It’s hard to defend something that doesn’t exist. I’m not dunking on you here, but I’m heartily sick of the media’s and political establishment’s endless attempts to invent a Trump “strategy”. There isn’t any! There’s just a collection of grievances and resentments, coupled with impulsive actions and a bottomless need for attention. That’s it.
Ugh! "flexible realism" is part of Trump University's "alternate facts" Art of the grift degree program. You whacked the mole on the head by recognizing that his and Trump's use of flexibility is totally self-serving. The culture of narcissism eats strategy for breakfast whenever its on the specials menu.
I think you’re being a bit hard on him. I mean, sure, everything you say is correct. But as you concede, he’s the most significant legitimate strategist in the administration, and we know he’s a smart serious professional, whether we agree with all his positions or not. So the biggest question is, “do we want someone like Bridge relatively high up in this administration, or do we want Trumps and Hegseths all the way down?” If the answer is “we want Bridge, because he presumably is generally a voice of sanity in a field of idiots, nuts, and grifters,” then we should cut him some slack. Working inside the system requires sacrifices, and one of them is your intellectual pride—because at times you will have to defend stupid bad policies that your team is enacting.
So, yes, the interview was embarrassing and unpersuasive, because much of what he has to defend is indefensible. But he knows that as well as we do. It’s the price of joining a team and being in the arena.
In theory, this is an argument that can be made about almost anyone, in almost any government. Collective responsibility means anyone representing a government ends up defending something they don't 100% agree with from time to time.
But there has to be a line somewhere.
If he's really achieving something useful inside the administration - and call me sceptical about that - then putting up with the utter contempt anyone who works for Trump deserves is just part of the sacrifice he has to make.
Because set against the argument that the 'adults in the room' can exert a useful restraint on the administration is the one that supposedly serious people confer credibility and strength to those who need to be removed from power ASAP. Trump has done untold damage to the US, never mind the rest of us. Everyone who cares about the US, never mind the rest of us, has a duty to use what strength and voice they have to stopping him.
He does have a choice: he could have stayed in his think tank, instead of carrying water for a xenophobic, impulsive racist. No use in having intellectual pride if you allow yourself to put it to the service of an incoherent set of policy decisions and "idiots, nuts, and grifters". He's just setting himself up for the book he'll write about being in the arena.
Great post! We must continue to debunk the idiocy. Even if some think Colby is the best of the idiots, it’s no reason to treat anything he says as legitimate or coherent.
Colby will find a job just like John Yoo did - someone in the conservative sphere will see to that. Yoo should have been shunned for his torture memos and instead he gets to teach at an elite university. Without feedback mechanisms that punish lawful but awful behavior, what will keep useful miscreants in check?
Whether it’s a Koch brother endowing a chair for Colby somewhere, a spot that magically opens up in the right think tank, etc. there is always a refuge for these useful pawns where they are kept until the next administration rolls along.
No different than Jake Sullivan who likely is spinning tall tales about his incredible intelligence handling the Russians while getting played by them like a fiddle.
"My feeling about allies is that you want to reassure allies enough so that they don’t fall apart or in some circumstances defect to the other side..." Yeah - it's important to reassure the U.K. (as in erstwhile ally - like all the rest of our allies), that we won't let them "fall apart" or they might be tempted to uh...defect to "the other side" - is that Russia? China? Where did Elbridge Colby study international relations? Playing Risk? He's a "realist", so he should have talked bad orange man out of tearing up the JPCOA. Pivot to China indeed.
"He doesn’t help matters by insisting to Douthat that the war with Iran is not “stalemated”...
I don't think it is 'stalemated. The problem is, Iran is winning. It hasn't technically won yet, but the US doesn't appear to have a remotely credible strategy for recovering its position. The US is dropping more bombs, but Iran is advancing its strategic goals much more so than the US is, so I don't think you can call it a stalemate...
Colby is a human ally repellent or as the old expression goes, he is an objective ally of the enemies of the US. His basic principle is that in the give and take of alliances the US gave so much without getting anything in return that now he's all about taking. The premise is highly debatable, and the consequence is that all the allies are looking for the exit.
It’s hard to defend something that doesn’t exist. I’m not dunking on you here, but I’m heartily sick of the media’s and political establishment’s endless attempts to invent a Trump “strategy”. There isn’t any! There’s just a collection of grievances and resentments, coupled with impulsive actions and a bottomless need for attention. That’s it.
Great post!
Ugh! "flexible realism" is part of Trump University's "alternate facts" Art of the grift degree program. You whacked the mole on the head by recognizing that his and Trump's use of flexibility is totally self-serving. The culture of narcissism eats strategy for breakfast whenever its on the specials menu.
I think you’re being a bit hard on him. I mean, sure, everything you say is correct. But as you concede, he’s the most significant legitimate strategist in the administration, and we know he’s a smart serious professional, whether we agree with all his positions or not. So the biggest question is, “do we want someone like Bridge relatively high up in this administration, or do we want Trumps and Hegseths all the way down?” If the answer is “we want Bridge, because he presumably is generally a voice of sanity in a field of idiots, nuts, and grifters,” then we should cut him some slack. Working inside the system requires sacrifices, and one of them is your intellectual pride—because at times you will have to defend stupid bad policies that your team is enacting.
So, yes, the interview was embarrassing and unpersuasive, because much of what he has to defend is indefensible. But he knows that as well as we do. It’s the price of joining a team and being in the arena.
As a Canadian let me just laugh in derision at this comment.
In theory, this is an argument that can be made about almost anyone, in almost any government. Collective responsibility means anyone representing a government ends up defending something they don't 100% agree with from time to time.
But there has to be a line somewhere.
If he's really achieving something useful inside the administration - and call me sceptical about that - then putting up with the utter contempt anyone who works for Trump deserves is just part of the sacrifice he has to make.
Because set against the argument that the 'adults in the room' can exert a useful restraint on the administration is the one that supposedly serious people confer credibility and strength to those who need to be removed from power ASAP. Trump has done untold damage to the US, never mind the rest of us. Everyone who cares about the US, never mind the rest of us, has a duty to use what strength and voice they have to stopping him.
He does have a choice: he could have stayed in his think tank, instead of carrying water for a xenophobic, impulsive racist. No use in having intellectual pride if you allow yourself to put it to the service of an incoherent set of policy decisions and "idiots, nuts, and grifters". He's just setting himself up for the book he'll write about being in the arena.
Great post! We must continue to debunk the idiocy. Even if some think Colby is the best of the idiots, it’s no reason to treat anything he says as legitimate or coherent.
Colby will find a job just like John Yoo did - someone in the conservative sphere will see to that. Yoo should have been shunned for his torture memos and instead he gets to teach at an elite university. Without feedback mechanisms that punish lawful but awful behavior, what will keep useful miscreants in check?
Whether it’s a Koch brother endowing a chair for Colby somewhere, a spot that magically opens up in the right think tank, etc. there is always a refuge for these useful pawns where they are kept until the next administration rolls along.
No different than Jake Sullivan who likely is spinning tall tales about his incredible intelligence handling the Russians while getting played by them like a fiddle.
Thank you Daniel. A bag of tactics is not a strategy. And even a well spoken posh boy nepo Ivy Leaguer can’t disguise that.
Jury-rigged, not jerry-rigged. Jerry-built.
A'ight, I like to dunk on Douthat as much as the next guy, but his name is Ross not Rodd (in the link)
Great post team!
"My feeling about allies is that you want to reassure allies enough so that they don’t fall apart or in some circumstances defect to the other side..." Yeah - it's important to reassure the U.K. (as in erstwhile ally - like all the rest of our allies), that we won't let them "fall apart" or they might be tempted to uh...defect to "the other side" - is that Russia? China? Where did Elbridge Colby study international relations? Playing Risk? He's a "realist", so he should have talked bad orange man out of tearing up the JPCOA. Pivot to China indeed.
"He doesn’t help matters by insisting to Douthat that the war with Iran is not “stalemated”...
I don't think it is 'stalemated. The problem is, Iran is winning. It hasn't technically won yet, but the US doesn't appear to have a remotely credible strategy for recovering its position. The US is dropping more bombs, but Iran is advancing its strategic goals much more so than the US is, so I don't think you can call it a stalemate...
Colby is a human ally repellent or as the old expression goes, he is an objective ally of the enemies of the US. His basic principle is that in the give and take of alliances the US gave so much without getting anything in return that now he's all about taking. The premise is highly debatable, and the consequence is that all the allies are looking for the exit.