It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. I'm sure they don't hear it enough, but thank you if any members read this.
Yes, incredible to read this. My family left Bangladesh when it was being run by a military government. We are so fortunate to have the military we do.
Its not an idea or a principle or a law. It’s culture. It’s a norm
that has been socialized into members of the military, especially the leadership, for hundreds of years. I live in Annapolis now by the Naval Academy and it’s quite a joy to see each new cohort of naval officers carry on the tradition.
The loons could have been about two minutes faster through the doors. That'd have been much worse. The joint chiefs could have been sympathetic with Trump, and then we'd be in Junta-land.
In case you haven’t noticed, US politicians (and military leadership is definitely political) love to proclaim they are defenders of the constitution (when it benefits them) and make excuses why the constitution doesn’t apply (when it benefits them).
**
Edit to respond to reply below asking if there are no honorable people in the military.
**
Not saying that there are no honorable people in the military. There are plenty.
What I’m saying is getting to leadership position in the government, business or military requires a lot of political savvy.
Of course everything the Joint Chiefs said is accurate, but also view it through the lens of how saying it now benefits the person saying it.
It’s pretty apparent that the Capitol Riot has led to a major shakeup across the entire government. It’s apparent that everyone is looking to position themselves as best they can for the post-Trump world.
Think of it like after Germany was defeated in WW2. Collaborators told stories of how they bravely resisted. Those who just laid low painted themselves as brave partisans. Some hated Germany for their own selfish reasons but post-war could exploit their resistance and claim to be nationalists. Others saw a power vacuum and realized now was the time to exploit it.
Are you saying there are no honorable people in our armed forces that wouldn't ignore their politics to do the right thing? Yes, obviously there is politics in the military (e.g. making rank at the cost of your men and/or duty) just as there are people looking to make a paycheck. From the ones I've met and heard stories about the majority are hard working honorable people who truly believe in doing the right thing. It seems kind of horrible and short sighted to make such a broad all encompassing statement that doesn't take into account the possibility that there are honorable, hard working individuals that have given their life to an idea they think is greater than themselves.
Are there no honorable and deluded people? The joint chiefs statement could be interpreted to make a pragmatic case for people in the military that a fight about election fraud is over and that maintaining the country and constitution is more important.
I'm not sure its fair to jump straight to only viewing it through the lens of how it benefits that person. That assumes it was a completely self-centered act without acknowledging the possibility that they did it because they believed it was the right thing. I would argue that not making any statement would have been more political and less in line with their duty.
Yes, its possible there were political reasons but its also possible (and seems more likely to me) that the statement that was released was an attempt at applying a calm steady hand to remind members of the military of their duty and assure them and the general population that they won't put up with any anti constitutional behavior.
What happened last week was historical; it will be remembered long past the end of our lives. The capitol hasn't been violated like that since the war of 1812 when the British took the city. To me, it warranted a statement from them and I can't think of a better way that they could have handled it.
> It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing.
On the other hand, it's distressing to know why this letter to the military had to be issued reminding service members that the law prohibited them from engaging in insurrection: the presence of military (active and retired) among the insurrectionists, and the danger that would also be the case in the imminently-planned follow-on attacks.
I assume the parent is referring to NPR's rather single-sided ideological lens which diminishes its credibility when reporting on politically charged issues. Given the fact that nearly everything is being politicised and the fact that your country is divided in half along political lines this means that NPR is seen as an oppositional propaganda channel by nearly half the population.
I ask because I'm not sure it's possible to be politically neutral, well before asking whether it's desirable. Everybody has a political opinion on almost everything. Even if you're only reporting what has happened, you will find people questioning why you're looking at these things, and not others.
NPR absolutely has political influence, but is it disproportionate? I don't think so. Is it unbalanced? I don't think so. I think we've just spent 6 years beating each other up over extremes, pushing every envelope, that we struggle to recognise neutral coverage.
I know you didn't write the head comment, but I think we need to regain trust in neutrality. Perhaps reinstate some laws to redress balance in things calling themselves "news"... I know I don't know, but what I know is NPR seems like one of the goodies.
"Who does it better" is not the right question here since the problem is not related to other actors being "better" but to NPR (and PBS) not fulfilling the mandate of being politically neutral. Commercial actors do not have that mandate since they are not publicly funded, they can be (and most certainly are) as partisan as they wish.
As to the supposed difficulty of being neutral I'll just state that it is actually quite easy, all you have to do is make sure that your programming represents the political diversity of the region or country. Given the near 50/50 split between those who align themselves with the GOP and those who prefer the DNC it would be simply a matter of having half the programming made by "progressives", half by "conservatives". Both groups should have essentially the same amount of influence on what gets put on the air. There should not be room for shenanigans like having a station master from party A who does his best to put all programming which aligns more with party B in the nightshift. Throw in a few Libertarian/Green Party/etc. people in the newsroom to give them a proportional voice and you're well on your way to political neutrality.
Maybe you're confusing being politically neutral with being politically centric? They're not the same. It just means that the net average political stance ends up as a weighted average of the current political spectrum.
I think your method has a lot of complexity under the hood. For example, you need a republican and a democrat to co-host a show. Does the republican need to be pro trump? Does the democrat need to be anti trump? Do you think a Liz Cheney and AOC hosted show would be politically neutral? You seem to have this idea of what a "textbook" conservative/liberal is, and I think that sort of binary representation is harmful to political discourse at large. You'll find democrats care more about government spending than some republicans. You'll find anti gun republicans, and pro gun democrats. Who represents each side? How do you make sure all viewpoints are represented (green and libertarian)?
This is the curse of dimensionality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality. the more complex the subject the less likely it is for someone to actually be able to represent the "Average" of everything.
There can be shows which are co-hosted by people from different points on the political spectrum but that is not the only way. Take the news, there are generally several episodes per day. Have those hosted by different "factions" and let the viewers make up their minds on who has it right. The same goes for opinion-related programming, divide this over the political spectrum according to the relative representation in the targeted region. There is no need to delve deep into whether the DNC should be represented by those who support "The Squad" or those who follow the more traditional faction, leave that to the parties themselves. I'd expect those parties to favour voices which they deem to be palatable to the majority of the viewership and as such will tend to shy away from the extremes. The GOP most likely won't want to have Trumpists representing them, the DNC probably won't go for Squad-supporters.
> You seem to have this idea of what a "textbook" conservative/liberal is, and I think that sort of binary representation is harmful to political discourse at large.
Nope, I have no such illusions. That aside, the way the American republic is set up - with winner-takes-all elections on the national level - does tend to create a dichotomy since voting for "fringe" parties is effectively useless other than to send a signal. This means the choice goes between the GOP and DNC candidates, a binary choice. Some people will vote DNC for some, GOP for other posts but this does not change the fact that the choice is rather limited.
There will be debate between the different "parties" and factions on such a station. This is a feature, not a bug. Let them debate out in the open, let them voice their views on developments for anyone who wants to hear or see. It might not be a 100% accurate representation of the political views of the region but it is far better than the propaganda channels which the media is rife with.
