What Is A Grand Jury For, Anyway?

Media comments, in the wake of the failure of grand juries in Missouri and New York to indict police officers in the deaths of black suspects, displayed  an abysmal ignorance of the role of grand juries in the American legal system.

Some people ask why there weren’t trials which were open to the public, confusing a twelve member trial panel with an often larger grand jury composed of up to twenty-three people.

Others wanted to know why the prosecutors guiding the grand juries didn’t act as advocates for those killed against the subject policemen.

 

And there were those who didn’t see the point of having the case considered by a grand jury, at all.  Why not just have trials on murder charges against the cops and let the witnesses and other evidence be heard?

The “Grand Jury” in both America and England (where it began), has historically been both an investigative body and a bulwark against prosecutorial abuse.

 

It is the latter function which is usually challenged.  The role of the grand jury, in that respect, is to place a barrier between the government and the individual which must be cleared before the accused can be tried for the alleged crime.  That barrier – or standard that must be met – is “probable cause” (is it more likely than not that the person committed the crime?).  But, in reality, the state is unlikely to push for an indictment (a finding of probable cause) unless it believes that there’s a high probability that a trial jury will find that the evidence meets the much higher standard of “proof beyond reasonable doubt” that is required to convict.  In other words, a prosecutor won’t seek an indictment if he doesn’t think that he can win at trial.  Not only would a loss mean that the case was a waste of time and resources, it would also mean, selfishly, but almost always true, that the prosecutor’s reputation is harmed.  No one, particularly trial lawyers, likes to lose.

 

Critics assert that the institution has outlived its usefulness, citing the fact that, in the vast majority of cases presented to grand juries by prosecutors, the issuance of an indictment is seemingly automatic.  That’s hardly surprising considering that, in the vast majority of criminal cases, the charges do not involve disputed facts and the presence of probable cause is obvious.

So when a prosecutor is confronted, like the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, with evidence that is sharply contradictory and public interest is high, it makes sense to defer to the grand jury’s traditional role of investigation and determination of the presence of probable cause.  The shooting of Michael Brown was not a routine case.  The hackneyed phrase among lawyers that a prosecutor can persuade a grand jury “to indict a ham sandwich” was inapplicable.

Grand jury proceedings are secret so as to protect its investigative function  and can insure that some allegations of wrong doing are confidential until a bill of indictment is approved.  [“Probable cause” is present.]

Those who would do away with the historic protection provided by the Grand Jury system simply do not appreciate the terrible burden placed on a defendant in a criminal trial.  The power of the government arrayed against the individual is hard to over-estimate.  The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reflects this fact, requiring that federal felony charges must first satisfy a grand jury that they have merit.

It is a given that foes of the Grand Jury system would feel very differently if they found themselves facing hostile scrutiny from the police for alleged criminal behavior.

Cyber War Scorecard -- North Korea 1 – America 0

I’ll admit to being furious when I learned that major American theatre chains caved in to North Korean threats of violence if they displayed a satiric movie depiction of their “dear leader”. 

It’s a cliché that freedom is not free.   There is a cost in defending it.  Sony and the movie chains chose not to pay it.

My anger – shared by a broad swath of the American public, apparently - was based on the belief that surrendering to foreign threats is not what America does.  We are not a people - so I thought – who surrender to intimidation.

I recognize that caution and prudence have proper roles in human affairs, and movie theatre owners didn’t want to risk the safety of themselves and their patrons.  Yet, they could have served their interest by insisting that the government provide security for their establishments.  After all, the threats clearly came from a foreign government.

 

While the ability of North Korea to carry out its threats is highly suspect (the large Korean community in the United States is not known for harboring anti-Americans/fifth columnists), such measures would provide reassurance to theatre goers while displaying a refusal to kowtow to the bluster of a communist dictatorship.

 

The Weekly Standard, a noted conservative magazine, commented in a similar vein and, further, pulled from its archives a very sobering 1978 quote from Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the west…. Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling groups and the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society.”

What can be done now?  Sony has declined to comment on whether The Interview would be released later. 

Here is a suggestion:  announce a new date with a promised show of strong security being present and promote the date, and the event, as a show of support for American freedom.  To show up will be proclaimed as a patriotic act.  [The fact that the film is vulgar, in parts, and aims for low-brow humor is irrelevant.  Attendance is not desired to serve entertainment in this case.]  The North Koreans have to be made aware that it is a political matter.  And the world needs to be reminded that America’s historic commitment to freedom remains, despite the ambivalent measures of the Obama Administration.

Are Police Anti-Black?

Recent polling makes clear that most blacks believe they are treated unfairly by law enforcement personnel, with recent examples of police-caused deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City being cited as evidence.  The explicit view is that these law breakers would not have been killed if they had been white. 

Is that so?  Was the police focus on skin color or conduct?

There are many in our society who believe that it must be the former since statistics show that blacks are far more likely than whites to be charged with crimes and end up in jail. 

Blacks make up 13% of the U.S. population today yet more than fifty percent of all murder suspects are African-American.  And their arrest rates for other serious crimes, such as armed robbery and aggravated assault, range from 25-40% of all such crimes.  Why are blacks so grossly over-represented in these dismal statistics?

Is it really possible that the disproportionate representation is due to police racism?  All of it?

Or is the truth rather less complicated?  The simple answer may be that blacks do commit more than their share of crime.

Why?

Is it certainly not a matter of genes or other inbred character flaw, as a true racist might claim.

But there are cultural and attitudinal factors more pronounced among blacks than whites.

Over 70% of black births are out of wedlock; 29% is the current number for white illegitimacy.  [Since both statistics are much higher than fifty years ago, the trends are horrible for family stability for Americans, in general.]  Study after study has established that children of single-parent households (almost always headed by a female) do not thrive as well as children who have both parents present.  It seems rather obvious to suggest that there is a connection between illegitimacy rates and criminal behavior.  The absence of the father in the home means there is no positive model for a youth or young man.  He therefore looks for guidance from the streets.

Consider what are undoubtedly related facts:

The high school drop-out rate is about 50% higher for blacks than for     whites.

For those remaining in school, blacks perform significantly less well than whites on tests measuring achievement levels in reading and math.

So how can it be a surprise that a population group with greater negative characteristics – less stable upbringing, bringing with it poor educational performance – produces disproportionate numbers of young people who can’t function effectively in the broader community and become criminals?

It is easy for the race hustlers and the ideologically blind to look “outside” certain black communities for explanations for high crime rates.  It’s always comforting to be able to ascribe blame for one’s problems to someone – or something- other than one’s self.  But that misplaced focus is truly tragic and destructive for it delays – or halts – confronting the real question:   High crime rates will not change until the real cause is addressed – cultural dysfunction.

Alas, for a young black man coming from such a sad and troubled background, the color of his skin is the least of his problems.

“How Can You Be a Criminal Defense Attorney?”

That question invariably arises when a fellow lawyer learns that I am a political conservative.  The unspoken assumption behind the question is that a person who defends those accused of crimes must be in some sense partial to them or, at the very least, suspicious of the police who made one’s client a defendant.  In other words, one who represents those accused of crimes is expected to be leery of law enforcers, maybe not an anarchist but at least a liberal. 

I certainly don’t fall into those categories –at least not easily.

My succinct response to the questioner is that the Bill of Rights provides   protections for those accused of crimes such as a trial by jury and the right to remain silent.  What could be more conservative than protecting a client’s constitutional rights?

There is a broad irony to the question posed by fellow attorneys (most of whom consider themselves proud liberals).  Those on the left do, indeed, tend to be suspicious of the exercise of power by government employees who are in law enforcement, including prosecutors.  They see such personnel often as agents of racial prejudice and injustice (the prejudgment by many on the left of the recent police shooting in Ferguson, Missouri is an example).  

Yet liberals eagerly urge other arms of the government to get involved in curing perceived social ills such as income inequality, environmental hazards and health insurance inefficiencies.

But a conservative does not accept the distinction that those exercising powers of government are to be viewed suspiciously in some aspects but embraced in others.

 

Human nature is a constant in human endeavors.  The fact that a person is a “public servant” who considers himself well-motivated does not grant him an exemption from reality.  The ranks of law enforcement or social service agencies, for instance, all contain people – a mixture of good, bad and indifferent.

Power does indeed corrupt.  That appreciation is at the heart of political conservatism and the U.S. Constitution.

Our Framers sought to restrain the exercise of power, while acknowledging that government is meaningless without it.

The essential role of the criminal defense attorney is to serve as a check on the exercise of governmental power in the criminal justice system.  Require the state to prove the validity of its accusations.  Provide a forum and rules to allow the defendant to challenge them.  That is the job of the defense attorney.  The skilled defender, be he liberal or otherwise, oblivious as he may be to the fact, is playing a very conservative role.  Our society would be much better off – and certainly more conservative – if non-law enforcement sections of our government were subjected to the same degree of scrutiny confronted by those who accuse others of crimes. 

I am proud to be a criminal defense attorney because (not despite the fact)  I am a conservative.

The Meaning of Ferguson

In the aftermath of the Grand Jury’s refusal to indict the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown, TV and print pundits are calling for America-wide soul searching.

Why?

Of course, many ill-informed, and some ill-motivated people, were upset by the decision.  The “rabble” rioted supposedly in response (as if the looting, destruction and burning of businesses in the town, some of which were black-owned, represented a reply to judicial injustice).

Others slammed the Grand Jury’s action as improper and the result of a presumed bias in favor of white police officers and against black victims.

Highlighting that attitude was an ABC interview conducted by George Stephanopoulos who questioned officer Darren Wilson as to whether he would have acted the same way, in self-defense, if the person had been white.  (Is that supposed to be a joke?  Did Stephanopoulos intend to imply that if one’s life is perceived to be at risk by a white assailant, the cop wouldn’t have shot him?)

But here’s another view.

Contrary to widely-circulated initial witness reports following the August episode, Brown had not been shot in the back; the bullets hit him in the front as he was, according to several Grand Jury witnesses, charging toward the police officer. 

The claim that he raised his hands in the air and cried out “don’t shoot” was a myth promulgated by Brown’s friends and bandied about by those in the media and elsewhere with an anti-police agenda in mind.  Yet the failure to indict, and not the reasons for it, has been the focus of protests.  The initial narrative of what happened, fostered by Al Sharpton and Brown’s allies, was plainly accepted as true by those who wanted to believe that the “unarmed black teenager”, repeated ad nauseam by CNN, was gunned down because he was.  The fact that he was a thug who had just roughed up a store owner and was high on marijuana, at least, was ignored.  The perception was aided by the intercession of attorney General Eric Holder calling for a civil rights violation investigation.  The false storyline persisted over the months since August despite leaks of autopsy reports that sharply contradicted it.

 

Why?

It is hardly original to note that blacks and whites typically view violence between the races differently.  Remember the OJ Simpson trial of many years ago?  The conflicting views are particularly stark when the white person is a police officer.  Historically, it’s hard to argue with the tendency in black communities to view such conflicts as targeting them.  Because, of course, for many, many years predominately, if not exclusively, white police forces did exactly that. 

But history also provides proof that such attitudes and conduct have changed significantly over the past half century.  Does any objective observer dispute that both economically and socially blacks are much better off and that racial prejudice is a much weaker force?

Yet people being people, lessons learned over the decades (such as to be leery of white police officers) for self-protection are not easily unlearned despite their reduced or nonexistent relevance today.

So it is understandably true that for many – maybe most blacks – there remains a predisposition to believe that when a white police officer shoots a black person, it was unjustified.  As Ferguson made clear, that predisposition stubbornly resists acceptance of a new racial reality.

[The antics of the Al Sharptons of the world, alas, seem dedicated to feeding and fueling old habits of thinking.  Their incendiary and false accusations helped to ignite the violence in Ferguson.  One can only hope that that wasn’t their objective although it is certainly fair to ask what does one expect when one lights a fuse?]

How Language Affects Opinions

Last week, the Wall Street Journal featured a headline over a story on the brutal ISIS beheading of an American aid worker:  “Militants kill U.S. hostage”.

What did the use of the term “militants” convey?  Was it accurately descriptive?  Would “savages” or “radical Islamists” have been more appropriate?  Dictionaries define “militants” as people who are “vigorously active, aggressive, often combative”.  Included are those “engaged” in combat.

Accordingly, “militant” is not incorrect as such, but it is a term that obviously encompasses a wide range of behavior from the strong supporter of a particular public policy to a violent warrior. 

Thus, its use fails to convey clearly the nature of those labeled “militants”.  In the context of ISIS, I suggest that it fails to convey the seriousness – the threat and danger – of those to whom it is applied.

Think of an individual who, beforehand, knows nothing about the organization.  He reads a headline that applies the term “savage” or “terrorist” to it.  Will he have the same view of ISIS if it were tagged as being “militant” instead?

The use of language – the use of a label – strongly influences how we perceive the subject matter.  Abortion labels are illustrative.  When the still highly-controversial Roe v Wade Supreme Court ruling was issued a half century ago, those in favor of the decision sanctioning abortion were viewed, understandably, as pro-abortion.  Those opposed were anti-abortion.

But then the opponents had a brainstorm.  Instead of positioning themselves negatively, they put a positive spin on their posture.  Their position was trumpeted by them as being “pro-life”.  Abortion supporters were immediately put on the defensive.  (Who wasn’t pro-life?)  But they soon found a new term for their position:  “Pro-choice”.   (Who doesn’t favor choice?)  And the verbal battle has been joined ever since. 

[Frank Luntz, a pollster and focus group leader, well known to Fox News viewers, wrote a fascinating 2007 book on the power of language in the shaping of opinions:  Words That Work – It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.]

It’s unlikely, in forming an opinion on ISIS, that one’s view of its “militant” members will be anywhere as hostile if the group were known to be composed of “terrorists”.

Labels matter.  They do indeed shape opinion.

There’s considerable irony, given the paper’s support for a strong foreign policy, in the Wall Street Journal’s “Militants” headline.  One would expect to see it in The New York Times, not there.

Do Manners Matter?

As children, we were taught – or should have been – that manners are important.  “Say please. Thank you.  Excuse me.”  And so forth.

The lessons generally took.  Politeness in human kind, I suggest, comes naturally. 

Some of us were also instructed on dinner table etiquette - with considerably less success.   Instinctive recognition that the fork goes on the left [why, when most of us are right-handed] is not exactly known as a common character trait in mankind.

But in a broader sense, manners – and the rules of etiquette which support them, are essential components of a civilized society.  What, after all, does the concept that we are social animals mean, or as john Donne put it, “no man is an island”?

We live together and need each other.   Therefore, we strive to get along with one another.  Good manners are the social lubricants that make that possible. 

How? 

Search no further than the golden rule.  Treat others as you would have them treat you.

A person foremost wants to be loved or at least respected and valued as a human being, not as a tool or as a means to someone else’s end.

So when we ask someone to do something, good manners direct that we say “please” so the request is presented with the option of being declined.  Thus, the request is formally respectful of that person’s free and independent status even though the reality is that an option to refuse may not be intended as both parties recognize (think of the boss’s “request” for action by his assistant). 

Closely related is the idea of consideration for others.  Its absence is rudeness – bad manners.  Holding the door for the person behind you and waiting your turn at the four way stop sign intersection are examples.

Another critical aspect of manners is not engaging in behavior that is offensive to others – don’t chew with your mouth open or blow your nose at the dinner table. 

Of course, the form of manners is not universal.  In the Middle East, for instance, belching by a guest after a meal denotes appreciation for the hospitality.

 

And in every society what constitutes acceptable behavior is subject to change.

An interesting example, in America these days, is the popularity of gift cards.  On one level, their use, instead of the purchase of a tangible gift, reflects a lack of consideration.  The giver needn’t think long about what the intended recipient might want.  But from another perspective, maybe the recipient would rather receive a card.  He can avoid the hassle of returning an unwanted item and get directly what he rather have that the giver might be unable to discern.  Older people unaccustomed to the now common usage might view their givers as ill-mannered.  Young people, however, are more likely to appreciate their receipt. 

At the core of good manners is simple respect.  Its perceived absence likely makes a person angry since no one likes to be disrespected. 

Contemplate the current political environment.  Did President Obama show respect for the GOP by his begrudging acknowledgment of the election results:  “they had a good night”?  Or was the lack of graciousness in defeat disrespectful?

Do liberals respect conservatives in Washington and vice versa?  As I see it, the former are more at fault than the latter.  Consider the myriad comments of the likes of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi impugning Republican motivation.

Whatever the case, there is no doubt that Washington is sorely lacking the social lubricants of good manners.

A Mandate – Or Opportunity?

The Republicans are properly ecstatic over last week’s thumping of the Democrats.  Some are even proclaiming the result as a mandate for a conservative agenda.

Is that so?  Unlikely.  The GOP campaign mantra for the midterms was akin to Bill Clinton’s 1992 Presidential bid.  “It’s about the economy stupid.”  This time “Obama” replaced economy.  No wonder.

Election eve polling showed that 56% of the voters disapproved of the President’s performance.  Of those disapproving, 82% voted for Republican congressional polls, according to exit polls.
 

Ironically, in light of Administration efforts to pin public discontent with Washington gridlock on Congressional Republicans, those voters who are hostile to Congress voted GOP 51% to 47%.  Evidently, voters realized that Congress’ poor performance was more appropriately laid at the feet of Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid.

Further, 33% of those supporting Republicans stated that their intention of voting for the GOP was to show unhappiness with the President.  Only 19% of those favoring Democrats wanted their vote to be considered as support for Obama. 

So what do these numbers mean?  Voters focused on punishing both incumbents and challengers who were Democrats and, hence, supporters of the President, notwithstanding protestations of many such candidates about “Obama who?”

Clearly the electorate turned thumbs down on the President, as polls reflected.  Yet other polls established that Republicans in Washington aren’t popular, either.

The reasons for the broad dissatisfaction with Washington are  straightforward.  Problems fester.  Budget deficits grow.  Economic malaise spreads.  Out-of-control entitlements expand.  Promises are not kept.  Hopes are dashed.  So cynicism abounds against both parties.
 

Yes, the Democrats are blamed more.  But with the Republicans, soon to be in charge of the entire Congress, that verdict is subject to rapid change. 

In a sense, perhaps the GOP did receive a mandate, albeit a negative one.  “Don’t be like President Obama and the Democrats!”  So, more accurately, what voters handed Republicans on Nov. 4 is the opportunity to be different.   Show America that right-of-center government is best for the country.  And maybe that will lead to success in 2016, too.

Call it real hope and change.

Ebola – Err on the Side of Caution

It’s understandable that people returning from West Africa who have provided care for Ebola victims want to be appreciated for their help and be permitted to resume their American lives without delay.

But that’s what they want.

But maybe the American public has a right to insist that they be Ebola-free – for sure. 

Being without symptoms for twenty-one days after possible exposure to those infected is supposed to insure that one is not infected himself.  That’s the reason why three weeks is the period proposed for such people to be isolated – quarantined - from the general population.

 

[As an aside, no one has suggested that the incubation period might be longer than twenty-one days so it’s probably reasonable to think that beyond that period is safe territory.  But it’s also fair to ask are we really sure?]

Yet some returning healthcare workers have protested.  In particular, Kaci Hickox has loudly objected to her confinement in New Jersey when she arrived in the U.S., then in Maine where she was ordered to stay home.  In fact, she persuaded a local judge to greatly reduce her movement restrictions during the quarantine period.

The nurse’s position is that she is not sick and so any restrictions are unnecessary and, therefore, constitute an unwarranted limitation on her freedom.

And she might be right.  But maybe not.  Public health official assumptions about the potential, and method, of contracting the disease have proven to be suspect.  Assertions that are based on probability, rather than certainty, are not reassuring when dealing with such a deadly and scary illness.  There may be a lot about contracting Ebola that we do not yet know.  So as sympathetic as one might be to returning workers from infected areas of Africa, common sense demands that a quarantine be fully enforced.  Indeed, the seriousness of Ebola makes obvious the appeal of a policy that errs on the side of caution.

Viewed from this perspective, nurse Hickox is being childish and selfish.  The inconvenience of having one’s freedom of movement and association limited for three weeks hardly outweighs the potential risk one may pose to the broader community. 

Federal Ebola Policy – A Stubborn Resistance to Common Sense

Why does the Obama Administration resist a ban on visitors from West African countries plagued by Ebola?  Common sense would seem to compel such a policy. 

But no, presidential spokesmen deny the efficacy of a travel ban because it would be counterproductive.  Those who want to come to the U.S. will simply come here illegally and, thus, we’ll be unable to monitor them. 

Instead, the Administration contends the U.S. will allow such travelers to enter the America but they will be self-monitored for symptoms.  Huh?  Americans are to be put at risk because we don’t want to ban travelers from infected areas?  The idea that people who might carry Ebola will come here illegally is most unlikely.  A person who has Ebola is rather unlikely to have the physical ability or stamina to be able to mount time-consuming hurdles of illegal admission.

 

But leave aside that limp defense of unrestricted travel from danger zones.  It should be a statistical certainty that some of the visitors legally admitted in the absence of a travel ban will have Ebola.  Wouldn’t you, if you might be infected, want to go where your survival rate is, evidently, far higher?

Of course.  Many who come will test positive, self-monitored or otherwise.  What then?  Are we supposed to send them back?  That won’t happen.  American hospitals will be required to admit them.  But wait.  The United States has fewer than twenty isolation beds considered to be safely able to care for Ebola patients.  What are we to do with the overflow?

There will be more cases of Americans infected by Ebola, as ill-prepared American hospitals provide Ebola care as recently seen in Dallas.

The Administration is right about one thing, though.  Focus on stopping Ebola in West Africa.  Several thousand American soldiers are already there to serve that objective.  So why are contrary policies also being pursued which will inevitably result in additional cases of Ebola’s being imported here?

Seen in this light, along with strong public support for a travel ban, President Obama’s resistance is truly baffling.  It makes no sense, common or otherwise.  This is not an issue of liberal vs. conservative.  It’s a matter of protecting public health.  The Administration’s blindness is more than foolish.  It’s dangerous for Americans.

Thoughts on American Exceptionalism

The subject comes to mind as the U.S. sends thousands of U.S. military forces to Liberia to fight Ebola… and our nation is alone in doing so.  Why us?  African neighbors have more immediate worries about Ebola.  It’s on their doorstep and Europe is considerably closer to it than we are.

But helping solve problems around the world is what Americans do.  Sure,  self-interest plays a role but it’s often not the dominant one.  Humanitarian ones are.

Think, in recent  years, of American aid – no strings attached – to victims of tsunamis in the far east, earthquakes in Turkey or AIDS epidemics in Africa.

And survey after survey makes clear that Americans, as individuals, are more generous, more giving, than any other people in the world.

I think it’s appropriate to say, on that basis alone, that America and her people are exceptional.  In certain characteristics, we are superior to others in the world.

 

As a nation, we have valued our world role as a beacon of freedom and self-government.  We want to share our blessings.  That, indeed, makes us exceptional on another plane and that can include arrogance and foolishness as well.

After the Great War, Woodrow Wilson sought to make the world safe for democracy.  We know how that turned out.

 

Yet, after World War II, a similar motivation restored liberal democracy in West Germany and fostered its development in Japan.  The list goes on.  South Korea blossomed; South Vietnam received valiant efforts as did Iraq.  Sad results don’t alter the worthiness – positive exceptionalism – of the enterprises.

And consider this.  We are an exceptional super power.  America conquers and may occupy, for a while, but she always relinquishes her conquests.

Can you think of historical parallels?  Ancient Greece?  Rome?  The Ottoman Empire?  Germany?  None of them.  Not even Great Britain came close.

Why are we exceptional?  It’s certainly not our common genealogy or our millennia-long history which makes us unique.   And despite the land’s many springs, we really can’t say it’s something in the water.  No, America is exceptional because our nation has a special creed.  We believe we are a bright light in the world and take great pride in being so.  Freedom, liberty, opportunity and democracy – the American dream.

Yet, I acknowledge that the self-congratulatory tone is not as prevalent as it used to be. 

President Obama and his fellow liberals/leftists readily come to mind.  Their ambivalence, even hostility, to the concept of American exceptionalism explains, in large part, the decline of our influence in the world.  If our leaders don’t believe America is a force for good, deserving of respect, our friends will be weakened and our foes emboldened.  And so has it been in recent years. 

But, doubters aside, we remain exceptional.  There is considerable reason to believe that those who possess that knowledge will soon be ascendant in Washington D.C. again.  

America’s First Black President Is a Failure – Unanticipated Consequences

America loves to celebrate “firsts” as evidence of social progress.  In 1928, Al Smith was the first Catholic nominee of a major party.  In 1960, a Catholic was elected president and in 2008 a woman was taken seriously as a White House contender and a black man prevailed.  But to be an effective trail blazer, one must be successful.  How many times have we heard those following the trail say “I am grateful to [blank] for showing the way”?  A first is not eagerly followed if the one breaking new ground fails.

 

This is a sad irony and unfair lesson of the Obama Presidency.  His failed presidency (and who can seriously doubt that that is a factual statement six years in?) has nothing to do with his race except in a perverse way.  Does anyone really believe that a white community organizer, who was an undistinguished one term state senator in Illinois and who served as a U.S. Senator for only two years would be catapulted into the White House?  “Hope and change” would have elected that person in 2008?  Rather doubtful.

 

Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm and Jesse Jackson ran in previous years but neither came close to capturing the Democratic Party nomination.  Barack Obama did, indeed, succeed in winning – but not in serving.

There are those who will say “See, a black man shouldn’t be president” and cite him as exhibit A.  That is, of course, preposterous.  Barack Obama, given the paucity of his experience and ill-suited background, should never have run.  He was simply unprepared and ill-equipped.  Skin color had nothing to do with that.

 

However, a would-be trail blazer who fails (or as a former CIA and defense chief has noted, “has lost his way”) does not inspire more qualified people of color to follow his lead.  And that fact will, also, be part of the Obama legacy.

Secret Service Failure – A Lesson in Complacency

The recent news about short-comings in the Secret Service is appalling.  A fence-jumper running loose on White House grounds and inside the residence, an ex-felon carrying a handgun riding in an elevator with the President, and bullets striking 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And these events were all on top of the scandal of Secret Service personnel engaging in sexual escapades while in foreign lands two years ago on official duties.

What happened to what used to be considered an elite, highly professional force dedicated to protecting the President from harm?

Have its members – or at least many of them – simply become lazy or complacent and thus less professional and competent?

Such would appear to be the case.

However, some have suggested that professionalism  among frontline agents is not lacking.  Rather, supervisors have ignored necessary training and have let political and convenience considerations take precedence over security concerns.  Maybe, but an Agent at the front door who fails to lock it can hardly blame that oversight on inadequate training.

Some fellow conservatives have responded to these alarming stories with a certain nonchalance:  “what do you expect from the government?”   The recent IRS and Veterans Administration problems are cited as illustrations of incompetence, malfeasance and indifference to job performance that permeates all federal bureaucracies.

This reaction has merit but it’s not entirely fair. 

I have no doubt that many government employees are attracted to federal employment by the lure of public service.  People who serve in law enforcement, healthcare and other occupations undoubtedly were filled with pride when they began their service.  I particularly include the Secret Service, given its storied past and previously deserved reputation as an elite governmental unit.

But human nature is a constant.  The best of intentions can be subsumed by self-interest, whether it be one’s comfort, ease or desire for power.  It is a difficult temptation to resist.  Accordingly, people are inclined to think that what one desires is OK because, after all, they’re well motivated – or so they tell themselves.  An objective observer, however, might see a conflict that is ignored. 

People in the government are, of course, just like the rest of us in being afflicted with the frailties of human kind.

But the government, and its bureaucrats, have powers ad authority the rest of us lack.  So their conduct deserves and requires extra scrutiny.

The Secret Service has not had a subject of its protective responsibilities harmed since 1981 when President Reagan was shot.  Over thirty-three years later, it must have been tempting to think that, since nothing had happened in decades, nothing would happen in the future.

Of course, that sentiment is the result of wishful thinking.  It’s stupid and dangerous.  It is, in fact, foolish complacency.

Human nature will not change, no matter how much one might exhort it to be otherwise.  Those in power are subject to its corrupting influences.

The solution?  Fresh blood -- supervisors imbued with a real sense of public service who can foster and demand adherence to appropriate standards that prevent complacency.  And those filling such roles cannot be allowed to fill them for long lest they, too, become complacent. 

Obama and ISIS – the Comeuppance of an Arrogant Idealist

No American can take satisfaction in knowing that our President has been knocked down by reality.  One might even suggest that world events have blindsided him, except the failure to see was willful.
 

Barack Obama, from his American mea culpa speech in Cairo to the cancellation of anti-missile projects in Eastern Europe and the re-set of relations with Russia, has chosen to live in a world of his own making.

It was as if history didn’t matter.  National interests and ambitions were irrelevant to the conduct of the world’s nations and peoples.  Bad things happened in the world, the president evidently believed, due to misunderstandings and an assertive America seeking to force its will on others.  The resentments and animosity it generated were to be expected.
 

And so, Obama would make things right.  And why not?  Even the Nobel Prize committee had been persuaded by the President’s call for hope and change and based the award upon his promise alone.
 

Idealism can be so appealing.  All can be so well.  Would that the real world conformed.

One can’t help thinking of Woodrow Wilson and his plea for a League of Nations in 1919.  He fervently felt that providing a forum for the world’s actors would allow disputes and misunderstandings to be resolved peacefully, given his implicit belief that people and nations mainly just want to get along.

Wrong.
 

Some wish to dominate, to rule, to conquer.  Or, in the case of ISIS, to convert or kill.

Reality has certainly long been an unwelcome interloper in the Obama household.  Now that the intruder has upended the place settings, the host has no choice but to call out the rude behavior. 

The arrogance has been exposed as unwarranted and the idealism as foolish.  America laments… why did it take so long?

Our Reluctant Warrior President

We sometimes forget that the primary focus of the President of the United States should not be domestic laws or policies.  Rather, it is to lead the U.S. military.

Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, in enumerating the powers of the chief executive, begins, not coincidentally, with the clause “The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.”

Law-making, on the other hand, is reserved exclusively to Congress.  Article I, Section 1.

The paramount responsibility of the President, it would therefore seem clear, is to defend our country – to keep us safe – by all means necessary.

Alas, Barack Obama has problems bearing that burden and fulfilling that responsibility.

 

His conduct suggests that he’s more concerned with keeping foolish campaign pledges than adjusting to reality.

He set a deadline for withdrawing from Iraq and kept it – over the objections of those who, in retrospect, plainly knew better.

He has promised to do the same in Afghanistan and has generated similar worries. 

He pledged that American ground forces would not return to the Middle East, and “no boots on the ground” remains the President’s mantra.

There’s certainly much merit to keeping one’s word given on the campaign trail.  But how about pledges about  American responses to challenges from our foes?  They would seem far more vital to keep.  America’s word should not be doubted by our enemies or our friends.  They need to know we mean what we say.

How about red lines in Syria?  Or serious consequences for Russian encroachment on Ukraine?

Campaign promises, if sincere, are statements of intentions.  Experience shows, however, that reality can – and should – upend them if they are not founded in the world as it is, regardless of what’s one’s wishes may be.

Incredibly, President Obama has turned this common sense approach on its head.  Wishes have trumped reality.  Why is it so important to him to parse the truth so that he can deny doing what events are forcing him to do?  Is he an example of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s belief that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”?

Is he so dependent on the emotional support of his left-wing, anti-war constituency that he does not want to dampen it by telling the whole truth?  (He certainly no longer needs their electoral support). 

The beheadings have forced his hand.  He feels compelled to do something – but as little as he must.

 

Our national interest compels that we defeat ISIS, he thunders… but without U.S. ground troops.  And if our Middle Eastern allies decline to provide necessary ground troops as they have so far refused to do?  What then?  Will he cling to his “no boots” promise?  Or will he do what others know must be done?

The great fear is that the President’s past performance has already provided the answer.

A Pre-Occupation with Benghazi

The House of Representatives has recently formed a select committee to investigate the “before-during-after” of the September 2012 terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. Ambassador.

Why?

GOP leaders believe that such an investigation is necessary to unearth the truth that the Administration very much wants to keep buried.

But isn’t the truth already known?

 

Of course President Obama’s team – in the midst of the election campaign – sought to present the attack as unrelated to the war on terror (which, the Administration claimed, for obvious political purposes, had already been won).

Susan Rice, knowingly or otherwise, was trotted out to parrot the false Obama line. 

Facts and experience both made clear that the Administration’s narrative was generated by political considerations.  Certainly, shading the truth – even outright lying (e.g. “you can keep your doctor”)  - was and is a well known White House practice.

No doubt the committee will produce additional evidence showing deceit.  But to what effect?  It’s hard to believe that the case hasn’t already been made.

Recent polls, for instance, show that over 60% of the public doesn’t believe President Obama on Benghazi. 

Yes, the GOP can keep the focus on the fact that the Obama Administration did what it could, truth be damned, to win re-election.  Ok.  Does that really help Republicans this year?  No.  Current concerns such as Obamacare and the Veterans Administration debacle will attract more voter interest that rehashing a tragedy nearly two years old.  

Humans Remain Social Beings

About fifteen years ago, prompted by the publication of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone book, social scientists were pontificating about the increasing social isolation of Americans.

Putnam cited a variety of studies on the decline of community organizations and activities.  As captured in his book’s catchy title, people were dropping out of the weekly leagues, for instance, that had been a staple of small town group gatherings.  Now, people are bowling, and doing other things, alone.

 

There can be no question that, if anything, the trend has intensified in the past decade and a half.

Electronic devices for entertainment and communication are obviously everywhere.  Their use, of course, doesn’t extend the hours of the day so there’s less time for in-person contact.

To be sure, people still have contact with others but the form is changing.  In-person to voice to text.

But I suggest that virtual contact is not the same.  Humans desire – need – direct, supportive, emotional involvement.

Traditionally, families have met that need.  However, disintegration of families in recent decades is a well-documented fact.  Are victims of family dissolutions or ill formations more likely to be among those seeking virtual relationships?

 

Is the popularity of “bowling alone” activity a response to the void or a cause of it, or both?

What is undeniable is that people strive to find emotionally fulfilling contact and fellow humans needn’t be the only source.

It can’t be merely coincidental that since 1970 (on the eve of the broad computer age) American pet ownership has grown from one third to over fifty percent today.

Can a society long survive if its members find more comfort and solace among the inhabitants of the animal world than with fellow humans? 

 

Particularly alarming is another observation.  It appears that the growth in pet ownership is not confined to the U.S.  It has occurred also in Europe and may be related to the broad decline in the birth rate there.  Is a dog’s unconditional affection a desirable alternative to the demands of raising children?  Isn’t the need to produce the next generation supposed to be an undeniable demand of human nature?