Fight’s On – Women in Combat

     Once in a while, I receive a note from a blog subscriber who provides a fresh perspective on an issue of the day. In this case I will post the short essay I received without the writer’s name (and without comment) because that’s what he/she asked me to do.  I think you will find their reasoning provocative.

     “I for one am happy to finally see women in combat in the armed forces. Unfortunately, however, they have a long way to go to find full equality.  I believe, therefore, that we should move directly to full equality in other fields, starting with sports.
     “For example, it will be awesome to see how many NFL teams select women once they're finally given the chance to compete openly with their male counterparts.  Boxing will provide another wonderful spectacle – can’t wait to see those girls prove they can take a real punch from a male heavyweight fighter. And throw an effective one too. Putting women into the top ranks of Mixed Martial Arts contests should be easy, now that we have wisely opened the door to combat, its closest non-sport relative.
     “The best results will probably be found in team sports, where any  miscalculation about, say a female player’s ability to hold back a 280 pound offensive tackle, can be quickly compensated for by a little extra effort on the part of their male counterparts. Certainly these fortunate guys wouldn’t object to doing their fair share to advance the cause. Unless the players to her left and right are women, too.
     “And this would be just a start. In another example, fully merging prisons will no doubt save us a lot money while advancing our egalitarian principles. I am confident that just as some women will qualify for our most physically demanding special operations military programs, some women will be able to keep themselves safe from the Crips and the skinheads. If their success reflects poorly on others who don’t make the grade, well they just need to try harder.
     “To suggest that there are situations in our society where men fit better than women (or vice versa) is to rely on the ridiculous example of 4000 years of recorded history, instead of the dreams and aspirations of progressives everywhere.”

Thinking About a Little Bed

(reposted from ThinkingEnemy.blogspot.com where it originally appeared.)

            Not everything on Thinking Enemy is about an Enemy.  Sometimes it is just about Thinking. And today I am thinking on a very personal level about why we do all this national strategy and homeland security stuff. It is not to advance national interests, no matter what the professors and textbooks and politicians say. It is to “Provide for the Common Defense and Promote the General Welfare” of those we love. I am thinking about that today because the little bed is going away.

This is the bed that every one year old hates and every two year old loves, for the same reason – because it is the first foray out of the crib – out of the security of the pack-n-play, and into the independence of your own bed with its own little pillow and its own little sheet.  In seven and a half years, six of our grandchildren have made that transition. And now we are done.  No more stories in the little bed. No more nightlights next to the little bed. No more “one more drink of water” in the little bed. No more little prayers in the little bed.

            Everyone who visits, sleeps in a “big boy” bed now (or a princess bed as the case may be) – even Daniel, the littlest guy. And so the little bed is going. It is following out the door that shopping cart thing with the lights and annoying electronic music that six unsteady little people pushed through the kitchen until they learned to walk. And that dash board thing with a wheel and horn and blinkers and a radio button that played “Jimmy Crack Corn,” while little feet danced and big feet fled the room. Our house will never be the same again.

            This is not a tragedy. It is just another phase of life. Parents hardly notice. They are just happy to be rid of the clutter. But pushing the bed out the door hits grandparents hard. They know what parents don’t – that the time between an empty little bed and an empty bedroom at the end of the hall is the blink of an eye. And then it is gone forever. Unless the kids bring home their kids, and then – for a brief Indian Summer – you get another turn at bat.

            This time – if you are Thinking – you try not to blow it. You try to listen to the little voices, and give heed to the little questions, and take the little egos seriously.  Because, as the poet Andrew Marvell said, “At my back I always hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near.”

But that’s the rub. Even if you are Thinking, time hurries on. The little voices learn to get their own drink of water. The little feet make their own way to a big bed. And the little bed heads out the door. It becomes hard to ignore the fact that you will eventually follow it.

And so – what to do?  Well, first, don’t miss the opportunities that this Indian Summer affords. And second – for those of us who understand that there ARE Thinking Enemies out there – Think Harder.  That’s a very little bed in a very big and ugly world. Someone must stand watch if the occupant is to grow out of it, and into responsibilities of his own.

Opinion on Opinion: Is the Conservative Movement Dead? (2)

(cont from previous post - updated 1/10/13)

In the article at http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/12/crisis-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-end-road   James Kurth argues that in the 1970s (I would argue in the 1950’s as the threat of international socialism became clear)  three groups united under the single banner of "conservative":  (1) big business/money/banks, (2) social/religious conservatives, and (3) security conservatives.

His bottom line here is absolutely correct - the fit between these three groups was never good, and the alliance has come nearly undone today.

- Banks & business signed on enthusiastically for a platform that advanced their interests and gave them the moral high ground for out producing the Soviets at the same time. But when the threat of Communist attack ended, and the opportunities of economic globalization emerged, business found itself at odds with the idea of purely American interests. Banks and financiers in particular have absolutely no solution for the global economic challenges to the American worker in the 21st century. All the bumper stickers about "cut taxes and grow jobs" have turned out to be complete nonsense when facing the sheer scale of international competition (exacerbated by irresponsible risks by industry, and run-away deficit and debt by government). You can't cut enough taxes to make GM quit Mexico where they are paying workers $7 an hour and return to Detroit where they pay $55 an hour. As was clear from the Romney campaign, big business and in particular the banks have nothing attractive to say to Americans about the economy. They just repeat what Hoover said: "Have patience until the economy sorts itself out."  That approach didn’t work then; it won’t work now.  Meanwhile the wealth of workers and retirees disappears while big executives do just fine. The business/banking/financing wing of conservatism controls all the levers of the Republican machine, but they have no message for voters - none at all.

- Meanwhile, the neo-cons of the security wing are more bankrupt than FANNIE MAE. They were really born out of the WW II experience of dealing with German and Japanese Totalitarianism, and its new birth in Soviet Totalitarianism. This is why Israel and Jewish American participation was so important -- they shaped the strategic arguments to prevent a repetition of WW II and the Holocaust. But it turned out that this world view had less relevance to the world that emerged after the Wall came down in 1989. When the neo-cons tried to apply their ideas to Iraq and Afghanistan /Pakistan, the result was military and strategic disappointment. Their approach accounted for hostile ideologies. They had less success against hostile religions and race based strategies (China, etc.) -- except to suggest a long tactical struggle as we are seeing in Israel.

(It is interesting that Kurth misses the important role of Israel and American Jews in the conservative security wing. Perhaps he found this analysis too sensitive to say aloud. But from 1955 until 2005, American Jews played a decisive role in conservative security programs, research, education, publications, think tanks, theory, and in DOD and Republican administrations themselves. It is not an exaggeration to say this group was essential to strategic victory in the Cold War.  This is an important point, because many of the leading figures in this community had significant differences with their conservative business and social/religious partners. But these differences were patched over until the Cold War ended and the neo-con approach to security in the New World Disorder failed. Whether this important relationship can be reestablished remains an open question. )

- And finally, the money and security conservatives have been playing bait-and-switch on the social conservatives for 55 years. Kurth is absolutely right that the only success the Republicans gave the social conservatives in nearly 6 decades of fervent support was a thin temporary majority on the Supreme Court . . . which could only stop the bleeding from current liberal decisions, but not reverse those in the past. When it became clear in the 1990’s that the Republicans were not going to advance the values of religious conservatives, and the social/religious forces would have to make their arguments against drugs, abortion and homosexuality on their own, they proved incapable of doing so. The fact is that Western Christianity has simply not found a message that discourages people (and especially young people) from sex, drugs and rock and roll. Social conservatives needed the law to perform that function. Once out-flanked by liberals in law schools and on the Supreme Court, they have been unable to regain the intellectual high-ground on their own.

And finally - bravo to this author for being the first one to make a point that I have been making locally for 2 years. Obama care and increasing taxes (especially the death tax) serve the clear progressive purpose of removing older white people from the system, while confiscating their money for redistribution to others. In the face of this threat to older white social conservatives, the big money and security conservatives have no solutions to offer . . . or even any interest in the issue. Aging social conservatives may call Congress, but no one is answering the phone.

By putting all this together, the author does make a good case for the end of conservatism and the Republican party as we knew it before 2008.

BUT -- news flash -- history is not over.

- An economic crisis is coming - you cannot forever print money to keep interest rates at zero so you can borrow more than you create.

- A foreign policy crisis is coming -- a nuclear Iran, a toppled Saudi monarchy, a war between Japan and China, a crisis with the cartels on our border, a broad Muslim uprising in Europe - a major security crisis is coming -- maybe even at home

- A domestic moral crisis is coming -- we are raising monsters and sooner or later this will reach a tipping point.

And who knows what other flash points we might see based on Progressive overreach and fringe response: confiscation of weapons; refusal to enforce specific laws (like those having to do with drugs and immigration); murder of a popular figure because of race, or faith or politics, sexual orientation; seizure of control over financial or information resources; domestic WMD attack.  The list goes on.  Given the right crisis and the wrong response, Progressivism could lose ground to articulate and well informed conservatives.  The public that elected Herbert Hoover in 1928 abandoned him in 1932 and for the next 20 years. A similar reversal against the Progressives after a major national trauma is certainly possible.

 I actually think it is as likely that social conservatives might throw the big money guys under the bus to reshape the conservative cause as the other way round. After all, social conservatives are already predisposed to find common interest with security conservatives. And they have a compelling emotional message which may grow more attractive as the information revolution brings the effects of political corruption to see the light of day. 

So the future national story line is yet to be written.  It could well be about corruption, prosecution, and reform, championed by a resurgent Republican Party focused on moral and security issues, after their abandonment of the banks and industry as unreliable partners.

And that’s not what Kurth expects at all.

Opinion on Opinion: Is the Conservative Movement Dead? (1)

             Every conservative ought to read James Kurth’s article suggesting that Conservatism has “reached the end of the road.” http://www.fpri.org/articles/2012/12/crisis-american-conservatism-inherent-contradictions-and-end-road   And if they disagree, they had better be able to explain why, because his historical analysis is well written and insightful.  I like his work, but I do disagree with his conclusions.  Here is why.

            First a warning. I don’t think Kurth’s introduction represents his overall presentation well, because he begins with the idea that Republicans and Conservatives (he seems to use the terms interchangeably) suffered a crushing defeat in the elections last November.   Well . . . from my perspective  . . . not so fast.

Mitt Romney was good man.  But he was a weak (if well financed) candidate. His emergence as the Republican representative negated their most important weapon: widespread unhappiness with Obama Care. Romney could have gained traction on this issue at any time by saying “I really wanted care like this to work at the state level.  We tried hard in Massachusetts.  It’s didn’t work. It can’t. We ought not destroy the existing medical care system relearning this hard lesson at the national level.”   Romney just would not say those words. Doing so might have changed the outcome of the election.

Also, he had zero defense or foreign policy experience. (How could he let Obama win the day with the "horses and bayonets" comment?)  And Obama was right about how Romney made his money - by money manipulation and destroying firms and sending jobs overseas. There is nothing illegal about that.  But talk all you want about “creative destruction” – Romney did not make his millions by creating American jobs. And that came back to haunt him.

 And yet he lost by less than 5%. Change 3% of the vote in the right places, and Obama would be out. That is hardly a "crushing defeat" for the conservative cause.

In the Senate, conservatives did not lose to a tidal wave of liberal ideology. Several terrible candidates who claimed to be conservatives lost after self-inflicted wounds. And in the House, the Conservatives did well. So despite the disappointment of the Presidential outcome, I do not see the election as a rousing turn away from conservatism. Thus, I find the premise of the article as stated in the introduction to be wrong.

But it IS true that the Republican message is completely adrift, and I DO believe that is because conservatives cannot articulate their own traditional conservative beliefs. (Which, by the way, have their roots in England and the Reformation, not in "Europe" as the author suggests.)   Short version of Kurth’s argument: American Conservatism suffers from a breakdown between the three groups that it represented for the last 50 years. They no longer share a vision, and they may not be able to share a party.

I will explore his reasoning and its implications in the next post.