Civic Morality: Part I Introduction

 

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea." James Madison in the Virginia Convention.

            Our current post-post-modern culture eschews any discussions of morality, personal or civic. Yet the corrosion or weakening of civic morality produces grievous effects in our cultural and civil life, and I believe a return to or strengthening of civic-morality would address many of the problems our nation faces. As a practicing Christian, I have often avoided discussions of Civic Morality, thinking any such discussions tainted by a lack of emphasis on the Bible. I was quite wrong in my approach. When we abandon the concept of civic morality and instead embrace a more nihilistic or laissez-faire approach to societal interaction, we head down a road which leads away from a well-functioning society and good governance.

Our current struggles would be eased by the embrace of civic morality. But what exactly is civic morality? As defined by PhD Herzog Civic morality is the belief that engaging in social life is good coupled with acting in ways that are intended to benefit others beyond the self and ultimately to promote public good. Patricial Herzog PhD in “Handbook of the Sociology of Morality, Volume 2” Halman and Gelissen go on to further distinguish civic morality from personal morality by describing civic morality as having to do with activities such as public law compliance, respect for public order, and obedience to norms and rules, in “Values in Life Domains in a Cross-National Perspective.” While these are excellent starting points, I believe we should go on to lay out some of the foundational beliefs and activities that make up civic morality.

I would define civic morality in the following way: Civic morality is a constellation of beliefs and behaviors shared by a society or culture that shape and undergird acceptable norms of behavior within that society and that promote the good or betterment of all its members. I’m not talking about a moral code arising from  a specific religious practice or affiliation. Instead, I want to examine core values that a culture or society seeks to inculcate from one degree to another in all its members to better facilitate the smooth functioning of society and the overall betterment of all its members. While a society or culture will not always have full consensus regarding the exact definition of civic morality, a general consensus keeps a society or culture working together for the benefit of all its members. Over the next few weeks, I will post a series of essays discussing civic-morality. In these essays, we will examine truthfulness, courageousness,  faithfulness (personal and corporate), generosity, kindness, civility, cooperation, patience, and forgiveness. While there are many others, these nine virtues, when embraced, taught, and reinforced by a society or culture, help shape a state in which the most people benefit from and grow. Examining these traits as practiced by a culture helps us understand their importance and provides insight into how we might go about encouraging them.

As we head into the coming elections, thinking through the importance of civic morality and how various candidates embrace and represent these traits weighs heavily on my mind. Our current political process, so heavily influenced by party affiliation and well-heeled and often shadowy doners, gives little thought to the moral fitness of a candidate. This is a problem that afflicts both parties, exerting a pernicious and corrosive effect on public policy and governance. Too many of our office holders, untethered to any fixed societal moral code, make decisions that effect millions of people across the nation. Frequently these policy decisions benefit a small handful of political allies and are injurious to many others, sometimes even the majority of the electorate. We need to evaluate our candidates on the fitness of their civic morality. At its best, government in a representative republic requires compromise, the give and take of our political process. Even though for many citizens compromise is a dirty word, effective and good governance requires it. Those candidates who best exemplify our civic-morality possess the character needed to navigate the often-murky waters of government. We need to evaluate candidates on their character more than their pronouncements of party fidelity. This is why a return to character matters and civic-morality is so very important. Additionally, civic-morality undergirds the smooth function of our society, culture, business. All of the values listed above enable us to work together with some degree of confidence in our neighbors and business partners. Embracing them and encouraging their growth will improve all of our lives, daily and long term.

Please leave a comment, like, or dislike. 

Regime Change Anyone Part II

 

            Regime change. Coming from President Trump and his cabinet, it sounds nice and easy, kind of like changing my socks; or on a bad day like changing my cell service provider. Our recent forays into the muddy waters of regime change raise fundamental questions about our long-term goals and reliability as a member of the global community. Politicians and pundits toss around the phrase without explaining the specifics of what takes place during a regime change. During a regime change people die, sometimes very many innocent people. Often chaos comes in to rule after our “surgical strikes” that remove the leadership we find abhorrent. We may kill the immediate leadership which has crossed us one too many times; but, the societal forces and practices that led to the evil regime remain in place and usually propel a like individual or group into positions or power and authority. If we are lucky, the new regime will be more amenable to our geopolitical whims. But we rarely stay around long enough to effect any true cultural changes, and we may not be particularly good at inculcating good change. Why this change and why now?

            No one can reasonably say that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a good leader. Under his rule Iranians suffered and thousands of innocents across the region died. He and his cohorts engaged in state sponsored terrorism, using violence or the threat of violence to achieve power, influence, and wealth. Where was our moral outrage then? Was it simply because he and his fellow rulers refused to give up their goal of achieving a nuclear weapon? That is a legitimate concern. Such a powerful weapon in the hands of such a reckless ruler should concern all of us. But what comes next should concern us as much.

            Who will take their place? How will Iran rebuild, or will they become the next cauldron of pain, frustration, and anger simmering until it boils over once again? I see that our President and his various mouthpieces are seeking to distance our nation from any responsibility to restore Iran to some sort of normalcy. Having participated in nation building, I understand the desire to avoid entanglement in such a difficult and long-term task. But it seems to me that we have an interest in helping Iran shed its past and take its place among the community of nations as a prosperous country with responsible leadership charting its path. By abandoning Iran now, we risk turning loose an angry bully in an already tense portion of the globe.

            Here is the worst part for us. We are at risk becoming a global bully ourselves. Many world leaders must be wondering who is next on our President’s list? Is this a new form of “gunboat diplomacy?” Are we returning to a world order in which we simply pummel weaker nations with airpower until they submit to our desires? If we embrace this style of diplomacy, we risk abandoning the higher principles to which we have historically aspired. Obviously, we have often missed the mark; however, we have at least tried to listen to our “better angels.” We castigated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his henchmen for years, deriding their actions as state sponsored terrorism. When we so easily resort to violence to achieve our national goals, we are dangerously close to engaging in the same type of behavior ourselves. I understand that the Iranian leadership has a long history of obfuscation to avoid compliance; yet, does killing off the leadership of the country move us toward the goal of responsible behavior? In any military operation innocents perish simply due to proximity. Even in the most carefully targeted attack, innocent bystanders are wounded, often succumbing to their wounds. Families and friends carry those scars which frequently metastasize into the next generation of terrorists bent on revenge. We cannot forget them, or the deep wound we are inflicting upon our own national psyche or spirit.

            Every bomb we drop, every missile we fire, every target we obliterate further corrodes our national psyche. As a nation we become more brutish akin to those we claim are the aggressors. There are situations in which a nation must resort to force; however, we must do so only after thoughtful deliberation and with a cogent plan for what we will do once the rounds stop going back and forth in earnest. To use our military might to force out a regime which we do not like, or causes us problems, degrades our national spirit. We already suffer from the ills attendant to modern Western culture. We must stop and think very carefully about the path we have chosen. I say that we must return to a foreign policy which embraces diplomacy and is willing to work overtime to engage our fellow global inhabitants in the practices which lead to more civilized behavior. 

Allies: Condemnation or Cooperation

 

            I watched the Twin Towers collapse on a TV in the Operations (G-3)section of First Armored Division, 1AD Old Ironsides, in Wiesbaden, Germany. Like everyone else, the sight of the towering office buildings collapsing in dust and rubble horrified me. I knew that my world would never be the same…and it wasn’t. A few days later, I was among those invited to the German Army headquarters for a briefing by their division commander (please note that the German Army has restructured greatly since 2001 and I’m not sure if the Panzer Division headquarters is still near Wiesbaden.).

            The German Commanding General gave the opening remarks. Here is a summary of what he said, “For years, you stood between us and aggression by the Soviet Union. Your presence secured our safety. We owe you a significant debt. Now, we can in some small way repay a portion of that debt. We consider the recent attack on New York an attack on us. We understand that you will need help orchestrating your response. You have all my resources available to help in the upcoming operations. Please know that I am the only one who can say “no.” No one on my staff has the authority to say “no.” If they do, all you have to do is pick up your phone and call me. My phone number is…”

            While my work did not require much from the German Army. Some of my peers reported great support and assistance when they asked. What I did see was German soldiers replacing our MPs at checkpoints, base entry gates, and on patrol in on our bases and housing areas. I also witnessed the Bundesbhan (German Railroad), rearranging schedules to allow us the ability to quickly move material to the ports. If you’ve ever lived or traveled in Germany, you know what a sacrifice it is to disrupt train schedules. At the ports our ships were given priority. Our allies, the Germans, sacrificed greatly in support of our operations. This is something we should never forget.

            When I deployed to Iraq in the Spring of 2003, I fought alongside our NATO partners and several other nations who joined in the fray, supporting us with their lives and treasure. Later after 1AD redeployed to Germany, I served in Combined Joint Task Force 7, CJTF-7. I well remember the day when our Italian contingent suffered a significant attack, losing a significant number of men. We all mourned the loss together. I went outside the wire with Australian and British armies. I never felt like I was serving with second-rate soldiers. In a later deployment to Iraq, I served in Multi-National Corps Iraq, MNC-I. Again, I served alongside Canadians, Australians, British, and Samoans. All allies dedicated to supporting us with their lives and their treasure. I learned to depend upon them for their support and professionalism. This is something we should never forget.

            In a later assignment, I served in United States Army South, USARSO. In this assignment I served alongside our partners in South America. I went on counter-drug operations with various allies including, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Colombians, Bolivians, Brazilians, and the French. Again, united to stem the flow of narcotics into our nation, all these allies sacrificed to help us. I remember standing in a forward base in Bolivia training their soldiers on anti-mine procedures. These men risked life and limb daily for almost no pay. Their uniforms were threadbare and their equipment ancient…but well maintained. They were our allies in the ongoing war on drugs. This is something we should never forget.

            Again in a later assignment, I served in United States Army North ARNORTH, a component of NORAD-NORTHCOM. I was privileged to serve alongside Canadians, protecting our nations against a possible aggression from across the North Pole. These professional men and women helped us guard our freedom. This is something we should never forget.

            Recently I’ve seen many postings denigrating our allies. They usually focus on two things: one a lack of commitment in the form of time, effort, and particularly money and two a lack of cultural commonality. I’d like to address both issues.

            While it is true that for years most NATO member nations did not reach the desired military spending level of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in recent years their spending has increased. Currently all nations spend the desired 2% with six spending over 3%. The changing world situation and President Trump’s efforts have generated this increase. As a point of comparison, the U.S. spent about 3.2% of GDP in 2025. While our total expenditure dwarfs the rest in raw dollars, in percentage of GDP we’re not that far ahead of our fellow NATO allies. As the global situation increased in volatility, our allies have responded appropriately. We must remember that national interests, as perceived in the country, govern such decisions. Their culture may or may not be as willing to devote precious resources to military efforts.

            Many people seem suddenly concerned about cultural differences. Here, I’d like to share the Marrium-Webster definition of ally as a noun:

1.     a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2.     one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle

You will note that neither definition includes discussion of shared cultural values. I can attest to the fact that when the bullets snapped past my ears, I never checked on the cultural mores of my allies. All I really cared about was did they have my flank and were they putting rounds downrange in earnest. Yes, it is easier to work with someone who shares my cultural ideas, but it is not required. One of the great lessons all soldiers learn is that mission focus is paramount and at the end of the day, you can successfully work with someone who views the world quite differently than you do. Once while working with the Canadians, I found that their field rations included a small bottle of wine! Serving with the Brits and Aussies, I had to make the difficult cultural adjustment to the daily beer ration. Some cultural sacrifices are greater than others. I have worked with people from all over the globe with quite divergent backgrounds and beliefs. Some even became my friends. I needed them and they needed me.

            Our world is vastly more complex and interconnected than most of us think. We cannot, and should not, seek to either go it alone or bully others into submitting to our desires. We need one another. Cooperation requires listening and sometimes sacrifice. We need to stop feeding our isolationist tendencies and instead broaden our view and roll up our sleeves and work with others toward our shared goals and missions.

Why Laws Are Important

 

“Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop if you wanted to?” Katie Rogers, reporter for the NY Times

“Yeah, there’s one thing: my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me. And that’s very good. I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” President Trump

            I chafe at rules, laws, policies, and the like. I always have. Laws govern my behaviors, curtailing some and requiring others. I’d rather be left to my own devices, my own morality; however, society…civilization…needs laws to keep me in check. Laws protect the weaker from the rapacious designs of the stronger. Laws make civilization possible. Without laws, it is truly a Darwinian world in which the stronger crush the weaker in a never-ending quest for more power and more riches. So, it gives me great pause when I hear President Trump, or any other president for that matter, evoke his own morality as a behavioral and policy guide.

            A casual examination of President Trump’s life reveals a lack of moral compass in his personal, professional, and political life. His public behavior and pronouncements reveal a man unrestrained to the norms of modern civilized behaviors. His moral compass is badly skewed away from honorable conduct or trustworthy decision making. Self-serving and venal, he has a tenuous relationship with the truth. Unfortunately, he is not unusual in his moral failure. A brief read of history or a quick look in the mirror reveals our own moral culpability. Sadly, all of us need constraints and guidelines, things to keep us from giving in to our baser instincts. This is why it is so concerning to hear our President claim the morality needed to shape and constrain his decision making.

            Of course, we want a national leader who is willing to make bold decisions when the situation requires; but, we also want leaders who understand that not every impulse is worthy of action. Leaders must understand that laws exist to protect us from our own malignant urges. Simply wanting to do something is not justification. Sometimes other priorities or principles take precedence over our immediate gratification. Over millennia we’ve developed a legal construct that helps guide us, restricting us when necessary.

            All men and women who aspire to high public office have the firm conviction that they have the drive, intellect, and ability to bring order out of chaos. I am much the same. That personal conviction is part of what drove me from being a Private to Lieutenant Colonel in the Army. I truly believed that I had what it took. Leaders need that kind of personal drive and belief to succeed; however, they also need to understand that laws constrains them for good reason. History tells us that left to our own devices, we tend to behave badly, making selfish and poor decisions. We need constraints and restraints. Our president is no different. He needs laws and politeness to reign in his baser instincts.

 

I Want It…

 

“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” Stephen Miller to Jake Tapper on CNN

            Normally one would take such a pronouncement as mere bar-stool-blather or water-cooler commiseration and dismiss it out of hand; however, this statement came from a Mr. Stephen Miller, a close confidant and advisor to the President of the United States. Mr. Miller and the President have gone on record as being willing to take Greenland from Denmark by force if necessary. Such statements are the antithesis of modern American political and cultural thought. Of course, some will rightly point out that America did occupy the continent, taking it from various peoples and nations by force. But we’ve long since shed such violent and reprehensible proclivities. Turning back the clock is not a real possibility; however, resurrecting such blatantly imperialistic policies is not what civilized nations do.

            By Mr. Miller’s logic, I could walk down the street and take my elderly neighbor’s home, which is newer and larger than mine, and his truck, which is also newer than mine. I’m bigger, stronger, haler, heartier, and more vigorous. So, it is my right in the “real world” to take what I want, even if it does not belong to me. Every parent of more than one child has had to teach the lesson that you cannot just take something that belongs to your brother or sister. Saying that we can just take Greenland because we are stronger and have a bigger military would be a return to a darker time, one in which the strong relentlessly preyed on the weaker.

            Being a civilized nation means we respect laws, national and international. We do not traverse the globe bullying weaker nations. Yes of course, you may trot out times in which we did not behave appropriately, and we bear national shame for such behavior. That does not in any way excuse moral failure today. It is disgraceful for our elected and appointed officials to publicly or privately speak of such things. Denmark is a long ally, standing with us during the long years of the Cold War. They played a part in deterring aggression by the U.S.S.R. For us to treat them in such a callous fashion is disgraceful and unacceptable. It is a moral failure for our government and nation to accept or support such belligerent and selfish ideas.

            Some will say that this is mere posturing an attempt to force a negotiated settlement. Again, this is not how a civilized nation treats its partners and allies of long standing. Mr. Miller is not an elected official. He is a close advisor to the President, enjoying direct access to the Oval Office and the influence to shape policies internal and external. His speech is thoughtless in the extreme and not representative of what I believe is in the best interests of our nation and the larger global community. As a nation with aspirations of positive global influence, we must raise the hue and cry for a repudiation of such imperialistic policy as a relic of a bygone era worthy only of being consigned to the ash-can of history and studied as a national moral failure.

Regime Change Anyone?

 

(Photo by NY Times)

            No one can legitimately claim Mr. Maduro is a good guy. He was a despotic leader who enriched himself through a variety of nefarious mechanisms, including drug trafficking and siphoning off monies desperately needed by his people; but did we do the right thing by capturing him in an early morning military raid?

            There are a variety of international legal levers we can pull to bring about justice in such a case. Of course, these levers take time and patience to move, something we as a nation do not like. We enjoy the visceral gratification of immediate action. We want what we want and we want it now. The business community makes millions of dollars every year off our national predilection towards immediate gratification. Engaging the international community in bringing such a man to justice takes great painstaking effort, diplomatic and legal. The Pentagon and its well-trained clandestine units and machinery are a phone call away from the White House. Videos of American helicopters crossing the night sky as explosions send up plumes of smoke make for excellent news footage, but will we achieve any long-lasting good from this? Unfortunately, there are significant reasons why taking such action will not pay off in the long or short term. Capturing the head of state will not usher in an era of justice, mercy, and good governance.

            Mr. Maduro did not surround himself with law abiding individuals, who were focused on justice and other such issues. Instead, he surrounded himself with individuals who either actively participated in his criminal activities or turned a blind eye to them. These powerful individuals remain in Venezuela entrenched in their positions of power and prestige. While they may keep a lower profile in the coming months, they owe their riches and influence to infamous activities. We may have removed the leader; but, there are many equally evil individuals eager to step into the void. If, as it seems, we’re primarily motivated by regaining profits from Venezuela’s decrepit oil industry we’re not motivated by our higher ideals. Like the man we removed, our motivation stems from self-interest, and the people of Venezuela will continue to suffer.

            Nation building is notoriously difficult and messy. I know. I spent multiple tours in Baghdad, seeking to rebuild a nation devastated by years of exploitation by Saddam and his ilk and international neglect. We’re good at nation-wrecking; however, not so good at nation-building. President Bush said repeatedly that we did not want to engage in nation building. Sadly, there is a problem with saying that after you have broken a nation. If you break something, you have a responsibility to make it right. I was in Baghdad, Iraq in 2003 during and after the invasion, returning later to continue in the effort. I well remember the chaos that ensued. Our government did not have a plan for what happened after, leaving it to the “boots on the ground” to figure it out. There was the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, but the state department sent people on a temporary basis, ninety days and then return. The transient nature of their deployment told the Iraqis that the U.S. government did not care and was not particularly interested in investing the time and effort it takes to build the moral and governmental systems needed for good governance. Based on recent public proclamations, I suspect that there is no real plan within the White House or State Department. This leaves a power vacuum which other equally heinous actors will fill.

            The President and State Department have indicated that if the Venezuelan government “does what we say,” things will go well. I do not think we can run a country via text, email messages, and occasional high-profile visits. Even if all we care about is the profits from Venezuelan oil-fields, we will be sadly disappointed at the results. No serious businesses want to invest in and work in a crooked chaotic environment. Our international influence is not elevated and national interests are not protected. I suspect that unless something changes, in the end the people of Venezuela will continue to suffer privations at the merciless hands of corrupt and powerful men.

Lawful Orders

 

I Matthew E. Robinson do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So Help Me God.

            “No Sir, we cannot do that. It will take a direct order from the MNC-I (Multi-National Corps-Iraq) Commander (CDR) for me to do that,” I replied after gulping a bit and taking a deep breath. I was the Chief of IO (Information Operations) plans serving in Baghdad.

            As I expected the Colonel, the Chief of Staff from one of our subordinate divisions, exploded in a tirade, which questioned my intelligence and general fitness for service. He’d come up to our headquarters to see me and convince me to support a plan that I felt was not only illegal, but also immoral.

            “I understand Sir. I also understand that I am not the one who can say “no” and make it stick, but the Commander is going to have to give me a direct order…and then I might have to refuse.”

            After hearing that, the Colonel stalked off hands clenched. I knew I’d not heard the last of this issue. Sure enough, later that week the division commander paid me a visit while chatting with the MNC-I CDR. The MNC-I CDR was a Lieutenant General (three stars), and the division CDR was a Major General (two stars). I was a Lieutenant Colonel…no stars. The conversation with the Division CDR was a repeat of the conversation with the Chief of Staff, except the volume was louder and my intelligence and fitness was even more suspect.

            “I’m going to talk to your commander,” roared the General as he strode away.

            “Yessir, I understand,” I replied to his rapidly disappearing back.

            Sure enough, the next day the CG (Commanding General) stopped me in the hall and asked me about the issue. “Matt, I need to know more details. Come by my office and brief me this evening.”

“Yessir,” I was stunned that he knew my name. I was just one of the minions buried deep within the command structure. But I went to his office as directed and provided the required briefing. He asked a few questions and then dismissed me, telling me that he would deal with it. I never heard of the issue again. I’ve always wished that I could have been there for the discussion; but, he was an excellent leader would not let a knuckle-dragging minion like myself witness that type of conversation.

The military life is fraught with challenges and dangers, physical, mental, and spiritual, especially when rounds are going back and forth in earnest. It is a crucible in which common citizens find themselves tested. Taken seriously, it burns away the dross, leaving a man or woman of character. The oath of enlistment, first written in 1789, despite occasional tinkering, remained largely unchanged until the Civil War. That conflict introduced language that sought to forestall going over to the Confederacy. It was changed to the more modern version in 1884, and that lasted until 1959 when it was modified slightly.

            When I was a young private, I did not expend much thought about the oath; however, as time passed and my responsibilities increased the oath became more important. Eventually upon commissioning, the oath took on greater import in my life and provided a guide as I sought to navigate the hazardous career that I had chosen. Eventually I was asked to do something that violated my conscience and, I believed, the law. Refusing took courage; but, I had been taught that a good soldier does not simply follow orders. A good soldier measures his orders first against the Constitution and then against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, more commonly referred to as the UCMJ. I survived that first refusal with no repercussions.

            As time passed and I accrued more rank and responsibility, the tests grew more stringent, and the stakes grew higher until I had to face the wrath of a Major General. I’d always been told that as an officer, I needed to have enough moral character to walk away from my career over such an issue. I was thankful that my CDR had seen things my way. It might not have turned out good for me. Fortunately, my CDR was a thoughtful man who believed that doing the right thing was the right thing.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers need wise commanders who think carefully before they act, who weigh the issues and the ramifications of their orders before they issue them. There are many things we want to do in the heat of the moment, when rounds are snapping past, that may not be the best thing.

            During my first tour in Iraq, I called for illumination when taking fire while returning to the FOB. I was denied. Furious, I stormed into the TOC (Tactical Operations Center), demanding to know why I was denied only to find out the firing illumination rounds would have put innocent civilians at risk from the 155 round casing tumbling to earth. Later that same tour, I would stop a gunner from opening up with a 50 cal. in downtown Baghdad, knowing that a long burst from a heavy machine gun would send rounds through many walls of apartment blocks causing numerous innocent casualties, violating proportionality. Proportionality is the concept that you do not kill a fly with a sledgehammer. We settled that issue with small arms fires. What’s the point you might ask?

            We need thoughtful leaders who understand when subordinates question dubious orders. Sometimes the subordinate is incorrect, and the order must be followed as given. Sometimes the order is incorrect and must either be rescinded or amended. When lives, friendly, foe, and innocent civilians, are at stake, we must do our best to limit the carnage. We must be strong enough to take a deep breath and carefully examine the issues at hand. Punishing subordinates for simply asking for clarification or refusing to follow unlawful orders is not the trait of a good leader.