What Are the Implications of a Political Class That Is Disconnected to the Military and the Citizen?

Leadership models abound, but the military will always have a hierarchal view on leadership, as without it, there is no "order"! but, as has been reported by Time and mentioned in my last blog post, there is a growing disconnect between the "political class" and the "military class", which leaves the military under a "chain of command" that is disconnected from the realities of real sacrifice for the "common cause" of protecting national issues that are vital to national concern. The military sacrifice for "the honor" of country. And such sacrifice should not be disconnected from a politician's understanding of the costs! Otherwise, politicians will use the military and those that volunteer, as a sacrifice itself for political ends of a political career!

The manipulation of the military, is on the scope of the "world scene", while the basic duties of domestic tranquility leave the "political class" less concerned or engaged for the citizen's ends of liberty. And liberty is personal, as to religious conscience and vocational service. Jobs, and the economy are basic interests of citizens, who might not be aware of political careers, but are all too well aware of how Washington is affecting their pocketbooks!

America Needs Statesmanship!

America is in need of Statesmanship in today's climate of  volitility!
Statesmanship is the ability to stand on principle, be honest and concerned for the future good of the nation and know how to paint a vision for that future with concern for the opposition's interests. A statesman is able to inspire hope, purpose and vision for the nation and its immediate needs. We have seen too few statesman these days!

Here are some quotes about statesmanship from a Founder, presidents, writers, an economist, and a doctor.

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
Posted in James Madison
Tagged enlightened, Federalist No. 10, helm, James Madison, statesmenAuthor: James Madison

Context: Federalist No. 10

Year: 1787

“One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship”


Milton Friedman quotes (American Economist, b.1912)


“Compromise makes a good umbrella, but a poor roof; it is temporary expedient, often wise in party politics, almost sure to be unwise in statesmanship.”


James Russell Lowell quotes (American Poet, Critic, Essayist, Editor and Diplomat, 1819-1891)

"Science will never be able to reduce the value of a sunset to arithmetic. Nor can it reduce friendship or statesmanship to a formula.”


Dr. Louis Orr quotes

“The essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.”


Hubert H. Humphrey quotes

"In statesmanship get the formalities right, never mind about the moralities.”


Mark Twain quotes

"Honest statesmanship is the wise employment of individual manners for the public good”


Abraham Lincoln quotes

Reasons Have to Be Enough

I have a mixture of thoughts "mixing around" in my head, that don't really "come together" coherently. So, this post may sound a little more rambling than the average. :)

Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.

But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?

Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.

This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".

But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.

Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.

Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.

So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.

Reasons Have to Be Enough.

The Economic and Global Dilemma for America

Globalization is about economic interests first and foremost and many corporations have benefitted from the labor of the marginalized. While corporations have benefitted financially, it has hindered the growth of our own workforce at home, as well as trampled over the issue of human rights abroad.

While corporations have benefited at the costs of American worker's rights and human rights, in general, humanitarian organizations have pushed for charitable service and giving. Some of these organizations are unaccountable and unregulated. Unaccountability is dangerous in international beareaucracies that have no other interests than attaining their own goals.

Danger lurks within the IO (international organizations) where "good intentions" are wrought with complex ethical dilemmas for free societies. There is nothing more complex than national versus international interests. These conflicts should be a major cause of concern in a world of terrorism.

Some believe such as the U.N. and the organizations surrounding (NGOs, NPOs, etc.) that education is the answer to "world affairs". These organizations are bent on education, healthcare, women's rights, children's rights, etc. There is nothing wrong with these endeavors, but my question is one of ethical dilemma and moral imperative.

Just in the past few days, Hillary Clinton met with China's leader to discuss co-operation in discussing the threat of the Middle Eastern nuclear powers, where terrorism is a threat to freedom and free enterprise. Hillary wanted to "table" human rights abuses in China for the cause of our country's need for "allies" for the "war on terror".

I believe, as I have said many times before, that without freedom, we have no justice, nor any means to pursue justice for anyone else. So, the value of our freedom is first and foremost, otherwise, human rights will die with the Taliban's insistence on conformity to Shairia law for God's will and glory.

Naivete' towards the "world situation of rogue governments" is not courageous or valiant, but ignorance of what prejuidice and intolerance will demand upon the individuals and societies that ignore the dangers. Good government must be protected, valued, sought and fought for, if we are to survive the constant onslaughts against our boundaries, freedoms and way of life.

Human rights, humanitarian aid, and charitble service cannot come before the primary duty to subvert evil governments and protect our own. We are a people because we have a duty to defend and protect our national interests first and foremost, otherwise, we will not be able to defend human rights in the future!