I think the Hegseth/Trump MAGA rally staged for stone-faced military brass may be more damaging than anything to date.

[pat_k]

Last edited Thu Oct 2, 2025, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

First off, how could Hegseth and 47 really be so clueless about the apolitical professionalism of the military? How could they not know that military brass and other officers do not applaud or cheer for civilian elected officials during speeches to uphold the tradition of political neutrality?

As I understand it, it is a tradition intended to ensure that military loyalty is to the Constitution and the nation, rather than to any specific political party or leader.

I couldn't watch the horror show, but reportedly, Hegseth paused for reaction to what he apparently believed would be applause lines. And 47 nervously said something like "you can applaud... or not"

From these reports it appears they had NO CLUE everything they said would be met with stoic silence. If they had had a clue, I don't think they would have staged this thing.

But how could they be so clueless? It's not like the tradition is some sort of secret.

For viewers who didn't know stoic silence was the norm, watching those top brass listening to the MAGA rally propaganda with stone (and from photos, some angry) faces must have been striking. Particularly when you add in 47's nervous reaction to the silence and Hegseth's pauses for reaction.

I have a feeling that this event may end up being far more damaging to the 47 regime than almost anything so far. I think a MAGA rally stripped of the emotional reaction lays bare a reality. When 47 is met with cheers, viewers who aren't predisposed to despise the man can be pulled in. (Look how people respond! Must be something to it.)

Strip that away, and you are left with a litany of evil, vile, stuff with no "audience response track" to cue you about how your are supposed to respond. I also think the non-verbal message communicated by those stone faces is powerful, by itself. Without knowing exactly why, the "faithful" who watched this today -- or who see clips -- may find themselves troubled by seeds of doubt.

And remember, this is now the third in a series of disasters (the pained looks during his speech in the UK and the muted response to his disastrous U.N. speech).

I'm not quite sure why, but it brings to mind "The President's Speech" in Oliver Sacks' The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

If you aren't familiar, The President's Speech is fascinating story of how people with different types of aphasias responded to a speech from Reagan. Some roared with laughter, others were simply bewildered ("'He is not cogent" ). Sacks concludes this:

Here then was the paradox of the President's speech. We normals - aided, doubtless, by our wish to be fooled, were indeed well and truly fooled ('Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur'). And so cunningly was deceptive word-use combined with deceptive tone, that only the brain-damaged remained intact, undeceived.

I think this story came to mind because it is about how removing certain "layers" that are part of normal perception can lay bare a truth. In this case, "normal" perception of MAGA demagogues comes with a "response track." Replace that with stone-faced, high-ranking, responsible, men and women -- and perhaps some reality breaks through.

You can read Sacks' "The President's Speech" here:

https://plantainclan.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Oliver-Sacks-The-PresidentS-Speech.pdf