It happened early in the summer of 1962. America was still reveling in post-war growth and prosperity, and we were enthralled by a charismatic young president from Massachusetts who appealed to our higher angels. Life was good.
I had just finished my freshman year at the University of North Carolina. I had snagged a great Navy ROTC scholarship that paid for all my books, fees, and tuition, plus a $50/month stipend which, combined with a few part-time jobs, covered room and board. I-95 was still in its infancy back then, and my hometown in Maine was a long haul from North Carolina. Commercial travel was of course financially out of the question, but I was blessed with plenty of shipmates and fraternity brothers that invited me to their homes for holidays, and I could always hitchhike home if I had the time. Hitchhiking in those days was still relatively safe, and, if you were in uniform, folks would pick you up right away.
So, there I was, just south of Washington on the northbound side of the Shirley highway, in uniform with my seabag slung over my shoulder and my thumb out. I had only been standing a half-hour or so when a gorgeous 1949 Hudson Super Six pulled over. The car was old and had plenty of miles on it, but the owner was clearly proud and had maintained it beautifully. He introduced himself as Sam, and I guessed he was in his late 40’s. I soon learned that he had served in the Pacific fleet during WWII and again in Korea. I was humbled – so far the extent of my military service had been going to class, learning to march, polishing my brass, and spit-shining my shoes. When I told Sam that later that summer I was going to ship out on the USS Intrepid for a 6 week Midshipmen cruise, it sounded pretty pathetic, but Sam thought that was great and he congratulated me.
Every once in a while, in the midst of regaling me with funny stories of life at sea and tales of daring-do, Sam would pause and say, “I helped build that bridge”, or, “I helped build this road”, or, “I helped build that building”, or “I helped build that tunnel”. By the time he dropped me off in northern New Jersey, I had come to the conclusion that Sam had helped to build much of America.
Although my relationship with Sam was limited to four hours or so, it left a lasting impression on me. As I matured over the years, I came to realize that Sam was a genuine American hero. John F. Kennedy, Douglas MacArthur, and even Audie Murphy had nothing on him. Sam defended America, he fought and bled for freedom, and his strong hands helped to build a helluva lot of the American skyline.
Oh, but Sam gave us so much more than those impressive structures. His spirit, his courage, his patriotism, his strength, and his skills embodied the American dream. He was the real McCoy - a true American hero. His great gifts to us live on in the wonder that is America – freedom’s best and brightest hope.
Thanks, Sam.
Showing posts with label Values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Values. Show all posts
30 June 2010
29 June 2010
A Personal Peek at European Socialism
A few weeks ago, my wife and I were fortunate enough to visit a number of countries along the Baltic Sea. Our trip included visits to the former Communist Block nations of Latvia, Estonia, and Russia, as well as the former East Germany. We also visited The Netherlands and Sweden, both of which have strong socialist governments. We had an opportunity to speak to some local folks in each of these places, and I was struck by the disparity between their view of life and our own.
My wife and I are “war babies”. We were raised in the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s. We believe our American forefathers left us three of the greatest gifts in the world: freedom, capitalism, and free markets. We cherish a view of America as exceptional, a shining beacon of freedom, the last great hope of the world. We were blessed to have been born and raised in a country where equality of opportunity gave us the chance to work hard and use our God-given gifts to grow and succeed. We assume that everyone wants to reach their greatest potential, and we relish American drive, ambition, will to succeed, personal pride, and a strong work ethic.
Sadly, it seems that such traditional American values have been somewhat diluted of late. They are commonly disparaged in today’s media and press. Individual achievement and success are increasingly displaced by government programs and entitlements, equality of opportunity by equality, the melting pot by multi-culturalism. Somewhere along the line it became fashionable to empathize with the tragic childhood of bullies, bandits, and bombers rather than to confront, incarcerate, or execute them. We now try to foster self esteem by recognizing participation rather than achievement. The media and press are increasingly critical of capitalism and free markets. Our government drifts inexorably to the left. We often read and hear about the benefits and joys of “European socialism” – which brings me back to our Baltic Sea trip.
As an admittedly old-fashioned American, I was astounded by the personal views I encountered.
In Russia, a guide fondly remembered when “everyone had a job, food, clothing, and a place to live”, however humble it all may have been. To some degree, she actually missed Communism, even though it offered no hope of improvement (except through the Party apparatus), and in spite of the oppression of the Party apparachnics and the KGB.
The socialist countries that had never been communists also espoused views that were at odds with our own. Personal goals commonly centered on comfort rather than achievement. They expected government guarantees of: plentiful vacation (6 weeks) holidays and free time, permanent employment unrelated to performance, early retirement (age 60 at the latest) with comfortable pensions, short work weeks (35 hours), and full medical, dental, mental health, and addiction rehabilitation benefits. Personal goals and virtues such as individual responsibility, ambition, drive, productivity, accomplishment, achievement, advancement, recognition, and success, did not seem to be on their radar. The word entrepreneur and the dream of owning and growing your own business brought blank stares.
One guide asked me why we value capitalism so much? When I responded that capitalism and free markets are the engines of American productivity (ok, maybe a little too pedantic, but I was riled), he reminded me that China was also quite productive. I agreed of course that totalitarian regimes such as Communist China can be productive, but only on the backs of the underprivileged poor.
For the first time, I really understood that, although American economic prosperity is rooted in capitalism and free markets, it is propelled by individual freedom.
I have always felt that socialism was an economically inferior system, but I found it to be much worse than that. It robs you of the drive that distinguishes us from our primate cousins and pulled us out of the jungle and off the steppes. Socialism doesn’t just affect your wallet and your lifestyle, it stifles your heart, your spirit, and your soul. It steals your pride and your dignity. It values ordinary over excellent. Ugh.
My wife and I are “war babies”. We were raised in the 40’s, 50’s, and early 60’s. We believe our American forefathers left us three of the greatest gifts in the world: freedom, capitalism, and free markets. We cherish a view of America as exceptional, a shining beacon of freedom, the last great hope of the world. We were blessed to have been born and raised in a country where equality of opportunity gave us the chance to work hard and use our God-given gifts to grow and succeed. We assume that everyone wants to reach their greatest potential, and we relish American drive, ambition, will to succeed, personal pride, and a strong work ethic.
Sadly, it seems that such traditional American values have been somewhat diluted of late. They are commonly disparaged in today’s media and press. Individual achievement and success are increasingly displaced by government programs and entitlements, equality of opportunity by equality, the melting pot by multi-culturalism. Somewhere along the line it became fashionable to empathize with the tragic childhood of bullies, bandits, and bombers rather than to confront, incarcerate, or execute them. We now try to foster self esteem by recognizing participation rather than achievement. The media and press are increasingly critical of capitalism and free markets. Our government drifts inexorably to the left. We often read and hear about the benefits and joys of “European socialism” – which brings me back to our Baltic Sea trip.
As an admittedly old-fashioned American, I was astounded by the personal views I encountered.
In Russia, a guide fondly remembered when “everyone had a job, food, clothing, and a place to live”, however humble it all may have been. To some degree, she actually missed Communism, even though it offered no hope of improvement (except through the Party apparatus), and in spite of the oppression of the Party apparachnics and the KGB.
The socialist countries that had never been communists also espoused views that were at odds with our own. Personal goals commonly centered on comfort rather than achievement. They expected government guarantees of: plentiful vacation (6 weeks) holidays and free time, permanent employment unrelated to performance, early retirement (age 60 at the latest) with comfortable pensions, short work weeks (35 hours), and full medical, dental, mental health, and addiction rehabilitation benefits. Personal goals and virtues such as individual responsibility, ambition, drive, productivity, accomplishment, achievement, advancement, recognition, and success, did not seem to be on their radar. The word entrepreneur and the dream of owning and growing your own business brought blank stares.
One guide asked me why we value capitalism so much? When I responded that capitalism and free markets are the engines of American productivity (ok, maybe a little too pedantic, but I was riled), he reminded me that China was also quite productive. I agreed of course that totalitarian regimes such as Communist China can be productive, but only on the backs of the underprivileged poor.
For the first time, I really understood that, although American economic prosperity is rooted in capitalism and free markets, it is propelled by individual freedom.
I have always felt that socialism was an economically inferior system, but I found it to be much worse than that. It robs you of the drive that distinguishes us from our primate cousins and pulled us out of the jungle and off the steppes. Socialism doesn’t just affect your wallet and your lifestyle, it stifles your heart, your spirit, and your soul. It steals your pride and your dignity. It values ordinary over excellent. Ugh.
24 June 2010
General McChrystal's Resignation
Yesterday morning, General Stanley McChrystal, one of our nation’s best leaders, a dedicated and proven special operations soldier, tendered his resignation as commander of the Afghanistan war to President Obama. The precipitating issue was an article in Rolling Stone magazine which described and quoted the General and several members of his staff during informal, off-duty, bull sessions - gatherings of the inner circle where everyone let their hair down and relaxed.
The political, media, and academic frenzy which followed the Rolling Stone article was front-page news. Inside sources say the White house was hysterical.
All of this furor resulted from a sadly typical civilian misunderstanding of the warrior mindset. Off-duty soldiers will always grouse and bitch about their leaders, especially in a bull session. Nonetheless, the next morning, on duty, they will faithfully move heaven and earth and even sacrifice their own lives to follow lawful orders and complete their mission, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE MISSION ITSELF AND THOSE WHO ISSUED THE ORDERS. This notion does not compute to anyone who has not experienced the level of commitment and sense of duty that pervades today's American military.
That understood, let’s consider the present case. Many colleagues who actually know General McChrystal have commented that the General and his staff are way too bright and disciplined to have "inadvertently" spoken in front of a Rolling Stone reporter - it's Rolling Stone, for heaven's sake. I suspect the General was just sick and tired of fighting the war on three fronts: the Taliban, President Karzai, and the State Department.
American military officers, including General McChrystal, totally understand and agree with the cherished US system of civilian control over the military. But the General grew increasingly frustrated by the refusal of his civilian leadership to pay attention to their front line commanders, thus imperiling the outcome of the war. General McChrystal’s duty to his mission, and his oath to follow the lawful orders of his superiors, became increasingly in conflict. So, being the resourceful leader that he is, he found a clever and innovative way to resolve his dilemma.
Since the first Gulf War, in exchange for complete access to the military in combat, the responsible press and media have tacitly agreed not to report casual off-duty remarks or conversations. But General McChrystal invited not just any reporter, but one from Rolling Stone, an openly hostile magazine, into his inner circle. I believe the General knew full well that the Rolling Stone reporter was unlikely to honor the tacit agreement, that Rolling Stone would report everything said in those off-duty, informal conversations, that the resulting article would end the General’s career, and that the article would force a reluctant political hierarchy to face and deal with the unpleasant realities of the war. General McChrystal fell on his sword – he sacrificed his own career in order to be faithful to both his oath and his duty.
We are indeed blessed to have men of General McChrystal’s character leading our soldiers in combat. He is a man to be admired – a man of honor.
The political, media, and academic frenzy which followed the Rolling Stone article was front-page news. Inside sources say the White house was hysterical.
All of this furor resulted from a sadly typical civilian misunderstanding of the warrior mindset. Off-duty soldiers will always grouse and bitch about their leaders, especially in a bull session. Nonetheless, the next morning, on duty, they will faithfully move heaven and earth and even sacrifice their own lives to follow lawful orders and complete their mission, EVEN IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE MISSION ITSELF AND THOSE WHO ISSUED THE ORDERS. This notion does not compute to anyone who has not experienced the level of commitment and sense of duty that pervades today's American military.
That understood, let’s consider the present case. Many colleagues who actually know General McChrystal have commented that the General and his staff are way too bright and disciplined to have "inadvertently" spoken in front of a Rolling Stone reporter - it's Rolling Stone, for heaven's sake. I suspect the General was just sick and tired of fighting the war on three fronts: the Taliban, President Karzai, and the State Department.
American military officers, including General McChrystal, totally understand and agree with the cherished US system of civilian control over the military. But the General grew increasingly frustrated by the refusal of his civilian leadership to pay attention to their front line commanders, thus imperiling the outcome of the war. General McChrystal’s duty to his mission, and his oath to follow the lawful orders of his superiors, became increasingly in conflict. So, being the resourceful leader that he is, he found a clever and innovative way to resolve his dilemma.
Since the first Gulf War, in exchange for complete access to the military in combat, the responsible press and media have tacitly agreed not to report casual off-duty remarks or conversations. But General McChrystal invited not just any reporter, but one from Rolling Stone, an openly hostile magazine, into his inner circle. I believe the General knew full well that the Rolling Stone reporter was unlikely to honor the tacit agreement, that Rolling Stone would report everything said in those off-duty, informal conversations, that the resulting article would end the General’s career, and that the article would force a reluctant political hierarchy to face and deal with the unpleasant realities of the war. General McChrystal fell on his sword – he sacrificed his own career in order to be faithful to both his oath and his duty.
We are indeed blessed to have men of General McChrystal’s character leading our soldiers in combat. He is a man to be admired – a man of honor.
30 May 2010
Quality and Equality - Freedom and Fairness
In the context of politics, equality and quality are both noble values, but they come at each other’s expense – as equality increases, quality decreases, and vice versa.
Take health care, for example. Here in the U. S., we offer a very high quality of health care, if you have insurance or can otherwise afford it. That’s why the rich and powerful from all over the world, including the countries that have socialized medicine, often come here for their critical health care needs. But, because high quality health care is expensive, those with good insurance or lots of money get better heath care than the less fortunate. So, we have a high quality but little equality of health care. In countries with socialized medicine, on the other hand, health care is free and everyone is treated equally, but access to certain specialists, drugs, and expensive tests is limited and typically involves an extended wait. The result is that such countries have great equality but a lesser quality of health care.
The same relationships exist for income, housing, standard of living, education, and just about any other aspect of life. If you value quality above equality, then you prefer a system wherein the harder you work, the greater will be your income and standard of living, etc. You favor capitalism and a weak government. If you believe equality to be more valuable than quality, you prefer a system that distributes wealth and living standards equally. You prefer socialism and a strong government.
Really, the issue boils down to fairness vs. freedom. Progressives argue for fairness and equality. “It’s not fair that the poor don’t receive the same health care/education/income/lifestyle/(fill in the blank) as the rich. Everyone should receive the same. No one has the right to judge anyone else.” Conservatives argue for freedom – not equality, but equality of opportunity. “Everyone should have the right to achieve in accordance with their abilities, drive, and determination. You should never judge anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or other intrinsic characteristic, but you can and should judge everyone’s character, competence, skill, and performance.”
It’s pretty easy to see where I fall on this continuum. I strongly believe that freedom is our greatest, most precious, and most fragile, gift. I acknowledge that freedom is not fair. In a free society, some end up with better educations, nicer cars, larger homes, higher incomes, better health care, and more comfortable lifestyles. Some achieve more, some less, and some end up with very little. America was founded and has flourished in a wealth of freedom that offers boundless opportunity and a quality of life that is the envy of the world. There is little equality, but great equality of opportunity – everyone can succeed in accordance with their abilities and willingness to work hard. I should note that some folks choose to forgo some of the rewards of hard work for a life of public service – they accept a more modest lifestyle and dedicate themselves to the betterment of all. I include members of the military, public safety personnel, clerics, some educators, and some medical personnel, as well as most charitable workers, in this category. We all owe an immeasurable debt to such people, and we must always honor and defend their commitment.
As a 21st century conservative, I believe that each of us has a bounden duty to provide, care for, and protect ourselves and our families. I believe that government’s only job is to provide those few services and controls that civilization demands and that cannot be provided by individuals themselves. I do not seek to be taken care of by anyone, especially the government, unless I become unable to care for myself. Conversely, I am more than willing to contribute to or provide for those who are unable to care for themselves, noting that this pledge in no way extends to those who are unwilling to care for themselves. I fully accept that, in this exciting and unpredictable journey of life in a free land, there will be a wide range of personal achievement and accomplishment. I do not begrudge those who achieve more, and I do not feel superior to those who are less accomplished. I ask only that I be given the opportunity to reach my own potential.
These days, there seems to be an impetus, led by progressive politicians, media, press, and academia, to diminish the value of freedom in favor of fairness. If they succeed, we will have forsaken our greatest gift. I cherish that gift beyond measure. If you seek to diminish the freedom personified by America, do so at your own peril.
Take health care, for example. Here in the U. S., we offer a very high quality of health care, if you have insurance or can otherwise afford it. That’s why the rich and powerful from all over the world, including the countries that have socialized medicine, often come here for their critical health care needs. But, because high quality health care is expensive, those with good insurance or lots of money get better heath care than the less fortunate. So, we have a high quality but little equality of health care. In countries with socialized medicine, on the other hand, health care is free and everyone is treated equally, but access to certain specialists, drugs, and expensive tests is limited and typically involves an extended wait. The result is that such countries have great equality but a lesser quality of health care.
The same relationships exist for income, housing, standard of living, education, and just about any other aspect of life. If you value quality above equality, then you prefer a system wherein the harder you work, the greater will be your income and standard of living, etc. You favor capitalism and a weak government. If you believe equality to be more valuable than quality, you prefer a system that distributes wealth and living standards equally. You prefer socialism and a strong government.
Really, the issue boils down to fairness vs. freedom. Progressives argue for fairness and equality. “It’s not fair that the poor don’t receive the same health care/education/income/lifestyle/(fill in the blank) as the rich. Everyone should receive the same. No one has the right to judge anyone else.” Conservatives argue for freedom – not equality, but equality of opportunity. “Everyone should have the right to achieve in accordance with their abilities, drive, and determination. You should never judge anyone based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or other intrinsic characteristic, but you can and should judge everyone’s character, competence, skill, and performance.”
It’s pretty easy to see where I fall on this continuum. I strongly believe that freedom is our greatest, most precious, and most fragile, gift. I acknowledge that freedom is not fair. In a free society, some end up with better educations, nicer cars, larger homes, higher incomes, better health care, and more comfortable lifestyles. Some achieve more, some less, and some end up with very little. America was founded and has flourished in a wealth of freedom that offers boundless opportunity and a quality of life that is the envy of the world. There is little equality, but great equality of opportunity – everyone can succeed in accordance with their abilities and willingness to work hard. I should note that some folks choose to forgo some of the rewards of hard work for a life of public service – they accept a more modest lifestyle and dedicate themselves to the betterment of all. I include members of the military, public safety personnel, clerics, some educators, and some medical personnel, as well as most charitable workers, in this category. We all owe an immeasurable debt to such people, and we must always honor and defend their commitment.
As a 21st century conservative, I believe that each of us has a bounden duty to provide, care for, and protect ourselves and our families. I believe that government’s only job is to provide those few services and controls that civilization demands and that cannot be provided by individuals themselves. I do not seek to be taken care of by anyone, especially the government, unless I become unable to care for myself. Conversely, I am more than willing to contribute to or provide for those who are unable to care for themselves, noting that this pledge in no way extends to those who are unwilling to care for themselves. I fully accept that, in this exciting and unpredictable journey of life in a free land, there will be a wide range of personal achievement and accomplishment. I do not begrudge those who achieve more, and I do not feel superior to those who are less accomplished. I ask only that I be given the opportunity to reach my own potential.
These days, there seems to be an impetus, led by progressive politicians, media, press, and academia, to diminish the value of freedom in favor of fairness. If they succeed, we will have forsaken our greatest gift. I cherish that gift beyond measure. If you seek to diminish the freedom personified by America, do so at your own peril.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)