The America of our Children

Well it’s 5am* and I’m sitting at a Starbucks in Times Sq. working on term papers—what better time to blog?  Come to think of this, this is my last post for POL 213.  Hmmm.  I better get to my point before I get too nostalgic.

Somehow, I got to thinking about mission statements.  Every organizational body has a mission statement.  Even those without a stated mission have one, and its often one they would not themselves quickly assign. 

Companies have performance expectations.  Schools have educational goals.  Gangs have a territory to protect.

That led me to question, what, is the mission statement of the United States, and, consequently, what is the job of American statesmen? 

The Declaration clearly lays out what the Framers wanted America to become—a place where man’s inalienable rights are protected and nourished.  Fully achieving such a goal, however, is a pipe dream to say the least.  Perhaps in a utopia, yes, rights would be protected supremely, but the Constitution certainly does not accommodate this.

In the Federalist Papers, the writers make it clear that they are not looking to construct a perfect society, a desire reflected in the idea of a “more perfect union.”  The argument is made that, not only is the Constitution a flawed document—flaws rooted in man’s fallen reason—but that it is only the roadmap towards such a union.  Man’s inability to reach a utopia is, in fact, the reason a Constitution is needed, for “if men were angels no government would be necessary.”

The American way of life is one where citizens—sometimes chaotically, sometimes decidedly—define and redefine what it means to be an American.  Each morning, the sun rises on a new America. With each new law, the former America passes away.  America is not a static term, but is rather a work in progress, a work that will continue as long as America is America. 

The beliefs of the American people shape the nation’s character, and their hopes shape its future. 

America is moving.  Many conservatives decry such movement.  They shouldn’t.  America was created to be a nation in flux.  There is no common law or inordinate reverence of precedent.  Originalism is important, yes, but even originalists must remember that the make-or-break reason to look to the Constitution is because the Framers were largely right—the Framers weren’t right merely because they wrote the Constitution.

The measure of America’s greatness should be in relation to this perfect union—is America becoming a more or less perfect union?  Progress can be measured binarily—has America become more or less perfect—periodically—has America become more or less perfect in the past 100 hundred years—tenurely—has America become more or less perfect under the current Congress—and daily—is America more or less perfect today than it was yesterday.

It is hard to say what progress (or lack thereof) the United States has made over the past 220 years, as such a measure would require a lengthy discussion of standards.  Thinking about the Federalists, though, makes me a bit pessimistic.

Whereas statesmen such as Madison and Hamilton once held court in the realm of popular ideas, partisan-pimps and panic-profiteers now filibuster the congress of public opinion.  Do Americans care about ideas, or do they just enjoy being convinced?  Why are the populists drowning out the intuitive statesmen in the current election?  How in the world are Sean Hannity and Bill O’Rielly household names, while most people still ask, “Peggy who?”

I am still an undying American optimist.  I still believe in our “rendezvous with destiny.” 

If we have become a less perfect union, though, what will it take to correct the tide—a changing of the guard?  A civil revival?  If we have become a more perfect union, how can we become an even more more perfect union?

These are the questions with which American statesmen must wrestle, and only time and the American genius can answer.

*-Posted after the fact; I was too cheap to pay for WiFi at Starbucks.

The Cost of Freedom

Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell is an interesting man—a man of passion, integrity, ideas, and conviction, and most certainly a hero.  I met LTC Birdwell over the summer in Austin, TX. 

 

Birdwell came to the national attention in 2001 as the closest living survivor to the plane that struck the Pentagon on Sept. 11.  Following the attack, Birdwell, who had lost over 60% of this skin to the ensuing fire, required over thirty surgeries over an extended stay at the Washington Burn Center.  While there, he received a visit that became the subject of a “too good to be true” chain e-mail that turned out to be true.

 

Three days after the attack, President Bush paid a visit to the burn center.  After talking with Birdwell and his wife, Mel, for a short time, the President faced Birdwell—heavily bandaged and barely conscious—and saluted him.  In 15 seconds that no doubt played out like an eternity, Birdwell slowly returned his commander-in-chief’s salute as everyone in the room’s—the President and First Lady included—eyes filled with tears.  (It is interesting to note here that, out of respect, it is always the inferior soldier who initiates the salute, and holds it until his commanding officer retunes the gesture.)

 

Birdwell now speaks around the country on his expeience and view on the War on Terror. 

 

I recently heard Birdwell being interviewed on WallBuilders Live, during which he said something I’ve heard him say several times before: Casualties in war are not a measure of success or failure but a measure of cost. 

 

It seems like whenever I mention my support for the troops and their mission, someone has to bring up the body count.  “How can you support the war?  Almost four-thousand Americans have come home in bags in just five years!  How many more Americans need to die?”

 

I’ve always found this argument to be specious, but LTC Birdwell’s quote gives what I was feeling concision, authority, and timeliness.

 

We lost over 117,500 men in World War I.  We were involved for two years.

 

We lost over 418,500 men in World War II.  We were involved for four years.

 

We lost over 50,000 men in Korea.  We were involved for three years.

 

We lost close to 60,000 men in Vietnam, with many more still missing.  We were there for a decade.

 

In those four wars, we lost 58,750, 103,750, 18,000, and 6,000 men per year (respectively).

 

In each of these conflicts, we lost more men per year then we’ve lost during our entire time in Iraq.  Were these wars unjust too?  Okay maybe Vietnam was, and maybe even Korea, but what about World War II?  We were the victims of a provocative act of terror.  An entire race was being systematically eliminated.  Europe was slowly being taken over by despots and demagogues.  Was there more to the conflict than the body count?

 

418,000 servicemen killed in the line of duty over the course of four years—that’s about 300 a day. 

 

In our four-year engagement in the Second World War, we liberated a people and overthrew a dictator with imperialistic aspirations.  Its cost?  Close to 300 servicemen a day.

 

Don’t get me wrong, it was a tragedy, but does that make it unjust.  The casualty count in World War II was a gauge of the pervasive evil in the world and a measure of the fallen world we live in.

 

The same is true in Iraq.  There are a half dozen reasonable arguments for why the war is unjust—I don’t believe most of them, but they’re reasonable.  A body count is not one.

 

 

Hiding Behind Federalism

I’ve been hearing a lot of debate recently over the role Federalism plays in the abortion issue.  Many conservatives seem to think that the Federalists would be appalled by our attempts outlaw gay marriage and abortion on the federal level.  I find myself hesitantly agreeing with the first claim—I’m still waiting on a convincing argument why D.C. should get involved with marriage despite my stated objections to same-sex unions—but completely baffled by the second. 

There has been a pronounced paradigm shift between the Federalists of the 18^th Century and the Federalists of today.  The former sought an energetic federal government with several hedges—divided power, popular sovereignty, and frequent elections, to name a few—to prevent tyranny.  The latter seem to think the Federal government should be a largely-impotent caretaker of the system they have been given, and that all issues which directly affect the people should be dealt with by the states and the states alone.  (Ironically, I’d say that the Federalists of now more closely resemble the Anti-Federalists of then.)  The battle over abortion presents a clear example of where modern Federalisms departs from Constitutional Federalism. 

What’s So Great About Christianity, Anyways?

    

Two weeks ago, The King’s College hosted a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens over the question, “Is Christianity the Problem?”  D’Souza, a former policy advisor to President Reagan and author of eleven books including his current New York Times bestseller What’s So Great About Christianity?, argued that, no, most if not all of the problems in our world and the atrocities throughout history, even if not explicitly carried out under the banner of atheism, have been the result of denying the existence of a god.  Hitchens, a prolific author and regular contributor to Slate Magazine, Vanity Fair, and Atlantic Monthly, defended the premise of his own recent NYT bestseller God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  It would be almost as difficult to wrap up each polemics’ points and counter-points in a single blog post as it would be to completely defend or refute theism in a two-hour debate.  If you weren’t present, you can check out the debate in its entirety on the King’s website.  You can also catch D’Souza’s apperences, along with clips of the debate, on Fox & Friends and Hanity & Colmes.  There is one aspect of the debate, however, I will try to address.  

Dobson Parts the Red Sea

This month, Dr. James Dobson, along with about 50 other pro-life leaders, signed his name to a resolution stating that “if neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor party candidate.” Many anti-Rudy conservatives have jumped on board with Dr. Dobson, heralding this resolution is a return to conservative logic. Really?

An Ignoble Prize

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial this weekend entitled “Not Nobel Winners.” As the title implies, the Journal makes mention of all those who did not win the Nobel Peace Prize this year.  It’s sad, the Nobel Prize has always been the one award show that people take notice of where feats more important than “Best Album” and “Best Male Lead” are honored, and it has become a forum for agenda setting.  In his will, Alfred Nobel stated that the peace prize was to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” I’m sorry, I don’t see how making millions profiteering a problem that may or may not exist fulfills this vision.

My problem giving the award to VP Gore is that there was a lot of good done in the past year.  The WSJ notes people who have given their time, money, livelihood, and even their very lives opposing tyranny, organized crime, religious schisms, and discrimination to make their countries and the world a better place.  These men and women did more than point out and profit off a problem they saw in society, they did something. I wish Oslo would de-politicize the award and actually give it to the most deserving. 

TKC and the Mommy State

It’s no small secret that the TKC economic curriculum and ideology is undoubtedly conservative, bordering on Libertarian. I certainly have no problem with this—it saves me the time and letter grades I would have lost arguing had Keynes been one of the school’s intellectual fathers.Here’s where I see irony turning its odd little head: a school that is through-and-through small government tends to, in some instances, run itself like the Carter administration. Consider these two, glaring examples that jumped out to me:

My Question to Barack Obama

[This post is the result of a short conversation with school CFO Gary Latainer on the short fallings of the Democrat’s ’08 economic platform. If you read something and say to yourself, “Boy, Daniel, I didn’t think you were that smart,” all the credit should rightfully go to Gary.]

Lost in all the hype of HillaryCare 2.0—Senator Clinton’s proposed $110 billion annual socialized healthcare plan—is the equally-neophylic tax plan proposed by fellow presidential hopeful Barack Obama. The first aspect of Senator Obama’s plan is painful predictable: let’s spit in the face of the Laffer Curve, cut taxes for the middle class and elderly, and increase taxes on the rich (they have money to go around, no?). On top of that, as opposed to doing the responsible thing—such as cutting government spending and closing redundant programs and agencies—Senator Obama, according to the New York Times, plans to “raise capital gains taxes on the wealthy [...] and abolish tax breaks that have saved hedge fund and private equity managers billions of dollars.”

Here’s my question to the Senator. 

Stossel on Heathcare

John Stossel wrote a great article on Real Clear Politics last Wednesday on the errors of socializing healthcare. I’ve heard many make convincing arguments against universal health care based on the Constitution, but those are ineffective with those who want a mommy government. I’ve heard others make compelling cases against modeling our healthcare around other nations (e.g. Britain, Canada, and Cuba), but those arguments are useless with egalitarians. Still others have swayed me away from universal healthcare based on sound economic reasons, but only those who really care listen to these.

In this article, Stossel hits many of these normal points while coming back to his simple, unstated thesis: life in the welfare state sucks! It sucks to have to wait four months for a hospital visit. It sucks when your dog can get an X-ray months quicker than you can. It sucks when you have to leave the country for life-or-death surgeries your government has deemed “elective.”  Sure, healthcare needs to be fixed, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I highly encourage you to read what Stossel has to say on the topic. He says it more eloquently, convincingly, and succinctly than I could ever hope to put it.

Pick Your Opponent

I was rewatching bits of last night’s GOP Presidential Debate this afternoon. It was certainly more-watchable than past debates. I was very impressed by Fmr. Governor Huckabee’s performance–he handled himself quite well going toe-to-toe with Congressman Paul, and the “Outsource to FedEx” analogy was classic–but apparently Sen. McCain was declared the winner. Peggy Noonan seems to agree with me more, writing in Friday’s Wall Street Journal:

Mike Huckabee, and for this I [heart] Huckabee, shot back that history will judge whether we were right to go in, but for now, “we’re there.” He echoed Colin Powell: We broke it, now we own it. “Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. . . . If we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America.” David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network says he doesn’t know why Mr. Huckabee isn’t in the top tier. I wonder too. Maybe he is and we don’t know it.  

I found the whole “Crack a joke at Sen. Thompson’s expense” part unnecessary and a bit demeaning to the office, but entertaining nonetheless. What really stuck out to me though was what seemed like Mayor Giuliani’s silent campaign for his opponent, Fmr. Gov. Romney.