YELLOWSTONE & THE CULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS OF CULTURAL APPROPRIATION

 

Yellowstone is a popular modern western series featuring the fictional Dutton family as they attempt to keep their Yellowstone Ranch from developers, Native Americans, environmentalists, etc. The series is featured on the Paramount channel which is owned by CBS. Given all the wokeness that CBS has expressed in the past the viewer is assured that there is no cultural appropriation is permitted, or not.

So, let’s look at the specifics of Yellowstone:

·       Yellowstone is set in Montana and Wyoming adjacent to the Yellowstone National Park but is filmed near Park City, Utah (somewhat like Branson is to Missouri). The scenery is spectacular so most of us would not find that piece of information objectionable, but I am sure some residents of the other two states find this to be highly offensive.

·       The Dutton family is played by Kevin Costner (as John, the widowed patriarch), Luke Grimes (as Kayce, the second son), and Kelly Reilly (as Beth, the daughter). (Yes, I am leaving out Jamie, the adopted son as played by Wes Bentley and the oldest son who was killed off in the first episode.) Costner is no problem for CBS as he is the star. But the Kayce and Beth characters should send up red flags of appropriation. Kayce Dutton was once a Navy Seal but except for a role in the movie American Sniper, Luke Grimes has never, according to my research, been a Seal. Beth Dutton is a profane foul- mouthed butt-kicker but Kelly Reilly is form England. Could not the producers have discovered a profane foul-mouthed butt-kicking American woman to play Beth? I bet many American men could send them a list of potentials.

·       The Native American characterization in Yellowstone is also confusing. Gil Birmingham as Thomas Rainwater, the principal chief of the local tribe, appears to be a winner. But, once again, there is a problem. Birmingham is Comanche and Montana was not home to the Comanche Nation and don’t you dare tell me that all Indians look alike! Kelsey Asbille as Monica Dutton, Kayce’s wife, has also portrayed Native American women in both Yellowstone and the movie Wind River. Yet again, CBS has a problem. Asbille’s father is Chinese and although through her mother she claims to be a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokees, the tribe has no record of her.

·       Then there are the ranch hands. Jefferson White who portrays Jimmy Hurdstrom, the hard luck cowboy, was born in Iowa and lives in Brooklyn. And Jen Landon as the foul-mouthed and barely understandable Teeter is the daughter of the famed actor Michael Landon and grew up around Hollywood royalty. For brevity’s sake’s I will not review the other cowboys.

The point of this exercise is although a television series can be filled with cultural appropriations and contradictions, it is good television because of one aspect- excellent acting. The Yellowstone actors flesh out their characters giving them emotions, fears, irrationality and complexity as cultures of progress and tradition collide on the Yellowstone Ranch.

 

[PS- Of course, these are instances of cultural misappropriation- Black Face and the “N” word for sure, cultural themed parties, perhaps, and the “O” word, sometimes. Think before doing. Be sensitive and situationally and culturally aware.]

JED BEARD AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT

 

Last night I had a dream- the following is my best memory of that dream. I was in an office of a large organization. Surrounding me were investigators attempting to ascertain who wrote an article critical of the organization and its leadership. I was asked if I was the author of the article and I replied, “Yes.” Then one of the investigators told me, “The boss wants to see you. Afterall, some people do not like what you write.” Without talking I then “said” to myself, “That is exactly the point of the First Amendment. From now on, my name will be Jed Beard.” I then woke up to the sound of my alarm.

Writing this after more than nine hours form the end of my dream, I still do not know what the dream was about. I do not know a “Jed Beard” nor had I had recently been thinking about the First Amendment and our constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. But I immediately thought about censorship and the two times I had been censored.

The first event occurred when I was a high school vice principal during one of our parent-teacher conference nights. A parent whom I had not previously met came to my office and we had a cordial conversation. Several minutes later my principal appeared and told me to take down my picture of Ronald Reagan which was in my office. “Why?” I asked. “The guy has been dead several years.” To which the principal said, “A parent complained to me that she was just in your office and told me that Reagan reminds her of President (George) Bush, and he opposes abortions.” “That’s crazy,” I responded. “Nevertheless, take it down,” my principal answered. I told her I will take it down immediately and tomorrow I would be talking with my attorneys, The principal left but returned several minutes later with the final word on the matter, “Leave it up,”

The second event was my own self-censorship. About 16 months ago I had written an article for this blog reflecting on Black Lives Matter and decided not to post it. (And I will not post it now.) Some things are better left unpublished or unspoken. To me, that is being wise. That is the point of self-censorship but that is far different from someone else or their agent attempting to censor me. The latter is corrupt,

I do not journal I blog. Journaling is incomplete thoughts which can be used against the writer in legal proceedings. If my writing is to be weaponized against me I would rather complete thoughts be so used.

Here’s to all the “Jed Beards” out there. And here’s to our First Amendment!

 

 

 

 

WALTER SHURDEN, CALEB WILLIAMS, & THE JESUS CREED: A PATH FOR CHRISTIAN FORMATION

 During the summer of 1992 I completed my dissertation for my Doctor of Ministry degree from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City Missouri. Since I was serving as a Christian educator at the time the focus of my writing was on curriculum-based congruency in religious education. On pages 61- 65  I wrote that religious education has three tasks:

1.     Theological task (tough minds)- a developing belief system

2.     Evangelistic task (tender hearts)- community with Christ and fellow Christ-followers

3.     Missional task (trained hands)- faithful obedience in ministry and mission

I continued, “These tasks must be kept in balance so that the religious education venture will have the potential to affect the total being of each person engaged in religious education.” Then I went on to describe each task in more detail. My initial reference footnote for this section states, “The tough mind, tender heart, and trained hands formula was devised by Walter Shurden, source unknown. The task formula was devised by this author.”

Dr. Walter Shurden is a Baptist theologian who has taught primarily at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky and at Mercer University and its affiliate McAfee School of Theology in Atlanta, Georgia. Through the years I sometimes wondered what was the source of his “formula”, and I have never found it. However, I did find Shurden’s :”formula” described in much detail as a basis for theological education. This was contained in his convocation address to the McAfee School of Theology on August 24, 1999. Thus, if I had first read Shurden about or within three years of my presentation of my doctoral dissertation to the Midwestern faculty then Shurden had perhaps a decade to develop his “formula.”

Reading Shurden’s convocation address showed several dissentions between us. He begins with “tender hearts’ and I begin with “tough minds.” Yet I think we both believe all three should be kept in balance as I stated in my dissertation. Our minor disagreement on this point is perhaps due to our God-given differences of personalities. Another dissention is our terminology. Shurden calls “tough minds” a matter of intellect and reserves the term theological to label the entire process. He also calls “tender hearts” a matter of piety. I see no essential division between us on “tough minds” but with “tender hearts”” I focus on community- a person in community with Jesus Christ and then persons banded together in communion with Jesus Christ. In 2 Corinthians 8:2 I believe it is more accurate that the Apostle Paul writes of believers being a new creation rather than being new creatures as that our salvation is personal it is never individualistic.

I agree with Shurden that Christians need “hands made skill by practice” both in theological education and daily church life to reach out to those folks suffering in a broken world. Where we differ is the centrality we give this aspect of our spiritual formation.

Shurden in his address favorably views Glenn Hinson’s comments that if the campus of  Southern Seminary could be rebuilt the chapel and not the library should be the campus center. I disagree with Hinson and Shurden at the point. Both the chapel and the library should be in the center with one addition.

Enter Caleb Williams’ the freshman superstar quarterback of the Oklahoma Sooners football team. Williams is a graduate of Gonzaga College High School in Washington, DC. Founded by the Jesuits in 1821, Gonzaga is a college prep school for boys located just blocks from the US Capitol. But Gonzaga is not totally about academics but also service to the community. The school houses homeless men on campus during winters as well as provides breakfasts and lunches for those in need.

In a recent interview Williams adds,

“At our school we have our own Father McKenna Center. I just went and did a service there at the church in my school It serves people who are homeless or hungry, people who need help finding jobs, getting back on track. It’s been there for a while. We go down there as students and it’s eye-opening. You go down there and it really humbles you. You go down there to work and help others out. It really helps you mentally.”

 

Every theological seminary and religious-affiliated college needs a library, a chapel, and a “Father McKenna Center”-type community service center in the center of the campus, either spatially or metaphorically. Even churches need space for all three- worship space, education space, and community service.

How a church configures its community service space will be based on its community situation and needs. For examples, I am a member of Lenexa Baptist Church located in the affluent Kansas suburbs of Kansas City, Missouri. We have a gymnasium. Each winter we hold an organized Upward basketball league for children’s teams which feature-

·       Coaches instilling teamwork, skill development, and character building

·       Referees praying with the players before the games

·       No scores and statistics kept yet games are competitive

·       Team awards include Christlikeness

·       Devotionals at halftime for family and friends

The gymnasium is also used for various other community outreach throughout the year. In contrast, a church located in more urbanized areas will design its community outreach space to meet different need

Then to add more bang to tis discussion I had begun reading The Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight, an Anabaptist-leaning Anglican scholar of the Christian New Testament and a former member of the mega Willow Creek Community Church who now teaches at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary (speaking of a blending of differences!). McKnight examines an encounter Jesus had with some scribes when Jesus was asked about which commandment was the most important of all (Mark 12:28-31), to which Jesus replied-

“The first is: ’Hear, Israel. the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is not another commandment greater than these.”

According to McKnight, Jesus took the Shema, a major prayer of Judaism as found in Deuteronomy 6:4-9 in the Hebrew Scriptures and added Leviticus 19:18, The result is “The Jesus Creed” which shows that devotion to God and the foundation of spiritual formation is about the love of God and others. “The first principle of spiritual formation is this: A spiritually formed person loves God and others.” Relationship with God and with others is the beginning point of spiritual formation.

But who exactly are the others to which we to relate? The Hebrew Scriptures are saturated with references of God’s love, concern, and provision for the poor, widows, orphans, sojourners, and strangers. Jesus is portrayed in the Christian New Testament as Messiah for all who come to Him for forgiveness of their sins and committed to live life anew.

And despite breakthroughs in the Early Church to unite males and females, Jews and Gentiles, and slaves and free persons under the umbrella of Jesus the Church has struggled throughout its history to complete this process of reconciliation, according to Reynolds Price in Three Gospels, through “…its hateful rejection of what it sees as outcasts: the whores and cheats, the traitors and killers, the baffled and stunned, the social outlaw, the maimed and hideous and contagious.

Jesus did indeed had the last word from God on this subject in his Parable of the Good Samaritan as recorded in the Gospels answering the question of, “Who is mt neighbor?” Yet the Church needs to be reminded continuously of this truth as declared by Miroslav Volf in Exclusion and Embrace, “There is no need to belabor the point. Indisputably, the self-giving manifested on the cross and demanded by it lies at the core of the Christian faith,,,..(including) social issues.”

In closing, I believe that The Jesus Creed as articulated by McKnight gives a solid theological foundation for Shurden’s :formula” with its implications for theological education and my implications  of the formula for Christian education within the Church to include the functions of the Church itself.

 

 

 Table Summary

SHEMA	SHURDEN	MARLOW
With all our heart With all our soul	Tender Hearts (piety)	Evangelistic Task (Community with God) (Community with other Christ-followers)
With all our mind	Tough Minds (intellect)	Theological Task (Learning the core doctrines of the faith)
With all our strength	Trained Hands (Action made effective by honed skills)	Missional Task (Faithful obedience in ministry & mission}

 

 

 

 

 

I OPPOSE (PURE) DEMOCRACY

 

I admire the ancient Greeks and draw wisdom in their view of citizenship- being a member of a polis (city-state) has the common expectation that a citizen is an informed participate in the political life of the polis. This civic engagement was the foundation of their democratic process. Granted those Greeks were not perfect who they allowed to be citizens but at least they possessed the basic concept of civic participation and willing to defend their freedom to do so in a series of land and naval engagements against the Middle Eastern colossus of the day, the Persian Empire.

Nevertheless, I depart from the Greek ideal of democracy for our modern times. Popular assemblies open to all citizens were effective for them in directly electing leaders and judges, setting tax rates, and determining policies such as war and peace. But Greek democracy was also open to manipulation by soaring oratory feeding the people’s fears. As a result, tyrants became powerful and those who were at time in the political minorities could be exiled by their polis or even executed. This is pure democracy at its best and worst.

In our contemporary United States we have several examples of pure democracy- village and town meetings in our New England states, juries of our peers deciding justice in civil and criminal cases, and in a sense, the unicameral legislature of Nebraska. But a the national level pure democracy would be a disaster. Our Founders were wise enough to realize that the rule of the mob (their view of pure democracy) so they created a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. There is a difference between the two and that is why I am a constitutional republican (not the small r.).

Our Federal Constitution skewed towards republicanism in several ways:

·       Enumerated powers for the national government.

·       Power sharing between the national government and states.

·       Checks and balances among the three branches of the national government.

·       Presidents elected by electors and not by popular vote.

·       Senators elected by state legislatures (since amended to popular vote) and one- third elected every two years for six-year terms.

·       Representatives only to live in state they represent and not in district from which elected.

·       Each house of Congress able to determine its own rules (hence the Senate filibuster rule).

·       State legislatures to determine their own election laws.

Therefore, when you hear someone mention democratic ideals, ask him/her what exactly what  do they mean by democracy. And remember the following quote by Edmund Burke, British political theorist and Member of Parliament (mentioned in the movie and musical 1776)- “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."  

Thank you, Edmund Burke and American Founders for insisting upon constitutional republicanism rather by pure democracy for the order of government.

WHY I SUPPORT UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME (with one caveat)

 Universal Basic Income (UBI) has come to the forefront of American political discourse primarily through the efforts of reformist businessman Andrew Yang during the 2019-20 Democratic presidential primaries. Several years before Yang’s candidacy public intellectual Charles Murray, working at the American Enterprise Institute, also advocated for UBI.

Yang also ran for mayor of New York City and has since left the Democratic Party to found the Forward Party, a third party effort which includes in its platform a call for UBI. This thinking is in line with Yang’s human-centered capitalism ideas. Murray approaches UBI as a libertarian. So you have Murray supporting UBI from a center-right perspective and Yang from a center-left perspective.

There are perhaps several different definitions of UBI used today so for the purposes of this brief essay I define UBI as follows- “Very American citizen shall receive from the Federal government a fixed tax-free payment regardless of personal income.” Notice what my definition includes:

·       American citizen- no green card holders, no permanent residents, only citizens

·       Fixed payment- every citizen receives the same amount

·       Regardless of personal income- no means test

Since there are several different UBI plans I offer my own plan-

1.     UBI will be mandatory for those citizens 30 years of age and younger when the law goes into effect.

2.     Citizens will begin receiving Full UBI in the month following his/her 18^th birthday or the month he/she obtained US citizenship. At birth, citizens will receive Half UBI to be administered by their parents or legal guardians until their 18th birthday.

3.     The annual UBI benefit would be thirty thousand dollars. Six thousand would be immediately deducted and placed into a Personal Medical Trust (PMT) for the beneficiary to draw from for medical insurance, copays, and prescription drug purchases.

4.     The remaining twenty four thousand would be divided into twelve equal payments of two thousand monthly. There would be no restrictions on how the money is spent by the beneficiary.

5.     UBI would be a Federal benefit. State and local governments may add to UBI if they so desire, but would not receive Federal assistance to do so.

Any citizen receiving UBI will NOT receive any other Federal benefit including Social Security and Medicare. That is the only way UBI would stay solvent.

I realize that there may be very legitimate arguments against UBI, both from the right and from the left (especially with my stipulation against additional Federal assistance). I am not an economist so I believe it may be the time for a serious debate about UBI.

 

 

LIMO LIBERALISM- ELITISM AT ITS WORST

 

It is important in this tumultuous political season to engage in honest and passionate discussions, not necessarily debates, to discover solutions to our common dilemmas. To negotiate and compromise fairly on desired results is not to surrender convictions.

For example, I am a registered Independent. More exactly, I am a limited government libertarian and a social conservative in the mode of Edmund Burke. Nevertheless, throughout my life I have worked with or associated with liberals. Liberalism overall has been a strong positive force in our national history and I have personally benefited from some liberal programs. Heck, I even like the style and personality of Bernie Sanders, though not his substance. So, I like most liberals and I can associate with them without losing my core convictions. Discussions between us can produce understanding and sometimes agreement on basic issues.

Nevertheless, I am becoming quite tired and annoyed with a certain class of liberals whose actions do not match their rhetoric. I find it very difficult to engage in honest dialogue with these folks. I will call them Limousine Liberals and one could be a “Limo Liberal” if their words and actions generally fit most of the following contour:

·       Espouses gun control but has armed security for himself/herself and/or family members

·       Believes in open borders but lives in a gated or guarded community

·       Rejects school choice except for his/her own children

·       Claims solidarity with the poor and the working class but does not associate with either

·       Desires government welfare programs as he/she declines to volunteer in the communities which those programs impact

·       Decries capitalism but has profited from that economic system

·       Demands constitutionally protected free speech for his/her views but not for whom he/she disagrees

·       Believes due process is a good thing except when it is inconvenient

·       Advocates laws for others to follow but feels he/she is above the law when it is desirable

·       Perhaps thinks about moving to Canada but never to a developing nation if things do not go right for them in the U.S.

·       Champions feminism but looks down on women who freely choose a traditional lifestyle

·       Thinks of reproductive choice more of a matter of abortion rather than adoption

·       Respects all religions except for those who act too Christian

·       Label those who disagree with them as Nazis (without realizing the historical truth that German Nazism was socialism in their context)

·       Advocates for a lessening of our carbon footprint but flies around the globe in their PJs (personal jets)

The above list is not exhaustive but you get the picture. Yet three points must be added in closing. First, most liberals are honest and genuine in their beliefs and actions. Second, one does not necessarily need to be wealthy to be a Limousine Liberal- it is a mindset of elitism rather than an income bracket. Third, granted, some of my conservative friends should also get their acts together but that is for another person to describe.

 

 

CRIME STORY

 “If it bleeds, it leads,” is the oft-quoted reasoning given for television news or a local newspaper to begin with or headline a story involving human tragedy- auto wreck, police shooting, suicide, murder, and the like. But why highlight a relatively minor murder- however tragic- into a national media sensation when there are even worst tragedies which are under reported and that have major implications for our own lives.

Take for example the national sensualized murder saga involving the murdered Gabby Petito and her missing boyfriend Brain Laundrie. A couple who lived with Brian’s parents who took a cross-country trip in a white utility van. In August, We have a recorded 911 call from a concerned person in Moab, Utah reporting Brian hitting and slapping Gabby and then video from the Moab Police Department showing police questioning the couple and then separating them for the night for a cool-off period. Brian drives back to their home in Florida without Gabby.

Then in September, people begin to realize Gabby is missing. Her lifeless body is found in Wyoming, and he disappears, perhaps in a gator and snake infested swamp. Brian’s parents get lawyered-up and go silent. Media pundits and their consultants pore over the 911 call and police questioning with such intensity that one would think they were searching for a hidden code from the beyond.

So far, it appears to be a great script for a Lifetime movie (I would watch it). But something like a national emergency? Why? There is a certain national political pundit with whom I very rarely agree who makes some sense with her assessment- a case of “missing white woman syndrome.” So, are 21^st century Americans caught up in the old “damsel in distress” myth? Perhaps. Consider maybe this crime story is a distraction from more far-reaching stories-

·       Our southern border is being overwhelmed by would-be immigrants to our country

·       We were shamed by terrorists as we fled Afghanistan without a plan and left hundreds of Americans and friends of America behind

·       The stock market is unstable, and inflation is creeping up

Maybe our national addiction to this crime story is the only we can grapple with some major unpleasant truths on crime in our country-

·       Hundreds of Native American women are missing from tribal lands- in 2020, 5600 women and girls were reported missing

·       Hundreds of inner-city African American children are missing (or killed in gang cross-fires)- nearly 800,000 children are reported missing each year and about one third are Black

·       The FBI just reported that major crimes- including murders- are trending up in our country

I do hope we find out what really happened to Gabby and Brian on that trip, and their families will receive a sense of peace. In the meantime, let’s not forget other parents who are also grieving the loss of their children.

 

BEYOND SEVEN DAYS IN MAY: PARTISAN GENERALS FROM SCOTT TO MILLEY

When I was growing up, I developed my love for reading. My reading was much in evidence during the summers. While I enjoyed playing outdoors with my brothers and friends, I read when I was indoors, day or night. Especially enjoyable for me was the monthly Readers Digest with its plethora of stories and humor. I always enjoyed its condensed novel at the end of each issue. The one condensed novel that caught my attention was Seven Days in May, which was made into a movie.

Seven Days in May featured General James Scott, a charismatic and highly decorated Air Force officer, serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who opposes the foreign policies of President Jordan Lyman. After President Lyman successfully negotiated an arms reduction treaty with the Soviet Union, General Scott organized a plot of generals and admirals to stage a military coup to oust the President. A week before the coup is scheduled to occur, Marine Colonel Martin Casey, Director of the Joint Staff, discovers Scott’s intent and works with President Lyman to foil the plot and save our constitutional government.  

The problem with the fictional General Scott was not that he was political. Quite the contrary as politics come with the rank of general or admiral as politics is about power- in their case, the power to allocate resources- human, financial, and materials- for war. Scott’s fault was that he crossed into partisan politics to oppose civilian control of the military and to enter formal political alliances to favor one political party over another. While a Seven Days in May scenario probably will not happen in the United States, there is ample evidence for history and current events that we must be vigilant to even let a whimper of such a conspiracy to exist.

Americans have elected six generals to the presidency- Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower. They did not pose a problem to our constitutional order as they were former generals who were duly elected by the voters. But few Americans know that in two elections active-duty generals ran for president (apparently legal at the time) but lost-

·       1852- General Winfield Scott, commanding general of the US Army and hero of the Mexican American War of 1846-48, ran as the Whig candidate losing to Franklin Pierce. After the election Scott stayed at his post and maintained cordial relations with President Pierce but clashed repeatedly with Secretary of War Jefferson Davis. At the beginning of the Civil War Scott assisted President Lincoln with initial war strategy but retired in November 1861 due to age and health.

·       1864- General George McClellan, former general-in-chief of the Federal army and commander of the Army of the Potomac, ran as the Democratic candidate against the incumbent President Lincoln while still on active duty but with no assignment since he had been fired by Lincoln in 1862. McClellan only resigned his commission on election day. Later in 1878-81 he served as Governor of New Jersey and wrote extensively to defend his record on the battlefield.

We also have had active-duty generals who publicly disagreed with presidential policies and had to be fired-

·       1951- General Douglas MacArthur, commander of US forces in the Far East and UN commander in Korea, was relieved of command by President Truman because he publicly criticized Truman’s war policy and vied with the President over control of nuclear weapons in the conflict.

·       1977- General John Singlaub, Chief of Staff of US Forces in Korea, was relieved of his post by President Carter for publicly criticizing the President’s proposal to withdraw some US forces from South Korea. In 1978, Singlaub was forced to retire from the military after he once again questioned the President’s policy

·       2010- General Stanley McChrystal, commander of all international and US forces in Afghanistan, resigned his commands and retired from the military after negative comments of US officials including Vice President Biden spoken by McChrystal and his staff were publicized in a magazine. Subsequently, McChrystal was called to the White House by President Obama where his resignations were offered and accepted by the President.

In addition, we have retired officers like General Colin Powell and Admiral William McRaven who routinely endorse candidates for the presidency. Gone are the days when our military officers desired to be so apolitical that they rarely voted if at all. General Eisenhower, for example, was so apolitical that both Democrats and Republicans courted him to be their presidential candidate.

Now we come to the curious case of General Mark Milley, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as of this writing), with his two phone calls to the commander of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (among other criticisms). Two questions emerge from these calls-

1.     Were these calls authorized by each Secretary of Defense in office at the time of each phone call and by President Trump or his designated staffer (ex- National Security Advisor)?

2.     What were the contents of these phone calls?

Regarding the first question, the Acting Secretary of Defense during the second call denies he had knowledge of the call and would not have authorized it if it had come to his attention. As for the second question, did General Milley tell his Chinese counterpart that he (Milley) would give the Chinese advance notice if the US was preparing an attack on China? As for the first question, if Milley placed an unauthorized call, he is guilty of insubordination. As for question two, if he did, he is perhaps guilty of treason.

 

Given that General Milley was a part of the blotched Afghanistan withdrawal as well as the mistaken drone strike that killed ten innocent people without even harming one terrorist, many critics and pundits have called for the general’s resignation, firing, and/or court martial. Whether his career is finished is up to President Biden probably with the idea that the general will become a political liability, he is finished. If not, he perhaps stays. And whether he stays or not, General Milley has caused the line into partisanship

A model for correct political behavior for generals is General of the Army George Marshall. After graduating from Virginia Military Institute Marshall was commissioned as an officer and served until 1945. As Army Chief of Staff during World War II, he served President Roosevelt, a Democrat and served President Truman, another Democrat, as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense. Marshall did not get personally or socially close to either man so he could them his unhindered counsel. Although Marshall was attacked viciously after the war, he did not response in kind. Marshall did not endorse political candidates, not even General Eisenhower, a man he head mentored for success, for the presidency. And Marshall did not write his memoirs because he was concerned that he would embarrass someone.

Call me “old school” because I believe all generals (and admirals) have been given a sacred trust to defend our nation and as such, whether they are on active duty or retired, they must resist the siren calls for partisanship as did General Marshall.

 

 

 

 

 

THE HISTORICAL IMAGINATION OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

 

I promised in an earlier essay on Lincoln being our last Revolutionary Founder that I would write about his historical imagination.]

 

Abraham Lincoln, as I wrote about him earlier, was indeed our last Revolutionary Founder. Of the 15 presidents before him, 13 were either slave owners or tolerable of slavery. Only two- John Adams and John Quincy Adams- outright opposed slavery but they lacked the power to eliminate it. The strategy of the Founders to “kick the can down road” on the slavery issue stopped with Lincoln. Lincoln’s power to fight slavery coupled with the “poisoned pills” the Confederation Congress and the Constitutional Convention, both in 1787, gave him the resources to do so. Yet even these resources were inadequate. Lincoln also mobilized his historical imagination to provide meaning and purpose to the campaign.

We must first understand imagination to arrive at the definition of historical imagination for the purposes of this essay. Imagination can be defined as the action of forming new ideas and concepts, the ability of the mind to be creative and resourceful, and the ability to produce novel ideas in the mind. Imagination is a key to making knowledge available in solving problems and is foundational to integrate personal experience with new learning. The term is rooted in the Latin verb meaning “to picture oneself.” 

Historical imagination is therefore the ability to examine history in its original context and draw out lessons for contemporary generalized applications and specific life actions. And remembering that history does not necessarily repeat itself, but history does have rhythm, flow, and patterns.

So, how did Lincoln develop such a sense of historical imagination? One thing we know is that he did not spend many months in a schoolhouse, much less a college setting. We do know that Lincoln was a reader and storyteller. He read the Bible, Shakespeare, and many other works that many contemporary high school graduates (with years in the schoolhouse) have not read and could not be able to identify if quizzed. One book Lincoln read that stands out for me is Euclid’s Geometry which he credited with helping him to think logically and systemically.

Another advantage that Lincoln possessed was his robust and positive civil religion. Civil religion is a blending of patriotism and piety, which should be avoided on most occasions. When our presidents conclude their speeches with “May God bless the United States,” that is a mild and innocuous form of civil religion. But when Americans believe that God will only bless us, that form of civil religion must be shunned. Lincoln’s civil religion was not innocuous, and it was not dangerous. His religious faith leads him to a belief in God but without commitment to any denominational sect. Lincoln skillfully combined his form of piety to the promise of America for freedom and personal advancement.

Lincoln was, in addition, was a seasoned and pragmatic politician, first for the Whig Party and then to the newly formed Republican Party. He could wed vision with action and get things done. In 1858 he lost his Senate race to Stephen Douglas and then used this event to gain notice for himself to go on to defeat Douglas and two other major candidates for the presidency in 1860.

I will now briefly describe four major speeches and addresses Lincoln gave that illustrate his own brand of historical imagination. In sequential order, they are-

·       The House Divided Speech on June 16, 1858, in Springfield, Illinois after he accepted his state party’s nomination for US Senator. Lincoln’s speech began with, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved- I do not expect the house to fall- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.” While many point to Mark 3:25 in the Christian New Testament as Lincoln’s inspiration, the term “a house divided” had also been used in one form or another by Saint Augustine, Thomas Hobbes (1651), Thomas Paine (1776), Abigail Adams (ca. 1812), and Felix Walker (ca. 1850). But it was Lincoln who reimagined the term as a direct attack on slavery.

·       The Cooper Union Speech on February 27, 1860, in New York City. While Lincoln was eyeing the Republican presidential nomination later that year, he traditionally could not do so in his time, so he did not announce his candidacy. Nevertheless, many historians credit this speech as pivotal to his electoral victory in the fall. Lincoln firmly opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories, “The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the Constitution, twenty-one…certainly understood that…any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories…” Here Lincoln was reimaging what was accomplished against slavery in both the

·       The Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the national cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. This short speech is Lincoln’s best known and most memorized address. In it he drew inspiration from before the Constitution, from the Declaration of Independence (“four score and seven years ago) with this resolve,” …that these dead shall not have died in vain- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

·       Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address on March 4, 1865, at the US Capitol was most haunting words on the cause of the Civil War- “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” The entire address is a bold and positive imaginative blending of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian New Testament into a call for judgment, humility, charity, and peace that has ever been spoken by an American political leader.

The expanse of Lincoln’s historical imagination was deep and wide. He was indeed our last Revolutionary Founder.

FOOL'S CHOICE: AN AFGAHN THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

 

[This brief essay is not a partisan diatribe against our President and his advisors. Rather, the current debacle is used as a thought experiment on how to conceptualize our choices so we can better ones regardless of our situations.]

 

In my reading I recently came across the concept of Fool’s Choice, and I immediately thought it could be applied to our current mess in Afghanistan. Further thinking revealed to me that another concept- Hobson’s Choice- could also come into play. And it does.

 

Definition of Fool’s Choice- an either/or choice to choose between two outcomes (more options are usually available)

Definition of Hobson’s Choice- a free choice in which only one thing is actually offered (ex- take it or leave it)

 

Our President and his advisors perhaps thought they were offered a Hobson’s Choice as follows:

OPTION A- US military and civilians to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.

OPTION B- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately regardless of consequences

If indeed they did, they had an error in thinking. Even a majority of the President’s critics on this issue did not desire Option A. This option was a non-starter and non-decision which pushed them into Option B.

If our President and his advisors had thought through the situation they perhaps would have realized they faced a Fool’s Choice with a third option as follows-

OPTION A- US military and civilians to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely

OPTION B- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan immediately regardless of consequences

OPTION C- US military and civilians to be withdrawn from Afghanistan in a planned and orderly manner

 

This thought experiment suggests that if the President and his advisors had thought of their options through the perspectives of Fool’s Choice rather than Hobson’s Choice they would not have looked so foolish with the consequences of their decisions.

WHERE IS WINSTON CHURCHILL WHEN WE NEED HIM?

 

Of course, the title question is nonsensical. Winston Churchill the man has been dead for nearly six decades. What we need today in American leadership is the spirit of Winston Churchill. Two events stand out.

Churchill became prime minister of Great Britain in May 1940 on the same day Nazi Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Per the British Army’s war plans, a large expeditionary force was sent across the English Channel to defend the British allies from conquest by the Germans. Unfortunately, the Netherlands was quickly overwhelmed and Belgium was teetering on surrender. So, it was the French army and the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) left to hold on. But they were no match for the rapid onslaught of the Germans.

Soon the BEF and the French forces in the north were in full retreat And by chance of geography they were headed for the small French channel port of Dunkirk near the Belgian border. With their backs to the sea, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers would either be captured or killed unless they were rescued. Churchill thus ordered Operation Dynamo into operation. Dynamo had three components- 1) sea rescue by naval ships, fishing boats, private yachts, and any other motorized craft which could hold soldiers for the channel crossing back to Britain, 2) air cover was minimal due to Churchill’s desire to save the bulk of the Royal Air Force fighters- the Spitfires and the Hurricanes- for the coming air defense of the British Isles (the Battle of Britain), and Royal Navy Captain William Tennent was dispatched to Dunkirk with a team of 120 officers and sailors to organize the evacuation.

I have shared Tennant’s story in an earlier essay. But it worth noting again that when Tennant inquired about the expectations for him and his team, he was told they would very fortunate to rescue 30,000 soldiers off the beaches at Dunkirk. In the end, 330,000 soldiers were evacuated- 11 times the expected number for Tennant’s team.

When the Germans realized that the bulk of the BEF had been safely returned to Britain, they turned their attention to the rest of France. Within weeks the French surrendered and signed an armistice with Germany and its ally Italy. The status of the French fleet harbored in French North Africa now became a concern for Churchill. If the Germans took possession of the French warships the entire Mediterranean theatre of operations would be endangered as well as the Suez Canal.

Churchill ordered a naval task force- Force H- to Oran, Algeria and after negotiations broke down on July 3, 1940, Force H fired upon the French ships sinking one battleship, damaging five other warships, and killing over 1200 French sailors. That battle along with several other actions against French ships enabled the Royal Navy to keep supply lines open to Malta, Egypt, the Suez, and ultimately to India. Churchill’s resolve to keep French warships away from the Germans impressed the world that Britain was serious in its fight against the Nazis, especially President Franklin Roosevelt ot the United States. Soon Britain was receiving emotional and material support from the Americans.

Fast forward 81 years to Kabul, Afghanistan. What did we see and hear?

·       Monday, August 16- We saw images of the chaos at the airport. Afghans clinging to US aircraft as they were taking off with several persons falling to their deaths, No Dunkirk here.

·       Tuesday, August 17- We heard official reports that the Taliban now possessed millions of dollars’ worth of US military equipment and weapons. No Force H here.

·       Wednesday, August 18- We heard continued reports that the US government can not guarantee the safety and security of thousands of American civilians remaining in Afghanistan. No resolve here.

I ask once again, “Where is Winston Churchill when we need him?”

 

 

 

 

 

IMPERIAL HUBRIS, OVERREACH, & INCOMPETENCE: FROM SAIGON TO KABUL

 

This past Sunday our church’s worship service should have been a joyous event. Our choir was back after a hiatus of 17 months, and we heard an uplifting report from a visiting Sudanese pastor about God at work in his country despite the martyrdom of several pastors. But my mind slipped to images of the US evacuation from Saigon then to the US evacuation then currently happening in Kabul. I thought of the Afghan women and girls to Taliban bondage and illiteracy. I thought of our service men and women killed and those wounded mentally and physically. I thought of our Afghan friends facing certain executions. Finally, I noticed tears on my face.

In the summer of 1975, I was a young soldier stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. I watched on television our helicopters flying from the roof of our embassy in Saigon rescuing our diplomats and some of our Vietnamese friends from the advancing Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces. “What a mess! I hope we never experience this again!” I thought. Well, I guess if one lives long enough one could see a repeat of events. It has indeed happened again in the last several days. I offer three reasons for this repeating disaster- imperial hubris, overreach, and incompetence.

Hubris: We Americans despite our good and idealistic intentions cannot repair all broken things on our planet, fix all the problems. Our military’s mission to seek out and kill or capture the enemy. Soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are trained to fight, not to “nation build.”

Overreach: Paul Kennedy in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers proffers the idea that great powers are tempted to overreach their limitations and thus suffer tragic consequences. The US did this in Afghanistan and we are now seeing the tragedy occurring there. But this is nothing new in world history. Philip Matyszak masterfully chronicles the military mission to Sicily by the Athens city-state of ancient Greece in his book Expedition to Disaster. The study of history can enrich our policies. Everyone in the current Administration should start with Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers by Richard Neustadt and Ernest May,

Incompetence: Overpromising and underperforming are sure clues to incompetence as well as repeating actions and expecting different results are allegiantly linked to insanity. When we entered Afghanistan in 2001 responding to the 9/11 attacks, we had two limited and clear goals: 1) destroy the Al-Qaeda network and 2) kill Osama Bin Laden. We disrupted the network but did not end it. We also attempted to kill OBL in late 2001 in the Tora Bora region. Delta Force Major Thomas Greer led a multi-national task force of American and British commandos in the search but according to his book Kill Bin Laden (written under his pseudonym Dalton Fury) political interference from Washington was in part responsible for OBL escaping to Pakistan. Missing those realistic and obtainable goals we settled for “nation building” which has proven to be impossible. By the way, after 20 years of war in Afghanistan, why did we not have a feasible and operational exit plan for Americans, our Afghan allies, and other nationals? Lack of one is pure negligence, not just incompetence.

My recommendations as an informed citizen and Army veteran:

1.     President Biden must take full responsibility for this debacle, offer no excuses, and blame no one but himself.

2.     All of President Biden’s chief national security advisors- including his secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisor, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, director of national intelligence, and CIA director among others- must offer their resignations to the President.

3.     Forget political correctness, wokeness, and critical race theory. Instead, read and discuss the following books-

·       The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy

·       Thinking in Time by Richard Neustadt & Ernest May

·       Expedition to Disaster by Philip Matyszak

·       Kill Bin Laden by Dalton Fury (aka Thomas Greer)

·       The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam (how we enlarged the Vietnam conflict into a full war)

4.     Return to the ideal expressed by then secretary of state and future President John Quincy Adams that the US must not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

5.     If war is necessary, then Congress must declare war not merely authorize prolonged conflict. Then Congress must be updated on the progress of the war every 30 days.

Later in that worship service our pastor was preaching on a text from the Book of Revelation in the Christian New Testament. He declared that the politicians will not have the last word- God will have the last word. My sad and angry mood lightened as I once again realized that my God will not desert me in times of trouble.