Once conspiracy theories are established as "truth," they hardly ever die, but instead mutate into ever more viral transmogrifications which have the capacity to poison institutions and governments.
One such theory, the blood libel, has afflicted both Christians and then Jews for centuries. But one less noticed libel has been the persistent charges against the international banking system as being a global Jewish cabal in cahoots with the United States’ supposed attempt to establish domination over the entire global economy. The idea is that "Big Satan" and "Little Satan" are co-conspirators determined to put the global economic system under their heels.
The libel against Jewish owned banks and financial institutions has long roots going back at least as far as the Middle Ages, when lords and knights cooperated in what amounted to extortionist shakedowns of the Jewish owned banks and Jewish communities. Part of their success in so doing was that they distributed libelous propaganda accusing the Jews of wanting world wide financial domination. Most know this conspiracy theory today in its form as anti-Zionism.
One form of the anti-Zionist, Jewish banking cabal theory has been alive and well for many years in the Middle Eastern Arab countries. The editor of "Jewish Comment" summarized the theory well in a 2002 article describing his encounters with some young Arabs who were earnestly exhorting passers by to be aware of the "fact" that "Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers were part of the international conspiracy of Jews and Americans to finance Zionist aspirations." (Google "Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and the Great Zionist Conspiracy" for the article and other interesting results.)
The SEC charges of fraud against Goldman Sachs have many facets and political permutations, but one of those facets may be the administration’s attempts to palliate Arabs and Palestinians by legitimizing one of their favorite anti-Zionist tropes. By attacking Goldman Sachs, the Obama administration gives legitimacy to Arab conspiracy theories and anti-Zionist attacks while giving succor to Palestinians who are livid over the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and have refused to consider peace talks unless the construction is halted.. Obama himself has been outraged and has pounded Netanyahu for his intransigence over the construction.
The attack on Goldman Sachs, which Marc Faber recently described as a relatively honest company, is a brilliant, multi-pronged but thuggish approach to sidelining or even crippling Goldman Sachs. It reinforces Obama’s attempts to control Wall street by creating a villain he knows the public is willing to throw rotten tomatoes at. It bolsters his aim to pass legislation controlling Wall Street while at the same time it sends not so subliminal messages to Israel and its sworn enemies that Obama is willing to throw a capitalist Jewish banking institution under the bus in order to get his legislation passed while at the same time giving solace, comfort and ratification of conspiracy theories to Israel’s enemies. Obama appears to be entirely willing to sabotage Goldman Sachs, which is integral to much of the West’s financial system.
But the chief aim of this administration in attacking Goldman Sachs is probably not to completely destroy the institution, but to keep it subservient to the US administration–much like the lords and knights of the Middle Ages used extortion and threats to humiliate and control the Jewish bankers. The idea is to wring concessions, confessions and probably hefty fines out of Goldman Sachs while at the same time achieving a multiple but dubious political goals, domestic and international.
However, a goal of the attack on Goldman Sachs, coming as it did just before the proposed sweeping financial "reforms" of the Obama administration, also is to serve as a severe warning to all of America’s banking institutions. It is the psychological equivalent of the Mafia sending a dead fish to a rival. It is the Obama administration making an offer that cannot be refused. For after all, the SEC, with its massive regulatory power can and no doubt will, target selectively those "dead fish" financial institutions the Obama administration wishes to make subservient to his agenda. All banks must now be at constant "red alert" status.
What the political outcome--domestic and international--will be is unknown. But it is quite probable that congress, in its attempts to appear supremely virtuous guardians of the public welfare, will be quite willing to buy into conspiracy theories and into the public anger over financial institutions’ transgressions, real and imagined.
To that end, goaded on by an anti-Israeli president, they may be quite willing to paint a target on Goldman Sach’s back.
[Postscript: The attack on Goldman Sachs is pertinent to Delaware, as it is home to over 50% of all U.S. publicly traded corporations and to some 60% of the Frotune 500. Banks and corporations are not high on the Obama administration's most favored list, so further erosion of Delaware's status as America's corporate capital can be expected as the administration tightens its control over businesses and financial insitutions. But another article would be requred to more fully address the situation.]
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Fall of the House of Finance: More Sarbanes Oxley on the Way
Some time ago, I was sitting in my opthamologist's office and chanced on a magazine I'd never heard of--Stocks, Futures and Options. In it was an interview with George Friedman, who noted the financial elite have lost all credibility. He added the political elite have stepped in to the vacuum. He also said the government and the financial communities "regard one another as incompetent."
The difficulty, Friedman added, is magnified by the fact the "government is not financially efficient. It is built to be politically efficient...Obama has to demonstrate that our institutions or government is capable of effective action, because what would terrify people and create a new crisis is if the political elite appear to have the same incompetence as the financial elite. All hell would break loose...On one side, the political state is saying the financial community is a bunch of greedy scoundrels, while the financial community says the government is a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats."
We are at the impasse Friedman so eloquently and succinctly delineates. The fact of the matter is that the American people no longer have confidence in either their financial institutions or their government. Some 76% of the American public don't trust the government. And most don't trust finacnial insitutions such as Goldman Sachs.
Friedman's assessment has come true, and all hell is breaking loose.
In the effort to put itself in the driver's seat, reclaim the confidence of the American people--or at least divert attention away from its incompetence--and to fatally weaken Wall Street, the administration is seeking further control over the financial sector. Doubtless we will be looking at another Sarbanes Oxley Act--on speed.
The result will be an economy that is furthered weakened. The above mentioned Sarbanes Oxley Act has already weakened corporations by demanding a flood of paper work and extra employees to manage accounting procedures. None of the reforms has actually dealt with the underlying problems the Enron scandal exposed and to which congress reacted, as Friedman points out, with political rather than economic efficiency. What Friedman, an Obama supporter who believes the president can restore trust to government, does not note is that political "efficiency" exhibited as total regulatory control always cripples economic efficiency.
Sarbanes Oxley is a perfect illustration of the truth that political solutions have a way of retarding or crippling industry. As Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute notes:
The Sarbanes-Oxley law was unnecessary, inadequate and harmful. It was unnecessary because the SEC already had the authority to do everything the law demands about accounting or corporate boards. Sarbanes-Oxley was inadequate, if not irrelevant, because it failed to deal with any fundamental institutions, laws or incentives that might have contributed to major bankruptcies in the wake of the 2001 recession. The 1968 Williams Act has made it too difficult to take over mismanaged companies, for example. And higher tax rates on dividends before 2003 helped devious managers camouflage overstated earnings (companies can't pay dividends with bogus earnings).
Sarbanes-Oxley has proven harmful to the U.S. economy, and to the value of stocks still listed on U.S. exchanges, because it greatly increases the costs and risks of doing business as a publicly traded U.S. corporation and it increases the risks of serving as a director or officer. Sarbanes-Oxley has essentially the same effect as a large but unpredictable increase in corporate taxes. Congress must at least lighten the heavy load of this ill-considered regulatory tax, assuming insufficient humility and courage to repeal it. Even in politics it is generally wiser to admit mistakes and fix them than to fall into the familiar bad habit of assuming that good intentions excuse bad results.
Stephen Boyko, author of We're All Screwed warns that toxic regulation will crush the free market system. He writes:
Bad rule writing has resulted in bad legislation, such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, and has created an ineffective system for regulating the U.S. capital markets. If we don't act fast, the 2008 subprime stack market crash could potentially result in more toxic regulation. [A prescient comment, as more toxic regulation is on its way.]
He advocates an answer: "fostering entrepeneurialsm; segmenting the market to account for size, capital and scope; and using a three dimensional model for regulation."
While GeorgeFriedman probably would not say so, Milton Firedman would say the more the political sphere of influence intrudes into the economic sphere of influence, the more likely the slide into socialism and tyranny.
The halt to this slide will only occur by embracing two major reforms. The first is a return to true federalism with an emphasis on states' initiatives, whence have come some brilliant economic models. My own state of Delaware once had such a model intitated by Governor Pete duPont, but it has been seriously eroded under the last few administrations.
The second is a return to a balance of governmental and economic spheres of influence. Any institution's integrity and effectiveness cannot remain if it is unceasingly violated and controlled by another. (This truism is valid for any institution, be it religious, governmental, economic, military or educational.)
If at one time American industrialists had too much power over the federal and state governments, that certainly is not the case now. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and accelerating steadily throughout the last century, the ascension of federal control over the states, traditionally a breeding ground for economic innovation and the financial institutions of our country, now at least temproarily discredited and under increased scrutiny and attack, is nearly complete.
It looks like this current administration is poised to push the accelerator to the floor by pushing the enactment of another Sarbanes Oxley Act.
More onerous regulation is not the answer for giving renewed health to our financial institutions. There are plenty of regulations already on the books, some legitimate; some not. A massive effort to distinguish between the necessary and unecessary regulations already on the books is long overdue and would result in a burst of economic prosperity scarcely imaginable in these dark economic times.
The difficulty, Friedman added, is magnified by the fact the "government is not financially efficient. It is built to be politically efficient...Obama has to demonstrate that our institutions or government is capable of effective action, because what would terrify people and create a new crisis is if the political elite appear to have the same incompetence as the financial elite. All hell would break loose...On one side, the political state is saying the financial community is a bunch of greedy scoundrels, while the financial community says the government is a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats."
We are at the impasse Friedman so eloquently and succinctly delineates. The fact of the matter is that the American people no longer have confidence in either their financial institutions or their government. Some 76% of the American public don't trust the government. And most don't trust finacnial insitutions such as Goldman Sachs.
Friedman's assessment has come true, and all hell is breaking loose.
In the effort to put itself in the driver's seat, reclaim the confidence of the American people--or at least divert attention away from its incompetence--and to fatally weaken Wall Street, the administration is seeking further control over the financial sector. Doubtless we will be looking at another Sarbanes Oxley Act--on speed.
The result will be an economy that is furthered weakened. The above mentioned Sarbanes Oxley Act has already weakened corporations by demanding a flood of paper work and extra employees to manage accounting procedures. None of the reforms has actually dealt with the underlying problems the Enron scandal exposed and to which congress reacted, as Friedman points out, with political rather than economic efficiency. What Friedman, an Obama supporter who believes the president can restore trust to government, does not note is that political "efficiency" exhibited as total regulatory control always cripples economic efficiency.
Sarbanes Oxley is a perfect illustration of the truth that political solutions have a way of retarding or crippling industry. As Alan Reynolds of the Cato institute notes:
The Sarbanes-Oxley law was unnecessary, inadequate and harmful. It was unnecessary because the SEC already had the authority to do everything the law demands about accounting or corporate boards. Sarbanes-Oxley was inadequate, if not irrelevant, because it failed to deal with any fundamental institutions, laws or incentives that might have contributed to major bankruptcies in the wake of the 2001 recession. The 1968 Williams Act has made it too difficult to take over mismanaged companies, for example. And higher tax rates on dividends before 2003 helped devious managers camouflage overstated earnings (companies can't pay dividends with bogus earnings).
Sarbanes-Oxley has proven harmful to the U.S. economy, and to the value of stocks still listed on U.S. exchanges, because it greatly increases the costs and risks of doing business as a publicly traded U.S. corporation and it increases the risks of serving as a director or officer. Sarbanes-Oxley has essentially the same effect as a large but unpredictable increase in corporate taxes. Congress must at least lighten the heavy load of this ill-considered regulatory tax, assuming insufficient humility and courage to repeal it. Even in politics it is generally wiser to admit mistakes and fix them than to fall into the familiar bad habit of assuming that good intentions excuse bad results.
Stephen Boyko, author of We're All Screwed warns that toxic regulation will crush the free market system. He writes:
Bad rule writing has resulted in bad legislation, such as the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, and has created an ineffective system for regulating the U.S. capital markets. If we don't act fast, the 2008 subprime stack market crash could potentially result in more toxic regulation. [A prescient comment, as more toxic regulation is on its way.]
He advocates an answer: "fostering entrepeneurialsm; segmenting the market to account for size, capital and scope; and using a three dimensional model for regulation."
While GeorgeFriedman probably would not say so, Milton Firedman would say the more the political sphere of influence intrudes into the economic sphere of influence, the more likely the slide into socialism and tyranny.
The halt to this slide will only occur by embracing two major reforms. The first is a return to true federalism with an emphasis on states' initiatives, whence have come some brilliant economic models. My own state of Delaware once had such a model intitated by Governor Pete duPont, but it has been seriously eroded under the last few administrations.
The second is a return to a balance of governmental and economic spheres of influence. Any institution's integrity and effectiveness cannot remain if it is unceasingly violated and controlled by another. (This truism is valid for any institution, be it religious, governmental, economic, military or educational.)
If at one time American industrialists had too much power over the federal and state governments, that certainly is not the case now. Beginning with Theodore Roosevelt and accelerating steadily throughout the last century, the ascension of federal control over the states, traditionally a breeding ground for economic innovation and the financial institutions of our country, now at least temproarily discredited and under increased scrutiny and attack, is nearly complete.
It looks like this current administration is poised to push the accelerator to the floor by pushing the enactment of another Sarbanes Oxley Act.
More onerous regulation is not the answer for giving renewed health to our financial institutions. There are plenty of regulations already on the books, some legitimate; some not. A massive effort to distinguish between the necessary and unecessary regulations already on the books is long overdue and would result in a burst of economic prosperity scarcely imaginable in these dark economic times.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
We are Amused: Obama as Royalty
A quote attributed to Queen Elizabeth I (sometimes to Queen Victoria) has the offended aristocrat icily dismissing a courtier's off color comment thusly: "We are not amused." The use of the royal "we" was meant to declare to the offender that he had angered queen, demeaning her status as the epitome of excellence and majesty.
Americans have never been intimidated or silenced by the use of the royal "we" because they have have not been under the rule of an aristocratic class for the last two and a half centuries. In fact, no American president has ever dared to put down a large segment of the American people as if he were a king irritated by his subjects.
That is, until now.
President Obama recently has stated the Tea Party crowds who protest his tax policies "amuse" him. He feels they should be grateful to him.
Such statements by the leader of Americans certainly make it seem as if Obama sees himself as an aristocratic bent on ignoring, demeaning and controlling unfavored segments of the American people, especially those who dare to show "disrespect" by declaring their opposition to the administration's politices.
Think about it.
The president of all the people of the United States of America believes the Tea Partiers' concerns and protests are "amusing." He considers them ungrateful wretches. His attitude of "let them eat cake" is dangerously dismissive as well as divisive. His statements indicate he sees his position as one of "me" against "them."
I can recall no president in history who has brushed aside his fellow citizens and their concerns with such overtly snobblish and cavalier dismissal.
The above is not to say there haven't been presidents who hae been angered by large segments of the populace. It is not to say there haven't been presidents who have wished they didn't have strong opposition. It is to say, however, that to my recollection, there has never been a president who has consistently demeaned, derided and ignored large segments of US society.
Our president gives example after example of behavior which indicates he believes himself to be above the masses by reason of his intelligence, power and absolute rightness of his causes. When a president has an attitude of disdain toward the people he has been elected to serve, it indicates he doesn't wish to represent the people. It reveals he wishes to rule the people.
President Obama is in for a shock by November as alienated Americans send a message to him: You are not a king. You are an elected representative of the American people who is called to listen to and to act on behalf of all American citizens, even those who disagree with you.
This November voting Americans will tell the president, "We are not amused."
Americans have never been intimidated or silenced by the use of the royal "we" because they have have not been under the rule of an aristocratic class for the last two and a half centuries. In fact, no American president has ever dared to put down a large segment of the American people as if he were a king irritated by his subjects.
That is, until now.
President Obama recently has stated the Tea Party crowds who protest his tax policies "amuse" him. He feels they should be grateful to him.
Such statements by the leader of Americans certainly make it seem as if Obama sees himself as an aristocratic bent on ignoring, demeaning and controlling unfavored segments of the American people, especially those who dare to show "disrespect" by declaring their opposition to the administration's politices.
Think about it.
The president of all the people of the United States of America believes the Tea Partiers' concerns and protests are "amusing." He considers them ungrateful wretches. His attitude of "let them eat cake" is dangerously dismissive as well as divisive. His statements indicate he sees his position as one of "me" against "them."
I can recall no president in history who has brushed aside his fellow citizens and their concerns with such overtly snobblish and cavalier dismissal.
The above is not to say there haven't been presidents who hae been angered by large segments of the populace. It is not to say there haven't been presidents who have wished they didn't have strong opposition. It is to say, however, that to my recollection, there has never been a president who has consistently demeaned, derided and ignored large segments of US society.
Our president gives example after example of behavior which indicates he believes himself to be above the masses by reason of his intelligence, power and absolute rightness of his causes. When a president has an attitude of disdain toward the people he has been elected to serve, it indicates he doesn't wish to represent the people. It reveals he wishes to rule the people.
President Obama is in for a shock by November as alienated Americans send a message to him: You are not a king. You are an elected representative of the American people who is called to listen to and to act on behalf of all American citizens, even those who disagree with you.
This November voting Americans will tell the president, "We are not amused."
Monday, April 12, 2010
On Civility: Calls for civility can be a means of silencing oppostion
Although the political left has continually demeaned the Tea Party movement, it has also constantly called for civility of discourse. Those who are in the Tea Party movement need to recognize and to resist both the attempts to discredit it as well as to ignore the calls for civil dialogue as defined by the left. They must do so because radical progressives’ tactics of vilification combined with calls for civility and peaceful bipartisanship are twin prongs of a strategy meant to discredit and silence the opposition.
Of course it is necessary for the Tea Party to confront, challenge and diffuse the various smears directed toward conservative political groups springing up all over the United States. The charges leveled against the Tea Party have included racism, violence, hate speech, ignorance, lack of education and even a penchant for outdoor barbeques and fast cars.
While the new patriotic groups must pick off such charges one by one, demanding evidence and refuting false accusations; at the same time, such charges must not succeed in their chief mission, which is to vitiate the opposition by putting it continually on the defensive. The new movements must not lose the impetus of offensive strategies, chief among which are preventing the election of candidates for office who do not stand for the transcendent values of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which ethic was one of the chief impetiti behind the formation of the US constitution.
But the diversionary tactics employed by the liberal left to keep the Tea Party movement constantly on the defensive are coupled with a more subtle strategy; namely, a call to civility as defined by the far left. The goal of radical progressives, who seldom--if ever-- follow their own advice, clearly is to vitiate the Tea Party’s claims to truth and its attempts to reform the US political system by rendering it so meek and mild, so intimidated and soft spoken that it becomes utterly ineffective as a political reform movement. In brief, the constant calls for "civility" can be a thinly disguised means for silencing protestors.
It is important to make a distinction between gratuitous incivility and moral outrage. Human discourse, if it is to be meaningful, abides by generally recognized rules of civil behavior. Such rules exclude profanity, name calling, and unjustifiable personal attacks. Also excluded are slander, rumor mongering and sexually charged innuendoes.
But the left, and sometimes "moderate" or liberal Republicans, have sought to extend the rules of generally recognized civil behavior to include strong expressions of moral outrage. Many times the attempt is made to define genuine moral outrage as incivility; or worse, racism. To that end, members of the opposition from the left often have sought to silence conservatives by attempts to make the Tea Party and other conservative groups speak the language of the left, to accept the left’s terms of debate, which are almost always put in the context of race, victimization, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
To put it another way, progressives have certain doctrinal assumptions as the bases of any dialogue and seek to rope in and corral opposition by requiring the opposition to speak the language of the left and to define moral issues according to progressive priorities. That is one reason why the left most often resorts to the constantly repeated and by now often the merely rhetorical trope of racism. [A caveat: The reduction of the term by making it ubiquitous and all encompassing has been tragic for minorities, as the dilution of racism’s true meaning weakens justifiable attempts to confront and eradicate genuine cases of racist behavior.]
But the point of this small essay is that it is imperative for conservatives to refuse to accept the left’s definition of racism. As noted, "racism" has become a catchall category embracing the nearly the entirety morality and politics. If at one time, the mere hint of sexual misconduct was enough to bring down any political leader, all it takes nowadays to destroy a reputation and to end a career is the charge of racism It is a means of achieving--without dialogue, reasoning or factual proof--instant condemnation of conservative opposition.
In sum, being guilty of any of the multiple and increasingly arbitrary interpretations of racism by the left are the equivalent of a Christian irrevocably breaking the Great Commandment.
The Tea Party and other conservative groups must not allow genuine moral indignation to be redefined as incivility or racism. Moral indignation arises from recognition of evil. In turn, recognition of evil requires strong language, strong confrontation and strong action. The prophets of ancient Israel and Jesus Christ all used strong language to define and to confront the injustices and societal ills of their time.
The members of the Tea Party movement should encourage one another to follow those illustrious examples. By so doing, they will avoid falling prey to scurrilous attacks which keep them always on the defensive and to attempts to silence them by false charges of racism and hypocritical, spurious calls for "civility."
It is extremely important for member of the Tea Party and other groups to speak boldly and truthfully; to refuse to abide by the left’s terms of debate and to articulate clearly and precisely their short and long term goals.
Moral truth is the always the first and most necessary requirement of any political movement.
Of course it is necessary for the Tea Party to confront, challenge and diffuse the various smears directed toward conservative political groups springing up all over the United States. The charges leveled against the Tea Party have included racism, violence, hate speech, ignorance, lack of education and even a penchant for outdoor barbeques and fast cars.
While the new patriotic groups must pick off such charges one by one, demanding evidence and refuting false accusations; at the same time, such charges must not succeed in their chief mission, which is to vitiate the opposition by putting it continually on the defensive. The new movements must not lose the impetus of offensive strategies, chief among which are preventing the election of candidates for office who do not stand for the transcendent values of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which ethic was one of the chief impetiti behind the formation of the US constitution.
But the diversionary tactics employed by the liberal left to keep the Tea Party movement constantly on the defensive are coupled with a more subtle strategy; namely, a call to civility as defined by the far left. The goal of radical progressives, who seldom--if ever-- follow their own advice, clearly is to vitiate the Tea Party’s claims to truth and its attempts to reform the US political system by rendering it so meek and mild, so intimidated and soft spoken that it becomes utterly ineffective as a political reform movement. In brief, the constant calls for "civility" can be a thinly disguised means for silencing protestors.
It is important to make a distinction between gratuitous incivility and moral outrage. Human discourse, if it is to be meaningful, abides by generally recognized rules of civil behavior. Such rules exclude profanity, name calling, and unjustifiable personal attacks. Also excluded are slander, rumor mongering and sexually charged innuendoes.
But the left, and sometimes "moderate" or liberal Republicans, have sought to extend the rules of generally recognized civil behavior to include strong expressions of moral outrage. Many times the attempt is made to define genuine moral outrage as incivility; or worse, racism. To that end, members of the opposition from the left often have sought to silence conservatives by attempts to make the Tea Party and other conservative groups speak the language of the left, to accept the left’s terms of debate, which are almost always put in the context of race, victimization, political correctness and multi-culturalism.
To put it another way, progressives have certain doctrinal assumptions as the bases of any dialogue and seek to rope in and corral opposition by requiring the opposition to speak the language of the left and to define moral issues according to progressive priorities. That is one reason why the left most often resorts to the constantly repeated and by now often the merely rhetorical trope of racism. [A caveat: The reduction of the term by making it ubiquitous and all encompassing has been tragic for minorities, as the dilution of racism’s true meaning weakens justifiable attempts to confront and eradicate genuine cases of racist behavior.]
But the point of this small essay is that it is imperative for conservatives to refuse to accept the left’s definition of racism. As noted, "racism" has become a catchall category embracing the nearly the entirety morality and politics. If at one time, the mere hint of sexual misconduct was enough to bring down any political leader, all it takes nowadays to destroy a reputation and to end a career is the charge of racism It is a means of achieving--without dialogue, reasoning or factual proof--instant condemnation of conservative opposition.
In sum, being guilty of any of the multiple and increasingly arbitrary interpretations of racism by the left are the equivalent of a Christian irrevocably breaking the Great Commandment.
The Tea Party and other conservative groups must not allow genuine moral indignation to be redefined as incivility or racism. Moral indignation arises from recognition of evil. In turn, recognition of evil requires strong language, strong confrontation and strong action. The prophets of ancient Israel and Jesus Christ all used strong language to define and to confront the injustices and societal ills of their time.
The members of the Tea Party movement should encourage one another to follow those illustrious examples. By so doing, they will avoid falling prey to scurrilous attacks which keep them always on the defensive and to attempts to silence them by false charges of racism and hypocritical, spurious calls for "civility."
It is extremely important for member of the Tea Party and other groups to speak boldly and truthfully; to refuse to abide by the left’s terms of debate and to articulate clearly and precisely their short and long term goals.
Moral truth is the always the first and most necessary requirement of any political movement.
Friday, March 26, 2010
How to Treat Friends
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.
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.
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)