"In my ideal society, we would vote as households. I would ordinarily be the one to cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household."

Said the pastor Toby Sumpter, quoted in "Pete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote/Progressive evangelical group says ideas shared by pastors and amplified by defense secretary are 'very disturbing'" (The Guardian)

1. What are you saying when you repost something? I post things I don't agree with all the time. Often my posting means: This is obviously a terrible idea. Or: This is weirdly interesting.

2. Sumpter's idea is weirdly interesting: He's talking about his "ideal society." I could see saying: In an ideal society, we wouldn't need voting at all. And we know what Jesus said about government.

3. How could we have voting at the "household" level without insane intrusion on everyone's privacy? Wilson doesn't seem to have thought about this since he's relying on the notion of what would "ordinarily" happen. And what would happen to the un-ordinary people? Maybe in Wilson's "ideal society," everyone is clustered into formal, officially designated families, but you can't get there from here, so it's a fantasy, for your contemplation. A weirdly interesting idea, as noted in point #1.

4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!

ADDED: I've corrected the source of the quote which I'd mistakenly attributed to Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Wilson is also quoted, saying "I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world." And, before bringing up Sumpter, The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting." That's confusing, though I should have been more careful. I've also swapped in the name Sumpter on point #2. Thanks to Aggie, in the comments, for pointing out this problem.

"Because you — and I mean specifically YOU, the press corps — because you cheer against Trump so hard, it's in your DNA and in your blood to cheer against Trump..."

"... because you want him not to be successful so bad, you have to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes, you have to hope maybe they weren't effective, maybe the way the Trump administration has represented it isn't true. So let's take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it, spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate... the public mind, over whether or not our brave pilots were successful. How many stories have been written about how hard it is to, I don't know, fly a plane for 36 hours? Has MSNBC done that story? Has Fox? Have we done the story how hard that is?... There are so many aspects of what our brave men and women did that — because of the hatred of this press corps — are undermined because you people are trying to leak and spin that it wasn't successful. It's irresponsible...."

Headlines of the Morning.

1. "Judge rules that anti-woke is just racism/You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a rancid bigot" (Public Notice).

2. "ICE Barbie Visited Biohazard Lab With RFK Jr. Before Hospitalization/The HHS secretary shared an image alongside Noem 'inspecting the biological hazard labs' a day earlier" (Daily Beast).

3. "Trump ‘Reamed Out’ Hegseth for Flop Birthday Parade: Author/The president wanted a 'menacing' military parade but got the opposite instead, Michael Wolff tells The Daily Beast Podcast" (Daily Beast).

4. "'More Babies and Beef Tallow, Less Blue Hair and Birth Control'/Seventy-two hours with America’s most ambitious young conservative women" (NY Magazine).

Bill Kristol wants you to know that he still hasn't read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," but...

... he "recognize[s] the work’s stature as a significant and influential part of our literary and cultural history."

I'm reading "In a World of Pete Hegseths, Be a Maya Angelou."

I don't know if Kristol knows what he's telling us we need to "be," but he's upset that "pursuant to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s order to purge so-called DEI content from military libraries and classrooms, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was removed, along with 380 other books, from the U.S. Naval Academy’s Nimitz Library."

Kristol asserts, despite not having read the book, that "'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings' is not 'DEI content.' It’s a quintessentially American autobiography—a popular and important one. It’s a book a student at the Academy might want to read for his or her education, or for pleasure."

Why would the story of a particular individual represent the promotion of the DEI agenda?

“I just hate bailing out the Europeans again"/"I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC.”

Said JD Vance/Pete Hegseth, quoted in "Now Europe Knows What Trump’s Team Calls It Behind Its Back: 'Pathetic'/Trump officials have demanded more European military spending and questioned the continent’s values. Leaked messages show the depth of the rift" (NYT).

Wouldn't want that to get out, now, would you? 

"Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth engaged in physical training with the elite 1/10 Special Forces Group in Germany..."

"... an action seen as a significant shift from traditional interactions between defense leaders and troops. This event was widely recognized as a morale booster, showcasing leadership through direct participation in military exercises. Hegseth's involvement was praised for promoting a culture of engagement, unity, and a mission-first mindset, potentially enhancing recruitment and troop morale...."

Grok summarizes the debate on X.

 

.@SecDef @PeteHegseth on doing PT with the troops: "When I can get down, do pushups and deadlifts with the troops, and just hear from them — What's working? What isn't? How do you see your mission set? — I love that." pic.twitter.com/UAt4NZLiPP

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 11, 2025

"The issue of the female aviator’s identity is particularly sensitive as Mr. Trump has also blamed diversity, without evidence, for the crash."

"In addition, Pete Hegseth, the newly confirmed defense secretary, has said that the military has diminished its standards by welcoming women and racial minorities into its ranks. He has echoed Mr. Trump’s comments on rooting out diversity programs in the government.... Mr. Hegseth said on Thursday that the Black Hawk helicopter was 'doing a required annual night evaluation' flight and was being flown by 'a fairly experienced crew.'..."

From "Army Withholds Identity of Helicopter Pilot Killed in Crash/The names of two male crew members were released, but the family of the third aviator requested privacy" (NYT).

The reason the Army gave for withholding the name, we're told, was "her family’s request for privacy." And "It is unclear what specifically motivated the aviator’s family to make the request."

If we had the name, everyone would be able to research her, to read anything she may have written on social media, to look at photographs of her, and to express all sorts of opinions about her, including — taking a cue from Trump — theories about how she was promoted beyond her merit. Her death — and the death of everyone else in the disaster — would merge with the discussion of DEI and Trump's dramatic effort to snuff it out nationwide.

Jon Stewart mocks anti-Trumpers for overdoing their accusations of fascism.

"The constant drumbeat of encroaching fascism will erode the credibility we will need if — hopefully if and not when — it hits. But the truth is that for now, his most objectionable actions have taken place almost entirely within our designed Democratic system.... Look, I really hope that Democrats figure out a way to contain this guy.... How would you use this power?... Tell people what you would do with the power that Trump is wielding and then convince us to give that power to you...  Enough with the 'He's Hitler'...  What would you fucking do?"

Exactly. I love Stewart's reset for the new Trump era. 

"The initial vote was 50-50, with three Republicans — Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — joining all 47 Democrats in voting no."

From "VP Vance breaks tie in the Senate to confirm Pete Hegseth as defense secretary/Three Republicans voted with every Democrat against Trump’s controversial pick to lead the Pentagon, forcing Vance to step in and put Hegseth over the top" (NBC News).

We're told "McConnell's vote was a stunning rebuke of Hegseth and Trump, whom the former Senate Republican leader has clashed with repeatedly over the years."

Headline for an unread column.

"What It Means That No Republican Is Acting on the Pete Hegseth Allegations."

The piece is by Bret Stephens, and I did not read it. I think the answer is obvious, I'm pretty sure Stephens will not give the obvious answer, and I am not bound by protocol to sit through this sermon.

"Hegseth is in no danger of rising to the level of mediocrity, but next to some of his Democratic questioners, he looked like Carl von Clausewitz."

"Hegseth’s core populist conviction — repeated ad nauseam — is that the grunts on the ground know what they are doing and the pencil-necked geeks in air-conditioned offices just write nonsense regulations that get in the way. The man wasted years at Princeton and Harvard when he could have learned everything he knows by watching that Colonel Jessup speech at the end of 'A Few Good Men.'... In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans; but they also appreciate the wisdom that comes from concrete experience and know that most hard calls have to be made in light of the deeply held values that have made America what it is...."

Writes David Brooks, in "We Deserve Pete Hegseth" (NYT).

Here's Colonel Jessup:

 

And here's  Carl von Clausewitz:

Here's Wikipedia's list of Clausewitz's ideas:

Pete Hegseth wore "an Old Glory print pocket square" and "star-spangled socks and a flag belt buckle. His only jewelry was a wedding ring..."

"... a lapel pin representing the crest of the 187th Infantry Regiment, and a Killed in Action bracelet worn in honor of a soldier, Jorge M. Oliveira, who lost his life in Afghanistan — a series of accessories that served as a form of value signaling. His hair was gelled back without a strand out of place. During the occasional interruptions from the crowd, his jaw was heroically clenched. Hidden were almost all of his tattoos: a large Jerusalem Cross, a 'Join or Die' snake, and an American flag with a stripe replaced by an AR-15.... Just a hint of ink reaching from his right forearm to his wrist peeked out from a carefully buttoned shirtsleeve. (It seemed to be the tail end of his 'We the People' script.) Left behind was the stars ‘n’ stripes cowboy hat. Unseen was the Uncle Sam jacket linings that Mr. Hegseth [has] occasionally flashed.... Certainly he did not look like the hard-drinking, adulterous, budget-mismanaging person that critics of his nomination had described. He looked clean-cut, not politically correct but patriotically correct.... Amid all the theatrics and speechifying by the many committee members and Mr. Hegseth himself, his uniform offered an argument of its own...."

Writes the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman, in "Pete Hegseth Dresses for Defense/The nominee for Secretary of Defense wore his patriotism on his sleeve during his confirmation hearing — and his belt, his socks, and his pocket square."

I like the topic of politics and fashion. And this is fine. Good to see it aimed at a man, as it should be maybe half the time (or a bit less, men's clothing lacking much variation). I like the reference to the "theatrics and speechifying" by committee members, but it should specify Democrats on the committee. Good lord, they were rude! I rarely watch Senate hearings because I can't tolerate the nastiness. But for some reason I sat in front of the TV for over an hour. I'll just offer Tim Kaine as one example of the undignified badgering:

I guess that yelling and pointing and smirking would have paid off if Hegseth had snapped and responded in kind. But he didn't. And why would he? He knows he only needs to put up with this, even as Kaine knows he needs to make something happen.

ADDED: Instapundit mocks the NYT for printing "Unseen was the... jacket linings." 

"And and when I talk to people close to President-elect Trump and people who work for him, people on the outside — allies — they already see this as a resounding success."

"You know, they will say, look, who knows, maybe more accusations will come out against Pete Hegseth. Maybe we end up losing four senators and he goes down. But even if that happens, they see this as a cautionary tale for Republicans. They are putting Republicans on notice that they're not going to tolerate dissent. They're not going to tolerate opposition to Donald Trump during his return to Washington. And by making such a fight of this, by publicly forcing these senators to bend the knee, they are creating a template for what we're likely to see next year. As Trump tries to pass legislation, as he inevitably does controversial things that will make some senators squeamish, the Trump team is sending out the message. Now, there will be a very steep cost if you go against Donald Trump."

Said Jonathan Swan at the end of today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast, "Pete Hegseth Was Toast. The MAGA Swarm Came to His Rescue." 

The episode concentrates on the effort to win support from Senator Joni Ernst. You can listen to that. I won't summarize. I am blogging this because I want to say that when I heard the part quoted above, I thought: Sounds like "Master of the Senate." 

Makes me want to reread Robert A. Caro's great book about LBJ. (Commission earned.) 

I hope Trump gets his Robert A. Caro some day. 

"This article is based on interviews with nearly a dozen people who have direct knowledge of how and why Mr. Trump salvaged Mr. Hegseth’s bid, at least for now."

I'm reading "Power, Intimidation and the Resurrection of Trump’s Support for Hegseth/The president-elect became convinced that letting Pete Hegseth fail would set off a feeding frenzy among senators. What followed was a MAGA swarm that helped salvage his bid, at least for now," by Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman in the NYT.

I'm giving you a free-access link so you can judge the quality of the sources, the likelihood of a senatorial "feeding frenzy," and the meaning of "MAGA swarm."

We're told that Pete Hegseth went "from dead man walking to a man with a real shot of being confirmed by the Senate" in what was "a test case of power and intimidation," where Trump demonstrated his "ability to summon an online swarm, even while spending minimal personal capital of his own."

"Pete Hegseth is doing very well. His support is strong and deep, much more so than the Fake News would have you believe."

"He was a great student - Princeton/Harvard educated - with a Military state of mind. He will be a fantastic, high energy, Secretary of Defense Defense, one who leads with charisma and skill. Pete is a WINNER, and there is nothing that can be done to change that!!!"

Writes Donald Trump, at Truth Social, wisely standing behind Pete Hegseth.

I say "wisely," because the moment Hegseth is defeated, somebody else will come under attack, just as strongly, and it will not end. The lust to destroy Trump will never be appeased, and he must know that. And don't his enemies know that he knows? They are making him more hardcore. I'm going to assume that's what they want.

"On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself...."

"I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth."

Wrote Penelope Hegseth, quoted in "Pete Hegseth’s Mother Accused Her Son of Mistreating Women for Years/Penelope Hegseth made the accusation in an email to her son in 2018, amid his contentious divorce. She said on Friday that she regretted the email and had apologized to him" (NYT)(free-access link).

"[A]s a team of ideological rivals contesting for influence and favor, the Trump cabinet seems to be set up for a lot of internal conflict..."

"... Gabbard against the rest of the foreign policy team on whether to expose more national security secrets, the pro-choice and regulation-friendly Kennedy against abortion opponents and free-marketeers, the pro-union Chavez-Deremer against other economic appointees, Hegseth against the more cautious JD Vance, perhaps, on how far to go on behalf of Israel and against Iran.... But another way to look at these picks is that they’re designed to stoke conflict within the different agencies rather than within the cabinet... less the representation of different factions and more just disruption of all kinds.... [A] third interpretation of the Trump cabinet: That he’s assembling a 'team of podcasters'... a cabinet of 'communicators, not administrators,' who are picked for their celebrity and their experience as faces and voices — on cable news, on podcasts, on daytime television in the case of Mehmet Oz... or just in the general glare of celebrity that attends any scion of the Kennedy clan."

Writes Ross Douthat, in "Three Theories of the Trump Cabinet" (NYT).

So there are 3 ways — at least 3 — that Trump's choices might work quite well... or quite badly. 

"House GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced that she will chair a new oversight subcommittee in the next Congress that will work with..."

"... the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. House Oversight Chair James Comer 'intends to establish a new Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) for the 119th Congress,' a source familiar told CNN, confirming that Greene will chair the subcommittee.... The creation of the new subcommittee establishes a congressional arm to the broader effort by Trump and his allies to make significant cuts to the federal government. The subpanel will examine the salaries and status of members of the federal civil service and intergovernmental personnel among other oversight measures...."

CNN reports.

A quote from Greene: "Our subcommittee’s work will expose people who need to be FIRED. The bureaucrats who don’t do their job, fail audits like in the Pentagon, and don’t know where BILLIONS of dollars are going, will be getting a pink slip."

Speaking of bureaucrats, I'm seeing complaints about Trump's appointments that are faulting them for not being bureaucratic enough.

"The potential for a high-profile confrontation between the Pentagon’s two most senior leaders — one a telegenic political appointee, the other a circumspect career soldier..."

"... further challenges the military’s fraying status as a trusted, apolitical American institution. Polls show that public confidence in the military, intended to act as a national ballast amid shifting political currents, has fallen to its lowest level in decades.... A self-labeled introvert, [Charles Q. Brown Jr.] is described by associates as studious and reserved, often last to speak in a group but concise and direct when he does. Unlike his predecessor, the voluble Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was known to regale others with historical lessons and personal stories for hours at a time, Brown typically shares little.... [F]ollowing the police killing of George Floyd, he spoke in raw, emotional terms about his experience as a Black man in the U.S. military...."

From "Top general faces brewing storm after Trump’s Pentagon pick/The incoming administration’s focus on culture issues and countering diversity goals intensifies the transition challenge for Joint Chiefs chair" (WaPo)(free-access link).

Trump named Hegseth "days after Hegseth suggested firing Brown and other senior officers over what he described as a 'woke' agenda undermining U.S. military strength."

WaPo portrays Brown as "apolitical" and "reserved," but how does that connect to the "'woke" agenda"? You can't tell from that article. Let's look at the corresponding article in the NYT, "What to Know About Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Pick for Defense Secretary."

"You've got to fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and obviously, to bring in a new Secretary of Defense, but any General that was involved, General, Admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke sh*t has got to go."

"Either you're in for war fighting and that's it. That's the only litmus test we care about. You got to get DEI and CRT out of military academies. You're not training young officers to be baptized in this type of thinking. And then, you know, whatever the standards, whatever the combat standards were, say, and, I don't know, 1995, let's just make those the standards. And as far as recruiting to hire the guy that, you know, did Top Gun Maverick and create some real ads that motivate people to want to serve...."

🚨NEW: Newly appointed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on reforming US military leadership:

Anyone "involved in the woke sh*t has got to go...you have to reestablish that trust by putting in no-nonsense warfighters in those positions who aren't going to cater to the socially… pic.twitter.com/9181gOVp2q

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 13, 2024

That's Pete Hegseth, Trump's choice for Secretary of Defense.

ADDED: Here's the NYT article on the appointment, "Trump Picks Pete Hegseth, a Veteran and Fox News Host, for Defense Secretary/The choice of Mr. Hegseth, a dedicated supporter of the president-elect in his first term, is outside the norm of the traditional choice for the post." Excerpt:

Mr. Hegseth’s book, the New York Times best-seller “The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” was published in June. “Our ‘elites’ are like the feckless drug-addled businessmen at Nakatomi Plaza, looking down on Bruce Willis’s John McClane in ‘Die Hard,’” Mr. Hegseth wrote in the book. “But there will come a day when they realize they need John McClane — that in fact their ability to live in peace and prosperity has always depended on guys like him being honorable, powerful and deadly.”