Bearing False Witness

by

Gadfly

           In the Bible, there are only ten commandments.  One of them commands against bearing false witness.  To most of us, this means we shall not lie—that is, “thou shall not” say something we clearly know to be false or not completely true as in quibbling.  According to the prophet Jeremiah, the lack of truthfulness is a far more egregious offense when it is a shepherd, as in kings and princes: “Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! Saith the LORD” (23:1 [KJV]).


           Of all the positive and healing themes that could have been presented, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton chose to inject false witness during her eulogy at the late Congressman Elijah Cummings’ funeral this past Friday (October 25, 2019).  In particular, she invoked the Biblical prophet Elijah, whose name means “My Lord is my God.”  Then she said, “Like the prophet, our Elijah could call down fire from heaven.” She followed this with: “Like that Old Testament prophet, he stood against corrupt leadership of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel.”  Clearly, the latter was an implied reference to President and Mrs. Trump.  Clinton’s clever political shot trivialized the solemnity of an event to honor Cummings and turned Cummings into an instrument in advancing her own political ambitions.


           Included in the cohort of eulogists were former Presidents Clinton and Obama.  Both made innuendoes impugning President Trump for dishonorable behavior in comparison with the honorable Cummings.  So, it was somewhat ironical to find this Sunday’s liturgy included a gospel from Luke 18: 9-14.  Jesus did not find the Pharisee’s self-righteousness to be more honorable than the tax collector.


           There seemed to be no reference to Trump’s Twitter insult about Cummings’ Baltimore.  If so, just as well, because Cummings’ very public verbal bludgeoning of a Trump Acting Homeland Security Secretary regarding alleged conditions at the southern border is what prompted Trump’s twitter insult; more so, it was also in defense of the Acting Secretary.  Ironically, another liturgical reading on Sunday was from 2 Timothy 4:6-8, 16-18.  Unlike Paul who was persecuted for his evangelism, Trump did not abandon the Secretary; he was there to provide defense for another American evangelizing the constitutional obligation to enforce the rule of law.


           Trump has endured over three years of false witness.  Phase I pre-election machinations failed.  Phase II failed to prevent Trump’s inauguration. Phase III, in the form of the Mueller investigation, failed to remove the President; but achieved a lot of collateral damage to those in Trump’s political orbit.  Now, Phase IV is an impeachment attempt.  Since Congressman Schiff’s Star Chamber leaks very selective bits of information to shape the current narrative, here is an excellent article that provides important context related to the real story.  Sadly, much of what the left falsely accuses Trump of committing, took place in the Obama Administration and by others within the leftist cabal.


           One of the left’s most important weapons in bearing false witness is propaganda in order to influence public sentiment among our nation’s sheep.  I provided such a case in blog articles going into the 2012 presidential campaign (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and in chapters 7 through 12 of my book, The 2012 Political Contest in America:  Conversations with a Gadfly.


           Today, David Leonhardt of The New York Times not only acknowledges but champions the importance of swaying public sentiment to advance impeachment and eventual removal of President Trump.  In the same edition, there is this headline on the front page above the fold: “Who Is Vindman?  A Ukrainian Refugee Who Rose to the White House.”  Vindman is U.S. Army Alexander Vindman currently serving on the National Security Council.
  

Ironically, in 1994, when I was a student at the Air War College, I attended a course on Soviet Studies.  One of my classmates in the course was a lieutenant colonel from Ukraine.  Understanding the complexities of this region, the professor surprisingly put the Ukrainian officer on the spot when he asked, “If Russia invades Ukraine, will you fight for the defense of Ukraine?”  The answer was cryptic but very clear.  He said, “My father is from Ukraine, my mother from Russia.  I have many aunts and uncles and cousins in Russia and Ukraine.”  In other words, he was not certain to which country he would be loyal.  The same question needs to be asked of Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.  In this case, he appears to favor Ukraine over the United States.

           To advance true witness, it might be helpful to ponder two questions about President Donald Trump.
  

First, is Trump a man of good character?
  

Being honest, nice, nuanced, polished, glib, humble, and so forth can be helpful in getting along with others.  These traits certainly make one “likeable.”  But these traits are not virtues.  Cardinal virtues include fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice.  Of these four virtues, Trump clearly demonstrates fortitude.  He is standing firm in fulfilling promises made during the presidential campaign despite withering resistance from a leftist House of Representatives, Never-Trumpers, and mainstream media.

  

Some would argue that Trump’s Twitter practice is intemperate.  While the practice is certainly unprecedented, so is the magnitude and ubiquitousness of leftist political bias of America’s news sources.  The hatred and contempt toward Trump may also reveal fear of a political order and its corresponding values that are not consistent with the left’s progressive ideology.  Thus, Trump’s persistence in responding to attacks from a wide range of sources may be based on the virtues of wisdom and justice, both of which are dependent upon truth.  And while Trump is well known for his blunt honesty (falsely alleged to be racism by the left) his knack for embellishment and exaggeration are important techniques for disrupting ideological paradigms.  This is how Trump controls his agenda, while the resistance tries to control the narrative.  Trump’s followers pay less attention to what is said and more to what is being done.

Winston Churchill was not unlike Trump in his crassness.  Although Trump does not consume alcoholic beverages (evidence of temperance), Churchill did.  In explaining the importance of humor, especially anecdotes in speeches, James Hume, a presidential speech writer, claimed “I relate Churchill’s famous encounter with the two-hundred pound Bessie Braddock in 1955.  Bessie in her fishmonger voice said to Churchill, ‘Winston, you are drunk.’  And Churchill replied, ‘Bessie, you are ugly, but tomorrow I shall be sober” (cited in Hume’s book, The Sir Winston Method:  The Five Secrets of Speaking the Language of Leadership, p. 138).  Resisting strong and withering political resistance, Churchill had a vision for his nation’s survival.  Trump does as well.

        

Second, how might Trump be recognized as a legitimate President by the left?
  

The only way for Trump to be accepted as a legitimate President would be to totally capitulate to the left’s progressive agenda, which would betray the campaign promises that got him elected.  This would violate the very essence of virtue because Trump would need to sell his soul to remain in office.

  

Fortunately, Trump has the fortitude, temperance, wisdom, and justice to resist this pressure.  He seeks justice for those in our nation that scattered sheep in the pursuit of power.  Again, from Jeremiah 23: 31-32 (KJV): “Behold, I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.  Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them:  therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.”

  

Meanwhile, Trump remains loyal to the idea of America and to those who elected him while waging existential battle with those who bear false witness.  Soon, truth will emerge, and justice will prevail “on earth as it is in heaven.”

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.

Character versus Corruption: Two Different Visions

Today’s article is a monologue, not a conversation.  I have been asked by a very good friend, someone I immensely respect for his intellect and sense of integrity and honor, to assess the two major candidates.  Here, I will do my best.  The assessment involves character versus corruption and two different visions for America.

Character versus Corruption

The presidential candidates represent a fundamental difference between character and corruption.  By character, I mean a sense of virtue and the role it plays in a just society.  A just society comprises citizens who possess a civic responsibility to the rule of law.  This is what provides stability and order within a society. 

Virtue does not include pandering, conspiring, colluding; nor, does it include mendacity, complicity, and duplicity.  These are traits that do not define the Trump campaign.  Several virtues define Trump:  honesty, courage, fortitude, and respect for the individual liberty that allows liberty-minded people to innovate and flourish.  Honesty is a virtue, even when it offends.  Trump has been honest and courageous in authentically and sincerely expressing his concerns about the lack of virtue within the ruling elite (some call it the establishment).  He believes in the U.S. Consitution and the rule of law as the framework for governance within America.  He criticizes those who believe otherwise, and as a consequence is attacked with labels—racist, Islamaphobe, misogynist, and so forth.  His greatest critics represent the truly corrupt worldview of the progressive left and even progressives within the Republican establishment (the Bushes, Romney, etc.).  The willingness to fund his own campaign demonstrates his fortitude in fighting for something far bigger than himself:  the American idea spawned by our Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.  His disappointment in how the recent ruling elite has squandered the political, social, and economic capital generated by those who understood the important relationship between a limited government within a system of federalism, inspires a sense of duty within Trump.

It was not virtuous when Senator Harry Reid claimed Romney had not paid taxes for ten years.  He knew at the time it was a lie, but it generated a news cycle very damaging to Romney.  When confronted about it later, he did not deny that the claim was false, but with a grin said, “we won didn’t we?”  So, now the news cycle is about a 1995 tax return, illegally attained and published by the New York Times.  Trump and his accountants completed the mandatory IRS filing based on public law.  In other words, it was an honest and legal filing.  Yet, that is not the issue.  Trump did not pay his “fair share” of taxes.  This immoral notion reflects a dangerous vision for America—more on that shortly.

Dwarfed by the manufactured tax travesty were the allegations, shared at the close of the last debate by Clinton, that Trump demonized a Venezuelan beauty queen.  Despite the fact that there were no witnesses to verify the queen’s allegations, the narrative was compelling enough to dominate all the mainstream news cycles.  The fact that business contracts were involved and the queen failed to live up to the arrangements had no relevance—truth, in this case, was less important than an opportunity to demonize a candidate that threatens the progressive worldview.  This is not virtue; it is corruption.

During the same debate segment, Clinton tattled to the listening public that Trump had not paid an architect (who she invited to attend in the audience) for his work on one of Trump’s properties.  Trump did not deny it.  He said the architect did not perform to expectations.  After doing my own research, I read complaints by the architect that because he did not get paid for this particular job, his company went under.  In other words, he only had one client—Trump.  If the architect had a reputation for meeting or exceeding expectations, he likely would have had more clients.  Nonetheless, there was no law suit, meaning there was no legal standing for one.  This is called accountability, something Clinton has no appreciation for.  She now claims the basement server was a mistake and accepts responsibility for it.  Responsibility and accountability are fundamentally different concepts.  Clinton is a member of the corrupted ruling class, so accountability does not apply to her (Comey got the memo).  Of course, there are plenty of precedents that have convinced her that she can avoid accountability.

Two weeks ago, Peggy Noonan penned an article for the Wall Street Journal:  “Travel Back to an Early Clinton Scandal.”  Calling someone overweight and cajoling them to lose weight to meet contractual terms is far less brutal than what Clinton did to the White House travel office.  Noonan claimed, “It was the first big case in which she showed poor judgment, a cool willingness to mislead, and a level of political aggression that gave even those around her pause.  It was after this mess that her critics said she’d revealed the soul of an East German border guard.”  On May 19, 1993, the entire travel office staff was fired.  Different stories were told over time.  “It emerged in contemporaneous notes of a White House staffer that the travel-office workers were removed because Mrs. Clinton wanted to give their jobs—their “slots,” as she put it, according to the notes of director of administration David Watkins—to political operatives who’d worked for Mr. Clinton’s campaign.”  To cover up the corrupt action, the FBI was asked to investigate; reluctantly, they did, and the head of the travel office was indicted on charges including embezzlement.  He was acquitted by a jury, and retired.  Mrs. Clinton said under oath that she had no role in the firings.  A General Accounting Office report later refuted this.  According to Noonan, “So—that was the Clinton’s first big Washington scandal.  It showed what has now become the Clinton Scandal Ritual:  lie, deny, revise, claim not to remember specifics, stall for time.  When it passes, call the story ‘old news’ full of questions that have already been answered. ‘As I have repeatedly said . . ..’”  Because they have the same worldview as Clinton, the mainstream media consider facts, such as the White House travel-office scandal, “old news.”

Clinton wants to increase taxes and government spending.  This would give the federal government more money to distribute to others (and probable voters) through various programs.  It doesn’t matter that this kind of thinking has accumulated nearly $20 trillion in public debt (not to mention the hundreds of trillion legal obligations for unfunded entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare—programs citizens paid into in good faith as a civil responsibility).  How would this benefit the economy?  Taxation takes resources from the private sector that can be used for investment and new jobs and shifts this wealth to the government to dole out in welfare subsidies—sapping the private sector of productivity and diminishing wealth creation.  The chart below shows the cost of the federal government is 65 times greater today in constant dollars (adjusting for inflation) per capita than when the Sixteenth Amendment was passed (authorizing individual income tax) was ratified in 1913.  American citizens are nowhere close to 65 times better off.  All this shows is that an expanding administrative state has become far more powerful and unaccountable than ever intended by the founding fathers.

The second chart shows the labor participation rate since the mid-1970s.  The significant decline in the labor participation rate coincided with the passing of Obamacare.  While the federal government gets better resourced over time through taxation and borrowed money, the economy has become far more fragile with investment resources either sucked away through taxation or suffocated by federal regulation.  And now American citizens are suffocating from crushing premiums and unaffordable deductibles.  Clinton wants to perpetuate this monster.

    

Facts may be inconvenient, but the data strongly support the adverse effects of a tax and spend orientation.  The progressive agenda is socialistic in its approach because it treats capitalism as an evil.  As scholars (e.g., Hayek) have revealed, socialism is not sustainable.  It morphs into fascism or communism, both far left manifestations.  Add to these dynamics crony capitalism (i.e., health insurance companies) and corporate welfare (e.g., companies like Boeing which gave a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation and receives billions from the Import Export Bank for lucrative contracts to sell fighters to the Middle East and airliners to Iran).  These practices perpetuate the establishment status quo (keeps elected officials in office focused on reelection instead of representing their constituents).  Recognizing these practices allows us to understand what Hannah Arendt explained as a step toward totalitarianism.  In her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt dedicated an early chapter to the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie—the centers of production within a society.  In the modern age of information technology, we can now include academia and mainstream media (centers for the dissemination of ideas) as part of that emancipation.

Different Visions for America

What we are asked to do in the upcoming election is to choose between two fundamentally different visions for America.  These visions are personified in the actual candidates:  one who still believes in virtue and the other who is terribly corrupted.  I know Hillary Clinton advances a progressive vison for America because President Obama has spent his entire tenure pursuing a progressive agenda. Hillary is committed to continuing this agenda.  This, by the way, is the only way to preserve an imagined legacy for Obama (at least for a few more years), not America.  What Donald Trump envisions is contrary to this vision because he seeks to restore individual liberty, limited government, the rule of law, and a free market; thus, it is soundly rejected by those who subscribe to the progressive agenda.

What is a progressive agenda?  It essentially subscribes to a powerful central government that solves most, if not all, of society’s problems guided by a fundamental principle of social justice.  This sounds noble; but, the means involve picking winners and losers in the name of “professed” equality of outcomes.  This is why, to a progressive, distributing wealth is morally justified.  As a consequence, this practice suffocates any incentive for innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking.  Anyone with a basic understanding of economics knows that our economy is on thin ice.  Unlike a positive multiplier effect in the private sector, progressive policies impose a negative multiplier effect, sucking value out of the private sector to advance true “trickle-down economics.”  (For an excellent history on the trickle-down economics meme, see Thomas Sowell’s paper here.)  This scheme coercively takes wealth away from those who earned it to dole out to an increasing population of welfare recipients at the individual and corporate levels.  As a cultural consequence, this practice diminishes a moral obligation for an American citizen or legal resident to accept his or her moral responsibility to contribute to the greater good of society at large, to be productive, law-abiding, and self-reliant. 

Most Americans once understood the importance of natural rights and the difference between civil rights and civil responsibilities.  Progressives have long ago dismissed the inevitable truth of natural rights, that is, the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rights granted by God, to be protected by a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed.  Civil rights represent the obligation of government and civil responsibilities represent the obligation of the citizens to obey just laws and to contribute to society (from neighborhoods to the nation).  This is the noble and ideal social contract Rousseau advanced before it was perverted by Robespierre in his great reign of terror in the French Revolution.  Robespierre and progressives today believe that only the right political elite know how to determine what is good for the public at large.     

I contend that the progressive agenda is contrary to the founding principles of our Nation.  Trump believes in these principles.  So, this is our choice:  we either vote for the founding principles or for the progressive agenda that is contrary to these principles.  The progressives that include academia and mainstream media are betting that they can convince the American public that the progressive agenda is better than our founding principles.  This is why we see so much positive press for Clinton and negative press for Trump in the politically emancipated mainstream media (unless you watch Fox News).

Dr. Benjamin Franklin had an optimistic view of the potential greatness of a Constitutional Republic.  Yet, at the closing session of the Constitutional Convention, on September 17, 1787, Franklin cautioned us:

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Trump asks voters to help him make America great again.  Clinton asks voters to be with her.   We have a choice: virtue or corruption; a renewed America or a despotic government.  Unlike Clinton who can smugly say “I made a mistake and took full responsibility,” we have a responsibility to make a good choice because we are the ones who will be accountable in terms of consequences.