Quote of the Day (John Kenneth Galbraith, on an Ironclad Rule of Diplomacy)

“There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy, but to one there is no exception. When an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished.”—Canadian-American economist and diplomat John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-2006), “The American Ambassador,” Foreign Service Journal (June 1969)

In December 1960, President-elect John F. Kennedy sounded out John Kenneth Galbraith on chairing the Council of Economic Advisors in the new administration. The Harvard professor rejected that offer ("I didn't wish to come every day to the same discussion of the same questions around the same table mostly with the same people, not all of whom I wish to see").

But another position intrigued him: US Ambassador to India, where he could see firsthand how the principles of international development he had taught for the past decade might work in an emerging nation. And so, 65 years ago today, the economist was appointed to the post.

I was all set to include a quote from Galbraith’s 1969 book Ambassador’s Journal about the embassy staff in India, as well as the Nehru government’s suspicions of the U.S. assistance program.

In addition to the diary entries and letters to JFK published in that volume, he was still passing on what he learned in his two years on the subcontinent in The Nature of Mass Poverty (1979), which cautioned that the international economy could inadvertently maintain large populations in conditions of want.

But as soon as I saw the above quote, it resonated with me, as I think it might with so many other Americans today.

Over the last month, the public has grown accustomed to the White House offering assessments of the Iranian War that—how shall I say this?—may be prematurely optimistic, including President Trump’s claim that “very good and productive” talks have been held with Tehran over at least ending the regime’s stoppage at the Strait of Hormuz, and maybe even bringing the conflict as a whole to a close.

More and more people are experiencing nightmares of long, inconclusive conflicts that drain American money and lives—the kind associated with Iraq, the kind that candidate Trump vowed never to begin.

Ambassador Galbraith was a caustic critic of such adventurism. Within a month of his appointment, he was explaining to JFK how the Bay of Pigs fiasco appeared to his Indian hosts (not good), and before long he was warning, in no uncertain terms, that conditions in Vietnam were "far more complex, far less controllable, far more varied in the factors involved, far more susceptible to misunderstanding" than his military advisers were saying.

It’s nice to think of a time when a President had the patience to read an adviser’s memos on matters like improving the US Information Service rather than emasculating it; why it would be a good idea to avoid military involvement in a land that posed no security threat to America; and how an administration would be more inclined to cajole and persuade other countries to our positions rather than bullying them, springing from what the Declaration of Independence called “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Quote of the Day (Dwight Eisenhower, on a Global ‘Community of Dreadful Fear and Hate’)

“Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

“Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.”—Soldier and U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969), “Military-Industrial Complex” Speech (Farewell Address to the Nation), Jan. 17, 1961

The last televised speech of Dwight Eisenhower to his countrymen, which occurred 65 years ago today, might be the most famous Presidential farewell address since George Washington left office, largely because the former Allied commander at D-Day unexpectedly cautioned about the dangers of the “military-industrial complex" that had developed in America because of World War II and the Cold War.

But, as I discovered when I read the text in full, other aspects of his speech have also proved relevant, in ways that few could have anticipated at the time.

Take scientific research, for instance. Ike not only speculated that “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite,” but conversely also admonished against “the prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money.”

If the second danger sounds familiar to you, it should. Keep in mind, for instance, this blog post from earlier this week from science magazine EOS:

"Academic science has been under pressure not only through the administration’s targeting of universities directly but also through its efforts to remake the federal grantmaking process, reduce the amounts and types of external research funded, and reduce budget appropriations for scientific research by more than 20% through large-scale cutbacks and reorganizations in federal science agencies. Unsurprisingly, the administration’s actions are having ripple effects for higher education, business (among companies who supply scientific products, for instance), and public health."

But the section of the speech that should receive the most renewed attention is the quote above, especially in light of Donald Trump’s refusal to rule out military force if the United States can’t purchase Greenland from Denmark.

As NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Eisenhower knew the organization’s importance in deterring the aggression of a larger power against a smaller nation. After all, two world wars in which he served began in precisely this manner.

He would be embarrassed at the thought that a later President of his own party is threatening the independence of a smaller member of NATO—and in this case, as well as in the current President’s inexplicable preference for Russia over Ukraine, is also risking the very existence of the alliance.

In a blog post from last March, David Lake, a senior fellow at the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, adeptly summarized the implications of this:

“This is the most basic rule of leadership: leaders need followers, and others will follow only if they are confident the leader is taking them where they want to go. To accept U.S. influence over their foreign policies, allies must have some confidence that Washington will be attentive to their needs. Allowing another country to exert authority over one’s policies is an awesome choice, and one made only if the ally is confident that this authority will be wielded in the common interest. In ignoring Europe, in the case of Ukraine; initiating trade wars and putting tariffs on our allies even before our geopolitical competitors; disparaging NATO; threatening to seize the Panama Canal, Greenland, and possibly Canada; and intervening in the domestic politics of our allies, Trump is flouting the basic rule of leadership."

Quote of the Day (Anne Applebaum, on American Culture, ‘No Longer Synonymous With the Aspiration to Freedom’)

“American culture is no longer synonymous with the aspiration to freedom, but with transactionalism and secrecy: the algorithms that mysteriously determine what you see, the money collected by anonymous billionaires, the deals that the American president is making with world leaders that benefit himself and maybe others whose names we don’t know. America was always associated with capitalism, business, and markets, but nowadays there’s no pretense that anyone else will be invited to share the wealth. USAID is gone; American humanitarianism is depleted; America’s international medical infrastructure was dismantled so quickly that people died in the process. The image of the ugly American always competed with the image of the generous American. Now that the latter has disappeared, the only Americans anyone can see are the ones trying to rip you off.”— Pulitzer-prize winning American historian Anne Applebaum, “The Beacon of Democracy Goes Dark,” The Atlantic, November 2025

By all means, as you’re watching Ken Burns’ multi-part documentary on the American Revolution this week, please read as many articles as you can from The Atlantic’s November issue, which is entirely devoted to “The Unfinished Revolution.”

In this year of PBS budget cuts, Burns has been enormously careful in interviews not to sound like he’s taking an ideological, let alone party, side. That won’t stop those inclined from thinking he is indeed “woke.”

For those like me who fear that he might pull his punches, The Atlantic will provide some much-needed perspective, especially the pieces by Applebaum, Fintan O’Toole (“What the Founders Would Say Now”), and David Brooks (“The Rising”). They remind us that the commitment to equality and against despotism was a near-run thing 250 years ago, and perhaps even more so today.

Quote of the Day (Rob Long, Channeling John Bolton and His Boss)

[The President of the United States has placed a call.]

POTUS: “Listen, can we talk, like, honestly? We gotta do something about John Bolton. He’s not getting the job done. Is it a whole thing if I fire the guy, I mean, you fire the guy? Should you fire him?”

Unidentified male voice: “Sir, I am John Bolton. You called me.”

POTUS: “I know that. I was just raising the issue, on a think-about-it basis.”

Unidentified Male Voice: “Are you unhappy with my performance, sir?”

POTUS: “No. Of course not. We have a tremendous relationship.”

Unidentified Male Voice: “I’ve always thought so.”

POTUS: “I’m just thinking out loud here, you know.” —Rob Long, “The Long View: Office of Independent Counsel — Wiretap SurveillanceTranscript,” National Review, Dec. 3, 2018

When Rob Long first concocted his satire, John Bolton had been serving as National Security Advisor nine months. His predecessors, Michael Flynn and H. R. McMaster, hadn’t lasted long. In this, they resembled virtually every other high-level appointee in this administration.

Bolton’s boss goes through four stages of employee management.

First is the honeymoon, when so many superlatives come the new appointee’s way—“terrific,” “fantastic,” “the best ever”—that one expects the President to call him “honey” next. 

At some point later, the appointee enters stage 2, by doing or saying something (does it really matter what?) to annoy the boss. Soon they read about how irked the President is about something, and leaks begin to mysteriously appear in the newspapers in which the President’s close aides wish the new guy would just—disappear, as he’s stiffing the President’s chances for reelection. 

In Stage 3, usually appearing at a rally of supporters, the President publicly denies that anything is amiss, even claiming that the whole thing is another case of “fake news.” 

In Stage 4, the employee resigns. Depending on how docilely the staffer goes, the President will either praise him to the skies or bestow on him the metaphorical equivalent of the “golden crown” received by Daenerys’ brother Viserys on Game of Thrones. 

So far, the President has gotten to Stage 3 with Bolton. But stay tuned.

 

The appointment of Bolton has already triggered a psychodrama in this administration: a President bellicose by reputation paired with an adviser bellicose not only in temperament (a colleague in a past GOP administration, Carl Ford, called him out 15 years ago as a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy”) but also in policy.

For some people, a threesome is a relationship often occurring behind closed doors. For Bolton, it’s a considerably riskier adventure: public threats by the U.S., delivered in short order to three different nations (Venezuela, North Korea and Iran). In other words: Make war, not love.

Just as the President has cheerfully disregarded political and constitutional norms, so Bolton has shrugged off a rule of thumb that diplomats throughout history have found to be wise: If you can’t build a network of allies, then at least don’t threaten more than one nation at a time. 

In the present period of rising tensions with Iran, the President has gone from declaring “I actually temper John, which is pretty amazing,” to—well, trumping him in apocalyptic rhetoric (this morning’s tweet: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran”).

News reports suggest that the President has been bothered less by Bolton’s hawkish orientation than by the growing perception that the Moustache Man is driving U.S. foreign policy. In the world of this boss, there is only one government official who sets policy: himself. Woe betide anyone who forgets that.

Who can predict the exact outcome for Bolton? If recent history is any indication, he’ll be shown the door soon. But if he remains at his post, it might be America—even the world—that comes to an end, not just him.