Have We Ever Had So Many Enemies?

I can't think of a time when we were choosing to have so many "enemies".

What a change from just 15-20 years ago!

Then we saw the opportunity to work with a Russia which had cast off communism and which we believed should see its future as part of a greater Europe.

Then we saw the opportunity to work with China, not as a competitor and threat but as a trading partner and a nation we could work with on matters like climate change to improve the world.

Then we saw Canada and Mexico as partners and good neighbors.

Then we viewed Western European countries as our closest friends and allies.

We did not agree on everything. We knew they had their own interests and that they would not mesh with ours in every case. We knew there were matters of trade we would need to argue through. But we believed we could do with an outcome that better served both nations.

The Trump Administration is picking so many needless fights.

We are facing a world divided. And much of it in my view is needless and more than that dangerous to our own and the world's interest.

Trump is explicitly turning his back on the idea of working together in a global world. I can think of few things more dangerous.

He is thumbing his nose at institutions and agreements built on mutual even if sometimes shaky trust which took years and in some cases generations to build: institutions and agreements like the WTO, NAFTA, Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations itself.

As a result, we are losing our stature as an ideological leader in the world for the first time in my eighty-year life.

The sources of the rupture of trust between Russia and China and the United States are complex. There is enough blame to go around. Russia should not have taken possession of Crimea. But it has no intent of expanding its global presence as a nation a la the Soviet Union. To do so would be suicide. Putin and every thinking Russian know this.

China is indeed an economic competitor. Naturally. And they engage in some practices in the area for example of intellectual property that need to change. But that need not, it should not make them a geo-political competitor.

The issue of who controls theSouth China sea is real but has to be resolvable. Allowing this to lead to a geo-political clash of arms would be akin to allowing the Balkans lead us into World War I, which in fact is what happened. And the current use of draconian tariffs is a crude and I believe ineffective means to try to solve the intellectual property issue. We seem to have lost our belief in diplomacy. We look to economic and military pressure to get things our way.

More than a half-century ago, President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned the Nation against what he described as a "military-industrial" complex. It is alive and well. Not with nefarious intent. Not at all. It is espoused by well-meaning people dedicated to doing what they believe is right.

I attended a conference this week. I heard talks from two retired senior military officers and a former Secretary of the Navy. They made it clear that the objective of the U.S. was to ensure our military retained its position as the "dominant force." They talked of the "threat" of China as if it was committed to expand its control across Asia as Japan did leading up to WWII. They indicated we now had about 280 ships and were committed to 355, making this something of a numbers game.
The United States military budget already exceeds the next 5-6 countries combined.

The tragedy here is not just that we are spending money that could better be placed against other national imperatives and running up our national debt. Even more important is that it fuels and in some ways calls for the drive to find adversaries against which the weapons this money funds can be targeted and thus justified. That is the biggest risk of the "military-industrial" complex about which Eisenhower warned us.

Let me not be understood. I am not naive. We have people in the world who hold ideologies dramatically counter to are own and are out to bring down our value systems, our way of life. Terrorists, ISIS, some of the leaders in Iran. We need to have the military capability to thwart and defeat their attacks and we need allies, often including in my opinion Russia and China, to do so.

I served in the military.  I respect members of the military deeply. We need them. I am conscious and humbled by how they support our lives today. And have always done so, one family member to the next. A striking fact: members of the military constitute only about 1% of the population. Almost half of them come from military families.

We will always face threats in the world. We must be realistic. But we must recognize the need to work with others to combat these threats. There is nothing new in this. We have always depended on alliances and partnerships. We must treat other countries and their leaders  with respect. We must beware of allowing natural disagreements to lead to the rupture of trust and ability to work together for "win-win" solutions. We must be willing to view the world through they eyes of our partners and yes our "enemies" too.

A Perspective on the Debate about "Originalism"

COMPARING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (1788) TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1781) – THE PERSPECTIVE IT OFFERS ON THE DEBATE ABOUT “ORIGINALISM”

We are reading a lot of discussion, triggered by the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, about the merits of “originalism”—that is, a doctrine which, as I understand it, calls for rulings based on the literal reading of the Constitution and the best understanding of what the Framers meant by that reading.

Walter Williams’ column of 9/16/18 raises a fundamental question, as it cites two different sections of the Constitution which can lead to different conclusions on which responsibilities should be assumed by the Federal Government and which by the States.

The first cites James Madison and Federalist Paper 45:  “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined” (dealing with external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce), “the powers (delegated) to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.”

The other section comes from the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 with the phrase calling for the Federal Government to “provide for the common Defense and General Welfareof the United States.”  

The question?  What constitutes General Welfare?

Williams notes that in 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote “Congress had unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically innumerated.”

Since then there have, of course, been Constitutional Amendments (e.g., securing the vote for all; banning slavery) which resulted in the Federal Government’s assuming roles previously conferred to the states with inhumane consequences.

In addition to the Amendments, there has been legislation (often controversial) which has seen the Federal Government undertake programs for the general welfarenot specifically innumerated in the Constitution (e.g., Social Security, workers’ safety).

I don’t believe it would have been at all surprising to the Framers to see that learning experience have led to the adoption of Amendments and Federal legislation, conferring Federal authority on issues previously in the province of the states because they bear vitally on the general welfare.  

Why do I say they wouldn’t be surprised?  Importantly, they were vividly aware of the number of significant changes that had needed to be made in the Articles of Confederation in the seven short years between their adoption and the adoption of a new set of standards in our Constitution.

Here are just a few examples of the changes that occurred in that seven-year period.

1.    Establishment of new states.  Articles:  required agreement of nine states.  The Constitution required agreement of Congress.

2.    Congressional pay.  Articles:  paid by the states:  Constitution: paid by the federal government.

3.    Appointment of Members.  Articles:  all appointed by state legislatures, in the manner each legislature directed. Constitution: representatives elected by popular votes in the states, senators appointed by state legislators.

4.    Executive. Articles:  none.  Constitution:  president.

5.    Amendments to the Constitution.  Articles:  when agreed upon by all states.  Constitution: when agreed upon by ¾ of all states.

6.    Navy. Articles:  Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip war ships to counter piracy.  Constitution:  Congress authorized to build a Navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war.

7.    Power to mint money.  Articles: United States and the states. Constitution:  United States only.

My purpose in citing these differences is not to suggest that the Constitution isn’t the foundation document which must be greatly respected.  It is to suggest that recognizing that in seven short years the founders had changed their minds on what constituted the correct role between the states and the federal government, it should not be surprising that over the course of the following 230 years, there would be changes in what constitutes the proper role of federal and state governments to achieve a condition of general welfarefor the citizens of the United States that is most desirable.

It can be (and will be) argued that such changes should be embodied in amendments as they have in many cases. However, it is also appropriate that such changes be embodied in legislation.  The Supreme Court has the responsibility to review the correctness of this legislation in light of the Constitution but it should bear in mind that—just as was the case between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution—we should be open, based on experience, where responsibility should be allocated between the federal government and state government. 

“Originalism,” if taken to the point that we can only do what Thomas Jefferson would have viewed as correct in 1817, would be a position that I feel certain Thomas Jefferson would have declared to be wrong.

Let me emphasize that I hew strongly to what would be described as a “conservative” (I’d prefer “liberal”) position on the importance of honoring State’s rights.  I do so for two reasons.  First, because states do differ in their history, experience and needs of their citizens.  Second, and in some ways more important, states have and can serve as laboratoriesfor new learning on how to resolve and best deliver services needed to advance the welfare of the nation’s citizens. To take only one example—allied closely to my own interests—it has been the experience of different states in advancing early childhood development and pre-school education that has shown not only their value but the best ways of achieving that value.

As other examples, while I believe access to affordable, quality health care is a right that should be available to all citizens (without good health, what chance does anyone have to achieve a fulfilling life?), I agree that giving states latitude in howto best achieve that objective makes great sense because we have much more to learn.  Interestingly (and rather ironically) on health care, it was the initiative of Republican Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts which produced a template which was largely adopted by President Obama with the Affordable Care Act. (This, despite the fact that it has been vigorously attacked by Republicans.)

I believe the decision as to how much latitude states should have in enacting a federally mandated right will forever be a matter for legislative and judicial dispute.  Take voting.  The right of every person to vote is now constitutionally mandated through the 15 ^thand 19^thAmendments.  However, states still have significant latitude in how the right to vote is administered and enforced.  Some “methods of administration” amount to clear-cut “suppression”; for example, literacy tests, which are now banned.  Others are more subtle such as restricting the number of polling places or the days and hours of pre-election day voting.  They will undoubtedly be the subject of continued adjudication.  The guiding rule should be to take every reasonable step to allow every citizen to exercise his or her right to vote.

Personal Reflections on "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor Frankl

I am reposting this from 4 years ago. It just seemed  so timely.

*******************************************************************************

Few books have meant so much to me as Man’s Search For Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl.

Of course, I have quoted and thought about Viktor Frankl and his life many times.  His life in concentration camps, his reflections on what that had meant to him.  His so well-expressed belief that it is not one’s circumstances but one’s reaction to them which matters most.  His book, which has gone through countless printings, and sold over 123 million copies, is one that I had never read before.  It is short and utterly profound.  It is founded on the belief that life is not primarily a quest for pleasure or a quest for power, but it is a quest for meaning.  And Frankl finds that quest for meaning deriving from three sources:  an activity or act to which one commits himself; an experience, particularly an experience of love, but also the experiencing of nature; and the meaning that flows from the dignity with which one approaches suffering.

Frankl’s most enduring insight is that forces beyond our control can take away everything we possess except one thing, our freedom to choose how we will respond to a situation.  We cannot control what happens to us in life, but we can always control what we feel and do about it.  We are never left with nothing as long as we retain the freedom to choose how we will respond.  There are so many galvanizing perspectives here:

The advice that one should not aim for success, but rather realize that success like happiness must ensue and always does ensue as the unintended side effect of one’s dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the bi-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself. 

I was captured by Frankl’s revealing of a thought which transfixed him in the concentration camp – that for the first time in his life he saw the truth that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire.  Surely “the salvation of man is through love and in love.”  At these moments he thought of his wife.  He didn’t even know if she was still alive, but he knew that “love goes very far beyond the physical person of the beloved.  It finds its deepest meanings in a spiritual being, his inner self.”  He said there was no need for him to know (if she was alive).  “Nothing could touch the strength of my love, my thoughts and the image of my beloved.  Had I known then that my wife was dead, I think that I would still have given myself, undisturbed by that knowledge, the contemplation of her image, and that my mental conversation with her would have been just as vivid and just as satisfying.”  Isn’t this how we can recall and do recall those whom we have loved who have passed away in death?

Frankl reflects on the choice that the concentration inmates faced.  And he does not suggest that many, let alone all, faced it successfully.  The choice revolved around whether the individual would struggle against the situation to save his self-respect, being an individual with a mind with inner freedom and personal value.  He had the choice of thinking of himself as only part of an enormous mass of people, his existence descended to the level of animal life.  He did not fault those who succumbed to this.  But he celebrated those who maintained their individual dignity, who recognized that finding meaning at that moment involved determining what they could do to make the most of every moment, to capture the view of a living tree or a sunrise, to do something for a fellow inmate. 

Others, “instead of taking the camp’s difficulties as a test of inner strength, preferred to close their eyes and to live in the past.  Life for such people became meaningless … it is a peculiarity of man that he can only live by looking to the future and this is his salvation in the most difficult moments of his existence, although he sometimes has to force his mind to the task.”

Frankl returns to the thought expressed above many times.  He turns to another thought later in the book which I think has equal merit and, in fact, seems to co-exist with his admonishment of looking to the future.  Here he points out that “instead of possibilities in the future, we can view realities of the past – the potentialities they have actualized, the meanings they have fulfilled, the values they have realized – and nothing, nobody can ever remove these assets from the past.”  He says eloquently that “people tend to see only the stubble in fields of transitory-ness, but overlook and forget the full granaries of the past into which they have brought the harvest of their lives; the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity.”

This is a wonderful thought which I and all of us should take heart from.  We must remember our victories, our blessings, and draw strength from them even as we at the same time identify our purpose and the meaning of our lives as we go forward.  

There’s another aspect of this book which bears deep thought.  And that is the emphasis Frankl brings to the value of not only being what would be described as “useful,” but being valuable in the “sense of dignity” that one displays in living one’s life.  This certainly applies to how one handles setbacks and suffering.  It is important to note that Frankl insists that he’s talking about bearing with suffering which cannot be avoided.  If suffering can be avoided, the first command is to avoid it, but there is other suffering, such as an incurable illness, which cannot be avoided, and it is the dignity and courage with which one handles this, the amount that one still takes from every day, that not only represents living life as well as one can, but represents a model for others to emulate.

Frankl has perspective on “freedom” with which I agree entirely.  He regards freedom as only part of the story.  Freedom is a negative aspect of the whole phenomena within which responsible-ness is the positive aspect.  “In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrary-ness unless it is lived in terms of responsible-ness.” 

Frankl ended his book by noting that rather than talk about “saints,” why not just talk about “decent people.”  “It is true that they form a minority.  More than that, they will always remain a minority.”  Our challenge is to join the minority.  “For the world is in a bad state, but everything will become still worse unless each of us does his best.”  Words to sign on to.

[Frankl was once asked to express in one sentence the meaning of his own life.  He wrote the response on paper and asked his students to guess what he had written.  One student surprised Frankl by saying “the meaning of your life is to help others find the meaning of theirs.”    “That was it, exactly,” Frankl said.  “Those are the very words I had written.”]

I HAVE RAREY IF EVER READ WORDS THAT BETTER SUM UP MY PERSONAL MISSION IN LIFE. (JEP).

Again, this is a book of less than 170 pages.  It contains enormous wisdom.  I hope that I can internalize the best of it and live it.

"How Might Can Overcome Right" and the Consequent Need for Courage

Several years ago I read a book written by Iris Origo, “War in Val d’Orcia.”  It was a diary written by an English-born woman who married a wealthy aristocratic Italian and moved with him to develop an estate in the Tuscan hills in the 1930s. 

This diary tells the inspiring story of how she and other Italians sheltered and saved the lives of dozens of American and British airmen who had bailed out over Italy, as well as Italian artisans combatting the Nazi army.

This is one of the most inspiring books I have ever read, as it brings to life people’s willingness to risk their own lives to save the lives of others.

I recently read another diary by Iris Origo, written during the years 1939-1940, leading up to Italy’s alliance with Germany.  It is called “Chill in the Air.” It tells a very different story. 

This diary traces the increasing concern on the part of most Italians that they will become involved in the escalating war. Most do not like Germany.  Many choose to believe that Mussolini will be able to keep the country out of the war.  Month to month, however, the power of Germany’s army becomes clearer as it overwhelms Belgium and France and occupies Paris.  Relentless propaganda is brought to the Italian public trumpeting England’s so-called “imperialistic” intent with the accompanying vision that, allied with Germany, Italy could control the Mediterranean and have its "proper role in the world.”   All of this this leads to increasing support for Germany.

As 1940 unfolded, the Italian newspapers pointed to a picture of impending doom for the English.  The Italian ambassador to England describes a future which will see the complete domination of Europe by Germany.  Italy should then become, in his opinion, a tourist country, "attracting the money of all the pleasure-seekers of the world."  The English, he maintained, "are done for because their character is now hopelessly rotten; all that is left is corrupt and sterile."  It is hardly possible to overstate (Origo writes) how universally this opinion is now held here.  Daily, the press and radio insistently proclaim the inevitability and immediacy of the destruction of England, her incapacity to defend herself, her lack of trained men, of munitions, of food.  Churchill’s speeches are considered vain boasts based on no foundation of fact.  

At the German Embassy in Rome, it is said, “There are both optimists and pessimists.  The optimists say that the war will be over in mid-August; the pessimists in September.”

In mid-July1940, after having defeating France, Hitler makes a speech which, in Origo’s words, “is received here with almost universal approval; even those people who are not admirers of Nazism consider it a genuine effort towards peace and a last chance for England to save herself from destruction; that this destruction will be inevitable and will be swift, if it were to attempt it, no one doubts.”

These diary entries, Iris Origo writes, represent the "general opinion" in Italy, demonstrating how public opinion can shift in light of perceived strength and "inevitable outcomes."  

They demonstrate how people can be prepared to board a fast-running train even if they don’t agree with its destination. They warn us against what can be a strong even if cynical view that "might makes right.” 

This explains a lot in human history.

Much more hopefully, this chapter of history further underscores the courage of the British people (as well as the Italians, whom Origo celebrated in her other diary).  They and millions of others risked and gave their lives to deny and thwart what was seen by so many as the “inevitable” victory of Germany.