Character Does Count

Every time the American people elect a new President, there is an implied agreement between the elected and the electors. Those who cast the votes that ultimately decide who will occupy the White House agree to confer upon the nation’s Chief Executive all the Constitutional privileges and powers granted by those who created the office in 1787, and by all those who have modified its standing via statutes and amendments in the two centuries since.

It is recognized by the voting public that included among these powers and responsibilities of the President are functions and directives that may be unknown to them. Most are willing to concede that some level of secrecy and initiative must be preserved for the one in the Oval Office in order to effectively fulfill his obligations to the nation he serves. This is especially so during times of national crisis. The public thus agrees to confer such authority upon the one who holds the office.

The flip side of this agreement is that the one who holds the office recognizes that such vast grants of power must not be abused. Such would be easy enough to do, given the resources at the command of the President. Despite their best efforts, there is no way for investigative reporters to catch everything the President does that might be perceived as a breach of this agreement. At some level, the man behind the desk must possess a sense of self-restraint, in order for the office to fulfill its role of both leadership and service for the American people. In a word, Americans, recognizing these basic facts, must never discount the value of trustworthiness in those for whom they vote – especially where the Presidency is concerned.

The lines being drawn over the controversy regarding President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps to monitor conversations between people in the United States and people outside the U.S. with ties to Al Qaeda do not follow traditional Republican/Democrat patterns. A reader of the day’s editorials will find Democrats defending the practice, and Republicans excoriating the President over it. So it is not the purpose of this post to weigh in on the rightness, or wrongness, of this particular practice – although it so happens that the writer supports it. Rather, the purpose of this post is to share an observation made in the light of the revelation of the practice.

The message that was oft-repeated in matters related to this in the early 1990s was that character in an officeholder didn’t really matter that much. One assumes this was done to justify the worthiness of a certain leader who even political allies noted didn’t have much character, or much of a moral compass – Does anyone remember a prominent senator of that particular President’s own party describing him as “an unusually good liar?.” The idea being that the personal morality of a political leader doesn’t matter. An amoral, secular government in the United States would work, so long as institutions are in place to keep its power in check.

However, the experience of the late 1990s, when that President’s misdeeds briefly appeared to have finally caught up with him, taught the nation that such institutions cannot check corrupted power, if those occupying those institutions have been tainted as well. From the very beginning, it has been noted that a United States government without a sense of morality cannot work. As the second President once stated, the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people, and is unsuited to the governance of any other kind of people. It relies on a compact of trust between the people and their leaders – a compact that can only be maintained by voluntary compliance on the part of both parties to it.

Few, if any, Americans expect their President to be the beacon of virtue that, say, their preachers or bishops may be. But they do know that they have to be able to trust him not to abuse the authority granted to him while he holds the most powerful office ever created by man. And whether that level of trust can be granted should, in large part, be determined by the kind of life the man has lived prior to his rise to power, and whatever private life he made lead once in power. This writer has long known that President Bush has information, resources, and powers available to him of which most Americans may never be fully cognizant. But the life lived by George Bush, even before he ever became President George Bush, leads the writer to believe that such powers are safe in his hands, until proven otherwise. And that hasn’t been proven yet.

Merry Christmas

Slowly - but surely - getting back into the swing of the political scene following the busy past six weeks surrounding the adoption of Levi and Aaron. For now, though, it's time to kick back for a few days and enjoy some time with my newly enlarged family. Hope everyone is able to spend some happy time with their family as well, or at least spend some time at a very happy place - and you know who you are.

In any event, a Merry Christmas to all from the SouthTenn Blogger, his lovely and gracious wife, and his two little bloglings. See you next week with some new posts.

Interesting Question

It happened again the other night. This writer was in traffic behind a car that sported a bumper sticker that said the following: “Had enough? Vote Democrat.”

Never mind the fact that, as usual, no ideas for improving America are offered as a reason to vote for the minority party. Only a reliance on the hope that enough rage can be inspired within the hearts of Americans to turn out the evil Republican Party that, it is implied, has done so much damage to the nation.

Very well, if that’s where they are at, then the debate should be taken to them at that place. Maybe Americans should be asked if they’ve had enough. But enough of what?

- Had enough of a hot economy, in which housing sales are up, unemployment is down, consumer confidence and spending are at record levels, and consumer prices have dropped by the largest amount in fifty-six years?

- Had enough of an America where people are keeping more of the money they earn than they did five years ago?

- Had enough of an administration that is verbally committed to appointing judges that will adhere to the original intent of the Constitution, thereby ensuring greater freedom for all Americans?

- Had enough of an America that is envied by a world that wishes it could duplicate America’s success, and which is still the destination of choice for thousands of immigrants each year – even those willing to break laws to do so – because they know their opportunities for success here are greater than anywhere else in the world?

- Had enough of a country that the world’s major, and emerging, economic powers are falling all over themselves to get closer to?

- Had enough of a nation that has suffered no major terrorist strikes in over four years, whose enemies now think twice before crossing it, for fear that it might actually take difficult, yet necessary, steps to protect itself, and visit retribution on those who would harm its citizens and interests?

- Had enough of a majority party whose policies have created greater security at home by working toward greater stability abroad?

- Had enough of a Commander-In-Chief who has decided to use the best-trained – and all-volunteer – military in the world to fight our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, so that American civilians don’t have to fight them in New York and Washington?

No doubt, there are those who do find such things as distasteful and reason enough to work toward throwing out the party in power – just look to the far left to see such souls. But this writer is guessing that the majority of Americans would join him in saying that, no, they haven’t had enough of these things. If the party that demonstrates its connectivity to the American public by putting forward a San Francisco liberal as its choice to occupy the House Speaker’s Chair – and, consequently, sit directly behind the Vice-President in the Line of Succession – would like to ask the question again next year, or even three years hence, they are more than welcome to. But it would be most surprising if the answer of most Americans change.

Had enough? Not by a long shot.

So You're A War Hero?

You want to talk about war heroes? Then consider a man who unquestionably fit the bill during a war that no one could seriously deny was vital to the survival of the United States. Leader of an attack that captured a vital enemy outpost, twice wounded in battle, recipient of an official letter of thanks from Congress for his accomplishments, and earning the friendship and trust of his Commander-In-Chief, he rose to the rank of Major General and was eventually rewarded with the command of West Point. If any man ever rightfully and unquestionably earned the title of “American War Hero,” then this man – Benedict Arnold – could reasonably be said to have set the standard by which such heroes are measured.

It has been said that, had he been killed at the Battle of Saratoga – where he received one of his wounds – Arnold would be remembered as one of America’s greatest heroes to this day. Yet that’s not how Americans remember him, is it? No, in this nation, his name has become a synonym for “traitor.”

Interestingly enough, when one discusses the treachery of Benedict Arnold against not only his friend George Washington, but also the very country and cause for which he had earlier bled, there are very few who will criticize him and declare that he has “no right to disparage an American war hero in that way.”

By now, hopefully, the point of all this is becoming obvious to the reader. In recent times, the minority party in this nation has chosen to pursue positions and advocate policies that are undermining the efforts of American troops currently in harm’s way in Western Asia. And for their “spokesman” at many discussions regarding the issue, they have chosen men who they continually describe as “war heroes.” Think John Murtha and John Kerry – You did know that John Kerry was in Vietnam, didn’t you?

The idea here is that whatever heroic deeds – be they confirmed or alleged – such men have previously performed while in combat immunizes them from even reasonable criticism. But it is interesting to note that one of the earliest lessons that America’s history has taught its students is that prior valorous acts on the part of some are no guarantee that those same individuals will always have the nation’s best interests at heart.

The simple fact of the matter is that the citing of combat experience as a debating tactic on the part of Democrats who are taking a leading role in the attempt to hurt George Bush politically by undermining his wartime policies is nothing more than an attempt to cut off honest and open debate. It just might make some wonder what it is that Democrats have to fear from such honest and open debate. Some, but not all – this writer feels confident that he already knows what it is the Democrats have to fear.

It is reasonable to suspect that even Mr. Arnold would not have gone so far as to make the ludicrous allegation that American soldiers terrorized women and children in the dead of night. And it is a fact of history that he never tried to cite his prior heroics on behalf of the United States in order to try get back into the good graces of General Washington, or the American people. If there is any honor to be found in Benedict Arnold’s story, it may simply be that he was willing to live, perhaps uncomfortably, with the consequence of his decision to turn against his nation, with no expectation that anyone in that nation would embrace him purely for what he had done in the past. Two-hundred-four years after his death, one can’t help but wonder if certain members of the national Democrat leadership have even as much honor about them as America’s most famous traitor.

Back In The Saddle

I would like to apologize to those of you who have been looking, in vain, to this space for new material for some time. But I have to acknowledge that I have little regret for the “down time.” You see, for the past three or four months, the Lovely-And-Gracious Tanya and I have been finalizing the adoption of our two sons out of Russia. I can now happily report that the newest Harwells – Levi and Aaron – are back home with us, and carrying on like they have always belonged here – which, of course, they have. Anyway, perhaps in the near future I’ll be able to compile a condensed version of our “Russian Adventure” for all (six) of my loyal readers to enjoy. In the meantime, here’s a look at my sons.

Oh, and a new commentary as well. Maybe not my best writing, but it feels good to be getting the cobwebs out, and the fire back in my belly.

JLH

A Question Of Judgment

A recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll may shed more light than many people realize on the question of which party is best suited to lead America during turbulent and dangerous times such as these. When asked if President Bush willfully lied to the American people to justify the war with Iraq, or simply made use of the best intelligence he had available to him, seventy-two percent of Democrats stated their belief that he had lied.

Granted, that response on the part of identified Democrats probably shouldn’t be very surprising to anyone who is familiar with the belligerent nature of modern Washington politics. Nor, for that matter, should anyone be surprised that seventy-nine percent of Republicans believe that he operated with the best intelligence he had available. After all, George Bush is a Republican, and that alone presently seems to make him unworthy of the benefit of anyone’s doubt on the left. It’s all just a question of partisan identification, right?

Perhaps, but maybe that partisan identification tells us more about the judgment of the partisans involved than is readily apparent at a passing glance. For, you see, that same poll had other questions asked of members of both parties, and it is the response to one question in particular that may prove quite telling to anyone paying attention.

In the poll, when asked if Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam out of power, or if it would be better if he were still in power, a plurality of Democrats – Forty-one percent – stated that things would be better if Saddam were still in power – and presumably if his sons were still around to fulfill their desires through the abuse of abducted fourteen-year-old Iraqi girls. Only thirty-four percent stated that things were better with Saddam out of power. By contrast, seventy-eight percent of Republicans stated that it was good that he is gone, and ten percent say things would be better with him still in power.

This writer is guessing that, to those “swing” voters out there – those without a partisan ax to grind whose votes both parties covet – the response on the part of the left wingers who currently run the national Democrat Party is going to suggest one of two things. One is that they sincerely believe that Iraqi people should have had to continue live under the brutal oppression of one of the most heinous tyrants to run a nation in recent centuries – making this sacrifice so that the rest of the world could enjoy the alleged stability – assuming we ignore his prior well-documented use of weapons of mass destruction – that he brought to the region.

The other possibility is that the respondents probably know better than their answer to the question suggests, but that the well-being of the American nation and its increased security through the betterment of the world around it is no longer the goal of the party. Rather, the overriding purpose driving the party is its quest for a return to power and the defeat of the “other side.” The notion of a “loyal opposition” thus becomes a thing of the past, and the willful misleading of the public regarding the character and veracity of the majority party is a line they are willing to cross in order to return to dominant status. In other words, the ends justify the means.

Either way, their response to the question about Saddam doesn’t provide much encouragement regarding their judgment on what to believe about George Bush and the Republicans. Or about the course that the nation should be charting in the near future. Something to think about, eleven months from election day.