In the latter years of the
Vietnam Conflict, the United States military unofficially adopted a
controversial tactical strategy in a desperate attempt to halt the encroachments
of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops into the villages of South Vietnam
as they slowly but surely advanced toward the capital city of Saigon and
capture of the entire country. The United States
in the late ‘60s had begun massive sweeps of the countryside outside Saigon using grandiose nomenclatures like “Operation
Thunder” with the noble intent of clearing areas and villages of the dreaded
Viet Cong and restoring order and peace to the allegedly loyal citizens of the
target areas. By clearing areas of the enemy, the objective was to slowly
recapture the countryside and save South Vietnam from a communist
takeover.
The United States soon learned that the
task was comparable to holding back the tide with a mop. Moving into a village, the US military would find a quaint,
idyllic Vietnamese citizenry busy with all the duties of a township with nary a
sign of the enemy…especially confusing when just a few hours earlier military
intelligence had indicated that the place was a beehive of enemy activity. Compounding the difficulty was trying to
identify the enemy at all…many Viet Cong troops dressed in the standard
clothing of the country villager and became part of the village populace simply
by hiding any trace of weaponry. The US
military would search a village, and occasionally the enemy would make a
mistake in unsuccessfully hiding their weapons.
Retribution quickly followed, but, more times than not, the US military
was frustrated in its lack of engagement with the enemy. This frustration led to a logical
conclusion: if military intelligence had
positive proof that a village was a haven for the enemy, and there seemed to be
no evidence that the local citizens were being cooperative in identifying the
enemy, the village was put to the torch and burned to the ground. This military policy was bluntly explained
one evening on national news when a military official was asked about the
burning of a village, and he replied, “In order to save the village, we had to
destroy it.”
Much
has been written in recent years of the general frustration of the United States
citizenry with its government. Though we
pride ourselves with our democratic process and look with disdain at other not-freely-elected governments around the globe, we are still disappointed at the seeming
inability of the U.S. government to face the issues confronting our country
today and come up with solutions to our problems. It is not a problem which has surfaced only
since Joe Biden became president; it has extended backward through several
previous administrations, and the prognosis for the future is not
encouraging. In the richest country
in the world, we have one of the highest percentages in the world of
children who nightly go to bed hungry, of citizens who cannot afford proper
health care, and of elderly who have no place to go for security.
Democracy,
by its very name is…well…democratic.
While it is a form of government founded upon the concept of rule by the
majority, it is also founded upon the principle that any governmental decision
will be made with the general welfare of the population in mind. Democracy by its very modus operandi requires
compromise, and every law and every decision is an amalgamation of the
corporate minds which joined together to make the decision. The problem with democracy is that it
occasionally clashes with individual principles. Consider the hypothetical situation of an
elected official who has sworn to his constituents, “No new taxes!” (Remember
George H. W. Bush?) and then must consider a proposed bill which would take care
of a serious problem in the country…but the final version of the bill as drawn
up by his associates contains a tax increase.
Although it will ease a problem in the country, does he vote to pass the
law and in doing so override his principles, or does he stand firm, waving his
flag of unbent principle, and let the country suffer the consequences? George Bush chose to compromise in the
interests of the country…and lost the next presidential election to Jimmy
Carter. In today’s political climate, we have many politicians who have adopted
the strategy of “destroying the village in order to save it.” Rather than reach a political compromise on
an issue which would help ease the concern of the populace, many lawmakers would
rather see the country suffer than renege on an unwise commitment or pledge
made in the heat of political campaigning…a commitment or pledge which should
have never been made in the first place.
Unfortunately for our country, both major
political parties have adopted the “destroy to save” philosophy, and it depends
upon who is in power as to what role each party plays. With the current Democratic president, the Republicans
have adopted the knee-jerk reflex of “No!” to anything President Biden remotely
suggests. Conversely, when a Republican
occupies the White House, Democrats dig in their heels and throw out every
possible stumbling block to any potential political success for the Republicans…and
the country founders. Please understand…I
am an independent and not an admirer of either political party. Their agendas
are tailored to the interests of their parties and not the United States.
Fortunately for America, there are in each party the pragmatic administrators
who occasionally put together legislation in the interest of the country.
If you ask any politician in the country
about democracy, the instant response is “Democracy is the greatest form of
government on the face of the planet.”
However, if you ask what the definition of democracy is, the response
will be divided into two camps. These two
camps represent two versions of the same delusion.
The believers of the first version of democracy
can quote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution from
memory. They are for government which is
mostly kept at a distance, allowing the individual to soar like eagles to
unlimited success with the least amount of restriction. Everyone in this democracy contributes a fair
share to the government for basic services such as national defense, but a
person’s well-being is a personal responsibility. In this democracy, every person is born
healthy and disease free with a marketable talent which allows for the
achievement of success. Working hard and
not abusing the rights of others, these believers live fruitful lives, leaving
legacies of great influence. The
difficulty with this form of democracy is that it does not know how to handle
those individuals who do not fit into the mold.
Forgive me for mentioning the Bible, but even Jesus said, “The poor you
have with you always.” In this form of
democracy, if one is “poor” it is assumed to be because he/she has not exerted
adequate effort to reach the inborn potential which is in every person. To offer alms to the poor is to deter their
work initiative.
Along with the poor are the physically challenged
be it through injury, birth, or disease.
Knowledgeable people have proposed that, to cut our health costs in this
nation, committees should determine how expensive extending the life of a
disabled person would be, and if the cost is prohibitive, health care should be
withheld. I guess it would be the
natural thing to do. After all, in
nature, there are many examples of infant creatures that are abandoned to die
by their mothers for the good of the healthy ones. A person’s health would be a personal
responsibility and dependent upon the person’s ability to pay for services. What I find fascinating about this group is
that most believers are aggressively pro-life when it comes to the abortion
issue, arguing about the sanctity of the unborn child, etc. However, if that child is born with a defect,
well, we hope mom has good insurance. If
the child is born to poor parents, it’s the parents’ fault…but the child
suffers because the government will not offer any helping hand (hurts the
budget, you know.)
Lastly, those in this form of democracy
have not learned the lessons of human greed.
One never has enough money, power, or prestige, and without restrictions
or governmental regulations big businesses will stretch ethical boundaries far
beyond the breaking point. Competition,
which is a concept hallowed in the annals of capitalism, is not restricted to
obtaining the largest share of the market but also eliminating as many competitors
as possible on the way to the top. Therefore the “pursuit of happiness”
mentioned in the declaration may in fact require the deterrence of happiness in
someone else. But, hey, that’s
competition.
At the other end of the spectrum (other
side of the aisle, as it were) is the second group of democratic proponents. Interestingly enough, they, too, are familiar
with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but at that point the
similarities end. Because the citizenry
is united under the government’s guidance, a newborn child becomes in effect a
ward of the state. Every citizen has the
right to the pursuit of happiness, but if another citizen cannot…or chooses
not…to make that pursuit, it is the responsibility of all others to “carry
those who cannot walk.” An incredible
fact of this group, however, is that the government’s concern for you only
begins at birth. Should a child be
undesired prior to birth, an abortion is acceptable with no consequence; however,
if that fetus can somehow survive to birth, the child is offered cradle to
grave security.
This group has a great distain for the
natural competitiveness of man. It is
convinced of the innate greed of corporate America and therefore attempts to
control business activities and restrict success, or at least force it to be
spread around to more recipients. The
result is excessive restrictions causing hesitancy among businesses to invest
and take risks. Additionally, should
some citizens exceed the “normal” levels of success, they should be taxed more
heavily because they have more to spend.
It is in the concept of “liberty” where the
two groups most contrast. The second
group interprets liberty to mean unbridled freedom. When the constitution mentions freedom of
speech, it means you can say anything you wish, no matter how offensive and no
matter the consequences. There is no
decorum or standard of behavior because there is total freedom. Freedom to choose is interpreted to mean the
rights of one may infringe upon the rights of others. Although a majority of the group may have an
opinion on a particular matter, one objection can stop the discussion. As an example, polls concerning prayer in
schools have always shown a tremendous majority in favor, but due to the
efforts of a scattered few, there now is no prayer. It is due to the efforts of this group that
we can now enjoy pornography in our homes and obnoxious behavior in our stores
and schools. There is another word for
unbridled, unlimited freedom…anarchy.
As
we enter the election process of 2024, we see the usual polarization of the two
major parties into the two camps described above. Most of the candidates offered to the
electorate subscribe to one or the other of the two positions, and that is the
tragedy of any election because both positions are disastrous for our country. Forgive me for being biblical again, but many
times in the scriptures, the word “moderation” pops up when discussing actions
or behaviors. It is not just a biblical
philosophy but one that has been expounded by many, and it is a philosophy
which works in government and politics, also.
The essential element to democracy which has become anathema to many in
the political spectrum these days is moderation…a “give and take” in the halls
of government which allows for solutions to national issues to be reached. In truth, the government must be friendly to
business to encourage investment while at the same time monitoring corporate
policies and operations. A businessman
will borrow money to expand his business, knowing that he will be able to repay
the loan with increased sales and profits.
At times, a government may also borrow money to invest in people or
infrastructure, but it should only be done when there is a good chance of a
return on the investment and a repayment of the loan. It must offer help and
assistance to those less fortunate while making it clear that an effort must be
made to stand on one’s own feet. It must
value life from conception to burial, and make it clear there are standards of
speech and behavior which respect the privacy of others. The interesting note here is that these
positions are reflected by a majority of the citizens of the United States. Is there a candidate who subscribes to these
basic principles? If so, he/she will probably
be vilified for lacking “principles.” Unfortunately, it seems that both those
in power and those who are aspiring to power embrace only the two extreme
positions. The prognosis for the future
does not bode well. The United States needs a healer, not a divider.
.JPG)
Posts
