The Oath

 

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

That is the oath of enlistment. I first said those words in February of 1981, shortly before I shipped out to Fort Leonard Wood for basic training. I would repeat them during a reenlistment ceremony and as the reenlisting official for many of my subordinates over the years. Later I would say the following words upon receiving my commission as an officer in the Army:

I, Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

In both cases, I swore allegiance to the Constitution, to the body of ideals which frame our national government. As an enlisted man, I swore to obey the orders of the President as long as they were lawful. Interestingly, the oath for officers omits the reference to the president. In both cases, our oath is to support and defend the constitution. As an officer, there were several times in which I had to confront a superior officer, once a two-star general, over issues that violated our constitution. Fortunately for me, those higher up agreed with my understanding of our constitution and my career survived. I wonder if it would today.

Our president seems to have forgotten that those who serve in our government take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not an oath of fealty to the president. The backbone, the strength of our government lies in the fact that those who serve, do not blindly serve a man or woman. No, they serve the nation by their devotion to a body of ideals encapsulated by the Constitution. This is often difficult.

I remember the fear and trepidation that I felt as I told a two-star general, “No sir. We cannot do that it is illegal and immoral.” Deployed to combat in Iraq, I felt quite alone and without support. Fortunately for me, the three-star general above both of us agreed with my interpretation of the situation and the matter was dropped. But it was not fun. 

I hope that someone will educate our President, reminding him that the government is not his personal fiefdom and governmental officials serve a higher purpose. It is not fun to hear the words no, that is unconstitutional or illegal; however, those in power need to feel that check when they want to go outside the law. Given our Presidents proclivity for revenge and retribution over any perceived slight, real or imagined, I hope that they have the courage needed and our support as necessary.

The Inspector General

During twenty-seven years of military service, I periodically ran into the Inspector General, better known as the IG. As a young, enlisted soldier my primary interaction with the IG centered around preparing for and enduring periodic IG inspections. Of course, we were always told that you could go to the IG as a final recourse if we were being abused somehow by our chain of command or the Army in general. I never felt the need to turn to the IG for help. As an officer, my interactions with IG were more…challenging. The IG came and inspected my units periodically. These inspections normally included a “sensing-session,” in which my subordinates had the opportunity voice their complaints and concerns without repercussion. I survived all of the out-briefs without serious problems. Then there were the individual IG Complaints. As any active duty officer will tell you, these complaints come our way occasionally. Again, I survived these without much issue. Once I was told that I did not talk to civilians very well. But other than that, I do not remember anything which negatively impacted my ability to complete my mission or hampered my career progression. The IG exists to ensure that Army leaders comply with appropriate law and regulations. It also exists to ensure that Army leaders, men and women entrusted with significant power and authority, do not abuse their soldiers through capricious or inappropriate application of that authority. The Army IG traces its history all the way back to 1777. It has served to help soldiers and commanders alike better serve our nation for over two centuries. Despite the angst it causes leaders sometimes, the IG is a necessary brake on unbridled power.

On the evening of twenty-four January, President Trump authorized the firing on between twelve and seventeen Inspectors General of the government. The government is a relative late-comer to the need for and role of the IG. Congress set up governmental IGs in the turbulent period after the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon administration. They serve the same purpose as the Army IG, they work to ensure that leaders follow the law and do not abuse their power. Though the president has the authority to fire and replace IGs, the president must show cause and give thirty days notice to congress before termination. There are over seventy IGs in the Executive Branch, with over thirty requiring Senate confirmation. Though they are generally considered as nonpartisan, Presidents may remove and replace them. However, the firing of such a number while apparently circumventing the law is concerning. The IGs serve as a legal and regulatory watchdog as well as brake on unconstrained power.

As an officer, I enjoyed extensive powers which expanded as I was promoted. An inappropriate application or use of those powers could have seriously impeded the careers and personal lives of my subordinates. Later in my career my decisions and actions could have serious consequences in regard to the conduct of war and national policy and image. The IG is a necessary component of the military and government. Senior leaders may not like the IG; but, they need the IG. As a law-abiding nation we need an independent and strong IG to ensure that those entrusted with wielding great power do so in a way that not only complies with the law but also best serves the public interest. This applies to the President and Executive Branch. 

For a sitting President to circumvent the law by firing IGs without cause and replacing them with men and women more compliant to their wishes does not engender confidence. Rather, it raises unnecessary questions and exerts a corrosive effect on public confidence. As annoying as it may be, the President should comply with the law and let the IGs do their jobs in an unconstrained fashion. 

All My Troops

 

As an officer in the Army, I served in a variety of leadership positions at numerous levels. I learned very quickly that the Army did not let me choose my soldiers. Oh, there were times in which I was allowed influence in certain key positions; but, normally expected me to lead and train whatever troops they sent me. It was up to me to lead them to success. I also found out that most of my soldiers did not share my worldview. Some of them embraced a radically different lifestyle. That is not a criticism of them. We just looked at things differently. The Army required that I evaluate their character on the Army values of: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. I was also obliged to evaluate their ability to conform to Army standards and perform their duties as assigned. As long as their personal proclivities or tastes did not impact on their ability to serve, I could not denigrate them. We embraced the idea that it said, “US Army” on our uniforms. Of course, this diversity led to interesting late-night conversations in the barracks, command posts, foxholes, and during long convoys. But in a secular multi-cultural Army, you must embrace this style of leadership.

As a leader of troops, I needed to take care of all the soldiers assigned to me. I was responsible for setting the conditions for their success. I was also responsible for defending them no matter what their personal beliefs were. I was especially cognizant that the weakest members of my soldiers, those of the lowest ranks and various minorities of all types, were especially vulnerable to predatory behaviors of others, especially those senior in rank. It was up to me to create a command environment that fostered the success of all my soldiers, not just the ones that looked and thought like me. As long as they did their duties, lived up to the Army values, and did not get into some sort of legal trouble, they would enjoy my encouragement, support, training, and protection…yes protection. As a leader, I needed to make sure that not only did I create a command climate that was fair towards all my soldiers, but I also had to make sure that I protected all of my soldiers, regardless of their personal worldview. When I did that my soldiers prospered and my organization functioned well.

Our politicians need to embrace this mental paradigm. Like it or not, we are a secular multi-cultural nation. We started down this road long ago, long before we even considered revolution. An interesting letter from the home office in Amsterdam to Peter Stuyvesant, the governor of New Amsterdam in the mid 1600s, instructed him to let those of differing beliefs alone as long as they were peaceable and abided by the laws. This decision set our nation on a course of letting those of differing worldview alone. It also means that I must learn to live next to and respect the rights of those whose worldview differs from mine…perhaps even drastically. Our politicians need to remember that they represent all the members of their constituency, not just the ones who elected them. This is especially important for the president.

Our president serves as the only nationally elected official. Every other elected official serves a smaller constituency. It is incumbent upon the president to remember that they must keep the needs of all the nation in mind as they make decisions, not just those who elected them. Those weakest members of our society look to the White House for support and protection. As a commander of troops, I had to keep all my soldiers in mind. In a like fashion, the president needs to keep all the citizens of the nation in mind as he leads. This does not mean that he makes decisions that everyone likes. Indeed, a president is elected based on what they say they will do in office, and they need to fulfill those promises. But he needs to remember that even those with differing worldviews look to him for protection. Success at the ballot box does not justify policy abuse. 

In Ezekiel 47:21-23 we find an interesting and instructive passage. Through the prophet, God provided the Jews instructions for reoccupying the Promised Land. He told them that they would find “sojourners” there, people who were not Israelites. They were not to drive them out. Instead, they were to treat them as native-born children of Israel and give them an inheritance alongside the returning Jews. While the situation is not the same, the instructions to those in power are very relevant.

Those in power must remember to take care of those who are weak and vulnerable. Power does not grant license to abuse or trample the weak. Those in power must wield it in ways that not only fulfills the desires of those who elected them but also protects the weakest and marginalized members of society. To do otherwise is to abuse power. 

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.