and other hyper-partisan members of Congress to lend their weight to deplatform speakers.
I have been thinking a lot about the claim that America has "the best, strongest military in the world". While this claim is largely based on the size and sophistication of our military... it's ability to fight two full-scale wars at the same time. And while this "two wars" capability is said to be no more (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/can-the-us-fight-two-big-wars-at-once-new-report-casts-doubts/ ), our REAL military strength came from the Oath every service member takes to Defend The Constitution.
This "strength" appears to be no more. When Trump / Hegseth got rid of these top-level leaders plus the JAG officers, there should have been a mass and very public outcry from the remaining leadership group. Their silence speaks volumes. And that scares me a lot!
The military is limited in how it can speak out due to the deference to civilian leadership, and all it would do is to get the critics fired, no matter how justified their criticism.
stunned but then I shouldn't be as this is par for the course for the MAGA-ts. so sorry to read of the reversal to speak at the Naval Academy. hope you are taking precautions since you are in the MAGA-ts crosshairs.
The vast majority of observers are still treating the moves and prospects of this fascist regime as if the game were political or electoral. They're gauging Trump's future prospects with reference to the movement of his polling numbers or the hints and grumblings of legislators or jurists. They have failed to grasp that what can't be won with political power will be won by force: That is what is in the minds of Trump, Musk, Hegseth, Patel, Gabbard, et al.
Presidential "approval" has become quaint -- without the vast majority of observers realizing it. The Pentagon purge is a clear signal of that shift. The anti-woke, anti-DEI rationale is an obvious smokescreen. This is about putting the anti-Mark Milleys in place who, when Trump gives the order to kill us, will salute and say "Yes, sir!" There may well be a residue of institutional resistance but this is a huge and revealing step towards that irrevocable turn to military-supported dictatorship.
You've been concerned (alarmed!) about that all along. I think any discerning student of history would be. I wrote specifically about it a year ago: https://whowhatwhy.org/justice/donald-trump-and-the-dictators-doom-loop/. I'm not sure what we get for our "clairvoyance" other than a front-row seat at the horror show about to unfold.
Can you publish the lecture you would have given at the Naval Academy somehow on the internet and let us know how to access it? It would be important to give all the rest of us out here your insights and understanding. The more information and analysis we have, the more we can think, plan and do. Many of us have not had to think about coups, authoritarians, institutional democracy and popular response for a long, long time. Things have changed considerably from the sixties and early seventies. Thank for your writing in Lucid, but we need more.
Maria, if you want more information just buy the excellent book that Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written about authoritarians in the 20th and 21st century. Its title is Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. (The same book was published in the UK with a different subtitle.) I would imagine that most of the material she planned to present in the lecture can be found in her book, which was published in 2020.
This is so distressing. As the daughter of a devoted Naval Academy alumnus, and having attended his internment at this incredible place last year I am glad he did not live to see this day. I was hoping for more from our great military institutions.
Tried to delete or edit my comment after reading some of those below. Couldn’t do it so ‘replying’ to myself! I agree that the Academy cannot be seen to be partisan so understand now why they cancelled.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me. You definitely know what is going on, Dr. Ben-Ghiat, and they hate that. It’s even more important than ever that we the people know what’s happening and put a stop to Trump and his buddies destroying our government.
I searched online to confirm the speech was cancelled - and the search results themselves were extremely telling. Searching for "Ben-Ghiat Bancroft Naval", these were the top fifteen listings.
Rightwing groups (11) - Real Clear Defense, Washington Times, TippInsights, Heritage Foundation, Washington Reporter, Washington Times, Daily Caller, Daily Signal, STARRS. American Faith, Baltimore Banner
What a stunning example of the rightwing disinformation machines and how it launches/boosts culture battles, until it enters the political space, then the real-world. Many of these rightwing sites were ones I never heard of an have legit sounding titles.
Side note, beyond these 15 I started to get multiple postings for the rightwing sites above.
I look forward to your guests on Sunday. I’m extremely active in fighting to save our Democracy. As much as I try to pace myself with the ‘bile’ spewed everyday since the election, I wake up each morning to the cruelty and actions of mostly homicidal white men (and their enablers) purging hard working and dedicated public servants the night before. Even though they will be the cause of deaths, either directly or indirectly, of patriotic citizens, they are such cowards! They do this on the weekend, during breaking news stories and in the dark of night. Their stain and disdain for American Democracy will take decades to clean up and a fight by the rest of us like we’ve never experienced before. Stay safe, Ruth.
For some of us one of the most vivid “tells” (which should raise the hackles of all Americans) is censorship which has made its way through virtually every government department to those even government adjacent such as scientists receiving NIH grants. (Quite astonishing for a regime which has just had the gall to lecture Germany on its curtailing of fascist rhetoric).
The banning of books in schools run by the Department of Defense is clearly just a test balloon to more widespread book banning (a movement that’s been amping up on the right). How soon will every classroom be required to hang a portrait of Trump and every schoolchild be required to mouth an altered pledge of allegiance?
And now the desperate DeSantis is suing Target for selling Pride Month themed paraphernalia (on its face one of the dumbest lawsuits in history).
Attacks on free speech are everywhere.
DeSantis thinks he needs to become relevant again.
Go ahead DeSantis - start another war with a big business.
DeSantis is a sociopath (ASPD) which has historically been common in fascist leadership. His gender bigotry and political bigotry fit the fascist mold as well.
Very relevant. This, although there is no book burning as yet, is an "Autodafe" in my mind.
Just the sort of thing one can imagine, with the manic, drug addled Musk wielding a chainsaw and dancing round the blaze. In his underwear. Maybe with one of his kids on his shoulders.
The Naval Academy passed the loyalty test? So they blocked you from giving the lecture?
She's not loyal to orange jesus.
I took it to mean the Naval Academy passed the loyalty test to Trump
Correct, they cancelled her speech. I looked it up to be certain.
It would be nice if that were more explicit in the post. I would especially have liked to see who ultimately cancelled it an what their rationale was.
True, I need to add that!
Yes it was a loyalty test from and for MAGA
Thank you for the response. Well, that was shameful. An example of obeying in advance. I see you are on live with AG this morning. I will be there in full support of you and this community.
Disgusting censorship?
Hide the truth and do not abide by selective history!
Telling the truth is not the practice of MAGA.
These are future Naval officers so what is Trump (& Company) afraid of?
Little tin men? Tin gods?
Hopefully, they will remember their oath.
Far too many of them have already, shamefully, violated it or declared their willingness to do so.
Loyalty to whom or to what, David? Ruth is loyal to the Constitution and the truth, unlike Mr. Trump, who is only loyal to his appetites and associated insecurities.
Ruth showed us the list (maybe a partial one?) a couple years ago. The list is real and it will be used. Back then, I don't remember if it was touted as being as ostensibly stupid as passing a loyalty test for an insecure narcissist but it was a list of people who spoke against the insolent child.
I wonder if and when colleges and education become important again, if psychology classes will be updated to take into all the DSM codes on display by those pulling the puppet strings.
I hope can give this lecture in a different venue
The more i learn about this administration and its tactics, the more unhappy i have become. But not defeated 🤬
"Back for more"... Aren't they always? Thank you Professor for your clarity. Lucid is a very appropriate title for your essays. The coup in Chile was a practice run. The GOP has been working on this one since the 1939 attempt they were busted for.
In 1987 a Chilean refugee warned me that someday someone would take over our democracy and destroy it, and we wouldn't be able to stop them. I never forgot his words.
There was a fascist coup attempt in 1933 headed by Prescott Bush, with the purpose of ousting FDR. Big business has wanted fascism here for quite some time.
The fact that so many Republicans Reps. and even the Heritage Foundation tried to cancel your Bancroft lecture even though you explicitly promised not to mention Trump is absolutely horrifying. Why not simply counter-argue, if they'd disagree with anything that you would say? And the fact that this already happened in September 2024, long before Trump would win the election and become president, is even more appalling.
At the same time, I'm afraid that the left is not without any blame here. Progressives on campuses have been calling (successfully) for the cancellation of centrists such as Christine Lagarde (director of the IMF) or even the Obama AG Eric Holder for decades already. No Democrat ever wanted to install fascism in the US, contrary to what the GOP is doing right now and what the Heritage Foundation wanted for years already. Still, if you read Peter Thiel and other neofascists, the leftwing cancel culture was precisely one of the reasons why they switched from being libertarian to neofascist in the first place. As a progressive, I hope that we will soon have a public debate about this, because if not, part of our fight against neofascism will always sound hollow.
Yep, this is a case of “pot meet kettle”. Once I saw that Ben-Ghiat had announced her lecture in a Lucid essay that specifically referenced Trump as an example of an authoritarian in waiting, it made sense that the GOP would try to have the lecture cancelled as a violation of the military’s duty to stay out of politics, especially right before an election for President in which Trump was a candidate. Big time mistake on Ben-Ghiat’s part. And “woke” secular universities have been cancelling conservative voices for years recently. So this is a case of hypocrisy on Ruth’s part. Had she kept her mouth (pen) shut, the lecture might have gone on as scheduled. Pot Meet Kettle.
No Democrat in office has EVER tried to end democracy and install fascism, so no, I don't see how you could call this a "pot meets kettle" situation. It's one thing to have progressive students cancel people on campuses. It's an ENTIRELY different thing to start using the force of government to end democracy altogether, as the GOP is now doing. Also, Ben-Ghiat is right, Trump IS an authoritarian, so in this case, how to give a lecture about authoritarianism that doesn't sound political, at a time when many people had already called Trump a fascist, including many of his closest first term advisors and four-star generals... ?
This is not just any old college or university. It’s the Naval Academy (and my father graduated from the Naval Academy fwiw). It’s illegal for them to have even the appearance of “politics” in any of their on or off campus events. The midshipmen (students) are considered active duty military. Many of the professors are active duty military. Much of the administration is active duty military. They are all bound by military law, rules, and regulations to maintain total neutrality with respect to politics, and especially elections. They had no business scheduling this lecture, and Ruth had no business announcing it in this newsletter in such an overtly partisan way. And it was ultimately the Naval Academy that cancelled her lecture, so it’s exactly like MIT cancelling the U Chicago professor for his lecture. Just because they got a bunch of letters from congressmen complaining, it was still their decision. Ruth made a giant mistake, and she should own it.
Clearly, political topics are allowed, since they knew that the lecture would be about authoritarianism. So it's PARTISAN politics that wasn't supposed to be addressed, if I understand correctly. "Partisan politics" means: pro GOP or pro Democratic Party advocacy, knowing that not everyone in the audience would agree if you'd adopt a typical Republican or Democratic outlook on any given topic. What both parties have in common (or had, until recently), however, is that they both follow the Constitution and are pro-democracy. What this lecture was about it what BOTH parties strongly rejected, namely authoritarianism. Only now that the GOP became neofascist did the topic of democracy versus authoritarianism become a partisan issue too. So what about lectures that appeal to what the traditional Grand Old Party and the Democratic Party always had in common, namely the rejection of fascism? Imho, there is no good reason to refuse a lecture about that topic at all. And the fact that GOP Congressmen complained PROVES her point, namely the GOP has become a neofascist party.
Partisan politics are not allowed, you say? Clearly, this is exactly what Ruth intended, a lecture on the military and authoritarianism prefaced by an announcement that directly tied that lecture to a diatribe about Trump wanting to be a dictator and how he would seek to control the military in pursuit of that goal. There is no other way to read that announcement, no matter what clever tricks (a typographical line of separation) she employed in writing the essay here in Substack.
https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-insults?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Every paragraph in that essay written in bold accuses Trump of being the dictator in waiting, chomping at the bit to control the US military to his own nefarious ends. And she does it more than once. Ruth starts the announcement innocently enough, but immediately, as she herself says in so many words, she pivots to threat Trump will pose as President:
“ That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military.… Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims...”
Only someone incredibly naive or fully aligned with Ruth’s aims could read this essay and remain unaware of her intentions. I agree with her assessment of Trump and I agree with the danger. But right before a president election in which he was one of the two primary candidates, this was partisan politics and the Naval Academy had no business going along with it after Ruth so blatantly gave her intention away.
As I said, "partisan", in a democracy, refers to left-wing versus right-wing ideologies, INSIDE a pro-democracy view on the government. Democracy versus fascism doesn't fall into the category of "partisan" - UNLESS you are a fascist, of course, because then you'll reject all pro-democracy views as being partisan too.
What Ruth does in the essay and what she would NOT have done during the live lecture is indeed showing that Trump is a fascist. She clearly mentions that fact in her article above herself already. And by now, we have all the evidence needed to know that she was right. Still, by avoiding to name him, she could have easily given a non-partisan lecture, because, once again, "partisan", INSIDE a democracy, refers to liberal versus conservative worldviews, not democracy versus autocracy.
Since I already wrote this in my previous reply to you, however, and you didn't address it in your latest reply: any comments on substance, by chance?
Sigh. I'm old enough to remember when both parties rejected authoritarians.
I mean, it was essential to the foundation of the country.
I disagree. Following your logic, the Naval Academy could never have any speaker who expressed an opinion in favor of any political view in their professional view.
Of course, the lecture must have no political bias - and it did not. And her bibliography is full of excellent work that deals purely in historical analysis with no political bias. There's no reason to believe her speech would be biased.
As for her announcing it on her substack, that's also irrelevant. She can announce her activities however she likes. That has no influence on the midshipmen... unless she announced it in the context of "I'm talking at the NA, but I plan to slip in some criticism of Trump"
“…unless she announced it in the context of "I'm talking at the NA, but I plan to slip in some criticism of Trump"…”
That’s exactly what she did. Did you not read her announcement essay? Here it is, and pay close attention to each of the paragraphs written in bold.
https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-insults?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I’ll quote the relevant parts. After a simple announcement of her upcoming lecture (only a few weeks away), she says:
“That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military.… Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims...”
“… If you are aligned for ideological, financial or other reasons with autocrats whose goal is to take down America as a superpower, then you will see the immensely powerful and professional U.S. military as a big obstacle.
Everything Trump wants to do with and to the U.S. military may be seen as minimizing the global reach and influence of our armed forces abroad: withdraw from NATO, reorient some military resources to domestic repression, and pursue "non-intervention" —a path that would make the imperialist conquests of Russia in Eurasia and China in the Pacific far easier…”
Yeah, I believe you're arguing in bad faith - so this is the only response I'll make to you.
Everything you quoted is from Ruth's standard newsletter. Which are her own views and comments shared with her followers. Similar to her own comments she makes when asked to speak on TV or other context where she is asked to comment on current affairs. Everyone has opinions and everyone has a 1A right to express those views.
Now, the Naval Academy is composed of active duty servicepeople and has an obligation to have a non-partisan view. So, they quite rightly should ensure *not* that they only have people with no views at all, but only that partisan views are not part of the training.
So it is quite noteworthy that you skipped over the very first paragraph of Ruth's post - announcing this Naval Academy lecture and what she would be discussing there. It says:
"I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine."
So that directly backs my point. Ruth announces what she would be discussing at the NA ... and it wasn't Trump or current affairs. It very explicitly said she's going to talk about militaries under authoritarians, using examples from Italy, Chile and Russia. I'm sure this was discussed upfront with the Naval Academy - and (originally) deemed acceptable. Why wouldn't it, if midshipmen didn't do their own additional research, they'd hear a purely non-partisan historical lecture. And as any high-level military person knows, knowledge of military history is extremely valuable.
But history is dangerous to autocrats, so one specific party decided to make this an issue. Aligned with rightwing pressure groups, they ginned this up into a scandal and forced the event's cancellation.
Absolutely no "partisan" views were kept from the midshipmen, only a richer knowledge of history.
So, again, I think your premise is deeply flawed - and now I see because you are cherrypicking your facts. In my analysis, the Naval Academy was fundamentally wrong and (dangerously) complying in advance with partisans and autocrats. Have a nice life.
Ruth, the fact that so much effort was put into silencing you speaks volumes. Me thinks that the forces of tyranny fear you. They should fear ALL of us!
Fair enough in general but Thiel’s despicable political ops are not justified by hurt sensibilities and general disapproval of liberal arts college campus culture…look at the outrageous falsehoods and racist propaganda that his boy Vance has been pumping out into the public forum. There is a difference of significance between cancelling certain speakers (albeit problematic) and using a public podium to whip up hate towards chosen scapegoats towards gaining/consolidating power to then exclude/jail/disempower.
Nothing JUSTIFIES fascism. But human experiences do explain why people feel as if it is sincerely the best way to "save humanity"... so if we want to defeat it, we need to understand where it comes from and address the root causes.
I'm wondering just what would have been the outcome had Dr. Ben-Ghiat had gone ahead and talked about Trump.
Cancelling former AG Eric Holder?!?! WTH 🤦♀️ Wgat subversive stuff was Mr Holder going to talk about? It’s my understanding that he tends to focus on getting rid of gerrymandering & other forms of voter suppression.
A bunch of self-declared progressive students claimed that it would be "unsafe" for them to have to be subjected to the opinions of an AG who failed to jail those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis... . Utterly absurd indeed. For the details, see the outstanding book by Jonathan Haidt, "The Coddling of the American Mind." Something has been going wrong on US campuses for quite a while already, and the book explains how we got there (Haidt is a progressive himself). Obviously, this doesn't justify the installation of fascism at all, but it does help to understand where the backlash is coming from.
The difference is that campus progressives who sought to cancel speakers with whom they disagreed didn't have the Brookings Institution on their side nor did they rally AOC and other hyper-partisan members of Congress to lend their weight to deplatform speakers.
Yes, exactly.
I have been thinking a lot about the claim that America has "the best, strongest military in the world". While this claim is largely based on the size and sophistication of our military... it's ability to fight two full-scale wars at the same time. And while this "two wars" capability is said to be no more (https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/10/04/can-the-us-fight-two-big-wars-at-once-new-report-casts-doubts/ ), our REAL military strength came from the Oath every service member takes to Defend The Constitution.
This "strength" appears to be no more. When Trump / Hegseth got rid of these top-level leaders plus the JAG officers, there should have been a mass and very public outcry from the remaining leadership group. Their silence speaks volumes. And that scares me a lot!
The military is limited in how it can speak out due to the deference to civilian leadership, and all it would do is to get the critics fired, no matter how justified their criticism.
stunned but then I shouldn't be as this is par for the course for the MAGA-ts. so sorry to read of the reversal to speak at the Naval Academy. hope you are taking precautions since you are in the MAGA-ts crosshairs.
The vast majority of observers are still treating the moves and prospects of this fascist regime as if the game were political or electoral. They're gauging Trump's future prospects with reference to the movement of his polling numbers or the hints and grumblings of legislators or jurists. They have failed to grasp that what can't be won with political power will be won by force: That is what is in the minds of Trump, Musk, Hegseth, Patel, Gabbard, et al.
Presidential "approval" has become quaint -- without the vast majority of observers realizing it. The Pentagon purge is a clear signal of that shift. The anti-woke, anti-DEI rationale is an obvious smokescreen. This is about putting the anti-Mark Milleys in place who, when Trump gives the order to kill us, will salute and say "Yes, sir!" There may well be a residue of institutional resistance but this is a huge and revealing step towards that irrevocable turn to military-supported dictatorship.
You've been concerned (alarmed!) about that all along. I think any discerning student of history would be. I wrote specifically about it a year ago: https://whowhatwhy.org/justice/donald-trump-and-the-dictators-doom-loop/. I'm not sure what we get for our "clairvoyance" other than a front-row seat at the horror show about to unfold.
Can you publish the lecture you would have given at the Naval Academy somehow on the internet and let us know how to access it? It would be important to give all the rest of us out here your insights and understanding. The more information and analysis we have, the more we can think, plan and do. Many of us have not had to think about coups, authoritarians, institutional democracy and popular response for a long, long time. Things have changed considerably from the sixties and early seventies. Thank for your writing in Lucid, but we need more.
There is a lot of information out there on how people can respond. Here is a good podcast with tips. https://the.ink/p/transcript-anat-shenker-osorios-actual-plan-beat-fascism?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Maria, if you want more information just buy the excellent book that Ruth Ben-Ghiat has written about authoritarians in the 20th and 21st century. Its title is Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. (The same book was published in the UK with a different subtitle.) I would imagine that most of the material she planned to present in the lecture can be found in her book, which was published in 2020.
It’s excellent and I have it.
yes
Great book which everyone needs to read. ✅
Thank you , Ruth Ben-Ghiat, for all your hard work informing us with your rich historic perspective on past and present authoritarian powers.
This is so distressing. As the daughter of a devoted Naval Academy alumnus, and having attended his internment at this incredible place last year I am glad he did not live to see this day. I was hoping for more from our great military institutions.
Tried to delete or edit my comment after reading some of those below. Couldn’t do it so ‘replying’ to myself! I agree that the Academy cannot be seen to be partisan so understand now why they cancelled.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t surprise me. You definitely know what is going on, Dr. Ben-Ghiat, and they hate that. It’s even more important than ever that we the people know what’s happening and put a stop to Trump and his buddies destroying our government.
I searched online to confirm the speech was cancelled - and the search results themselves were extremely telling. Searching for "Ben-Ghiat Bancroft Naval", these were the top fifteen listings.
Rightwing groups (11) - Real Clear Defense, Washington Times, TippInsights, Heritage Foundation, Washington Reporter, Washington Times, Daily Caller, Daily Signal, STARRS. American Faith, Baltimore Banner
GOP Rep websites (2) - Rep Kiggans website, Rep Self website
Other (2) - PEN America, Raw Story
What a stunning example of the rightwing disinformation machines and how it launches/boosts culture battles, until it enters the political space, then the real-world. Many of these rightwing sites were ones I never heard of an have legit sounding titles.
Side note, beyond these 15 I started to get multiple postings for the rightwing sites above.
Thank you for putting a spotlight on these groups. Wow.
I look forward to your guests on Sunday. I’m extremely active in fighting to save our Democracy. As much as I try to pace myself with the ‘bile’ spewed everyday since the election, I wake up each morning to the cruelty and actions of mostly homicidal white men (and their enablers) purging hard working and dedicated public servants the night before. Even though they will be the cause of deaths, either directly or indirectly, of patriotic citizens, they are such cowards! They do this on the weekend, during breaking news stories and in the dark of night. Their stain and disdain for American Democracy will take decades to clean up and a fight by the rest of us like we’ve never experienced before. Stay safe, Ruth.
Why do so many individuals just ignore the signs of authoritarianism right in front of their face?
IDK 🤷♀️ I talk with my trumpy family members, I send them articles; but so far have not moved them from their maga positions. It’s definitely a cult
I still find that we are where we are unbelievable, but sometimes the unbelievable is the believable!! Thanks Ruth!