CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 142nd Edition, 25th Amendment Watch 21st Edition. The Vietnam Rag, Red Scare Editions.

Donald Trump posted a picture of himself in uniform, purporting to be of himself at age 20, next to one of Barack Obama smoking a cigarette and wearing a panama at, when he was 18 years old.  In truth, Trump was 17 or 18 years old in the photo he posted and he's in the Ne wYork Military Academy, where he was a student from age 13 to 18.

He was sent there because his parents found him to be a bullying asshole.  At that time the thought was common that if you sent a kid to military school they came out a better person.  That was still the thought when I was young, although in the wake of the ongoing Vietnam War, that was getting hard to believe and the schools were dying off.

Put another way, military discipline hadn't turned William Calley into "a plaster saint" as Kipling would put it.

The New York Military Academy itself reflects this.  It's one of the oldest ones in the United States, but it went bankrupt in 2015.  It's been reorganized, but it's student body is a shadow of its former self.

I don't know anyone who went to a military school prep school, unless you count the mandatory high school JrROTC that my high school had before it was eliminated in the late 60s or early 70s (a net search says that was in 1968, which seems early, but which would also show how much the Vietnam War was impacting things everywhere).  I know one person who was sent to a Catholic boarding school in Nebraska as he was a difficult to handle kid. The school was probably Mount Michael, a Benedictine school which has a strong focus on science. According to that person, who later became a lawyer, it really helped him and he was grateful his parents sent him there.

If being sent to military school was more of a threat than a reality for most boys, being given the option of joining the military rather than going to jail was not  I know one person who did just that, and by  his account, it did straighten him out.  He opted for that right after the Vietnam War and part of the process on his end was to volunteer to be a Ranger so he didn't have to serve with the deadheads who were part of his regular advanced training cycle.  That may sound amusing, but when the Army was large that was more common than a person might think.  A major reason for soldiers to volunteer to become paratroopers during World War Two is so that they'd be serving with a better class of soldier.  Anyhow, in this person's case, while he knew he didn't want a military career, it did straighten him out as well.

Military school didn't serve to straighten Trump out at all.  The characteristics that caused his parents to send him to military school are still there.  A person has to wonder if he'd served in the Army if he'd be a less dismal human being.

Trump's draft card. His signature changed enormously between 1962 and when he signed it on a pornographic Epstein birthday card where it symbolized female pubic hairs.

Trump's draft classification is a bit more complicated than is generally acknowledged.  He was initially classified as 2-S, meaning he had a student deferment.  He was reclassified as 1-A after graduating from university in 1968, meaning he was fully eligible for the draft at that time, but he held that status only briefly.  In October 1968 he was reclassified as 1-Y, which meant he was only eligible in the event of a national emergency and in 1972, which was at the point the draft was really winding down, he was reclassified as 4-F.  It's the October 1968 and 1972 classifications which are the now famous bone spur classifications.

Student deferments started to become problematic during the war in 1966 and in 1969 they were hugely overhauled so that student deferments became much more problematic.  Of course, by 1969 Trump was beyond the student deferment classification anyhow.  An eligible person was very much liable for the draft at t hat time, and draft number for the years of the war are as follows:

1964 112386

1965 230991

1966 382010

1967 228263

1968 296406

1969 283586

1970 162746

1971 94092

1972 49514

1973 646

1968 was, accordingly, the high water mark of the draft, but nearly as many men were drafted in 69.

Was Trump's bone spur 1-Y nad 4-F bogus?  I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else at this point.  I do know that bone spurs can make you ineligible to serve, but only in an odd way.  A soldiers I was good friends with in basic training was having pretty severe foot problems and went in to sick call as a result  He was diagnosed with bone spurs and given a medical discharge from the Army, although that still required him to visit his National Guard unit upon his return home.  He was almost done with AIT at the time.  When he went to the Guard and reported, they asked him how he was doing, he said fine, and they reenlisted him as prior service.  Ultimately, he went on to a career in the Army and retired as an officer.

Bone spurs don't go away on their own, but they can be asymptomatic, which is presumably what happened here.

Anyhow, Trump didn't serve in the Army.  If he had, he probably wouldn't have served in Vietnam.  Most of the troops in Vietnam were volunteers, something commonly forgotten about the wartime draft.

Anyhow, serving in the military would have done him good.  IT would have forced him into a world where money doesn't mean that much and isn't everyone's focus, and it would have forced him to deal with people who weren't rich, like himself.

Barack Obama turned 18 years old in 1979.  Conscription was over, and he was a university student.

Part of the reason that the photo of Obama was put up by Trump was the sort of hip appearance that Obama affected in the photographs.  People vary, but a lot of people really don't look the way they do professionally in their first year of college.  Trump in 1979 had already affected a young businessman look, which is what he was.

The last President with military service ws George Bush II.  His father was the last President with combat experience.  No member of the Trump family has ever served in the U.S. military.

One of the things I've really noted about the Baby Boom generation is that there's a lot of guilt felt by men who avoided the draft.  They were given a hard time about it when they were young, but defended it. At some point in the 1980s that began to change.  The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now came out in 1979, and they are definitely anti war films that a draft evader or draft protester could love.  But 1986's Platoon showed a marked shift.  It's an anti war film, but anti war.  It is pretty sympathetic to the troops and even the Army in a way that the earlier movies were not. Every Vietnam War movie since them took that point of view until We Were Soldiers which is about as rah rah Army as can be.  Somewhere in there the public view of the troops changed.

I've known a handful of men who either avoided the draft or felt like they did.  One I know avoided service in Vietnam by joining the Army Reserve, which is still military service.  He remained perfectly comfortable with his decision.  One National Guard officer I knew was upfront about that being his original reason for joining the National Guard.  He felt guilty immediately, and then ironically his Guard unit actually was one of the few that went to Vietnam.

More commonly, however, I've noticed that the men who felt they didn't go later developed almost sort of a hero worship of those who did.

Trump likes to portray himself as a hero.  He isn't.  He's really quite pathetic and his life is meaningless in al arger sense, as he's accomplished nothing of enduring value.  Barack Obama, whom I frequently disagreed with, will always retain a place in history as the nation's first black President, an accomplishment which seemed to suggest we were finally over the legacy of slavery and egregious racism.  It turned out not, and that helped bring Trump about.

Trump's casting about widely for some success to be measured by.  As his mind deteriorates he's attacking his own past, and that of others.

The man that Trump should be comparing himself to is Vlad Putin.

By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70906985

Both Putin and Trump unilaterally got their countries into wars with smaller powers that they expected to rapid win, and are losing.  Putin, this past week, started to be openly threatened by members of his own military.  Russia has a long history of supporting enormous military suffering and then suddenly rebelling.  When Russian soldiers show discontent, usually a revolution is right around the corner.  If there is one, and right now the odds of there being one are relatively high, Putin will be killed.

The United States has no tradition of military rebellion, but Trump has created the same national crisis.  Putin can't win the Ukrainian War and is losing it.  Trump can't win the Iranian war and is losing it.  The difference is that Putin has absolute control of his country, and Trump does not.  There's some suggestion that Trump is now upset with Steve Witkoff and his son in law Jared Kushner, two people whom he naively allowed to negotiate with Iran because Trump knows nothing about negotiating with foreign powers at all.  He knows that hasn't been working so now he's thrown J. D. Vance under the bus.  Both Vance and Rubio opposed the war.  Trump, whose been an asshole his whole life, is effectively requiring an opponent of the war to find a way out of it knowing tha t if he can't, that person's political career is over.

It'll be over, as Trump as an effective President will be over.  Right now, the House is slated to go Democratic in November and there's a decent chance the Senate will as well. Even Lindsey Graham appears to be in real trouble.  According to insiders Trump may want that as he likes being an asshole better than actually leading.  The irony here as been pointed out by Thomas Massie. The GOP controls everything and yet they're still running around all pissed off.

So it's time for a Red Scare.

The US has had two Red Scares, one post World War One and another post World War Two.  The second one actually made more sense than the first.  The first one resulted in illegal actions by the Federal Government.

Both of those scares were more genuine than the current one by a long measure.

The current one is trying to be ignited due to the recent success of Democratic Socialist in New York state.  Absent something really wild, New York will have a Democratic Socialist in Congress next year.  This is nothing new. There have been actual Socialist in Congress before, and right now there are seven members of Congress with Socialist affiliations.

M'eh.

Socialism is the same as communism by a long shot.  A person can be a strong believer in Democracy and, while it is regarded it its real form as antithetical to Christianity by Catholics (who also have strong criticism of Capitalism), there are Christian socialist.    Usually American socialism is so watered down economically that it's capitalism, but the supposed socialist supports child care or something.  Pretty tepid.

The US has had three Presidents whom you could accuse, or celebrate depending upon your views, who advocated or caused to be enacted socialist programs.  Theodore Roosevelt was the first, but it came in his last unsuccessful run when he advocated for what ultimately became Social Security and also for government regulation of large corporations as public utilities.  His cousin Franklin had a lot of socialistic programs, and enacted Social Security, although much of what he did was temporary.  Harry Truman advocated for national health care, but then so did Richard Nixon.  I guess that could bring us up to five, with the final entry, Donald Trump.

In some of his economic policies Trump is an outright Socialist.  He's advocated for government ownership of shares of companies and for seizing foreign oil as if the US owned it.  He frequently sees things as if the US is one big corporation and he's the dictatorial CEO.

That's Socialism.

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist 141st Edition, 25th Amendment Watch 20th Edition:. Sure, we lost a war to Iran, and the war in Lebanon continues on, and the $13 Rhino Lining treatment of the Reflecting Pool is coming up, but King Donny got a shiny new toy!

Labels: 2020s, 2026, 25th Amendment Watch List, Aircraft, Donald Trump, Sic transit Gloria Mundi, The Madness of King Donald, The Second Trump Administration, This is why we can't have nice things, Transportation, Zeitgeist

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 101st edition. The Vandal in the museum.

Of all the countries in the world, we and we only have any need to create artificially the patriotism which is the birthright of other nations.

Agnes Repplier, Americanism, in The Atlantic, 1916.

 

A letter from the illegitimate Trump occupational regime in the Oval Office to the Smithsonian:

The Honorable Lonnie G. Bunch III

Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

1000 Jefferson Dr SW

Washington, DC 20560

Subject: Internal Review of Smithsonian Exhibitions and Materials

Dear Secretary Bunch,

We wish to begin by expressing our appreciation for the brief tour you gave us recently of the National Museum of American History and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and by acknowledging your work on behalf of the Smithsonian Institution, as well as the Institution’s role in shaping public understanding of American history and culture. We are completely aligned with your statement that the Smithsonian is “a welcoming place of knowledge and discovery for all Americans.” We are grateful that you and the Board of Regents have expressed your commitment to the non-partisan, educational mission of this great institution.

As we prepare to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Nation’s founding, it is more important than ever that our national museums reflect the unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story. In this spirit, and in accordance with Executive Order 14253, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History, we will be leading a comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions. This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President’s directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.

This review is a constructive and collaborative effort — one rooted in respect for the Smithsonian’s vital mission and its extraordinary contributions. Our goal is not to interfere with the day-to-day operations of curators or staff, but rather to support a broader vision of excellence that highlights historically accurate, uplifting, and inclusive portrayals of America’s heritage.

The review will focus on several key areas:

1. Public-facing Content: A review of exhibition text, wall didactics, websites, educational materials, and digital and social media content to assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals.
2. Curatorial Process: A series of interviews with curators and senior staff to better understand the selection process, exhibition approval workflows, and any frameworks currently guiding exhibition content.
3. Exhibition Planning: A review of current and future exhibitions, with particular attention to those planned for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
4. Collection Use: Evaluation of how existing materials and collections are being used or could be used to highlight American achievement and progress, including whether the Smithsonian can make better use of certain materials by digitizing or conveying to other institutions.
5. Narrative Standards: The development of consistent curatorial guidelines that reflect the Smithsonian’s original mission.

Initially, our review will focus on the following museums. Additional museums will be reviewed in Phase II.

• National Museum of American History
• National Museum of Natural History
• National Museum of African American History and Culture
• National Museum of the American Indian
• National Air and Space Museum
• Smithsonian American Art Museum
• National Portrait Gallery
• Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden

Materials Request

To initiate this process, we respectfully request that each of the museums listed above designate a primary point of contact and provide the following materials to our team (including for online content):

1. 250th Anniversary Programming
   1. Exhibition plans, draft concepts, and event outlines related to America 250.
   1. Supporting materials such as proposed artwork, descriptive placards, exhibition catalogs, event themes, and lists of invited speakers and events.
2. Current Exhibition Content
   1. Catalog and programs for all current and ongoing exhibitions, including budgets.
   1. Digital files of all wall didactics, placards, and gallery labels currently on display.
3. Traveling and Upcoming Exhibitions
   1. Full index of scheduled traveling exhibitions (2026-2029).
   1. Proposals, projected schedules, and preliminary budgets for upcoming exhibitions over the next three years.
4. Internal Guidelines and Governance
   1. Curatorial and staff manuals, job descriptions, and organizational charts.
   1. Documentation outlining the chain of command for exhibition approvals, scheduling, and content review.
   1. Internal communications or memos pertaining to exhibition or artwork selection and approval processes.
5. Index of the Permanent Collection
   1. Access to an inventory of all permanent holdings.
6. Educational Materials
   1. Teacher guides, student resources, and supplementary educational content linked to current exhibitions.
7. Digital Presence
   1. URLs and descriptions of official museum websites and exhibition-related microsites.
8. External Partnerships
   1. A list of active partnerships with outside contributors including artists, historians, nonprofits, and advocacy organizations.
9. Grant-Related Documentation
   1. Copies of grant applications and funding agreements tied to past or current exhibitions, particularly those that influence content or presentation.
   1. Current artists featured in museum’s galleries that received a Smithsonian grant.
10. Surveys and other evaluations of visitor experience
    1. Responses to surveys and other forms of evaluating the experience of visitors to the Smithsonian’s museums and users of digital content.

Timeline

To ensure clarity and coordination across all parties involved, we have developed the following implementation timeline:

Within 30 days of receipt of this letter, we anticipate:

• Each museum to submit all requested materials outlined in the first four bullet points above, including current exhibition descriptions, draft plans for upcoming shows, America 250 programming materials, and internal guidelines used in exhibition development.
• Review of America 250 exhibition and program planning and connect with curators and staff about their specific proposals.
• A staff liaison from each museum will be designated to serve as the primary point of contact throughout the review process.
• Our team will begin on-site observational visits, conducting walkthroughs of current exhibitions to document themes, visitor experience, and visual messaging.

Within 75 days:

• Museums are asked to submit the remaining requested documentation (items 5 through 10), including promotional literature, grant data, educational materials, and guided tour content.

• Our team will begin scheduling and conducting voluntary interviews with curators and senior staff. These conversations will help us better understand each museum’s goals and the broader curatorial vision guiding the institution.
• Each museum should finalize and submit its updated plan to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary and ensure coordination with the White House Salute to America 250 Task Force to align messaging and public engagement.

Within 120 days:

• Museums should begin implementing content corrections where necessary, replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions across placards, wall didactics, digital displays, and other public-facing materials.

If all benchmarks are met on schedule, we anticipate completing our review and preparing a final report for your review in early 2026. This report will include museum-specific assessments, institutional trends, and constructive recommendations for future exhibition strategy.

We view this process as a collaborative and forward-looking opportunity—one that empowers museum staff to embrace a revitalized curatorial vision rooted in the strength, breadth, and achievements of the American story. By focusing on Americanism—the people, principles, and progress that define our nation—we can work together to renew the Smithsonian’s role as the world’s leading museum institution.

We look forward to working alongside you and your team to ensure these iconic institutions remain vibrant, trusted, and inspiring for generations to come.

Lindsey Halligan

Special Assistant to the President and Senior Associate Staff Secretary

Vince Haley

Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council

Russell Vought

Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Management and Budget

The term "Americanism" goes way back.  I know that it was used by Theodore Roosevelt, for example, who as an advocate of it.  Indeed, he delivered more than one speech on the topic.  I'm a fan of Theodore Roosevelt, although less than I once was, and I don't admire his jingoistic advocation of Americanism, although it has to be realized that it came at a different point in our history, and tended to combat a growing sense of internationalism as well as "hyphenation" in various American identities.  

Starting particularly in the 1920s, Americanism began to change from a focus on celebrating an American identity, to being pro White Anglo Saxon Protestant.  Roosevelt delivered a speech to The Knights of Columbus at  Carnegie Hall on October 12, 1915, for example, which meant that the solidly American former President of Dutch ancestry, who was a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, felt comfortable addressing a body of Catholics.  Indeed, that was somewhat the point as Catholics were by that time a  major voting block, but WASP American culture detested them and saw them as alien.  Roosevelt didn't want them to be alien, but American, meaning he was not only taking a stand against people identifying as "Irish American" or "German American" (two major Catholic groups), but also as White Anglo Saxon Protestants.  

Roosevelt was not a racist.

By Woodrow Wilson's administration, a lot of Americans were reviving the thought that if you were an American, you needed to be a WASP.  The Red Scare contributed to that in a major way.  The country illegally deported people simply for being on the radical left, including some who were American citizens.

Imagine. . . deporting an American for not being the right kind of American. . . sound familiar?

This sort of Americanism became strong in the 1920s, although roots of it were clearly there before, and it continued on into the 1930s as sort of a plant of some of the opponents of Franklin Roosevelt, although Americanism took a real hit during that time period.  It revived, however, in an ugly fashion after World War Two were it was once again associated with the far right.

It's been a feature of the revived post Reagan far right for some time, and has really been picked up by the populists supporting Trump. They cloak themselves with the flag and tattoo what they think are patriotic things on their forearms, not appreciating that our forbearers' might not necessarily be all that keen on their views.

Part of what is happening here is that Americans have frankly always had a difficult relationship with history, and they still do.  Americans as a group do not know their history well, and tend to reduce it to highlights, and often associate those highlights with patriotic bromides.  The Mayflower passengers were, for instance, a bunch of people seeking religious freedom in the American mind, not a minoritarian Protestant sect that neither the English or the Dutch were keen on tolerating, and they were not tolerant themselves (and, to add to it, most of the Mayflower passengers were not "pilgrims".  The American Revolution was all about and only about liberty, people believe, and didn't start off as a protest over tea tariffs (oh my) and have as a goal unrestrained settling of Native lands and forced conversion of the Quebecois to the Church of England.  Half the country seemingly believes that the Civil WAr wasn't about slavery, when that's all it was about.  The Winning of the West doesn't feature any uncomfortable colonial aspects of it. And the dropping of the Atomic Bomb was certainly moral.

Like many things in our current culture, the counter revolution going on here has its roots in a post Vietnam War revolution which really did go too far.  Early radicals, like those before the end of World War Two, often were in fact really radical, but they often really loved their country two.  One Marine Corps officer who won the Silver Star during the Second World War, for instance, was an avowed Communist who had fought in the Spanish Civil War.  Today people like Donald Trump and Chuck Gray would go into screeds about him, just as Trump has about Zohran Mamdani.  A person doesn't have to be, however, conservative or Christian to genuinely love the United States.

Going back, however, to the post Vietnam War Era, it seemingly was the case that during the war some on the American left came to actively detest their country, and as part of the general culture of the times, the band aid was ripped off of some of our problematic past.  For people with a serious interest in, and knowledge of, history, much of that was irritating, but there were those who were generally shocked by it as their knowledge of history apparently stopped at 4th Grade.  Even now, for example, I'll have people come up to me who are reading A People's History of the United States and cite something as if its a blisteringly knowledgeable new revelation.  I'm not interested in anarcho-socialist Zinn's interpretation of US history much, and I'm always skeptical of anyone who titles anything as "A People's" anything, as that claims too much for your work and yourself, but still, the "revelations" people come up with are topics that anyone who graduated from high school should have a pretty good command of.

But then, many Americans have no real command of history.  Entire events in American history, and world history, are unknown, I think, to the vast majority of Americans, which makes them easy targets for revisionist of the right and the left.

We're seeking a lot of far right revisionism going on right now.  This sort of stuff is part of it.

Last edition:

CliffsNotes of the Zeitgeist, 100th edition. Downfall, Despair, and hoping for DeGaulle.

Labels: Charles de Gaulle, Christian Nationalism, Commentary, Culture, Culture Wars, Greed, National Conservatism, Patrick Dineen, Politics, Populism, R. R. Reno, Stupidity, The Second Trump Administration, United States, Zeitgeist

Friday August 29, 1941. Shifting sands

On this day in 1941, Charles Lindbergh at a rally of the American First Committee in Oklahoma City warned the audience that the United Kingdom might turn against the US "as she had turned against France and Finland". 

Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana.

Lindbergh was backed up by Montana Senator Burton K. Wheeler who counseled that "If our interventionist want to free a country from the domination of another country, we ought to declare war on Great Britain and free India.  I have never seen such slavery as I saw in India a few years ago".

Wheeler was an outspoken left wing Democrat who had at one time crossed over to the Progressive Party and then back.  He opposed entry to the war right up until December 7, 1941 and was instrumental in the leaking of US plans to aid the British prior to the war, which went to press on December 4, 1941.  His isolationist stances caused him to suffer defeat in the first Montana election in which he was up after December 7, and he never returned to politics. A lawyer by training, he returned to practicing law and defended Max Lowenthal in front of the House Committee On Un American Affairs in the 1950s.  He's an example of how opposition to entry into the war was not, as sometimes imagined, politically uniform.

The rally itself was not well received by the public, and polls started increasingly swinging towards the Administration's interventionist policies.

Speaking of Finland, the Finns retook Viipuri.  Not forever of course, its Vyborg, Russia.

Flag for the city of Vybork, in the Leningrad Oblast.

The city did have a Finnish population at the time, but its entire population was evacuated in 1944 with the collapse of the Eastern Front.  It is, therefore, an example today of the massive population disruption brought on by the Second World War.

Finnish victory parade, August 31, 1941.

In Serbia, the puppet collaborationist Government of National Salvation commenced control of the country.

Vichy authorities arrested American journalist Varian Fry.  Fry was running an underground railroad effort helping Jews escape from France and to the United States, using Spain and Portugal as conduits.  He'd be expelled from the country.

Arthur McFadden became Australian Prime Minister in a coalition government.  He was a member of the minority Country Party.  The National Country Party, the "Nats" is a center right party that's strongest in rural areas and which has a focus on agrarian issues.