The Increasing Lack of Class in American Politics

 

“Class” is a term describing a certain attitude.  It describes a person of high standards of civility, graciousness and general good character.

Seemingly, in our society today, it is used to describe its absence in a person more than its presence.

Thus, Donald Trump’s conduct and manner is classless.

Nancy Pelosi’s use of vulgar four letter words is not classy.

Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate John Federman wears a sweatshirt in  public appearances, distinctly unclassy.

And Hershel Walker’s promiscuous behavior and the fathering of several children out of wedlock is certainly lower class.

In older times, politicians on the national scene used discretion to conceal non-classy behavior.  It’s not that the quality of people was necessarily better.  But standards of behavior were.  Hypocrisy could be commendable.  To paraphrase Queen Victoria, “Whatever you do, don’t frighten the horses”.

Today, the lack of class displayed by so many politicians is not the result of the decision to forgo hypocrisy.  It is the absence or failure to follow standards of what constitute class.

I’ll accept that the term can seem loaded.  In other contexts, “class” was a term applied to one’s social status.  Certain attributes, speech patterns, dress and general conduct were expected of the members of a particular class.  That the aristocrat was easily distinguishable from the common laborer.

But America is very different, for instance, from the British who still relish the differences in social status.  Here, class can relate to conduct more than economic roots.  But that can be quite confusing for us.  If the upper class was traditionally the source of high standards and hence what was meant by class, what are we to think about the people in positions of high power or authority who are oblivious to it?

Are we to think that such people have redefined the meaning of class and so they have set new standards of behavior which are to be emulated?  Alas, for The Sensible Conservative, they have and they are

This set of circumstances is another chapter in the book on America:  “The World Turned Upside Down”.

Reflections on the Decline of the Family

 

Traditionally, the term “family” meant a male and female united to produce children.

Since a species – including human – dies off if it doesn’t reproduce, civilizations from ancient times have honored the role of families.  In fact, the importance of the family was recognized long ago in the formalization of the relationship of the man and woman in marriage.  Plainly, such relationships can exist without formal sanction.  But such historically were proscribed both socially, religiously and criminally (adultery and fornication).

As a matter of experience as well as moral admonitions – it would seem that people recognized that raising children in wedlock, with both parents present, was in the off-springs’ best interest.  They were healthier in all sorts of ways (modern-day empirical studies have reached the same conclusions).

Let me make an elementary observation that is obvious indeed.  The desire for sex is what draws men and women together.  But that does not mean that children will inevitably begotten.  Is there an innate desire to have children as there is a sex drive?  The apparent results of the sexual revolution which began in the 1960s places that proposition into doubt.  The birth rate in America has declined since then.  (It is now well below the rate of replenishment, much less expansion.)

The existence of a sex drive is a given.  There is reason to believe an urge to reproduce is not as strong a factor of human nature.

If it were, why would God command his people to procreate (Genesis 1:28)?

From an evolutionary perspective, wouldn’t sex outside of marriage be proscribed to promote it exclusively within?  Sexual intercourse would lead to conception and the birth of children within the sanctity of the marriage in a desirable outcome for society’s welfare.

The desire for sexual relations was not to be stunted – human nature would not permit it – but the practice could be restricted to serve beneficial ends.

Attitudes today support the disconnect between sex and having children.  Think of articles in the press of young couples championing the existence of “the pill”, etc., so they can enjoy each other’s company without worrying about bringing a child between them.

The family, as historically construed and supported, no longer can be counted upon to serve the broader society’s interest in providing healthy new generations.  Rather, we confront the reality that 40% of America’s children are born to single mothers.  (European statistics are similar, by the way.)  What will become of them – or us?  Prospects aren’t promising.

NOTE:  As The Sensible Conservative, I strive to be optimistic, but that is hard to do when noting the increasing societal deficiencies all around us.      That is not hyperbole.

Lessons Learned… and Forgotten

 

In the year since the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan, books have been published, articles written, which rely on a variety of military and civilian sources to list lessons learned from our twenty year engagement.

For an American who served as a military and civil advisor in Vietnam fifty years ago, their assessments are déjà vu. 

So many of the mistakes in our conduct in Afghanistan were of the same sort committed in Vietnam.  That is simply tragic – and unforgivable.  Lessons learned have been forgotten.

Why?  Is it simply incompetence attributable to ignorance?  Is it hubris in the Greek tragedy sense?

Sure, you can, with resignation, rely on the cliché that those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. But that attitude relegates the ignorance/hubris to human nature; it’s an unavoidable fact without remedy.

I deny that the sacrifices of Americans in Afghanistan (2400+ died and more than 20,000 were wounded) were unavoidable.

We entered that country as a result of the 9/11 attacks spawned there.  Our military handled the task of hunting down Al Queda quite effectively and efficiently.  But then, despite promises not to, we stayed to do “nation building”.  We’ve rarely been competent at the latter.

We Americans are generally a parochial and conceited people.   We have the best of everything in the world and do not understand why outsiders do not embrace our example in all ways.  Democracy, human rights?  Of course, we believe all people want them too, but so many are thwarted by their societies and authoritarian governments.  So we are surprised when, given the opportunity, that others take a different path.

An example, history shows that a liberal democracy cannot be grafted onto a society like a rose bush onto disease resistant roots.  It must be able to grow at the pace the society accepts.

We forget that our respect - as part of the Western democratic tradition - for human rights and self-government began in England with the Magna Carta and evolved over the next 1000 years.

And we expected positive results in nation building as we rolled into Afghanistan in 2001, a country with NO history of self-government?  We are disappointed that in 20 years no lasting progress resulted?

Did anyone remember what happened in the tribal nations of Africa which were freed from colonial rule in the 1960s?  The result was summed up by the biting ditty “one man, one vote, one time”.  The flowering of democracy does not thrive in barren soil.

Why can’t other people be like us?  Because they have different cultures and often different beliefs and values.  Yet that simple observation – and it seems so plainly obvious – was given little, if any, weight by the American policymakers.  We know best, don’t we?  So, of course, with the opportunity we’re offering, they’ll enthusiastically adopt our better ways.

History’s answer and lesson was clear – they will not… and they did not.

That makes America a fool.  We tried again what had failed before and, with no justification whatsoever, expected a different result. 

The cost of “relearning” that lesson is unforgivable.