Using Judgement V. Being Judgmental

 

In a few conversations, in person and on social-media, during the last election cycle some friends accused me of being judgmental. Given the fact that I spent over twenty years in the Active Army as an officer and then twelve years as a teacher in high school and as an adjunct instructor for a community college, there is a good chance that I can be judgmental. After all, both of my professions placed an emphasis on evaluating things and people. I tend towards a binary world view of right and wrong as I understand them. That said, I do believe that as a Christian and thinking man, I must make judgment calls and evaluations. In a competitive democracy, this means evaluating a candidate’s character and their fitness for office.

I believe that character counts when evaluating someone for a position of leadership. I also understand that none of us are perfect. In fact, you do not have to turn over too many rocks in my past to find evidence of character failure. And while we are all sinners in God’s sight, there some behaviors rise to the level of moral turpitude. We always want to be gracious, but sometimes a person’s behaviors make them untrustworthy and disqualify them from positions of great responsibility. As a Christian who enjoys the franchise, I must evaluate a candidate’s character when considering them for an official position. So how do I evaluate without being judgmental.

Perhaps a good place to start is defining judgmental. According to the Cambridge Online Dictionary, judgmental means: tending to form opinions too quickly, esp. when disapproving of someone or something. We’ve all heard Jesus’s words found in Matthew.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:1-2

Do we take these words to mean that we’re to suspend our judgement? I do not think so. After all, we find this passage in scripture, also from the mouth of Jesus.

“Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7:24

I am quite certain that Jesus was not confused or issuing capricious contradictory commands. He expects me to be gracious, but also use my God-given abilities to make appropriate evaluations when navigating this life. So when I evaluate a candidate, I do so with various screening criteria. I also keep multiple scriptures in mind. Here are three that I feel are particularly salient.

20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. Matthew 7:20

When I evaluate a candidate, especially one for high office, I give more weight to the fruits of their life. Do they exhibit such things as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control in their lives? Or are their lives marked by sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, and so on. Of course, we all strive to live lives that exhibit the first list, and there are days in which I may fail in some area. But, when I consider a candidate, I look for evidence of a strong moral compass. If they exhibit lives marked by items on the second list, I do not give them serious consideration. It is an issue of good or bad, light or darkness.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

        Here the prophet Isaiah reminds me to call things as they are, and to avoid word games designed to obfuscate the truth. Does a candidate speak the truth? Of course, we’ve all made the mistake of shading things to our own benefit; however, if examination of a candidate’s record reveals an inability to handle the truth, then I do not give them serious consideration. If I cannot trust a candidate to tell me the truth while campaigning, how can I trust them to make sound decisions while in office? Are their lives open and aboveboard or are they surrounded by a cloud of suspicious statements and activities?

14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? II Corinthians 6:14-15

What kind of support and counsel does a candidate seek? Do they surround themselves with counselors of dubious character. Again, we’re not talking about perfection. We’re talking about the character of a person’s counsel team. Solomon’s son Rehoboam discarded the good counsel and instead embraced foolish counsel, which ultimately led to his kingdom’s destruction. Good men give good counsel, while evil men give evil counsel. If a candidate operates a revolving door for their counselors due to continual scandal, I must question their judgement. 

These are some of the things that I consider when evaluating a candidate for any office. I do not believe that it is judgmental for me to base my support for a candidate on evaluating them based on scripture. Of course, that is a high bar for any candidate to reach; however, such an evaluation is not being judgmental. Instead, looking at scripture provides me with useful screening criteria and employing them helps me to navigate an often chaotic, convoluted, and challenging political system. 

Valuing Life and Families

 

With the issuance of the “Dobbs V. Jackson” ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back “Roe V. Wade” and the ensuing series of decisions that sustained it. Anti-abortion activists heralded this as a great victory. But is the fight for life and family values over? Can those of us who claim to embrace the sanctity of life and support the family stop and rest now? Is that struggle over? I do not think so. I do not think our responsibility as a civilization and nation ends once a child is born. We ought to set the conditions for long-term success. The more of us who excel and reach our full potential the better off we will all be. So, here are a few things that those of us who fall into the “sanctity of life” and “family values” might turn our energies toward.

1.     Wage Disparity: Far too many men and women must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. A man or woman ought to be able to work a forty hour a week job and support their family. They should make enough so that both partners do not have to work. While both parents working is viable, it ought not to be necessary to enjoy a decent standard of living for a family. We need to support those practices and policies that lead to better wage distribution.

2.    Access to Healthcare: We should be ashamed that we’re the only industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare for all of its citizens. While challenging, this is not in the too hard to do box. We can develop a system that provides for all citizens and supports a thriving medical community/industry. No one should have to choose between paying their bills and getting adequate healthcare.

3.     Access to Quality Education: We need to elevate the societal resources we direct toward education. Too many of our programs bleed much needed funds from public schools. We need to address the excessive costs of public university education. Monies spent on education are an investment in the health of our nation and society. We should seriously consider backing away from high stakes testing and return professional development and management of teachers to principals. As part of this effort, we need to stop the endless criticism of teachers and instead elevate them as professionals who dedicate their lives to educating future doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, and other professionals we need for our society to function. The majority of teachers maintain a razor focus on their content area. Contrary to popular opinion, they do not have time for extraneous material. We should let them teach and stop berating them.

4.    Access to Housing: We should work hard to address the lack of adequate housing in our country. We need to build more homes and find ways to help first time buyers. We need to push back against the sad proclivity towards NIMBY, or not in my back yard. A benefit of programs that create more housing is that they would also create more jobs in construction and other trades. Growing up and living in a decent neighborhood should be the expectation of all, not the experience of a privileged few.

5.     Access to the Arts: I grew up in a situation which afforded me access to the arts. Naturally, my parents exerted profound influence on that consumption, often requiring my participation. But that access opened my mind to new possibilities and broadened my horizons past the West Texas that surrounded me. Of course, they ensured that I imbibed in the rich culture and arts of West Texas as well. When we invest in arts, ensuring public access to beauty, we enrich all our population and elevate our society. Of course, this comes with a certain tension; after all, what I consider art may not pass your scrutiny, and that is okay. Through the corporate support of the creation of beauty we elevate our culture and citizenry.

Those of us who consider Family Values and the Right to Life as critical might consider taking up these challenges. We want to create a culture that not only embraces the sanctity of life but also promotes a high quality of life for all its citizens. Some might argue that these things are too expensive; however, I would point out that a stratified culture with an underclass that exists in perpetual poverty and squalor comes with its own expenses. A society should protect the most vulnerable of its members and enable them to grow and thrive throughout their lives. Those of us who value life and the family ought to agitate for the policies mentioned above as they directly impact the quality of life of the individuals and families that make up our society. When all of us prosper and reach our full potential as citizens our entire nation will prosper.

Freedom of Speech?

 

“⁴⁸…Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” Luke 12:48b English Standard Version

               The digital age brought great wealth and power. Christy and I enjoy streaming video entertainment. We choose what we watch and when we watch it. I enjoy a rapidly expanding library of digital books. Currently, my digital shelves hold over three hundred volumes…most of which I have actually read. Via Facebook and other social media platforms, I keep up with friends and family scattered across the globe. My digital music collection must have over five hundred selections. I subscribe to the Encyclopedia Britanica and other scholarly journals opening the door to any serious scholarship from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. I have taken thousands of digital photos, many, if not most, of them flowers. I peruse a major national newspaper each day, keeping up with news, serious and not so serious. I can access all of this content from five different devices that I own and could probably access all of it from any networked device…as long as I can remember my password. I swim in a sea of information that astounded and at times overwhelmed my father’s generation. What I do with this content says much about the content of my character.

               As this election season unspools in front of me, I see two distressing trends in posting. First, many of my friends, most of whom consider themselves Christians, post things that are either questionable or demonstrably untrue. Second, many of us, again many who would check the box of Christian on a questionnaire, post mean spirited memes, designed to ridicule and demean. First let’s talk about truth.

As Christians, we must, absolutely must, speak the truth. Given the ease of research in the digital realm, there is no reasonable excuse for sharing lies or distorted truth. When we repost, or share, lie we share in the guilt. I am responsible for the things that I post. My postings reveal my character. If a stranger were to peruse my Facebook page, what kind of man would they think I am? Would I be comfortable with the creator of the universe perusing my content? Sometimes we drag out the threadbare excuse of, “Well, you cannot find truth,” or “Well they all lie,” or even worse, “That is your truth.” At times, truth may be difficult to discern. Friends, it is not that hard to find ground truth. What we really mean when we employ such excuses is, we find the facts do not fit our preconceptions. To butcher a famous movie quote, “We can’t handle the truth.” I bear responsibility for checking the facts before I hit share. There are quite a few ways to find out what the facts truly are. Let us reinvigorate fidelity to the truth. This does not mean that we will always agree on policies or candidates. How we address the facts at hand may differ, and that’s acceptable. But we must be honest and truthful in what we share. And we must do this in a gracious manner.

 When I was a teacher, I would never have let my students create many of the memes which pop up in my feed daily. So much of what we pass around the social-media-verse is ugly and demeaning. It is as if sitting in front of a computer, or other digital device, relaxes our already weak judgment and restraint. Just because someone is a public figure does not give me license to create and or share degrading material. Perhaps I should think, “How would I feel if someone posted that about me?” After all, Jesus said, ¹² “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12 Perhaps if I tacked a copy of that on the wall next to my computer, I might do better. We need to find a better, more gracious, way to communicate.

Our careless approach to speech does not help build consensus. It only alienates and deepens an already dangerous chasm. When I post or share, do I stop and think about how someone who disagrees with me would receive it? If we want to make progress on the truly vexing problems we face as a nation, we must cling to the truth and stop using degrading and snarky memes. We must back away from polemic speech and find better ways to put out our ideas. After all, isn’t communication about persuasion and not alienation. We've been given a great blessing by living in the digital age. How will we bear this responsibility?

The Need for Two Parties

 

               Unfortunately, political discourse in our times has grown increasingly vitriolic, polemic, and divisive along party lines. Sadly, we’ve embraced a social-media meme driven paradigm that focuses on savaging the “other-side” without truly setting out the ideas and policies that we believe will solve the problems we face. We regularly denigrate anyone who does not agree with us, or our party, as an enemy of the state, someone who wants to destroy our way of life. This constant barrage of attack-themed information, devoid of any true policy plans, serves only to deepen the chasm that separates us. We’ve forgotten that the “other-side” wants what they believe is best for our nation, and perhaps more importantly, that we need two strong political parties.

               Historically speaking, our country has functioned best when vigorous liberal and conservative parties engage in developing and supporting well-reasoned policy goals which they forward in the legislative process. Through the process of debate, restructuring, and at times compromise, viable policy and law develops. Though it is messy and often frustratingly slow, this process tends to deliver results which best serve the entire body politic. Neither end of the political spectrum owns all the right solutions. Sometimes the answers are found in conservative policy and at other times the liberal view provides the needed solution. When both parties are fully engaged in the process of legislation, we find better solutions. Unfortunately, our current political discourse tends toward demonizing the other side instead of thoughtful policy development and engagement.

                We enjoy and encourage labeling those who differ from us as haters of our country. After all, if I can label someone as an enemy; then I do not need to listen to them and consider what they have to say. We fling epithets and labels at each other without considering the consequences. Rather than listen and build consensus, we push each other further apart through thoughtless insults. True and active listening takes effort and humility, since giving someone else’s ideas thoughtful and serious consideration implies that we do not know it all.

               While in the Army, I served with a General Officer who frequently said, “I’m probably the dumbest person in the room, but I recognize and surround myself with smart people and listen to them.” Everyone chuckled when he said that; but, I knew the truth. He wasn’t very smart at all. I was responsible for a software and hardware platform that enabled senior decision makers to view the battlespace, make decisions, and guide their subordinate units in execution. At least once a week, sometimes more, he summoned me to his office to reteach him how to use the system. And, he was open about his ineptness with automated systems. His strength lay in recognizing an appropriate solution and motivating his subordinates in executing his will. He was quite successful as a leader. His awareness of his strengths and limitations enabled him to listen to others in humility. He truly listened to me when I spoke. He owed much of his success to willingly listening to others, no matter their background or proclivities. As a signal and information operations officer, I found many in the combat arms community dismissive and uninterested in my thoughts based simply on my background and branch, but not this general. He kept completing the mission foremost in his mind, not caring who provided the solution, only that the solution was found and implemented.

               We need to reinvigorate this concept in our political discussions. Too many of us support the idea that all things must go our way all the time. In our zeal for our party, we stymie finding and implementing a viable solution. We elect and support members of congress who rather than work to find solutions, acceptable to a majority, seek to stop any progress. We need to develop the political maturity that recognizes the compromise necessary for a nation as large and as diverse as ours. This starts with how we speak to each other.

               Those who differ from me are not my enemies. They may pursue agendas and solutions to problems that I do not embrace, but I must admit that they want to see a prosperous and successful nation as much as I do. We need to stop talking about oppositional public servants as if they were enemies of the state. When we succumb to the lure of polemic meme oriented political speech, we make progress towards solutions more difficult. The more we utilize speech that divides, the less likely we will build the bridges necessary to work together to develop the solutions to the problems that truly vex us. My fellow citizens of differing beliefs are not the enemy. The true enemies we face are ignorance, bigotry, poverty, injustice, oppression, and their brethren. As long as we categorize those of the “other-side” as the enemy, we will fail to seriously confront those forces that plague us, keeping us from reaching the full potential of the words that start out constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The High Bar of Leadership

 

               “I’m sorry Matt. LTC Richardson will not be able to senior rate you.” I took the news stoically, after all in the Army you take bad news with a straight face; however, inside I was not pleased. It was 1990 and the Army was in the middle of the draw-down from Cold War manning heights. The draw-down meant that the Army was letting go many officers and the competition for continued service was quite intense. Any perceived deficit or abnormality in record could push you into the “also ran” column. My evaluation report would go into my record without any senior rater comments, all because of LTC Richardson’s poor decision making.

               LTC Richardson had become embroiled in an affair. In order to keep his indiscretion secret, he’d repeatedly lied about his movements to his commander. Those lies led to a loss of trust and a relief for cause. Then and now, the Army understands the importance of trust and integrity in leaders. The Army holds those entrusted with leadership to a higher standard. LTC Richardson had lied, violating that trust and was no longer considered worthy of command. The Army was and is not so puritanical as to truly care about marital indiscretion, but it did and does care about the trustworthiness of commanders. And that is how it should be. Those wearing the mantle of leadership and enjoying the associated honors must embrace a high moral standard. The higher the level of leadership, the higher the bar.

               With his conviction in a New York State Court, Mr. Trump forfeited his right to hold the highest office in our country. Admittedly the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit a felon from holding office; but, how can we trust a man who lies continuously and embroiled others in a conspiracy to falsify records in order to lie to the public hoping to gain office. What is to stop him from lying to us once he takes office? I know that many of you may say, “Well, they all lie. What makes him any different?”

               It is true that none of us are infallible. All of us have stumbled at one time or another. But there is a difference between a rare stumble and serial lying compounded with conspiracy. We need to reinvigorate the concept of selecting men and women of high moral character as our leaders. Look into national, state, and local halls of government and you will often find men and women with questionable backgrounds. All parties need to expend more effort in screening those seeking their support in obtaining office through the ballot. We currently endure far too many public officials with thin credentials and with weak moral standards. In some ways, it seems as if the screening criteria is simply mouthing the appropriate catch phrases, an ability to leverage social media, and an expressed fealty to party leadership. When we set the standard so low, it should not surprise us that our government seems ineffective and chaotic. The challenge is developing useful screening criteria. Again, I turn to the military leadership crucible.

               The Army has a catchall regulation which reads something along the lines of, “conduct unbecoming an officer or NCO.” The idea is simple, leaders must comport themselves at a higher standard than those led. Any conduct the command considers “unbecoming” may be grounds for removal and discharge. While the wording is vague, the intent is quite clear. Behave yourself! The ambiguous words kept many of us from engaging in activities which might have curtailed our careers. We understood that careless or reckless behavior might be taken as conduct unbecoming. The Army sets a high standard for those in leadership. At the risk of alienating my nonbelieving friends, I’d like to glance at the following passage from the Bible.

¹ The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ² Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. I Timothy 3:1-7

               I know that I’m talking about secular office and this passage speaks to parochial leadership; but, it includes some particularly salient language. I highlighted the portions that apply to this particular issue; but, I also included the rest as it might prove helpful in considering what other screening criteria we might consider. In this essay, I think it important to consider men and women who are “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders.”

               Leaders must avoid personal scandal. They must walk circumspectly. At high office, they must avoid the whiff of disgraceful conduct. They need the gravitas of high moral fiber to navigate the challenging world of leadership. Avoiding the murky areas of immoral conduct on the way up, displays the strength of character needed for high office. They also need the respect of those of the opposite party.

               Being well thought of by outsiders indicates trustworthiness. There are many men and women with whom I may disagree but can work with. I know that they possess a trustworthy heart. At their core, they seek to do the best in any situation. These kind of men and women rise above being mere politicians, approaching the level of statesmen. A statesman does what is best for all involved. Our best leaders, political or otherwise, displayed this characteristic. While they were always party men and women, they understood that at times, party must take a back seat to what was best for the nation or organization. We need more of these kinds of men and women in positions of trust and leadership. Those who cannot navigate the turbulent waters of modern life do not possess the strength of character to lead, especially at high levels.

               Mr. Trump has consistently displayed poor judgement, an inability to handle the truth, or make good decisions. Though we may like his pugnacious, devil-may-care style, we need someone better suited for high office. We need someone less chaotic. We need someone less stained by questionable moral and legal decisions; someone less given to moral turpitude. And at levels in all parties, we need to reinvigorate screening for moral and legal strength in our candidates.

A New Fear...Really an Old One

 

               After the attack on Pear Harbor, we took counsel of our fears. Suddenly we suspected anyone of Japanese descent. We just knew that they were up to something nefarious. Letting our suspicions get the better of us, we ended up incarcerating almost two-hundred thousand of innocent Asian-Americans and other perfectly legal residents. All this due to their skin color and last name. There was no evidence. There was no smoking gun. There was no subversive plot. We just rounded up totally innocent people, families, young, and old. Then we shipped them off to camps out in the high desert where almost two-thousand of them died. This remains a blot on our nation’s history; a stain resulting from letting our fear overwhelm our commitment to our founding ideals. Sadly, we seem to be letting our fears get the better of us again.

               Recently, Florida passed a law which prohibits Chinese individuals from purchasing land in the state, especially near military installations, airports, and refineries. Though this law is aimed at non-citizens, increasingly U.S. citizens of Chinese heritage find themselves unable to purchase homes due to confusion and fear. And Florida is not alone in this issue. Currently, there are over twenty similar bills in various state houses and within the halls of Congress. When we embrace politics and policy driven by fear mongering, we trample on the very things we accuse the Chinese government of doing, becoming like the very thing we rail against.

               In the Florida example, we forget one of the foundational concepts of our legal system: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is but one example of the deleterious effects of developing public policy based on fearmongering. Such policy may serve to salve our fears, but it rarely produces good results. More frequently, it pushes us further down the road towards a more authoritarian and oppressive state. Politicians, ever hungry for a stronger base, tap into these fears, leveraging them to strengthen their image as defenders of whatever is important to their constituency. One politician recently proposed a bill to outlaw importing Chinese garlic due to their possibly using human waste as a fertilizer, a practice increasingly found in the United States and Europe. Yet, one of our Senators is consuming valuable congressional time and energy on this spurious issue.

               When we accept a fear driven governmental agenda, we end up chasing shadows and failing to address the very real and pernicious problems our nation faces. Solving real problems is roll-up-your-sleeves hard work. A large multifaceted nation such as ours requires innovative and complex solutions. What works in one geographic area may not work in another. Solutions that I find acceptable may be anathema to others. Yet, we must work together on issues such as racism, education, healthcare, defense, energy, poverty, and justice…just to name a few. Perhaps the true alure of fear-based legislation is that it requires much less in the way of work.

               Developing legislation that addresses the challenges that we face will be quite difficult. Not only would it be hard to craft, but it also requires compromise, a term increasingly despised in our national political environment. As an electorate, we must demand better from our elected representatives. We must no longer accept fear-based-platitudes. If we accept such meaningless posturing instead of the hard work of true legislation, we will not enjoy progress on the weightier issues before us, and much worse, we will see an erosion of those ideals which make our nation worthwhile, perhaps even great. All of this because we take counsel of our fears.

               We must remember FDR’s words, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” When we let fear guide us, shape our political discourse, and frame our legislation, we are much more likely to embrace policies that savagely curtail the rights of individuals. Such dubious legislation ultimately exerts a corrosive effect on the traits and ideals which make our nation a good place in which to live. Additionally, we will not thrive, and our progeny will not enjoy the full privileges and benefits of living in an open and free society. That will be our legacy based on the politics of fear.

              

Not My Enemy

 

               Sometimes in life, we find ourselves with a less than stellar hand. Such was the case when I was in the 4^th Infantry Division at Fort Cavasos (previously Fort Hood). I was serving as the Signal Battalion Representative in the Division Tactical Command Post, or DTAC. Though not very prestigious, it was a position of some responsibility. I had to make sure that all the signal equipment; radios, tactical telephones, computers for unclassified and classified traffic, copiers, and the coffee pot worked and integrated appropriately. When things worked well, I was part of the furniture. When something did not work properly, I got plenty of face time with the general. Naturally, I wanted the best soldiers and NCOs on my team; consequently, I was disappointed when the Battalion Commander (BN CDR) assigned Sergeant First Class (SFC) Johnston to my section.

               A known malcontent who was counting the days until eligible for retirement, SFC Johnston was lazy and borderline insubordinate. But, he possessed the right rank and Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) for the position. His poor reputation proceeded him. The Sergeant Major (SGM) of the DTAC pulled me aside at the beginning of the first Field Training Exercise (FTX) and said, “Sir, I’m sorry you have SFC Johnston. I know he’s lazy and constantly gripes; but sir, I still expect all the signal equipment to work properly. I cannot give you a pass because you have a poor NCO in your section.”

               I knew that he was correct. Professionalism demanded that I perform no matter who was assigned to my section. I leaned on SFC Johnston. I hectored him for minor misdeeds, such as carping publicly to the SGM about being assigned to a position of responsibility so close to the end of his career. I counseled him in writing when he failed to complete his duties appropriately, made himself scarce during FTXs, and did nothing to ensure that the junior soldiers assigned to our section received appropriate training. Nothing seemed to work. Everyone in the DTAC knew he was a bad apple, a person whose foul attitude drug down the section and did not help the DTAC function effectively or efficiently. I complained to Major (MAJ) Williamson, my immediate supervisor, who agreed with my assessment and how I was handling it. Eventually, my complaints reached the BN CDR, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Richardson. One day, LTC dropped by for a visit while we were in the field.

               Surprisingly, he went and chatted with the SGM first. I expected him to seek me out and talk with me. He also talked with the General in charge of the DTAC for a few minutes. Then, he came and found me, saying, “Matt, come with me and let’s talk.”

               We walked in silence out to his HMMWV, where he stopped and took off his helmet and stared off into the distance for a while. I grew uncomfortable in the long period of silence. For a few moments his fingers drummed on the hood as he gathered his thoughts. Eventually he turned to me saying quietly, “Matt, you’ve got to stop treating SFC Johnston as if he were the enemy. He’s a member of your team and it is up to you to bring him along, convincing him to work at a level he does not want to. Start working with him. He’s not going away, and you might find that he has a lot to offer. Got it?”

               “Yessir,” even though I didn’t. But, I did start trying, and even though he never got fully on board with what we were doing, he became an asset instead of dead weight. I learned a lot about leadership, and life, through that experience, and we face a similar challenge in our own sociopolitical life as a nation.

               We’ve come to point where we consider anyone who thinks differently than we do as the enemy. We speak of those on the opposite side politically as if they were out to destroy our nation. We gleefully share memes which degrade others, not caring a wit if they distort, blatantly misrepresent, or outright lie about some group we disagree with. We carelessly savage elected officials from the other party, forgetting that they were elected by fellow citizens to serve the interests of their district. We seem to have fallen into the same trap that I fell into with SFC Johnston, that of labeling someone whom we do not like or agree with as the enemy.

               In the Army, successful officers learn to listen to all their subordinates, even the ones that they may find repugnant. I consider myself a successful, if not great, officer. I scrambled up from the rank of private to the rank of lieutenant colonel. Through sometimes painful experience, I learned to work with almost anyone. Successful commanders learn to keep a razor-sharp focus on mission accomplishment. We need that in our political intercourse.

               While there are ideas and policies, I may consider unsuitable and reject; I need not savage those who put them forth. Instead, I should carefully and thoughtfully state the ideas that I think are worthy. I need not add to the rancor that already pervades political discourse. Additionally, I should not give my support to those who seek it through demagoguery, as they appeal to my baser emotive instincts without clearly articulating why they and their policy ideas deserve my support. It is through thoughtful consideration and respectful conversations that worthy ideas emerge. Meme and soundbite wars do not forward the cause of the nation; rather, they serve only to deepen the chasm between parties. Like it or not, I need people who look at things differently.

               Returning to my recalcitrant NCO, while I never transformed SFC Johnston into the model sergeant, I did manage to coax him into more productive performance. I stopped treating him as if he were the enemy. Instead, I treated him as if he were a valued member of my team. I listened to his suggestions and found that he did have good ideas…at times. And while he continued to mark the days until retirement, he developed enough motivation to make a positive contribution to the section. Even the crusty old SGM noted that SFC Johnston seemed to be pulling his weight in the DTAC. Perhaps that is what we really need in our country, a sense of pulling together toward the common goals of solving problems and bettering our nation. Fewer ad hominem attacks and more thoughtful examination of policy recommendations might be a good place to start.

Checks on Power

 

               “No sir, I will not do that. It is both immoral and illegal.” The words hung there in the air as everyone in the room shifted uncomfortably in their seats. I was in the Al-Faw palace, in Baghdad, Iraq. I was speaking to a division chief of staff, a full colonel. I was a lieutenant colonel at the time. A full colonel, the chief of staff of one of our divisions had come up to our headquarters and presented me with a plan, seeking support from his higher headquarters.

               I continued, “Sir, I know that I do not have the authority to say no; however, I do not believe our commander will support this proposal for the reasons I have stated. If you want, bring it up to him. But, I will not support this.”

               “Well, you will be hearing from my commander,” he replied, menacingly.

               “I’m certain, sir.” And sure enough, a few days later, I was standing at attention in front of a two-star general.

               Again, “No sir, I will not do that. It is both immoral and illegal.” The conversation ran pretty much the same way. And the general left the conference room with the promise of taking this up with my commander, a three-star general.

               A few days later the three-star general stopped me in the hall, saying, “I spoke with the division commander, and he was not pleased with your response to a request for support. Please come by my office and lay out the issue for me.”

               “Yessir,” I will come by tomorrow.”

               “Better make it this evening.”

               “Yessir,” I gulped, knowing that I had only a few minutes to both inform my immediate supervisor and prepare for a meeting with the three-star commander.

               The meeting went well. I laid out the request and my reasons for not wanting to support it. My immediate supervisor was with me. The general considered for a few moments, asked a handful of thoughtful questions, and then leaned back in his chair.

               “I understand your concerns Matt. I will deal with this. Thank you for your briefing,” he said, smiling. I was stunned. He used my first name! I could not imagine that a three-star general would know and use my first name (His chief of staff had done the legwork of getting my name. I was not that important). He was true to his word. He dealt with it. I never heard about this issue again. As he was an excellent commander, he had a private conversation with his subordinate commander, one which I was not privy to. Even today, I would love to have been a fly on that wall. When we imbue leaders with great power; we also need to provide them with checks on that power.

               Even as a lowly lieutenant colonel, I enjoy significant power and authority. The words that I penned in Iraq, moved units and sent soldiers into battle, into harms way. More than once, I developed plans that moved aircraft around the globe in support of operations. There were systems in place to ensure that I did not overstep my bounds. In fact, once when I bypassed those systems to save time, I ended up standing at attention in front of a general officer to explain myself. The conversation was largely one-way and the gist was that if I ever did that again, I would find myself of lessor rank and on the first jet smoking back to the world…military speak for the United States. Fortunately, what I had done worked and was not immoral or illegal; but, the point was that I had subverted the check on my authority. Those checks are critical to the proper functioning of a civilized society.

               Currently, our court system is considering whether or not a sitting president can be held accountable to the law. This is truly not a partisan issue, and to frame it as such obfuscates this grave issue. Every president since George Washington has chafed at the legal restrictions placed upon them. Restrictions, I might add, which serve as an antidote to the corrosive effects of power on the human heart. As one who has wielded power, albeit very limited power, I recognize and support these restraints. In the military world, as much as I found the Inspector General and Congressional Letter of Inquiry system bothersome, it was good and proper that they existed. A president, their staff, and particularly the military, needs such guardrails.

               To exempt a president from legal checks, would untether them from moral and legal limits and responsibility when they need it the most. The pressures and demands of high office weigh heavily on those who occupy the big chair. Without restraint, those who wield such power often rationalize very questionable actions and apply unacceptable pressure on their subordinates to circumvent morality and legality. In my own experience, the pressure from superior officers was intense and on the surface, their case was compelling. Fortunately for me, my commander supported me, and I did not lose my career, not that I had much time left. No matter the issue, the pressure of high office weigh heavily on the holder and how we support them matters, especially if we want to enjoy the benefits of civilization.

               One need only look at history to see what happens when we do not hold leaders accountable for their actions. Hitler, Nero, Pol-Pot, and Stalin teach us the results of leaders without legal or moral restraints. Each of those listed, and there are many more, not only committed grievously immoral and illegal acts, but they also drug many others into the darkness they constructed in the name of the state. A significant component of any civilized society is a respect for the law and the legal system that supports it. Those who enjoy the privilege of wielding the power of the state should also operate within its legal constraints. We loosen those constraints at our peril.

               Some would argue that a president enjoys exemption from the law. They would say that the weighty matters of state transcend its legal constraints and moral strictures. I would say that those tasked with operating the levers of government, doing the business of the state, must do so within the confines of the law. With no constraints, powerful men and women often lose their way in the legal jungle which is modern government. The restraints protect us and them as well. It does not benefit anyone for a leader to go down a morally ambiguous path. The relics of failed countries and societies that followed a popular leader down a flawed path litter the gardens of history. Not only do we need leaders of strong moral fiber, we also need to support them with clear legal guidance and restraints on unlimited use of power.

What to do About the Border, An Option.

 

               Ask almost anyone and they will tell you that our Southern Border is out of control. In fact, a bipartisan group in the U.S. Senate hammered out bill to address border issues. After weeks of negotiations and labor, they presented the bill only to have it torpedoed by Candidate Trump. His negative response to the bill led his party to reject it out of hand, further exacerbating the problems on the border. Every president in my political memory, which goes back to Nixon, has asked for a comprehensive overhaul to our border and immigration policy. Congress has steadfastly refused to seriously address the issue. They have given a variety of minor adjustments and tweaks to the system; but, have not provided a serious body of legislation to address the issues surrounding our border. I believe that with a little creative legislation we can leverage the border issue towards the best interests of our nation.

               Our national population trends towards slipping below replacement level. If things continue along current trendlines, in a few years we will join many of the developed countries and find our population shrinking. There is no conspirital cause. As nations become more industrial and wealthier, families no longer feel the need to have large numbers of children. Even farming families no longer need to have many hands to do the work. As our farmers have become more efficient, the number of acres needed to support a family has grown. Many, if not most, farmers do not own enough land to leave multiple children enough to run a profitable farm. Much of what drives the shrinking of small agricultural towns in America stems from our agricultural efficiency. As we develop greater agricultural efficiency, it takes more land to support a family. As we witness a shrinking of small farming communities, we also witness a shrinking of the labor pool.

               Today, many sectors of our economy struggle to find enough workers. Our declining birth rate will only exacerbate this problem. While some, especially gray-beards like myself, like to blame lazy youth, the truth is that a shrinking labor force enables workers to be more choosey in what they consider acceptable work. We see a workforce that is more able to demand and get better wages and more generous benefit packages, and I believe that is a good thing. We all should want to see a workforce that is well recompensed for their labor. Wage earners should be able to secure their livelihood by working one job for forty hours a week. This would leave them enough time to build a decent life for their families. But who will fill these jobs?

               The United States has built our world-class economy using several waves of immigrants. At various times in our history, waves of men and women have arrived on our shores, eager to carve out a future in our country. The Irish, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Africans (non-slaves), Northern Europeans, Spanish and other Hispanics, and Anglos, just to name a few, have sought to better their circumstances by immigrating to our nation. Their sweat and labor have built our industries, railroads, cities, and cultivated our prairies. We are a nation of immigrants. These successive waves have invigorated our national tapestry and enriched our culture as well as our bank accounts. Sadly, previous waves have generally viewed contemporary waves with suspicion and disdain. Each generation has had its own version of “Irish Need Not Apply;” however, that has not stopped those who long for a chance at the “American Dream.” And this is where our border situation comes into play.

               Instead of seeking to close the door, why not open it further? Various studies and statistics show that most immigrants use far less in governmental aid than they pay in taxes, especially those who are undocumented. The mass of people seeking to cross our border also seek work. If they were fundamentally lazy, they would not undertake the dangerous, arduous, and expensive journey to get to the border. Those who do manage to slip into our nation immediately seek employment, willingly accepting the lowest paying most menial jobs available. As non-English speaking individuals, these are the only jobs truly available. When I taught school, none of my students aspired to menial labor: such as roofing, picking vegetables, or pouring asphalt. Yet, we desperately need to fill these jobs. When my roof needed replacement, I did not care what language the workers spoke. I wanted a high-quality new roof. So why, in a time when so many jobs go unfilled, do we turn our back on a willing labor force?

               Some will say that nerdowells and other miscreants fill the ranks of these hopeful immigrants. While some criminals and criminal organizations seek access to the United States to engage in nefarious activities, the vast majority of immigrants, documented or undocumented, seek to work. They take the worst jobs, keep their head down, and work hard to carve out their piece of the American pie. They labor, pay their taxes, and careflly seek to avoid any contact with the government.

               Others will make the claim that these people make the journey to our country to tap into supposedly generous welfare programs. Despite these claims, research shows that immigrants, documented or otherwise, use far fewer welfare resources than nonimmigrants…those of us who’ve been here for a generation or so. If they are motivated enough to make the arduous, and dangerous, journey, they usually seek out some employment to gain the better life they dream of. (See links below) 

               So, I would say, we ought to increase the number of immigrants we let into our country. They bring fresh energy and vitality to our culture. They willingly work those jobs most of us would not want to fill. They are value added. Letting them in with a short path to full citizenship seems to make good sense to me. I remember standing in the rotunda of the Al-Faw palace in Baghdad, watching several hundred young men and women take the oath of citizenship. My heart swelled with pride at the great display of patriotism and sacrifice displayed by my fellow comrades in arms. In a like manner, when I was a company commander, one of the proudest moments I had was being invited to the citizenship swearing in ceremony for one of my young soldiers. He and his wife made the long journey from a foreign shore to citizenship. Though I do not know the end of their story, they are value added.

1.      https://www.cato.org/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates-benefit

2.     https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-What-Does-the-Research-Say.pdf

A Leader’s Personality

A unit takes on the personality of its commander. This old Army adage describes the relationship between the commander, or leader, and the character of the unit. It is accurate. During my tenure in the Army, I served in many different units under many different commanders. After a change of command, the change in the unit was often striking. A unit takes cues as to what is important and what is acceptable from its commander. These and other aspects of a commander’s persona subtly, and not so subtly, conform a unit to the commander. This is part of the reason why the Army carefully considers who it grants the honor of command. Not every officer enjoys or deserves the privilege of command, and this is how it should be. A commander enjoys great power and with that power comes great responsibility, the responsibility of shaping an organization.

During a political rally on the nineth of March this year, Mr. Trump mocked President Biden’s stutter. This is nothing new for Mr. Trump. Throughout his public life, he’s made it a practice to deride those who disagree with him, particularly though degrading some aspect of their physical make up. His coarseness knows no bounds. He has verbally attacked those with physical disabilities, women for menstruation, other men for stature. He does this to intimidate his opponents and entertain his supporters; all at the expense of those who oppose him, and more importantly, public discourse in the United States.

Such behavior reveals the heart of an insecure and fearful man. Mockery is the retreat of those ill prepared, or equipped, to engage in an intellectually rigorous debate. Faced with an inability to support their position or rebut an opposing proposition, they employ the tactic of ridicule to divert the debate and hide their own inability. This is a favorite tactic of a playground bully.

Such a leader would inexorably bend our national demeanor and conversation in a negative direction. Have we become so coarse and uncaring as a people as to regard ridicule as acceptable public behavior? Do we care so little for others, others that may grapple with a disability or not share what we consider as model physical appearance? While American politics has always been a rough and tumble sport, demeaning others does not well represent a multicultural or pluralistic society. Such ridicule, while entertaining for some, deeply hurts and offends others. And it is not an issue simply waved off by the claim that, “Well, they are just snowflakes.” As a society, we’ve worked hard to improve our national discourse, seeking to provide previously marginalized people with greater access and greater voice. Returning to a public conversational ethic of belittling the weak would stifle much needed intercourse, revealing us as small minded and weak. No matter the party, a leader will shape the country in their image.

Who we choose says something profound about the kind of people we are and what values we hold dear. Is truth important to us? Do we value graciousness and politeness? Perhaps, we like the braggart because we think too highly of ourselves. When we give a leader a pass on bullying, we say that we do not care about the weaker individuals in our society. These negative character traits find expression in equally adverse national and international policies. Other nations understand this as well. They carefully watch who we choose as a leader, knowing that our president directly influences our foreign policy. A brutish bully will always seek to manipulate relationships through threats and intimidation. A habitual liar will always dissemble to obscure intent and avoid responsibility. They evaluate the character of our president, understanding that their character will shape their actions as our foreign policy makers.

Our president represents the entire nation, not just his or her party. When we evaluate a potential president, we must spend time considering their character and what their choice would say about us as a people. In the case of president, the one elected official who represents all of us, we must evaluate how their character would influence our national policy and conversation. Do we want to elevate or demean our national interaction, or are we so wedded to particular party or positions as to overlook the issue of personal character and its effect on our national character. 

A Few Thoughts on Leadership

 

               As our current Presidential campaign gets underway, I’d like to take a few moments to think about leadership. After all, we like to refer to the American President as the most powerful man, perhaps someday woman, in the free world. We want to choose a person with outstanding leadership traits. As a soldier who started out as a private and ended up twenty-seven years later as a lieutenant colonel, I learned what makes a good leader. I served under some of the best leaders in the military, and some of the worst. I also served as a leader in some of the most difficult situations, in peacetime and in combat. After retiring from the Army, I spent eleven years teaching in High School and Junior High, both leadership crucibles. Along the way, I’ve learned a few things about what it takes to be a leader. 

               A good leader must be compassionate. As a leader, I often made decisions that had profound consequences, good and bad. As a commander of troops, periodically I had to put someone out of the service, a task I never really enjoyed. Once, I had to prosecute and jail a soldier for multiple instances of sex with a minor, and though I was pleased to see him shuffle off in an orange jumpsuit after conviction, I never forgot the pain this caused his family or the indelible pain he visited upon his victims and their families. Even though all the soldiers I lead into combat came back in one piece, the stress involved profoundly changed all those involved. Leaders need to remember that their decisions effect real people in very real ways. A leader without compassion runs over the people in their organization…or country…without compunction. Sometimes leaders must make decisions that cause pain; but, they should never do so casually.

               A good leader understands that they represent and must care for all the people in their organization. Again as a leader of troops, I was responsible for all the members of my organization, not just the ones that pleased me or I felt were like me. It was my job to set the conditions for all of my soldiers to succeed. As a teacher, I needed to give my best, even to those students who actively worked against me and did not want to learn what I had to teach. A president is not just working for those who elected them. They represent and work for the entire country. We do not need leaders who consider those who disagree with them their enemy, for the president represents the entire population Republican, Democrat, Independent, and other alike. They must work for and protect those whose lifestyles they find offensive and do so with the same vigor as they work for those whose lifestyles they find comfortable.

A good leader respects others. In our multicultural society, we must work with others, respecting them despite our differences. When a leader looks down on and ridicules those who are different, they shut the door to cooperation and limit solutions. A good leader eschews making fun of those who may differ. A person who seeks to elevate themselves by putting down others, especially for their disabilities, forfeits the ability to lead the rest of us. Such behavior reveals a timid fearful soul. Ridicule bends any discussion away from the facts at hand and must be avoided.

               A good leader must rightly handle truth. Those who are unable to tell the truth when under pressure show themselves as unfit for any position of public trust. Of course, all of us fail from time to time; however, some public figures consistently prevaricate, and this trait renders them unsuitable for leadership positions. We must be able to trust those who occupy positions of leadership and power and an inability to tell the truth has a corrosive effect on trust. Simply put, a habitual liar is not worthy of our trust, no matter the policies they embrace.

               A good leader respects, works with, and strengthens ties with allies. Despite our preeminence in the community of nations, we need our allies. A good leader works to build up those things that bind us together and understands that in all these relationships there is an element of give and take. We do not always get everything we want. Sometimes we must give to maintain good international order.

               A good leader constantly learns. All leaders come to the job with a skill-set or they would not be leaders; however, true leaders understand that they come to the job with knowledge deficits. As an officer in the Army, I was constantly assigned to positions for which I was manifestly unprepared. I had to identify those with appropriate knowledge and experience and then learn from them. That takes a certain level of humility. A leader unwilling to admit their own ignorance cannot adequately serve the country. The United States is a large country and the problems and challenges we face are complex and multifaceted. No person possesses adequate knowledge to address all the issues, which is why we have a cabinet and the other apparatuses of government. A good leader takes input, and not just from those who agree with him. A good leader understands that even those in the opposition have good ideas and seeks their input. All leaders at all levels need the trait of being a life-long learner.

               A good leader has a strong moral compass. In the often-murky world of governmental affairs, a leader needs a firm grasp of fundamental right and wrong. Might does not make right. A good leader takes the time to discern the right course of action and then summons the moral courage to see it through. Frequently those of their party or other interest groups may urge them to take morally insupportable actions that will forward the party cause; yet, they must possess enough courage to say no. Some of the components of a moral compass a leader needs are: an ability to tell the truth, fidelity to a promise made, compassion for the weak, courage in the face of adversity, and respect for others. These universal moral imperatives, and there may be others, enable a person to lead others.

               A good leader listens to divergent points of view. While in various leadership positions in the Army, I found that often those who viewed things differently than I did contributed key components or ideas to the success of any given operation. I found that I did not understand everything and those with differing points of view often provided key insights. A good leader listens to others, taking in their ideas. Finding the solutions to gordian problems requires a leader to take input from many different quarters.

               A good leader is flexible. A good leader understands that the world is dynamic and solving problems requires a certain amount of give and take. Being too wedded to a policy may lead to serious failure. What may have worked well in the past, may not work well in the present. A willingness to try new strategies, to set off in new directions as it were, helps a leader explore new avenues, perhaps leading to greater success.

               As we consider who we want to lead our nation through the next four years, we must take the time to assess candidates on their leadership qualifications. The president is only one part of the government. They are the one official who represents us all and a good, strong leader transcends mere policy considerations. A president must work with congress and within the confines of constitutional law as understood by the Supreme Court. After all, a leader who stokes the fires of division cannot possibly unite the nation no matter their policies.

                

              

The Spoils System

               Various groups, frustrated by their inability to move legislation through congress, seek a return to the spoils system of the nineteenth century. I can understand their desire. Congress is, and always has been, unwieldy and slow. In our two-party system moving legislation through the senate and the house takes tremendous work and the necessary compromise vexes many. In truth, we want things our way, and right now. Some see a resurrected spoils system as a means to work around a slow moving congress.

             The term, dating from Andrew Jackson’s presidency, refers to giving high political appointments to members of one’s own party as a means of reward. While it has obvious benefits, rewarding those who think the way you do and are likely to make decisions you would, it also comes with serious drawbacks. The problem stems from appointing less qualified individuals to positions of great importance. This often-ham-fisted approach to governance results in poor decisions and questionable compliance with laws and the constitution. Additionally, every new president ushers in wholesale change to government and the resulting chaos degrades efficiency. Eventually we severely curtailed the spoils system, replacing it with a more professional civil service system.

               As a career soldier, I encountered this system regularly. It had it pros, professional men and women who knew their job and helped users interface with the system. They also had great institutional knowledge, which helped me navigate the labyrinth of governmental systems. Unfortunately, they also knew that while I was transitory, being stationed in one place for three years or so, they were more or less permanent and could wait me out on a particularly thorny issue. Despite the problems, a professional group of individuals with significant institutional knowledge helps make things work properly.

               Some will say that we will replace entrenched civil servants with equally capable outsiders. But under the spoils system we make party fealty the primary job qualification, we set aside competence and the need for understanding the issues at hand. In our time, governance is complex, interconnected and multifaceted. We need individuals who understand the intricacies and challenges of their given area of responsibility. I understand firsthand the frustration of dealing with recalcitrant public employees; however, our historical experience during the nineteenth century should serve as a brake against the desire to resurrect the spoils-system and its attendant chaos.

               President Benjamin Harrison changed 31,000 postmasters in one year, resulting in great inefficiency in the postal system. A return to the spoils system might make the job of the president easier. After all, he would appoint those who support his policies; however, in a few short years, another president would seek to reward their supporters. Such wholesale turnover would severely hamper government effectiveness. The spoils system also undermines the role of Congress in facilitating good governance.

               Congressional impotence frustrates all of us. We want a legislative system that actually performs its functions. Unfortunately, many of us forget that in a representative republic all legislation requires compromise. Our political culture seems to reject compromise as acceptable. Some sectors of our political landscape would rather accept congressional inaction than compromise. They take the short view, calling for an increase in the power of the executive branch, forgetting that their party will not hold onto the presidency forever. We need to work our constitutional system, embracing the compromise necessary to make it work properly. As with most things in life, shortcuts come with significant disadvantages. The spoils system is a shortcut, and one that leads to governmental chaos and inefficiency. We should reject it and those who would reenact it.