The funny thing is the conceit of "speaking truth" here. Anyone who cares about truth and has witnessed Trump's constant parade of lies can't credibly presume anything good of him. Nor is there any way to reconcile Trump's lies. He's even inconsistent with himself.
“If Solana actually believed Trump’s actions deserve defense, he could defend them.” Bingo.
It is that simple.
HCR chronicles what is a daily spewing fountain of facts and places those facts into historical context. A great many of those facts are reprehensible, inexplicable and indefensible. One can not parse a mountain of sewage without what may appear to be an occasional whiff of disdain in the telling.
Get over it — or wade in and defend that moldering pile — Mr. Vance can give you some pointers.
Another explanation that occurs to me is that Thiel funds Solana because Thiel knows Solana is the sort of person who'd run a piece like the one written by Dee and Dodge even if Thiel weren't funding Solana's publication.
EDIT: Once the money is flowing, that creates an ongoing incentive to continue running such pieces; this is intended to suggest why Thiel might have chosen to fund Solana in the first place. (This same logic applies to, say, political donations.)
There are plenty of issues with how Heather Cox Richardson portrays history. This just isn’t the best example.
The one I found particularly egregious was her July 3 post this year where she claimed Congress defined “men” in the Declaration of Independence as “white men.” Which is, of course, fiction. But it’s an ahistorical opinion that John Calhoun and William Lloyd Garrison shared. Not exactly good company for a purported “truth teller.”
Public historians can serve an important purpose. But they aren’t infallible. And if they don’t self correct the way legitimate news outlets do, they’re a worse model than what they’re replacing.
I never argued she was infallible. But the PirateWires piece argues that HCR's characterization of Trump wanting to be a dictator as self-evident hyperbole. They use unrelated factual inaccuracies to draw the conclusion that she can't be trusted on that point. You don't see how intellectually dishonest that is? I shouldn't have to list out the multi-dimensional logical fallacies, reverse burden, and various reasoning errors present for anybody capable of thinking about it for more than 5 seconds.
I agree with you that there are issues with the PirateWires piece. And clearly Trump is wired for authoritarianism and has little interest in defending the Constitution, separation of powers or protecting US institutions.
All that is true and he’s also followed every SCOTUS decision thus far, including the Kilmar Abrego Garcia ruling (after significant public pressure). Yet at the same time it’s right to be very concerned, particularly of the blatant self-dealing and clear corruption unlike anything in the modern era.
It would be more useful for HCR, as a historian, to spend more time discussing Trump in the context of Andrew Jackson and James Polk who are the historical analogs to Trump. Showing how he is worse than them (or similar) should be right in her wheelhouse (which she has done previously). But instead she’s attempting to “report” real-time news without the benefit of professional editors, oversight or balance. That’s what newspapers offer and she does not.
"He's followed every SCOTUS decision thus far" is doing enormous work in your argument—work it can't actually bear.
First, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia compliance came only after "significant public pressure," as you acknowledge. When constitutional compliance requires massive public mobilization to force adherence, you're not describing rule of law—you're describing power constrained by political cost, not legal obligation. That's the opposite of constitutional governance.
Second, Stephen Miller has explicitly called judicial review "legal insurrection." The President's own adviser is claiming that courts checking executive power constitutes insurrection against legitimate authority. This isn't just rhetoric—it's the intellectual framework for ignoring future rulings when political cost is manageable.
You're clinging to "he hasn't defied courts yet in all cases" as evidence things may not be as bad as they appear. But that's normalcy bias dressed as nuance. The question isn't whether he's obeyed every court order so far. The question is whether he and his advisers accept judicial review as legitimate constraint on executive power. They've told us they don't. Miller said it explicitly. Trump praised Jackson for defying the Supreme Court.
When someone tells you they don't accept constitutional constraints and their compliance is contingent on political pressure rather than legal obligation, believing them is pattern recognition, not hysteria.
As for your critique of Richardson: You want her to be writing long-form historical analysis comparing Trump to Jackson and Polk. She's doing something different—helping 2.7 million subscribers recognize authoritarian patterns in real-time using historical expertise. That's valuable work newspapers aren't doing, precisely because newspapers have "professional editors" telling them to provide "balance" by treating coordinated constitutional violations as if they deserve charitable interpretation.
Richardson's lack of editors isn't a bug—it's what allows her to call what's happening what it actually is, without people like Dodge and Dee walking in to ask whether she's considered that Trump might have good reasons for threatening to use American cities as military training grounds.
Whenever I see a Garcia reference today, I’m reminded that on October 1, so just three weeks ago, DHS posted a statement on X that included the following sentence (apparently I can’t attach a screenshot):
“This MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, domestic abuser, and child predator will never be loose on American streets.”
DHS and various members of the Trump administration, and likely Trump himself, have made similar public statements about Garcia. How do those statements comport with the Constitution or the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty? Is the only measure of what Trump is doing whether or not he complies with a SCOTUS decision? Or, should we also consider statements like this that demonstrate an egregious disrespect for the rule of law, and that are intended to convince the public that a person is, in fact, guilty of crimes without any kind of due process?
Very few Executive Orders or actions that Trump has taken this term have comported with the rule of law or the Constitution. I have no interest in defending him. However, the checks and balances that Madison put in place are working as intended, and (for now) the Trump administration is following them.
I think that the checks and balances put in place to protect the Constitution were predicated on SCOTUS doing its part. So far, I find it hard to argue that it has done so. Perhaps Trump has complied with SCOTUS orders, but that doesn't really mean much when SCOTUS has most often (and, I'd say, erroneously and illegally) ruled in his favor.
Lots of hyperbolic language in your response as well.
It’s clear you’re making assumptions that I don’t agree with all the problems with the rhetoric of Trump administration and his sycophants.
But there is a difference between rhetoric and actions. And while many of the actions are likely unconstitutional, the courts will decide and we’ll see how the Trump admin responds.
Waving away that Richardson misrepresented the Declaration of Independence to her 2.7M followers and that she’s not subject to self correction doesn’t resolve those issues.
Of the two, Trumps disregard of the Constitution and Miller’s rhetoric are clearly a bigger problem but rank ordering them doesn’t make the lesser one go away.
For example: “Richardson's lack of editors isn't a bug—it's what allows her to call what's happening what it actually is, without people like Dodge and Dee walking in to ask whether she's considered that Trump might have good reasons for threatening to use American cities as military training grounds.”
Basic journalistic principles require editors and fact checking. Characterizing editors as “Dodge and Dee” who would somehow deprive the audience of Richardson’s opinion by reviewing her work seems hyperbolic.
My comments, from the very first post on this thread, have suggested that Richardson should better apply journalistic standards and historical accuracy to her posts. That shouldn’t be controversial.
It's describing what actually happened. That's not hyperbole.
You want to rank-order problems: Trump's constitutional violations are bigger, Richardson's errors are smaller but still matter. I agree errors matter. But when someone helping millions recognize authoritarian patterns makes occasional mistakes, and the response is 5,000 words demanding she presume Trump's benevolence—if you think that's legitimate editorial concern, given the totality of facts and the very concerning financial and political interests behind Solana and PirateWires, then okay, I guess...
I think we’re writing past each other. To restate: I agree there are problems with the PirateWires piece. I also independently think HCR would benefit from editors and holding herself accountable. I think we disagree on a lot less than this exchange would suggest.
The funny thing is the conceit of "speaking truth" here. Anyone who cares about truth and has witnessed Trump's constant parade of lies can't credibly presume anything good of him. Nor is there any way to reconcile Trump's lies. He's even inconsistent with himself.
“If Solana actually believed Trump’s actions deserve defense, he could defend them.” Bingo.
It is that simple.
HCR chronicles what is a daily spewing fountain of facts and places those facts into historical context. A great many of those facts are reprehensible, inexplicable and indefensible. One can not parse a mountain of sewage without what may appear to be an occasional whiff of disdain in the telling.
Get over it — or wade in and defend that moldering pile — Mr. Vance can give you some pointers.
HCR is a national treasure and attacking her will only turn her into a folk hero. Mike Solana is the definition of a tool.
Liars defending liars, pretty cliche actually. Imagine standing up for Richardson though LOL, what's next, you're gonna defend Chris-chan?
It’s about baring teeth, like a predator, not talking points.
Another explanation that occurs to me is that Thiel funds Solana because Thiel knows Solana is the sort of person who'd run a piece like the one written by Dee and Dodge even if Thiel weren't funding Solana's publication.
EDIT: Once the money is flowing, that creates an ongoing incentive to continue running such pieces; this is intended to suggest why Thiel might have chosen to fund Solana in the first place. (This same logic applies to, say, political donations.)
There are plenty of issues with how Heather Cox Richardson portrays history. This just isn’t the best example.
The one I found particularly egregious was her July 3 post this year where she claimed Congress defined “men” in the Declaration of Independence as “white men.” Which is, of course, fiction. But it’s an ahistorical opinion that John Calhoun and William Lloyd Garrison shared. Not exactly good company for a purported “truth teller.”
After several attempts to get her to correct her post, I published a full defense of Jefferson’s clear intent here: https://open.substack.com/pub/vsidney/p/a-foundational-principle-understanding?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Public historians can serve an important purpose. But they aren’t infallible. And if they don’t self correct the way legitimate news outlets do, they’re a worse model than what they’re replacing.
I never argued she was infallible. But the PirateWires piece argues that HCR's characterization of Trump wanting to be a dictator as self-evident hyperbole. They use unrelated factual inaccuracies to draw the conclusion that she can't be trusted on that point. You don't see how intellectually dishonest that is? I shouldn't have to list out the multi-dimensional logical fallacies, reverse burden, and various reasoning errors present for anybody capable of thinking about it for more than 5 seconds.
I agree with you that there are issues with the PirateWires piece. And clearly Trump is wired for authoritarianism and has little interest in defending the Constitution, separation of powers or protecting US institutions.
All that is true and he’s also followed every SCOTUS decision thus far, including the Kilmar Abrego Garcia ruling (after significant public pressure). Yet at the same time it’s right to be very concerned, particularly of the blatant self-dealing and clear corruption unlike anything in the modern era.
It would be more useful for HCR, as a historian, to spend more time discussing Trump in the context of Andrew Jackson and James Polk who are the historical analogs to Trump. Showing how he is worse than them (or similar) should be right in her wheelhouse (which she has done previously). But instead she’s attempting to “report” real-time news without the benefit of professional editors, oversight or balance. That’s what newspapers offer and she does not.
"He's followed every SCOTUS decision thus far" is doing enormous work in your argument—work it can't actually bear.
First, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia compliance came only after "significant public pressure," as you acknowledge. When constitutional compliance requires massive public mobilization to force adherence, you're not describing rule of law—you're describing power constrained by political cost, not legal obligation. That's the opposite of constitutional governance.
Second, Stephen Miller has explicitly called judicial review "legal insurrection." The President's own adviser is claiming that courts checking executive power constitutes insurrection against legitimate authority. This isn't just rhetoric—it's the intellectual framework for ignoring future rulings when political cost is manageable.
You're clinging to "he hasn't defied courts yet in all cases" as evidence things may not be as bad as they appear. But that's normalcy bias dressed as nuance. The question isn't whether he's obeyed every court order so far. The question is whether he and his advisers accept judicial review as legitimate constraint on executive power. They've told us they don't. Miller said it explicitly. Trump praised Jackson for defying the Supreme Court.
When someone tells you they don't accept constitutional constraints and their compliance is contingent on political pressure rather than legal obligation, believing them is pattern recognition, not hysteria.
As for your critique of Richardson: You want her to be writing long-form historical analysis comparing Trump to Jackson and Polk. She's doing something different—helping 2.7 million subscribers recognize authoritarian patterns in real-time using historical expertise. That's valuable work newspapers aren't doing, precisely because newspapers have "professional editors" telling them to provide "balance" by treating coordinated constitutional violations as if they deserve charitable interpretation.
Richardson's lack of editors isn't a bug—it's what allows her to call what's happening what it actually is, without people like Dodge and Dee walking in to ask whether she's considered that Trump might have good reasons for threatening to use American cities as military training grounds.
Whenever I see a Garcia reference today, I’m reminded that on October 1, so just three weeks ago, DHS posted a statement on X that included the following sentence (apparently I can’t attach a screenshot):
“This MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, domestic abuser, and child predator will never be loose on American streets.”
DHS and various members of the Trump administration, and likely Trump himself, have made similar public statements about Garcia. How do those statements comport with the Constitution or the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty? Is the only measure of what Trump is doing whether or not he complies with a SCOTUS decision? Or, should we also consider statements like this that demonstrate an egregious disrespect for the rule of law, and that are intended to convince the public that a person is, in fact, guilty of crimes without any kind of due process?
Very few Executive Orders or actions that Trump has taken this term have comported with the rule of law or the Constitution. I have no interest in defending him. However, the checks and balances that Madison put in place are working as intended, and (for now) the Trump administration is following them.
I think that the checks and balances put in place to protect the Constitution were predicated on SCOTUS doing its part. So far, I find it hard to argue that it has done so. Perhaps Trump has complied with SCOTUS orders, but that doesn't really mean much when SCOTUS has most often (and, I'd say, erroneously and illegally) ruled in his favor.
Do you have particular decisions in mind?
Lots of hyperbolic language in your response as well.
It’s clear you’re making assumptions that I don’t agree with all the problems with the rhetoric of Trump administration and his sycophants.
But there is a difference between rhetoric and actions. And while many of the actions are likely unconstitutional, the courts will decide and we’ll see how the Trump admin responds.
Waving away that Richardson misrepresented the Declaration of Independence to her 2.7M followers and that she’s not subject to self correction doesn’t resolve those issues.
Of the two, Trumps disregard of the Constitution and Miller’s rhetoric are clearly a bigger problem but rank ordering them doesn’t make the lesser one go away.
Where is my hyperbole, pray tell? You offend me with the accusation.
For example: “Richardson's lack of editors isn't a bug—it's what allows her to call what's happening what it actually is, without people like Dodge and Dee walking in to ask whether she's considered that Trump might have good reasons for threatening to use American cities as military training grounds.”
Basic journalistic principles require editors and fact checking. Characterizing editors as “Dodge and Dee” who would somehow deprive the audience of Richardson’s opinion by reviewing her work seems hyperbolic.
My comments, from the very first post on this thread, have suggested that Richardson should better apply journalistic standards and historical accuracy to her posts. That shouldn’t be controversial.
It's describing what actually happened. That's not hyperbole.
You want to rank-order problems: Trump's constitutional violations are bigger, Richardson's errors are smaller but still matter. I agree errors matter. But when someone helping millions recognize authoritarian patterns makes occasional mistakes, and the response is 5,000 words demanding she presume Trump's benevolence—if you think that's legitimate editorial concern, given the totality of facts and the very concerning financial and political interests behind Solana and PirateWires, then okay, I guess...
I think we’re writing past each other. To restate: I agree there are problems with the PirateWires piece. I also independently think HCR would benefit from editors and holding herself accountable. I think we disagree on a lot less than this exchange would suggest.
Dizzy Dean: it ain’t propaganda if you can obfuscate it.