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.

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.

True Patriotism

 

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

            Flags, bunting, and fireworks will festoon this day of celebration. Our nation turns two-hundred-and-fifty today! Despite our shortcomings, it is still a day of celebration. Many of us will post the obligatory chest-thumping-patriotic-memes. I’m certainly not against an outward display of patriotism. I’m flying my flag, the flag the Army gave me when I retired after twenty-seven years of military service. I’m proud to do so. I like to think that I’m a patriotic man. But I often think about how we define patriotism.

            Merriam-Webster defines patriotism as: love for or devotion to one's country. That’s a good definition; but, I like the closing of the Declaration of Independence. It is a more active definition, one that inspires and requires something of the individual.

            It is easy to step out on my porch and fly “Old Glory.” It is another thing to work to make my nation a better place. That idea of sweat-equity and sacrifice is often missing from our displays of patriotism today. Sadly, we’ve become self-centered and venal only willing to support those displays of patriotism that serve our individual purposes and wants. We need to reinvigorate a sense of national service and belonging to a larger community.

            The patriotism of our founding fathers included self-sacrifice. They believed that what they were doing was worthy of supreme commitment. They willingly gambled their fortune, their personal honor, and yes, their lives. That level of commitment drives a nation to develop into something bigger and better. Our foundational documents proclaim an aspiration to greatness; something we strive to realize through toil, labor, and sacrifice. That kind of patriotism makes us a better nation, a nation worthy of our continued support and effort. The lessor chest-thumping patriotism may look good but fails to deliver on the bold promises that our founding fathers made.

            Today, on this most auspicious of days, let us take a moment to read those stirring words, the words that call us to a like level of patriotism, and reignite the fires of liberty that have grown dim in recent years. Let us fan those flames into a torch that expands the borders of liberty, that increases the freedoms of the disenfranchised, and inspires us to even greater works to lift the downtrodden into the light of a better future.

 

Lessons from High School Football: Sore Losers

            Losing sucks, and I know about losing. You do not reach the age of sixty-five without enduring a few losses along the way. But, I learned this lesson much earlier. I played football in Junior High and High School and we were not powerhouse teams. I played a decent defensive end and pulling guard; but, I never really possessed the motivation, or more importantly the skill, to move on to college ball. However one of the lessons that I learned while playing football was how to be a good sport, even when things did not go our way. When we lost, which was more often than I’d like to admit, we always faced the temptation to blame the referees or cheating by the other team. But our coaches would never let us take that easy way out. They constantly reminded us that being a sore loser was a sure sign of weakness and immaturity. Instead of blaming others, they focused us on improving our skills. I think many of today’s politicians could use a strong dose of West-Texas football coaching.

            A sore political loser blames the system, especially some unidentified cabal of nefarious actors. A mature political competitor examines their message and goals to determine why they failed to attract enough votes to win the election. All the available investigations and research indicate that our electoral systems are secure, delivering an accurate count of the cast ballots. Despite this abundance of evidence, sore losers still blame the system instead of evaluating their performance.

            As a defensive end in the middle seventies West-Texas world of high-school football, I had two responsibilities; turn the play in and then find the man with the ball and hit him. If I did those two things, I would be considered a success. Failure to turn the play in could result in a running back breaking free for a large gain or even a score; neither of which reflected well on my skills as a player. In those simple days, I had no pass protection responsibilities. My coach did not want to hear and would not accept me blaming the referees. As an electorate we should be like minded.

            A politician who blames the system is shirking their responsibility. They are responsible for the content of their goals and issues. They are responsible for their messaging. They are responsible for how they conduct their campaigns. All reputable investigations indicate that voter fraud is almost nonexistent. Despite this, some politicians, and their operatives, insist on casting doubt on the integrity of the voting system. Yet, these same politicians will accept the results of the election should they win. Sore losers make these types of statements. Unwilling to maturely accept defeat they retreat into pouting and verbal tantrums, trafficking in inuendo and conspiracy theories.

            This persistent din of insinuation and conspiracy exerts a corrosive effect on the public trust of our system. It deepens the already cavernous gulf between parties. At a time when we desperately need to work together on the problems we face, this practice of blaming the system serves only to make finding any solution much harder. Sore losers and those who support them do not represent the good aspects of our political system. Instead, they act with childish immaturity seeking to blame others for their own failures. A refusal to admit my own mistakes and focus on improving my skills would have resulted in sitting on the bench watching others play. Perhaps, some of our politicians need to spend some time on the political bench improving their ability to serve.

Turning Back the Clock

            Laws exist for three primary reasons; one they protect the weak from the strong, they protect society in general, and they protect us from our own negative behaviors. I would say that the first reason is the most important. Many, if not most, of our laws restrain the behaviors of the rich, powerful, and majority. Sadly, human history teaches us that the weaker and minorities need vigorous protection from the stronger, often wealthier, majorities. Over the past two and a half centuries, the United States has developed a strong body of laws designed to protect the weak while constructing a vibrant culture, dynamic economy, and thriving ecology. This has been a slow process, often halting, occasionally heading down blind alleys, but progressing steadily towards that ephemeral constitutional goal of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” This Spring, the U.S. Supreme Court turned back the hands of time, stopping in the dark days of the early Civil Rights era, sometime in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

            One of the most important expectations that we have as citizens is that we have some hope of true or valid representation, that some of the people who write the laws of our land not only look like we do, but rise out of a shared experience. Gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating representative districts to gain an advantage in an election, which goes all the way back to the era of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, threatens this fundamental aspect of democracy. Parties and other powerful and monied entities have always sought, and will continue to seek, to game the system through various strategies, and one of the most common is to draw, or redraw, districts in such a way as to give the candidates of their choice and advantage in the electoral process. This practice effectively disenfranchises segments of our population, fencing them out of the governmental process. Disenfranchised groups, unable to engage in the representative process, may abandon the democratic process altogether, leading to ever greater isolation and a justifiable lack of faith in the system. Both parties engage in this nefarious practice. Out of necessity we turned to the legal arena to limit this practice. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did much to limit gerrymandering.

            The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais effectively allows states to redraw voting districts with an eye toward limiting representation of Black communities. It undoes much of the hard-won gains in civil rights; gains won through hard work and sacrifice. Not only does it erase decades of effort, but it also turns its back on the more noble ideas enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and other key foundational documents of our nation. Additionally, it displays the fear and hollowness of those participating in this extreme gerrymandering.

            Those who participate in this undoing of some of the more high-minded civil rights work show their fear. They fear a just and open election process. They know that much of what they do seeks to not only to deprive certain segments of our society of adequate representation but also denies them many avenues of improving their lot in life. They fear an open and competitive process. They fear a future with an open door to government. They fear a government in which they might have to share a modicum of power with someone who doesn’t look like they do, doesn’t come from their background, and doesn’t support the status quo. They fear recognition of their empty, hollow ideas based on an extremist past.

            The hollowness of their ideas and goals requires a gaming of the system. They know that they cannot gain and maintain power through fair competition, so they seek to rig the system. Changing the rules, or moving the goalposts, is the only way they can hope to win. Bereft of good ideas for government, of ideals, of honor, they must use maps and pencils to secure their place of power.

            Some will just shrug and say, “It’s not in my backyard. Why should I care?”

            We should care because it is the wrong thing to do and represents a retreat from the high ideals which our nation aspires to. We should care because these are our neighbors and friends. We should care because these are humans and deserve our respect. On a more selfish note, they should care because these people will not stop. Sooner or later, and it will be sooner, they will trample on your rights. All they care about is securing their power and enriching themselves. They do not care about anyone who does not look like them or come from their class.

Institutional Damage

 

            I served in the Army from 1981 to 2010. I entered as a private, going through basic training at Fort Leonard-Wood, earning my commission as a 2LT in 1988 and eventually retiring after twenty-plus years as a Lieutenant Colonel. During my career, I served at all levels of command, spent two tours in Germany, deployed to combat multiple times, worked with various allied armies, and engaged in operations on four different continents. This is not unusual. Anyone spending over twenty years of active-duty service will have enjoyed a similarly varied career path. I witnessed the deep cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of communism, the drug wars, and many other tumultuous events of those days. I also participated in the growth and restructuring of the Army.

            When I joined in 1981, the Army was struggling to throw off the chaos of the Vietnam Draftee Army, endemic racism, and the disorderly drug and alcohol drenched years that followed. At all levels with varying degrees of awareness and success, we sought to build an institution which lived up to our oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The changes in the Army were titanic, involving significant upheaval. These changes effected all ranks and all levels of command. As with any major change or restructuring, the changes came with periods of uncertainty and misunderstanding.

            Despite all of this, we built an institution that I was proud to serve in. Of course, it was not perfect. It was built and staffed by humans, so it was imperfect; however, we truly sought to do the right thing while always completing our mission. The Army that emerged from those years was an institution that embraced meritocracy.

            Promotion depended upon a demonstrated ability to operate at the next higher rank. In other words, as a lieutenant I was expected to act like and make the kind of decisions that a captain would make. Performance outweighed race and connections. As an institution, the Army remained apolitical during these years. Now, under the influence of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Pete Hegseth, much of this hard work is being rapidly undone.

            The SECDEF has fired or put out to pasture many high-ranking officers simply because they do not fit his picture of what a modern warfighter looks like, believes, or endorses. While it has always been true that at the flag-officer ranks, political considerations held great sway; during my years of service, I never witnessed such a wholesale reordering, especially one done on such diaphanous grounds. Some appear to have simply been of the wrong race or gender. Others seem to have been guilty of supporting the previous administration’s stated goals with too much fervor. Whatever the case, this heavy-handed approach has had two deleterious effects.

            First of all, the departure of so many high-level officers deprives the Department of Defense of the wisdom gained through years of experience in combat and peacetime. Given the highly volatile nature of modern warfare and geopolitics, we can ill afford to discard such a large knowledge trust.

            Secondly, these mass firings change the promotion and assignment dynamic from one that is focused on mission accomplishment to one of political conformity. During my time in the Army, I never really cared about, knew, or investigated the political leanings of my fellow soldiers. Of course, I understood their general political leanings. You cannot spend so much time around each other and not know; but, dependability and professionalism mattered most, not political party. Suddenly this changes. Now, devotion to duty and competence take a backseat to political allegiance.

            Thirdly, this politicization of the military damages trust; trust between peers, trust of leaders, and trust of the system in general. Previously, the Army culture laser focused on professionalism and competence built trust in the person on your left or right flank. You knew that they were devoted to personal professionalism and mission accomplishment. Now with this new emphasis on conservative political correctness, one never knows. Now one must wonder if their command will extract some sort of punishment for pulling the wrong lever in the ballot box.

            These factors will exert a corrosive effect on the rank and file of the military. In years past one could generally trust the system to produce competent and motivated Officers and NCOs. Yes, there were exceptions to the rule; however, for the most part, the system produced excellent leaders at all levels. The system included various mechanisms that enabled a service member to seek redress should they encounter rank prejudice based on race or gender. While these levers often brought uncomfortable scrutiny, they ensured the institution as a whole remained one in which professional competence and mission accomplishment were the standard. Those unwilling to embrace those as the standard for evaluation were outliers and once identified swiftly delt with.

            The SECDEF’s efforts to cleanse the military of WOKEness will not result in a higher level of readiness. Instead, he has weakened the military, opening the door for a continuing cycle of political readjustment. The systems designed and refined during the latter years of the twentieth century produced an organization that promoted and assigned based on demonstrated ability to work at the next higher level and approached each day with an intense focus on completing the assigned mission. The Army, while not perfect, fully embraced the lofty goal of “protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Bullies Need Not Apply

 

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Romans 12:17-18 English Standard Version

Marriam-Webster definition of Bully: to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward or to cause (someone) to do something by means of force or coercion

            Everyone has faced the challenge of a bully. Most often it is in the school environment; but, sometimes one finds a bully in the work environment, and sadly there are bullies in marriages with often tragic results. No one likes a bully. We all find the swaggering and threatening offensive. Bullies thrive on intimidating the weak and vulnerable. Fortunately, many of us who are inclined to bully others get our comeuppance in the school environment, learning early that such behavior is anathema to any community. Those who fail to learn that lesson are destined to lurch through a life full of swagger, bluster, and occasional violence. Their arrogance and self-centeredness ensure that they miss out on many of the good things in life. It is the same with nations and their leaders.

            What our leaders say and do reflects our national spirit and moral values. This is why we should choose leaders based more on their character than on their policy pronouncements. Policy pronouncements are important; however, examining character reveals more about how they will lead and make decisions. Those who’ve embraced a life-long practice of bullying those around them to get their way do not pass muster. They’ve shown through their proclivities that they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are just and defensible.

            Some will say, however, that they get results or that the ends justify the means. Perhaps they do get results in the short term and over a weaker constituency or nation; but, sooner or later their behaviour will be truly challenged and their weakness and moral turpitude revealed…along with our own.

            Through our bringing them to power and silence about their actions, we join in their practice of bullying. In some ways the international community is much like a school playground, only with much more serious results. An elementary schoolyard confrontation normally ends with a bruised ego, perhaps a bloody nose, and maybe a black eye. An international confrontation brings much more grievous results; economic chaos or open war just to name two. One result that we’ve recently seen is other countries refusing to acquiesce to our desires. Our bluster and swagger, as displayed by our president, did not result in other nations rallying to our cause in Iran. Most simply shrugged and looked the other way. A few made public pronouncements condemning our actions. Unsurprisingly, it turns out the badgering and belittling your allies tends to generate non-support when you want it.

            Governments, made up by people and beholden to people, tend to react like people. We may be the largest economy on the globe and possess a powerful military; however, we still need friends and allies. You do not strengthen alliances by publicly threatening and demeaning your partners. Those are the actions of a bully and sooner or later will fail…probably sooner. Threats, intimidation, and humiliating people are the tactics of a tyrant and indicators of a small-minded soul that cannot think of any other alternative than the threat of violence.

            This modern world, with its vast web of interconnected countries, businesses, and institutions, requires and rewards creative solutions to seemingly intractable situations. Patient and careful application of “soft” power, while not exciting, produces sound long-term results with the best outcome for the most people. Threats and intimidation, in any form, generate short-term results with little staying power and normally provide a good outcome for a minority of people. This is why we need thoughtful, creative, and strong leaders. Leaders willing to take input from diverse sources show strength, not weakness. Bullies, however, do not show the character necessary to successfully lead others, especially in the context of positions of national and international significance.

Just a Meme?

 

Normally, I try not to respond to single utterances, or memes. After all, it is impossible to compress an important issue into a few words pasted on a picture. Yet, in this time when so many build their worldview from memes, I occasionally feel compelled to speak to a specific meme. It is almost trite to say, but images carry great weight and often move large numbers of people in a specific direction, politically and socially. Our President posted such a meme last night on his Truth-Social account. I have included a copy of his post in this essay for convenance sake.

 

                            This meme, apparently AI generated, presents President Trump in a messiah-like tableau. Wrapped in robes of white with a red sash, he bends over a man in a hospital bed while an adoring nurse and others look on. His hands are emitting glowing orbs. The background includes many national symbols, such as, the statue of liberty, the American flag, fighter jets, and other potent symbols. Such a blasphemous image demands comment.

                              Some will say, this image is a joke, tongue-in-cheek as it were, and that I am overreacting to something not intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps that is the case. I may be overreacting. I have been known to overreact at times, just ask my wife, children, close friends, former students, and soldiers under my command. But in this case, I do not think so.

                              President Trump is our duly elected Chief Executive. He leads the executive branch of the United States is responsible for implementing and carrying out the laws enacted by congress or the legislative branch. While this is a powerful and important position, it is one best served by someone possessed by an appropriate level of humility and propriety. To share a meme which presents himself as a powerful messianic figure replete with the power to heal at will breaks the barrier of pride, rushing into the realm of hubris. Overweening pride is corrosive to leadership.

               As someone who spent two careers in leadership positions, I know that such pride, such hubris, does not enable good leadership. Rather, it inhibits good leadership. Good leaders must be able to set aside their own pride and listen to others. Often others with more or differing experience provide input that leads to an excellent outcome. An unshakable conviction of one’s own ability leads to faulty decision making and tends to surrounding oneself with yes men. Prideful leaders often misshape their organizations.

               All organizations take on the characteristics of their leader, assuming their traits and their decision making processes. When led by an extremely prideful person, organizations become just as prideful and unwilling to listen to outside input. Sometimes, they become so blinded by pride they flail and fail without really understanding why. This malaise eventually effects the spirit of the organization, leaving it so turned inward as to be impotent.

               As a practicing Christian, I cannot allow such a display of pride driven blasphemy in our national leadership pass without comment. For the leader of my country to display such a disregard for the sanctity of my savior takes my breath away. Such a melding of national symbology into a pseudo-Christian image offends at the deepest levels. After all, Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this earth. Of course, we all make mistakes; but, such a mistake calls for comment and correction. As a nation, we must constantly work to keep our moral center, and when a powerful national leader starts leading us down the wrong path, away from an appropriate view of ourselves, we must raise the alarm and seek a better path.

So to my friends who would say that I need to calm down and not take this so seriously, I say that this level of pride and blasphemy requires a response. Failing to respond would lead to more egregious material and further degradation of our national spirit. In this turbulent time, we need leaders who while possessed of a strong will are also possessed of an appropriate understanding of who they are and their role in our unfolding shared history.

              

Civic Morality: Part I Introduction

 

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

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

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

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

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

Please leave a comment, like, or dislike. 

Regime Change Anyone Part II

 

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

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

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

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

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

Allies: Condemnation or Cooperation

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not A Training Ground

 

            In my writing, I try and explore the ideas and concepts that shape our society and world. Though I’m not always successful, I try to direct my ramblings away from individuals and party. As a politically independent voter, unaffiliated with any one party, I find grappling with the concepts and philosophies that shape our world more satisfying since neither party accurately represents how I feel. But today I must set that aside to speak to something directly; something that I feel cannot go unaddressed.

            In a meeting with our highest military leaders the president said, “We should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.”

            As a veteran of twenty-two years of commissioned service in the Regular Army, with multiple combat tours, I find this statement appalling. It goes against everything I was ever taught about being a soldier, an officer, a leader, and a citizen.

            Our citizens and cities are not, I repeat not, training aids for the military. For our president and commander in chief to say such a thing astounds me. The practice of deploying troops into a city, without the request of civilian authorities, to engage in some nebulous version of law-enforcement goes against our cultural norms and is legally tenuous at best. Now to say that these deployments should be considered some sort of training exercise is beyond the pale of normality.

            Training is where you practice, where you make mistakes, and where you hone the skills needed to win wars and survive on the battlefield. To think of subjecting our citizenry to such a chaotic environment baffles me. Our fellow citizens are not some sort of training aid that we can use indiscriminately. If we want to train, then use the appropriate training environment, one in which mistakes do not result in casualties and property destruction. For our president to make such an off-handed callous remark not only astounds, it also alarms.

            Soldiers, NCOs, and Officers all take an oath to follow the “lawful” orders of the president. Earlier in that oath is a line that reads, “…to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” For the president, the commander in chief, to so casually put the military into a position fraught with legal and moral conflict is unconscionable. Continually sending troops into cities puts soldiers and the citizenry into positions of potential conflict for no reason. Such conflicts would potentially pit friends against friends, fathers against sons or daughters, and neighbor against neighbor. In a society already struggling to bridge seemingly impossible chasms, such deployments exacerbate the struggle to find common ground and solve difficult problems. The statement reveals a casual disregard for the very people the President has sworn to protect and a lack of understanding about the role and purpose of the military.

            Our military exists to defeat the enemy on the battlefield, and contrary to what our President and Secretary of Defense say, they are quite good at it. Our military is neither a prop designed to elicit an effect from an audience, nor is it a pseudo police force or shock troops designed to put down an imagined insider attack. Troops are not trained in law-enforcement.

            Law-enforcement is a difficult and at times very dangerous line of work. It takes special men and women to engage in this type of duty. Law-enforcement takes subtle skills in engaging the population while separating them from criminal elements. If we believe that our cities are dangerous places, a fact which current data does not necessarily support, then we should hire, train, and deploy more law-enforcement officers. We should also spend more money on those social services which help reduce crime through education and job training. We do not need knee jerk responses to difficult and convoluted problems.

            Deploying troops may sound good to certain elements of the President’s base, but it does nothing to solve the long-term problems that we face. Additionally, it increases the divide our nation currently grapples with. Instead of posturing, we need leadership that rolls up its sleeves and engages in the difficult work of solving problems in ways that bring people together.

A Golden Statue

 

          As a teacher of English Literature and a retired Army operator in Information Operations, I understand the importance of symbology, especially in the visual arena. While verbal symbology is potent, visual symbology is much more powerful. The American public turned against the war in Vietnam due in large part to powerful images streaming from the small Southeast Asian country into our living rooms via the evening news. Careers are often made and broken over the publication of images. So, it is with great chagrin, sadness, but no surprise the I viewed the images of golden statues of President Trump.

 

          As a Christian, I cannot help but call to mind the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego found in Daniel 3:16-28. Now of course, no one that I know of is being called out and thrown into the fiery furnace for their failure to bow down to these images; but, they still give me great pause. What are we saying as a nation when we tolerate and even applaud such blatant self-aggrandizement and adulation bordering on worship? I also know that the President did not ask for the golden statue of him holding up a Bitcoin on the National Mall, but neither did he do anything to stop it. But he did actively share the AI generated picture of a heroic sized golden statue, complete with hundreds of miniature versions for sale, in an imagined recovered Gaza. These images reveal something significant about the character of our president.

            He is a man given over to vanity. The vast majority of us would, and should, recoil at the thought of a supersize golden statue of ourselves. It would make us hesitate, to gulp, and say, “Perhaps not.” Our president however, revels in such over-the-top exaltation. And the worst part is that we encourage this behavior. We simply act as if this level of conceit is normal and acceptable. I do not blame the President for such hubris; instead, I blame those of us who insist on accepting and supporting such vain displays. As the old prophet Hosea said, “They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind.” Hosea 8:7a

 

            In our culture, our society, we sowed the wind when we stopped demanding a high level of character in our leaders, whether it be political, cultural, or sports. We sowed the wind when

we stopped expecting people to be polite, excusing boorish behavior. We sowed the wind when we started passing off crassness as edgy humor. We sowed the wind when we lowered our standards for entertainment, calling vulgar baseness avant-garde. We sowed the wind when we evaluate education solely on its ability to increase earning potential instead of its ability to improve one’s ability to act as a good citizen. We sowed the wind when we started evaluating a person on the contents of their bank account instead of the content of their character. We sowed the wind when we decided that it was acceptable to round up and detain in substandard conditions certain classes of people rather than provide them with the due process of law guaranteed by our constitution and other legal instruments. We sowed the wind when we handed over the reins of government to men and women not because of their abilities, character, or vote but instead due to their wealth and obsequiousness. We’ve sown the wind.

            So again, I do not blame our President or those around him. They’re only doing the things that we’ve allowed. They are the fruit of the seeds we have planted. When we turned our heads and looked away, we planted seeds. When we sighed and accepted a lower standard of behavior, we planted seeds. We need to think about the seeds that we are planting.

 

           Instead of the seeds of callousness, apathy, and injustice, let us plant seeds of
compassion, justice, activity, and mercy. When we take the time and effort to plant those seeds, we will all enjoy the fruits of a just and honorable society, where our leaders serve the larger body with compassion and fairness.