I’m working on putting together an online American government course intended for homeschoolers and adult learners – think high school senior AP class that would look like a college freshman class – and my research on the Reconstruction era got me into The Rise and Fall of the Second American Republic, by Manisha Sinha. The title borrows from Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic, an examination of the fall of France to the Nazis in 1940. This framing of French history refers to the series of democratic (more or less) revolutions that ended monarchies and established something resembling parliamentary democracy.

Sinha frames American history in a similar way without the monarchy part, with the First Republic established by the original Constitution and the Second Republic she refers to coming through Reconstruction and the Reconstruction Amendments ratified after the Civil War ended in Confederate defeat. I’ll try to write a more comprehensive review once I’ve read the book, but the short version of her argument as I understand it now is that Reconstruction established, for a time, a true multi-ethnic democratic republic based on the abolition of slavery. In her reading reconstruction also opened a pathway for women’s suffrage and greater independence from husbands and fathers, in part at least as a result of the role women played in the abolition movement. Sadly, this Republic died at the hands of Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, and segregation.

Yesterday I received this flyer outlining Congressman Rob Wittman’s thinking on Social Security.

This comes very early in the 2026 mid-term cycle so I’d like to highlight three points:

A few weeks ago I spoke at a Hands Off rally in Williamsburg. I had just read Raymond King’s short book, The Psychopath Mantra: Chaos is Power, and focused my speech on ways the conservative movement uses the methods outlined in the book to create a chaotic environment that they use to grasp and hold power. The short version: American fascists work hard to keep people wondering what’s going on so they can take control of institutions and use them to complete their goals while most folks are distracted.

I want to discuss the connection between chaos and power, and how today’s current conservative elites use chaos to distract enough people to achieve their goals. First, however, a short discussion of King’s book, because I think he gives us a broad outline showing how they have accomplished so much.

King characterizes the book on his website as taking the reader “inside the predatory mind of the ruling class,” and it does that, though not terribly well. He numbers the paragraphs for some reason, he does not give examples, and he does not attempt to make a cohesive argument. He makes excellent points and offers important insights, but he does not state a thesis or create a logical argument in support of one. Indeed, the book has a satirical vibe, as if he’s written a self-help book for aspiring members of the ruling class.

Nonetheless I read his argument as follows: the ruling class consists of shameless psychopaths who manipulate morality, set themselves up as martyrs by constructing a concept of sacrifice that gives them prestige, create resentment among the masses, and reconstruct truth to suit their needs, all in an effort to take and hold power.

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary issued a memo calling on the US military services to reduce the number of General and Flag officers by 20% across the board, with another 10% reduction associated with realignment of the Unified Combined Plan.

As a general matter, this appears to be a good idea. R. D. Hooker argued in Defense One last December that “surplus generals, swollen staffs, and excess headquarters drain headcount and resources from warfighting units.” He cites the Army’s Installation Management Command (IMC), which took over military installation management from local commanders in 2006 as falling short in its mission of applying “common standards and greater expertise” to managing Army infrastructure. Leaving aside that Hooker points only to substandard barracks conditions to support his claim, he does correctly point out that the ratio of officers to enlisted soldiers has increased 21% since 9/11.

Some began making this case almost 15 years ago. Ben Freeman, writing for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), called it “Star Creep” and noted that despite then SecDef Robert Gates “efficiency initiatives,” and successor SecDef Leon Panetta’s expressed support, the Department of Defense added 6 General of Flag officers in 2011 rather than eliminate a planned 17 billets.

I think the issue is more complicated that a simple calculation of percentages officers in the force, and my concern here is not whether the US military should or should not reduce the size of its officer corps. My concern is the administration that has set out to do it.

The first problem is that Hegseth and the current administration seems to think it can cut budgets and workforces simply by lopping some set percentage off the top. It may well be that the percentage cuts ordered in the memo make sense, but Trump and his team have demonstrated that they act without thinking, with no consideration for unintended consequences or follow-on effects. Tariffs appear to be the most obvious example, but I think a better comparison is to the cuts to the US Agency for International Development. Cutting foreign aid, like reducing the number of General and Flag officers may or may not be a good idea. The argument that we should take care of homeless veterans before we worry about people starving overseas resonates. But no one in Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency seems to have considered the effects on American farmers who produced and sold many of the commodities purchased by USAID and sent overseas. These cuts also affect agricultural research and training that reduces the cost of food and helps protect food sources. Virginia alone will lose more than $7.24 billion in contracts and assistance. This causes uncertainty among farmers and other producers, and whatever the wisdom of this policy the administration should have taken a measured approach to these cuts so those affected could prepare and reduce the hit.