When the elderly president of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Emil Hacha, visited Adolf Hitler in the late winter of 1939, his country had already agreed to measures designed to placate the dictator. The Czech cabinet had banned the communists and booted out all Jewish school teachers. The Czechs were fully prepared to make other concessions.
But Hitler was no about to accept any further conciliatory gestures. He had already abandoned any pretense of diplomacy because his real intent was to render Czechoslovakia powerless. He was determined to take the country over by force.
But before Hitler gave the aged and probably senile Hacha Germany's ultimatums, the dictator completely humiliated him. Hacha was not summoned into Hitler's presence until 1:15 A.M., at which time, after Hacha had groveled before him begging for mercy, Hitler exploded. Hacha had no choice but to sign a document of surrender and give in, the dictator fumed. Annihilation awaited if the Czechs dallied.
When Hacah and his envoy protested, Hitler stormed out of the room and handed Hacah over to Goering and Ribbentrop, who browbeat the confused and ailing president, finally bludgeoning him into signing the death warrant for his country at 3:55 A.M., March 15, 1939. [The fuller story of Dr. Hacah and Hitler can be found in William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 444-448.]
The treatment of Dr. Hacah is a lesson in how authoritarians treat their enemies.
Who would ever have believed similar tactics of humiliation and browbeating would be used by our administration against a long time friend and ally?
Though not as severe a beating as was administered to Hacha; nonetheless, our president gave US long time friend and ally a good hard smack in the face, humilating and dismissing Bibi Netanyahu as if he were an upstart lackey. While unlike Hacha, Netanyahu neither fainted nor caved in, the behavior of our president reeks of Chicago style thuggery. It has the unsavory smell of authoritarianism.
By now most observers of the political scene know the story. Jim Hoft of PajamasMedia quotes Adrian Blomfield of The Telegraph:
Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.
… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.
When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.” As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new."
Obama's behavior toward the head of state of one of our most trusted and valuable allies goes beyond ignorance and immaturity. Our president acted as tyrants and thugs behave, not as the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world should behave.
Mr Hoft adds:
The ritual humiliation of the Israelis is an absolute disgrace, and yet another example of how the Obama administration views its allies with indifference, contempt, and at times outright hostility. It is extraordinary how far the Obama team has gone out of its way to grovel to state sponsors of terrorism, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Muammar Gaddafi, while kicking America’s friends in the teeth.
It is no wonder Obama's approval rating within Israel has fallen to single digits.
There are many disturbing lessons to be drawn from our president's treatment of Israel. None are good.
But the chief lesson to be learned is that the new realpolitik of the current administration continues to minimize our friends while courting our enemies.
European leaders may shrug and wait it out until a friendlier administration works to repair the damage done by our current administration.
But for Israel, the minimzation of her standing and the thuggish behavior of our president could well be catastrophic as the fire breathing nations who surround her see an opportunity to increase their hostility and gain legitimacy to their complaints that Israel and the Jews should not exist at all.
Just as bad, the stinging repudiation of Israel as a prime ally and friend could well stoke the fires of anti-semitism, not only in Europe, where the brush fires of antisemitism are fast turning into bonfires of hatred similar to those of the 1930's, but also here in the US.
After all, never has this country had a president who is more overtly hostile to Israel, who surrounds himself with so many anti-semitic sycophants and who is so ready to give severe qualifications concerning the legitimacy of the Jewish nation and its claims to its land.
All the more reason to vote him and his cronies out of office.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Caligula's Horse and our Congress
It's probably fair to say that by the time the emperor Caligula made his favorite horse Incitatus a senator, the glory days of the Roman senate were long past. What was once an august deliberative body had already gradually been diminished by the overweening control of powerful, godlike emperors. The final humiliation reducing the senate to the status of a horse's ass didn't really matter.
But the US House of Representatives and the US Senate have suffered an even worse fate than gradual strangulation by a series of divine rulers. US leaders have not been the primary reason for congress' present reduction to irrelevancy, try though they might.
On the contrary, the US Senate and House of Representatives have done themselves in. By voting for the current health care bill, both bodies of congress have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. Both have become as moribund and ineffectual as the Roman Senate under Caligula. That is because both have handed over their law making and regulatory powers to a vast bureaucracy they themselves have just created.
It's not that there aren't bureaucracies already existing which are, by and large, dead weights on American society. Self-perpetuating, regulatory and controlling nightmares have already been inserted into the societal fabric.
But the bureaucracy just created and about to be signed into law creates a monstrous organization controlling just about every aspect of American's lives. Even more to the point, the giant agency about to be put into place will busy itself, like every other agency, making rules and regulations. The new self-perpetuating health care bureaucracy, along with others still to be put into place, will make endless rules, laws and regulations. Americans will have no or little say concerning the new regulations, for it is truly difficult, if not impossible, to make agencies and bureaucracies accountable to the will of the people.
The above means Congress will gradually be put out of business. It will become largely symbolic as the newly minted bureaucracy takes its place.
In addition to the plethora of new laws and regulations spewed forth by health care bureaucrats and appointees, a newly empowered president with the capacity to hire and fire said appointees will preside over the bureaucratic nightmare, increasing his say over the country's destiny without the tedium of dealing with fractious deliberative bodies.
But perhaps even more importantly, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have, by passing the health care legislation, proved themselves irrelevant because they now are not representative bodies. To put it bluntly, by passing a health care package odious to the majority of the American people, our representatives and senators have shown they no longer represent the will of their constituents, but are bought and sold to the wheelers and dealers complicit with the White House.
The upshot is that being elected a senator or representative no longer matters as far as the voice of the people is concerned. It no longer matters who is elected because the point of being elected was to represent the people who vote, and that rather important commission has no more relevance. While thankfully no one will have to see the fake torments and supposed agonies of conscience of a Bart Stupak or a Mary Landrieu, Americans have suffered what might be an irreparable loss; namely, no one will be speaking for them. In such a scenario, no individual's vote for his or her representative matters, as all representatives are become merely interchangeable faces and ineffectual, gutted zombies rubber stamping the status quo.
In sum, as of yesterday, congress voted itself out of power. It made itself as irrelevant as Caligula's senate. The power has gone elsewhere. It has gone to the White House, a privileged cabal of appointees and to the new bureaucracies.
The result? Power no longer belongs to the people.
Welcome to the brave new world of 2010.
But the US House of Representatives and the US Senate have suffered an even worse fate than gradual strangulation by a series of divine rulers. US leaders have not been the primary reason for congress' present reduction to irrelevancy, try though they might.
On the contrary, the US Senate and House of Representatives have done themselves in. By voting for the current health care bill, both bodies of congress have consigned themselves to irrelevancy. Both have become as moribund and ineffectual as the Roman Senate under Caligula. That is because both have handed over their law making and regulatory powers to a vast bureaucracy they themselves have just created.
It's not that there aren't bureaucracies already existing which are, by and large, dead weights on American society. Self-perpetuating, regulatory and controlling nightmares have already been inserted into the societal fabric.
But the bureaucracy just created and about to be signed into law creates a monstrous organization controlling just about every aspect of American's lives. Even more to the point, the giant agency about to be put into place will busy itself, like every other agency, making rules and regulations. The new self-perpetuating health care bureaucracy, along with others still to be put into place, will make endless rules, laws and regulations. Americans will have no or little say concerning the new regulations, for it is truly difficult, if not impossible, to make agencies and bureaucracies accountable to the will of the people.
The above means Congress will gradually be put out of business. It will become largely symbolic as the newly minted bureaucracy takes its place.
In addition to the plethora of new laws and regulations spewed forth by health care bureaucrats and appointees, a newly empowered president with the capacity to hire and fire said appointees will preside over the bureaucratic nightmare, increasing his say over the country's destiny without the tedium of dealing with fractious deliberative bodies.
But perhaps even more importantly, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have, by passing the health care legislation, proved themselves irrelevant because they now are not representative bodies. To put it bluntly, by passing a health care package odious to the majority of the American people, our representatives and senators have shown they no longer represent the will of their constituents, but are bought and sold to the wheelers and dealers complicit with the White House.
The upshot is that being elected a senator or representative no longer matters as far as the voice of the people is concerned. It no longer matters who is elected because the point of being elected was to represent the people who vote, and that rather important commission has no more relevance. While thankfully no one will have to see the fake torments and supposed agonies of conscience of a Bart Stupak or a Mary Landrieu, Americans have suffered what might be an irreparable loss; namely, no one will be speaking for them. In such a scenario, no individual's vote for his or her representative matters, as all representatives are become merely interchangeable faces and ineffectual, gutted zombies rubber stamping the status quo.
In sum, as of yesterday, congress voted itself out of power. It made itself as irrelevant as Caligula's senate. The power has gone elsewhere. It has gone to the White House, a privileged cabal of appointees and to the new bureaucracies.
The result? Power no longer belongs to the people.
Welcome to the brave new world of 2010.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
PC and Multi-Culturalism are Destroying the US Military
Political Correctness and Multi-culturalism Are Destroying the US Military: The ideological seeds that contributed to the destruction of the Wehrmacht have implications for the US military today
On June 22, 1942, in a surprise attack that flabbergasted and confounded even the wily Josef Stalin, German armies raced across the border of Russia determined to crush the nation and expand Nazi domination. That they did not succeed in so doing is one of the providential miracles of history for which the world may be profoundly grateful.
Historians have been studying the causes of the Nazi defeat for decades, and most concede that if it were not for the incredible heroism of the Russian people and the entrance of America into the war, Russia would have fallen to the Nazi war machine.
But it is seldom noted the Nazi version of political correctness played an enormous role in bringing the German armies to their knees. German military success was hindered by the racist ideology which put at the forefront of the military agenda the drive for Aryan purity, which purity was to be achieved by the extermination of Jews and Slavs.
With a few notable exceptions which would later translate into plots to assassinate Hitler, the German military was gradually absorbed into the political and ideological milieu engendered by Nazism, becoming not only a weapon for Nazi expansionist goals, but also an instrument to achieve the racial purity Hitler longed for. Prussian ideals of absolute loyalty to country and ruler were made to include Nazi ideological goals.
There was, in other words, a dual agenda comprised of military victory over the Russian armies but also victory over racial "pollution."
German army units that had thrust forward with incredible speed and determination into the very heart of Europe rushed headlong into Russia, but they were now accompanied by einsatzgruppen, special units designed to exterminate non-Aryans. As long as the Nazi blitzkrieg moved with the astonishing rapidity and success rate it had enjoyed in Europe, the einsatzgruppen could work without impeding the advance of the German armies. But as the war wore on, it became apparent that conventional and racial warfare could not co-exist without bogging down the army's military goals.
Gradually the twin goals of military victory and extermination of racially undesirable elements became so intertwined that in combination with stiffer Russian resistance than expected and the onset of the famed, brutal Russian winter, the German armies were slowed and eventually halted.
So it happened that the drag of ideological warfare was part of Hitler's "Waterloo." Because ideology trumped military strategy and sapped morale, the might of the German army was vitiated. While shedding oceans of blood in battle and in extermination campaigns, the army itself was suffering a vampiric suctioning of its life blood in the form of Nazi political correctness. The famed disciplined hierarchy of the German army broke down into a bloody anarchical melee.
Lessons for the US Military
US military forces face the prospect of being weakened from within by ideological forces as surely as the Wehrmacht was weakened by the absorption of Nazi ideology. While it is true there are far subtler ideological forces at work within our military than the odious racial ideology of Nazism; nonetheless, as with the Wehrmacht, ideological purity tests foreign to the ideals of the American military have been and are being introduced into its ranks, assuring its gradual vitiation. The US military is presently subject to and weakened by the ideologies of political correctness and multi-culturalism, both of which are inimical to a strong military, which, if it is to remain effective as a fighting force, requires strict adherence to its own longstanding traditions and ideals.
While remaining under civil authority, the military must be free to live and act according to the principles it articulates. It must have its autonomous sphere of authority, hierarchy and discipline. If it is forced to absorb and to obey the current politically correct thinking that is the hallmark of our current administration as well as of academia, it is bled of strength, compromised in its principles and subject to revisionist thinking.
In fact, it is in danger of not being the military at all.
For those unfamiliar with US military ideals, they are those of warriors devoted to God, country, the branch of the military to which one belongs, acceptance of the hierarchy of command, unflinching obedience to superiors and steadfast loyalty to one's unit and fellow soldiers.
Add to those ideals self-effacement and denial of individual privilege in the interest of protecting the innocent and vulnerable of one's country. All of the above mean that the individual soldier's "rights" as defined by the current civilian climate of opinion are freely suspended for the sake of unity--a unity necessary for fighting; a unity that melds all soldiers together as one force.
For instance, the honor code of the US Marine Corps outlines the general principles by which our military stands and by which it is led. Every action of any given Marine is guided by the honor code, by service to one's fellow citizen accompanied by prayer to God. Even the use of the Marine's gun is subject to a strict protocol of honor.
The above ideals necessarily preclude privileges and special exceptions required by the agendas followed by special interest groups defined by race, gender, national origin, or sexual behavior, all of which must be submitted to ideals and goals that sacrifice individual demands for the sake of the unifying, transcendent ideals that define a unified fighting force.
There is no room in the military for soldiers who think of themselves primarily as victims of societal sins; sins which must be rectified at the expense, vitiation or outright jettisoning of the universal moral code which defines the soldier's duty.
There is no room for campaigns and fights for individual "rights" and privileges that are not shared by the entire fighting force. There is only room for fighters; for heros devoted first to God, country and the constitution.
Current political correctness and multi-culturalism are pernicious to military unity because they are intrinsically divisive. They focus on the individual and splintered groups rather than on overarching unity. When a soldier thinks of himself primarily as an aggrieved member of a minority entitled to special privileges, he automatically is disloyal to the military hierarchy, as he sees the strict military command and fixed hierarchy as a barrier to the establishment of his personal goals and individual rights.
Examples of the dangers of political correctness and multi-culturalism
For instance, if a soldier is thinking primarily about her grievances as a woman, she divides herself from her male fellow soldiers and creates a sub-hierarchy of demands and expectations as relates purely to her and other women, not to the overall unit.
That is why it is insanity to put women on submarines with men and expect the two sexes to operate as one unit. It simply will not happen. The requirements of women are quite different than men, and military protocol would have to take note of and enforce the subset of requirements specifically geared toward women. The result would mean that the whole unit's code would have to be re-worked within what can only be broadly categorized as civilian expectations and guidelines. Those guidelines are most often formed within a radical overt or quasi-feminist framework of rules and regulations concerning not only women's special physical needs but also a convoluted protocol established to protect women from any hint of sexual harassment.
One can only imagine how such elaborate protocol between the sexes would work out when both are housed undersea for months in the equivalent of a large tuna can. One certainly can imagine and expect the fracturing of unity as the men were handed out a Chinese menu of regulations relating to treatment of the opposite sex while being exhorted to follow the rest of military protocol to the letter.
But one thing is certain: Nothing but trouble and divisiveness will result as the unity necessary for an effective fighting force is placed under extreme duress and perhaps entirely dissipated.
One final example of the rotten fruit of multi-culturalism and political correctness as concerns the US military: The case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan's case has been thoroughly examined and commented on. It is not the intent of this piece to review the shootings at Fort Hood. Nonetheless, his actions exemplify the Achilles' heel of multi-culturalism as it relates to the US military.
The grip of current politically correct thinking concerning the supposed equality and non-violent character of all faiths and religious viewpoints in Hasan's case hit the rock of reality. In fact, Hasan's personal religious views were violently incompatible with the ideals of the US army. Indeed, he placed himself in opposition to the Army from the onset of his career. The principles of his brand of religion superceded loyalty to his nation, to its constitution and to his oaths as a soldier. His religious ideology came first. In the end, Hasan thought of himself primarily as a jihadist bent on the destruction of the very nation to which he had pledged his loyalty.
All Americans know the horrible result.
The Hasan case demonstrates the ideals of multi-culturalism are in direct opposition to the ideals of the US military, which simply cannot incorporate disparate and opposing ideological forces within its body without being weakened and destroyed as surely as the Wehrmacht. The US military must require and enforce adherence to its stated ideals, its chain of command and its hierarchy if it is to remain an effective, unified fighting force.
If the US military continues to seek to incorporate the competing ideals of political correctness and multi-culturalism within its ranks, it is inviting suicide of the armed forces by treasonous bloodletting from within.
As the weakening of the Wehrmacht by ideology demonstrates, no military divided against itself can stand. If the US military does not wish to suffer a fate similar to armies which crumbled within, it must stand up for its traditions and ideals.
It must fight for its life.
--Fay Voshell
Ms. Voshell is a free lance writer living in Wilmington, DE. She holds an M.Div. From Princeton Theological Seminary, where she was awarded the Charles Hodge Prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is also one of the Delaware GOP's "Winning Women, Class of 2008.
(I would like to acknowledge my debt to authors too numerous to mention. But I am particularly grateful to Peter Hass, whose Morality after Auschwitz provided much clarification concerning the dual ethic driving the Nazi forces in their Russian campaign.)
On June 22, 1942, in a surprise attack that flabbergasted and confounded even the wily Josef Stalin, German armies raced across the border of Russia determined to crush the nation and expand Nazi domination. That they did not succeed in so doing is one of the providential miracles of history for which the world may be profoundly grateful.
Historians have been studying the causes of the Nazi defeat for decades, and most concede that if it were not for the incredible heroism of the Russian people and the entrance of America into the war, Russia would have fallen to the Nazi war machine.
But it is seldom noted the Nazi version of political correctness played an enormous role in bringing the German armies to their knees. German military success was hindered by the racist ideology which put at the forefront of the military agenda the drive for Aryan purity, which purity was to be achieved by the extermination of Jews and Slavs.
With a few notable exceptions which would later translate into plots to assassinate Hitler, the German military was gradually absorbed into the political and ideological milieu engendered by Nazism, becoming not only a weapon for Nazi expansionist goals, but also an instrument to achieve the racial purity Hitler longed for. Prussian ideals of absolute loyalty to country and ruler were made to include Nazi ideological goals.
There was, in other words, a dual agenda comprised of military victory over the Russian armies but also victory over racial "pollution."
German army units that had thrust forward with incredible speed and determination into the very heart of Europe rushed headlong into Russia, but they were now accompanied by einsatzgruppen, special units designed to exterminate non-Aryans. As long as the Nazi blitzkrieg moved with the astonishing rapidity and success rate it had enjoyed in Europe, the einsatzgruppen could work without impeding the advance of the German armies. But as the war wore on, it became apparent that conventional and racial warfare could not co-exist without bogging down the army's military goals.
Gradually the twin goals of military victory and extermination of racially undesirable elements became so intertwined that in combination with stiffer Russian resistance than expected and the onset of the famed, brutal Russian winter, the German armies were slowed and eventually halted.
So it happened that the drag of ideological warfare was part of Hitler's "Waterloo." Because ideology trumped military strategy and sapped morale, the might of the German army was vitiated. While shedding oceans of blood in battle and in extermination campaigns, the army itself was suffering a vampiric suctioning of its life blood in the form of Nazi political correctness. The famed disciplined hierarchy of the German army broke down into a bloody anarchical melee.
Lessons for the US Military
US military forces face the prospect of being weakened from within by ideological forces as surely as the Wehrmacht was weakened by the absorption of Nazi ideology. While it is true there are far subtler ideological forces at work within our military than the odious racial ideology of Nazism; nonetheless, as with the Wehrmacht, ideological purity tests foreign to the ideals of the American military have been and are being introduced into its ranks, assuring its gradual vitiation. The US military is presently subject to and weakened by the ideologies of political correctness and multi-culturalism, both of which are inimical to a strong military, which, if it is to remain effective as a fighting force, requires strict adherence to its own longstanding traditions and ideals.
While remaining under civil authority, the military must be free to live and act according to the principles it articulates. It must have its autonomous sphere of authority, hierarchy and discipline. If it is forced to absorb and to obey the current politically correct thinking that is the hallmark of our current administration as well as of academia, it is bled of strength, compromised in its principles and subject to revisionist thinking.
In fact, it is in danger of not being the military at all.
For those unfamiliar with US military ideals, they are those of warriors devoted to God, country, the branch of the military to which one belongs, acceptance of the hierarchy of command, unflinching obedience to superiors and steadfast loyalty to one's unit and fellow soldiers.
Add to those ideals self-effacement and denial of individual privilege in the interest of protecting the innocent and vulnerable of one's country. All of the above mean that the individual soldier's "rights" as defined by the current civilian climate of opinion are freely suspended for the sake of unity--a unity necessary for fighting; a unity that melds all soldiers together as one force.
For instance, the honor code of the US Marine Corps outlines the general principles by which our military stands and by which it is led. Every action of any given Marine is guided by the honor code, by service to one's fellow citizen accompanied by prayer to God. Even the use of the Marine's gun is subject to a strict protocol of honor.
The above ideals necessarily preclude privileges and special exceptions required by the agendas followed by special interest groups defined by race, gender, national origin, or sexual behavior, all of which must be submitted to ideals and goals that sacrifice individual demands for the sake of the unifying, transcendent ideals that define a unified fighting force.
There is no room in the military for soldiers who think of themselves primarily as victims of societal sins; sins which must be rectified at the expense, vitiation or outright jettisoning of the universal moral code which defines the soldier's duty.
There is no room for campaigns and fights for individual "rights" and privileges that are not shared by the entire fighting force. There is only room for fighters; for heros devoted first to God, country and the constitution.
Current political correctness and multi-culturalism are pernicious to military unity because they are intrinsically divisive. They focus on the individual and splintered groups rather than on overarching unity. When a soldier thinks of himself primarily as an aggrieved member of a minority entitled to special privileges, he automatically is disloyal to the military hierarchy, as he sees the strict military command and fixed hierarchy as a barrier to the establishment of his personal goals and individual rights.
Examples of the dangers of political correctness and multi-culturalism
For instance, if a soldier is thinking primarily about her grievances as a woman, she divides herself from her male fellow soldiers and creates a sub-hierarchy of demands and expectations as relates purely to her and other women, not to the overall unit.
That is why it is insanity to put women on submarines with men and expect the two sexes to operate as one unit. It simply will not happen. The requirements of women are quite different than men, and military protocol would have to take note of and enforce the subset of requirements specifically geared toward women. The result would mean that the whole unit's code would have to be re-worked within what can only be broadly categorized as civilian expectations and guidelines. Those guidelines are most often formed within a radical overt or quasi-feminist framework of rules and regulations concerning not only women's special physical needs but also a convoluted protocol established to protect women from any hint of sexual harassment.
One can only imagine how such elaborate protocol between the sexes would work out when both are housed undersea for months in the equivalent of a large tuna can. One certainly can imagine and expect the fracturing of unity as the men were handed out a Chinese menu of regulations relating to treatment of the opposite sex while being exhorted to follow the rest of military protocol to the letter.
But one thing is certain: Nothing but trouble and divisiveness will result as the unity necessary for an effective fighting force is placed under extreme duress and perhaps entirely dissipated.
One final example of the rotten fruit of multi-culturalism and political correctness as concerns the US military: The case of Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan's case has been thoroughly examined and commented on. It is not the intent of this piece to review the shootings at Fort Hood. Nonetheless, his actions exemplify the Achilles' heel of multi-culturalism as it relates to the US military.
The grip of current politically correct thinking concerning the supposed equality and non-violent character of all faiths and religious viewpoints in Hasan's case hit the rock of reality. In fact, Hasan's personal religious views were violently incompatible with the ideals of the US army. Indeed, he placed himself in opposition to the Army from the onset of his career. The principles of his brand of religion superceded loyalty to his nation, to its constitution and to his oaths as a soldier. His religious ideology came first. In the end, Hasan thought of himself primarily as a jihadist bent on the destruction of the very nation to which he had pledged his loyalty.
All Americans know the horrible result.
The Hasan case demonstrates the ideals of multi-culturalism are in direct opposition to the ideals of the US military, which simply cannot incorporate disparate and opposing ideological forces within its body without being weakened and destroyed as surely as the Wehrmacht. The US military must require and enforce adherence to its stated ideals, its chain of command and its hierarchy if it is to remain an effective, unified fighting force.
If the US military continues to seek to incorporate the competing ideals of political correctness and multi-culturalism within its ranks, it is inviting suicide of the armed forces by treasonous bloodletting from within.
As the weakening of the Wehrmacht by ideology demonstrates, no military divided against itself can stand. If the US military does not wish to suffer a fate similar to armies which crumbled within, it must stand up for its traditions and ideals.
It must fight for its life.
--Fay Voshell
Ms. Voshell is a free lance writer living in Wilmington, DE. She holds an M.Div. From Princeton Theological Seminary, where she was awarded the Charles Hodge Prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is also one of the Delaware GOP's "Winning Women, Class of 2008.
(I would like to acknowledge my debt to authors too numerous to mention. But I am particularly grateful to Peter Hass, whose Morality after Auschwitz provided much clarification concerning the dual ethic driving the Nazi forces in their Russian campaign.)
Friday, February 12, 2010
Revolution
In an irony unappreciated and probably unforeseen, Europe finds itself on the cusp of revolution as faith in its governments and financial institutions erodes. Bureaucratic officaldom, with its panoply of strangulating regulations, suffocation of entreprenuerial ambitions and onerous taxation has at last revealed the utter barreness of socialist philosophy and practice of the last century.
Europes' governments are ossified--dead skeletons devoid of the flesh which once enabled their animation. Socialism, once a chief driving force behind governmental change, has, once firmly established, killed Europe. The continent which fed the religious, philosophical and political thought that was to revolutionize the West, including the United States, now finds itself paralyzed and on the verge of societal breakdown.
Looking at the situation today, it is hard to recall that Europe had a long history of revolutions that were fought in order that more just and equal societies be formed; societies in which the governments paid heed to the people they ruled. When the governments failed to take notice of the governed, revolutions followed--uprisings of the people like the Revolution of 1848.
While we may be more familiar with the French Revolution of 1789, in which the ancien regime was repudiated by a enraged and disenfranchised populace, the Revolution of 1848 has an eerie resemblance to the current situation in Europe. It also holds lessons for the contemporary political scene in our own United States.
One observer of the political scene of 1848 was the great Alexis de Toqueville, who wrote he believed the major cause of the revolution of '48 was the hostility the working class felt toward the ruling bourgeoisie, who were seen as remote, uncaring and privileged as the aristocracy of France before 1789.
Though a constitutional monarchy had been put in place after the Napoleonic era, the class of people who replaced the old aristocracy were just as unconcerned as the ancien regime was concerning the fate of the people it represented. The people were not heard because they could not participate in political life. They were completely excluded. Once again, it was as if the people did not exist.
Tocqueville realized the government could not retain its legitimacy if society at large was not included in the government, for the public would see their rulers as "incapable and unworthy to rule them." He concluded, "Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror."
The result? Because the public saw no peaceful way to make their voice heard or to change things, revolution followed.
Today in Europe, 1848 is about to be revisited, and dress rehearsals for revolution have already begun.
But perhaps even more importantly, conditions in our own country resemble those which presaged the European Revolution of 1848 and what in the future may be termed the European Revolution of 2010.
For our country, too, is presently governed by a dynastic, aristocratic government ruled by those who exclude by attitude, policy, directives and commands the very people they are supposed to represent.
Our government is no longer a republic. It is dynastic in character and behavior. The elevation of a ruling executive branch has been accompanied by mastasticizing cancers revealing themselves in endless, deadly and suffocating permutations such as countless agencies, departments, czars, executive orders, and special interest groups.
Our government has become the equivalent of a monstrous and bloated aristocracy.
Term limits have no particular meaning as career politicians are re-elected time and again, thanks to gerrymandering, pandering to special interest groups which pour in monies for re-election, and pork barrel projects which keep their various constitutencies placated.
Corruption is rampant as government officals help themselves to largess while the public, present and future, groans under excessive taxation which destroys personal initiative and dooms future generations to inherited burdens which vitiate the life of the country. Meanwhile, as our legislators contemplate legislation that garners yet more power over the public, they vote themselves privileges only an aristocratic few could dream of. To cite just two: Luxurious pensions guaranteeing full salaries until death and cadillac medical plans stand in stark contrast to the meager and rapidly disappearing social security and universal (and minimal) health care doled out to the unwashed masses.
Meanwhile, the president and congress agree to ever expanding debt to finance an ever expanding bureaucracy which parasitically feeds off the productivity of the very people it taxes, exploits and ignores.
As if the above were not outrageous enough, when the people petition and write letters, they are ignored.
When the people ask questions and get angry at evasiveness and downright refusal to answer, they are characterized as unruly, ignorant mobs.
When the people peacefully march on Washington by the hundreds of thousands, they are maliciously slandered.
When the people protest against unpopular legislation, they are ignored as a small elite decides in closed chambers what is best for the people.
In sum, the situation in the United States today is very like that of Europe before the Revolution of 1848. Our elected rulers are no longer representing the society they govern.
The United States has become what Tocqueville described: It is a society cut in two.
The result is that new conservative movements and organizations are sprining up all over the United States. The people want a government that hears and responds to them.
As in Europe as well as in the United States, a revolution is brewing. A shaking of national foundations is already happening.
Thus far, the peoples of Europe and America are seeking peaceful change through the ballot box and reformation of political parties.
But if history proves anything, it is this: If governments continue to be deaf, continue to refuse to respond, continue to remain brittle skeletons, it can be predictably be said that more violent eruptions of the public disaffection will transpire.
Let us hope and pray our leaders and those of Europe do not wait to act until blood is in the streets.
Part II: The Resistance
Europes' governments are ossified--dead skeletons devoid of the flesh which once enabled their animation. Socialism, once a chief driving force behind governmental change, has, once firmly established, killed Europe. The continent which fed the religious, philosophical and political thought that was to revolutionize the West, including the United States, now finds itself paralyzed and on the verge of societal breakdown.
Looking at the situation today, it is hard to recall that Europe had a long history of revolutions that were fought in order that more just and equal societies be formed; societies in which the governments paid heed to the people they ruled. When the governments failed to take notice of the governed, revolutions followed--uprisings of the people like the Revolution of 1848.
While we may be more familiar with the French Revolution of 1789, in which the ancien regime was repudiated by a enraged and disenfranchised populace, the Revolution of 1848 has an eerie resemblance to the current situation in Europe. It also holds lessons for the contemporary political scene in our own United States.
One observer of the political scene of 1848 was the great Alexis de Toqueville, who wrote he believed the major cause of the revolution of '48 was the hostility the working class felt toward the ruling bourgeoisie, who were seen as remote, uncaring and privileged as the aristocracy of France before 1789.
Though a constitutional monarchy had been put in place after the Napoleonic era, the class of people who replaced the old aristocracy were just as unconcerned as the ancien regime was concerning the fate of the people it represented. The people were not heard because they could not participate in political life. They were completely excluded. Once again, it was as if the people did not exist.
Tocqueville realized the government could not retain its legitimacy if society at large was not included in the government, for the public would see their rulers as "incapable and unworthy to rule them." He concluded, "Society was cut in two: those who had nothing united in common envy, and those who had anything united in common terror."
The result? Because the public saw no peaceful way to make their voice heard or to change things, revolution followed.
Today in Europe, 1848 is about to be revisited, and dress rehearsals for revolution have already begun.
But perhaps even more importantly, conditions in our own country resemble those which presaged the European Revolution of 1848 and what in the future may be termed the European Revolution of 2010.
For our country, too, is presently governed by a dynastic, aristocratic government ruled by those who exclude by attitude, policy, directives and commands the very people they are supposed to represent.
Our government is no longer a republic. It is dynastic in character and behavior. The elevation of a ruling executive branch has been accompanied by mastasticizing cancers revealing themselves in endless, deadly and suffocating permutations such as countless agencies, departments, czars, executive orders, and special interest groups.
Our government has become the equivalent of a monstrous and bloated aristocracy.
Term limits have no particular meaning as career politicians are re-elected time and again, thanks to gerrymandering, pandering to special interest groups which pour in monies for re-election, and pork barrel projects which keep their various constitutencies placated.
Corruption is rampant as government officals help themselves to largess while the public, present and future, groans under excessive taxation which destroys personal initiative and dooms future generations to inherited burdens which vitiate the life of the country. Meanwhile, as our legislators contemplate legislation that garners yet more power over the public, they vote themselves privileges only an aristocratic few could dream of. To cite just two: Luxurious pensions guaranteeing full salaries until death and cadillac medical plans stand in stark contrast to the meager and rapidly disappearing social security and universal (and minimal) health care doled out to the unwashed masses.
Meanwhile, the president and congress agree to ever expanding debt to finance an ever expanding bureaucracy which parasitically feeds off the productivity of the very people it taxes, exploits and ignores.
As if the above were not outrageous enough, when the people petition and write letters, they are ignored.
When the people ask questions and get angry at evasiveness and downright refusal to answer, they are characterized as unruly, ignorant mobs.
When the people peacefully march on Washington by the hundreds of thousands, they are maliciously slandered.
When the people protest against unpopular legislation, they are ignored as a small elite decides in closed chambers what is best for the people.
In sum, the situation in the United States today is very like that of Europe before the Revolution of 1848. Our elected rulers are no longer representing the society they govern.
The United States has become what Tocqueville described: It is a society cut in two.
The result is that new conservative movements and organizations are sprining up all over the United States. The people want a government that hears and responds to them.
As in Europe as well as in the United States, a revolution is brewing. A shaking of national foundations is already happening.
Thus far, the peoples of Europe and America are seeking peaceful change through the ballot box and reformation of political parties.
But if history proves anything, it is this: If governments continue to be deaf, continue to refuse to respond, continue to remain brittle skeletons, it can be predictably be said that more violent eruptions of the public disaffection will transpire.
Let us hope and pray our leaders and those of Europe do not wait to act until blood is in the streets.
Part II: The Resistance
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Dividing Line: Part I
One of the most famous incidents in the life of Jesus Christ is found in the chronicle compiled by his disciple and friend Matthew.
Some Pharisees, accompanied by Herodians, conspired together--as they often did--to trap Jesus, seeking to put him by his own words in an untenable position with the people and the Roman government.
The Pharisees, it should be mentioned, were fiery nationalists who were adamantly opposed to Roman hegemony and who, though quiescent but seething under Roman rule during Jesus' day, had in past times fought wars against Hellenization and the influence of Rome. The Herodians, as their name indicates, supported the reigning house of Herod and their role in ruling for Rome.
Both parties saw Jesus as an enemy to their authority and wanted to discredit him in the eyes of the people, who were attracted to Jesus' message and healing powers, and who were sick of Herod and the Pharisees, both of whom burdened the populace with myriad rules and regulations as well as with onerous taxes.
The co-conspirators came up with a question they thought would be a perfect trap, one that would get rid of Jesus influence one way or another: "Tell us, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
If Jesus said, "No, don't pay your taxes," the Herodians would report him to the Roman authorites and he would be crucified for treason. If he said, "Yes, pay your taxes," the nationalist Pharisees would denounce him as a traitor to the Jewish nation.
Matthew goes on to relate, "But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them,"Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"
Matthew relates the "When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."
The portrait on the denarius, one of the most common coins of that day, was that of the Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus, who like his predecessor Caesar Augustus, claimed to be a god. Tiberius' divine person represented the entirety of the Roman government. The coin and the taxes paid with it were a statement of absolute governmental authority over all of life.
As the story is often interpreted, Jesus was simply making a statement about citizens' obligation to pay taxes.
But there is a much deeper interpretation of the story, for the distinction Jesus made between what is owed the government and what is owed God strikes at the very heart of the absolutism represented by Tiberius and Rome as well as at the heart of any and every absolutist state, ancient or modern. To put it succinctly, Jesus put the Kingdom of God and the individual Christian conscience above earthly authority even as he gave earthly government legitimacy while limiting its authority.
It is difficult for us to apprehend the magnificence and profoundity of Jesus' words, but Lord Acton of Great Britain summarized the impact of Jesus' words in his great lecture The History of Freedom in Antiquity. He wrote:
"...when Christ said: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” those words, spoken on His last visit to the Temple, three days before His death, gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged; and they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of Freedom. For our Lord not only delivered the precept, but created the force to execute it. To maintain the necessary immunity in one supreme sphere, to reduce all political authority within defined limits, ceased to be an aspiration of patient reasoners, and was made the perpetual charge and care of the most energetic institution and the most universal association in the world. The new law, the new spirit, the new authority, gave to Liberty a meaning and a value it had not possessed in the philosophy or in the constitution of Greece or Rome, before the knowledge of the Truth that makes us free."
As Lord Acton noted in his essay, never before in human history were there effectual means to limit governmental authority. Never before had the bounds of government been restrained or even defined except as rulers defined the bounds.
Even today, with many of the foundations of Western civilization weakened; even with the morally odious regimes of the twentieth century still fresh in our minds, it is difficult for us in the free countries of the West to comprehend the brutality and savagery of the absolutism of ancient Roman rulers. The metallic profile of Tiberius on the coin given Jesus didn't speak aloud of the emperor's horrible cruelties and odious, corrupt perversions. He had no moral restraints, as his contemporary chroniclers Suetonius and Tacitus noted. What transpired on the island of Capri, Tiberius' pleasure ground, still has the capacity to shock even the most jaded among us. But such are the prerogatives of a ruler who knows neither the restraint of conscience or the restraint of others.
Jesus, by the example of his life and work and by his response to both political and religious absolutism, and the reign of absolute and arbitrary prerogative of ruler "gods", put in place the chief restraint on governments and their rulers: the "New Law", a spiritual verity asserting the primacy of loyalty to individual conscience molded to faith in God. In each human heart, there is an inviolate space which earthly government may not control; a pristine tract of heart on which Government dare not trample without crushing the human longing for true freedom.
For the person who answers ultimately to his conscience before God alone, there is a dividing line no government or ruler can pass. Everything within such a person shouts, "You shall not pass!"
Where that dividing line lies, and who must be resisted if it is violated, free men and free women must decide in each and every age since Christ defined that line.
For there will always be those who out of desire for power and control; out of evil antagonism toward the good and beautiful; out of rage against those who will not at a command bend the knee, will seek to trangress, and even to eradicate that thin, but strong dividing line.
Let us hope and pray there also will always be strong men and women who will rise up to hold the line.
Some Pharisees, accompanied by Herodians, conspired together--as they often did--to trap Jesus, seeking to put him by his own words in an untenable position with the people and the Roman government.
The Pharisees, it should be mentioned, were fiery nationalists who were adamantly opposed to Roman hegemony and who, though quiescent but seething under Roman rule during Jesus' day, had in past times fought wars against Hellenization and the influence of Rome. The Herodians, as their name indicates, supported the reigning house of Herod and their role in ruling for Rome.
Both parties saw Jesus as an enemy to their authority and wanted to discredit him in the eyes of the people, who were attracted to Jesus' message and healing powers, and who were sick of Herod and the Pharisees, both of whom burdened the populace with myriad rules and regulations as well as with onerous taxes.
The co-conspirators came up with a question they thought would be a perfect trap, one that would get rid of Jesus influence one way or another: "Tell us, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
If Jesus said, "No, don't pay your taxes," the Herodians would report him to the Roman authorites and he would be crucified for treason. If he said, "Yes, pay your taxes," the nationalist Pharisees would denounce him as a traitor to the Jewish nation.
Matthew goes on to relate, "But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them,"Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"
Matthew relates the "When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away."
The portrait on the denarius, one of the most common coins of that day, was that of the Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus, who like his predecessor Caesar Augustus, claimed to be a god. Tiberius' divine person represented the entirety of the Roman government. The coin and the taxes paid with it were a statement of absolute governmental authority over all of life.
As the story is often interpreted, Jesus was simply making a statement about citizens' obligation to pay taxes.
But there is a much deeper interpretation of the story, for the distinction Jesus made between what is owed the government and what is owed God strikes at the very heart of the absolutism represented by Tiberius and Rome as well as at the heart of any and every absolutist state, ancient or modern. To put it succinctly, Jesus put the Kingdom of God and the individual Christian conscience above earthly authority even as he gave earthly government legitimacy while limiting its authority.
It is difficult for us to apprehend the magnificence and profoundity of Jesus' words, but Lord Acton of Great Britain summarized the impact of Jesus' words in his great lecture The History of Freedom in Antiquity. He wrote:
"...when Christ said: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” those words, spoken on His last visit to the Temple, three days before His death, gave to the civil power, under the protection of conscience, a sacredness it had never enjoyed, and bounds it had never acknowledged; and they were the repudiation of absolutism and the inauguration of Freedom. For our Lord not only delivered the precept, but created the force to execute it. To maintain the necessary immunity in one supreme sphere, to reduce all political authority within defined limits, ceased to be an aspiration of patient reasoners, and was made the perpetual charge and care of the most energetic institution and the most universal association in the world. The new law, the new spirit, the new authority, gave to Liberty a meaning and a value it had not possessed in the philosophy or in the constitution of Greece or Rome, before the knowledge of the Truth that makes us free."
As Lord Acton noted in his essay, never before in human history were there effectual means to limit governmental authority. Never before had the bounds of government been restrained or even defined except as rulers defined the bounds.
Even today, with many of the foundations of Western civilization weakened; even with the morally odious regimes of the twentieth century still fresh in our minds, it is difficult for us in the free countries of the West to comprehend the brutality and savagery of the absolutism of ancient Roman rulers. The metallic profile of Tiberius on the coin given Jesus didn't speak aloud of the emperor's horrible cruelties and odious, corrupt perversions. He had no moral restraints, as his contemporary chroniclers Suetonius and Tacitus noted. What transpired on the island of Capri, Tiberius' pleasure ground, still has the capacity to shock even the most jaded among us. But such are the prerogatives of a ruler who knows neither the restraint of conscience or the restraint of others.
Jesus, by the example of his life and work and by his response to both political and religious absolutism, and the reign of absolute and arbitrary prerogative of ruler "gods", put in place the chief restraint on governments and their rulers: the "New Law", a spiritual verity asserting the primacy of loyalty to individual conscience molded to faith in God. In each human heart, there is an inviolate space which earthly government may not control; a pristine tract of heart on which Government dare not trample without crushing the human longing for true freedom.
For the person who answers ultimately to his conscience before God alone, there is a dividing line no government or ruler can pass. Everything within such a person shouts, "You shall not pass!"
Where that dividing line lies, and who must be resisted if it is violated, free men and free women must decide in each and every age since Christ defined that line.
For there will always be those who out of desire for power and control; out of evil antagonism toward the good and beautiful; out of rage against those who will not at a command bend the knee, will seek to trangress, and even to eradicate that thin, but strong dividing line.
Let us hope and pray there also will always be strong men and women who will rise up to hold the line.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
A Good American: John Omar Stolzfus
It's a good thing my practical sister was with me when my car broke down on Rt. 896 somewhere near Oxford, as she was the one with the working cell phone. The rattling of the engine had turned to a groaning whine, and smoke was pouring out of the hood, so even I knew something was wrong. I pulled over to the side of the road.
Nina and I got out of the car and I called AAA, and a nice guy on the line told me a tow truck would come to rescue us in about a half hour.
A short time after I pulled over, a kind young man stopped and asked if we needed help. I told him AAA was on the way and thanked him. He drove off and returned shortly with an orange road cone, placing it behind the car.
"You know," he said with concern, "this road is really busy and you aren't quite far enough off the road, so this will help alert the cars coming by."
He waved goodbye and departed.
"My goodness, " I said to Nina with surprise written on my face, "what a nice thing to do."
I thought, why, in Philadelphia I could have been road kill and three thousand drivers would have rocketed by without so much as a glance.
"Yes, it was," said Nina. A few moments passed. "I need to use the bathroom, and I'm really getting cold!"
"So do I," I responded. "I wish there were someone at home in that house behind us so we could use the bathroom and get warm. But I don't see any lights on."
We both turned to watch for the promised tow truck, stamping our feet and rubbing our gloved hands together to keep warm. Suddenly we heard a voice behind us.
"Why don't you ladies come inside the house to get warm?"
We turned to see a kindly, smiling face and then looked at each other with astonishment and relief.
"'OK, " we chorused, rubbing our frozen hands together. "How nice of you."
The kindly face smiled again. "This way," he said. "I have a fire going in our new fireplace. It will warm you up in no time."
With only a slight hesitation in the back of our minds, a hesitation born of long years of city suspicions, we went in and sat by the fire and chatted. The nice man's name was John Omar Stolzfus. He had an American farmer's story to tell. He and his family had owned and farmed the land his house was sitting on for generations. Although he himself did not toil on the land, he sold seed and fertilizer.
"Farming is a good business to be in," he said. "It's feast or famine sometimes, but it's good to rely on sunshine and rain, good to see crops grow, to feed people."
He told us about his family. His two sons had chosen other careers. One was a pilot and the other was into computer programming. But his two nephews had continued the work on the farm. I could see he was glad the family tradition was being maintained.
I could see he was proud of his thick stone walled house, built by strong hands long ago. The worn, comfortable furniture also told me the wealth and pride of this family was in the land. They loved and cherished the land.
But most of all, I could see this kindly, gentle Mennonite was a good man. A good American. A God fearing American.
I thought to myself with inner rage and sorrow about the trashing our country's elite had given this man and others like him, characterizing them as clinging to "religion and guns," calling them "racist." I thought of the constant sneers directed toward faith, patriotism, loyalty to his wife and children. I thought of the arrogance and hubris of those who would tear down every vestige of faith if they could.
The tears came to my eyes.
Later, safely ensconced in Nina's car, which her husband Jim had driven out to pick us up, I said to them, "You know, I am so filled with anger at the likes of our president and his administration for the way they have spoken of people like John Stoltzfus. John Stoltzfus and others like him are the salt of the earth. They are good Americans."
I remembered when much more of the country was filled with people like John Stoltzfus. I guess it's called "flyover country" now by the elite of the East and West. But some of my sharpest memories come from flyover country.
I remembered when I was in Hull, Iowa. I lost my purse. I had everything in it. I thought I'd never see it again, but the next day it was returned to me by a big, tall guy wearing cowboy boots and hat.
"I heard you are Bill's sister-in-law visiting from out East, so I knew where you were and I wanted to return this to you." Of course, everything was still in it, down to the last penny.
I remembered when we walked down town, men tipped their hats and the women all smiled and said, "Hi, how you doing?"
I remembered the stronget expletive I heard was "Golly."
I remembered the biggest scandal in Hull centered around a beer can thrown in the middle of Main Street.
But most of all, I remembered Hull was filled with good, kindly country and small town people like John Stolzfus; people who cared about other people and took to heart the parable of the good Samaritan; people of deep faith; and, yes, people who sometimes carried guns and hunted.
And like John Stolzfus, when they did a kind deed, they expected no thanks, no money, no further thought about it.
They were just good Americans.
Nina and I got out of the car and I called AAA, and a nice guy on the line told me a tow truck would come to rescue us in about a half hour.
A short time after I pulled over, a kind young man stopped and asked if we needed help. I told him AAA was on the way and thanked him. He drove off and returned shortly with an orange road cone, placing it behind the car.
"You know," he said with concern, "this road is really busy and you aren't quite far enough off the road, so this will help alert the cars coming by."
He waved goodbye and departed.
"My goodness, " I said to Nina with surprise written on my face, "what a nice thing to do."
I thought, why, in Philadelphia I could have been road kill and three thousand drivers would have rocketed by without so much as a glance.
"Yes, it was," said Nina. A few moments passed. "I need to use the bathroom, and I'm really getting cold!"
"So do I," I responded. "I wish there were someone at home in that house behind us so we could use the bathroom and get warm. But I don't see any lights on."
We both turned to watch for the promised tow truck, stamping our feet and rubbing our gloved hands together to keep warm. Suddenly we heard a voice behind us.
"Why don't you ladies come inside the house to get warm?"
We turned to see a kindly, smiling face and then looked at each other with astonishment and relief.
"'OK, " we chorused, rubbing our frozen hands together. "How nice of you."
The kindly face smiled again. "This way," he said. "I have a fire going in our new fireplace. It will warm you up in no time."
With only a slight hesitation in the back of our minds, a hesitation born of long years of city suspicions, we went in and sat by the fire and chatted. The nice man's name was John Omar Stolzfus. He had an American farmer's story to tell. He and his family had owned and farmed the land his house was sitting on for generations. Although he himself did not toil on the land, he sold seed and fertilizer.
"Farming is a good business to be in," he said. "It's feast or famine sometimes, but it's good to rely on sunshine and rain, good to see crops grow, to feed people."
He told us about his family. His two sons had chosen other careers. One was a pilot and the other was into computer programming. But his two nephews had continued the work on the farm. I could see he was glad the family tradition was being maintained.
I could see he was proud of his thick stone walled house, built by strong hands long ago. The worn, comfortable furniture also told me the wealth and pride of this family was in the land. They loved and cherished the land.
But most of all, I could see this kindly, gentle Mennonite was a good man. A good American. A God fearing American.
I thought to myself with inner rage and sorrow about the trashing our country's elite had given this man and others like him, characterizing them as clinging to "religion and guns," calling them "racist." I thought of the constant sneers directed toward faith, patriotism, loyalty to his wife and children. I thought of the arrogance and hubris of those who would tear down every vestige of faith if they could.
The tears came to my eyes.
Later, safely ensconced in Nina's car, which her husband Jim had driven out to pick us up, I said to them, "You know, I am so filled with anger at the likes of our president and his administration for the way they have spoken of people like John Stoltzfus. John Stoltzfus and others like him are the salt of the earth. They are good Americans."
I remembered when much more of the country was filled with people like John Stoltzfus. I guess it's called "flyover country" now by the elite of the East and West. But some of my sharpest memories come from flyover country.
I remembered when I was in Hull, Iowa. I lost my purse. I had everything in it. I thought I'd never see it again, but the next day it was returned to me by a big, tall guy wearing cowboy boots and hat.
"I heard you are Bill's sister-in-law visiting from out East, so I knew where you were and I wanted to return this to you." Of course, everything was still in it, down to the last penny.
I remembered when we walked down town, men tipped their hats and the women all smiled and said, "Hi, how you doing?"
I remembered the stronget expletive I heard was "Golly."
I remembered the biggest scandal in Hull centered around a beer can thrown in the middle of Main Street.
But most of all, I remembered Hull was filled with good, kindly country and small town people like John Stolzfus; people who cared about other people and took to heart the parable of the good Samaritan; people of deep faith; and, yes, people who sometimes carried guns and hunted.
And like John Stolzfus, when they did a kind deed, they expected no thanks, no money, no further thought about it.
They were just good Americans.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Lessons from King Solomon for America
King Solomon's wisdom was legendary; so legendary that he attracted a visit from the Queen of Sheba, who had heard about his incredible wealth, fame and knowledge. To this day, Ethiopians claim their royal line descends from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. There remains a lot of curiosity concerning Solomon and Sheba and their heir.
There has been considerably less curiosity about Solomon's method of governance and the rebellion which took place shortly after he died.
But Solomon's reign and that after him hold lessons for us today which are just as fascinating and perhpas consderably more important than the story of him and the Queen of Sheba.
The truth of the matter is that Solomon's profligacy, his tax and spend policies, and his dictatorial realignment of government led Israel into bankruptcy and to the eventual split of the kingdom.
Solomon, who like most Mesopotamian rulers, had a deep love of luxury and a yen for huge building projects which drained the treasury and squandered his country's wealth. His massive building program and out of control expenditures, both of which involved a symbolic and real extension of governmental control over the Israeli people, led to the abuse of the Israel citizenry and a complete reconstruction of the way things had formerly been governed.
In order to construct his vast building projects, Solomon resorted to conscripting forced labor. Som 150,000 conscripts worked on his projects. In order to procure the rarities he deemed necessary for his splendid temples and mansions, he went into debt to such countries as Phoencia. In order to pay his debts to the king of Phoenecia, he sent 30,000 Hebrews slave laborers into that country to pay off what Israel owed. Human capital was sold to build lavish palaces for himself and his vast retinue of courtiers and concubines. In some ways, he was the Hebrew equivalent of Louis XIV.
In order to pay for the cedars of Lebanon which were used for the beams of Solomon's palaces, he contracted to pay King Hiram 125,000 bushels of wheat and 1,200,000 gallons of oil per annum. When the tax he extracted from Israel's farmers proved too much for them to pay, he sold off some of Israels's real estate to foreign powers. Some 20 Israeli towns were given over to foreign dominion.
Worse, the tribal league which had served as Israel's chief means of governance was abolished. In its place twelve administrative districts were established. A centralized governmental bureaucracy replaced local governance.
Most Israelites did not complain too much about Solomon's rule, for he established a military machine and alliances which kept Israel at peace during his reign.
But when Solomon died, things fell apart, beginning with a fatal mistake by Solomon's heir Rehoboam. Rehoboam was a relatively young man who surrounded himself with other young blades who were impetuous and as full of themselves as Rehoboam. Raised in incredibly wealthy and isolated cirlces, they wound up listening to and engaging with only with one another.
Enter Jeroboam, Rehoboam's brother. Jeroboam had led a rebellion against his father Solomon and had fled to Egypt in order to escape his father's wrath. Once Solomon was dead, Jeroboam led a delgation of many thousands to Rehoboam's coronation celebration. They said to him: "Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you." (I Kings 12)
Rehoboam told his brother he'd think about it for three days, at the end of which Jeroboam was to return for an answer. Then Rehoboam conulted with Solomon's elder advisors, thoroughly seasoned statesmen, asking, "How would you advise me to answer these people?"
The elder statemen replied, "If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants."
But Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and consulted the young men who had grown up with him. He asked them, "What is your advice? How should we answer these people who say to me, 'Lighten the yoke your father put on us'?"
The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell these people who have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter'--tell them, My little finger is thicker than my father's waist. My father laid a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.' "
King Rehoboam followed his friends' advice, telling it to the people word for word. The results were predictable.
When all Israel saw that King Rehoboam refused to listen to them, they answered the king:
"What share do we have with David, what part in Jesse's son? To your tents, O Israel! Look after your own house, O David.!"
"These people" shook the dust off their sandals, rejected Rehoboam's "leadership," and went home.
And when Rehoboam's lackey Adoniram, who was in charge of forced labor, went out to collect his slaves, the enraged Israelites stoned him to death and then went after Rehoboam, who leapt into his chariot and raced to the safety of Jerusalem. Israel, now in a state of total civil rebellion, made Jeroboam king; but he would be a king over a hopelessly divided and diminished nation which would gradually be absorbed by foreign empires.
The reader can deduce for him or herself the implications of the story of Solomon and his heirs for our present national predicament, but a few come to mind:
* National debt diminishes national power, putting a given nation in hock to other nations.
*The onerous, unpayable tax burdens lead to forced labor of citizens and the confiscation of their wealth and productivity.
*The nearly monarchical power of the present executive branch--in fact, it could be called a monarachy--and the demolition of local governing entities such as the states results in dictatorial behavior.
*Citizens under a monarchical executive branch are forced to pay for lavish expenditures of courtiers and government lackeys.
Other lessons to be noted:
*The bad policies of one administration were contined by the next, despite the realtively polite protest of the people.
*The new administration ("king") refused to listen to the people. In fact, the people are called "these people" as if they are not fellow citizens. They are despised and looked own on as interlopers.
*"These people" were initially perfectly willing to work with the powers that be as long as those powers were fair, but the reigning powers rejected them, determined to rule over them rather than to serve them.
* The elders' advice was completely ignored, regarded as a mere formality--much like the wisdom of American elders who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are ignored in favor of "new and progressive" ideas.
A final thought: The history of the Hebrews as recorded in the Old Testament continues to have immense value and deep wisdom for today's world, including wisdom on how to govern.
If only we would listen.
There has been considerably less curiosity about Solomon's method of governance and the rebellion which took place shortly after he died.
But Solomon's reign and that after him hold lessons for us today which are just as fascinating and perhpas consderably more important than the story of him and the Queen of Sheba.
The truth of the matter is that Solomon's profligacy, his tax and spend policies, and his dictatorial realignment of government led Israel into bankruptcy and to the eventual split of the kingdom.
Solomon, who like most Mesopotamian rulers, had a deep love of luxury and a yen for huge building projects which drained the treasury and squandered his country's wealth. His massive building program and out of control expenditures, both of which involved a symbolic and real extension of governmental control over the Israeli people, led to the abuse of the Israel citizenry and a complete reconstruction of the way things had formerly been governed.
In order to construct his vast building projects, Solomon resorted to conscripting forced labor. Som 150,000 conscripts worked on his projects. In order to procure the rarities he deemed necessary for his splendid temples and mansions, he went into debt to such countries as Phoencia. In order to pay his debts to the king of Phoenecia, he sent 30,000 Hebrews slave laborers into that country to pay off what Israel owed. Human capital was sold to build lavish palaces for himself and his vast retinue of courtiers and concubines. In some ways, he was the Hebrew equivalent of Louis XIV.
In order to pay for the cedars of Lebanon which were used for the beams of Solomon's palaces, he contracted to pay King Hiram 125,000 bushels of wheat and 1,200,000 gallons of oil per annum. When the tax he extracted from Israel's farmers proved too much for them to pay, he sold off some of Israels's real estate to foreign powers. Some 20 Israeli towns were given over to foreign dominion.
Worse, the tribal league which had served as Israel's chief means of governance was abolished. In its place twelve administrative districts were established. A centralized governmental bureaucracy replaced local governance.
Most Israelites did not complain too much about Solomon's rule, for he established a military machine and alliances which kept Israel at peace during his reign.
But when Solomon died, things fell apart, beginning with a fatal mistake by Solomon's heir Rehoboam. Rehoboam was a relatively young man who surrounded himself with other young blades who were impetuous and as full of themselves as Rehoboam. Raised in incredibly wealthy and isolated cirlces, they wound up listening to and engaging with only with one another.
Enter Jeroboam, Rehoboam's brother. Jeroboam had led a rebellion against his father Solomon and had fled to Egypt in order to escape his father's wrath. Once Solomon was dead, Jeroboam led a delgation of many thousands to Rehoboam's coronation celebration. They said to him: "Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but now lighten the harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on us, and we will serve you." (I Kings 12)
Rehoboam told his brother he'd think about it for three days, at the end of which Jeroboam was to return for an answer. Then Rehoboam conulted with Solomon's elder advisors, thoroughly seasoned statesmen, asking, "How would you advise me to answer these people?"
The elder statemen replied, "If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants."
But Rehoboam rejected the advice the elders gave him and consulted the young men who had grown up with him. He asked them, "What is your advice? How should we answer these people who say to me, 'Lighten the yoke your father put on us'?"
The young men who had grown up with him replied, "Tell these people who have said to you, 'Your father put a heavy yoke on us, but make our yoke lighter'--tell them, My little finger is thicker than my father's waist. My father laid a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.' "
King Rehoboam followed his friends' advice, telling it to the people word for word. The results were predictable.
When all Israel saw that King Rehoboam refused to listen to them, they answered the king:
"What share do we have with David, what part in Jesse's son? To your tents, O Israel! Look after your own house, O David.!"
"These people" shook the dust off their sandals, rejected Rehoboam's "leadership," and went home.
And when Rehoboam's lackey Adoniram, who was in charge of forced labor, went out to collect his slaves, the enraged Israelites stoned him to death and then went after Rehoboam, who leapt into his chariot and raced to the safety of Jerusalem. Israel, now in a state of total civil rebellion, made Jeroboam king; but he would be a king over a hopelessly divided and diminished nation which would gradually be absorbed by foreign empires.
The reader can deduce for him or herself the implications of the story of Solomon and his heirs for our present national predicament, but a few come to mind:
* National debt diminishes national power, putting a given nation in hock to other nations.
*The onerous, unpayable tax burdens lead to forced labor of citizens and the confiscation of their wealth and productivity.
*The nearly monarchical power of the present executive branch--in fact, it could be called a monarachy--and the demolition of local governing entities such as the states results in dictatorial behavior.
*Citizens under a monarchical executive branch are forced to pay for lavish expenditures of courtiers and government lackeys.
Other lessons to be noted:
*The bad policies of one administration were contined by the next, despite the realtively polite protest of the people.
*The new administration ("king") refused to listen to the people. In fact, the people are called "these people" as if they are not fellow citizens. They are despised and looked own on as interlopers.
*"These people" were initially perfectly willing to work with the powers that be as long as those powers were fair, but the reigning powers rejected them, determined to rule over them rather than to serve them.
* The elders' advice was completely ignored, regarded as a mere formality--much like the wisdom of American elders who wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are ignored in favor of "new and progressive" ideas.
A final thought: The history of the Hebrews as recorded in the Old Testament continues to have immense value and deep wisdom for today's world, including wisdom on how to govern.
If only we would listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)