Sunday, November 12, 2017

Caution: Draining the Swamp Can Be Perilous

            Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, what is intended by President Trump’s desire to drain the swamp?[1]

            IM:  First, it recognizes political corruption in America.  Most of this corruption flows from crony capitalism and a politically emancipated media that has shifted more power to the central government in Washington DC and has disenfranchised the individual.  Second, it recognizes that the progressive left advances socialism, which is contrary to our self-governing constitutional republic and the rule of law.  This is why there is such an anti-Trump public narrative--controlled by the mainstream media in collaboration with the political establishment in Washington (elected and unelected bureaucracy), academia, and Hollywood.

            AM:   Too many voting Americans have been conditioned to believe what progressives want them to believe.  The Soviet Union’s Nikita Khruschev predicted this outcome in 1957 when speaking to the National Press Club:   “. . . I can prophesy that your grandchildren in America will live under socialism.  And please do not be afraid of that.  Your grandchildren will not understand how their grandparents did not understand the progressive nature of a socialist society”  (Nikita Khruschev before the National Press Club in 1957, cited in J. Edgar Hoover’s book, Masters of Deceit, 1958, p. 3).  America’s ruling elite were aware of this threat.  For example, Communist goals were published in the Congressional Record in the 1960s.  Of the 45 goals listed, 28 have arguably been met (see goals 15 through 42).  Goal number 40 states:  “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”  Trends reflect this achievement.  See the graph below (published in The Washington Post):


Moreover, in a recent survey, half of Millennials (the grandchildren predicted by Khrushchev) claimed they would rather live under socialism or communism than capitalism.  An alarming 20% believe Joseph Stalin was a hero.

            Old Gadfly Do these facts represent pure chance; that is, do the facts represent an undirected evolution in our culture?

            IM:  In my opinion, no.  There seems to be an organizing principle or set of principles that attract collaborating efforts.  While labels are dangerous because they tend to be pejorative and conducive to the art of smearing (see for example an essay by Ayn Rand, “’Extremism’ or the Art of Smearing”), we cannot define phenomena (organizing principles) without using properly defined terms.  For example, most Republicans are called conservative.  To a Democrat, this is either “extreme” or “far right.”  Some (maybe even most) Democrats claim that if you vote Republican, you are a racist (and a xenophobe, Islamaphobe, homophobe, misogynist, etc.).  For example, because President Trump did not take sides at Charlottesville and claimed both sides were guilty of bigotry and violence, he is considered a white supremacist.  He was further excoriated for suggesting there are good people on both sides.  What he meant by this is that people can have differences based on good intentions, while unequivocally stating that there is no justification for violence.  This position, to the left, is immoral because only the left is moral.  For clear evidence of this, read (check it out from the library instead of purchasing it) George Lakoff’s Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  In a nutshell, Lakoff argues that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.

            AM:  The left has masterfully engineered public sentiment.  I am amused (and sobered) when the left-leaning press produces polls that show how unpopular President Trump is while constantly and shamelessly attacking him and his associates in their news presentations.  When over 90% of press coverage is negative and 100% of Democrats in Congress obstruct anything he does, one would think over 90% of the public would disapprove of Trump’s performance.
 
Let’s not forget, Hillary Clinton was the left’s champion going into this past election.  She idolized Saul Alinsky (as indicated by her Wellseley College Thesis).  In his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky provided rules for taking power away from the powerful.  Rule # 13 said:  “Pick the target, freeze it, and polarize it.”  Is it any surprise that more information seems to be leaking into the public domain about Hillary’s involvement in the infamous Russian dossier?  To the left, Hillary is not “the target”; so, they have no incentive to shine a light on this actual Russian collusion.
 
What I find especially disturbing is how Republicans either get duped into collaborating in efforts such as this or reveal their true colors.  Remember, it was Senator McCain who delivered the dossier to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Also, when allegations of sexual misconduct were reported by The Washington Post, Senator McCain took the allegations as fact and said Judge Roy Moore should immediately step aside.  McCain’s complicity and hypocrisy are nauseating.  Let me share some other facts about Senator McCain.
 
First, while celebrated as a hero who endured years of torture as an American prisoner of war, he signed a confession that said, “I am a black criminal and I have performed deeds of an air pirate, I almost died, and the Vietnamese people saved my life, thanks to the doctors . . ..”[2]  Although this is an abbreviated confession, solid investigative work produced a recording of a lengthier confession that was first broadcasted on June 2, 1969 as propaganda over the Vietnamese radio airwaves (listen to the recording here, in particular 16:05 minutes into the broadcast).  Does this make Senator McCain less honorable?  How many Americans, when subjected to true physical torture (beyond the mere psychological inconvenience of water boarding), offered similar propaganda confessions?  The answer is irrelevant; however, does such an action diminish any other heroic actions?  If Senator McCain went on to live an honorable life, is it worth drudging up these confessions decades later?  Yet, Senator McCain was quick to convict Judge Moore for mere allegations from decades ago.
 
Second, then Lieutenant Commander McCain also returned home to discover that his wife had been in a serious car accident leaving her significantly disfigured and disabled.[3]  He soon left her for a wealthy younger woman (by 17 years) and the glamour of politics (see here and here).  So much for loyalty.
 
Third, in addition to his part in delivering the Trump Russian dossier to the FBI, McCain has been silent in regard to the left’s attempt to scandalize Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer.  The purpose for the meeting was to “lobby” America, on behalf of Russia’s Putin, to repeal the Magnitsky Act.  Why is this significant?  William Browder, ironically the grandson of Earl Browder who ran unsuccessfully for President of the United States under the Communist Party in 1936 and 1940, is the individual who championed the Magnitsky Act through Congress.  In trying to consult with Senator McCain, the only way he was able to achieve access was by working through a lobbyist (i.e., through the crony capitalism venue).  Browder explains these details in his book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.  The Act was designed to name 60 individuals in Russia who were responsible for the arrest, torture, and murder of Sergei Magnitsky, one of Browder’s lawyers in Russia.  Browder had challenged the Russian oligarchy and Magnitsky’s torture and murder were the consequence.  There are other lurid details of political resistance in America (such as John Kerry’s opposition of the Magnitsky Act to avoid complications in becoming the Secretary of State), but I would encourage you to read the book for more detail.  The point being, McCain was directly involved in this case.  Combined with his involvement in the Russian dossier, McCain seems to have sided with political expediency over truth and justice.  Unfortunately, given his most recent medical circumstances, Senator McCain (and others who are complicit in shaping a dishonest public narrative) may not have the time to reflect and to seek redemption in the same manner as Jean-Baptiste Clamence in Albert Camus’ novel, The Fall.

Old Gadfly:   None of this is covered in the mainstream media.  Why should we believe that a corrupt establishment would address these matters in a noncorrupt manner?  Unfortunately, the only way to cover up corruption is through more corruption.  This is what President Trump (and Judge Moore and others) faces as he tries to drain the swamp.          




[1] For an excellent set of arguments and evidence, see Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).
[2] See Robert Timberg, The Nightingale’s Song, (New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 136.  Note, Timberg did not include the entire text of the confession.
[3] Ibid, pp. 96, 99, 230-31, 232, 235, 236, 238, 299, 373.

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Restoring Liberty in America

Dear Fellow American,

What is liberty?  Many equate it to freedom.  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of four freedoms:  freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  The implication is that government provides these freedoms, which is an example of classical conservatism (more on this later).  This is not liberty.  American liberty is freedom, constrained by the rule of law, to do what one wants without harm to another.  This notion is consistent with language in our Declaration of Independence—all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.  People through their state legislatures delegated specific, enumerated powers to a national government for this purpose.  Unfortunately, over time, our national government has gradually usurped this self-governing authority and as a consequence diminished individual liberty.


Language matters; yet, the concept of liberty means different things to different political factions.  In his book, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, F.A. Hayek devotes a chapter to this topic with the title, “Our Poisoned Language.”  He argues there has been a deliberate effort to inject ambiguity to blur distinction, such as justice versus social justice.  To drive home his point, he provides a list of over 160 nouns qualified by the adjective “social.”[1] Laws or regulations stemming from the notion of social justice promote egalitarianism over liberty—taking from some (such as progressive taxation) to give to others.  Social justice is not equivalent to charity.  The former is noblesse oblige.  The latter represents liberty in so far as an individual freely exercises his or her natural right to help another in need.

Today, in America, there is a desire to label people for political differentiation:  liberal, conservative, progressive, alt-right, and so forth.  Over time, the meaning of these terms has changed.  Today’s modern conservatives were originally known as classical liberals.  They believe in individual liberty, limited government, private property rights, and a free market.  They also believe in the rule of law and equality of justice for all.  Today’s modern liberals, or progressives, were originally known as classical conservatives.  They believe in collective liberty, a strong central government, noblesse oblige, and a government-controlled economy.  They also believe in conserving privilege based on notions of social justice (a form of nobles oblige).  Today, we see this differentiation and corresponding tension as the tug of war between capitalism and socialism.  The two major political parties generally align with these distinctions.  The Reagan revolution is often credited with the conservative movement in America.  In reality, the revolution was an attempt to “conserve” classical liberalism and its grounding in religious liberty tradition that provided the moral philosophy for civil behavior within the American society.

Progressive (modern liberal) thinking emerged in the late 1800s in response to industrialization and the rapid urbanization of America, with the notion that a central government can more easily solve problems through central planners and advance social and economic reform to improve the quality of life for citizens.  Teddy Roosevelt is generally recognized as our first progressive president as signaled by his Square Deal speech in 1905.[2]  The Protestant Social Gospel movement aligned with political progressives, giving the political movement legitimacy as a divinely inspired effort.  Woodrow Wilson began to institutionalize progressive thinking, especially with the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, followed by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and a massive expansion of federal agencies.  Then, the cultural revolution of the 1960s, notably spawned by the Port Huron Manifesto of Students for a Democratic Society,[3] moved modern liberals and progressives even further left, emphasizing socialism and secular humanism over capitalism and religious liberty.  Today, the consequences have been manifested in the multiculturalism and relative morality that has diminished the importance of a virtuous, civil society that Tocqueville observed as “habits of the heart.”  Ironically, Tocqueville realized America’s desire for liberty in general was advanced in parallel with a passion for religious liberty.  To the contrary, the promises of a better society stemming from the French Revolution were thwarted because a commitment to religious liberty was shunned (thanks to the Enlightened) in favor of political and economic freedom.

America is terribly divided.  One faction believes in the idea of America as championed by the classical liberal philosophy grounded in religious liberty.  The other faction wants to transform America in a socialistic direction, despite the damning historical evidence of its inevitable tyranny.  The latter faction stems from an educational system that no longer emphasizes the importance and essence of liberty and how self-governance contributes to its vitality in a free society.  Three generations of Americans have not been exposed to the principles and concepts that contribute to healthy “habits of the heart.”

We can recover this loss in a number of ways.  Tactically, by educating the public on the wisdom of Article V of the US Constitution and its means of correcting government corruption, we introduce or refresh in their minds the essence of liberty, checks and balances, and the moral obligation of self-governance.  We do this by arming them with the knowledge and arguments to persuade their State elected officials to return Tenth Amendment authority to the States.  More strategically, we do this through programs that provide classical education from K-12.  Hillsdale College has developed such a program called the Barney Charter School Initiative.[4]   There are now over 20 affiliate schools across the nation.  Finally, we do this one-person-at-a-time by exercising our moral obligation for self-governance through civil discussion and virtuous example, “making goodness fashionable.”[5]

Respectfully yours,

Old Gadfly
oldgadfly@gmail.com



[1] F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit:  The Errors of Socialism, Edited by W.W. Bartley, (Chicago, IL:  The University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 115-116.
[2] See Theodore Roosevelt, The Square Deal, speech delivered at a banquet in Dallas, Texas on April 5, 1905.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/speeches/trsquaredealspeech.pdf  See also, The Square Deal—The Effects of Progressivism at http://independence.guhsdaz.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_759199/File/Lovell/APUSH/9%20-%20Gilded%20Age/The%20Square%20Deal-The%20Effects%20of%20Progressivism%20chart.pdf
[3] See Michael Kazin, The Port Huron Statement at Fifty, Dissent Magazine, Spring 2012.  Retrieved on October 14, 2017 from https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/the-port-huron-statement-at-fifty
[5] See Eric Metaxas, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, (New York, NY:  Penguin Books, 2017), pp. 168-176.

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

An Open Letter to Service Academy Superintendents

Dear General/Admiral,

            Although the thrust of this letter applies mostly to the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), themes apply to all of the Service Academies.


Two matters prompted this letter:  the USAFA Superintendent’s Mitchell Hall balcony speech and West Point’s Spenser Rapone.  The USAFA Superintendent mentioned to all those in attendance during his speech that “this is our institution.”  I agree.  This is why I am compelled to write to you.  As a graduate, the purpose for my letter is to express concern about the Academy culture and its perceived departure from the core values of integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all that we do.  I contend this is happening because Academy leaders are losing focus on an American warrior ethos and its essence in the profession of arms.
    
American Warrior Ethos

Academy cultures should be grounded in an American warrior ethos.  The singular and unique concept of an American warrior ethos is that it does not beget warmongering; rather, it stands watch for threats against liberty and justice and defends against tyranny.  Beyond armed conflict, an American warrior ethos represents a morally responsible citizen who understands the central idea of American liberty, remains apolitical in light of cultural evolution, and is prepared to do the right thing for justice over injustice.

Profession of Arms

In terms of the profession of arms, professionalism calls for a commitment to standards of excellence that requires integrity and service before self.  The four-year class system was originally designed to inculcate this understanding.  The academies have sacrificed this aspect of the warrior ethos in favor of individualism and feel-good support between the classes.  As I have discovered in recent discussions with sponsored cadets, friendships are more important than honor.   This is not to deny the importance of authentic friendship.  A warrior ethos requires honor and toughness that chooses justice over injustice and that has the capacity and commitment to tolerate great adversity.  In the USAFA balcony speech, to suggest diversity as the Academy’s central value merely mimics prevailing political correctness.  I will discuss this at greater length later.  For now, however, in terms of professionalism and the capacity to endure adversity, should there be any surprise that America’s Navy Seal Team 6 has earned such a noble reputation?

National Character and Leadership Symposium

Developing American military leaders of character, firmly grounded in the Air Force core values (integrity, service before self, and excellence in all that we do) in support of a warrior ethos, is important enough that former graduate Classes have invested in this process through financial support of the annual National Character and Leadership Symposium (NCLS).  Each year, the Academy planners invite an interesting set of speakers based on a symposium theme.  Listening to the stories of courage, valor and endurance, and interacting with the story-tellers makes a powerful impression on cadets and challenges their understanding of truth and justice in a free society.
 
How might the Academy experience in general and the NCLS in particular restore a warrior ethos in the profession of arms?

The Issue
    
Let me begin with the Academy’s mission.  “The mission of the United States Air Force Academy is to educate, train, and inspire men and women to become leaders of character, motivated to lead the United States Air Force in service to our nation.”[1]  Service to our nation implies possible combat and a corresponding need for a warrior ethos.  A warrior ethos represents a set of virtues.  Virtues such as temperance, prudence, courage, fortitude, loyalty, obedience, and so forth have long been understood[2] to be critical in achieving victory in a just war.   Thus, the cultivation of these virtues should be the central feature of the Academy experience; moral decision-making and ethical behavior require virtue, especially when wielding great destructive power in a just war.
 
In the mid-1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville recognized virtuous behavior as a uniquely American trait and called this phenomenon “habits of the heart.” What is the basis of the virtue that shapes and compels morally responsible behavior, whether as a husband or wife, father or mother, neighbor, or a warrior?  This is not a new societal need or phenomenon.  We had virtuous people defeat an oppressive world class power in order to found a new nation based on a creed that all persons are created equal and that they are endowed by a Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.  We had virtuous people fight a civil war with the cost of over 600,000 casualties to overcome the sin of slavery.  We had virtuous people liberating oppressed people in two great world wars, and so forth.  These great endeavors were no accident.  They represented our American creed and clearly demonstrated “habits of the heart.”  These virtues were taught by parents, ministers, coaches, and teachers.[3] This teaching was grounded in philosophy and America’s historical Judeo-Christian tradition.[4]  I do not think it a stretch to claim that our yearning for truth (whether philosophical or theological) benefits from a deep and enduring tradition.  Tradition implies time-tested approximations of truth.  Without truth there can be no knowledge or justice.
   
Implications

            America is experiencing a cultural evolution in terms of moral values and the source and legitimacy of those values.  One week the mainstream media celebrates Hugh Hefner for championing the sexual revolution.  A week later, Harvey Weinstein becomes a national scapegoat for a lack of restraint during this revolution.  With the influx of secular humanism,[5] developing great momentum in the 1960s, motivations for serving in our armed forces have become somewhat blurry.  There are a growing number of individuals permeating American society and its institutions who have no need for accountability to a greater power, to include our Service Academies.  For many, service has become more of a career than a calling, and the moral compass is moral relativism, a central feature of secular humanism—whatever it takes to advance.  A recent presentation by the new Director for Strategic Communication demonstrated the Academy’s effort to “brand” the institution.  Nowhere in this presentation was there any mention of a warrior ethos.  It looked like a pitch for recruiting students to a prestigious campus that (a) appeals to their individualism, (b) pays homage to technology (as prophesied in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World) , and (c) just so happens to require uniforms.

As another example of moral relativism, I want to address a recent event that is somewhat delicate.  Having been a “tree in the forest” for 34 years and now retired and a relative outside observer, I now see the Academy through hearsay and what I read or hear in the news.  So, I hope the observation and feedback I am now offering may be received with an open mind.
 
I first became aware of racial slurs at the Academy Prep School through our local news media.  It went viral.  My first questions were:  Who would write such things?  Why would they do it?  Who photographed the writing and posted it to social media?  The “hands up, don’t shoot” meme immediately came to mind--a false report[6] that many still believe to be true, perpetuating a lot of the racial tension that currently exists.
 
Once the P-School slurs went viral, it appears the USAFA Superintendent was compelled to address the issue.  I respect the swiftness and tone of moral authority (and it was widely praised among my contemporaries).  The short speech[7] also went viral (posted on YouTube by the Academy; as well as generating activity mostly on CNN as well as CBS and NBC[8]).  The emphasis on diversity as a mandated value reflects more political correctness than a simple civic virtue of respect for human dignity.  Many people know that “the value of diversity” incorporates behaviors or life styles that are not consistent with other traditional values, which sets up a moral conflict for many of these individuals.  Unfortunately, organizations that promote traditional family values, for instance, are labeled “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  To overcome this conflict, the institution established policies of “zero tolerance” regarding discriminatory (and sexual harassment) behavior.  While the First Amendment protects free speech, even when it is contrary to public sentiment, it is the policy that restricts such behavior.  When young Americans voluntarily choose to join the military, they understand that they give up some freedom to become a member of the profession of arms.  Commanders have no choice in enforcing such policy.  Those who willfully violate the policy are held accountable.  To “moralize” beyond this point (which, in my opinion, the balcony speech clearly did), risks implying one’s own biases when it comes to “political values.”  This is a fundamental violation of the apolitical nature of America’s warrior ethos.

The command “if you can’t treat someone with respect and dignity, get out” made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  This command essentially proclaimed “there are limits to diversity, and if you do not understand what those limits are, then I do not respect you and I will not treat you with dignity.”  The Superintendent drummed up the national backdrop of Charlottesville, Ferguson, the NFL, and so forth.  These national icons have now become the bellwether landmarks for political correctness.  The national narrative in these cases is not consistent with actual truth.  The narrative is based more on folklore and what special interest groups want to believe.  And, as the USAFA Superintendent discovered during his interviews with CNN, this particular episode was nicely teed up to criticize our commander-in-chief.  For members of the military, public contempt for the commander-in-chief is a court-martial offense (this is more serious than violating a “zero tolerance” policy).  The balcony speech and CNN interviews essentially achieved this end.
 
More seriously, the balcony speech reminded me of F.A. Hayek’s warning in a chapter with the title, “The End of Truth” in his book, The Road to Serfdom.  Here is what Hayek observed during the regimes of Russian and European totalitarianism in the early 1900s:
 
The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.  To make a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends.  It is essential that the people should come to regard them as their own ends.  Although the beliefs must be chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously in the way the planner wants [italics added for emphasis])

I hope many of our leaders will take the time to more deeply reflect on this particular event, within the context of the national narrative and the Academy's "new environment" designed to shape these young men and women into leaders of character, in order to realize that we can also project slurs against those young men and women who bring traditional worldviews from a cross section of society. Slurs are pejorative words.  While we are very careful not to use the N-word, our politically correct society has developed a whole new set of slurs to demean those individuals that are not welcome in the diversity club:  evangelical, racist, xenophobe, Islamaphobe, misogynist, extremist,[9] and so forth.
 
Regarding the P-School slurs, we now know the answers to my questions about who would do such a thing, why would they do it, and who would upload images to social media.[10] With this new information and the Superintendent’s reluctance to mollify his balcony performance, this episode now joins the “hands up, don’t shoot” folklore.

Was the balcony speech a missed opportunity to truly advance respect for human dignity in the unique American pluralistic society?  There is too much “anti-America” vitriol sucking the oxygen out of the room.  Combined with a rabid press that is hell-bent on destroying the current President (over 90% coverage is negative; and arguably, he represents a threat to socialist ideology/forces), our nation needs courageous leaders to keep our fledgling leaders focused on the idea of America.

What would have been the balcony speech impact had the perceived “wrong-doing” been rebuked without demeaning others?  It is understood that individuals who have violated policy will be held accountable.  This then could have been an unemotional segue to reflecting on what makes America the “shining city on a hill,”[11] or to comprehend what 28-year-old Abraham Lincoln understood in his speech at the Springfield Young Men’s Lyceum[12] (especially in light of the Superintendent’s references to Ferguson, Charlottesville, and the NFL).  This approach is not without precedent.  For example, a month before the end of the American Revolutionary War, General Washington was made aware of a widely circulated anonymous letter complaining that officers had not been paid for the nearly eight years of waging war.  The anonymous author encouraged officers to leave their posts and even to consider a military coup.  On March 16, 1783, Washington assembled his officers to address the issue.  While rebuking the anonymous letter, he did not demean the officers.  He inspired them to stay the course.  Eric Metaxas observes in his book, If You Can Keep It:  The Forgotten Promise of American Liberty, “Washington’s language is a far cry from anything we hear today.  I am not referring to his lofty and ennobling style of speech…But far more important is his use of specific words and phrases like ‘reputation,’ ‘patient virtue,’ ‘dignity,’ ‘glory,’ and ‘sacred honor.’”  Since our Academies play a critical role in producing leaders of character, understanding the occasional strategic opportunities our institutional leaders have to inspire these young men and women toward excellence is also critical.

Speaking of diverse worldviews, many Americans have either lost an understanding of, or have not been exposed to, the founders’ idea of America (i.e., individual liberty, limited government, private property, and a capitalistic free market) and how it was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Amazingly, a year ago, during a conversation with a Fourth Classman, I asked what he knew about communism.  He responded, “What is it?”  I explained that when I was a 4-degree (freshman), I was anticipating combat in Vietnam against the spread of communism (i.e., an ideology based on collective liberty, a strong central government, no private property, and a government-controlled economy); and that for most of my 30-year career, I was prepared for the possibility of a large-scale or thermonuclear war against the communist threat of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact) during what has been called the Cold War.  I described the hundreds of millions killed under Lenin, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and other communist leaders.  Now, we read about Army Second Lieutenant Spencer Rapone,[13] an open communist at West Point and now serving on active duty.[14]  In my own experience as an academic, our public schools and universities have a very strong undercurrent of Marxist thinking, centered on Marx and Engels’ 1848 Communist Manifesto calling for the liberation of the oppressed.  It also demands erasing history.  Marx wrote, “In bourgeois society, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past.”[15] History has recorded the dangers of this thinking; yet, (a) our younger generations have not been exposed to it (e.g., 1 in 5 Millennials think Joseph Stalin was a hero[16]) and (b) we allow its expression because of our tolerance for the freedoms codified in our First Amendment.  In the spirit of “selectively” celebrating diversity, we are allowing our society to become vulnerable to what our commissioning oath refers to as a domestic threat.
 
            America (and the Western world) faces a potentially existential foreign and domestic threat:  militant Islamism.  To call this out risks being labeled an Islamophobe because it is not deemed “politically correct.”  Despite the advance of secular humanism, our nation still places a premium on tolerance of religious pluralism, to include atheism.  Given this liberty, addressing the Islamic sacred texts and their use in justifying violent jihad mandates a national level conversation.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser,[17] a champion for modernizing Islam for moderate Muslims in reconciliation with a secular government, was nominated as a guest speaker for the 2018 NCLS; yet was not accepted.  Dr. Jasser, at the risk of personal threats, has had the courage to advance reforms that are consistent with a secular constitutional republic.  Is it possible that a “presumed religious” speaker was deemed incongruent with a secular humanist approach to teaching moral foundations and ethical orientations?  How does a moral nation deal with a militant religion if it refuses to examine it?  Is there not some room for reason in understanding and managing an apparent conflict of values?
 
I contend the NCLS speaker selection has been skewed by a heightened sensitivity toward “diversity-oriented” speakers with a reluctance to entertain religious liberty speakers.  For example, I infer from that pattern of speaker selections that the current Center for Character and Leadership Development (CCLD) faculty and staff represent a secular humanist perspective.  Their focus is based on theory and empirical evidence from psychology and sociology disciplines.  They appear to consider philosophical and religious perspectives as too metaphysical and obsolete.  Yet, we ignore the actual evidence of a militant Islamism (see for example the data collected on over 32,000 separate attacks since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/).

A Way Forward
      
Our Service Academies should not represent a regression to the mean in terms of societal values.  This would be incongruent with the core value of striving for excellence in all that we do.  The goal for character development is to produce leaders with impact within the Air Force and their communities as citizens.  Acknowledging the role of philosophy or religion in our society is not a violation of the so-called “Establishment Clause.”  While USAFA has addressed legitimate instances of proselytizing, it comes in different forms, to include “religious” by an evangelical Commandant of Cadets and the “anti-religious” by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.  There is no evidence of an institutional attempt to “establish” a religion.  To the contrary, there may be an unwitting institutional reaction (i.e., capitulation to anti-religious threats) to eliminate philosophy and religion as legitimate sources of moral development.  Within 10 years following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, religion was deliberately and methodically removed from the entire society in submission to a Marxist philosophy.  On the other hand, Nazism in Germany initially justified societal reforms in the name of religion[18] before morphing into an atheistic totalitarian regime, possibly reflecting similar justifications for violent Islamic jihad.  How does a free nation facilitate the essential character development to avoid these manifestations if it does not have the courage and capacity to examine the dynamics that led to these totalitarian regimes? Even before such an examination, it is absolutely critical that our future leaders be solidly grounded in our own history and the principles and concepts related to a Constitutional Republic.

Conclusion

            The Academy in general and the NCLS in particular have incredible potential to be exemplars in character development.  Those involved in its planning have a moral duty to encourage content that does not unnecessarily constrain the full range of inquiry that underwrites character development.  Character development demands critical thinking in response to a full set of ideas—from the bizarre to the brilliant.  We owe it to current and future American generations to expand the range of inquiry through a classical liberal arts education, to include mathematics, science, history, literature, religion, philosophy, and so forth.  This is the essential grounding that shapes and inspires the American warrior ethos—and the singular purpose of a Service Academy.

Very respectfully,

Gadfly     




[1] https://www.usafa.edu/about/mission/
[2] See for example, James H. Toner, True Faith and Allegiance:  The Burden of Military Ethics, (Lexington, KY:  The University Press of Kentucky, 1995).
[3] See for example, Training Manual 2000-25, Citizenship, November 30, 1928.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://constitution.org/mil/tm/tm_2000-25/tm_2000-25.pdf
[4] Gallup has polled Americans regarding religious affiliation every year since 1948.  In 1956, with 99% of surveyed Americans affiliated with the Judeo-Christian tradition--71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, 3% Jewish.  For the actual data, see Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx 
[5] Here is a definition of secular humanism:  “humanism, with regard in particular to the belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.”  See also material from the Council for Secular Humanism retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260.  This may explain the 27% drop in those affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition since 1956.
[6] See for example, Michelle Ye Hee Lee, ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Did Not Happen in Ferguson, The Washington Post, March 19, 2015, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/03/19/hands-up-dont-shoot-did-not-happen-in-ferguson/?utm_term=.22a95f12e8f8
[7] See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfjZ1otkS3o
[8] See for example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FcqzDLMhBI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnVtWUnBPIE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23Z1p5gChFA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oinwPwCLG14, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0wZZ2LsysY, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnV4OPpBUj4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxWBwXUAMbs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN6lK0Vh84k  
[9] See Ayn Rand, “Extremism,” or the Art of Smearing, an essay originally published in 1964 in the Objectivist Newsletter and later in Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal.  Retrieved on November 8, 2017 from https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1964/09/01/extremism-or-the-art-of-smearing/page1
[10] See Samantha Schmidt, A Black Student Wrote those Racist Messages that Shook the Air Force Academy, School Says, The Washington Post, November 8, 2017.  Retrieved on November 8 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/08/a-black-student-wrote-those-racist-messages-that-shook-the-air-force-academy/
[11] A metaphor first introduced by Puritan John Winthrop in a 1630 sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity: while sailing to America aboard a ship named Arbella.
[12] See Lyceum Address, retrieved November 8, 2017 from http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
[13] See Mark Alexander, West Point Digs Deeper Hole on Cadet Communist, The Patriot Post, October 12, 2017.  Retrieved on October 30, 2017 from https://patriotpost.us/articles/51824
[14] Partial motivation for this letter came from a letter by LTC (USA, retired, USMA ’97) Robert M. Heffington to his class, retrieved on October 16, 2017 from https://www.scribd.com/document/361328800/Former-West-Point-professor-Robert-Heffington-s-open-letter-signed
[15] See Jon Miltimore, 5 Things Marx Wanted to Abolish (Besides Private Property), Foundation for Economic Freedom, October 31, 2017.  Retrieved on October 31, 2017 from https://fee.org/articles/5-things-marx-wanted-to-abolish-besides-private-property/
[16] See Jarrett Stepman, Millennials Are Clueless About Communism. Here’s Why That’s a Problem, The Daily Signal, November 3, 2017.  Retrieved on November 3, 2017 from http://dailysignal.com/2017/11/03/millennials-clueless-communism-heres-thats-problem/
[17] M. Zuhdi Jasser, A Battle for the Soul of Islam:  An American Muslim Patriot’s Fight to Save His Faith.  New York, NY:  Simon & Schuster Threshold Editions, 2012.

[18] Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus:  Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany.  Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2010.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Miserable Creatures

         Abstract:  Many privileged Americans wearing National Football League (NFL) uniforms have decided to use their celebrity status to make a political statement.  This is their choice.  They are free to do this in America, even in London.  They obviously have no idea that to express such political freedom is an American right, a right that does not exist in other parts of the world such as Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, or China.  In expressing their right, they insult the millions who have given far more to protect this right.  Perhaps someday they may finally realize what it means to truly be American.  This article examines these circumstances in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).  Gadfly closes with a reflective observation from John Stuart Mill about the American Civil War.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, I woke this morning to a headline in USA Today:  “Jaguars owner Shahid Khan joins in on NFL's national anthem protests.”  To aggravate the act, it took place during an exhibition game in London.  Then, throughout the day other teams in America participated in similar protests.  AM, like these NFL players you and I wore a uniform, you for over 35 years and I for over 34 years.  What are your thoughts?

AM:  My first thought was disappointment that Americans, especially on foreign soil, would disrespect the flag and the national anthem—symbols of America that represent the idea of what America stands for: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Many of our fellow Americans gave life and limb to protect and to advance these rights for America and other nations.  I pictured the thousands of crosses, and among these crosses Stars of David, strewn across Europe and the Pacific Theater marking the graves of fellow Americans who gave their lives liberating others from the tyranny of socialist fascism.  Fascism and socialist communism in the Soviet Union and China were and are oppressive ideologies.

The image above is from Lorraine American Cemetery in France.  None of these individuals had a labor union to keep them from working more than 40 hours in a week, to insist upon overtime pay for more than 40 hours, or to sideline for a concussion.  The image I saw this morning was a stark contrast:  privileged athletes making a political statement, apparently about racism.  My first reaction was to break out in uncontrollable laughter.   Not a single one of these athletes was forcefully hauled to this field, suited up, and then released from ankle chains to harvest a win for the team owner.  In fact, all the athletes wearing a uniform on that field earn more in one year than 95% of Americans earn in several years.  What racist institutions kept them from this athletic achievement?  The majority of NFL players do not represent the nationwide demographics.  So, if America was racist, then why are there so many minority players wearing NFL uniforms?

Old Gadfly:  Keep in mind this is all a reaction to President Trump’s public language in (a) suggesting the NFL should fire players that disrespect the flag and National Anthem and (b) disinviting the NBA basketball player that publicly proclaimed he would not attend the White House celebration.

IM:  The President campaigned on Making America Great Again.  The professional athletes in the NFL and NBA are apparently not happy about that.

Old Gadfly:  They certainly are not alone.  Others feel the same way.  For example, look at the push back Denver Bronco Derek Wolfe received when he disagreed with kneeling during the National Anthem.

AM:  Thank God for red blooded Americans with NASCAR!

Old Gadfly:  I think this all boils down to a fundamental understanding of what America is all about.  There are Americans who believe in the American dream—that through hard work and perseverance as good patriotic citizens of a Constitutional Republic the pursuit of happiness is real.  There are others that believe differently.  They believe in a large central government that promotes social justice in the pursuit of utopia this side of death (read Bernie Sanders' book, Revolution).  Thus, America is in the midst of a culture war.  Amazingly, today’s conversation began in London.  At the start of the American Civil War, a British political philosopher, John Stuart Mill, convinced the British government not to intervene in the American contest.  In his article, he made this closing observation: 

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.  When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people.  A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice—is often the means of their regeneration.  A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature, who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.  As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

           I would submit that those taking a knee are not doing it for patriotic reasons.  To the contrary, they are instruments—they are miserable creatures serving a master's cause.  Who is the master?  The master is an ideology that is Marxist and that can only be justified by a belief in oppression, whether real or imagined.  Where are these players in expressing outrage about the real oppression in Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea?  The NFL players should stick to the direction of their coaches since this is a business contract.  If they want to protest the social contract with the American society, then they should do their due diligence to see where the real injustice exists, such as our inner cities managed for decades by a particular political party.  The majority of Americans believes in the idea of America and wants to Make America Great Again—for ALL Americans.  NFL players can become great again and real American role models, if they stop serving dangerous ideological masters.