Memorial Day is a Unique Holiday

Memorial Day has always seemed an unusual day for “celebration”, as we Americans term our holidays.  Remembering the birth of Christ or His resurrection are meaningful days of joy for Christians.  Recognizing the birthdays of Presidents is an acknowledgement of leaders who helped shape America.  And Labor Day is a welcome day off from work at the end of summer.  As to all these holidays, we say to each other, have a “happy” or “nice” or “joyful” fill-in-the-blank day.

But “happy” Memorial Day?  The expression is jarring. 

We honor, not celebrate, those who died in military service to our nation.  Their sacrifice should humble us all in our appreciation for the cost of freedom.  That is the memory to commemorate. 

Note:  For years, PBS has broadcast a Memorial Day tribute the Sunday evening before the holiday.  It is somber and heart-wrenching in the memories recited of individual lives lost.  But it’s also uplifting in its reminders of the greatness that is America.  Watch it.

Intolerance is the Soul of Tyranny

It is inconceivable that a tyrannical government could exist without suppressing dissent.  After all, the presence of opposition is not only a potential threat to the survival of the regime, but it is an abomination, an evil which deserves extermination.  Toleration is not possible for those who deny the truth of the tyrannical ideology.  There’s only one way to think and those who are defiant in word or practice do not deserve to survive.

This realization has played out in history many times with horrible consequences for those disfavored.

There was Catholic tyranny in Spain in the fifteenth century which used the Inquisition to ferret out infidels.

The twentieth century saw the mass murders perpetrated by the ideologues of Communism and Nazism.

The twenty-first century has radical Islam in the form of Al Qaeda and ISIS which, in the name of Allah, slay and terrorize apostates and non-believers.

For tyrannical governments, intolerance of their perceived enemies justifies all manner of hostility, including extreme violence.

America, fortunately, has long been immune from such movements.  Our Constitution insures freedom of speech and association and, still today, the respect for differing opinions remains a definite American virtue.

But is that cultural commitment weakening? 

There can be no doubt that free speech is under attack on and off college campuses, rioting at the University of California at Berkeley aimed at right of center speakers being a prominent example. 

Of course, intellectual intolerance on the left is commonplace.  That is why conservative academicians, for instance, are relatively rare. 

But the resort to violence is new.  Is intolerance generating the responses commonly associated with tyrannical impulses?

 

That is not to say that the left has become tyrannical in an historical sense with all that portends. 

But should trends developing be a cause for concern for all of us?  If not interrupted, where are we headed?

Bluntly put, as a matter of self-defense, intolerance of this sort cannot be permitted.  It must be beaten back with force if necessary.

One wonders the results if the tyrannical forces of the twentieth century could have been thwarted - what if the original revolutionaries of 1917 had recognized the dangers posed by the Bolsheviks which came to pass in 1918?  Or what would have happened if the Weimar Republic had taken action against Adolph Hitler before his ascendancy to the German chancellorship in 1933?

It’s comforting to think that given our history, we are immune to such worries.  That is vanity and national arrogance.  What has set us apart from such developments has been a commitment to civil society and respect for our fellow citizens, the law and our constitutional foundation.  Without them, we will be as vulnerable to tyranny as any other people on the earth.

After all, America’s exceptional role in the world is not due to the water we drink.  It’s the values we practice and project.

Washington Hypocrisy Reaches New Lows

Hypocrisy in Washington is hardly new, and cuts across party lines.  The typical calculation is to endorse a policy or political position when it’s deemed to aid one’s side.  Thus, the Senate Democrats love the concept of the filibuster now that they’re in the minority.  However, the then-Senate Majority leader Harry Reid did all he could to undercut it (nuclear option) when his party was in charge.  GOP sentiments, too, reversed when they had fifty-two votes but not the sixty to kill a filibuster.

Such hypocrisy has become even more pronounced recently.

Several weeks ago, Maryland’s U.S. attorney, Rob Rosenstein was promoted by President Trump to become Deputy Attorney General of the United States.  His selection was widely praised by members of both parties due to a reputation, acquired over eight years, as an independent, straight-shooting prosecutor. 

Among his strongest supporters at the time was very liberal, newly-elected Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen.  His high regard for Rosenstein lasted for a mere few weeks more.  Upon learning of the Deputy AG’s recommendation to fire FBI Director James Comey, van Hollen was irate, calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Trump Administration since he no longer had confidence in Rosenstein’s integrity to lead such an effort.

That’s ridiculous.  Wouldn’t one think that if Van Hollen himself were a person of integrity who previously expressed high regard for Rosenstein, that that fact would have warranted that the new Deputy Attorney General receive the benefit of doubt?  Was there any reason to doubt the sincerity or thoughtfulness of Rosenstein’s recommendation regarding James Comey?  Or had the qualities of character that had so impressed the Senator before simply vanished now that Rosenstein was a member of the Trump Administration who took a position that did not please Van Hollen?

 

Such sad and pathetic hypocrisy.  And Washington politicians bemoan the fact that they are so little respected by the general public.

Was Barack Obama a Weak President?

The answer’s not as obvious as a typical Obama antagonist might think.  Of course, the violated Syrian “red line”, the Crimea annexation and the Ukrainian incursion by Russia were invitations for American counteractions which did not come.

Why not?  Timidity and weakness are usually the by-products of fear.  Was Obama simply afraid to respond with other than words such as “unacceptable” (which sustained inactivity showed it was actually acceptable)?

Not likely.

To the contrary, Obama’s personality and manner portrayed high self-confidence, even arrogance.  That suggests he acted, or didn’t, out of an unswerving conviction that his conduct was right.  And although Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban didn’t pose the challenge of Vladimir Putin, the President didn’t hesitate to authorize lethal force against them.

 

To understand Obama’s conduct in the foreign arena, it’s important to remember his notorious apology tour in the Middle East shortly after he assumed the presidency in 2009.  In effect, he promised the outside world to make amends – atone – for what Obama considered to be America’s misconduct before he became president.  A prominent illustration of the new administration’s attitude was the “reset” button given to Russia’s Foreign Minister by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama’s political heritage was distinctly left-wing.  He was a Chicago “community organizer” whose model was revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky.  His church for decades was that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose sermons often had an anti-American slant.  Amazingly, he announced his run for president from the home of former Weatherman Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

In short, it’s appropriate to assume that Barack Obama’s background influenced him to be distrustful of America’s role in the world.  The country’s prior conduct, he believed, did not justify the general sentiment of fellow citizens that the U.S. was usually a force for good on the world stage.  In his likely view, our nation was more sinning than sinned against and certainly to be considered exceptional only in the way that every citizenry considers its own country to be such (as, in fact, he told a French audience).

Thus, the question of weakness seems misplaced.  It is doubtful that Obama’s failure to act was a case of faltering will or a character deficiency.  Actually, judging from the accounts of former Obama insiders, he displayed significant courage in disregarding, on occasions, the united opinions of key advisors.  At the very least, he shared supreme self-confidence in his decisions, not fear of consequences.

In fact, it was his ideological perspective – not weakness – that was his undoing and the cause of his foreign policy failures.  A person not wedded to an ideology can learn from experience and reshape his views as the much maligned president Jimmy Carter did in Afghanistan.

 

A weak person, interestingly, who recognizes his own shortcomings, will be susceptible to the lessons of events and advice of others because of that.

 

Isn’t weakness more forgivable than blind ideological arrogance?  Further, as President Obama demonstrated, the latter can be more dangerous for the country.

O’Reilly: Nothing New… Arrogance Exacts Its Price

Ah, human nature.  Of course, “man” never learns the cost of arrogance except in retrospect.

The comeuppance of star Fox New broadcaster Bill O’Reilly, accompanied with glee by those on the left, was inevitable if one credits any of the reports of his sexual harassment or boorishness on the job.  With as many enemies as he has, the conduct of which he was accused provided ammunition to those who knew of it.  In effect, O’Reilly gave the women a time bomb to blow up in his face when - and if - they chose to do so.

For those normal, regular people unaware of the power of arrogance, it seems incredible that a person would put himself in such a vulnerable position.  Wouldn’t the fear of exposure for such an influential person be deterrence enough for him to “mind his manners”?

One on level, you’d certainly think so.  Yet, since time immemorial, it hasn’t.  Think of the Greek tragedies.  In more recent times, how about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, the young White House intern?  Truly, examples throughout history are legion.

So why do “they” still do it?

 

The following expression of 19^th century British statesman Lord Acton, although with a different objective, is readily applicable: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Why would a Bill O’Reilly or a Bill Clinton take the risks they did?  Simple, they didn’t consider them as such.  Arrogant people don’t think in terms of the rest of us, weighing risks versus benefits, let alone “right” versus “wrong”.  And their conduct isn’t a matter of compulsive behavior (“I couldn’t help myself”).  Typically, truly arrogant individuals who have been so successful (or delude themselves into such a belief) conclude rules or checks on conduct don’t apply to them.  They consider themselves entitled to act as they please without negative consequences.  Arrogant people do, indeed, view themselves as untouchable and are genuinely shocked when rules observed by others are applied to them.

It’s an entirely understandable attitude.  If one’s life is seemingly charmed, why shouldn’t it always be?  It takes a mature, wise, indeed humble, person to ignore the allures of arrogance.  Such individuals surely exist but so many, it seems, in positions of great influence (like Bill O’Reilly) or great power (Bill Clinton) are unable to resist its temptations.  Lord Acton understood human nature.