Times
change. They do so moment by moment. At one time there was a “bully
pulpit,” for our people, who responded with respect to our leaders
and to proposals they made, even when they disagreed.
Ask not what
your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
I remember
President John Kennedy's inaugural speech. It was inspirational.
Relatively little was accomplished by the government during his
foreshortened adminitration, but the country was inspired. Now the
theme is who can promise more, and who can insult the opposition
more. The blame extends to all those whom you oppose: "foreigners,"
("first they came for ...") the "1%," the
government, anyone I'm not. Who should pay? Someone else.
I
return to my oft-repeated charges: the fault for most of our problems
lies with people, technology, and the government. And in part our
current problem is the fault of President Kennedy. By inspiring us
he raised our expectations, of what our country could do and, even
more, what we could do. Most of it was favorable and did
honor to our country, especially our effort to help others as
exemplified by the Peace Corps. But there were those who
misunderstood his message.
I'm
willing to accept the view that those of whom I'm writing were
well-intentioned. They “knew” what was right and they wanted it
for everyone. They were convinced that the means for accomplishing
their ends were justified – whether it involved sit-ins, theft,
kidnaping, protests, riots, or whatever. Most of those were the
methods of our founders and they were equally justified for modern
revolutionaries. They began a trend which – to a large extent –
continues. They believed that this was what they could “do
for [their] country," but such was not the case and we are the
worse for it. People died as a result of their efforts, and the
lives of many who survived were damaged forever in the wake of their
actions – their own lives and the lives of others.
Whom
did they consult about the desirability of their goals and their
actions? Each other, or no one at all. The imposition of "right"
on everyone was necessary, and who better to determine what was right
than the revolutionary. The president had asked that we act to
improve our country, but he didn't say how, or indicate the valid
ways of doing so. And in a society that was becoming increasingly
self-centered, people assumed that their "absolutes" were
everyone's, and the president had signaled the need for us to act on
their behalf.
The
protests and riots continue, and deaths sometimes result from mob
action, but those who promote the process feel righteous about what
they do. The are acting to promote right and "Rights,"
some of which require much teasing from our founding documents –
or may not even be there –
usually by our courts (or by other opinionated politicians).
And
the sense of omniscience of the judiciary, mostly reflecting the
ideas of the protesters, also evidences the "I know what's right
for everyone" perspective which a lifetime position can
originate and nurture in the minds of those who believe in their own
wisdom. What the law says has become less the issue than it was in
the past. More important is what the law means.
At least what it means in the opinion of the interpreter. Clearly
the views of those who wrote the law are less significant than his or
hers. Me. I know what the law says and means, and I know what is
right.
That's
not solely the view of the Judiciary. Our most recent leaders, like
those who preceeded them, had, or have, the good of the country and
its citizens at heart and know their views are correct. But their
approaches are different. The last president said "Yes I can."
For the current commander-in-chief the approach is more like the
rasher "because
I can." Both have strong egos, but they respond differently to
them. The two had (and have) passionate opinions on which they
acted, but the previous one spoke carefully and relatively quietly,
although he was convinced of his own positions, notwithstanding any
questions raised about them or about the validity of their basis.
The current president has a penchant for rapid and off-the-cuff
responses to anything someone says. There is no time for thought –
only action. And that often results in middle-of-the-night forays
into the social media. He too, like almost all politicians
(including previous presidents), has no interest in facts if they
don't correspond to what he is thinking. Rapid response is more
important.
And
that's what is worrisome. Rapid and unconsidered action could lead
to results unfavorable to our country. A quick reading of the
situation, along with a "gut" feeling about the motives of
the opponent and a desire to "one-up" him, without a
strategy or a plan for future actions or consultation with one's
allies may demonstrate resolution but not thought. It's folly to
take the position that we can deal with unintended circumstances if
and when they occur, but we have to act now. Modern technology has
given us the power to respond quickly, leaving thought to machines.
And the machines are programed by those who know what's best for us
and the country. Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.
There
was a time when America spoke softly and carried a big stick. Now
individuals have taken the stick and the control of us, and they are
speaking more loudly, in our name. They – we – are no longer
asking what we can do for our country, but telling it what we know it
should do. The leaders should respect me, rather than I the country
and its traditions. It's all about me. I know best.
It's
time to return government to those we've elected.
April 28, 2017
April 28, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.