Transformational Leaders and Christian Dissidents

by

Gadfly

           Most of mainstream media, Democrats, and others claim former Vice President Joe Biden is “the President-Elect.”  What does this mean? 

The left and anti-Trumpers claim the contest is over.  Biden won; Trump lost. 

Yet, none of the 50 States have “certified” voting results.  The Electoral College has yet to meet, which is the ultimate milestone to determine which candidate scored 270 or more votes.

           Trump has yet to “concede” the contest.  Biden calls this refusal “an embarrassment.”  Of course, tough guy Biden, who wants the mantel of President, does not mind the use of bullying tactics.  As much as one may despise the President of the United States, telling him to “shut up” or calling him “a clown” during a nationally-televised presidential debate does not sound presidential.  Feelings of contempt are difficult to hide, even during a nationally televised debate. 

And lest we forget, Biden was part of a January 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office with President Obama when they (led by the FBI and CIA) hatched a “Russia collusion” conspiracy against President-elect Trump.  The multi-year, multi-million dollar Mueller investigation followed to no avail; and a failed politically-driven impeachment further sought to undermine the Trump presidency.

More recently, a Hunter Biden hard drive surfaced with evidence of criminal activity (involving Ukraine, China, etc.), homegrown pornography, and other incriminating material.  The New York Post broke the story (and unfortunately revealed the name of the whistleblower), followed by extensive coverage by Fox News.  Not intended as an October surprise (I was personally involved trying to get the drive to the right authorities for a year), it was quickly censored by the mainstream and social media.  Worse, the shop owner involved has been slandered as a Russian agent and a hacker. 

Amazingly, this experience reminded me of Walter Cronkite’s prophetic preface in a 1983 Penguin edition of George Orwell’s dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.  Here is an excerpt of the preface: 

           “Big Brother” has become a common term for ubiquitous or overreaching authority, and “Newspeak” is a word we apply to the dehumanizing babble of bureaucracies and computer programs.

           Those coinages have passed into the language with lives of their own.  They are familiar to millions who have never read 1984, who may not even know it as a novel written thirty-five years ago by English socialist Eric Blair, who became famous under the pen name George Orwell.

           Seldom has a book provided a greater wealth of symbols for its age and for the generations to follow, and seldom have literary symbols been invested with such power.  How is that?  Because they were so useful, and because the features of the world he drew, outlandish as they were, also were familiar.

           They are familiar today; they were familiar when the book as first published in 1949.  We’ve met Big Brother in Stalin and Hitler and Khomeini.  We hear Newspeak in every use of language to manipulate, deceive, to cover harsh realities with the soft snow of euphemism.  And every time a political leader expects or demands that we believe the absurd, we experience that mental process Orwell called doublethink.  From the show trials of the pre-war Soviet Union to the dungeon courts of post-revolutionary Iran, 1984’s vision of justice as foregone conclusion is familiar to us all.  As soon as we were introduced to such things, we realized we had always known them.

           What Orwell had done was not to foresee the future but to see the implications of the present—his present and ours—and he touched a common chord.  He had given words and shapes to common but unarticulated fears running deep through all industrial societies.

           George Orwell was no prophet, and those who busy themselves keeping score on his predictions and grading his use of the crystal ball miss the point.  While here is a novelist, he is also a sharp political essayist and a satirist with a bite not felt in the English language since the work of Jonathan Swift.

           If not prophecy, what was 1984?  It was, as many have noticed, a warning:  a warning about the future of human freedom in a world where political organization and technology can manufacture power in dimensions that would have stunned the imagination of earlier ages.

           Orwell drew upon the technology (and perhaps some of the science fiction) of the day in drawing his picture of 1984.  But it was not a work of science fiction he was writing.  It was a novelistic essay on power, how it is acquired and maintained, how those who seek it or seek to keep it tend to sacrifice anything and everything in its name.

           1984 is an anguished lament and a warning that we may not be strong enough nor wise enough nor moral enough to cope with the kind of power we have learned to amass.  That warning vibrates powerfully when we allow ourselves to sit still and think carefully about orbiting satellites that can read the license plates in a parking lot and computers that can tap into thousands of telephone calls and telex transmissions at once and computers that can do our banking and purchasing, can watch the house and tell a monitoring station what television program we are watching and how many people there are in the room.  We think of Orwell when we read of scientists who believe they have located in the human brain the seats of behavioral emotions like aggression, or learn more about the vast potential of genetic engineering.

           And we hear echoes of that warning chord in the constant demand for greater security and comfort, for less risk in our societies.  We recognize, however dimly, that greater efficiency, ease, and security may come at a substantial price in freedom, that law and order can be a doublethink version of oppression, that individual liberties surrendered for whatever good reason are freedom lost  (bold italics provided for emphasis).

           Biden campaigned with the slogan, “a battle for the soul of the nation.”  By its implications, he flaunts an image of moral superiority.  Yet, keep in mind, Satan also fights for our soul, whether individually or collectively.  Biden represents a political faction that fights for abortion, same-sex marriage, the demonization of those who oppose these notions, and a whole range of policies to give the national government almost total control of our lives—nationwide COVID-19 mandates are simply a dress rehearsal.

           With the context just provided, it is now time to talk about the essay’s title:  Transformational Leaders and Christian Dissidents.  To transform is “to make a thorough or dramatic change in the form, appearance, or character of.”  Former President Obama confessed that, under his leadership, his election would lead to the “fundamental transformation of America.” 

Evidence of America’s transformation under Obama’s leadership is already apparent.  While this would sound politically incorrect to the left, a racist nation would not have elected a black man to the presidency.  A survey by The Wall Street Journal revealed “Optimism over race relations in the U.S. has slid since its historic high in January 2009, when 77% of Americans polled—79% of whites and 64% of blacks—described such relations as good. In the new poll [July 2013], 52% of those polled felt that way, including 52% of whites and 38% of blacks.”

So, what happened since the January 2009 healthy view of race relations?

Obama took command of his first term in January 2009. 

The Trayvon Martin incident occurred in February 2012 (Obama told the public, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon”), which spawned the creation of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization. 

It was not until the Michael Brown incident in 2014 that BLM became a national force advancing the notion of systemic racism. 

The George Floyd incident (May 2020) provided the needed kindling for a political campaign (and the corresponding riots in mostly Democrat-controlled cities) against President Trump, who has been characterized as an obstacle to an “anti-racist” movement.

BLM leaders, and its fellow Marxist faction called Antifa, are set on transforming America.  Their leaders are anti-family and anti-Judeo-Christian. 

Political leaders, such as Biden, have acquiesced to an “instrument” role in advancing this anti-America agenda.  As I discovered from his complicity with foreign agents in Ukraine and China, Biden simply lusts for power.  In the process, the elder Biden prostituted his own son to carry out unethical and illegal foreign dealings for financial rewards.  This is the man who had a foreign prosecutor fired for trying to shine sunlight on Burisma corruption.  This is the man who battles “for the soul of the Nation.”

In the end, Joe Biden might be crowned as America’s President.  He may even enjoy the support of millions who join him in transforming America from the “shining light on the hill” to another political elite-ruled Venezuela. 

He will never own my soul, nor the soul of millions of Americans who believe in a just and merciful God and in the transformational leadership of a nonpolitician who fought to make America great again.

The ultimate transformation here might be spiritual, but not in the way Biden represents.  Many Christians have enjoyed a comfort zone of material plenty.  Now, many of us are recognizing the implications of secular humanism and its atheistic Marxist manifestation.  We have a moral duty to resist this dangerous transformation, to save our souls, to transform the way we live our lives, and to set an example for others. 

Live Not by Lies:  A Manual for Christian Dissidents by Rod Dreher (published this year and recommended to me by “Orville,” a Christian leader and close friend) greatly inspired me along these lines.  I highly commend it to you. 

The most significant take-away from this book is that those who lived under totalitarianism in the Twentieth Century unanimously observe that America in 2020 is manifesting pre-totalitarian conditions.  That is why I wrote this article.  Therefore, I am a Christian dissident.

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.

America's War-Weary

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, as I currently endure a once, highly acclaimed health system attempting to minister to the accumulated bodily (my wife would include mental as well) wear and tear stemming from my three decades of military experiences, I can’t help but snicker at absurd “war-weary” complaints (see also here, here, and here).

Old Gadfly:  There is a lot to unpack in what you just said.  We all know that the Affordable Care Act, in concert with a bloated and highly inefficient, government-run Veterans Administration healthcare system, has swept in a nearly fatal blow to America’s healthcare system.  So, let’s focus on the “war weary” comment.

AM:  First of all, you will not hear complaints from those who actually wear the uniform of our armed forces.  And, they represent only 1% of our population.  Add another 6% for those who are living and have worn a military uniform.  The complaints come from the ranks of the remaining 93% who have been kept safe by that 7%.  Imagine:  only 7% have invested their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to preserve our freedoms.

Old Gadfly:  They understand what is at stake.  I recall a very powerful reflection by General Douglas MacArthur, who fought in World Wars I and II, the Korean Conflict, and other expeditions and conflicts. 

On May 12, 1962, MacArthur spoke about “Duty, Honor, Country,” to the Cadet Corps at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  As we talk about America’s “war-weary,” there is a particular passage in MacArthur’s speech that especially resonates with those of us who have actually served in our profession of arms:

The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  We seem to have lost that sense of leadership among our civilian political leaders.  Look at how our nation turned on George W. Bush.  Armed with a bipartisan Joint Resolution from Congress, Bush had the courage to actually force the removal of a fascist tyrant to allow an educated population an opportunity to advance the concept of self-governance.  Sure, the effort was far from perfect.  But, when members of a political faction realized they could not stomach Bush’s 90% public approval following the 9-11 attacks and then the more than 70% when attacking Hussein, they had to politically assassinate Bush as indicated by an internal memo by Senator Jay Rockefeller (the memo was originally released by the Hill.com, but has since been removed).

Old Gadfly:  What we are witnessing is how political elite have shaped a war-weary narrative for political purposes.  This political faction was very successful in convincing America that the wars we were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan were wrong and immoral—because Bush, a Republican, made the decision to commit our armed forces to these endeavors.  They conveniently forget the political momentum that had developed well before Bush entered the picture.

IM:  Then, when we see how national debt now exceeds our GDP, for the first time in our history, we seem powerless to reverse the pattern of behavior that got us to this point.  Labor participation rate is still the lowest since 1978.

Old Gadfly:  Speaking of 1978, international and national conditions called for courageous and wise leadership.  Just the other day, I located the First Inaugural Address that Ronald Reagan gave on January 20, 1981, and listened very closely. 

 

AM:  Reagan spoke of American heroes, a characteristic unique to being an American.  He also understood that peace could only be secured through strength, economically and militarily.  Here is a telling picture of shifting priorities based on government budget data between 1962 and now:

So, you see that our investment in preserving liberty is becoming overshadowed by a push for greater dependency on “entitlements” controlled by the government.

IM:  Obama either does not comprehend the same concepts and principles advanced by Reagan, or he has a completely different vision of America—one that needs no heroes because political elite, at the helm of a large and powerful central government, will provide what Americans need.
 

          Old Gadfly:  Reagan’s leadership was unifying, uplifting, and constructive.  Even more so than in 1981, we badly need a Reagan today.  Has America lost its capacity for heroic behavior?  I hope not. 

Accountability Is Bittersweet

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, last month, I promised a strategy for how to redeem America’s political quagmire.  The strategy is simple:  American citizens must demand accountability.

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told a Congressional committee this last week that she was accountable for the rollout of the healthcare insurance exchanges.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  If Secretary Sebelius admits to being accountable, did she offer to resign?

IM:  She was specifically asked this question, and she said, “no.”

Old Gadfly:  So, if she admits to being accountable, what does “being held accountable" mean?

AM:  I would submit that if you are an American public servant in today’s bloated government, accountability means little to nothing.

Old Gadfly:  Amazingly, Watergate still serves as the notable example of corruption in government.  Yet, Nixon resigned.  Many of his aides were prosecuted.  Years later, after a spiritual epiphany, Chuck Colson turned himself in for obstruction of justice during the Watergate scandal.  He was convicted and served time.  He didn’t need to turn himself in.  Yet, as a man of character, Colson sought reconciliation with his conscience by holding himself accountable to the American people.  Colson shared his experience with the cadets of the United States Air Force Academy on November 17, 1993, nearly 20 years ago.  He opened his remarks with this statement:  “The breakdown of character is the number-one crisis in America.”

AM:  Now, we talk about other crises, like the 2008 financial crisis, the increasing inequality gap, and so forth.  Yet, Colson is so right in his assessment.  The character crisis of 1993 is minuscule compared to the absolute corruptness of character today, fueled either by greed in the private sector or power in the public sector.

IM:  I suspect this is what Pope Francis is implying when he said “We [the Catholic Church] cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.”

Old Gadfly:  What do you think Pope Francis meant by “we have to talk about them in a context”?

IM:  I think he means people find themselves in situations where the choices may be very limited and difficult.  The context means understanding the environment and conditions that that may be beyond an individual’s control, and that constrain the choices an individual can reasonably make. 

Old Gadfly:  Excellent point, IM.  I recall discussing some of these considerations in our conversation earlier this year about the reification of marriage.

IM:  Building upon these notions about context, are children more or less inclined to make bad choices when they grow up in a loving and virtuous family?  I think we know the answer.  A loving and virtuous family provides boundaries and rules for life, such as “the golden rule,” “the Ten Commandments,” “the Tau,” and so forth.  Children learn manners and respect for other people.  Unfortunately, the concept of family has been under assault in America.  The following Table compares poverty rates by family type in 2006 (the last year Republicans controlled Congress) and 2012.

AM:  The pattern reveals two important distinctions.   First, single parents are more likely to be below the poverty level, with single-mother families showing significantly higher rates.  Single-mother families are five times more likely than married couple families to be below the poverty level.  The second distinction is that the percent of the population below the poverty level has significantly increased since 2006:  9% for single-mother families, 24% for single-father families, and 35% for married-couple families.

IM:   These dynamics clearly explain why a certain party claims to protect women’s rights.  This party has been in power for nearly seven years now.  When will this single-mother voting demographic understand that a “protected class” and entitlement contract does not improve their conditions?  To the contrary, it worsens them.

AM:  Are we digressing, Gadfly?

Old Gadfly:  Not at all.  You and IM are describing facts that can help to articulate the context for the American political quagmire and how it can be remedied through accountability.  Unfortunately, for many on the political left, the facts will not matter if they do not fit their mental frame.  Many single-mothers are convinced by Democrats that Republicans, and even worse, Tea Party members, are committed to making life miserable for them.  Yet, historical data does not support this mental frame. 

Let’s look at the broader picture.  We look to the President of the United States for character-based leadership.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of hope and change.  He claims to be fighting for the middle class and that his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, will bring affordable healthcare to millions who have not had it.  He may have had good intentions, but his approach has had adverse outcomes.  Fighting for the middle class means advocating policies that give them jobs, not entitlements.  This is very consistent with the Catholic Church’s notion of social justice as explained in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.  Item 76 states, “Economic decisions and institutions should be assessed according to whether they protect or undermine the dignity of the human person. Social and economic policies should foster the creation of jobs for all who can work. . ..”  Item 77 states, “Welfare policy should reduce poverty and dependency, strengthen family life, and help families leave poverty . . ..”  As your poverty data reveals, the demographic impacted the most are married-couple families.

IM:  Data indicate economic decisions and policies under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress have “undermined the dignity of the human person” and have increased “poverty and dependence.”  The next graphic show actual labor participation rate (62.8% as of October 2013) is the lowest in 35 years.

The next graphic shows the average number of weeks unemployed (and drawing government-funded unemployment compensation) over the past 35 years.  The number peaked in October 2012 at 39.9 weeks.  Last month the rate was 36.1% and corresponds to the increasing number of “discouraged workers” who have exhausted unemployment compensation.  Under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress, dependency on the government has more than doubled.

The next graphic shows the number of Americans having to resort to part-time jobs.  As of October 2013, this number includes 8,050,000 Americans.  Complicating this particular labor statistic is that part-time jobs do not provide benefits, such as healthcare.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

Finally, the following graph shows the number of Americans who are classified as “discouraged” by the Labor Department.  These are individuals who want a job but believe no jobs are available.  The number peaked in December, 2010 with 1,318,000 individuals.  The number of discouraged workers as of October 2013 is 815,000.  These numbers are in addition to those listed as unemployed or part-time only.  Again, the numbers have more than doubled under the Obama Administration and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

AM:  These data clearly indicate the Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are failing to achieve positive social justice outcomes as encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Old Gadfly:  This is true.  Now, let’s look at a major policy that aggravates these circumstances:  the Affordable Care Act, that is, Obamacare.  Now that the government has reopened, the main news cycle topic is Obamacare, in particular getting individuals on insurance policies through the government website.  The website to this day is not working well.  And, we hear reports that most of the individuals signing up through the “exchanges” qualify for government subsidies or Medicaid.  Millions who had insurance have been dropped by their insurance companies because the policies did not meet Obamacare standards.  Many are discovering their options are more expensive.

IM:  President Obama did apologize in an interview on November 7 with Chuck Todd of NBC News.

Old Gadfly:  His apology was a superb example of sophistry.  Here is what he said:  "I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me."  He did not say “based on mandates in the Affordable Care Act.”  He said, “based on assurances they got from me.”  Think about what he is implying:  “People are losing their insurance and/or doctors because I, President Obama, said they can keep their doctors or insurance plans if they like them.”  Since Obama believes there is nothing wrong with the mandates in Obamacare, then people must be losing their insurance because insurance companies want people to lose their coverage despite assurances from President Obama.  This is consistent with his Freudian slip later in the interview when he said, “Now that -- you know, having said that -- given that I've been burned already with -- a website -- well, more importantly, the American people have been burned by -- a website that has been dysfunctional.”  I’m glad he added “the American people.”  But, it was an after-thought.

AM:  Ironically, none of this would be an issue had Reid and Obama “compromised” in September by agreeing to delay the individual mandate for a year.  Politically, this compromise was not feasible for the progressive Democrats because it was important to shut down the government in order to blame Republicans.  I think we argued a good case for what actually happened here in our October 18, 2013 discussion, “Obama’s Rubicon.”

Old Gadfly:  So, where is the accountability for the dismal economy?  Admitting mistakes might be a good first step.  Alan Greenspan does a great deal of admitting mistakes in a brilliant analysis of the global (yes, global—this was more than a U.S.-only manifestation) financial crisis of 2008 in a recent Foreign Affairs article, “Never Saw It Coming:  Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists by Surprise.”  In essence, Greenspan is critical of existing macroeconomic forecasting models (currently based on Keynesian principles), and calls for updated models that factor in herd behavior and investment risk factors.  Of course, these models are for policy-makers in government.

AM:  Speaking of risk, doesn’t Obamacare present a major risk to our economy?

IM:  More than people know.  Just imagine the damage already done.  Millions have lost their insurance.  Millions are being added to subsidized programs.  Remember, “subsidized” means taxpayer revenue filtered through the government. 

Old Gadfly:  Who should be held accountable here? 

IM:  Obama cannot run for reelection.  History will hold him accountable, possibly equating him to a modern Sisyphus, a chronically deceitful King of Ephyra. 

AM:  Yet, there are many elected officials who collaborated in the creation of the Obamacare monster, even though most of them were clueless as to what was in the legislation. Speaker Pelosi advertised this notion when she said we needed to “pass the bill to know what was in it.”  These irresponsible individuals can be held accountable in the 2014 elections.  Here is the list of Senators and Representatives who voted for Obamacare, who did not vote to repeal any of its provisions, and who are up for reelection in 2014:

            IM:  What is challenging about the relationship between elected officials and their constituents in some cases is a case of “self-fulfilling prophesy.”  For example, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee represents Houston, Texas.  Houston represents constituents heavily in need of government subsidies, such as Medicaid.  How could she vote against Obamacare?  Yet, “going along to get along” on the government dole did not benefit Detroit.  Is this scenario what “you pay me now, or pay me later” implies?

AM:  Politicians ignore “the context” and people they represent suffer because of their blind lust for power.  Politicians play and the people pay. 

Old Gadfly:  All good observations, gentlemen.  Now, despite political and cultural differences, I believe people throughout the world generally look to America to lead the way beyond current circumstances.  Don’t forget, the economic woes afflicting America are being experienced throughout the world.  Right now, Iceland, which has gone through what America is experiencing, seems to understand the importance of accountability as a means for moving forward.  Icelanders have assumed sovereignty and are now codifying a new government. 

            IM:  Accountability seems to be a backward-looking activity.  We need leaders to look forward in order to move our nation beyond its current circumstances.

            Old Gadfly:  True. And, this is where Pope Francis’s “context” is so important.  Politicians of the progressive movement operate from a normative worldview.  They see the world the way “it ought to be” and set out to make it so.  As we have discussed numerous times, George Lakoff assures his progressive cohort that it is this frame that matters; facts are merely convenient or irrelevant.  The character-based leaders we need are idealists grounded in reality.  These leaders must understand the context that bounds possibilities before advocating policies that advance the human condition.  These leaders understand, as God intended, the power of individual freedom.  These leaders understand that governments merely “promote the General Welfare,” as prescribed in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Governments do not “provide” welfare.  Welfare is a condition that results from cooperative efforts among individual citizens and the institutions of which they form, where government, whether federal, state, or local, is merely one among numerous institutions.  For example, corporations and small businesses are institutions.  Government regulation can enable or constrain the extent to which corporations and small businesses can operate to create wage-paying jobs and wealth for communities and the nation.  Right now, government regulation and the suffocating effect of Obamacare are heavily constraining corporations and small businesses.  The graphs we examined earlier are strong evidence of this constraint.

            Character-based leaders understand the importance of education.  Yet, today’s progressive approach to education is to program our children with a certain set of values, bounded by political correctness, to shape the way they see the world.  C. S. Lewis observed this approach as early as the 1940s and sounded an alarm about the “conditioners” and the “conditioned” in his book, The Abolition of Man.  Character-based leaders would understand that an authentic education is based on the Latin root verb, “educare,” which means “to draw out.”  Educators then should facilitate this process of “drawing out” individual capacity to love others at the level of agape and to advance original thought and invention.  Jesus “drew out” such a capacity of agape in His Sermon on the Mount (and its Beatitudes; Matthew 5:1-12).  Jesus inspired individual accountability as a liberating commitment.  This notion is elegantly described in the parable about Zacchaeus, the wealthy tax collector, in Luke 19:1-10.

            As Chuck Colson demonstrated in his actions, accountability is more than rhetoric.  Authentic accountability, while bittersweet, is a liberating experience that can benefit the advancement of the human condition.  We should demand it for ourselves as character-based citizens, and as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and neighbors; and, we should demand it from those in public service who choose to serve the citizens.

            AM:  It looks like we all have a lot of work ahead of us.

            Old Gadfly:  Yes, and it must start with each of us right now.