Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
Thoughts on Grief and the Grieving Process
The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless.
May 27, 2023
post photo preview
[Glenn Greenwald, David Miranda, 2021]

Note to Readers: Returning to more frequent written journalism is something I have been wanting to do for some time. The combination of David's 9-month hospitalization and the need to launch our nightly Rumble show during that excruciating experience made it virtually impossible to find the time and energy for that. It is something I am still eager to do -- I'm writing an article now about the life of Daniel Ellsberg and my friendship with him for Rolling Stone, as the 92-year-old Pentagon Papers whistleblower nears the end of his spectacular life due to terminal pancreatic cancer. I originally started writing the following thoughts on grief for myself, with no intention to publish it, but decided to do so in part because I know it may give comfort to others (as the article I discuss below gave to me), but also because, for reasons I can't explain, it sometimes helps to write about this for others, and my view of the grieving process has become that you should do whatever provides any help at all to get you through the next day. I realize this is not for everyone but it's what I'm capable of and what is dominating my thoughts right now. I hope to be able to return to producing more traditional written journalism soon. 


 

The pain, sadness, and torment of grief deepens as you move further away from the moment of the death of a loved one. It keeps getting worse – harder not easier – with each passing day and each passing week. I know that it will begin to get better or at least more manageable at some point, but that can and will happen only once the reality is internalized, a prerequisite for healing and recovery. But the internalization that someone is really dead - that there's absolutely nothing you can do to reverse that - requires ample time given its enormity. Three weeks is nowhere near sufficient.

One of the hardest challenges of grief, of the grieving process, is finding the balance between confronting the pain, loss and sometimes physically suffocating sadness – all without wallowing in it to the point that it completely consumes and then incapacitates you. But while you can't let yourself endlessly drown in it, you also can't let yourself use some mixture of distractions, work, exercise and other "return-to-normal" activities to remain in a state of denial or escapism, to avoid the pain and suffering, to deny the need to process a reality this immense and horrible, to anesthetize yourself from the mourning. The pain and suffering is going to come sooner or later, and the longer you evade or postpone it, the more damage it will do.

If you try to close yourself off to it entirety, to pretend it's not there, that attempt will fail. The pain and sadness will come at the worst times, when you're least prepared for it, in the most destructive form, and will find the unhealthiest expression. But if you force yourself to swim in those waters with too much frequency, for too much time, without maintaining a vibrant connection to the normalcy of life, to the people around you whom you love, and to the things you still cherish, it will paralyze and consume you - drain all your energy and life force and replace it with total darkness, mental paralysis and physical exhaustion: just a cold, inescapable sense of bottomless dread. 

There's no perfect sweet spot, but every day, you have to keep trying to find the right balance between confronting and avoiding. What's most daunting is realizing how long this process of processing and acceptance will be: very possibly endless. During the first week after David's death, I told both myself and our kids that the first two weeks would be hard but not the hardest, that worse days lay ahead, once the shock begins to wear off and the inescapable reality sets in, once the ceremonies were over and everyone else moved on and want back to their lives. I knew we would then be left with nothing but the reality of this enormous loss and horrific absence, and that was when the worst days would commence.

But telling yourself that is one thing; experiencing it is something completely different. Even when you think you're momentarily safeguarded from it, it can just penetrate without warning in the sharpest ways. On Thursday, I stumbled into this Guardian article about a top-secret leak in Australia and there was a description of David in the article's second paragraph, printed below, that was the first time I saw this formulation in print. It fell so heavily and jarringly – at a moment when I wasn't prepared for it – because no matter how hard you try and how much effort you devote to it, the reality of death takes a long time to fully internalize. It's just very hard to believe that the person with whom you expected and wanted to share all of your life – decades more – is instead not coming back, ever, in the only form you know, that a person so full of life and strength and force is no more:

I don't know why that phrase packed such a punch. I've seen hundreds of articles and tributes talking about David's death. But this phrase casually indicates that he is someone of the past, with no present and no future in our world. It didn't just talk about the fact that David died but referred to him as a now-and-forever dead person. That subtlety had an impact far more painful and destabilizing than I could have anticipated. It disrupted my emotional state until I could find a way to move on to something else: the central challenge of every day.


 

All of this is complicated -- a lot -- by the need to find this balance not only for yourself but also for your kids, whose grieving is as intense but also different. It's at least just as hard to know how much space to give them to use distractions like entertainment, sports, friends and school to find some breathing space. There's a strong temptation to encourage them to use escapism because one so eagerly -- instinctively -- wants to see one's kids smiling and laughing rather than crying and suffering.

But their own need to feel this loss, the mourning, the sadness, the pain is just as inescapable as your own. There's no avoiding it. It's coming one way or the other, so you often find yourself in the disorienting position of watching your kids cry and show pain, and you feel a form of comfort and relief from seeing it because you know it's good and healthy and necessary that they feel that, even while you are submerged in that sharp, expansive pit in the center of your being that comes from having to watch your own children suffer.

[Rio de Janeiro, March 30, 2022: four months, 1 week before David's hospitalization]

For those interested, I want to highly recommend this op-ed from last week by New York Times editor Sarah Wildman, whose 14-year-old daughter, Orli, just died after a somewhat lengthy and evidently very difficult battle with cancer. Without thinking about it, I messaged her to thank her for her article and we shared experiences, condolences and advice. One thing I did not expect was how much comfort I get from hearing from others - people I know well, people I don't know well, people I don't know at all – describe their own experiences with grief and loss. There's that old cliché that physical death is the great equalizer: the inevitable destination awaiting all of us regardless of status and station. 

That is true of death, but it's also true of grief. Unless one chooses never to love in order to avoid the pain of loss – a dreary, self-destructive, even tragic calculation – the impermanence of everything material that we love means we will all experience grief and the pain of loss until we die ourselves. There's now a substantial body of research on people's end-stage regrets: what humans who know they are dying say they wish they had done more of and less of. 

Virtually nobody nearing the end of life on earth says they wished they worked more or made more money (many say they regret working too much). Most say they wish they had spent more time with loved ones. When all is said and done, one of the few enduring things we really value and from which we derive meaningful pleasure - something we are built and have evolved to crave and need – is human connection. We're tribal and social animals. That's why isolation is one of the worst punishments society can impose, or that one can impose on oneself. And that's why, looking back over these last weeks and even during David's entire hospitalization, thoughts and notes and comments and kind gestures from so many people, to say nothing of those who took their time to write to me to share, often at great length, their own experience with long-term hospitalization of loved ones and profound grief, provided so much more comfort than I ever imagined it would have.

Wildman's op-ed is raw, moving and unsettling. She doesn't falsify or prettify anything for the sake of making her daughter's death more comfortable for others or herself. The death of someone you love at a young age is not pretty or comfortable. It's tragic and deeply sad and incomparably painful and there's no getting around that. Some of the best advice I got in the last couple of weeks was to avoid lionizing David or erecting a mythology around his life or around his death. I loved a human being, not a flawless saint or an icon or an otherworldly deity. And one of the things that moved me most about Wildman's op-ed was her frank discussion of her daughter's fear of dying. It would be so much more palatable - for yourself or others - to say and believe that the person you lost was at peace with dying. Her daughter wasn't at peace with dying, nor was David. They wanted to live and fought to live and were afraid to die.

That's a hard and painful truth that does sometimes make things much more difficult – it means you focus not only on what you lost, not only on what your kids lost, but on what the person who died lost – but one can also find beauty and grace and meaning and inspiration by confronting that rather than whitewashing it. It's disrespectful to someone's life to build mythologies about them - about their life and their death - no matter how comforting those mythologies might be. Wildman's op-ed refuses to do that, yet it leaves no doubt that her daughter inspired her and others not just in how she lived but in also in how she died: with her determination, courage and strength. 

I blocked it out and denied it at the time because I wasn't able to accept it, but David's doctors made clear in the days after he was first hospitalized in ICU last August that the probability that he would survive the week was very low. His inflammation and infection had already incapacitated his pancreas and caused full renal failure within the first 48 hours. By the end of the week he was intubated because sepsis delivered that inflammation to his lungs. Even a quick Google search reveals how dire that state of affairs is for anyone, no matter their age or overall health. 

That David fought so hard to live and return to us over nine excruciating months brought some horrifically difficult moments – watching him and his body get battered over and over every time it looked like he was possibly recovering was probably the worst thing I ever had to witness – but it also gave us and our kids some of our most moving, profound, genuine, loving and enduring moments with him and with one another that I and they will cherish forever, as I wrote about a couple months ago, in the context of gratitude, when I thought he was improving. 

It may seem at first glance that had he died a quick death in that first week, David would have spared himself and us a lot of agony. That may be true. But I am absolutely convinced that had he died in that first week without giving us and himself these opportunities, all of this would be infinitely worse. Every moment you share with someone you love - even if it's in an ICU ward with every machine imaginable connected to them - is a blessing and a gift, and David's characteristic fight gave us so many of those moments that, by all rights, we never should have had.

I really wish there some singular book or some magic phrase or some way of interpreting all of this that would make the still-growing and still-deepening pain disappear for myself, for mine and David's kids, for those who loved him, for those who love and lose anyone that matters so much in their life. There is no elixir. But that does not mean that nothing helps, that one is doomed to a life of endless pain, sadness, and dread, that it is impossible to find comfort and inspiration and even greater love in the grieving process. 


 

For that to happen, you need humility and an acceptance of what you cannot control. I can't bring David back - that's obvious - but I also can't find a way to entirely avoid the type of pain and sadness and despair that is sometimes utterly debilitating. I realized that very early on and so I'm no longer trying to avoid it entirely. 

Sometimes it comes when I seek or summon it, and sometimes it comes when I think I am far away from it - like happened this week when I saw the adjective "late" before his name and on a thousand other occasions when I looked at a photo of him and his eyes connected to mine, or when one of our kids shared a memory they had of him that brought him so vividly to life. When that pain comes, I don't try to fight it or drive it away. I let it come and sometimes stay in it on purpose, until I can no longer physically endure it. Other times I allow myself to be distracted: through work, though entertainment, through proximity to my kids, through conversations with them that are not directly about sharing our mutual grief over the loss of their father and of my husband.

I don't know if I returned to work too early or, instead, am sometimes succumbing too much to my desire not to work. Each day, I try to follow my instinct about what is best for me and for our kids, and to give myself a huge amount of space and forgiveness to calculate wrong and make the wrong decisions. Down every road lies sadness and even horror, but some of those paths also offer some beautiful moments of family and connection, ways to find inspiration, to embrace the spirit and passion and compassion and strength that defined David and his life.

I'm certain that one of the things that is helping most is our unified devotion to concretizing, memorializing and extending his legacy. One of David's greatest joys in life was seeing the construction and opening of the community center we built together in Jacarezinho, the community that raised him. It offers free classes in English and computers, psychological services and addiction counseling, support for animal protection and pet care, and meals for that community's homeless. We are going to create and build "The David Miranda Institute" to extend that work beyond that community. My kids are eager to assume a major role in working on this institute and community center – they know instinctively that it honors David and would make him so proud – and working on this together is one of the few things that provides us unadulterated comfort and uplifting energy. 

The grieving process is horrible but not hopeless. I'd be lying if I denied that it sometimes seems unbearable. Every day the reality that David lost his life and that we lost David in our lives gets heavier and more painful. But humans are resilient. We are adaptive. I can't prove it and there was a time in my life when I not only rejected but mocked this idea, but I believe our life has a purpose and, ultimately, so do our deaths. Each day I see that my suffering and our kids' suffering deepen and worsen for now. 

But I also see us, together, creating ways to find and remain connected to that purpose. David's life, David's spirit, David's legacy, and somehow even David's death are what is propelling us, elevating us, toward that destination. I would trade anything for David to be back with us, but since that option does not exist, getting through the pain and then finding a way to strengthen us is our overarching challenge.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
134
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis says Kamala Harris Would Combat "Rampant Antisemitism" on College Campuses

Colorado Governor Jared Polis tells Michael Tracey that Kamala Harris has been a staunch supporter of Israel and that she would rein in the "rampant antisemitism" he says exists on college campuses.

00:04:18
Michael Tracey Interviews Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) in "Spin Room"

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) tells Michael Tracey that it makes sense for Kamala Harris to welcome Dick Cheney's endorsement because this election is about supporting someone who "respects the rule of law." He then avoids answering whether Dick Cheney respected the Constitution...

00:01:35
Michael Tracey interviews Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA)

Michael interviews Rep. Ted Lieu about Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala and whether he still believes Trump colluded with Russia:

00:03:00
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

"The Source of Leftard Brain Disease"

Toxic Masculinity, there's no such thing: the term itself is an oxymoron.

Toxic People R basically Little Bitches & not in fact Real Men.

Real Men are internally self governed by all things which are God given, especially Common Sense = FACT = True Masculinity can't be Toxic.

November 19, 2024

🤪🤪🤪"JOURNALISM"🤪🤪🤪
An intrepid reporter at Newsweek jumped right on an X post, picturing a "1721 painting by Deitz Nuützen" which allegedly "predicted" Trump's team enjoying a McDonald's meal on his plane. The reporter actually did a search for the painter "Dietz Nuutzen," and then typed up a "fact check" on whether the painting had predicted the dinner scene on the plane.🤣🤣🤣
Wherever would we be without such hardworking, dauntless protectors of the public's right to know?
https://twitchy.com/warren-squire/2024/11/19/newsweek-fact-checks-deez-nuts-painting-trump-elon-rfk-n2403992

November 19, 2024

Israeli Journalist Sounds Alarm Over Civilization Clash The Caroline Glick Show

placeholder
post photo preview
The Weekly Update
From November 11 to November 15

And… we’re back!

As we begin this new week, we understand that some of you were not able to tune in to some of last week’s episodes, and so we’re back with another Weekly Update, here to give you all the links to all of Glenn’s best moments from Monday to Friday. A lot happened in the news. Let’s start updating!

 

First, a bit about Locals:

Some of you were wondering why we decided to show our Thursday after show on Friday, and the answer’s pretty simple: From time to time, we want to show the rest of our viewers what perks are offered to our loyal subscribers! If you’re here from that episode, welcome; if you’re here from before, don’t even think about leaving. Glenn is watching.

 

Second, a reminder for those who might not have caught our first two (new) Weekly Updates:

Let’s be real: we cover a lot of ground in a given week. When we started, the shows were supposed to be 60 minutes long. Now, they're running closer to 90 or even longer.

We also understand that you’re all very busy — and so are we. Some of you live in California and can’t see the full show before you get away from work, while others are in the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, and myriad other places. Maybe we air too late for you, or maybe we’re on a little earlier than you’d like. That’s fine!

Introducing our revamped Weekly Roundup, within which you’ll find some of our key clips and moments. That being said, we always encourage our loyal viewers and listeners to watch our full show on Rumble or listen to it on all of your favorite podcasting platforms 12 hours after airing.

 

Daily Updates

MONDAY: The Democratic Blame Game & Trump’s Cabinet

In this episode, we talked about…

  1. Democrats refusing to accept even a modicum of political responsibility;

  2. Trump banning Pompeo and Haley from his future administration;

TUESDAY: Glenn Suffers from the Plague

WEDNESDAY: Biden Welcomes ‘Hitler,’ While System Update Talks to an Israeli-Detained American Journalist

In this episode, we discussed…

 3. Biden welcoming Hitler (Trump) back to the Reichstag (White House);

  1. Analyzing Trump’s latest appointments;

  2. Jeremy Loffredo and his harrowing imprisonment in the West Bank by Israeli forces;

THURSDAY: Biden Promises All the Pennies to Ukraine as Tulsi Gets Smeared

In this episode, we talked about…

 6. Biden pledging to give our wallets, and any remaining pocket change, to the Ukrainian war effort;

  1. How Tulsi Gabbard is being slandered (again) as a Russian-Syrian toady;

  2. Why Blinken’s letter to Israel proves farcical;

FRIDAY: Glenn Talks to the Locals Community Post-Election

In this episode, we answered…

 10. All of your invaluable questions. Keep asking them, and watch his answers here!

 

Third, live question submissions:

Stay tuned — and tune in LIVE! This week, we’re debuting a feature that allows you, should you choose, to send videos or audio messages to the team for our Locals after show. 

 

Fourth, publication recommendations:

It dawned on our team that some of our ‘favorite’ publications are worth sharing, not because they are better than those not mentioned or because we even like them. Rather, we’re of the mindset that you should know how we prep for the show — and what certain publications mean to our process. Here are five or, we guess, six that are worth paying attention to, either for their journalistic or comedic value.

The New York Times

This one’s obvious: pure comedic value. We have to read the Gray Lady for so many things. Chief among them are little nuggets like this that come as the paper’s heralded minds attempt to debunk the healthful musings of RFK Jr. and his new M.A.H.A. cadre:

Image

 

The Washington Post

Really, outlets like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal fall under a similar umbrella. But the Washington Post’s Bezos-related blowup a couple of weeks before the election was truly a sight to behold. Comedy gold, again.

At the same time, these three papers do claim to represent the establishment. And it’s worth paying attention — vigilantly — to the alleged center of this country’s news and opinion distribution.

Politico and Punchbowl 

It’s likely that you’ve heard of Politico, but some of that publication’s founders and editors left a few years back to found Punchbowl in their ever-feverish endeavor to stay hip and relevant. If you want gossip from and about Capitol Hill, these are the places we frequently go.

Current Affairs

Shoutout to Nathan Robinson, who we just recently interviewed. They think out of the box over there. We appreciate that. 

Haaretz

Other Israeli outlets (really, most of them) report on developments in the Middle East, particularly as they relate to Israel, are more forthcoming about the crimes committed by the government since and before October 7, 2023. Here’s just one recent example from the aforementioned publication that is deserving of some praise, in contrast to the mainstream American consensus that Israel has not done anything to deliberately stymie aid to Gaza:

Image

 

 

That’s it for this edition of the Weekly Update! 

We’ll see you next week…

“Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because the Weekly Update happened.”

— Dr. Seuss, if he read the Weekly Update

Read full Article
post photo preview
Biden Welcomes "Hitler" Back To The White House; Trump's Latest Appointments: What Do They Mean?; Jeremy Loffredo On Imprisonment In Israel
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Wednesday, November 13.

Tonight: The principal liberal and media theme of the 2024 campaign was that Donald Trump does not merely have a bad ideology, and is not merely a bad person, but he is a fascist threat to American democracy: a literal Hitler figure who intends to impose violence and permanent dictatorship on our nation. How odd, then, to see the American Hitler invited today to the White House, where he met with the sitting President Joe Biden, who warmly shook his hand, expressed fondness for him, and vowed to provide him all the assistance he wants in facilitating his path back to power. 

If Democrats actually believed anything they had been saying about Trump and the singular threat he poses, all of this should seem bizarre and should never happen. But it did, precisely because few in the media or politics actually believed the fears they were trying to gin up about what a Trump re-election would entail. Obviously: you don't invite and embrace Hitler to the White House.

Then: Donald Trump announced a spate of appointees for key positions in his cabinet since we evaluated his initial choices last week. Today alone, he chose Marco Rubio to be his Secretary of State, Tulsi Gabbard to be his Director of National Intelligence, and – in perhaps the most surprising choice of all – announced Matt Gaetz as his pick for Attorney General. Yesterday – in another major surprise – he announced combat veteran and Fox News host Pete Hegseth to be his Secretary of Defense, and Mike Huckabee to be his Ambassador to Israel: obviously, Israel is the first country to which he appointed an ambassador because, in American politics, Israel comes first.

Understandably, people seek to read into every choice certainty about what Trump's new administration will do and be. But did anyone watch Trump's first administration? The reason so many people left with such bitterness and rage – from John Bolton to John Kelley and countless others – is because Trump so often rejected their advice and refused to follow their preferred policies. Whether Trump will rely on Marco Rubio, JD Vance, or Matt Gaetz – or just Trump himself or whoever he is listening to – is very difficult to ascertain, let alone with certainty.  

There is clearly a lot in common with Trump's national security choices in particular. They are almost all fanatically, almost religiously loyal to the Israeli state, far more than many Israeli citizens are. And at one point or another, all of them, or most of them express views that one could easily describe as classic establishment Bush-Cheney foreign policy views or even outright neoconservatism. 

There is clearly a lot in common with Trump's national security choices – they are all fanatically, almost religiously, loyal to the Israeli state – far more than many Israelis themselves are – and, at one point or another, expressed views that one could easily describe as classic establishment, Bush-Cheney foreign policy views and even outright neoconservatism. Marco Rubio is probably the pick that most vividly exemplifies that, and there are many others.

Perhaps it is true, as many are arguing, that these appointments signify that Trump will be just a standard adherent to the DC foreign policy blob, and will pursue policies of confrontation, militarism, and war in his new administration. I understand why that conclusion is tempting – I certainly am far from a fan of all these choices, to put that mildly – though I am a fan of several – but I think the picture is far more nuanced and ambiguous and uncertain about who will wield power in this administration and how. And so, we want to devote the bulk of our show to digging into these choices and what they likely do, and do not, signify.

Finally: Jeremy Loffredo is an outstanding independent journalist whose work we have featured on our show previously. Loffredo is an American citizen whose reporting has been primarily done with Grayzone. He has spent the last year focused on critically scrutinizing the Israeli destruction of Gaza and the role of the U.S. and extremist ideologies in that. Agree or not with each one of his views, that is the work of a journalist.

Yet last month, Loffredo was arrested at a West Bank checkpoint by IDF soldiers, blindfolded, and put into solitary confinement. His crime? Reporting on the damage done in Israel by Iranian cruise missiles after Israeli officials falsely claimed that none of those missiles landed and did damage. Despite the fact that Loffredo's reporting was cited and divulged by Israeli outlets, his arrest was clearly punitive retaliation for the critical reporting he's done of Israeli occupation and war. We'll talk to him about what he endured and what it means about Israel's attitude toward journalists and whether “the region's only democracy” still deserves that term.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Dems & Media Still Blaming Everyone But Themselves, Especially Voters; Trump Bans Pompeo & Haley, Appoints Stefanik: What Does This Reveal About Next Admin?
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode HERE

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Monday, November 11. 

Tonight: It has been 5 full days since Donald Trump was declared the winner of the 2024 election and, as such, the President-elect of the United States. To say that Democratic Party officials and corporate media personalities have not handled this news very well is to dramatically understate the case. At least since the Sept. 11 attacks, I have rarely seen such a frantic and unhinged reaction to any event as we're seeing toward this election result, and the spasms are, I'm afraid, nowhere near the end, but merely in their incipient stages.

To begin with, Democrats and their media allies need to explain to their faithful partisan hordes how this happened – why would people as honorable and decent and noble and patriotic as Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possibly lose a national election to a ticket led by a convicted felon and twice-impeached monster and insurrectionist who is literally the new Hitler, along with his Vice President whom they proclaimed to be, depending on the week, weird, fascistic, and a Silicon Valley puppet. There are two rules Democrats and the media must follow in offering an explanation – first, to identify who the villains are who caused this traumatic event, and secondly, to ensure that the villains are anyone other than the Democratic party, its leaders, its establishment ideology, and its media and secondly, they have to ensure that the villains are anyone other than the Democratic Party, its leaders, its establishment ideology, and its media. The one thing they all agree on is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Democratic Party. The same thing happened after 2016. People who voted for Trump are racists and misogynists, some argued. They are deceived and confused by a steady stream of disinformation fed to them by right-wing oligarchical media barons who somehow control the independent podcasts and shows that have become far more influential than CNN or the New York Times. Or it's Joe Biden's fault for not dropping out soon enough. It's just a problem of messaging – people never were told why the Democratic Party deserved their gratitude. Or it was all the left's fault for their excesses on culture war issues such as trans rights. 

Anything to avoid having to confront and grapple with the real rot at the heart of the Democratic Party: its corporatism and militarism which produces major benefits for a small clique of American liberal elites, while leaving everyone else ignored and abused. I've often said that the two most accountability-free professions on the planet are politics and punditry. No matter how much they fail, they never acknowledge their failures, find someone else to pin the blame on, and just merrily continue in their positions of now-rapidly diminishing influence and power. That is exactly what we're seeing right now, an attempt to shift the blame onto anybody other than the actual culprits, which are themselves. 

Then: There are many things one could say about the first Trump presidential term. That it was driven by rigid ideological coherence is not one of them. For all sorts of reasons – constant contrived scandals from the U.S. Security State disseminated by the corporate media, Trump's lack of familiarity with how the Swamp really worked, the conflicting factions he allowed deep into his government – it was hard to discern a clear political worldview from these first four years. Official Trump policies often conflicted with the President's rhetoric; his orders were often thwarted or ignored by unseen bureaucrats; Trump seemed unsure of himself when it came to particularly complex policy decisions.

Trump himself has acknowledged many of these problems and is explicitly vowing to avoid their repetition. But there are, of course, all sorts of ideological factions vying to influence him: none more dangerous than the neocons and warmongers who sometimes populated his first time and are eager to drive him into the very wars he insists he wants to avoid.

Those tensions were evident over the last several weeks as Trump's CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, arguably the worst person and the first Trump administration was included in Trump's inner camp on some of his last campaign stops, clearly attempting to worm his way into a position of influence. But Trump, responding to the concerns of the anti-interventionist wing of his Republican base, preemptively announced that he would bar both Mike Pompeo and, for good measure, Nikki Haley, from any position in his administration and wish them the best of luck in the future. That announcement, combined with Trump's prior selection of J.D. Vance as his vice presidential running mate earlier this year, created hope that Trump would freeze out that standard DC warmongers and interventionists from tape shaping his top national security start. Donald Trump Jr. this week vowed that freezing such people out was his top priority and by all reports, Donald Trump Jr. is wielding more influence in the Trump camp than ever before. 

Today, however, Trump announced that he was appointing New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Nikki Haley clone, to Haley's old position as the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.. He also just announced moments before we went on the air that Congressman Mike Waltz, Republican of Florida and former Green Beret, somebody who has been quite hawkish in the war in Ukraine – he actually opposed Trump's attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan, is quite hawkish on China, though he is a NATO skeptic – will be his national security advisor.

None of these individual appointments standing alone will definitively signal what differences, if any, the second Trump administration will have from the first. But we do have some revealing clues thus far that at least are worth examining, especially because there is clearly an ongoing fight among those closest to Trump to shape how these differences might emerge. But it's definitely worth looking at since we have enough data points at this point to try and map out how we think that will evolve. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals