Retired General: Trump’s Plan to Eliminate PBS Weakens America
It may not come as news that educated people make better decisions in the voting booth on all matters, including national security. That’s certainly the viewpoint of retired four-star U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal (currently a professor at Yale).
I’ve seen articles that say PBS and its member stations are ranked first in public trust among nationally known institutions. Why then would we degrade or destroy an institution that binds us together? We need public media that acts as our largest classroom. We need broadcasting that treats us as citizens, not simply as consumers. We need a strong civil society where the connection between different people and groups is firm and vibrant, not brittle and divided. We need to defend against weaknesses within and enemies without, using the tools of civil society and hard power. We don’t have to pick one over the other.
Well, let’s start by answering McChrystal’s excellent question: Why then would we degrade or destroy an institution that binds us together? “We” most certainly wouldn’t, if by “we” you mean the collective body politic of America. Americans generally are decent and compassionate people who, up until very recently, had made great progress in the direction of tolerance and inclusion of people from different races, religions, and sexual orientations. For Trump as a person, however, destroying national unity is his life’s blood; it was the key ingredient in his becoming the most powerful person on Earth.
I don’t love to be wrong, but I have to admit that I’ve been completely incorrect about many aspects of the U.S. military. Yes, they are used as a horrific tool of destruction, wielded by the amoral elite to protect and expand American business interests, perhaps the most important one of which is the military-industrial complex itself. But, ironically, they seem to do this with a great deal of intelligence, a true love of country.
Not a bad thing in a day in which personal aggrandizement is the governing principle.
Missing from the issue is the PERCENTAGE of PBS’s costs that are funded by the federal government. I have no idea whether it is 50%, 5%, or 0.5%. I have never seen that stated, but the dollar amount doesn’t seem great. If the percentage is low it could perhaps be made up by encouraging viewers to donate more by advising them that unless the amount previously received by the federal government is made up for with increased donations, services would have to be greatly curtailed.
Craig,
As an outsider, I find the complexities and intricacies of the US PBS baffling. I imagine the degree of public funding is probably even more complex.
I should imagine that General Stanley McChrystal love of PBS is sincere and his defense of the institution possesses merit.
Over the years, PBS appears to have been involved in it’s fair share of corruption and scandal.
Two case spring to mind, the 1999 scandal involving secretly selling public television mailing lists to the Democratic National Committee, and the Pacific Arts /Mike Nesmith scandal.
With the advent of the internet, U tube etc, the need for PBS seems to have diminished.
Like General Stanley McChrystal, I think this isn’t a clear cut issues, and before any de-funding takes place, the President should commission an inquiry to establish the best way forward.
On the whole I dislike governments involving themselves in commerce, and government funded broadcasters do tend to become sheltered workshops for tired old lefties, but they also provide an essential alternate to corporate owned media.
The Trumpet is Acting more and more like Oliver Cromwell and his band of round heads the Know Nothings…they must have a insecurity complex with the public learning and knowing more than them perhaps …some level of ignorance.
PBS is one of the few remaining Jewels over the Air Waves and it is very popular in Rural areas as well. states like ND and Wy and Montana and similar tend to follow it well and the local donations allow for some really fine daytime programming on the Radio and in the evening the Tv brings Epic historical presentations that are far from being leftist .
The Ultra Cons are not good at budget cutting they are Acting Out their rejections of Science and Historical facts as well as the multi faceted cultural components of our society. There is a element of Blow back from the shrinking circle of white race exclusivity on the World Order – another layer of Cultural Blow back to the growing masses diverse peoples.
From a budget cutting position they are chasing chump change…the cost of PBS is very small. over the lst 10 years they almost have commercials from the many corporate sponsors that support the specials etc. So the funding model is complex and less about government.
I conclude that a nation that launch $ 60 million worth of Roman Candle rockets onto a distant airbase in some form of Mighty show of power can surely afford to fund a good cultural and educational station. When one realizes that the very next day fighter planes were operating from the bombed base gives one Pause to perhaps reconsider the efficacy of other governmental programs. Chump change on the road to a so called make America great again…this is a mad alice in a not so wonderland regime embarking on much know nothing ism…
One one of my trips to Oz, I noticed that the PBS news hour is aired there also. I don’t know whether it still is.
Regarding Syria, there are two sides, both with valid points, about our attacking the air base. I’m leaning towards opposing the raid because I think that without an unacceptably large followup, which could do more damage than good, it will have accomplished little or nothing. Assad must be getting significant material support from somewhere to be able to continue his offensive. I wonder whether it would be possible to cut off his support.
Hi Frank,
I think you are confusing the purpose of the Presidents strike.
The President is not trying to “cut off” or reduce Assad’s military capacity, simply deter the use of chemical weapons.
The threat of further action should see both Assad and Russia exert pressure on Assad’s allies to cease using chemical weapons for fear of US retaliation.
Assad is slowly winning his war against the rebels whose military capacity is dwindling in the face of Assad’s increasingly confident alliance.
There are those who still cling to Bush-Obama era agenda’s of regime change, but such strategies already seem out-dated and unwise.
The situation is confusingly complex, but cutting off Assad’s support would involve persuading his principle allies
Russia,Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Belarus, China, Lebanon, Hezbollah and countless other armed allies, including Alawite Syrians to desert his cause.
Since this is unlikely to occur, the US can’t “cut off ” Assad’s military capacity. The US can prolong the misery of the civil war by supporting the rebel alliance, but not defeat Assad.
Nor can the US pursue a goal of regime change, since Assad’s enemies show no sign of weakening.
So, in my opinion, President Trump’s limited response to achieve a specific goal, is correct.