The Tanker and Poetry

 

            “Sir, I’m just a DAT. I can’t understand that.”

            It was the early ‘90s at what was then Fort Hood, Texas. I was serving as the Signal Officer in an Armor Battalion, 3-66 Armor to be exact and training a young officer on how to use his radio. Now, I’m not a technically oriented person; however, the Army in all its collective wisdom decided that I would be a Signal Officer. In fact, my first assignment as an officer was to 5^th Signal Command, a fixed station unit which used satellite and terrestrial microwave technologies to extend voice and data communications from the supporting base to tactical units deployed to Europe and around the globe. Survival as an officer in such a highly technical organization required mastery of many different technologies and the leadership required to employ them. I was in over my head. Survival and promotion required that I learn and study. Fortunately, I served alongside some of the best NCOs and technicians in the free world who made my success their success. I went from that heady technical world into the tactical army replete with the hulking M1A1 Abrams and all the associated heavy machinery of armored warfare, and as the Signal Officer I was required to master a new set of technologies, FM and AM radio and the various computer systems required to shoot, move, and communicate. I also had to teach the tankers to do the same.

            DAT stands for Dumb Ass Tanker, a moniker the tankers tossed around with great aplomb and pride; though it was not a term they would accept from a non-tanker such as myself. The M1A1 Abrams is an incredibly complex piece of equipment. It uses a turbine engine, taken from the aviation world and modified to drive the 50-ton behemoth. Properly employed, an Abrams equipped battalion is an incredibly lethal organization able to rapidly kill and destroy over amazing distances. To appropriately fight such a tank or organization requires the mastery of many different skills and is not, repeat not,  possible for those of limited intellect. Though they loved to wrap themselves in the mantle of the DAT, tankers, good tankers, are among the smartest individuals to wear the uniform. Years later, after I retired from the Army, I plunged into a new world.

            I sought to satiate my innate abilities and teach English and Social Studies in the High School and Junior College arena. This required a return to school. So, I found myself in Graduate School. On a whim I signed up for a course Poetry, Form and Function. Dr. John Poch, the professor, asked me to stop by for a chat before the semester started. He informed me that this class was not sitting around and chatting about poems over coffee. While we would read and discuss the great poems through the ages, we would be required to write a poem each walk, using a particular form…none of them free-form. He wanted to see if I was willing to work in such a highly technical environment. Again, I was in quite over my head; however, with his help I learned and grew. I found that the world of poetry was much more technical and thrilling than I had ever known. I never became a great poet, that required a level of commitment, inspiration, and ability I was either unwilling or unable to summon. But I found a new love of the world of poetry, especially the Metaphysical poets of the seventeenth century. This new world of letters, social studies, and education required mastery of a new set of skills for survival.

            Success in any field of endeavor requires mastery of skills. It has always been that way and always will be that way. Pick any field and you will find that success hinges upon mastery. Blue-collar, white-collar, or techie, it does not matter. Mastery leads to success. My grandfathers and uncles, all blue-collar men were masters of their chosen trades. My father, a history professor, was a master of his chosen trade. And mastery, requires an intensive effort to understand the intricacies of craft, intellectual prowess in other words. The world is and has always been a complex place impervious to easy formulas or pat answers. This is what makes developing a political philosophy based on memes so hazardous.

            A meme is an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.¹ These fill the social media world and often induce a good laugh. But many people are starting to develop their political or religious world view through data gathered from memes. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times detailed this cultural shift. ² And while this article focused on conservative efforts in this arena, liberal groups display the same sorts of changes. “Influencers” seek to inform their audience through memes, claiming that modern youth do not have the attention span or time to consume and digest political material presented in more traditional formats. They claim to influence their target audience via memes and other similar formats, and they appear to be quite successful in their stated goal. But there is one glaring problem.

            The issues surrounding political theory defy easy explanation via meme. The problems we face as a nation or culture are much more complex. They always have been. This is not some sort of new societal geopolitical problem. A study of history reveals that once you get more than two people living together, problems become very complicated, refusing easy definitions and solutions. All of us love easy definitions and simple solutions; however, the real world does not work that way. It is impossible to compress a serious problem, such as the Israeli Palestinian conflict or progressive tax theory, into a short catchy phrase which entertains.

            We live in a complex world with many competing constituencies. Finding solutions which adequately services these, sometimes widely divergent, groups takes knowledge, understanding, time, and wisdom. You cannot employ a shortcut, but that is exactly what many “influencers” claim to do. They posit a new generation, which understands the world intuitively and is able to bypass the work of learning. They claim that “only young people know what the new world is like.”³ They purposefully sell an entire generation short and pander to its baser more ill-informed instincts.

            Such a crass and self-serving paradigm leads to faulty myopic policy which ultimately separates and does not serve the nation or society as a whole. Good policy takes thoughtful communication between stakeholders. Comprehensive strategy and programs require some level of compromise. Memes corrode compromise by creating cartoonish representatives of “the other” which bear little resemblance to actual people or groups. We need to stop flinging such snarky and sarcastic images at each other, claiming to have “owned” the opposition. Good governance, governance which serves the greater good for the greatest number of people, takes time, effort, intelligence, cooperation, and wisdom. We ought to jettison memes as a means of creating policy and building consensus, putting them in their proper place, a tidbit of humor that causes a chuckle. Let us leave the real work of developing a coherent and cogent policy to thoughtful consideration and hard work.       

           

1.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

3.  https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/10/opinion/trolling-democracy.html

Free Speech Anyone?

 

            Free speech is a tricky thing. I enjoy free speech when it is mine. After all, I’m a reasonable guy who always thinks things through carefully. Ask any of my friends…shoot you can even ask my wife and kids. They will tell you that I always say things that are worth listening to. Right?

            One of the things that I discovered as a soldier was that I had given up a certain amount of my free speech. Army Regulations prohibited me from speaking out against the President, members of congress, Army leadership, and other members of the government. And should you think these were empty unenforced rules, I had a fellow officer and friend cashiered for attending a political rally in uniform. There was no discussion, no appeals, no second chances. He was summarily dismissed from the service. If this sounds harsh, remember that as soldiers we serve all presidents, no matter the party and no matter our personal political inclinations. So as a soldier, I had to always remember that I needed to be circumspect in the words that I let slip from my lips. So as someone who’s had to self-censor, I’ve watched the ongoing battle of wills between President Trump and certain schools with great interest. After all, this is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Do not be fooled by various proclamations and news reports. At its core, this conflict is about free speech and its exercise.

            President Trump and many others in the Republican (MAGA) Party find fault with higher education in general and the Ivy League specifically. They make grandiose claims about these universities being totally devoted to liberalism. With grave speech they trot out a seemingly endless parade of examples of how far out of mainstream thought these schools are. They also provide many examples of how more conservative students are hounded and abused by their professors and fellow students. And while such behavior is unacceptable, it does not represent the student experience as a whole. Again, this is a battle over free speech. While it is true that the academic world is predominantly liberal; it is not one vast sea of blue with only the occasional island of red. A dispassionate examination of the data reveals a more complex picture. Any university worthy of the name university seeks to broaden its ideological makeup. A diverse faculty and student population leads to a vibrant and thriving educational institution. This diversity supports the academic ideal.

            In a clash of ideas free speech enables competing ideas a full voice. Ideally each side provides the idea and supports it with data. Unfortunately, in this method one of the ideas is found wanting and rejected, leaving the rejected side feeling…well, rejected. None of us like losing. The bitter sting of defeat should lead us to introspection and reexamination of our logic and data.

            The academic world is built on this principle. Someone develops an idea, does the appropriate research, develops their argument, and then presents their proposal for examination by recognized experts in their field. If their idea survives then it is accepted into the cannon. One of the keystone components of this system is a dedication to the truth, no matter where it leads. Unfortunately for many, their proposals do not pass muster and are discarded. If that is the case then one must revisit your idea and evidence, seeking the means to strengthen your case. This rigorous competition leads to a fuller understanding of our world and how we best interact with it, which is why the actions of our current administration in relation to the university world concerns me.

            The administration seeks to shape the academic world through various types of coercion. These tactics include cutting off all government support, denying foreign students visas, and dictating university policy. Of course, the government may deny a specific grant application for pursuit in an area it does not support; but, to simply cut off all funding is the tactic of a bully and will have a deleterious effect on important other research efforts. All of these are an unacceptable intrusion into the academic world.

            Our nation has built a constellation of universities which draw the brightest students from around the world. As a nation and culture, we profit greatly from this system. We should not tear it down simply because of a perceived liberal bias. If we want to change the university world, we must engage it in the realm of ideas. To coerce a university into submission through such oppressive tactics transforms it from an educational institution into a propaganda arm of the government, an organization not to be trusted. To continue to pursue this process is to demean the academic freedom and free speech. The current administration takes umbrage at the criticism coming from the academic community, which it feels is unfair. Perhaps some of the criticism is unfair. The solution lies not in persecution but in academic engagement.

The Right Words

Recently a friend posted an essay on Facebook which started, “All my friends who hate President Trump read this.” This is not unusual. A few months ago, other friends were posting things that said, “All my friends who hate Vice President Kamala read this.” Unfortunately, this seems to be de  rigueur in speech these days. We’ve all seen people say that someone who disagrees with them should be taken out and hung, and that someone who takes issue with a governmental policy should leave the country. This kind of speech is not limited to one party. People on either end of the political spectrum, or in the middle, say such things. We seem given to polemic speech, and I’m not sure why. I find this disheartening, especially when I see people who I know consider themselves Christians posting such things. The following scripture comes to mind:

6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. Colossians 4:6 English Standard Version

I know that some of my friends who are not Christians may raise an eyebrow at this, so perhaps we can also consider the following quote:

But hushed be every thought that springs

        From out the bitterness of things.

William Wordsworth

Or perhaps this one that is a bit older:

He can never speak well who knows not how to hold his peace. Plutarch

When we engage in such invective speech, we only gratify ourselves. Our diatribe falls on stone ears. For example, if I’m not a supporter of President Trump and a friend posts something that starts, “All my friends who hate President Trump read this,” I’m probably not going to read it. After all, even if I do not support him, I do not hate him. The word hate is a very strong word. Merriam-Webster defines hate as: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury or extreme dislike or disgust : antipathy, loathing. Truthfully, I do not know any politicians well enough to hate them. I may disagree with their policies, but hatred requires a certain level of intimacy that we will not reach. Such language shuts doors. If I see that kind of post, I do not read it because I know that I don’t feel that emotion towards the person talked about. Hate is a penultimate emotion, similar to loath. Yet, we throw it around as if it was as common as putting on your socks. The casual use of the word hate builds walls, closes doors, and demeans meaningful conversation. When we accuse each other of hatred, we make it very hard to engage in constructive dialogue. We should eschew recklessly flinging hate-stones at each other. We should also avoid making disagreement something more than it is.

Disagreeing with something our government does is not being traitorous or a sign that one should decamp to a new country. Along with belligerent speech we’ve embraced the idea that we all must think the same way. I often see people accusing someone who thinks differently of being disloyal or worse. Christy, my wife of forty years, and I disagree on various things; some as simple as what to eat and some difficult thorny theological issues. Yet in those forty years, I’ve never slept on the couch. Long ago we learned that we do not have to agree on everything to enjoy a deep meaningful relationship. Disagreement does not necessarily sever all ties. There have been times in which listening to each other moderated or even changed our opinions. As a nation, we need to develop the emotional and mental ability to listen carefully to what someone says.  When we listen, truly listen, we show honor and respect to the person speaking…or writing…or posting. We need not fear someone who disagrees with us.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

As President Franklin Roosevelt said in his inauguration speech in 1933:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is … fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

It is interesting to note that Roosevelt tapped into a long line of thinkers, Montaigne, Bacon, and others who identified fear as the significant problem. We can also look at the old bard who said it this way:

Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind;

The thief doth fear each bush an officer.

William Shakespeare

Fear makes us small, timid individuals who lash out at every perceived wrong or slight. We need to be bigger individuals; men and women who understand the real problems that stalk our nation and civilization. Fear, prejudice, ignorance, and greed stand as the root of the ills that plague us. There are others, but I’d rather not get too metaphysical in this essay. We desperately need to listen more to each other. Perhaps then, we might find that we’re much more like the other side than we realize. We might also find solutions to the various challenges we face. 

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.