UNCOMFORTABLE SUBJECTS : IMPERIALISM AND CONQUEST

AN ESSAY

Over the last half century, "imperialism" has become a dirty word in American academic discourse. During that time, prevailing rhetoric has extolled multiculturalism, tolerance and multiperspectivism. It has championed the rights of historically disadvantaged groups while denigrating traditionally powerful ones. It has empowered the downtrodden and strengthened the weak. It has justified the historically unjustifiable. In the process, university rhetoric has identified "imperialism" as the worst thing one culture can do to another. Great civilizations, so the rhetoric goes, no longer conquer and dominate others. Great civilizations tolerate everyone and allow every culture to flourish within their borders.

Yet I venture that this is an anomalous trend. In fact, I argue that Nations unafraid to act imperialistically are strong Nations, while Nations afraid to do so are weak.

I understand that this squarely contradicts how we are "supposed to think" about imperialism today. But true to my word, I am determined to speak out this week about uncomfortable subjects. To use Nietzsche's term, I am determined to make "Uncontemporary Observations" concerning subjects we have been taught never to consider any other way.

Imperialism is about national power. In its purest form, it means the purposeful, intrusive projection of one Nation's military and cultural power over another Nation. To understand what that entails, it is essential to understand what "Nations" are. In past essays, I have noted that "Nations" and "States" are distinct terms. "Nations" refer to discrete populations united by common linguistic, cultural, genetic and religious traditions. "States," on the other hand, refer merely to a population's adherence to a particular governing instrument for the sake of common administration and convenience. Many Nations can exist under a common State. But Nations are unique.

Throughout history, some Nations have prevailed, while others have fallen. Nations that have prevailed generally have successfully engaged in imperialism. They have crushed and dominated their neighbors. They have brutally stamped out opposition and imposed their own cultural traditions on their defeated enemies. These Nations cared nothing for multiculturalism or tolerance. They did not blink at brutality. Rather, they felt so secure in their own power that they gladly violated other Nations' territory to absorb them into their own realms. This is not a popular thing to do these days. But history shows that the most influential Nations have been the most imperialistic, too.

Consider Rome. Rome grew to eminence because it projected its values across Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. By sheer will and military prowess, it subjugated its neighbors, occupied their territory and imposed its values on them. It even made them speak Latin and build infrastructure according to the Roman model. It forced them to live under Roman law and observe Roman customs. Rome was strongest when it was unafraid to conquer. It affirmed its own beliefs when it ruthlessly destroyed all who stood before it. Through imperialism, Rome made itself great. At its height, Rome conquered and killed without a second thought. It believed so strongly in its own values that it did not hesitate to eradicate whole Nations.

But consider now how Rome fell. Rome collapsed several centuries after it stopped waging imperial wars. Once it reached its territorial zenith, Roman values began to weaken. Its government began tolerating new ideas and new cultural trends. Internal cultural cracks developed. Its military power waned. Barbarians began picking away at the frontiers. Put simply, Rome lost its appetite for imperialism. It lost faith in its own rightful dominance. So Nations with more assurance in their own values filled the void. They overran Rome and destroyed it.

Turn now to England and Spain, the "great" European colonizers of the Americas and Asia. Both Nations achieved spectacular eminence because they shamelessly engaged in imperialism. Both Nations reached their zenith when they brutally laid claim to others' land and genocidally slaughtered anyone who opposed them. They unswervingly believed in their own causes: Just like the imperial Romans, the British and the Spanish believed that their values were far superior to the Natives they displaced. So they killed, enslaved and uprooted them without a second thought. In the process, they reshaped the world. Like it or not, the fact that English and Spanish are among the world's most spoken languages is the direct result of unabashed, vicious global imperialism. Like it or not, the only reason why European white people live in North America today is because England and Spain barged in and killed everyone else who used to live there. The very existence of the United States is the product of an original, shocking act of imperialism by Great Britain.

To summarize, Nations are strong when they conquer. They believe in their own values so much that they do not shrink from trampling and absorbing other Nations. Nations weaken when they lose faith in their own dominance and begin tolerating dissention in their own borders. Imperialism showcases a Nation's shameless belief in itself; and its contempt for any culture that differs from it.

Needless to say, it is no longer popular to endorse imperialism. It is no longer acceptable to say that one Nation is rightfully superior to another, let alone to suggest that one Nation has the authority to seize territory and butcher native inhabitants in another country. Yet it is precisely that vicious cultural intolerance that created the United States. That same intolerance sustained all the world's mightiest empires. When a Nation engages in imperialism without shame, it declares to all the world: "My Nation is so great that it deserves to dominate you."

America presents an interesting case. Despite all the recent discourse condemning imperialism, the United States remains an immensely imperialistic country. Since roughly 1865, America has engaged in imperialism all over the world. First, it eradicated or marginalized native populations in its own continental borders. Second, it overran Hawaii. Then it battled Spain and conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Panama, the Philippines and numerous Pacific islands. In World War I, it projected its national power into European affairs, playing a substantial role in dictating the peace terms at Versailles. In World War II, the United States achieved monumental national power by almost single-handedly defeating Japan and Germany, then permanently occupying both defeated countries. After World War II, the United States created the United Nations and oversaw "world peace" by policing various national conflicts from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan and Central America. Later, the United States invaded Iraq on fabricated "self-defense" grounds, plunging that country into civil war.

America's voracious imperialism does not end with military conquest. Beyond physical incursions into other Nations' affairs, America also engages in unabashed cultural intrusion. Its music and film industry dominate the entire world. Children from China to Germany to Africa all learn English so they can listen to American songs and watch American movies. People in Beirut listen to Michael Jackson and Rihanna. Business people all over the world adopt English as their lingua franca. America's cultural imperialism is so complete that when two foreign businessmen meet, chances are they will speak English to each other, even if neither is a native English speaker. None of these things would ever have come to pass if America had not engaged in overwhelming, successful imperialism over the last 150 years.

In this light, perhaps it is not a bad thing to say that a Nation like the United States is "imperialistic." After all, America dominates the world in a way not seen since Rome. Its culture, language and military cow the globe into submission. All other Nations measure themselves by the American standard. Like all empires in history, America's imperialism shows that the United States ruthlessly believes in itself. It does not tolerate dissention abroad. And it has shown that it will crush any Nation that opposes its power. Put simply, America is strong; and it is not afraid to beat anyone down who thinks otherwise.

Is imperialism unpopular? In university rhetoric, of course it is. But when we look closely at what imperialism means--and what it has wrought in the United States--we discover an embarrassing truth: We are all the products of imperialism. Our "American civilization" arose because England and Spain were unafraid to savagely kill the natives who once occupied this land. We speak English and Spanish in North America because the British and Spanish felt so superior that they had a right to set up shop on a foreign continent. And we now live in the world's most powerful Nation because the United States carried on the imperialistic tradition that gave it life in the first place.

America was born in imperialism. It will always be imperialistic. Imperialism showcases American values. It reflects intolerance for all who oppose us. In a perverse way, however, it also confirms America's health. As long as America is unafraid to savagely destroy its enemies and to project is culture over all the world, it is still--as Rome was--at the height of its power. America has not stopped expanding. Indeed, it is not in our nature to stop expanding. Once we stop expanding--whether culturally or militarily--we are no longer imperialistic. And when that happens, we can expect our power to gradually wane, just as Rome's did.

Thus, despite all the criticism, an imperialistic Nation is a healthy Nation. Imperialistic Nations might act like ferocious animals, but ferocious animals defeat any living thing that opposes them. In that light, we can thank imperialism for giving us this mighty Republic, as well as all the comforts it brings.

This is my uncontemporary observation for the day.

"HONOR BOUND TO DEFEND FREEDOM" : WHAT ARE WE STILL DOING IN IRAQ?

AN ESSAY

Two weeks ago, I watched Paul Greengrass' searing Green Zone. Although the movie masquerades as a pure action thriller, it actually deeply criticizes American involvement in Iraq, especially the manufactured casus belli that led us to war. At several points during the movie,my emotions surged. I have always spoken out against the War in Iraq. I always considered it an illegitimate, illegal, unethical, imperialist venture without justification in law, justice or good policy. The movie showed raw American power at work. And that reawakened my slumbering vitriol about the war.

Green Zone opens in the din of an air raid. It is March 19, 2003, the day the U.S. air force began bombing Baghdad. Sirens wail. We hear the buildings shudder as explosions rip through the city. Iraqi men and women frantically run through hallways, shouting and screaming. We see lights flickering. Dust falls from ceilings. Windows break. Then the shot pans out to a vista over the city. Massive fireballs light up the night. Buildings burn. Anti-aircraft fire streaks into the sky. Jet engines and cruise missiles boom through the air before yet another explosion rips the skyline.

That scene choked me up. So that's American power, isn't it: The power to bomb a city into oblivion. The power to make civilians scramble in panic as the house next door explodes into a million pieces. The power to knock out electricity and destroy infrastructure. And for what? In hindsight, I knew there was no justification for the war. There were never any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not plan 9/11, nor did any Iraqis hijack the planes that attacked the United States. No, America flexed its muscles against Iraq simply because it could. It ignored the United Nations and its weapons inspectors. It acted with breathtaking defiance, even if it mumbled about "reliable independent intelligence" concerning an Iraqi nuclear arms program.

Worse, we're still there, seven years and 6000 American dead later. That's to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and countless more lives ruined for nothing.

War apologists will inevitably label be a socialist for making these observations. They will tell me that "intelligence was uncertain" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in early 2003, so it was better to be "safe than sorry." They will also tell me that America had "good reason" to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant who tortured and murdered his own people. In fact, they will stress the fact that America "fights for freedom" around the world; even if we did not find nuclear weapons in Iraq, at least we gave Iraqis democracy.

I recoil from this facetious "freedom" explanation for the invasion. The argument is not just illogical; it also shows American involvement in Iraq for what it really is: A selective, hypocritical, arbitrary application of brute force. It is illogical because America does not really care about "worldwide freedom." In the first place, it is presumptuous to even suggest that "American-style freedom" can work in diverse cultures around the world. And even if such a thing as "freedom" were universal, why stop with Iraq? George W. Bush said that the war was necessary because "Iraqis needed freedom from a murderous tyrant who tortured and gassed his own people." Yet there are many nations across the globe that need the same treatment. The "freedom" rationale--if believed--would require U.S. military involvement in virtually every sub-Saharan African nation, as well as Saudi Arabia, several southeast Asian countries and even Russia. There are "tyrants" in all those nations who "murder their own people."

So why haven't we attacked all these other countries? If we truly care about "freedom," we should attack Rwanda, Uganda, the Congo, Pakistan and Malaysia. The fact that we haven't shows that our involvement in Iraq is purely selective. And because the freedom rationale is so weak, it begs the real question: Why Iraq? Only a naïve idiot could believe that America had a genuine interest in "Iraqis' freedom from tyranny." So what was the real reason?

For a long time, I thought that America invaded Iraq to gain access to its lucrative oil reserves. The cynic in me can never really suppress the thought. Yet after seven years of occupation, oil prices are no lower than they were in 2002. In fact, they have even spiked several times in the ensuing years. With oil men like Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the White House, Iraq's oil must have been one reason why they decided to invade. In retrospect, it should have been an easy assignment: Knock out Saddam, capture the oil fields, set up some pipelines and start pumping.

But it did not work out that way. The war planners encountered a set of problems they did not anticipate: Sectarian strife. They must have underestimated how difficult it would be to occupy Iraq. They could not set up their pipelines or build their oil-carrying infrastructure because the Iraqis did not just roll over and allow the Americans to have their way with their country. They sabotaged roads, blew up tankers, ambushed convoys and beheaded "contractors." And because men like Donald Rumsfeld woefully miscalculated how much force would be needed to subdue Iraq, the U.S. military never had sufficient strength to pacify the countryside. Rumsfeld thought a "small, rapidly mobile force" with overwhelming air power could claim Iraq.

He was wrong. In the end, U.S. forces in Iraq wound up fighting a desperate "fire brigade" war in which they struggled to respond to local hotspots without bringing overall stability to the country. As a consequence, America could not realize its initial commercial war goal: Oil mercantilism.

Still, I am not writing today to summarize America's strategic failure in Iraq. Rather, I am writing to stress that America's failure was far larger than mere military stalemate. America sacrificed much more than young soldiers' blood to occupy Iraq. It also sacrificed its historically "moral high ground" in war by engaging in illegal, unethical behavior on an unprecedented scale. In the end, American occupiers showed themselves little better than the Baathist torturers they set out to depose in 2003.

Green Zone alludes to this. In brief, the movie follows an army officer (Matt Damon) assigned to locate nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" at various sites throughout Baghdad. After coming up empty every time, he begins to wonder whether his intelligence is sound. He decides to investigate his sources and gradually uncovers a tangled web of official deceit running all the way down from the Pentagon. When he realizes that the Pentagon has basically misled the army into supporting the war, he sets out to locate an Iraqi general who met with a senior Pentagon official (Greg Kinnear) prior to the war. The general told the Pentagon official that Iraq had no WMD program. The Pentagon official lied about what the general said and told Washington that Iraq did have such a program. To prevent the truth from emerging, the Pentagon official sends a hit squad to kill the general. Meanwhile, the army officer rushes to save him and expose the truth.

Green Zone's plotline makes for a good thriller. But it also makes a valuable point: America's case for war against Iraq was marred from the outset. It was built upon official deception. It threw ethics to the wind and committed American blood for fabricated reasons. The movie shows the American government working in a criminally underhanded manner. It shows senior American officials manipulating the truth and authorizing murder to conceal it. While Green Zone might just be a movie, it is certainly based on real events.

I thought America was supposed to be better than this. What ever happened to America as the "White Knight" of international politics? There was a time when America went to war for good things--and only as a last resort. There was a time when people around the world looked to America as a beacon of freedom and justice. During that time, no one would have dared think America could be tyrannical or evil. America did not lie, cheat, deceive, torture, murder or kill. It punished those who did while remaining true to its ethical principles. Hitler tortured, killed and invaded. America liberated the death camps and freed Europe from Nazi domination. That was noble and just. That was America's international reputation. That America could never act a villain.

Sadly, America did act a villain in Iraq. In a telling scene, Green Zone reminds us that American forces committed atrocities against Iraqi prisoners. It shows us a "detainee camp" in which U.S. forces hold allegedly "high-value" Iraqis in a stockade. It shows U.S. troops brutalizing prisoners with clubs, barking dogs and extremely loud music. It shows them forcing prisoners to sit in uncomfortable positions. We hear prisoners crying out in pain from darkened solitary cells. Some even lie bleeding on the floor without medical care.

Ironically, a sign over the stockade reads: "Camp So-and-So : Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom."

What kind of freedom is this? What kind of honor? It is as if the American army in Iraq still believed that it was the "White Knight" of 1945, even though its "intelligence division" members acted more like SS torturers than noble liberators.

There is no honor in torture or inhumane treatment. America said it waged war in Iraq to overthrow tyranny and torture. Yet within weeks, it began committing the same outrages on Iraqi prisoners that Saddam committed against his own people. Of course, war apologists will say that troops in the field must discover valuable battlefield intelligence "by any means necessary." That may be so as a practical matter. But America used to draw ethical strength from its refusal to engage in the unsavory tactics of its enemies. America acquired a sterling reputation because it refused to be Machiavellian.

We have drifted far from our ethical moorings. The war in Iraq has cost this country more than individual soldiers. It has also cost us our international reputation. We are no longer noble liberators committed to justice. Rather, we are now petulant rogues who wage war simply because we want to, without regard to ethics or international law. Our involvement in Iraq is a very dark chapter in American history. It is the chapter in which America became just another Machiavellian State determined to do its will, no matter the cost in blood or principle.

I wonder whether we will ever repair the damage we have done to ourselves.

DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL : A BAD ARGUMENT, AND AN EMBARRASSING DOUBLE STANDARD

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

Last week, former Supreme Allied Commander (Atlantic) General John Sheehan testified before a Senate subcommittee investigating whether it was prudent to repeal the American military's ban on openly gay soldiers. General Sheehan argued that the military should not alter its policy. He said that openly gay soldiers reduce morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion.

To support his assertion, General Sheehan referenced an incident in which the Dutch army failed to defend a Bosnian town against Serbian aggression during Yugoslavia's Civil War in 1995. Although he could not directly attribute the Dutch army's failure to individual gay soldiers, General Sheehan explicitly said that Holland's "socialized" and "permissive" attitude toward homosexuality in the military made its armed forces "ill-equipped" to fight battles.

Dutch officials reacted with surprise to General Sheehan's remarks. They found it bizarre that anyone could link military ineffectiveness to a policy permitting openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

I find General Sheehan's argument bizarre, too. Moreover, I also find it foolish, hypocritical and ignorant. I have long criticized the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as reflecting a fundamental double standard. It not only assumes that abstract homosexuality makes a person a bad soldier. It also assumes that there are no gay people in the U.S. military. Anecdotal evidence suggests that homosexuality is rife in the armed forces. It's just that no one talks about it. And yet General Sheehan does not suggest that the U.S. military is "ineffective," even though it certainly has gay people in it. Policies do not change the way people are.

But these are not the only flaws in "don't ask, don't tell." Put simply, the entire policy functions on logically untenable premises. First, the policy purports to "strengthen morale, combat effectiveness and unit cohesion" by eliminating openly gay people from service in the ranks. The argument is that openly gay men might form emotional relationships with one another that could jeopardize a particular "mission." Morale and combat effectiveness, in turn, depend on the chain of command. Morale and combat effectiveness require unswerving loyalty to the chain of command. And if men develop romantic connections to one another, then perhaps they will be loyal to one another, not the chain of command. Thus, it is proper to exclude openly gay men from military service: Gay relationships threaten the chain of command because romantic connections switch loyalties from the mission to individual men.

But what about women? The "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumes that romantic connections are only dangerous to the "mission" when they exist between two men. Yet the military allows straight women to serve alongside straight men. Human beings will develop romantic connections with anyone to whom they feel attracted, no matter the gender. Straight men fall in love with straight women just as deeply as gay men fall in love with each other. In that light, the fact that the U.S. military permits straight women to serve with straight men poses the same theoretical danger to morale as allowing openly gay men to serve. Straight people develop romantic connections just like gay people. And according to the army's rationale for "don't ask, don't tell," romantic connections are "bad" because they divide loyalties. Apparently, however, love affairs between men and women in the army do not divide loyalties as strongly as love affairs between men.

This is just ignorant: If the problem is potential romantic connections between soldiers, then neither straight women nor gay men should be allowed to serve in the military. There is no qualitative difference between romantic connections among gay people versus straight people. According to the army's logic, such connections are equally "dangerous to morale" and "unit cohesion." The fact that the U.S. military presumes that gay relationships are somehow "more dangerous to morale" is logically untenable.

I can see no good reason to keep gays from the U.S. military beyond naked prejudice. The only thing that seems to support "don't ask, don't tell" is a historical animus directed from straight men against gay men. Straight men feel "weird" when they know they are sitting next to a gay man, so the policy aims to eliminate that awkwardness. Yet there is no principled reason for this. It functions on the bare assumption that "gay people are different" and therefore must be excluded. To quote Justice Stephen Breyer's observation from the oral argument in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 538 (2003)(the case striking down State gay sodomy laws), "don't ask, don't tell" invokes this reasoning: "I do not like thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell." Straight people in the army just plain don't like being around gay people. That's the only reason for the policy.

I also question the military's assumption that gay relationships could somehow damage unit effectiveness. Leaving to one side the consideration that thousands of gay people already serve in the military without saying so, divided loyalties dominate military service. Men (and women, too) form extraordinary bonds with one another under the stress of combat. Their camaraderie deepens from the moment they enter training to the toughest moments in battle. I have written that the military is inherently socialistic because it cares about its own people; and soldiers are also socialistic because they are all willing to die for their brothers. In fact, they are all willing to die helping to save their brothers, even if their actions "endanger the mission." Put simply, soldiers will always divide their loyalties because they care for each other, romance or not. Allowing openly gay people to serve in the army will not change all soldiers' natural commitments to each other.

Finally, General Sheehan implied that the mere presence of gay people in the Dutch army made it a poor fighting force. This is ridiculous. There is simply no historical correlation between homosexuality and military ineffectiveness. Alexander the Great, Peter the Great and Frederick the Great were all allegedly gay, yet they went down in history as model soldiers. To suggest that an aesthetic sexual taste for members of one's own sex somehow renders a person "effeminate, weak, womanly and unsoldierlike" is simply rank stereotyping. Although history has placed restrictions on the manner in which gay people express their sexuality, it is indisputable that they have served with distinction as soldiers, officers and even conquerors. In that light, General Sheehan's argument that "the presence of gay people" in the Dutch army made it "weak" ignores history.

In conclusion, there is no logical or historical reason to continue the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It makes pernicious assumptions about the relationship between sexuality and military competence. And it also functions on a double standard because another policy permits straight women to serve alongside straight men. The policy identifies "romantic connections between soldiers" as a reason to exclude openly gay men. Yet it allows straight women to potentially compromise straight men with "romantic connections:" "Romantic connections" are only dangerous among gay men, not straight men. The U.S. military offers no justification for the differential treatment. In that light, it is logically untenable. It simply reflects gross and outdated adolescent stereotypes. Romance is romance; it poses the same "dangers" whether it exists between boys and boys or boys and girls.

PRESIDENTS ARE BORING : WHATEVER HAPPENED TO INTERESTING RULERS LIKE FREDERICK THE GREAT?

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

In centuries past, political leaders led much more interesting lives than they do today. They were not just politicians and party bosses. They were more than petty thugs and criminals. They did more with their time than merely sign legislation, negotiate treaties and give speeches. They had more freedom to be themselves, not the calculated personas we see in rulers today. In the past, rulers have not just been commercial administrators. They have been painters, singers, writers, sculptors, generals, conquerors, heroes, scientists, philosophers and theater lovers. But today, most political rulers have no outside interests: They are usually just devious lawyers and cutthroat business tycoons who crave reelection.

By American standards, Barack Obama may be "interesting." But he is still pretty staid compared to history's more well-rounded rulers. In brief, he's just another wealthy lawyer who wears a lapel pin and panders to business interests. Come to think of it, no American President has ever been very well-rounded. The office simply does not lend itself to flamboyance or rebelliousness. Perhaps that has something to do with Democracy: People in a Democracy want relatively boring "stewards" to manage their affairs. In the American Democracy, for instance, people want stability, not calamity. After all, you can't make money without stability. That explains why virtually every American President has been either a lawyer or business baron. Lawyers and business barons are "stable people." Boring as hell, generally, but stable. They don't invite calamity, at least intentionally.

By contrast, interesting people aren't usually very stable. And they court calamity. That's why American Presidents aren't very interesting. American Presidents just want to keep the economy going and get reelected. That might yield a comfortable existence, but it isn't very memorable.

But rulers like Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712-1786) are memorable. Frederick was no mere commercial orchestrator. He was a general, a conqueror and an arts patron. He invited French philosophers to stay with him in his palace and engaged in homoerotic banter with his all-male courtiers. He played the harpsichord and the flute. He carried on correspondence (in French) with Voltaire and wrote music in his spare time. He even penned marches for his army. About his wife, he said: "There can be neither love nor friendship between us." He never had children; his wife lived in her own castle and he visited her once a year for tea. And he even tried to flee his own country with his ostensibly gay lover when he was 18. His father caught them before they left. Then he forced his son to watch as he had his lover beheaded.

Now that is interesting. A man like that could never be President: Too interesting.

Yet Prussia became a major European power under Frederick's rule. Frederick might have been a composer, artist, general, philosopher and arts patron. But he also ran the country extremely well. He was interesting and well-rounded. He inspired faith in his people. His example shows that well-rounded rulers can be exceptional, despite the impulsion to be boring commercial orchestrators.

I find it significant that no one remembers Frederick for his commercial tact. In fact, no one ever thinks about commerce when they think about Frederick. They think about his military prowess, cultivation and Enlightenment. They think about the things that made him a well-rounded person, not his skill as a financier.

In a way, Frederick's example shows that great rulers transcend commerce. After all, people don't remember quiet bourgeois comfort. They remember unique personalities who vault beyond the banal concerns of prospering at business. They remember interesting people.

That is why most American Presidents are quite forgettable. They just aren't interesting. The only ones worth remembering did things beyond commercial management. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind. He saved the country from dissolution, led it through war and abolished slavery. He might not have been an artist or composer, but he spent his time attending to matters larger than commercial management. In America, that is memorable. After all, almost all the other Presidents did little but manage the economy. Like Frederick the Great, Lincoln transcended commerce. That is why he is the most memorable American President.

But even Lincoln was not as interesting as Frederick. Lincoln was just another lawyer in a long line of lawyers who became Presidents. An exceptional lawyer, to be sure, but nonetheless just another bourgeois. He was a creative statesman and even an amateur inventor, but still nothing like Frederick. America simply does not tolerate such colorfulness in its political rulers. They would never get elected in the first place. Can you imagine what the media would say if a Presidential candidate admitted he tried to flee the country with his gay lover? Or that he preferred to speak French? That would not go over too well in South Carolina. America just doesn’t like flamboyant originals in high office. Especially flamboyant originals who might be gay.

Instead, America likes mediocre career politicians in high office. America likes one-dimensional Washington insiders who know how to work the system just well enough to keep unemployment down and income up. It does not want men like Frederick the Great, or even Abraham Lincoln. Put simply, American democracy does not want leaders who rock the boat too much, even if rocking the boat improves things in the end. Well-rounded men might be brilliant, but they are risky. And commerce abhors risk.

It is no accident that someone killed Lincoln. That's what happens to American rulers when they get just a little too interesting for comfort. And that's a shame, because interesting people can lead Nations to incredible new heights.

TEA PARTY PRESIDENTS WILL NOT BE LAW PROFESSORS : CAN LAW GOVERN WAR?

AN ESSAY

Last week, Sarah Palin delivered a speech to the first annual "Tea Party" convention in Nashville. Many listened very closely to her remarks because everyone wants to know what she plans to do with her political future. Love her or hate her, she has found a niche: Semi-factually orating to the semi-intelligent, nativist, government-hating "silent majority" that would not mind seeing President Obama lying in a pool of blood.

Apparently, this "silent majority" has launched a "counter-revolution" called the "Tea Party Movement." From what I understand, its adherents believe that all government is bad. They take their name from the American patriots who revolted against English taxation by destroying royal property in 1773. I suppose that these 21st Century "patriots" share the same hatred for taxation as their 18th Century "brethren."

But that's about all they share. Patriots in the 18th Century fought against legitimate wrongs. They sought to establish a Republic of laws against foreign autocracy. By contrast, these 21st Century "patriots" are not rebelling against a foreign monarch to establish a "more perfect Union." No, they are rebelling against their own government in order to pay fewer taxes and to exclude undesirable immigrants from American shores. They don't want to establish a new government to provide for Justice and "Domestic Tranquility." They basically want to abolish all government so that private business can do whatever the hell it wants.

I don't think James Madison or Thomas Jefferson would have joined this "Tea Party." Their talk about "the Rights of Man" and "equal human dignity" would not have gone over too well with this wetback-hating crowd. And they certainly would not have gone far with arguments about a Constitution. No, Palin's "Tea Party" adherents just want unlimited business license, not an enlightened Bill of Rights.

In sum, then, I gather that the "Tea Party" wants something just above anarchy. They want a "minimalist" government that does not interfere with private wealth or property ownership. They don't want health or welfare regulations, nor do they want intrusive "civil rights" legislation that blocks business opportunity. They want government to maintain an army, protect the borders, guard foreign trade interests, vindicate private contract rights and to prosecute domestic criminals. Beyond that, they do not want government to play a role in public life.

So these are the folks to whom Sarah Palin directed her remarks last week. And what did she say? Not surprisingly, she took vicious swipes at President Obama, who represents everything the "Tea Party" is not: A big-government minority intellectual who eschews military strength and supports high taxes. She lambasted him for failing to keep America safe from terrorism. To make her point, she attacked his intellectual spirit: "To win [this] war, we need a Commander-in-Chief, not a Professor of Law."

In other words, law professors ruminate and dawdle over legal intricacies while Commanders-in-Chief ignore the law and just kick ass. "Tea Party" members don't want the law. They want swashbuckling, extralegal ass kickers.

As much as I personally disagree with Palin's simplistic reasoning on this point, I cannot ignore that she illuminates a popular distinction: She equates law with weakness in war. There are "law professors" and there are "Commanders-in-Chief." Law professors are vacillating cowards who waste time worrying about the law. By contrast, Commanders-in-Chief kick down doors and get the job done, the law be damned.

Sadly, there is a widespread public belief that anyone who follows the law cannot protect the country from terrorism. The "Tea Party" fully endorses this belief. It asserts that the President cannot protect Americans if he insists on following the law--and the Constitution. Rather, according to the "Tea Party," a "strong President"--namely, a "Commander-in-Chief"--will gladly ignore the Constitution in order to "kick terrorist ass."

This is a stunning admission of the law's weakness. After all, if ignoring the law is the only way to win wars, what does that say about the law? Why even bother with it? Wars test States in the harshest possible ways. Yet law is supposed to guide a State through everything. If the law cannot handle war, it cannot handle anything. If the public believes that law is insufficient to win wars, then it rejects law completely. No one trusts weakness; and the "Tea Party" associates law with weakness. In that light, it is no wonder that Palin pejoratively labels President Obama a "law professor." That is the same as calling him a "Professor of Weakness."

But what is the alternative? Who is the fabled "Commander-in-Chief"? What does the "Tea Party" want in a President? Do they want a man who tears up the Constitution and tramples on their rights as citizens? Do they want a man who ignores international treaties and indefinitely imprisons people without cause or charge? Do they want a man who tortures others? Do they want a military State? Well, that is the opposite of law. And if law is weakness, maybe they do. After all, terrorists exploit weakness. It's better to be strong than weak, no matter how much liberty you must surrender, right?

I say no. It is dangerous to associate law with weakness because our law exists to govern all contingencies, including war. Our Constitution creates the term "Commander-in-Chief." See U.S. Const., Art. II § 2, cl. 1. There is no fanciful distinction between "law professors" and "Commanders-in-Chief." If anything, the "Commander-in-Chief" owes his existence to the Constitution--and the Constitution symbolizes life under law. In this sense, "Commander-in-Chief" is a legal term. The "Commander-in-Chief" plays a specific constitutional role under law. According to the Constitution, the President manages war within the law. He even takes an oath to support the Constitution. See Art. II § 1, cl. 8. Textually speaking, then, the President's first duty is to the law, not to kicking ass.

Ms. Palin did not know that. But then again, she does not know a lot of things.

Law is not weakness. If anything, it symbolizes our strength as a State. In the United States, law stands for something better than mere brute force. We enshrine our deepest values in law. Through law, we guarantee personal liberties and rights. Through law, we define the parameters by which government acts. We insist on law because the law protects us. If war suddenly entitles government to ignore the law, we have lost our protection. And it is no accident that our Constitution provides for war. Our Framers knew that war often provides an excuse to ignore law. That is why they demanded that the law remain intact, even in war. By defending law even in war, we affirm ourselves our own strength as a State--and our own rights as individuals.

Yet the "Tea Party" would have us believe that war trumps law. It even mocks a President who commits himself to following the law to govern war. This is extremely troubling. After all, the President has an institutional duty to follow the Constitution. By observing the law, the President is not betraying the people; he is doing his constitutional job. This is not weakness. If anything, it is strength.

Still, it is hard for the semi-intelligent (and sub-intelligent) masses to understand the value in defending law. To them, kicking ass seems a much more satisfying governmental option than according Due Process rights to prisoners and fretting over procedures. But if they only knew that fretting over procedures keeps everyone free. Perhaps then they would understand that there is value in defending law. After all, once the law falls in one case, everyone is vulnerable, not just the ne'er-do-wells rotting at Guantanamo Prison.

For my part, I feel safer knowing a law professor is guarding the Constitution than some "Tea Party" fanatic who would gladly take a dump on my rights simply because he says there's a "war on" somewhere.

But I'm unusual. Most Americans don't mind when authorities shit on their rights, as long as they can keep shopping in peace. That's why they might join the "Tea Party," and I won't.

SOLDIERS ARE SOCIALISTS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT

AN ESSAY

Last summer, I wrote an essay arguing that the United States military is essentially a socialistic institution. http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.com/2009/06/military-is-socialistic-because-it_25.html. I made that conclusion because American military authorities "care about men under their command" both in war and peace. I pointed out that soldiers live a "rarefied" existence insulated from harsh commercial reality. That insulation allows them to focus on larger ideals, like "honor" and "political missions." Soldiers also receive free medical care, housing and living necessities from the government. As a whole, these characteristics led me to conclude that the military is "socialistic," even if its armed service protects a capitalistic society that condemns "socialism."

I continue to believe that the American military is a socialistic institution. In fact, I believe it more now than I ever did. When I wrote my previous essay, I focused primarily on larger themes to identify socialistic currents in American military life. But the military is not just abstractly socialistic; it is socialistic right down to the men themselves. It is socialistic in spirit as well as action.

To be clear, when I say "socialistic," I mean that the military provides a comprehensive security net for everyone under its control. But this means far more than merely providing tangible benefits. It also means that people in the military regard their fellow man differently than the way comparable civilians regard others. In commercial American civilian life, other human beings represent potential profits. Civilians have to think this way. Unlike soldiers, they do not get free rent, free health insurance or free child care. They have to fend for themselves. They cannot worry about their fellows too much or they will lose their own commercial struggle.

In the military, however, soldiers must care about each other. In combat, men treasure each other. They do not simply abandon their buddies when they get hurt. They are never indifferent. They put themselves in harm's way to ensure that their comrades survive. They even risk death to retrieve the bodies of friends killed in action.

I find this especially socialistic. Care for one's fellow man is a bedrock in socialist philosophy. In the military, individual soldiers practice that care every day. It is not obligatory care: Soldiers are not related by blood or even bound to each other by contract. No, they are simply comrades in arms. They refuse to allow ill to befall their fellows and they risk all to save them from it. The emphasis lies on one's fellow man, not on oneself. That marks a key distinction between both the military and civilian life, as well as between socialism and capitalism.

Karl Marx criticized capitalism because it tended to separate human beings from one another. When every man must selfishly pursue his own economic fortune in a free market system, he naturally begins to regard his fellow man as a commercial instrument, not as a human being with equal dignity. Although Marx wrote at length about economic esoterica, his main criticism was humanitarian: Capitalism distances human beings from one another and leads to human exploitation.

But in the military, soldiers learn to live with each other and depend on each other to an extent almost unrecognizable in civilian life. They do not distance themselves from each other; they come closer together. While such tight cooperation might reflect the most effective way to accomplish military missions, it also reflects a fundamentally humanitarian outlook. In the movie Black Hawk Down, for instance, one character echoes many "real" American soldiers when he explains why men serve in the military: "We're in this for the guy next to us." In other words, military life leads to a deep care for one's fellow man, no matter what the ultimate political objective may be. In fact, for individual soldiers in combat, "the guy next to us" is everything.

This is no Hollywood sentiment. This is really how soldiers think. They always have, and not just in the United States. Soldiers sign up for additional tours not because they care about the geopolitical ramifications of their deployment, but because they do not want to abandon their friends. They care that much. They care so much that they willingly face death in order to make sure their friends will not face death alone. "We're in this for the guy next to us."

That is a noble motivation. And that is why it is distinctly un-American. In American civilian life, no one really lives "for the guy next to us." No, most people live for "me." Think about catchphrases that encapsulate success in American civilian life: "It's all about me;" "I'm gonna do what I gotta do to make it;" "I need to think about Number One." These phrases might describe effective ways to achieve success in a capitalistic society. They might even yield riches and fame. But there is nothing noble about them. "The guy next to you" is irrelevant to the man who says "It's all about me." Yet that's what it takes to succeed in a society committed to individual profit. And that's the attitude people must take toward their fellows in order to survive. In the end, the motivation necessary for success in American civilian life leads precisely to the danger that concerned Marx: Human alienation and exploitation.

There is a strange irony in all this. Americans praise the military all the time. They thank soldiers for their service. They ascribe immensely positive results to their work. But military life could not be more different from the civilian society soldiers protect. It takes a fundamentally different outlook to be a soldier than it does to be an entrepreneur. What motivates a soldier does not motivate an entrepreneur. What matters to a civilian does not matter to a soldier. Strangely enough, conservatives are the first ones to talk about a "strong military," yet reject socialism across the board. If they just looked at the way military personnel think about their fellow men, they would see the foolishness in that position. The military does not just practice "economic socialism" by ensuring material welfare for its men. It also practices "individual socialism" by inculcating a spirit of concern in every man for the well-being of his fellows. Those sentiments should enrage an American conservative. Yet they keep on saying: "God bless our troops."

God bless those socialists? What a laugh.

In sum, there is more to socialism than tangible social welfare programs. Socialism means true respect for one's fellow man. A socialist does not just concern himself with spending money on people who ostensibly "don't deserve it." A socialist also thinks a certain way about other human beings. He refuses to leave anyone behind or let his neighbor suffer. He does not view him as a potential profit, but rather as a friend who needs help. There is a motivational element to socialism that is--in essence--very noble. There is nothing "evil" about it, no matter how much we learn that "socialism" is a "dirty word." After all, how could something be "un-American" if our own soldiers practice it?

Socialism is about caring for others. Capitalism is about caring for oneself. There are essential motivational differences. When a soldier says: "I'm in this for the guy next to me," his motivation is clear: It's not about him. It's about the other guy.

Why is this a bad sentiment? It might be socialistic. But it's also Christian. And noble, too.

AMERICAN TROOPS DON'T NEED MODERN WEAPONS TO BEAT INSURGENTS AND TERRORISTS

A WORD FROM THE FRONT

By : Colonel Harold F. Ehrenkranz, United States Army, 443rd Infantry Regiment, Kabul, Afghanistan

We are winning the war. We easily defeated Saddam Hussein in 2003 and we drove Osama bin Laden like a rat from his cave. No matter what the critics back home say, the United States military has kicked terrorist ass no matter where it has dared to bare itself.

And why shouldn't we? After all, the United States military has advanced equipment. We know where the insurgents are before we attack them. We have unmanned reconnaissance drones. We have helicopter gunships with laser tracking devices. We even have C-130 assault planes that circle above terrorist camps and blast them with a 75mm airborne artillery cannon. Come on, people, how can we really lose once these buggers come out and fight? Yeah, we've lost a few GIs because the terrorists fight like cowards. But when push comes to shove, we napalm their brown butts before they can say: "Allah, Akbar."

But our battlefield superiority has sparked critics to complain: "It's not a fair fight." They say that it's dishonorable for the United States to use laser-guided bombs, choppers, night-vision scopes and 50-caliber machine guns against goatherds armed with pikes and shovels. Although we acknowledge that our enemies do not enjoy the same technological advantages that we do, we must point out that military operations are not supposed to be fair. Fairness means you give the other fellow an ample opportunity to win. Fairness means he has roughly the same training and equipment as you. Well, that doesn't make sense in war. It's better to fight unfairly and win than to fight fairly and lose. Hey, it's not our problem that Iraq doesn't have an air force.

Still, as soldiers we do not like the implication that we are cheaters. Honor is very important to a soldier. Although we want to win our battles, we feel somehow cheap when we obliterate our opponents with overwhelming modern firepower. I mean, there's not much honor in calling down a chopper strike on a house filled with 5 camel-herders armed with bolt-action rifles. Sure, it's an easy win, but what did we prove as soldiers? We did not prove our superior training. We simply proved that we have greater technology and we can kill without risk to ourselves.

As an honorable United States Army officer, I am prepared to meet any challenge to my honor. I am prepared to say that American soldiers are tougher, better trained and deadlier than any insurgent on earth. We don't need fancy night-vision goggles, airpower or laser-scopes to beat turban-wearing shepherds. We can take them blindfolded with one hand tied behind our backs. We are better men than these cowardly terrorists. That's why I am proud to announce that my regiment will drop all its modern weapons next month and fight the terrorists at an intentional disadvantage.

Next month will be "Redcoat Month" in the 443rd Infantry Regiment. In order to show that American troops are better men than these lousy insurgents, we commit to fighting in the open. We commit to refusing all air support. We even commit to dropping our khaki camouflage uniforms and donning 18th Century British red uniforms. We will not even use modern weapons. We are so confident that we are better soldiers than these pitiful rebels that we will use only flintlock muskets with bayonets.

We'll see who's more honorable next month. We won't even follow modern battlefield protocol or tactics. We will march in line formation in daylight through enemy-controlled sectors flying flags and singing American songs. When the insurgents attack, we will hold the line and present disciplined musket fire against them. If they fight from cover, we will call them dishonorable cowards. And we will win because we are tougher soldiers who prefer honorable death to dishonorable victory.

Just let these scrappers try to ambush us. We don't need cover. We can shoot better than any Afghan farmer, even with smoothbore muskets that take 30 seconds to reload. But just in case the battle goes poorly, we reserve the right to call in our dragoons and muzzle-loading 8-pound cannons. We'll see who's tougher when the Afghan militia comes face to face with honorable American horse-drawn field guns! Just look at them. Be afraid, Mullah Omar, be VERY afraid:

We will win the war because we are Americans. We are better than the Afghanis and Iraqis not because we have superior military equipment, air power and advanced recon drones with satellite-driven global positioning capability. We are better because we are true soldiers. We can win this war without newfangled technological contraptions. Give just one American a musket and a bayonet and he can beat any disorganized Arab mob.

President Obama, you don't need to send reinforcements. We have the situation well in hand. We swear to bring honor to you and the United States by defeating these rebel scum on fair terms in open combat. Forget about the air force. We refuse to sully our honor by letting pilots do our work. No, Mr. President, we will bring you the Afghan warlords' heads in a sack after we defeat their forces with muskets and pistols. Never fear; every American boy will make it home. These devious terrorists can't hurt us. Even if we march in parade step in bright red uniforms against their AK-47s and RPGs, we will prevail because we are Americans.

This is Redcoat Month. The United States will win a great and honorable victory in Afghanistan. And we will do it with a handicap. Let's see what the critics say about us then.

RECRUIT OR HIRE? WHEN DID PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT BECOME A MILITARY CAMPAIGN?

AN ESSAY

Our language is organic. Words that meant something 50 years ago mean something completely different today. Even words that meant something 10 years might have changed. "Gay" and "epic" come to mind. So does "fail." All this interests me because it shows that language is never static. I might complain when words degenerate or mutate because I became accustomed to their older usages. But words change by nature. Language evolves much more quickly than we do. In many ways, we should be thankful for that.

But many linguistic changes deserve condemnation. In particular, I do not like changes that weaken a word's impact or meekly skirt a concept without piercing its heart. Euphemisms fall into this category. To say "collateral damage" when you mean "bombs veered off target and killed 42 children," you are not conveying reality with your language. Put simply, euphemisms reveal discomfort with language. They also reveal a discomfort with the truth, to the extent that we can all agree that something happened at a certain time and place. When a speaker resorts to euphemism, he fears what will happen if he uses truthful language. Euphemism, then, sacrifices linguistic accuracy for the speaker's comfort. In the end, everyone loses; only historians and investigators will find the truth behind meek language.

Euphemisms are not the only linguistic dilutions that obscure truth. In recent years, a nauseating "corporate" language has developed that not only obscures truth, but also fundamentally betrays traditional etymological meaning. This development coincides with rising corporate influence on American government, as well as the hypnotic "career myth" that permeates modern American society. Corporations wield far more power than they like to admit. And they do not just wield economic and social power. Through language, they wield a power over meaning that transcends generations.

In the movie "Into the Wild," the main character is a wanderer who rejects a "traditional approach" to life by venturing into the wilderness. Along the way, an old man encounters him. The old man says something like: "Son, you're 23 years old. Don't you think you should start thinking about getting a job and making something in this life?" The young man responds: "I think the whole modern notion of a career is a 20th Century invention. I choose not to partake in it."

What an interesting line. It matches my view that corporate power in America increased at the same time Americans convinced themselves that "careers were essential" to individual happiness. The wanderer in "Into the Wild" correctly observed that the meaning of the word "career" fundamentally changed in the mid-20th Century. Before 1950, very few people went to college to prepare for a "career" at a private corporation. Instead, they got a basic education and went to work for small businesses (if they lived in cities) or in agriculture (if they lived in the country). A tiny minority went on to college and entered learned professions.

After 1950, however, more and more people abandoned those "old ways" and began following a new paradigm: Go to college, get a job at a private corporation, make lots of money, buy a home live in the suburbs, raise a family and live in relative comfort until pension and death. This was a new life path in 1950. Yet it took hold very quickly; it completely altered America's social landscape. And as more and more people embraced this lifestyle, America's private corporations assumed their commanding influence in American life. Corporations generated the wealth that propelled this new lifestyle. Without them, it would all fall apart.

Against this background, it should come as no surprise that corporations began wielding more power after 1950 than they did before. As America's overall lifestyle changed, so did its habits. Since 1950, the United States has become a voraciously consumer society. Americans spend more money than they have, and that is just the way corporations (and banks) like it. All the while, they depend on private employment with corporations to sustain the money flow necessary to buy all the wonderful things consumer culture has to offer. It is an endless, spiritually vacuous cycle. At the same time, corporations rake in all the profits. They bombard the airwaves with advertising. They speak all the words. And Americans have listened for about 60 years straight. It is no wonder that corporations have assumed power: They have a captive audience that wants to buy all the things they sell.

But I am not writing about advertising or commercial power today. I am writing about language. To illustrate just how much corporate "culture" has infiltrated American life, consider two words: Recruit and hire.

Today, corporations proudly talk about their "recruiting efforts." In 1920, employers used to say: "Doggone it, Joe, we need to hire someone to replace the cashier who quit last week." Now, they say: "Call up the recruiting agency. We need to recruit someone to assume the junior sales associate position following the previous junior sales associate's withdrawal due to personal pressure." In both instances, the employers want to do the same thing: To find a person to do a job for pay. In 1920, the employer says "hire." In 2009, he says "recruit." Why the change? Shouldn't different words have different meanings?

Of course they should. Strictly viewed, "recruit" and "hire" are not synonyms. They are not the same as "crimson" and "red." They involve fundamentally different concepts. "Recruit," for instance, has a genuinely military connotation. The word stems from the Latin "recrescere," meaning to "grow again." According to Webster, the transitive verb "recruit" means: "1. To raise or strengthen (an army, navy, etc.) by enlisting personnel; 2. To enlist personnel into an army or navy; 3. (a) To enlist (new members), as for a party or organization; (b) To hire or engage the services of a person." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.). The dictionary defines the intransitive verb "recruit" to mean: "To enlist new personnel, especially for a military force." Id.

In this light, what does "recruit" have to do with private employment? A quick look at the dictionary shows that "recruit" has an almost universally military meaning. It involves "enlisting personnel" for military purposes. Only Meaning 3(b) hints that it might involve private employment. In that meaning, we see a link to the old concept "hire." There is a distinction between "hire" and "recruit." The distinction is a military one. Our language delineates between military "regrowth" and private "hiring."

Yet private corporations have co-opted the verb "to recruit." They like to say "recruit" rather than hire. Why? Is private employment a military campaign? Armies recruit when they suffer casualties in battle. Do private corporations fight battles and incur losses? Certainly not. But this example precisely illustrates how private corporations have infiltrated and plundered the English language. "Recruit" no longer has a distinctly military connotation. Now, it is nothing more than "hiring."

On the other hand, corporations have also stolen another military word in order to describe resignations and firing: "Attrition." The military justifies "recruitment" when "attrition" thins out the ranks. Corporations "recruit" when "attrition" results in open job spots. In the military, "attrition" means guys got their heads blown off and need to be replaced. In private corporations, "attrition" means some guy got up from his desk at the insurance company and said: "Fuck you, I'm outta here." He, too, must be replaced. So the corporation "recruits" a replacement.

What about "hiring?" Why is "hire" insufficient for private corporations? In my view, "hiring" much better describes what private corporations do to replenish their work forces than "recruit." "Hire" is a pure English word with Germanic roots. It is related to the Dutch word "huur" and the German "heuern." Both kindred words mean to "rent out" in a commercial setting. They do not involve the military, nor do they involve "regrowth." No, "hiring" is a commercial word, and it has always been a commercial word. It is only fitting that corporations--as the ultimate commercial actors--should use commercial words to describe their activities. The dictionary defines "to hire" as: "1. To get the services of a person or the use of a thing in return for payment; employ or engage; 2. To give the use of a thing or the services of a person in return for payment." Webster's New World College Dictionary (4th Ed.).

What could be clearer than that? "Getting someone's services for payment" or "employing" them: That's hiring. That's what corporations do. So why must corporations say "recruit" when they mean "hire?" No matter how intensely corporations might pursue "market success," they do not wage military campaigns and they do not suffer casualties in battle. They have no right to use the specialized word "recruit" to describe their purely commercial quest to obtain people's services for a paycheck. The army "recruits" at the "recruiting station." Corporations "hire" at their "offices." There is a distinction in the language that should remain intact.

In my view, corporations have corrupted the word "recruit" and robbed its unique meaning in English. They have succeeded. They hold much more power than Americans care to admit. After all, corporations represent the pathway to "career" and all the miraculous consumer goods that flow from a career's cumulative paychecks.

Most Americans could care less whether corporations commandeer the English language. They just want the paycheck. They don't care whether they are "recruited" or "hired."

I care. I think deeply about language and its transmutations. It saddens me when powerful interests can change our language at will. But I am not normal.

SALAZAR TO OBAMA : TANKS AND RHETORIC CAN STAMP OUT RIGHT-WING REVOLTS

MEMORANDUM

TO : President Barack H. Obama

FROM : Kenneth Salazar (D-CO), Secretary of the Interior

RE : “Big Government Protests” in Washington, D.C. and Proposed Response

As you no doubt saw, throngs of angry people marched through Washington last week. They came from all over the country to denounce the Administration for “expanding government,” “raising taxes,” “dishonoring the military,” “destroying marriage,” “chastising banks,” “championing fairness” and “providing health care to all Americans.” Thankfully, our allies in the Press downplayed these disturbances. When they did cover the marches, they called them “insignificant,” “misguided” and pointed out various grammatical and syntactical errors on the protesters’ placards.

Yet our control over the media cannot conceal the fact that many Americans do not want our reforms. Our approval ratings are in decline. Protests such as this will continue to erupt out as we push health care reform and mortgage relief through Congress. The more help we give the American people, the more we can count on Republican protesters to march against socialism. And in the future, these revolts will not be so peaceful. After all, these are not environmentalists or gay rights advocates. These are guys from Nebraska who have known how to assemble a rifle blindfolded since before Kindergarten. Put simply, we must draft contingency plans for containing dissent against economic relief efforts. Whenever we try to help Americans get through the depression, we outrage millions.

This memo is intended to outline a plan for dealing with right-wing revolts. I understand that you always adopt a conciliatory—even cerebral—approach to dealing with dissent. I applaud your trust in reason and rational debate. But I must point out that there is no point reasoning with those who think that any action undertaken by a Democratic Congress amounts to “communism.” There is no point reasoning with people who are prepared to shoot you for daring to “expand government.” You may think this is mere error, and that your law school-style rhetoric will correct it with deft logic. You may think it is dignified to simply ignore this foolishness. Yet rhetoric is insufficient to neutralize the danger. And it is even more dangerous to sit idly by, dignified or not.

When dealing with right-wing protesters, we must speak to irrationality in a language it respects: Force. As Secretary of the Interior, it is my duty to ensure domestic tranquility and to preserve this Administration’s commitment to reform. We are not Sarah Palin; we do not think in absolutes. Nonetheless, our opposition does think in absolutes. Unless we fight fire with fire, they will infect the whole country with irrationality, rendering reform impossible.

To stop irrational disturbances, we must be prepared to show our strength. I advise against appealing to “unity” and “the national good” in order to defuse Republican outcry against reform. Rather, I advise a more aggressive approach. If the protesters think we’re advancing socialism, let us deal with them socialist-style. History provides several examples. When protesters rose up against the Chinese government in 1989, China did not grovel. It did not try to explain itself to the protesters. It did not address their concerns with respect, understanding or dignity. No, it sent in tanks and drove over anyone who still held a placard. Similarly, when the Czechs rose up against the Soviet Union in 1968, the Russians did not condescend to “explaining” why the protesters were wrong. They merely sent in tanks and arrested anyone who complained.

True, we are not a totalitarian government. But the lesson remains: When dealing with protesters, the best way to solve the problem is with tanks. If protesters think that every government initiative is “socialism” or “big government,” let us show them how big our government really is. Tanks are big, too. They can squash people too ignorant to see that we are not advocating socialism. If these protesters are unwilling to listen to our explanations about health care reform and mortgage relief, then let us reason with them with tanks.

I sincerely hope that we do not have to resort to these measures. I am confident that Americans will see that our reforms will not outlaw private employment, nor will they make it impossible for people with private health insurance to see doctors. I trust the American people. But recent disturbances do not bode well. From town hall meetings to the march in Washington last week, dissent is becoming ever more strident. Protesters say that we plan to outlaw money and create a Federal Wealth Redistribution Board that gives white taxpayers’ money to black mothers with at least seven children and two felony convictions. They say that we plan to commute all black criminals’ sentences and appoint them to high positions in the Federal government. They say we plan to force Burger King to give any American a free Whopper® if he asks for one. They even say that we plan to close down all retail stores and replace them with “government handout shops,” in which every American must wait in line for every single consumer commodity.

How can rhetoric correct these misconceptions? How can we possibly set the record straight with people who believe these things? You can orate until you are blue in the face with disgruntled Republicans. But if they believe that you plan to abolish the Supreme Court and create a new Court composed solely of illegal aliens, what can you say to change their minds? They will call you a liar or worse. Then they will say that you plan to make every Friday “National People’s Worker Day” and force all white children to sing “The Internationale” before saluting the flag in the morning. You might think these are imaginary fears. As Secretary of the Interior, however, I have information proving that protesters believe all these things. They even think you plan to create an African Assistance Fund that will transfer all the profits of the Fortune 500 to the Zambian National Treasury. To top it off, there is a substantial number who believe that you are neither an American citizen nor even an earthling; rather, they think you were born on the dark side of the moon. Put simply, you cannot trust your oratory or your knowledge as a constitutional scholar to prevail over people who believe these things.

Mr. President, you must trust tanks. If you wish to contain ever-growing Republican dissent against your vision for a more just America, you cannot depend on principle alone. You cannot depend upon reason or compassion. You cannot depend on goodwill or brotherly love. Republican protesters will label any effort to help the poor “socialism,” and they will call you a “moon-born, un-American communist dictator who wants to steal service sector jobs and give them to illiterate Mexican peasants.” You must be prepared to force these dissenters into line. If they think you want to “take away their freedom to contract,” tell them: “No I don’t,” but back it up with tanks. There’s nothing quite like tanks to reinforce your arguments. In a word, you’re not in Harvard Law School moot court anymore. You’re dealing with Republicans who bear arms. Logical arguments are all well and good. But logical arguments supported by tanks and artillery are even better.

Please consult with me as you plan your response to ever-growing Republican dissent. Discord is rising quickly. The more you talk about compassion, care and equality, the more resistance you will face. The more you talk about fairness, justice and peace, the more violence you will provoke. The more help you offer those crushed by economic disparity, the more unrest you will engender. There are strong forces arrayed against you, Mr. President. They are boiling over. They fight you now with words and recriminations. They are prepared to say anything about you, even that you were born on the moon. It is just a matter of time before their words transform into action. Today they march and call you Stalin. Tomorrow they will not be so civil. Only tanks will save you.

I am a practical man. Successful Presidents combine vision and theory with practical knowledge. Let me help you. As Secretary of the Interior, I know how to make crops grow and how to save pine trees. These are practical skills. I know nature. And I know how to deal with dangerous animals in the wild. Just as you must show force against a rabid grizzly bear, so too must you show force against rabid Republican protesters who call mortgage relief “communist big government tyranny.” When faced with a raging bull, you do not give a power point lecture about social justice or wealth inequality. Rather, you get a gun and shoot it before it kills you. These are practical skills. This is survival.

Do not give another inch, Mr. President. Enforce your vision with arguments and tanks, not just arguments. I know you do not wish to condescend to this, but this is the only practical way to avert disaster. You must defend yourself. If you continue to simply ignore those who label everything you do “socialism” and “big government,” you risk open revolt. To prevent this, simply use tanks when you must. I am certain that you will change at least a few peoples’ minds with tanks. In short, you have an opportunity to turn dissent into support. Tell the protesters: “No I am NOT obliterating the free market…and if you don’t believe me, here’s a tank in your face to prove it.” Or: “No I am NOT going to take away your private doctor…and if you don’t believe me, here’s another tank in your face.” This is not repression. This is merely “tank-assisted reasoning.” If protesters will not listen to reason alone, throw in some tanks to make your point.

There is no time to delay. You must no longer sit by while protesters make outlandish claims about your plans for America. I know you think it is dignified not to respond to these arguments. But you must start fighting back. As soon as the Republicans assemble to protest again, send in the tanks first, then make a speech about fairness and equality.

Do what is necessary. Reason with tanks. In short, Mr. President, sometimes you need to be a little irrational yourself if you want to triumph over irrationality.

WAR, DEATH AND TRUTH : PUBLISHING CASUALTY PHOTOGRAPHS

AN ESSAY

Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson recently published a “disturbing image” in the New York Times. See http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/. Specifically, she dared to snap a picture of a U.S. Marine moments after he suffered a mortal injury in Afghanistan. The image shows two comrades struggling to stabilize him. His lips are weakly parted; he stares at the ground as if in shock. His bloody leg (or stump) is clearly visible. His rifle lies powerless at his side. According to the article that accompanies the picture, the Marine died several days later. His father learned that Ms. Jacobson had the picture and asked her not to publish it. He did not want the picture to “sully the memory of his son.”

Ms. Jacobson published the picture anyway. Defense Secretary Robert Gates angrily denounced her decision. Although he acknowledged she had a “legal and constitutional right” to publish it, he claimed that “common decency” and “taste” should have stayed her hand. In response, Ms. Jacobson pointed out that she complied with the Defense Department rule for publishing “U.S. casualty photographs,” namely, only after the Department confirmed the casualty and notified the soldier’s family. This satisfied her sole legal obligation. From a strictly legal perspective, the fact that the Marine’s family objected to publication made no difference; Ms. Jacobson followed the only rule that constrained her.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Jacobson’s decision sparked a heated debate on the New York Times’ website. The debate broke into two camps: (1) Those who believe that the press must always respect a family’s wishes and (2) those who demand to see the “truth of war” uncensored and uncut. One angry commenter even went so far as to say that “acts like this” (ie, photographers defying military families’ wishes) were reason to “revoke the First Amendment.” But another applauded Ms. Jacobson for delivering a “dose of truth” about a war that seems all-too distant and “sanitized” in American eyes.

This is not a new debate. Americans have always been queasy about seeing pictures of their own men dead (or dying) on the battlefield. We have been in many wars since the advent of photography. Matthew Brady was the first man to photograph dead soldiers after the Battle of Antietam during the Civil War. His work sparked outrage and disgust. He said he was merely trying to show “what really happens in war” beyond all the glorious rhetoric and saber-rattling. Despite his commitment to “telling the truth” about war, the U.S. military took steps to curtail such publications. These efforts culminated in complicated rules about publishing “U.S. casualty images.” These are the rules that Ms. Jacobson’s image now calls into debate.

Interestingly, the military’s rules about publishing “U.S. casualty images” only apply to U.S. service personnel. If a civilian is killed, there is no rule prohibiting a journalist from immediately publishing the image. Similarly, if a soldier from the enemy army dies, a journalist does not have to wait until his family is notified. And naturally the journalist need not heed the foreign soldier’s family’s objections to publication (if they even know their son has died fighting the Americans). The U.S. military defends its rule because it wants to “uphold the dignity and memory of troops who give their lives for their country.” Yet that concern does not apply to any other human being who dies as our troops fulfill their mission. At the same time, the rule leads to a skewed impression: Americans only get to see dead enemy troops and civilians, but never dead Americans. In the end, this blinds the American public to the brutal reality of war. After all, American troops die in Iraq and Afghanistan every day. We know this from the “official casualty rolls.” Yet those rolls do not begin to tell the same story as pictures showing soldiers dying.

If America wants to wage war, it should know the costs. War is not about animated maps and strategic objectives narrated on the FOX News Channel. Nor is it even about geopolitical balancing or justice. Rather, for the men who fight war, it is about fear, carnage, brutality and death. For the men who fight war, it is an agonizing sensory experience. The sights, sounds and sensations of war irreversibly alter those who experience them. (See, e.g., All Quiet on the Western Front). Yet these sensory impressions rarely make their way back home for everyone else to see. War veterans cannot even start to “explain” what it is like to be in combat and to see young men suddenly die. Yet photographs can at least partially convey the sensory impressions that language can never capture. In so doing, they tell an essential story that would otherwise be forever lost. Put simply, when the government censors images capturing the visual, visceral, unforgiving “essence of war,” it deludes the public. If the public really wants to know the sacrifices men make on the battlefield, it should know about the uncensored brutality they see every day.

Yet many strongly disagree with this assertion. They say that the public’s “right to know” about war’s brutality must yield to the individual soldier’s family’s interest in freedom from the emotional turmoil that flows from seeing their dying son paraded in newspapers. They say that military families have a right to “cherish certain memories” about sons who die in combat, even if those memories are inaccurate or false. While it is true that military families will suffer immense pain upon seeing such images, their pain must be compared with the broader public interest in knowing the true cost of war. I venture that it is better for the public to know how bloody and senseless war is than to fall into ignorant delusion about its human price. The only way to truly inform the public about war’s price is to inflict additional emotional pain on the families of the individual soldiers whose dying bodies we see captured on film.

This sounds harsh. Yet this is the only way to drive home the cost of war. Nothing else even remotely tells the story.

My heart goes out to the father who lost his son in Afghanistan. I am truly sorry that he must bear the additional burden of seeing his son’s final moments in a photograph. I am also sorry that the public, too, can now see that image. But I venture that this image does far more than inflict individual emotional pain on those who knew the soldier who died. It does not disparage his memory, nor does it dilute his sacrifice. Rather, it honestly shows what he endured. It shows what war does to men. It reveals that there is nothing glorious or heroic about war. In so doing, it educates the public. When the public knows what war really costs—in visual, visceral, human terms—we can only hope that they will be less eager to start them in the future.

America needs to understand that wars have costs. Yet rules such as the military’s ban on “casualty photographs” blind us to those costs. They also deceive the public into believing that “we do the killing, but not the dying.” Ms. Jacobson’s photograph unsettles these assumptions, and rightly so. It illustrates that war is not fun for anyone, American or not. It is important for Americans to know that before launching another military excursion somewhere in the world.

Europeans learned the cost of war between 1914 and 1945. That is why they criticize us so much for our willingness to start new ones.

MARCHING THROUGH NEW YORK

A REFLECTION

I don’t like confessing things. But I don’t mind “voluntarily sharing” my thoughts and impressions. When I do, I try my best to recall my own actions as accurately as I can. “Confessing,” on the other hand, implies that I must “tell the truth” to some fatherly authority or face unappetizing consequences. Confession is freighted with judgment; the listener judges and decides for himself whether you’re telling “the truth.” And if you do “confess the truth,” the listener has the power to approve or condemn it. In either case, the speaker is the weak party. I avoid such unfair power relationships whenever I can. That’s why I don’t “confess things.”

Even if I could use language to precisely convey what I did, thought or felt at a particular moment in time (a doubtful enterprise), I don’t like the idea that I must “tell the truth” or face negative consequences. I try to tell the truth because I have a conscience, not because some higher authority compels me to speak. Confessions require external pressure and even subservience; conscience, by contrast, comes from within. I try to be honest with myself; and that’s the only way I can accurately recall my impressions. I do my best to remember what I see and hear. I try to be honest when I recall those impressions. That is my truth; I don’t need to “confess it.” I simply honestly recall what I sensed. And sometimes I forget “the truth” completely. After all, there are too many details in life. You can only grasp a precious few.

Today I want to “voluntarily share” some impressions and thoughts. First, I like dancing. Some might call this a confession. I simply call it a preference. Dancing is not easy. We constantly face social pressures impelling us not to dance. Generally, no one really dances until they get drunk. But have you ever danced while perfectly sober? It’s liberating. It feels really good to move your body simply because you are personally exhilarated about something. Your spirits rise when you let your body move like that. After all, in “everyday life,” we accustom ourselves to holding our bodies in relatively few positions: sitting, standing, walking, lying down. Social custom expects us to hold our bodies in these positions: For example, no one dances at work. Yet when we move in “unexpected ways,” we break those customs. I find that fun. I like controlling my own body. It’s a welcome change.

Second, sometimes I dance when I walk the New York streets. Ever since I was a kid, I have loved walking in New York. I grew up in suburban, sleepy Connecticut. Not much moved on the Connecticut streets. But in New York, the streets burst with energy, even drama. There is always something to see; you rarely see the same thing twice. Put simply, New York moves. During my first years in New York, I used to get excited just to go outside and walk. I walked everywhere, just to feel the energy. I didn’t really have a destination. I just moved because it felt good to move around in such exciting surroundings. And because I felt so good during those walks, sometimes I would break out a dance step. Why the hell not? I felt good, so why not let my body show it? Even now—fourteen years later—I still sometimes feel giddy on the New York streets. True, they’ve changed a lot. But there are some things about New York that never change, like nonstop, vibrant movement on the streets.

I march, too. Just about everyone who walks alone in New York listens to music. Hip-hop started in New York. Hip-hop is basically funk music interspersed with spoken, rhythmic (hopefully) rhymes. Of course, it has changed profoundly since the 1980s; I really don’t like it anymore. But in essence, hip-hop is New York marching music. In the old days, it propelled you forward with attitude. Back then, a good hip-hop song made you want to get up and move with purpose, just the way you feel when you move through the New York streets. It makes you want to say: “Yeah, look at me. I’m in New York; what are you going to do about it?” Hip-hop beats are marching beats. You can dance to them as easily as you can keep in step with them.

Yet people think marching is old fashioned. It isn’t. In fact, marching influences all modern dance music. If you can move to a song, it most likely has a march beat in it somewhere. Soldiers march because marching boosts morale, just like dancing. Marching brings people together under a rhythmic, even hypnotic pulse, just as a great dance song does. Marching is also extremely “manly;” it oozes with masculine braggadocio. When soldiers march, they parade their physical discipline and strength. When people watch soldiers march, they admire their lockstep and smart uniforms. They hear the beat pulsating in the background. They hear hundreds of boots hit the ground as one. And they see the soldiers moving as one with the music, like an inexorable, proud machine. Meanwhile, the soldiers themselves feel strong and united under the music. They move together and they know they are powerful. There is something about a march beat that makes every listener confident and proud. Marches replicate the tempo of a brisk walk. A march beat makes the listener want to move with purpose. Dance beats do the same thing.

Dance beats are little more than embellished marches. Every great dance song is also a march. Listen to one. Can you walk briskly to it? If you can, it’s a march. Is there a bottom line drumbeat that propels you forward? If there is, it’s a march. All modern American dance music derives from marches. Funk, hip-hop and even electronica derive from New Orleans jazz. New Orleans jazz, in turn, took its snare/bass drumbeats from 19th Century military bands. Armies have always known that propulsive music makes soldiers feel strong and unified. Early jazz musicians took marches and made them “fun” as well as “unifying.” Marches have attitude; so does jazz. Marches make want you get up and move with confidence and purpose. So does jazz. And so do all the other funky genres that developed after jazz. They all trace their origins back to the military march. Dance music appeals to us for the same reason that marches appealed to our earliest ancestors. They both spring from a common root: Beats that inspire unifying, powerful movement.

I think about this legacy when I march through New York. It’s easier to move over long distances with a strong beat behind you. That’s why armies always had drummers to spur tired soldiers another mile down the road. Just as marches lifted soldiers’ spirits through movement in the past, dance music lifts our spirits today. Both marches and dance music target our bodies. They make us feel good because the music makes us move our bodies in more daring ways than usual. When we do, we feel confident. When we dance—just as when we march—we dare the world to look at us and we don’t mind. Both marches and dancing immunize us from the normalizing judgments of the outside world. In fact, if we dance or march with enough zeal, those normalizing judgments give way to admiration and even awe. After all, the public always respects a company of soldiers marching to a powerful beat. They might move their bodies in “uncustomary” ways, but they project such raw, confident strength that they inspire respect. Who wants to mess with soldiers who march well? The same goes for good dancing.

I march in New York because marching fits the city’s pulsating energy. In many ways, New York is one vast theater. Everyone knows that everyone else is looking at them, even if they try not to show it. Everyone is playacting on some level. Everyone wants to be special. Vanity is everywhere, even when unwarranted. But that’s what creates the city’s crackling energy. Everyone is striving for something and moving somewhere. Quite simply, everyone is marching.

I like contributing to that energy. That’s why I march in New York. I’m not afraid to say it. But no matter how strange this sounds, this is no confession. I am not at all ashamed to say that I march every day; I am proud that I can let music move me. When a march or a dance song triggers good feelings in my body, it makes me happy. That emotion is mine. No one else experiences it at that moment. Why feel ashamed for a happy moment? Leaving happiness to one side, I think it’s fair to say that it is better to feel confident than to feel insecure. Confident people dance because they don’t care what others think about them. They also march because marching inspires confidence. Put simply, if you can march, you can dance, too. It really doesn’t matter who’s drumming the beat, as long as it moves you.