Obama -- McCain Debate 2

My Friends...

I wonder if I am alone in believing this condescending term reflects the likely failure of the Republican candidate to connect with the average American. As I watched and listened I was struck by Senator McCain's inability to provide anything that approached legitimate options to move forward. While I am afraid of the big government approach Senator Obama will bring, he is able to articulate, and communicate with the average person. Clearly he is not, just as John Kennedy was not, an average person, but perhaps what this nation needs in this time is an inspirational leader, with the ability to share that vision. I don't think Senator McCain offers that option.

Unfortunately, with today's media and the talking head's nearly continuous move towards scandal in all reporting, I doubt any leader will be allowed to inspire the way FDR or Ronald Regan did. The opposing party will do all in its power to turn this approach into a negative.

Senator McCain's principle approach was he has worked across the aisle with the other party, but his attack on Senator Obama did not offer clear alternative options or how he would bring the Executive and Legislative branches closer together to work for solutions.

As the economy slides into recession or depression with failures of banking and investments I didn't see either speak to their failures in recognizing this and how proposals of the past now need to be reworked, rethougth, or withdrawn.

My Friends, I am torn...

A Question of Experience

Over the past months I've listened to the candidates jab back and forth on the personal qualifications for themselves or lack thereof of the opposition. Of course they share one driving trait, a desire to become President and bask in the status that office bestows. What strikes me in these sales pitches is the absolute lack of intelligent/thoughtful dialogue with the American People.

Clearly the political machines of both the Democratic and Republican parties have come to the same conclusion. The "people" are sheep and need only to be feed the appropriate sound bites to herd them in the right direction. I would like to talk for a few moments about experience and the role it plays in our President.

I believe it has been only a recent device in the campaign rhetoric to focus on political or foreign policy experience. I think we've gone through over 200 years of electing Presidents where it was understood the value of the man (or to be liberally correct the person) is judged on everything else. George Washington, for example was revered by the population, and political leaders as almost a saint, and became the consensus 1st President. He had led the Continental Army through defeat after defeat yet managed to hold it together through his personal strength of character. This was the quality that lead to his selection, not political or foreign policy experience.

How about Abraham Lincoln? He failed in election campaign after election campaign, what about him spoke to experience of any kind? Yet today he is viewed as one of our great wartime Presidents, and the decisions he made regarding the preservation of the Nation and elimination of Slavery speak for themselves. I wonder what kind of nation we would be had he not been elected, or how better a nation we might have become if he had not been assassinated?

As far as I know there are but a handful of individuals who came into their first campaign for President with the ability to cite their "experience." They are, of course, those Vice Presidents who rose to office through the death of the incumbent and campaigned from the White House. As a whole how successful were they and how much did that on the job training provide? All in all I don't see them as vastly better or significantly worse than any of the others. Roosevelt and Truman stand out as shining examples of good people who did a good job. Johnson and Johnson would get mixed reviews in my book. Of course we all remember the great legacy of Arthur, Fillmore, Coolidge and Tyler don't we?

In a recent speech I heard Sarah Palin bolster John McCain with the line something like --Obama promises all the things he will do, John McCain can show all the things he has done. I have to admit voting for McCain comes with a mixed set of blessings for me, he is a Washington insider, and as such will be isolated and controlled by those Washington forces. Much like U.S. Grant during his terms. Obama, on the other hand makes grandiose promises, inspires the youth of our nation and perhaps can motivate change, but he is a product of the Chicago/Illinois political machine and I suspect at the end of the day will be as controllable as any long term Washington politician. The thing that sways me is I have a track record of McCain voting his conscience, and Obama voting the politically expedient choice.

We should not elect a President who will lead which ever way the polls indicate, we must elect a President who will make the hard choices and stand behind them. Judge the man based on the choices he has made, good, bad, and otherwise. Chose the one who will offer the best chance to unify and strengthen our country and no matter what else happens you can live with yourself.

A Question of Self Importance

I haven't posted in a month, there are two reasons for this. First, I've been very busy, but more importantly I didn't have anything to say. This evening is a little different. As the 2008 Olympics begin in the background I need to get something off my chest.

I was in a meeting today, with a group of Air Force Colonels. We were discussing a way to overcome a problem the Air Force Special Operations Command is having. We all agreed to a course of action, with the usual caveats that as long as their personnel or their personnel positions were not taken they were all for the solution.

In the course of discussion one of the Colonels mentioned that a friend who would be retiring shortly was available to develop various options, as long as the work was "O-6, or Colonel level work." The clear statement was his friend did not see himself wasting time on a project he found at a level below his stature.

The more I consider this position the more I find to to be a sad testament to our commitment to improvement. The AF leadership seems to me more about status then rolling up their sleeves and doing the disciplined work it takes to affect change. It appears to be true from the lowest levels up to the Generals. I wonder if this was always the case?

Perhaps I take too personnally the future of Air Force Special Operations? It seems I've been associated most of my adult life and it was the failure of myself and my colleges that lead to the command we know today. I would hate to think when I do leave it won't be better than when it was created from the ashes of our failure.

Does Military Command Prepare You to be President?

Short answer, No!

In the military, the commanders must have great autonomy and lead a very, for the most part, homogeneous organization. Everyone knows the mission, everyone knows their role, and there is not a lot of dissenting opinions. It does teach you to make hard choices, but certainly is not in the same vain as that of a world leader.

Does being removed as the Commander in Chief of a Combatant Command prepare one to be a Babbling Head on the campaign trail. Apparently it does.

and justice for all?

As I watch the babbling heads offering their paid opinions of the NEWS channels I am struck by problem with justice today. No matter how hard a judge may try to remove his/her personal bias and render a fair and impartial judgement, one of these babbling heads with find issue with it to spend a few moments in front of the camera. We have always had rabble rousers, and shills pushing one agenda or another, now we do it on an instant basis 24/7/365. If you missed the call to arms the first time, wait 30 minutes or an hour and it will be back.

The judge must render the verdict and be subject to the review and scrutiny of not only the appellate courts but now of anyone with a camera and access to the media or Internet. While it must be true there are a large number of "liberal" judges pushing their proactive views of how the courts should be used in social engineering, I wonder if their numbers match the conservative estimates, or does it all really balance out in the end?

Wouldn't it be grand if we could somehow separate the judge from the politic, but since the two have been intertwined since the creation of the nation state I guess that would just be wishful thinking.

On the Role of Government, continued

"To promote the general welfare" What does this mean for today's society? How does a government promote the general welfare? These seem to me to be the core questions before us as a nation. The founding fathers were visionary individuals who clearly reflect the whole can be greater then the seperate parts. Each brought into the convention the experiences of the confederation of states, the desires of their state governments and their individual natures. Many feared a strong central government, but recognized the expansion of the nation to the west was inevitable and the government would need to to adapt to the changes they knew must be an outcome of that expansion.

I believe this paragraph would reflect the desire of the signers to indicate that a central government provide all the benefits possible. Strong interstate commerce, freedom for the states to function as they saw fit, a stable economy and a minimally invasive government regulating their lives.

"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." This clearly links to the previous sentiment, in fact, the last two items summarize all that went before. The nation had just 10 years earlier secured the right to self government and was feeling its way to a form of union unknown before. This seems to be a prayer for this grand experiment to work.

So exactly what does this mean for all of us? It strikes me as a round about way to say the role of our government will be what we allow it to be. The central government must be a balance between the rights of the many and the rights of the one. Our represtatives must balance their personal desires against those of the constituancy. If we choose not to be a voice in the process, then the government will evolve into what those who wield power want and they will seek council with those of like views. We must participate, even when we are in a minority. We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to be true to ourselves, accept the views of those who disagree with us, and be respectful of the debate, for in debate comes compromise and with compromise comes effective government. As Thomas Paine noted "That government is best which governs least."

On the Role of Government

As the political season cranks up I've been thinking about the role of government. John Locke felt the role of government was based on the consent of the governed. I agree with him. Locke augured against the prevalent views of the establishment that proposed God created men to be governed by sovereigns chosen by God. This was taught in school in the simplified phase "Divine right of kings." The concept of Natural Law existed before Locke but serves as the basis for his beliefs in Natural Rights, or those rights due all peoples. It was within the frame work of this rational philosophy the founding fathers were educated and drew on for the context of our nation.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence clearly draws on John Locke's teaching to establish the separation of rights inherent to all, from those established for only the Monarchy.

If we agree with Locke, the government gains it legitimacy from our consent, then it seems reasonable to ask and understand what exactly the government will provide for that. This is the basis for all debate leading to our elections in on November 4th. As we become a nation of extremes, a nation of polarized individuals with little thought about anything other then their immediate needs, we put at risk the ability to provide a clear consent to be governed.

This brings me to the primary question, what is the role of Government? Our Constitution lays out five objectives for our government: "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty." The issue: can a larger, more centralized, more bureaucratic and distant government provide this?

In the course of our history I think we've been less then perfect in establishing justice. If we were Divine this might not be so, but we are not. As humans we will strive for and fall short, but we must always strive, move forward and work towards the ideal. The problem I am having is with this desire to rewrite our histories to reflect the political correctness so in vogue today. We have a system of laws, and a judiciary to enforce them. The question which keeps challenging me is how is justice determined? We like to think the tenant "all men are innocent until proven guilty" guides us as a constitutional requirement. It does not! It comes from our English forefathers, but it does form the basis for our legal system. Unfortunately the media, and most opinionated writers, in furtherance of their own agendas, seem to have forgotten this principle. We now subject all manner of individuals to public pillory without a thought of due process. Why is that? Gossip has always been a part of human nature, is the advent of global instant communication intended to magnify this trait, or is it the need to fill 24/7/365 worth of broadcast time the driver?

"Insure domestic tranquility," I think of this as the toughest challenge for a centralized government. Whose view dominates? Whose tranquility is most important? This goal is so closely tied to the perception of justice as to be almost inseparable. But what is domestic tranquility and how do we insure it? Each of us must come up with our own understanding, but how many of us spend a second considering? Is domestic tranquility found in a polygamist's compound, in a city free from protest, or in a town where the lively debate of its citizens are on-going and expected? I think as a nation, historically we've strive to allow this to be defined at the lowest level. If we grow our government to be a dominate all controlling central power, will this remain true? As we move into instantaneous global communication and judgement will this remain true? I can only wonder.

As a retired professional airman I believe only the central government can provide for the common defense of this nation. The military is one institution no one seems to question. Our Department of Defense does a commendable job of providing for that common defense. The biggest challenge we face is understanding what that next challenge to national survival is, and what is the legitimate cost of that common defense. The challenge facing us today is the same one President Dwight Eisenhower pointed out. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations." We have created an acquisition process where the tax payer can not be the winner. Our arms are bought at astronomical costs where as billions of dollars roll of the tongue and a band of corporate lawyers with a 43 cent stamp can delay combat capability for years.

I will continue this on the next post.