David Schmalz here. Next Monday evening, March 17 marks the beginning of the Panetta Institute's 28th annual Leon Panetta Lecture Series, which, per the Institute’s website, “brings national political leaders and policy thinkers to the Monterey Peninsula to discuss important issues facing the nation and our world.”
The lectures, which are held at the Monterey Conference Center, are always well attended, and are not so dissimilar from a typical panel one can see every night on CNN or MSNBC, except that the discussions go deeper and the tone is more congenial, sober—there’s no shouting over each other.
I first started tuning into the lectures virtually on occasion during the first Trump administration, and more recently, helped screen and write questions for a June 2022 panel featuring journalist Bob Woodward.
But the vibe I’ve always gotten from the lectures—mind you, I started listening in the Trump era—is that of someone whistling as they walk past a graveyard. The speakers, including Panetta himself—who held a number of top positions in government in his political career, including Secretary of Defense—are invariably all part of the old Washington, one that values institutions, decorum and the rule of law.
In the Trump era, the old norms and rules have fallen by the wayside and been replaced by a wannabe authoritarian in the White House and congressional Republicans—who now control both the House and Senate—all too willing to do Trump’s bidding. Some do so with gusto and others, reportedly, because they fear for their political careers or the safety of their families. (Trump’s pardon of Jan. 6 felons sent a clear message that political violence in the name of Trump is acceptable.)
So I found myself asking recently: Has the lecture series run its course? What’s the point of debating policy when the federal government is being steered by the ill-informed whims of one man?
Yesterday, I was able to ask those questions to Secretary Panetta himself, and when I told him the lectures harkened back to a Washington that no longer exists, he said, “I want people to remember that [time].”
And he had plenty more to add.
“That’s why we do the lecture series—to make sure that we can present to the community a discussion about what direction we want our country to take. I’m someone who believes we can take one of two paths. We could be a country in renaissance, and a country that really enjoys a strong future and great economy…We need to have Republicans and Democrats govern together on issues. We need to be a world leader in a very dangerous world.”
Alternatively, he says, “Or, we can be a country in decline. If we allow our prejudices to control what happens, we’ll go the way of past empires.”
But, I asked, didn’t the plurality of voters just choose the latter path last November?
“No election is forever, thank god. If this president continues to govern by chaos and disruption, if he continues to decide that tariffs are the way to strengthen our economy rather than weaken it…if he continues to undermine U.S. foreign policy, then the American people have a fundamental decision to make.”
Ultimately, Panetta says, “If [Americans] elect those that will not protect our democracy, then they’re going to reap the whirlwind. I believe the American people are better than that, that they really do want our democracy to work. You have to believe that in order to have hope we’ll turn this thing around.”
The overarching theme for the 2025 lecture series is “What will be the legacy of the Trump era?” and the panel next Monday will discuss what the economic legacy of the second Trump term might be. Tickets to attend ($100) are available by calling the Institute at 582-4200, and the lecture can also be viewed on the Institute’s YouTube page.
I have plenty of my own thoughts about what Trump’s legacy will be, and from an economic standpoint, I’m confident saying that a government run by billionaires for billionaires will definitely be good for billionaires, regardless of whether there’s a recession for the little people.
Because despite all the chaos of the Trump era—he may have declared war on Canada by Monday for all I know—the rich getting richer is one constant you can bank on.
(5) comments
Mr. Panetta was one of the 51 signers to the Hunter Biden laptop Russian disinformation. I have not read or heard Mr. Panetta denies or apologizes for this story. If Mr. Panetta believed that Joe Biden could have won the 2020 election then why lie to the world? Personally I cannot trust Mr. Panetta after this incident. It is clear to me that the establishment did not want Trump to win the election.
As far as pardoning the J6’s, no rioters were arrested in the Oregon Federal building riots that lasted 90 days straight. Another example is that no rioters were arrested for the Minnesota Police station burning and riot. Lets not also forget no rioters were arrested during the George Floyd riots which caused 2 billion in damages and 21 people were killed. Furthermore, Biden’s preemptive pardons in which some were made1 hour before the transfer of administrations. Could there be a debate that there is a two tiered justice?
Trump is not a politician and as for the 2016 and 2024 elections the electorate wanted a change from politicians running the Executive branch of our government. The mainstream media reports that this administration is chaotic, but drastic change is needed. As you know the US is 36 trillion in debt and spends 1.8 trillion annually more than it takes in in taxes.
What I have recently realized is that the world pays close attention to the US. The US is the beacon of freedom and innovation. Freedom of speech to debate ideas, to challenge authority, and the freedom to speak one's thoughts. This is not so in many western countries and of course not in Communist\Sociaialst countries. The US is the innovator for most, if not all the inventions that enhance our existence.
This statement is misleading and misrepresents the facts surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop letter and Leon Panetta’s involvement. The letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials, including Panetta, did not claim definitively that the laptop story was "Russian disinformation." Instead, it stated that the laptop bore the hallmarks of a potential Russian influence operation, based on patterns seen in past disinformation efforts. This was a cautionary assessment, not a false claim.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that Panetta or the other signers intentionally lied or conspired to mislead the public to sway the 2020 election. The statement also falsely implies that Joe Biden needed this letter to win—when in reality, Trump was already trailing in polls due to his handling of COVID-19 and other issues. Panetta, like many intelligence experts, gave an informed opinion, not a deception. The claim that this event proves an "establishment plot" against Trump is pure speculation without factual support.
The claim that no rioters were arrested during the Portland, Minneapolis, or George Floyd protests is entirely false. In Portland alone, over 1,000 people were arrested during the 2020 protests, and in Minneapolis, multiple individuals faced federal charges for burning the Third Precinct police station. The suggestion that these protestors faced no consequences is a complete fabrication. Additionally, comparing these events to the January 6th insurrection is misleading—while some 2020 protests involved violence and vandalism, they were not attempts to overthrow the government or stop the certification of an election. The attack on the Capitol was a direct assault on democracy, with rioters breaking into federal offices, attacking law enforcement, and trying to overturn a legitimate election result.
The statement also falsely suggests that Biden issued "preemptive pardons" before taking office, which is impossible since only a sitting president can issue pardons. There is no record of Biden pardoning individuals before or immediately after his inauguration. This claim likely confuses Biden’s actions with Trump’s last-minute pardons of political allies like Steve Bannon. The idea of a "two-tiered justice system" is simply an attempt to downplay the severity of January 6th by making false equivalences. The insurrection was an unprecedented attack on the U.S. government, and the prosecution of those involved is entirely justified.
The claim that “Trump is not a politician” is misleading. While Trump was not a career politician before 2016, he has since served as President for four years, actively campaigned for multiple elections, and remains a major political figure—by definition, he is now a politician. Furthermore, the idea that the electorate wanted a change from politicians running the executive branch ignores the fact that in 2020, a majority of voters rejected Trump in favor of Joe Biden, a longtime politician. The argument that Trump’s administration brought necessary change also ignores the fact that his term was marked by high turnover, scandals, and policy failures, including a chaotic pandemic response and record-setting deficit increases.
Blaming the national debt on traditional politicians while presenting Trump as a solution is also inaccurate. Under Trump, the U.S. debt rose by nearly $8 trillion, largely due to his tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, which slashed federal revenue while increasing spending. The claim that the mainstream media unfairly calls his administration chaotic ignores the fact that even former officials from his own White House described it as dysfunctional. While the U.S. does face serious fiscal challenges, Trump’s policies did not address them—if anything, they made the problem worse.
I was always supported Leon Panetta. As Secretary of Defense and CIA Director under Obama, he was often pragmatic in his approach to Middle East policy. While he maintained strong support for Israel as a U.S. ally, he also expressed concerns about Israeli policies, particularly regarding settlement expansion and its impact on peace efforts. He advocated for a two-state solution and criticized Netanyahu’s reluctance to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, Jimmy Panetta, as a Democratic congressman, appears to take a more reflexively pro-Israel stance. He has consistently supported military aid to Israel and backed measures that align closely with Israeli government policies, even amid concerns about human rights violations. While he hasn’t been as vocal as some other members of Congress, his positions suggest a stronger alignment with Israel’s government compared to his father’s more nuanced approach.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.