A Coarsening Culture

 

            Mr. Hegseth, SECDEF, recently announced that the Army would stream the execution of former Army MAJ Nidal Malik Hasan live. I thought we left such ghoulish spectacles behind at the close of the nineteenth century. What purpose does live streaming the execution of a convicted criminal serve?

            As a society we already struggle with an ever-increasing coarseness. Movies, television shows, and other media consistently push the boundaries of what is considered decent and acceptable. We regularly hear slurs and slights from political leaders that recently would have invoked censure and commendation. Politicians and other public figures compete for precious attention by spouting repugnant sound bites. We celebrated our nation’s 250^th birthday with a cage match on the White House lawn. Now in a singularly morbid twist our government plans to televise an execution by firing squad!

            Sometimes a nation or government must take the drastic step of executing someone for particularly heinous crimes, and killing thirteen people certainly requires drastic punitive action. Televising the execution will not bring anyone back. It will not bring a sense of closure to any of the family members of the victims. If they want to view the execution, then we can make appropriate arrangements for them; but, live-streaming it serves no useful purpose. Watching the violent end of a wasted life does not lift us up and make us a better civilization. Instead, it degrades us, corroding an already tattered sense of propriety. Instead of glorifying the violence, we should mourn the fact that we must still employ such means to bring about some sense of justice and retribution. Secretary Hegseth should consider the ramifications of televising such a gruesome event.

            Televising an execution displays the baser side of our culture. Somehow, we think it acceptable to take joy in the ultimate punishment of this man. No matter what he did, he remains a human and like all of us, death and its finality carries with it fear and dread. By televising his execution in some way, we turn him into a victim…a victim of our ghoulish and dark side, the side that finds some sort of joy in inflicting the ultimate, and in this case deserved, punishment. Creating a public spectacle out of this final act does not forward the cause of justice or create a serious inhibition against such horrific crimes. It only proclaims to the world that our nation is in league with Roman Bread and Circuses, ISIS snuff-films, and Hitlers pogroms against the Jews and other enemies of the state. All these regimes had one thing in common, the need to control their population through brutality.

Unfortunately, this is another example of the crass and coarse leadership we have come to expect from our current administration. We should not blame them. After all, as duly elected officials they merely reflect the culture they represent. We must work to recover a sense of decency in our national conversation. I certainly hope that we have not descended to the level of the bread and circuses of ancient decadent Rome.

            We must demand that the government cancel such a gruesome perversion of reality television. Barbarians embrace and enjoy bloodlust spectacle. This kind of voyeurism puts us in league with other brutes who seek to suppress any dissent through violent intimidation. It will serve as a training aid to any seeking to generate anger and hatred towards our nation. It will not generate fear and restraint on their part. They will be able to say, “Look, this is the kind of people that they are brutes and sadists motivated by bloodlust. We need to think long and hard before support such an act. It will exert a seriously corrosive effect on our national culture and provide great propaganda aid to those who seek to do us harm.

Check? Please!

“If the Republicans win the Senate and House, because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.” President Donald Trump Republican Convention 9 September 2026

               I do not often use the word “crass.” Most of the people I associate with tend to comport themselves decently. As usual in English, there are several definitions for the word crass. In this case, I’m using this definition found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values.” Such a promise coming from a sitting president is nothing but crass, possibly  illegal, or at least immoral.

               While this may not fit the legal definition of “vote-buying,” it certainly comes very close. Whatever the case, it reminds me of immature backyard play. In fact, this event surfaced a long-dormant memory. Once, a casual friend gave me a rather expensive toy. The expectation was that I would support him in neighborhood pick-up football games. Incensed that I would accept such a gift, my father made me march down E.N. 21^st and return the toy, apologize, and refrain from neighborhood football games for a couple of weeks. I learned a good lesson, having to return a cool toy and then watch everyone else have fun. My support was not for sale. I supported someone or something because of their inherent worthiness, not in exchange for cash or other favors. I’m no longer a little boy and am chagrined and insulted by this.

               I’m chagrined that one of the leading politicians of my country, the president in fact, would stoop to such insulting pandering behavior. I thought we left such behaviors behind with the late nineteenth century and the Tammany Hall debacles. Just in case you’ve slept since your last American history class, Tammany Hall was a political machine which exerted influence in New York City and was rife with corruption, often in the form of vote buying. In this country we do not purchase votes…at least I thought this the case. I imagine the raised eyebrows and shaking heads in governmental halls around the world, “Is this how the Americans think democracy is supposed to work?”

               In the early years of the twenty-first century, we ought to know better. We choose our elected officials for the ideas and programs they espouse. We expect them to employ certain plans designed to achieve results needed by much of the population. We do not grant them authority and power based on personal payment or kickback. This level of quid pro quo leads to a failed government which exists to enrich a powerful few at the expense of the populace in general. It is embarrassing for our president to stoop so low to secure his powerbase. It is also insulting.

               I am insulted that our President and the party he leads think that I am so ignorant as to accept this promise. Are they truly willing to add another trillion or so dollars to the national debt? Are they so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot think of persuasive arguments to remain in power? Do they think that I am so clueless as to accept this kind of bribery? These and other questions arise from such an empty promise. After all, I do not for a moment believe that President Trump or the Republican party will fund this. This is not the first time that the President has promised a check in the mail. This kind of statement indicates his low opinion of my intelligence. So, it  is quite insulting. So why do this?

               All I can think of is that he and his party prefer form over substance. They want to sound good without being good. Bereft of solid executable ideas, they willingly resort to pandering to our lowest instincts. We must reject these behaviors and the politicians who employ them. We deserve better. We desperately need better. It is time to march down the street and return the bribe. After all, that is what it is.

A Scary Pledge

 

"I pledge to the greatest president in the history of the United States that loves us so much he can't even breathe. That I will go out with my family, my friends. I'll do it anyway…I don't care if I am registered or not, I am going to cheat like hell like they do. There have never been bigger cheaters,…And if you don’t vote, you go to hell." An excerpt from President Trump’s speech at the Republican Rally/Convention 10 September 2026

               I understand political theater and rallies. They do not intend to inform or educate. Their purpose is to generate enthusiasm among party-faithful, to stoke the fires of partisan fervor in preparation for the upcoming election. Normally the speakers employ extreme rhetoric and hyperbole. This is to be expected and should surprise no one; however, such reckless speech quoted above makes one pause. There are some boundaries that politicians and other leaders should not cross.

               Leaders at all levels must set the highest moral standards. The content of our character matters, and our public utterances go far in revealing our character. Part of leadership is understanding, setting, and as required, enforcing standards of public behavior. When a leader publicly encourages, even as a joke, lying and cheating, we must stop and consider whether that person is fit for the trust required of public office and service. For a sitting president, who continually accuses his political opponents of cheating to encourage his own followers to cheat, even in jest, does nothing to either bring the nation together or to foster a properly functioning political and electoral system.

               While it is in the nature, the DNA, of political parties to separate and organize to gain power, a sitting President serves the entire nation. The President must work to draw our nation together, not increase the national divide. Sending out members of his party with the instructions to “cheat like hell” does not improve the national dialogue. It sows discord and mistrust among fellow citizens. Republican, Democrat, or Independent must work together to solve the problems we face. Accusing the other side of cheating without evidence works against true problem solving. We need leaders who understand that.

               True leaders work to build consensus not tear it down. Leaders understand that there is often more than one acceptable solution to a problem. Leaders also understand that usually we solve problems with some level of compromise. After all, the problems we face are complex and must answer the needs of multiple constituencies. Our nation is large, sprawling and filled with many diverse groups. True solutions, true progress, comes with multifaceted solutions. Continually demonizing “the others,” even in the context of a political rally, serves to make true broad-based solutions much harder to reach. Such language may serve to stir up the audience in a rally; however, it will not lead to the hard work necessary to build consensus and craft executable legislation. And isn’t that the ultimate political goal for our leaders, answers to the problems that so vex us.

               This is why we, as the electorate, need to hold leaders accountable for the words that they utter. When they use language to divide and alienate, we must reject them. We cannot let them sway us with such meaningless pandering. We are better than that. Of course we like to have our prejudices stoked. That does not take any real thought. We want and desperately need leaders that articulate a clear convincing plan for moving forward. Those who cannot, or will not, muster the intellectual courage to provide convincing options for the future require our “no” vote. Let the men and women who show the willingness and ability to work hard for our support and for our nation once elected step forward and seek our approval through the election process.

Civic Morality: Part III Courage

 

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines courage as: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty. We tend to limit courage to the realm of the military, first responders, agitators for social justice, and martyrs. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone needs courage. Life in community requires courage. Ask any parent who’s had to face down a teenager angry at the enforcement of necessary boundaries, or the teacher who must attend a meeting with a hostile parent over their child’s plagiarism or some other form of cheating. We are wrongheaded when we limit courage to life threatening situations. We all need courage to navigate the challenges life presents us. A society or culture that honors displays of courage, large and small, functions much better.

            We must always remember that courage is not the absence of fear, but the ability to control that fear and take the appropriate action despite it. We all face moments, large and small, where we must summon courage. The weary mother who faces down a defiant toddler when it would be much easier to give in, displays courage. The teenager who refuses to take part in risky behavior, possibly suffering ridicule, estrangement, and solitude, displays courage. The businessman who refuses to give a kickback to gain a lucrative contract, displays courage. The politician who casts a vote that is morally correct, but unpopular with their constituency, displays courage. The person who helps, or merely welcomes, a marginalized person displays courage. All these moments and many, many more require personal courage.

We require courage for smaller, individual, battles. Without personal courage, we often end up trapped by our own vices. It takes courage to admit you were wrong, ask for forgiveness, and when needed seek help. We all know individuals who, lacking the courage to confront their own weaknesses, end up skewing off the rails into corrosive and destructive behaviors. Facing our own moral turpitude requires courage and hard work. When we summon the courage to confront our own failure, we often find reservoirs of strength and commitment we never knew we had. Strengthening our own courage provides the strength we need to muster collective courage to right a societal wrong, especially a long standing one.

            Without courage, a society, culture, or nation loses its way, wandering from one transitory urge to the next. Sometimes a society finds itself ensnared in a morally indefensible behavior or practice. Even a casual reading of history reveals this sad tendency. Courage helps us correct these wrongs and maintain the long march towards a just and honorable society. Without courage the bullies win; whether you find them on the playground, schools and universities, the road, the boardroom, or halls of government. Courage stiffens our backbone in the face of a censorious society, which at its core is fearful of the change required to right a moral wrong seemingly embraced by the majority. Often a minority displays great courage in identifying a cultural wrong and demanding change. This kind of courage has propelled our nation and culture forward, helping us divest ourselves from great evils inside and out. The people who display such courage deserve our recognition and honor, not our villainization.

            As the election approaches, we must take stock of our courage, individually and as a society. Are so bound to a party as to blindly follow someone with obvious moral failings, failings of such a severity as to render them unfit for public trust? The courageous option is to take a stand for personal character and demand that a party put forward a responsible candidate or withhold your vote. It takes a courageous electorate to make a modern democracy work properly. Supporting a flawed candidate that says things we like to hear or is a member of our preferred party is a cowardly act, and one that produces a government that does not govern well. When enough of us develop the moral strength to say, “No,” to obviously flawed candidates and the policies they support, we will find that our government and culture function properly.

            Those courageous individuals who willingly take a stand for what is right, to say no when all around them say yes, need our support. We may want to simply look the other way in silence. That is cowardice. Instead, let us strengthen our commitment to be courageous individuals and stand up for what is right and for those who willingly step forward to right a wrong. As long as we continue to look the other way and let our fears and prejudices guide our decision-making processes, we will live in a desperately flawed society and under a government that does not serve the needs of the governed. And sadly, that is what we will deserve due to our lack of moral courage.

Civic Morality: Part II Truthfulness

 

As a culture we must embrace truth as the foundation or bedrock of our culture. It is impossible to build a successful culture when its members do not honor truth, personal and corporate. Reinvigorating or building Civic-Morality requires that we make an unbreakable commitment to truth, regarding as an unacceptable failure any attempt to mislead or obfuscate. We must recognize that the concept of malleable truth is merely a childish attempt to avoid uncomfortable facts. We may enjoy tossing out the phrase, “Well, all truth is relative,” but though it sounds erudite it merely disguises the fact that we do not have a good answer to a question or fact.

Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as ground truth. There are certain immutable facts which govern the physical world and human behavior. When we discard these, we undermine the smooth functioning of our society or culture. Truthful people ensure that the levers and mechanisms of society function properly.

Familial relations depend upon an adherence to truth. Marriage relationships require truthfulness in speech and in conduct. We have all seen marriages destroyed when one, or both, spouses head down the road of lying. Discarding the truth may result in an affair; but, an affair is not the only way lying destroys a marriage. Lying about finances can destroy a marriage as surely as infidelity. Parent child relationships will founder and eventually collapse when any member discards truth. Often families bury hidden secrets deeply, lying by projecting an air of bonhomie among all members. Truthfulness about their broken state would invite needed healing. Truth is the light that would shine into the darkness and drive out the pain inflicted by misrepresentation. Families are not the only societal component which relies upon truth.

The business community requires truth. Without truth, contracts are not worth the paper and ink they are printed on. Without truth, employees cannot depend upon their employers for pay or benefits. Without truth, employers cannot depend on their employees for a job well done. Every part of a business transaction, from planning, to procurement, to production, and on to delivery and sales, depends on all parties engaging in truth. Truthful interactions in all aspects of business provide the foundation of a smoothly working economy in which all parties may engage in normal business practices safely.

When we honor truth in the public and personal arena, we can start working together to define and solve problems. As long as we accept the fallacious concept of “you have your facts and I have mine,” we will be unable to make any real progress on the challenges that we face as a society, culture, or nation. We must also summon the mental fortitude to hold leaders accountable for and to the truth; and those unable to appropriately handle the truth, we must find unfit for public service or office.

No matter what the party, an inability to tell the truth destroys trust. Lying in one area portends lying in another. How can I expect a public official to do the right thing if they cannot tell the truth. We must turn away from evaluating those running for public office on their ability to promulgate the party line. Actions, not news-bites, should inform out decision on whether to support a candidate or not, and a practice of lying should disqualify a candidate.

Some might say, “Well, they all lie.” There is a small kernel of truth in that, as we all are failed humans and at one time or another have resorted to prevarication in hope of avoiding embarrassment or more serious consequences. But that does not address the issue of an inability to handle the truth. There are people to whom lying is such an ingrained habit as to destroy their trustworthiness. We know who they are, their misdeeds proceed them. Having destroyed trust, they are unfit for public office. And likewise, we must have the intellectual rigor to reject their blandishments and seek a better candidate, one worthy of our trust.

Truth telling must be a nonnegotiable issue in our society. To move forward and build a more cohesive and well-functioning community, we must ensure that we both require and honor truth telling. Until we embrace speaking the truth and disdaining lying as bedrock concepts we will struggle as a society and nation.

Show Me Your Face

 

            Over the 4^th of July a group named, “Patriot Front,” staged a march in Washington DC. During the march they wore a uniform of khaki pants, navy blue shirts, and tan baseball caps emblazoned with the group’s logo. Of note, they all wore masks. It reminded me of the white hoods of the KKK in the first half of the twentieth century.

            The white hoods performed two important functions. They increased the terror of the victims through the inhuman specter of hooded shapes, and they provided anonymity for the participants, shielding them from identification and possible prosecution. These hooded figures with their violence and burning crosses terrorized Black citizens and those who supported them. In more modern times, terrorists employ the same tactic for the same reasons.

            All of us understand this dynamic. We want to protect our identity when engaging in nefarious activities. Criminals operate under the cover of darkness. Other nefarious actors cover their faces hoping to avoid identification. We know in our souls that what we’re doing is shameful and do our best to protect our identity. We want to avoid accountability. Knowing that there are many around us who would take umbrage at our participation in such activities, we take steps to insulate ourselves from identification. Such are the signs of cowardice.

            Some may argue that masks protect participants from “doxing,” the publication or use of personal information for the purpose of harassment. And while the fear of doxing is valid, wearing a mask to protect your identity calls into question how committed you are to your cause. After all, our founding fathers and other patriotic heroes faced dire consequences should their cause have failed. Hiding your identity behind a mask calls denigrates the justness of your actions. After all, if you truly believed you were doing the right thing, why would you hide?

            Hiding behind a mask or a hood broadcasts the moral bankruptcy of a cause. It tells all observers that participants fear identification with the cause. If the cause were just, then those who support the cause would feel comfortable identifying with the cause. Masking protects your identity but undermines your belief in the honor of your actions. When deployed to Iraq in 2003, I frequently wore either sunglasses or the goggles issued by the Army. In fact, they still adorn the helmet that I wore. Iraqis often complained about them, believing that I wore them to avoid identification and to appear more menacing. Though I continued to wear them while convoying around Baghdad, I did make sure that when I spoke with Iraqis, I took them off. I believed then, and I still do, that the basic causes and goals of our deployment were just.

            Like the citizens of Baghdad in 2003-2004, I suspect those who hide their faces of not truly believing in the justness of their cause. The mask preaches more loudly than any words that they might utter in defense of their actions. It also tells me that they seek to intimidate more than they seek to convince. Their cause being fundamentally flawed, they must resort to intimidation and a menacing appearance. So I say, if you want me to take you seriously, then take off your mask. Stop hiding. Stop trying to intimidate. Stop menacing my fellow citizens.

Hero or Villain?

            I have seen a variety of memes portraying MAJ Watson as a hero. Perhaps he is; but, we must also take into account the fact that he violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, better known among service members as the USMJ. What most civilians do not realize is that when one becomes a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman, one gives up or accepts limitations on certain civil liberties, among them is free speech.

            For example, it is against the UCMJ for members of the armed services to speak against the president, our commander in chief and other specified members of the government. For service members to speak against the commander in chief exerts a corrosive effect on the chain of command and the good order and discipline of the service. We are required to obey lawful orders and have the right and responsibility to disobey unlawful orders, but that is something different than criticizing the commander in chief. Some may think that this is a severe curtailment of a service member’s civil liberties, and it is. But this is part of the sacrifice required of a life in the service of our nation.

            This is why we in the military often refer to it as, “the service.” We accept and embrace this concept. We may not agree with our orders, but unless they violate the law or in extreme cases our conscience, we must obey. We may not have voted for the person who holds the office of President, but they are our commander and chief and due the respect of the office. We serve, ultimately, at the pleasure of the President. I served every president, from Regan to Obama. All of them made decisions that I liked and decisions that I did not like; but, I served them all and accorded them the respect due their office. It was all part of the discipline required of a life in “the service” of something bigger than I am.

            Major Watson was led away in handcuffs. Should he find himself in front of a civilian judge, he might mount a successful defense based on freedom of speech; however, I would expect that a military court would find him guilty of violating the appropriate portion of the UCMJ. So the questions remains, is Major Watson a hero or a villain?

            As a civilian, I’m tempted to hold him up as a hero, someone who took great risk to proclaim his thoughts in a very public fashion. As a retired officer with over twenty years of active service, I would say that he’s a villain, or guilty of a criminal offense at the least. For a member of the armed services to stand up in uniform on the nation’s capital and call for the impeachment and removal from office, of the President, his commander-in-chief, is a criminal offense and does not improve the situation in any way. So while I may admire his courage and commitment, I do not respect his judgement.

            We live in a time filled with disagreement and division. Our duly elected president directs the military to take what seem to be questionable actions. There are mechanisms in place to deal with such contingencies; none of which include demonstrating on the steps of the capital. And that is the challenge of a life devoted to military service, in order to uphold the oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic service members must give up access to some of the fundamental rights contained therein. Back to the questions at hand, hero or villain?

            It all depends upon how Major Watson responds. Civil Disobedience is a time-honored method of protest. When one engages in civil disobedience, one takes actions that are against the law, willingly accepting the consequences of such actions. Should Major Watson accept the punishment meted out without complaint, serving his sentence, then he is a hero. Should he contest the results, claiming freedom of speech, then he is a villain, someone who broke the law and seeks to avoid the punishment. In this era of hyper-individualism, we may be tempted to label him as a hero, someone who stood up to an authority figure we disdain; but, we would be wrong. As they say, the ball is in his court…hero or villain.