Wouldn’t it be nice if the war in Ukraine were entirely one side’s fault, if the U.S. had one political party that did everything perfectly, if USAID had only ever caused either benefit or harm, and if all the self-contradictory gibberish coming out of Trump’s pie hole were either lies or holy gospel? A lot of people sure seem to think so.

Here in the real world, things are ever so slightly more complex than in a cartoon. A war can develop through evil actions by two — count ’em — sides. And that’s not all. Those evil actions can be — gasp! — very different and unequal to each other. I know. I know. It makes the brain just throb, right?

An agency can both feed the hungry and help overthrow governments for imperialist thugs. It seems impossible, if only because costume designers will have no idea how to dress such an agency. And yet.

A president can demand that governments spend vastly more on wars and propose cutting war spending in half. The same skills that once made the holy Trinity both single and triple can make sense of this. The threats and demands are brilliant negotiating, or the proposed reductions are a brilliant distraction. But you cannot actually take enlarging and shrinking military spending at face value and proclaim them both right.

Of course, loyal Democrats can hear Trump back cutting military spending and decide that military spending must be maximized, but this requires ignoring the fact that Trump is also demanding vast increases to military spending around the world and through the work of his disciples in the United States Congress.

Of course, burnt out, frustrated peace activists can celebrate Trump’s cut-spending comment as a ray of glorious hope, if not the coming of the Savior, but that requires ignoring the same pieces of reality.

I suggest three simple steps.

First, accept that contradictory positions cannot both be right and that you will have to determine which, if either, you agree with based on something other than the identity of the fascist jackass who said them.

Second, once you’ve decided, for example, that reducing military spending is the way to go, feel free to indulge in only criticizing Trump, but criticize the Trump who wants more military spending, who is moving more nukes into Europe, whose DOGE charade is avoiding military spending, and whose Congressional court jesters are pushing legislation to move vast piles of what remains of non-military spending into the golden toilet of the Pentagon. Or feel free to indulge in only praising Trump, but praise the Trump who wants to get rid of nuclear weapons, make peace, end wars, and cut the Pentagon in half. Or do both the criticizing and praising as merited.

Third, demand action to back up the words you agree with. If a U.S. president who is in the midst of a mad power grab bending the federal government to his will wants to get rid of nukes, he doesn’t have to wait for other countries. He can begin a reverse arms race by halting the production of new weapons and taking a first step in reducing them, before waiting for that move to be matched in Moscow. If he wants to reduce military spending, he can send in the DOGE brownshirts to eliminate hoards of military officers as if they were hungry children in need of food. He can put a halt to efforts in the Congress to pass legislation vastly increasing military spending, and instead order the introduction of legislation to cut the beast in half.

Would such actions get more push-back from Congress Members than those targeting useful and humanitarian projects? Of course! But without any actions at all — in fact with actions to the contrary — why take the rare good Trumpism seriously at all?

Don’t want to demand action from Trump because that would involve communicating with Trump and he’s just too odious? OK. Go to Congress and tell your misrepresentatives and lords of the upper chamber to cut military spending in half, either because Trump said so or because your Congress critters themselves said so in the past (depending on your district) or because military spending deprives us of so much, impoverishes us, and is an immoral act that threatens our existence and that of all living things.

---