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.

Miserable Creatures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AM:  Thank God for red blooded Americans with NASCAR!

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

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

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

America’s Dreyfus Affair

Abstract:  Making sense of the political tension and division within America is no easy task.  For most Americans, we are experiencing conditions without precedent.  Yet, history has documented similar circumstances in the past.  Why not examine these recorded observations to ascertain what ever wisdom might be derived from such an analysis?  This article attempts such an examination in a conversation between Old Gadfly, an American citizen with an inquiring mind (IM), and a seasoned combat aviator with an inquiring mind (AM).  Gadfly then summarizes the discussion and offers two predictions.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, are you familiar with the Dreyfus Affair?

IM:  Yes, in 1894, a French Jewish artillery officer, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, was accused of spying, court-martialed, convicted of treason, and sentenced to life in prison at Devil Island.  Before imprisonment, he was paraded before the public where they shouted, “Death to Judas, death to the Jew.”  Two years later, evidence eventually surfaced that another French (non-Jewish) officer, Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy, was the actual traitor; Esterhazy was court-martialed but not convicted.  In 1899, Dreyfus was again court-martialed and again found guilty, yet was quickly pardoned.  Finally, in 1906, Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated in the French army.

AM:  This sentiment coincided with the anti-Semitism that permeated Western Europe, Russia, and even the United States.  For example, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a widely circulated publication that claimed Jews were colluding to dominate the world.  In Europe, the Rothschild family was particularly singled out because of its vast wealth.  In America, Henry Ford purchased and then distributed 500,000 copies of The Protocols within America.  Ford even published a series of anti-Semitic articles in the Dearborn Independent, a newspaper he owned.  In hindsight, historical facts now show that Ford materially contributed to a false narrative.

IM:  Ironically, today Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.  The nearly wealthiest man in the world is deliberately and aggressively consolidating the retail industry and possibly the news industry.  Bezos’ consolidation efforts crush competition and the novelty of diversity of ideas—not the left’s arbitrary distinction in terms of ethnicity, sexual orientation, and so forth.  Where is the opposition from the left?  Perhaps the answer is because The Washington Post is clearly anti-Trump.

Old Gadfly:    Do you see any similarities between The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and any other publication in America?

IM:  Yes,  the so-called “Russian Dossier” is a similar publication.  The Protocols document was a complete fabrication of lies; yet it had a huge impact in fueling anti-Semitism.  Hannah Arendt, in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism, identified the phenomenon of anti-Semitism as a critical seed in the emergence of totalitarianism, which included both forms of socialism--communism and Nazism.  Like The Protocols, the Russian Dossier also fabricated lies for effect.  The Dossier fueled the Russian collusion sentiment that still exists, especially in the justification for the current Mueller investigation. 

Old Gadfly:  In regard to the Russian Dossier, here are some questions the public deserves to know:  How did Senator McCain get word of the dossier?  Why did he unilaterally dispatch an aide overseas to get a copy?  Was this an act of collusion?  Should he be questioned in the same manner as Donald Trump, Jr., who met with a Russian lawyer by invitation?

AM:  Great questions, Gadfly.  It appears anti-Trump Republicans initially paid GPS Fusion (headed by Glenn Simpson) for opposition research against candidate Trump.  The research was then handed off to another paying customer—the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Further, “British-American businessman and anti-Kremlin crusader Bill Browder” claims GPS Fusion took money from the Russian government.  This is why Congress is now investigating the Russia GPS Fusion connection (collusion?).

IM:   Do you know who Bill Browder is?  He is a billionaire who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, has done extensive business in Russia.  He is now an anti-Putin activist, seeking justice for the conviction, torture, and murder of his Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.  Browder’s grandfather, Earl, headed up the American Communist Party, twice running unsuccessfully for President of the United States in 1936 and 1940.  Browder tells his story in his recently published book, Red Notice:  A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back to Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism.  She does an excellent job explaining how anti-Semitic sentiment contributed to the phenomenon of totalitarianism.  After the book’s release, she was very careful in responding to critiques to point out that “seeds” may have been more accurate than “origins,” because it is difficult to establish precedents for the unprecedented.  Yet, it was the hatred and contempt that coalesced against a perceived enemy that allowed the seed to crystallize over time.  In the early 1900s in Europe and Russia, the hatred and contempt crystallized among those on the collective left against those who had different beliefs and values such as those who appear to be aligned with individual liberty, private property, and free-market capitalism.  In today’s America, there are groups such as the New Black Panthers, Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other leftist groups characterized by anger and hatred. The left loves to claim the KKK and white supremacist groups are far right; but, they are not.  Historical records explain the true nature of these groups and they tend to be leftist—Marxian, Nietzschean, and so forth.  To suggest a white supremacist group is right-wing, conservative, or Republican is political heresy.  It is like certain politicians (e.g., Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, or Tim Kaine) advocating for abortion or same-sex marriage rights while also claiming to be devout Catholics.  In this case, progressive orthodoxy trumps church orthodoxy.

There is a new leftist hate group called Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement (check out the video).  Notice also, the accelerated aggressiveness of the Communist Party USA (until it’s taken down, the homepage has a headline:  “Can Trump Forge a New White Supremacist Governing Coalition?”).  Here is a print screen image of the homepage:

IM:  Another “seed” discussed by Arendt was imperialism--in the form of ideological world domination.  Arendt’s first chapter under the section on imperialism had an interesting title:  “The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie.”  In this case, the bourgeoisie represented those who controlled the centers of production (and wealth).  Bourgeoisie did not include the “aristocracy”—those in government roles—or the labor class (the proletariat in socialist orthodoxy).

Old Gadfly:  What can we learn from this?  How does it apply to today’s circumstances?

AM:  Obviously, it is very dangerous for business leaders to align with a particular political ideology.  And by ideology, I do not mean a political philosophy; I mean orthodoxy or dogmas that become moral truths.  Progressivism in America is an ideology—it believes in secular humanism, the redistribution of wealth, and other man-made rights (e.g., reproductive rights to justify abortion, sexual orientations) that are contrary to the laws of nature and the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Progressivism is coercive in that progressive values must become everyone’s values.  Those that resist are punished.  This is why the left, and not the right, has invented moral slurs for those who possess different values:  slurs such as homophobia, xenophobia, Islamophobia, misogynist, and so forth—modern equivalents of the phenomenon of anti-Semitism.  In 2006, Bernard Lewis argued antisemitism represents a special case of prejudice and hatred, that it is directed against people who are different from the rest and deemed to represent “cosmic evil.” This is why progressives such as UC Berkeley Professor George Lakoff feel compelled to indoctrinate the masses by publishing books with such titles as:  Moral Politics:  How Liberals and Conservatives Think.  Lakoff’s framework justifies explaining that conservative views are not only wrong, they are immoral.  This is also why those who are skeptical of the anthropogenic theory and so called “settled science” for climate change are labeled “climate deniers” and considered evil.  For interesting contrary “evidence” on the subject see recent Congressional testimony by Dr. John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

IM:  Given the rampant crony capitalism and corporate welfare that characterizes the current situation in America, there are now perverse incentives for the government aristocracy and the business sector to collaborate for the expansion of power and the perpetuation of that power.  Remember the “business world” reaction when then Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law?  The act was eventually amended to accommodate the demands of the LGTBQ special interest group who pressured businesses to boycott Indiana.  There have been other cases as well.  Last year the Seattle Seahawks chef faced similar pressures.  Recently, President Trump gave Congress six months to provide legislation related to the unconstitutional Presidential policy known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  A 31-year old Millennial, who happens to be the fifth wealthiest man in the world (for inventing a gossip platform—arguably a modern Marxist opium for the alienated masses), quickly organized a joint letter with roughly 300 business leaders representing the politically emancipated bourgeoisie to demonize Trump’s adult, well-reasoned constitutional action.  After all, authority for immigration policy rests on the legislative powers of the U.S. Congress, specifically articulated in Article I of the Constitution.

Old Gadfly:  It seems as though secular humanistic movements are aligning against America’s Judeo-Christian tradition.  Is this a modern “anti-Semitic” development?

IM:  If it is such a development, then it reflects concerns Arendt shared in a reply to a letter from Professor Eric Voegelin, another prominent political philosopher, in 1953.  The excerpt below talks about a lack of common interest and the atomization of society (something clearly reflected in social media phenomena):

For similar reasons and for the sake of distinguishing between ideas and actual events in history, I cannot agree with Mr. Voegelin's remark that "the spiritual disease is the decisive feature that distinguishes modem masses from those of earlier centuries." To me, modern masses are disintegrated by the fact that they are "masses" in a strict sense of the word. They are distinguished from the multitudes of former centuries in that they do not have common interests to bind them together nor any kind of common "consent" which, according to Cicero, constitutes interest, that which is between men, ranging all the way from material to spiritual and other matters. This "between" can be a common ground and it can be a common purpose; it always fulfills the double function of binding men together and separating them in an articulate way. The lack of common interest so characteristic of modern masses is therefore only another sign of their homelessness and rootlessness. But it alone accounts for the curious fact that these modem masses are formed by the atomization of society, that the mass-men who lack all communal relationships nevertheless offer the best possible "material" for movements in which peoples are so closely pressed together that they seem to have become One. The loss of interests is identical with the loss of "self," and modem masses are distinguished in my view by their selflessness, that is their lack of "selfish interests" (p. 81).[1]

In the following excerpt, Arendt emphasizes the danger of atheism:

I know that problems of this sort can be avoided if one interprets totalitarian movements as a new--and perverted--religion, a substitute for the lost creed of traditional beliefs. From this, it would follow that some "need for religion" is a cause of the rise of totalitarianism. I feel unable to follow even the very qualified form in which Professor Voegelin uses the concept of a secular religion. There is no substitute for God in the totalitarian ideologies - Hitler's use of the "Almighty" was a concession to what he himself believed to be a superstition. More than that, the metaphysical place for God has remained empty. The introduction of these semi-theological arguments in the discussion of totalitarianism, on the other side, is only too likely to further the wide-spread and strictly blasphemous modem "ideas" about a God who is "good for you"-for your mental or other health, for the integration of your personality and God knows what-that is "ideas" which make of God a function of man or society. This functionalization seems to me in many respects the last and perhaps the most dangerous stage of atheism (pp. 81-82).[2]

Old Gadfly:  How would you characterize these observations in relation to the American culture?

IM:  The idea of America, “our nation,” has been deeply rooted in an understanding of human dignity and the need for a political system to protect that dignity.  Donald S. Lutz, a political scientist at the University of Houston, conducted an analysis of archived documents between 1760 and 1805 to determine the source of influence in political thought during the founding of our nation.[3]  The number one source cited was the Bible with 34% of the citations.  The number two source, representing 22%, was a set of Enlightenment authors with Montesquieu topping the list.  The implication is that political thought inherent in the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.  It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that championed tolerance for faith, regardless of the religion or lack of religion.  The Declaration clearly established “self-evident” truths and rights—all men are created equal, endowed with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There was no implied source for these truths and rights.  Our founders explicitly identified the source:  “their Creator.”  In the early 20^th Century, members of the U.S. armed forces received citizenship training that was grounded in ethical and legal foundations.[4]  This 179-page manual includes an explicit explanation of the role philosophy and religion play in understanding individual liberty and the moral duty of citizenship.  Culturally, Americans predominantly affiliated with the Judeo Christian tradition, peaking in 1956 with 99% of surveyed Americans—71% Protestant, 25% Catholic, and 3% Jewish.[5]  Since 1956, the number of Americans affiliating with the Judeo-Christian tradition now represent 72%, a decrease of 27%--37% Protestant, 10% Christian nonspecific, 22% Catholic, 3% Jewish.[6]

Old Gadfly:  Arendt’s explanation of the decline of the Christian tradition combined with the political emancipation of the bourgeoisie established conditions for imperialism.  Imperialism for many is commonly understood to represent the colonization that European nations engaged in during previous centuries.  How would you explain imperialism in the 21^st Century?

AM:  Progressives in America and Europe believe in the power of central planning.  This is why they are strong advocates for the United Nations and other international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  In today’s vernacular, they are not imperialists; they are globalists.  This is why it is becoming more common to hear globalists, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, call themselves “citizens of the world.”  International institutions can be useful if understood as collaborative instruments in support of sovereign nations and people.  Unfortunately, progressives (globalists) see them as primary authorities.  Arendt reminds us that Soviet Communism and German Nazism were intended for world domination.  Progressivism and its central planners have a similar intent.  By the way, Hillary’s recent book title is What Happened.  A quick glance at the content reveals a lot of complaints about her struggle-bound presidential campaign and all the great ideas she had for policies across the board for social, political, and economic life for the masses.  I could not help but think that a better title for the book would have been My Struggle, but another figure in history already used that one.

IM:  Pretty clever, AM, on the book title observation!  But, then again, I noticed Samantha Power wrote the “Introduction” to the 2004 edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism.  The “Introduction” has two parts.  The first was a brilliant analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of Arendt’s thinking.  The second part revealed Power’s progressive and globalist nature.  I was not surprised then to recently learn that she participated on behalf of the Obama Administration in the “unmasking” of individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

Old Gadfly:   Let me summarize this excellent discussion and then close with two predictions:

Summary:  First, America’s Dreyfus Affair is an attempt by the leftist progressives to create anger, contempt, and hatred against Donald Trump and all that he symbolizes—to include Americans Hillary Clinton demeaned as “deplorables.”   Second, there are anti-Semitic-equivalent movements that need to be called out and diminished.  Third, there is an imperialistic manifestation in the form of the business sector aligning with the political ideology of progressivism, further compounded by the unholy alliances of crony capitalism and corporate welfare.  These developments should also be called out by virtuous customers and politicians.[7]   

          Prediction:  First, it is now becoming apparent that moral (not political) courage helped Trump get elected.  Ninety-three percent of Americans classified as “Spiritually Active, Governance Engaged Conservative Christians” voted for Trump.  Only 1% voted for Clinton. If Donald Trump survives the manufactured Russia collusion scandal, those who believed in his sincere and authentic vision of the American idea (“Make America Great Again”) will become greater in number and more courageous in fulfilling their moral duty, grounded in our Judeo-Christian tradition. Second, virtuous Democrat leaders will realize the opportunity they have to “heal” the anger, contempt, and hatred that is so prominent (and rampant) among those who vote Democrat.  However, this will only come about after a serious evaluation of the progressive “ideology” and its dogmatic principles that are intolerant of other ideas and values.

---

[1]  Arendt, H.  (1953). [The Origins of Totalitarianism]: A Reply, The Review of Politics, 15(1), 76-84.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Robert S. Lutz, The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1 (March 1984), 189-197.

[4] See 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

[5] Gallup Poll on Religion.  Retrieved on August 30, 2017 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[6] Ibid.

[7] See for example, Ken Buck, Drain the Swamp:  How Washington Corruption Is Worse Than You Think, (Washington, D.C.:  Regnery Publishing, 2017).