Josh Cowen kindly agreed to write a review of Pete Hegseth’s book about American education, which appears on this blog exclusively!

Hegseth has a simple answer to the problems of education: give all students a voucher and expect that most will choose a classical Christian education.

Josh Cowen is Professor of Education Policy at Michigan State. His latest book is The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers (Harvard Education Press).

As you know, Pete Hegseth was a FOX News host who was nominated by President-Elect Trump to be Secretary of Defense. However, his appointment appears to be in jeopardy at this moment, due to allegations about his sexual exploits and drunken behavior.

Josh Cowen wrote:

Pete Hegseth’s Education Book: American Culture on the Decline, and Only Taxpayer-Funded Classical Christian Schools Can Save Us

I read Pete Hegseth’s book on education, Battle for the American Mind, so you don’t have to. Hegseth is Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Defense Secretary [at this writing], and a Fox News contributor, which means his various views on the military and his trove of televised commentary are going to get more scrutiny. But as someone who understands just how important education is to right-wing plans to remake America, I was neither surprised to learn that the would-be defense secretary had thoughts about schooling, nor hesitant to look at what Hegseth had to say.

So here are a few quick thoughts. Technically, Battle is a co-authored volume with a man named David Goodwin, an activist in the classical Christian education movement. The book is presented as a joint effort that melds Goodwin’s “research about Christianity, America’s founding, history, and education” with Hegseth’s apparently probing questions about those topics. It is, however, largely written in Hegseth’s own voice (being the relative celebrity between the two). 

When the book was first published in 2022, it became a bestseller. 

The first half of Battle is something of an indictment of American culture, politics, and education. Or more specifically, of the damage that progressives have done to all three. The second half of the book poses classical Christian education as the panacea. 

Hegseth (and Goodwin) try to establish early on the notion of “paideia,” which Goodwin apparently read about through the scholars Lawrence Cremin and Werner Jaeger, and in which Hegseth seems to have been taken interest. What is “paideia?” If you’re not terribly concerned with the various buzzwords in classical Christian education circles, it’s not especially important. But in those circles it’s something between an article of faith and what passes for an intellectual framework for their goals.

Basically, paideia is what creates culture: “Paideia is contained in that human part of the soul that makes us who we are…is common to a community…made up of ideas, presumptions, beliefs, affections, and ways of understanding that defines us (p. 52).”

Crucially, “paideia is shaped during childhood” and can be cultivated. And the “Western Christian Paideia (WCP) is a unique form of paideia in that it was intentionally developed and cultivated beginning with the Greeks” who proved “that education was a powerful influencer of paideia (p. 53).” Which makes education attractive to all belief systems. What gives American paideia so much appeal is its potential to meld the Greek tradition with a right-wing version of Christian virtue for future generations.

In typical right-wing fashion, Hegseth accuses Progressives from a century ago, and “the Left” today of what his own sect is doing. It’s the Left’s “indoctrination” of children that makes it so dangerous. Except, most of Battle is a half-screed, half-baked plan to focus on children generally and on their education specifically in a cultural (and, if needed, political) uprising against the Left. As Hegseth says: “the real battlefield isn’t colleges, it’s kindergartens.”

Along the way we meet the familiar bugaboos of right-wing American ideology today’s GOP party politics: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the teachers’ unions, critical race theory, DEI, Black Lives Matter, Howard Zinn, “cultural Marxism,” the Warren Court and—in a turn of a phrase that seems to have evoked any number of self-satisfied high-fives in right-wing media green rooms—the scourge of the “Covid-(16)19 Virus” in American schools. Get the idea?

Meanwhile, approved pop culture touchstones that serve almost as sources for the book’s counter-material include the movie Gladiator, Indiana Jones, Star Wars, the heroes in both the C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein series, (said to be a favorite of J.D. Vance as well), and more spot-quotes of dead philosophers than I care to count for this blog post. 

Honestly, Battle reads like a couple of 10th Grade AP History students crammed with a video series from Hillsdale College before knocking out their final term papers and hitting “send” before hitting the gym. It’s that profound. 

It would also be silly, if it weren’t also entirely an artifact of very real, very potent, and very present intentions on the American Right for education and for child-related policy. It’s easy to make fun of a couple of bros taken in by a smart-sounding Greek word like “paideia.” But when a possible future defense secretary draws from his experience in Afghanistan as evidence that paideia exists, and while malleable, cannot be imposed on other cultures, only grown from within—the “Afghan paideia” was too strong for Americans to impose our own on it, but now “we are losing it at home” (p. 57)—it’s worth paying attention. 

In this telling, American “democracy” is simply progressive “gospel” (p. 89) and is secondary to restoring the promise of American…paideia. 

It’s that kind of mindset—more than trust in the market, more than purported concerns for COVID-era learning loss, more than a genuine desire for all kids to have the education that best fits their needs—that truly gives the Right’s push for educational privatization its energy. 

Enter school vouchers—a “key element” of their goal. Hegseth and Goodwin close Battle with a call for voucher tax credits—not the direct appropriation kind coming from state budgets at the moment. The reason for that detail is mostly due to a desire to avoid government as a middle man (though make no mistake, the impact on public funding is the same). The goal here is to rebuild the American paideia through classical Christian education:

“Our hope (and plan),” Hegseth and Goodwin write, “is that most parents are clamoring to get their kids into the best local classical Christian school,” with “Jesus Christ at the center of all of it.” (p. 237). That hope and plan requires the “battle” in the book’s title—an insurgency protected by “the full Armor of God,” as they put it.

That phrase comes from the book of Ephesians in the Bible:

Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.  For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 

Understand that this “full armor” phrase comes specifically as the authors are discussing their “hope (and plan)” for publicly funded classical Christian schools.

As a Christian man myself—one who grew up in the same network of Catholic covenant communities as Justice Amy Coney Barrett—I know how prevalent this kind of thinking is among some members of my faith tradition. I would even call it fringe, and not widely held or fairly representative of a modest Christian.

Except that fringe is at the center of right-wing politics today, of right-wing education policymaking, and—quite possibly—at the highest levels of government, up to and including a Hegseth Pentagon and the Trump White House.

Editor’s note: We should be grateful that Hegseth was not chosen to be Secretary of Education.

Trump was interviewed by “Meet the Press” today.

He talked about his Day 1 goals.

He said he would pardon the January 6 insurrectionists, but the reporting did not clarify whether that would include those who brutalized police officers. If so, Republicans should stop calling themselves the party of law and order.

He said he would try to end “birthright citizenship,” the grant of citizenship to persons born in the U.S. He says he would achieve this goal by executive action but birthright citizenship is written into the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Trump said that no other country in the world has birthright citizenship but NBC said that 30 other nations do.

As usual, Trump ranted about immigrant criminals but NBC pointed out that immigrants are half as likely to commit crimes as native-born citizens.

He also said he would work with Democrats to protect “Dreamers.” These are children who were brought to this country as young children.

President-elect Trump appointed a man who has actively sabotaged global health to be in charge of our nation’s public health system. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a dangerous quack, whose conspiracy theories put millions of lives at risk.

Why did Trump choose a man to lead HHS whose ideology subverts public health? Well, he promised RFK Jr. the job in exchange for his endorsement. Why does Trump fill key positions at HHS with others whose views or experience are derided by mainstream scientists? Clearly, he is being advised by RFK Jr., so he can surround himself with like-minded people.

The effect of these appointments on the career scientists and physicians at HHS will be devastating. There is sure to be a brain drain. Trump could cripple our nation’s public health system for years to come.

The New York Times reported:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is in line to lead the Department of Health and Human Services in the next Trump administration, is well-known for promoting conspiracy theories and vaccine skepticism in the United States.

But Mr. Kennedy, an environmental lawyer, has also spent years working abroad to undermine policies that have been pillars of global health policy for a half-century, records show.

He has done this by lending his celebrity, and the name of his nonprofit group, Children’s Health Defense, to a network of overseas chapters that sow distrust in vaccine safety and spread misinformation far and wide.

He, his organizations and their officials have interfered with vaccination efforts, undermined sex education campaigns meant to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa, and railed against global organizations like the World Health Organization that are in charge of health initiatives.

Along the way, Mr. Kennedy has partnered with, financed or promoted fringe figures — people who claim that 5G cellphone towers cause cancer, that homosexuality and contraceptive education are part of a global conspiracy to reduce African fertility and that the World Health Organization is trying to steal countries’ sovereignty.

One of his group’s advisers, in Uganda, suggested using “supernatural insight” and a man she calls Prophet Elvis to guide policymaking. “We do well to embrace ethereal means to get ahead as a nation,” she wrote on a Ugandan news site this year.

These people, more than leading scientists and experienced public health professionals, have existed in Mr. Kennedy’s orbit for years. The ideas spread by him and his associates abroad highlight the unorthodox, sometimes conspiratorial nature of the world occupied by a man who stands to lead America’s health department, its 80,000 employees and its $1.8 trillion budget.

Please open the link to continue reading.

David Pepper writes in his blog about the success of Biden’s economic measures, which produced strong economic growth and a remarkable increase in employment. Trump will inherit this strong economy and will claim that he did it. As Biden’s $1.2 trillion infrastructure legislation churns out huge capital improvements, Trump and his fellow Republicans will attend the ribbon cutting ceremonies, not acknowledging that most Republicans voted against this massive investment in the future. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 passed the House by a vote of 228-206. Only 13 Republicans in the House voted for it. All Democrats except six members of “The Squad” supported it. In the Senate, the vote was 69-30, including 19 Republicans and every Democrat.

Remember: Biden did it. Not Trump.

Pepper writes:

Day 6–December 6, 2024

The American economy in November exceeded expectations, gaining 227,000 jobs, including 26,000 manufacturing jobs. Wages also grew by .4% in November, stronger than expected—lifting the annual increase to 4%.

With only two months to go in the Biden administration, November’s numbers take the total number of jobs under Biden (since January 2021) to more than 16 million, and extending an impressive streak: a net positive of jobs created every month of his tenure. In that time, the nation has also seen the lowest average unemployment of any administration in 50 years.

I share these numbers for several reasons. 

First, remember them. They will be a valuable point of comparison to what happens once Trump takes over and imposes another round of billionaire-inspired trickle-down policies—which never work for anyone but those at the top. Last time, of course, he had already squandered the strong economy he inherited by 2019. Ohio and other states lost jobs between January 2019 and January 2020 (including manufacturing jobs), the first time that happened since the Great Recession and reversing the long period of Obama job growth. (Things only got worse amid Trump’s disastrous mismanagement of COVID.) 

Second, let these job growth numbers challenge you—and all of us—because they also underscore one other reality:

The failure to translate consistent and robust job growth into political traction is a crisis Democrats desperately need to confront, study and correct. After all, it’s Democratic administrations where almost all the jobs are created. (As Clinton reminded us at the convention, it’s 50 million to 1 million).

But amid this dramatic contrast in jobs growth, Americans: 1) still generally give more credit to Republicans and Democrats on how they handle the economy; 2) told pollsters in the middle of 2024 that they believed the country was in a recession (here’s one poll from May, where that number stood at 56%); and 3) voted for the guy and policies that lost jobs as opposed to the people that sparked four years of job growth.

If that’s not a crisis, I don’t know what is.

Needless to say, there are several things going on here.

First, economics

Clearly, how people rate the economy goes beyond job growth and GDP. 

Wages, inflation, stability, broader income inequality, health care, debt, unaffordable housing, and other elements all factor in as well. If Americans don’t feel secure economically amid years of steady job growth, that itself is a problem crying out to be addressed. And the challenge presented to Democrats—and all policy makers—is to find and implement policies and create circumstances such that Americans feel more economically secure amid even low unemployment.

Second, politics.

Still, there’s a major political problem as well.

Just look at this graph summing up the facts in a different way:

And to be clear: beyond not creating jobs in all these decades, Republican policies have also not added to economic security in the other ways I list above. In most aspects, their policies (whether attacking unions, or wages, or health care, spending cuts, etc.) have taken things in the wrong direction. That may be a major reason that when Trump left the White House, he did so with an approval/disapproval rating of 34/61, “the lowest on record dating back since scientific polling began.”

But despite all that reality, Biden/Harris lose. And they lose amid exit polls finding that “[t]wo thirds of voters described the economy as bad, and those voters who did went big for Trump.”

And that, my friends, is a political problem. A five-alarm fire of a political problem.

It poses the basic question: How do you have four straight years of monthly job growth, record low unemployment, versus an administration that lost jobs, and ended as the most disapproved administration on record…and lose….on the very issue where you performed so markedly better.

Until we answer that question, we will struggle.

Pepper goes on to discuss how Democrats can win the PR battle next time. Open the link and keep reading.

Jeff Bryant is a veteran journalist who covers education issues. He is the chief correspondent for Our Schools, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He shared the following article with this blog.

What a Podcast Killed by Houston Public Media Reveals About the State Takeover of the City’s Schools

A podcast about the state takeover of the Houston Independent School District (HISD), which Houston Public Media (HPM) produced, promoted, and then quietly killed before it debuted, has been shared with Our Schools. “The Takeover,” hosted by Dominic Walsh, an award-winning public education journalist, examines the takeover, the state’s installation of a new board and a controversial superintendent Mike Miles, and the subsequent series of reforms Miles rolled out that have frustrated and angered teachers, parents, and students.

Our Schools has thoroughly examined the recordings to ensure their authenticity and is reporting on the contents of each episode so that readers are better informed about the consequences of the state takeover of Texas’s largest school district—the eighth-largest district in the nation. We have decided not to make the podcast public for legal reasons.

In four episodes of what was meant to be Season One of the podcast, Walsh covers events that took place in the school year 2023-2024, beginning with the secret ceremony in which Miles was sworn in to serve as superintendent in June 2023. Episode four culminates in March 2024 when public outrage forced Miles to back down on an evaluation plan that could have potentially resulted in half of the district’s principals losing their jobs, including some who lead the district’s top-rated schools.

Walsh ended the Season by questioning whether widespread public anger at policies implemented by Miles could endanger a school bond referendum that voters eventually decided on during the November 2024 election. That bond referendum was defeated, and the Houston Landing reported that Texas voters had never before rejected a proposed school bond measure “totaling $1 billion or more.” HPM called the defeat “an unofficial referendum of state takeover.”

Much of the airtime in “The Takeover” is taken up by interviews that are critical of what Miles has implemented, including those with parents, teachers, librarians, and students, many of whom bitterly complain about the new reforms. Walsh points out that state takeovers of local school districts almost never produce positive results, as numerous studies have shown.

Walsh has given ample time to takeover supporters on the podcast as well, including Miles; Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath, who appointed Miles; state-appointed Houston School Board President Audrey Momanaee; and Texas lawmakers, both Democratic and Republican, who support the takeover. He also speaks about positive developments since the takeover began, including improved test scores in math and science.

Yet, while Walsh’s reporting can be described as balanced, he largely frames the takeover and the new reforms Miles has imposed as the latest iteration of the decades-long education reform movement that Walsh negatively characterizes as being “top-down.” He further points out that the reforms are overly reliant on standardized testing with punitive accountability measures that often lead to schools being closed, teachers and school principals being fired, and parents feeling alienated.

A request for comment was sent to HPM station manager Joshua Adams, but Our Schools is yet to receive a response.

Episode one of “The Takeover” is titled “School Reform, the Musical,” a reference to a musical skit Miles staged, and played the leading role in, to ease the district about his massive disruption efforts and to counter any criticisms. But the episode could easily have been called “Winners and Losers,” which is the theme Walsh keeps returning to while describing who gains in Miles’s new education system and who loses out.

The winners tend to be those school staff members who benefit from a tiered salary system Miles implemented and teachers who are comfortable with a centrally created and scripted curriculum. The losers? Parents who see their children’s favorite teachers being fired or leaving in frustration. Students who find the scripted curriculum less engaging. Librarians whose libraries are shuttered. Teachers who lament about losing their freedom to tailor instruction to students and miss the curriculum they felt most passionate about, like teaching the entire book in English Language Arts class.

A contrast Walsh repeatedly draws throughout the episode is Miles’s claims of knowing “the best way” to improve schools versus what Walsh observes as the “painful reality” on the ground when the reforms were rolled out.

Episode one, “School Reform, the Musical” states:“State installed superintendent Mike Miles says his plan will make schools better, raise test scores, and career readiness, especially in high poverty neighborhoods that need it the most. And who could argue with those goals. Everyone wants that. Right? But it’s complicated.”
—Dominic Walsh

In episode two, “The Law,” Walsh begins by examining the law that made the state takeover possible and delves into the “conflicting philosophies” over public education and the rampant inequity in the education system. His reporting reveals that the law, House Bill 1842, was mostly based on the low academic performance of just one school, which had started to improve just before the announcement of the takeover. Walsh questions whether the low performance in Houston schools might be due to a lack of resources and the rigid system Texas uses to assess its schools.

Another state law the episode considers—passed in 2017—was an attempt to incentivize school districts to partner with charter school management groups to operate their lowest-performing schools. This law kept the HISD and other districts with low-performing schools under constant pressure of being privatized. Walsh explains that Houston’s reform movement is based on strict accountability measures of schools, which were exported to the entire nation later on.

Episode two, “The Law” states:“This is a story about conflicting philosophies—deep-seated disagreements over the possibilities, potentials, and purpose of public education in a deeply unequal society.”
—Dominic Walsh

Episode three, “The Texas Miracle,” goes back to the 1990s to explore the origin of top-down education reform in Texas under then-Governor George W. Bush and the so-called Texas miracle that became the inspiration for the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002 by then-President George W Bush. These policies were furthered under the Barack Obama presidential administration, and, in Houston, under the leadership of former superintendent Terry Grier from 2009 to 2016. He was rewarded with school improvement grant money by Obama, which he used to force changes in some of the very same schools Miles is focused on today.

However, Walsh speaks with education researcher Julian Vasquez Heilig, who was an employee of HISD’s Office of Research and Accountability from 1999-2001. He explains that the acclaimed progress resulting from the Texas miracle was a “mirage.” In another interview, education historian Jack Schneider says that the positive results, of what he calls the “bipartisan, neoliberal” policy of NCLB and similar laws, have never really been achieved.

Nevertheless, Walsh explains that the reform agenda spawned a host of reforms, to which Miles is devoted. In fact, as Walsh reports, the charter school network that Miles created and led, called the Third Future Schools, uses an education approach almost identical to what Miles is trying to implement for Houston’s public schools system. Walsh notes that Third Future Schools struggled to meet all the progress measures in another Texas school district when the company was contracted to transform a school. Walsh concludes, “If Miles can pull this off in Houston, it will be a first.”

Episode three, “The Texas Miracle” states:

“In the eyes of some researchers, if we have learned anything from the past two decades of education policy, it’s that this type of top-down, test-based school reform does not work, largely because of what it misses. But others think Mike Miles may have finally cracked the code.”

—Dominic Walsh 

The Takeover’s final episode, “Reconciliation,” largely focuses on the behind-the-scenes players that will determine the fate of Houston schools. These include the state-appointed board that Miles answers to—it mostly functions as a rubber stamp for Miles’s reform agenda, according to critics—the Texas Education Agency that initiated the takeover, and Texas state lawmakers, including the legislature and Governor Gregg Abbott, who determine state education policy. In reporting on each of these entities, Walsh finds various “contradictions” that are hard to reconcile.

Walsh interviews Audrey Momanaee about the takeover board and questions how the effort can align with the “visions and values of community,” as she claims while delivering  “results,” like higher test scores and a narrowed curriculum, which don’t seem to be in line with the values of the local community. Walsh returns to this same contradiction in his interview with Morath in which Walsh notices how Morath’s emphasis on raising test scores clashes with his goal to raise “educated citizens.” Texas state lawmakers present an even starker contradiction, Walsh notes, as they pass laws that hold public schools to increasingly harsher accountability measures while attempting to pass a new voucher system that would redirect more education funding to private schools, which have no public accountability at all.

In the face of these contradictions, Walsh accuses leaders of the Houston takeover of “kind of operating as if they have blinders on” as they choose to ignore what education should be, instead, going for scripted curriculum, command and control managerial practices, and ever higher test scores. Walsh notes that Miles seems to waver from his agenda only when wealthier parents and representatives of the business community voice their dissatisfaction.

Episode four, “Reconciliation” states:

“How the state measures success, how it decides when to intervene, and when this takeover will end, is actually up in the air. In fact, the whole public education system in Texas is in flux.”

—Dominic Walsh

Why HPM decided to kill “The Takeover” before it had a chance to air is not immediately clear based on the content of the podcast.

According to a September 2024 article in the Texas Monthly, which called the decision to kill the podcast “head-scratching,” executives at the news organization pulled “The Takeover” the day before it was scheduled to debut when they learned that Walsh’s “long-term romantic relationship with an HISD teacher” presented, what they believed, was a “conflict of interest.” Through a series of public records requests, Texas Monthly reporters Michael Hardy and Forrest Wilder obtained copies of the podcast episodes and internal communications related to its cancellation.

In their investigation, Hardy and Wilder found “no evidence that HPM canceled the podcast because of external pressure, as some community members have speculated. No inaccuracies in Walsh’s reporting are identified in the internal communications we reviewed, and HPM executives did not respond to a question about whether they had identified any.”

Hardy and Wilder also note that “What constitutes a conflict of interest is a disputed subject among journalists.” They have interviewed experts on ethics in journalism who question HPM executives’ decision to cancel the podcast.

HPM still archives Walsh’s education reporting on its website, with no disclaimer. Walsh, however, no longer covers education and seems to be reporting on other beats for HPM.

But it’s hard not to sense the irony as Walsh signs off his reporting in “The Takeover” saying, “Whatever happens we will be here. Stay tuned.”

At the behest of Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the legislature enacted a voucher program. As in every other state with vouchers, most are used by students already enrolled in private or religious schools. The voucher is a subsidy for families who could already pay but are happy to take the extra money.

The Arkansas Times revealed that vouchers could be spent on horseback riding lessons. Taxpayers are paying for those lessons.

The story says:

The Arkansas LEARNS Act, signed into law in 2023 by Gov. Sarah Sanders, created a voucher program that sends public money to private school families to use for tuition, fees and other expenses. This school year, the program is open to many homeschoolers as well. Homeschool families don’t have tuition bills to pay, but they’re able to use voucher funds for a variety of other education-related expenses, such as books and supplies, curricula, computers and other technology, and private tutoring.

Extracurricular activities are fair game as well. A list of 569 “education service providers” approved for participation in the LEARNS voucher program as of Nov. 18includes climbing gyms, dance studios, jiu-jitsu instructors — and at least seven equestrian-related vendors, according to a cursory review by the Arkansas Times….

Some of those vendors appear to focus in whole or in part on “equine-assisted therapy” services for people with disabilities or trauma. Others appear to simply offer kids the opportunity to ride, interact with and care for horses. But all of them have been given the go-ahead by the Arkansas Department of Education to receive taxpayer dollars at a time when the state has cut inflation-adjusted spending in other areas.

Relatively speaking, equestrian centers are unlikely to eat up too much of the overall voucher pie. Each LEARNS voucher costs the public about $6,856 in the current 2024-25 school year, and there are about 14,000 students in the program this year, most of whom attend private schools. (About 3,000 are homeschooled.) The majority of the roughly $96 million that Arkansas spends on vouchers is flowing to private schools, such as Little Rock Christian Academy or Shiloh Christian School in Springdale.

The idea of publicly subsidizing horseback riding seems to be striking a nerve in a way that paying private school tuition does not. But one could argue there’s not a lot of difference between the two. 

There are no income-eligibility requirements for either homeschool or private school households to receive a voucher. Well-off homeschool families who already paid out of pocket for riding lessons before Arkansas LEARNS can now get them comped by the state. In the same vein, families who paid private school tuition before LEARNS are now getting a taxpayer-funded boost to their bank accounts, freeing them to spend that money on whatever else they please (including horseback riding, if they wish).

A blogger called “That’s Another Fine Mess” wrote about an important question: who controls the Power of the Purse? The Constitution says that power belongs to the House of Representatives. But Trump likes to break norms and ignore the Constitution. Will he seize the power of the purse to kill programs, agencies, and Departments that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy consider unnecessary? Will the Supreme Court enable a power grab?

Think about it. Will this Supreme Court allow Trump to override the Constitution?

The blogger “That’s Another Fine Mess” writes:

Since the English Barons met with King John at Runnymede in 1215 and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, the Power of the Purse, and who shall wield it, has been a central point of political contention in the development of democratic constitutional republics.


In the United States, the Power of the Purse resides in the House of Representatives, that part of the national government closest to the citizen voters.


The last president to challenge the power of the House of Representatives to set financial goals and provide for the proper financing of the agencies of governmnt to achieve those goals was Richard Nixon, 50 years ago.


Donald Trump is preparing to enter his second term as president and has vowed to cut a vast array of government services and announced a radical plan to do so.


Rather than rely on his party’s control of both houses of congress to trim the budget, Trump and his advisers have stated their intent to test an obscure legal theory that holds presidents have sweeping power to withhold funding from programs they dislike. This was also the heart of Nixon’s chosen battleground in the early 1970s, when Congress began defunding the operation of the war in Vietnam.


In a 2023 campaign video, Trump said: “We can simply choke off the money. For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.” As with most everything Trump says about politics and government, this is another lie.


The plan, known as “impoundment,” threatens to provoke a major clash with the Article II p[ower over the limits of the president’s Article I control over the budget.


The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to appropriate the federal budget. The role of the Article I executive branch is to dole out the money effectively, in accordance with the budget created and approved by Congress. That power was affirmed in by passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, whch wrote into law that the president did not possess such authority.


Trump and his advisers assert that a president can unilaterally ignore the Congress’ spending decisions and “impound” funds if he opposes them or deems them wasteful.


This assault on the congessional power of the purse is part of his larger plan to consolidate as much power in the executive branch as possible. Earlier this month, he attempted to pressure the Senate to voluntarily go into recess for longer than ten days, so he could appoint his cabinet through recess appointments, avoiding the Senate’s role in advise and consent to such appointments. So far, he was forced to back down on this demand when it became clear that at least five Republican Senators would vote against Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General.


Trump’s claim to possess impoundment power stands against that law. If Trump were to assert and maintain a power to kill congressionally approved programs, it would tee up a fight in the federal courts and – accoprding to experts – fundamentally alter Congress’ bedrock power of he purse were he to prevail at the Supreme Court. Given the present court’s demonstrated willingness to ignore precedent, it is not clear how they would rule, despite the several Supreme Court rulings against Nixon’s attempted usurpation 50 years ago.


The possible fight was teed up in an op-ed published Wednesday by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who Trump has placved in control of the new nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency – who do not possess between the two of them knowledge of the actual operation of government under the Constitution that would fill a thimble – in which they said they planned to slash federal spending and fire civil servants. Since DOGE is about as real as the Doge Coins our Unreconstructed Afrikaner Space Nazi plays with, the fact is that what these two fuckwits have the power to do is to make suggestions and recommendations to Congress, which has the power to kill a program or agency and reset the terms of employment for the federal employees involved.


Musk and Ramaswamy wrote, “We believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.” They could be right.
Their efforts could offer Trump his first Supreme Court test of the post-Watergate Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to spend the money Congress approves. The law allows exceptions, such as when the executive branch can achieve Congress’ goals by spending less, but not as a means for the president to kill programs he opposes.


Trump and his fellow conspirators have been telegraphing his plan for a hostile takeover of the budgeting process for months. He has decried the 1974 law as “not a very good act” in his campaign video and said, “Bringing back impoundment will give us a crucial tool with which to obliterate the Deep State.”


The once-obscure impoundment debate has come back into vogue in MAGA circles thanks to Russell Vought, Trump’s former and future budget director, and Mark Paoletta, who served under Vought during Trump 1.0 as the OMB general counsel, who have worked to popularize the idea after it was brought up by the Vought-founded Center for Renewing America.


In private remarks to a gathering of MAGA luminaries uncovered by ProPublica, Vought boasted he was assembling a “shadow” Office of Legal Counsel so that Trump is armed on day one with the legal rationalizations to realize his agenda, saying, “I don’t want President Trump having to lose a moment of time having fights in the Oval Office about whether something is legal or doable or moral.”


The prospect of Trump seizing vast control over federal spending is not merely about reducing the size of the federal government, a long-standing conservative goal. It is also fueling new fears about his promises of vengeance.

Please open the link to finish reading.

This is a beautiful essay on December 7, Pearl Harbor Day, and its meaning for us today. Please read it.

On the sunny Sunday morning of December 7, 1941, Messman Doris Miller had served breakfast aboard the USS West Virginia, stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and was collecting laundry when the first of nine Japanese torpedoes hit the ship.

In the deadly confusion, Miller reported to an officer, who told him to help move the ship’s mortally wounded captain off the bridge. Unable to move him far, Miller pulled the captain to shelter. Then another officer ordered Miller to pass ammunition to him as he started up one of the two abandoned anti-aircraft guns in front of the conning tower.

Miller had not been trained to use the weapons because, as a Black man in the U.S. Navy, he was assigned to serve the white officers. But while the officer was distracted, Miller began to fire one of the guns. He fired it until he ran out of ammunition. Then he helped to move injured sailors to safety before he and the other survivors abandoned the West Virginia, which sank to the bottom of Pearl Harbor.

That night, the United States declared war on Japan. Japan declared war on America the next day, and four days later, on December 11, 1941, both Italy and Germany declared war on America. “The powers of the steel pact, Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany, ever closely linked, participate from today on the side of heroic Japan against the United States of America,” Italian leader Benito Mussolini said. “We shall win.” Of course they would. Mussolini and Germany’s leader, Adolf Hitler, believed the Americans had been corrupted by Jews and Black Americans and could never conquer their own organized military machine.

The steel pact, as Mussolini called it, was the vanguard of his new political ideology. That ideology was called fascism, and he and Hitler thought it would destroy democracy once and for all.

Mussolini had been a socialist as a young man and had grown terribly frustrated at how hard it was to organize people. No matter how hard socialists tried, they seemed unable to convince ordinary people that they must rise up and take over the country’s means of production.

The efficiency of World War I inspired Mussolini. He gave up on socialism and developed a new political theory that rejected the equality that defined democracy. He came to believe that a few leaders must take a nation toward progress by directing the actions of the rest. These men must organize the people as they had been organized during wartime, ruthlessly suppressing all opposition and directing the economy so that businessmen and politicians worked together. And, logically, that select group of leaders would elevate a single man, who would become an all-powerful dictator. To weld their followers into an efficient machine, they demonized opponents into an “other” that their followers could hate.

Italy adopted fascism, and Mussolini inspired others, notably Germany’s Hitler. Those leaders came to believe that their system was the ideology of the future, and they set out to destroy the messy, inefficient democracy that stood in their way.

America fought World War II to defend democracy from fascism. And while fascism preserved hierarchies in society, democracy called on all men as equals. Of the more than 16 million Americans who served in the war, more than 1.2 million were African American men and women, 500,000 were Latinos, and more than 550,000 Jews were part of the military. Among the many ethnic groups who fought, Native Americans served at a higher percentage than any other ethnic group—more than a third of able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 50 joined the service—and among those 25,000 soldiers were the men who developed the famous “Code Talk,” based in tribal languages, that codebreakers never cracked.

The American president at the time, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt, hammered home that the war was about the survival of democracy. Fascists insisted that they were moving their country forward fast and efficiently—claiming the trains ran on time, for example, although in reality they didn’t—but FDR constantly noted that the people in Italy and Germany were begging for food and shelter from the soldiers of democratic countries.

Ultimately, the struggle between fascism and democracy was the question of equality. Were all men really created equal as the Declaration of Independence said, or were some born to lead the rest, whom they held subservient to their will?

Democracy, FDR reminded Americans again and again, was the best possible government. Thanks to armies made up of men and women from all races and ethnicities, the Allies won the war against fascism, and it seemed that democracy would dominate the world forever.

But as the impulse of WWII pushed Americans toward a more just and inclusive society after it, those determined not to share power warned their supporters that including people of color and women as equals in society would threaten their own liberty. Those reactionary leaders rode that fear into control of our government, and gradually they chipped away the laws that protected equality. Now, once again, democracy is under attack by those who believe some people are better than others.

Donald Trump and his cronies have vowed to replace the nonpartisan civil service with loyalists and to weaponize the Department of Justice and the military against those they perceive as enemies. They have promised to incarcerate and deport millions of immigrants, send federal troops into Democratic cities, silence LGBTQ+ Americans, prosecute journalists and their political opponents, and end abortion across the country. They want to put in place an autocracy in which a powerful leader and his chosen loyalists make the rules under which the rest of us must live.

Will we permit the destruction of American democracy on our watch?

When America came under attack before, people like Doris Miller refused to let that happen. For all that American democracy still discriminated against him, it gave him room to stand up for the concept of human equality—and he laid down his life for it. Promoted to cook after the Navy sent him on a publicity tour, Miller was assigned to a new ship, the USS Liscome Bay, which was struck by a Japanese torpedo on November 24, 1943. It sank within minutes, taking two thirds of the crew, including Miller, with it.

I hear a lot these days about how American democracy is doomed and the reactionaries will win. Maybe. But the beauty of our system is that it gives us people like Doris Miller.

Even better, it makes us people like Doris Miller.

The Miami Herald noted that Trump is considering dropping Pete Hegseth as his nominee for Secretary of Defense and selecting Florida Governor Ron DeSantis instead. So it published a story reviewing DeSantis’s statements about how he would deploy the military. Read and be informed.

The Miami Herald reports:

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis repeatedly vowed during his presidential campaign to send troops to the U.S. southern border, authorize lethal force against migrants attempting to cross between ports of entry, and even consider firing missiles into Mexico — an extraordinary use of U.S. military power that has since been endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump. Now, DeSantis may have a chance to fulfill that promise, among other controversial proposals, should Trump ask him to lead the Pentagon. The Republican governor is said to be in discussions with Trump and his transition team about replacing Pete Hegseth, a Fox News television personality plagued by sex and drinking scandals, as his nominee for defense secretary….

At one of the GOP primary debates, DeSantis said he would declare a national emergency and send troops to the southern border to deploy lethal force against drug cartels attempting to smuggle drugs into the country. Throughout the campaign, DeSantis was repeatedly pressed to explain how the military would determine whether individuals crossing the border had any connection to the drug trade. “I am gonna declare a national emergency, I’m not gonna send troops to Ukraine but I am gonna send them to our southern border,” he said. “When these drug pushers are bringing fentanyl across the border, that’s gonna be the last thing they do. We’re gonna use force and we’re gonna leave them stone-cold dead….”

In another exchange during the primary, DeSantis told CBS that he would consider all available military options — including using force in Mexico itself — to combat the illegal drug trade. “The tactics can be debated,” he said, asked whether he would fire missiles into Mexico. “That would be dependent on the situation.” DeSantis has also spent millions of dollars in recent years supporting Texas in deterring migrants from entering the country through state-led border security initiatives. Florida aided in some of Texas’ efforts that have come under scrutiny, including reports that officers were ordered to push small children and nursing babies back into the Rio Grande.

DOMESTIC DEPLOYMENTS

DeSantis, as governor, has already demonstrated a willingness to deploy state troops under his control for unconventional purposes, often unrelated to the immediate needs of the state. He sent members of the Florida State Guard to aid Texas’ state efforts to police the border — despite questions over their coordination with federal border patrol — and, in 2020, sent 500 Florida National Guardsmen to Washington in response to protests following the death of George Floyd….

RECRUITMENT CHALLENGES

DeSantis also promised to purge the military of “woke” policies, such as highlighting diversity, equity and inclusion and allowing transgender personnel to serve as their preferred sex, claiming the policies were undermining military effectiveness and suppressing recruitment. “It is time to rip the woke out of the military and return it to its core mission,” DeSantis said during the campaign. “We must restore a sense of confidence, conviction, and patriotic duty to our institutions — and that begins with our military….”

On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.

A 2021 study commissioned by the Pentagon on recruitment strategies found that “wokeness” did not register among the top 10 reasons why Americans were enlisting at record low numbers.

“Our research shows that the top barriers to service are concerns about death or injury, PTSD, emotional issues, and leaving friends and family — not political issues,” a Pentagon official told McClatchy last year. “Concerns about vaccines and ‘wokeness’ are among the least to be raised as reasons not to join the military….”

On the campaign trail, DeSantis also frequently questioned the value of sending financial and military support to Ukraine to help it defend itself against Russia. He opposed its membership bid to NATO and questioned the mission of NATO itself during the primary, calling on the transatlantic alliance to focus on the growing threat from China.

“I think NATO was fine for the Cold War. It made sense,” he said. “Now we’re in a situation where a lot of those countries aren’t doing their fair share in terms of their defenses, and yet we’re supposed to provide blanket security for that, where our interests may diverge around the world.”

At one point, DeSantis called the war between Ukraine and Russia a “territorial dispute.” He quickly changed his message after facing criticism and said that Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine and Putin was a “war criminal.”

Ukraine, DeSantis added, has a “right to that territory.”

“If I could snap my fingers, I’d give it back to Ukraine 100%,” DeSantis told the New York Post’s Piers Morgan in March 2023. “But the reality is what is America’s involvement in terms of escalating with more weapons, and certainly ground troops I think would be a mistake. So, that was the point I was trying to make, but Russia was wrong to invade. They were wrong to take Crimea.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article296548929.html#storylink=cpy