I was rather disappointed in the recent State of the Union address, but not for the reasons many readers might think. I believe that most Americans watched it the way one watches a meticulously overproduced halftime show, faintly aware that something once constitutionally serious has slowly mutated into a carefully choreographed spectacle. What was originally designed as a constitutional report has steadily evolved into a nationally televised performance in which political personality routinely outruns prudence and theatrical timing frequently eclipses thoughtful deliberation.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” That language is restrained, almost modest, and decidedly functional. The duty was prudential and informational. The President was to report, to recommend, and to unify the branches around the common good.
In short, the address existed to serve the Republic rather than to energize a base.
From George Washington to the present
Originally, it was precisely that. In 1790, George Washington delivered the first annual message in person before Congress in New York City, speaking with deliberate dignity and almost austere brevity. The tone was calm and composed, the content was administrative, and the atmosphere was constitutional. Then, in 1801, Thomas Jefferson discontinued the in-person address because he considered it monarchical in tone, preferring instead to send a written message to be read aloud by a clerk. That written practice endured for more than a century, and for good reason. The message was a report for the entire nation.
Then came 1913. Woodrow Wilson revived the in-person delivery, believing that executive presence could shape legislative priorities more forcefully and consolidate national leadership. From that point on, the modern rhetorical presidency began to take form. The speech gradually shifted from a communication to Congress into a broader appeal to the American public. The President increasingly spoke over the heads of legislators to the voters watching from their living rooms. Television accelerated this transformation dramatically. In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson moved the address to prime time, ensuring maximum exposure and cementing its status as a national broadcast event.
The incentives changed accordingly and quickly. Reporting gave way to persuading. Persuading then drifted toward performing.
Don’t be mistaken: there have been undeniably serious moments. In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt articulated the Four Freedoms with solemn moral conviction. In 1982, Ronald Reagan introduced Lenny Skutnik, elevating a private citizen as an emblem of civic virtue and inaugurating a tradition that attempted, at least rhetorically, to highlight the civic character of the United States rather than partisan grievances. In 1996, Bill Clinton famously declared that “the era of big government is over.” That line that remains lodged in historical memory precisely because it transcended the annual churn of policy detail. At their best, these speeches aspired to bind the country together around a shared purpose.
However, a decisive cultural turn became unmistakable in 1995. That year, amid the aftermath of the 1994 Republican Revolution and a looming government shutdown, President Clinton delivered a State of the Union that deliberately read as a strategically calibrated campaign address aimed squarely at securing reelection in 1996. Policy disputes were framed in openly partisan terms. The opposing Congress was portrayed as obstructionist and extreme. The rhetorical contrasts were sharpened for maximum theatrical effect.
The speech succeeded politically, and Clinton won the reelection comfortably. Unfortunately, his template for the State of the Union also endured.
From partisan stagecraft to circus pageantry to brand management exercise
From that point forward, the annual address has increasingly resembled an extended campaign rally staged inside the House chamber. The President appears there as the head of a political coalition addressing adversaries across the aisle, instead of the head of a single republic union. The rhetorical center of gravity has shifted perceptibly from institutional stewardship toward political factional contest. The speech has become a catalog of partisan victories and partisan villains. One half of the chamber erupts in enthusiastic applause, while the other half sits in visible and performative televised disapproval.
The transformation did not arrive with a single candidate or a single party. Although Donald Trump recently became for many a vivid symbol of the phenomenon, the underlying trend gathered momentum earlier, especially during the Obama administration, when soaring rhetoric and almost messianic tones coexisted with increasingly hardened tribal identities. Partisan rhetoric began to outrank character. Viral social clips began to outrank substantive arguments. US politics gradually moved from a contest of competency to a parade of pageantry and then into a full-scale carnival in which theatrical provocation frequently served as a substitute for disciplined governance.
Our politics is now a circus where the clowns are in charge, and we celebrate the pies in the face.
Consequently, in circus pageantry, members of Congress coordinate wardrobe themes as if attending a gala. Representatives hold up signs, stage walkouts, wear badges, and choreograph disruptions carefully designed for social media circulation. In recent years, theatrical gestures have included the public tearing of a printed presidential speech behind the speaker, shouted interruptions during remarks, and symbolic protest attire arranged for maximum camera visibility. The chamber is a stage for the cameras.
Presidents then reciprocate in kind. References to the opposing party become more accusatory. Policy disagreements are framed as moral failures of the other side. The word “Democrats” or “Republicans” is nothing more than rhetorical foils at this juncture. The President speaks with heightened intensity toward supporters in the gallery while adversaries sit stone-faced. The speech is effectively an emotionally charged brand management exercise instead of a unifying constitutional opportunity.
What is disheartening is that earlier generations of Americans used to expect something more substantial from presidents and their speeches. George Washington’s Farewell Address warned with undeniable gravity that “the spirit of party… serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.” He cautioned that faction “agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.” His language assumed that we would remain a morally serious citizenry capable of self-restraint. Washington also wrote that “Religion and morality are indispensable supports” of political prosperity, articulating his hope in an anthropology rooted in transcendent natural and biblical truth.
Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address compelled the whole nation to an awakening of conscience. “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God,” Lincoln observed amid the carnage of civil war, refusing to indulge in triumphalism and instead calling the nation toward “malice toward none; with charity for all.” He situated the conflict within divine providence and summoned the nation to humility. His speech was meant to elevate the spirit of the entire nation.
Even in times of tragedy, serious leadership has occasionally reemerged. In January 1986, after the space shuttle Challenger exploded before the eyes of schoolchildren across the nation, President Reagan postponed the State of the Union and instead addressed the country from the Oval Office in a brief, solemn, and carefully crafted speech. He spoke directly to grieving families and stunned citizens. He invoked courage for all, and closed with lines from John Gillespie Magee’s poem “High Flight,” describing those who had “slipped the surly bonds of Earth” and “put out my hand, and touched the face of God.” The speech lifted the collective national gaze heavenward. It reminded citizens of who they were in the face of shared sorrow.
Those speeches are now rare. Contemporary State of the Union addresses consume immense energy for communications teams and then evaporate within days, reduced to curated clips and partisan talking points. Approval ratings rarely shift meaningfully, yet supporters cheer, and opponents react with visible disdain or tune out entirely. Instant polls reflect the predispositions of viewers already aligned with the President’s message. Millions of others simply stream entertainment programming and are completely disengaged from the constitutional ritual.
National division and cultural exhaustion
The evening that is designed to symbolize American unity now dramatizes our national division. Standing ovations alternate with conspicuous silence, and applause erupts from only one side of the aisle while the other side remains seated in protest. The Vice President and Speaker sit behind the President in carefully choreographed neutrality while the chamber vibrates with growing partisan tension. The ritual form affirms constitutional separation of powers, sure, but the tone suggests a decisively competitive and sometimes embarrassing political pageantry.
The founders understood faction as an enduring human reality. They also feared its excess. The State of the Union was intended for institutional cohesion, a reminder that despite disagreement, the branches shared responsibility for the common good of the same Republic. The annual address was meant to symbolize structural unity, even if there was an immense ideological contest. When the President frames the opposition as an existential threat, and legislators respond with open contempt, the symbolic message to the nation is unmistakable: we share a common territory, but we will never share a common purpose. And the American people pay the price for this.
Furthermore, the incentives of digital outrage reward this ludicrous spectacle. Representatives from heavily partisan constituencies face no electoral risk for dramatic gestures. Instead, they’re often rewarded. A member escorted from the chamber may receive fundraising emails before leaving Capitol grounds. Social outrage travels rapidly, but policy analysis moves slowly. Unfortunately, our modern incentives now favor and celebrate the clown.
A leader primarily concerned with viral clicks drifts steadily toward caricaturization of the office. The clown can entertain, provoke, and distract, but he cannot bind wounds or articulate a common good grounded in natural law and constitutional stewardship. Yet the crowd often rewards showmanship over sincerity and goodwill. The applause lines are louder, and the clips circulate faster. In the process, the discipline of governance is much duller by comparison.
This cultural exhaustion reveals something deeper. Our shared memories and aspirations have thinned. Even chances of national unity, such as the men’s Olympic hockey victory on the anniversary of the Miracle on Ice, are immediately filtered through political lenses. Sports once offered a temporary truce amid ideological conflicts. Now, even the athletes feel the onus of partisan commentary.
A corrective reminder
Nevertheless, we need not despair. The US constitutional structure is still the greatest political achievement in human history. The President addresses Congress, the Supreme Court justices attend, and the Cabinet fills the front rows. The ritual affirms the separation of powers, even if the speech doesn’t acknowledge it. The founding documents still appeal to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Ours is still an objective moral order accessible through reason and illuminated by Christian religious conviction. Those words remain embedded in our national architecture.
What is the state of our Union? The answer is plain and undeniable: Divided, deeply divided, and increasingly habituated to that division. Yet division alone does not doom a republic. The American system was designed for vigorous conflict within constitutional bounds. The deeper problem arises when our political factions become the new identity, and compromising one’s political loyalty is full-blown betrayal.
If we allow it, the State of the Union could be a corrective reminder that the President speaks to the entire Congress on behalf of the entire country. It could lift the national gaze beyond polling numbers and partisan grievances. It could summon the citizenry toward virtue, sacrifice, shared destiny, and even divine providence. Instead, today, it frequently amplifies the very rivalries it was meant to transcend.
A nation that once heard lines about touching the face of God now often settles for punchlines about polling percentages. Consequently, the path forward requires citizens who are willing to demand more than performance from our leaders. And for leaders to be willing to risk honesty and virtue despite a political arena addicted to spectacle. The Republic can endure sharp debate, to be sure. But the State of the Union once symbolized shared responsibility for the common good of the union of our republic.
Are we a union of states? What is the state of our union? We have lost that cohesion for a while; hence, the question is whether we are willing to return to the better union we once had.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
We read: “The founding documents still appeal to ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’.”
And herein lies (a good word: “lies”) part of the great divide. The phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence. But not in the related but now separated Constitution… During Senate confirmation hearings, nominations to the United State Supreme Court are asked if they support the Declaration. Some evade this foundational question by responding that they will defend the structural and procedural Constitution.
The “aisle” in Congress also splits the possible and former unity of the two foundational documents. Also, too, even splitting the unity of the human family and the human person–as when a sitting female justice cannot so much as define in even a rudimentary way what a woman is, not until some preppy interns might supply obscure footnotes for some future piece of arcane litigation.
Therefore, as we were tutored during the State of the Union Address: “you ought to be ashamed of yourselves………….. These people are crazy!” Yes, good theater, but also something more.
Our nation will be united ONLY when there is a fundamental ackniwledgement of Almighty God as the source of all that is True and Good. The division emerges when Man worships himself, when Man becomes his own arbiter of Good and Evil and when Man is wilfully prideful. Division comes in when Man thinks it’s alright to murder innocent and defenseless unborn humans. Division comes in when males think it is within their purview to will themselves to be females and vice versa. The division in politics will come about when God stops being mocked.
“We have serious problems and we need serious people to solve them.”
Andrew Shepherd, POTUS
It’s mostly political theatre. I never watch it but I’ll check the news the next day and possibly replays of a couple key moments.
Whatever one might think of President Trump’s address, his energy level is amazing. I hope I have half the energy it takes to give a speech for that long when I’m his age. God willing.
He and Romney never drank, and R never drank coffee.
You know knowall, avoiding alcohol seems a much better choice than we once realized. I read more & more research showing the harm it can do.
To begin with:
I do not share the author’s sensibilities that previous SOTU addresses were “constitutionally serious.”
More later…
“We have lost that cohesion for a while; hence, the question is whether we are willing to return to the better union we once had.”
To answer that question we have to look at what are the issues that cause a lack of cohesion.
One side wants the unlimited national ability to murder the unborn, the other side not.
One side wanted over 12 million illegals to enter the country, the other side not.
One side is in favor of so called sexual transitions, the other side not.
These issues and many others are not the kind of issues that can result in compromise. We are not dealing with one side wanting to spend 10 million on road construction and the side 20 million and Compromise on 15 million.
We are an extremely divided nation on fundamental issues, and as Deacon Edward wrote there will be no unity without a return to God.
One could suggest in the most general sense the our social, economic & political cultural divide has no center given the respective ideologies are mutually exclusive thus one side must capitulate to the other to be unified though we know from Scripture that the Faithful Remnant shall survive through the End Times. As interesting as life mat be now, it shall become increasingly interesting.
Very well articulated, and perfectly true!
The whole world is “culturally exhausted” from coverage of the embarrassing antics of that clown in the White House. Couldn’t his speeches be dubbed by Rowan Atkinson or something? It would lift the game.
Miguel, you’re disrespecting our president. Stop it.
Your President acts in a manner that does not command respect. He has led your nation to the precipice. A significant cohort of his followers are attempting to steer the ship in a manner to force the hand of God to bring about the end time prophecies of the book of revelation. General Flynn, the so called christian nationalists, their agenda to bring to reality the third temple of Jerusalem. Your secretary of defence has preached on the subject. These are bedfellows of the Catholics whose work gave your nation project 2025. Leonard Leo et al.
Now you have high ranking officers instructing their troops that they are on a mission from God!
Meanwhile the nation’s leader is potentially implicated in a sex trafficking network, at the very least his former friend was the main figure and many of his network, political and business are implicated. Drain the swamp has become one of the many statements directed at others yet implicate himself and the behaviours he himself seems to profit from. The sycophantic nature of Government appointments has destroyed impartiality and any remnant of genuine bipartisan consensus within the DOJ and/seemingly the FBI both now weapons at Trumps disposal wielded to protect his interests and save his political butt. Now a preemptive and unjustified strike upon yet another middle eastern nation. The disunited states is hyper focused on heaping disrepute on the nations reputation while the cheer squat invent new and increasingly disingenuous rationalisations many framed with an implied assumption
option of Gods blessing. A very real failure of discernment is evident in the pages and comments of many articles from Catholic World Report. Seldom do i comment here but i am genuinely alarmed at the state of the nation and Trumps address was has true to form. Americana’s it seems chosen its destiny and squandered its previously held position on the international stage.
Mr. Allan, there are a number of false narratives going around currently. One is that anyone supporting military intervention in Iran does so to bring about the Second Coming. That’s just not the case & it’s an incorrect stereotyping of US Protestants.
Other false narratives are the Epstein Files/ Pizza Gate connections & Project 2025. Donald Trump could care less about a Reagan era think tank & for better or worse, he doesn’t take orders from others. And Pizza Gate is just ridiculous.
mrscracker, there are indeed many false narratives going around. Diligence and robust intellectual integrity aided by a determined commitment to get to the truth of conflicting narratives is a prerequisite for both the formation of our conscience and to base our decision making upon.
You seem to have misread or misunderstood what i was communicating.
At no time did i imply that anyone supporting military intervention in Iran does so to bring about the Second Coming. I described this as an element. ie a cohort among a wider group of people who are not implicated. This is a fact that demands examination in any genuine discussion involving the state of the nation in reference to military endeavour. This discussion involves the existence and widespread influence of christian nationalism.
Your second point “Other false narratives are the Epstein Files/ Pizza Gate connections & Project 2025.” As per the Epstein files they are tragically not a false narrative. The many opportunities over many years and several Govt administrations that were squandered or not followed up by diligent investigation and law enforcement are another issue of supreme importance regarding the state of the nation. How do Americans trust these institutions and the rule of law when an elected can engage in depravity of the worst nature yet escape the rule of law? This is an established fact. I must point out that i made no reference to pizzagate. If it has relevance at all it’s origins would fit the dynamic i mentioned of those who accuse others as a deflection from their own criminality!
however there are many examples on social media of self appointed opinion bloviators who do nothing but muddy the waters.
This sentence in my reply:
How do Americans trust these institutions and the rule of law when an elected can engage in depravity of the worst nature yet escape the rule of law?
should read:
How do Americans trust these institutions and the rule of law when an elite group can engage in depravity of the worst nature yet escape the rule of law?
Mr Allan, there are in fact some Protestants who believe current events in the Mid East are setting up a scenario for the Second Coming. The false narrative is that’s what’s driving support for our military intervention. For a few folks- sure. A large contingent of US citizens? No.
Epstein and his girlfriend were using the oldest profession in the world to gain favor with the influential. Trafficking underage girls is bad enough without creating ridiculous conspiracy stories involving cannibalism. That’s the Pizza Gate connection.
“Meanwhile the nation’s leader is potentially implicated in a sex trafficking network, at the very least his former friend was the main figure and many of his network, political and business are implicated.”
This is blatantly false. Are you intentionally lying here or are you simply ignorant of the facts?
Athanasius, your accusation of of me lying or simply being ignorant of the facts boarders on slanderous. I chose my words carefully and would advise to to do likewise.
Perhaps it is you that are not comprehensively informed on the subject of the Epstein files and how the implicate President Trump. I did not mention the nature or extent of his being implicated. The established fact he is mentioned in the files over one thousand times surely would demonstrate that he is connected in relationship or dealings of one kind or another.. The existence in these files of serious accusations received and acknowledged by the FBI that have not been investigated also demonstrates this reality the President Trump among the many others is implicated. Individuals similarly implicated who hold an influential position in other nations and some corporations have resigned. This demonstrates that these truthful facts have relevance to any discussion about the wider state of the nation, beyond the speech given by President Trump.
Quaerite veritatem in omnibus
Athanasius, to add clarity to my reply, in my original statement i purposely stated President Trump is potentially implicated, ( emphasis on potentially ) That emphasis on potentially applies to what i wrote in my response to your comment although I failed to state this in context.
Thank you in anticipation of your acknowledgment of this clarification.
Yes, of course the E. files contain Trump’s name! Many newspapers have mentioned Trump’s name hundreds of times. Are they also guilty by associaiton?
J.A. seems not to discern that the files contain names such as these:
– Sarah Huckabee
– Barbra Streisand
– Kamala Harris
– Margaret Thatcher
– Pramila Jayapal
Surely they too warrant implication or explication. What say you, J.A.?
A very real failure of discernment is evident in the…comments…
So say you. How would you define a failure of discernment?
Your comment stands as perfect example, Mr. Jay A.
Marion i assure you i am well aware that the mention of one’s name does not denote involvement in the predatory abuse network Epstein had developed over many years. With respect to the list of names you provided the first question i would ask is how does President Trumps relationship with Epstein differ from those you listed? It goes without saying one must look further into the details of reports and evidence available to the public. There are ample reliable sources of information in this regard that themselves can be further examined as is necessary. If we go to Epstein’s own words on the subject of his perception of Donald Trump as recorded in taped ( verifiable ) interviews he had with author Michael Wolf we can immediately establish that Trumps relationship with Epstein differs in significant ways relevant to my argument than the names you listed. It is then for the enquirer to consider and evaluate Epstein’s own statements which are contained in this written article together with other evidence available.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU08/20250227/117951/HHRG-119-JU08-20250227-SD006-U6.pdf
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Quaerite veritatem in omnibus
JA:
You say, “There are ample reliable sources of information….go to Epstein’s own words….”
Then my sense of humor kicked in.
P.S.: The other names mentioned are women of prominence. Trump is a man of prominent position. Those with a sense of objective reality recognize the difference.
What part of that world do you live in where you can observe that Mr. Miguel?
I have some family abroad & that’s not what I’m hearing.
Pres. Trump’s persona might be culturally different but it hardly makes him a clown. We didn’t vote for his manners but for his performance in office.
Rowan Atkinson’s dubbing would amplify Trump’s comedic flair and sense of humor.
If comedy causes ‘cultural exhaustion,’ why blame the clown? Equally likely is an inability in the audience to appreciate humor. Follow any cardinal sin to see if it could lead to ‘cultural exhaustion.’ I’d guess Yes.
I’d pay money to watch Mr. Bean’s impersonation of Donald Trump.🙂
The USA, as on the 2nd of March, has a massive existential elephant in the room.
A constitution that has allowed a man to acquire absolute monarchical powers and seems to be getting away with establishing a corporatist state.
The world might wonder why the head of state of a country that proclaims it is better than any other when it comes to freedom has such contempt for international law when that law does not suit its global purpose.
In addition shouldn’t a head of state, assuming such a substitute monarch is actually necessary, be fit in every intellectual capacity?
Surely, presidents are not divinities, neither are they popes, ayatullahs or heads of private corporations
The USA appears to be heading for kingship encompassing all of them.
In Europe revolutions have occurred with less provocation.
ALBA:Your commentary is seriously flawed because your appreciation of reality is negatively impacted by your paranoia
As person of Syriac Catholic heritage, now agnostic, born during the US invasion of Iraq now studying mathematical physics & AI science i am. not given to paranoia but some in the US definitely show the signs,’
Islam is NOT a legitimate religion. Islam has one major tenet: CONQUEST. It is at your own peril not to see the objective of this cult!
Perhaps a look at history and how St Francis chose dialogue with Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil, the nephew of Saladin may inform a Christlike perspective.
( from a quick google search. Ai response:)
In 1219, during the Fifth Crusade, St. Francis of Assisi traveled to Egypt to meet with Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil, the nephew of Saladin, in a notable effort to foster peace and dialogue. Defying the wartime context, the two leaders held a respectful, multi-day meeting in the Sultan’s camp near Damietta.
Key Aspects of the Meeting:
* Context: Amidst the Siege of Damietta, Francis crossed enemy lines with his companion Illuminato, hoping for peace or martyrdom.
* The Meeting: Contrary to expectation, Sultan al-Kamil received them with great courtesy, listening to Francis’s message for several days.
* Outcome: While the Sultan did not convert, he was deeply impressed by Francis’s holiness, courage, and refusal of worldly riches. The meeting fostered mutual respect and led the Sultan to grant safe passage back to the Crusader camp.
* Significance: The encounter is viewed as a foundational example of interfaith dialogue and, for Francis, initiated a move toward a, non-violent, respectful mission among Muslims.
——-
A personal perspective; the state is not to be trusted to do the work of the body of christ with it’s reliance on the deployment of weapons of mass destruction and its lack of conforming to the Gospel nor the Holy Spirit. The state does not embrace the character of Jesus. We as his people are not of this world in our ways of thinking, acting and problem solving.
Jesus turner the ways of the world upside down, inside out and did not adopt the Zealots solution to the injustice heaped upon Israel by the Roman occupation. Jesus refused the call to arms and displayed the all powerful all redeeming all life giving power of love, not aw we know love but as the Creator knows love in all his power and glory. Only the ignorant and the foolish relinquish the power of Gods love for a reliance on the power of this world
Perhaps a look at history and how St Francis chose dialogue with Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil, the nephew of Saladin may inform a Christlike perspective.
( from a quick google search. Ai response:)
In 1219, during the Fifth Crusade, St. Francis of Assisi traveled to Egypt to meet with Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil, the nephew of Saladin, in a notable effort to foster peace and dialogue. Defying the wartime context, the two leaders held a respectful, multi-day meeting in the Sultan’s camp near Damietta.
Alba, do you think the current Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons would be a good thing? Surely not?
There’s disagreement on the best ways to prevent that but I would hope as people of goodwill we’d agree that a non-nuclear Iran makes the world a safer place.
You obviously know nothing about the American form of government. Do a little reading and research before posting and embarrassing yourself publicly. We don’t have a dictator or king. We have a president who will be stepping down after a four-year term of office established by the Constitution. You might not like Trump, but the system is functioning and working. On a different note, I do think some counselors are offering treatment for TDS. Check them out.
I have better things to do than engage in a long discourse over this but have you not observed that the man whose regime is currently causing mayhem in Latin America and the Muslim world is not exactly compos mentis, that he has effectively ripped up your constitution and has courtiers of questionable intention instructing the world to be nice to the US, or else? That has certainly not escaped the notice of even your indigenous commentators.
I have little time for theocracy and priestcraft of any denomination but the supposedly secular US does seem to be difting towards a system that exhibits that self-righteous, god’s anointed tendency characteristic of totalitarian cultism.
Didn’t a pope condemn Americanism? The cult of believing America to be above the rest in all existential matters. That this is now being literally hammered home by the US military and its proxies is tipping the world towards i suspect a rather hellish dénouement
I can assure you that America is losing friends and sympathy rapidly and i say that cautiously as one whose childhood was wrecked and a family member killed by one of your country’s presidential adventures.
Nevertheless, pax tecum!
Alba, there’s help for paranoia.
For authentic paranoia may i give you your Warlord Peter Hegseth, enough there for deep psychoanalysis. Plenty of online links.
I notice you do not engage with the argument that your country is, under your hallowed Constitution, sliding into authoritarianism.
The US is a mindset, not an august reality, formed by largely protestant escapees from northern Europe it still bears the stamp of those founders. Wild west, Indian wars, the great wilderness of slaughter of the indigenous peoples. KKK, anti Catholicism, WASP……Americanism.
There are none so blind as those who willfully do not wish to see. until it is too late.
Many people of my birth country Iraq are still suffering….they do not have the luxury of your «paranoia», dealing with the US created reality is enough.
Have a good day.
Define “monarchal” and “corporatist”.
I can explain my increasing misgivings with Trump without resorting to the use of nebulous jargon that more often than not is the crude attempt to conceal ignorance rather than an indication of comprehension and to appear erudite rather than emotional. Unfortunately for you, the toxic elements of your verbal emesis have a distinct and discernable signature.
Brittanica defines corporatism.
“the theory and practice of organizing society into “corporations” subordinate to the state. According to corporatist theory, workers and employers would be organized into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction.”
To the extent that the United States is “corporatist”, that is an old, old problem which started in 1887 with the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act. By 1906, Henry Carter Adams received, courtesy of the Hepburn Act the extraordinary powers he sought for two decades. That led to the complete takeover of the railroads in 1917 under the guise of wartime necessity and upon repatriating the railroads to private ownership, still controlling managerial decisions, and in just over three weeks, it will be the fifty year anniversary of Conrail. Trump had nothing to do with that. Corporatism was especially accelerated under Wilson, especially under Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama.
The real villains of contemporary corporatism are the people that are killing small banks, and the giant intrusion into healthcare that occurred in 2009. The same ones that said pizzerias had to be closed while Walmart stayed open.
How about I get over-obvious
Trump at least did not look the mega-fool that Biden did.
The Democrats not standing for those parents of murdered children : UTTERLY DISGRACEFUL
And: If this does matter to you , why are you ignoring your part (the media, and education)in the very things you deplore
National Survey Finds Just 1 in 3 Americans Would Pass Citizenship Test
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/most-us-would-fail-u-s-citizenship-test-survey-finds-n918961
This article left me in great confusion. Trump didn’t do this:
President Joe Biden awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom—the nation’s highest civilian honor—to Cecile Richards, the former president of Planned Parenthood, in November 2024
Applaud partial gains or just sit and wait for the Nazis at your door