The Militant Moderate

Not long ago the Militant Moderate sat for lunch in Oklahoma City with an intimate group of fewer than a dozen older professionals, a majority probably democrats, one of whom has been known as a sage on state politics.  The question was posed to him, “What is wrong with the democratic party in the state that it has not connected with the people better and had more election success in the last few years?”  

He became very quiet, and softly, reluctantly, he gave us a rather startling observation.  “It is the gays,” he said.  “A big share of the leadership in the party has fallen by default to the gays, because others have not been as active as they should have been.”  He had no criticism of gays, but rather praised their efforts.  He said simply that as long as gays were in the forefront of party leadership, acting as spokespersons for the party message, democrats would run behind in Oklahoma.  “The voters of our state are not drawn to a party with that image,” he said.  

The Militant Moderate and others were all taken aback by that analysis, but several have since expressed a degree of concurrence with what was said there.  

Democrats are a party that accepts differences.  They welcome those who are different to their ranks.  Sometimes these “different” people are those with a history of persecution, and they may be among the outcasts and powerless of our society.  Democrats indeed welcome gays and lesbians, all races, women’s rights activists, and people of all religions.  Democrats welcome people of all levels of wealth and social status.  They welcome workers, both organized and unorganized.  “That is a good thing,” thinks the Militant Moderate.  

Democrats lay valid claim in being a party of the people, and they have an appropriate concern with the unique interests of constituent groups.  But perhaps they emphasize diversity too much.  

Each of these different groups has something to contribute, but each tends to have its own agenda that it hopes to get accomplished in government.  While each may adhere to the general philosophy of the party, each group may tend to place priority on its own agenda.  This leads to a cacophony of voices, rather than a chorus, in presenting the democrat message.  Diversity may be emphasized over unity.  The party has been losing, and that is not a good thing.  

The Militant Moderate has observed that republicans have a party line, complete with constantly updated talking points.  Republicans all sound alike when they speak.  

Republicans take advantage of the differences among democrats.  They attack democrats with caricatures of the groups under their umbrella.  They highlight the love scenes outside courthouses allowing gay marriage.  They frame the abortion issue around the rare extreme of the late term fetus (almost all of which involve health or life reasons).  Worker’s unions are depicted as labor bosses interfering with the right to a job.  Alternatives to overcrowded and expensive prisons, such as drug abuse treatment, are shown as being soft on crime.  Opposing a war based upon lies and deception is called unpatriotic.  Equal rights and equal justice are scoffed.  A stand for peace is labeled as being a liberal wimp.  

Wherever possible, republicans use religion as a political weapon, pandering to fundamentalists by espousing unconstitutional measures.  Ignoring the morality “log” in their own eye, they point to an irrelevant “splinter” and picture democrats as immoral.  Social programs designed to help people are belittled, because republicans hate taxes.  Since public schools must educate the masses, they prefer private education for their own -- at government expense if possible.  

Their partisan office holders manipulate elections, and their partisan court elected a president, but democrats are ridiculed as poor losers for demanding ballot counts and election reforms.  Money has corrupted the whole political process, but republicans stall meaningful campaign and election reform.  

With millions of dollars in proceeds from corrupt lobbyists and special business interests at their disposal, republicans often work through the media to sell their caricatures of democrats to the voting public.  They have been defining the image of democrats.  Too few voters are critical thinkers, so they have had success.  The Militant Moderate thinks, “Not a good thing!”    

  ……..   Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate

Some people are quite sure of their answer to that question.  Others, like the Militant Moderate, are not so sure.  Some politicians are quite ready to declare their view – including the president, all the president’s men, and most of the republicans in Congress and on Fox News.  Democrats are not so ready to declare themselves.  Some were burned on that issue once before when they voted to authorize action by the president.  Most democrats are afraid of political fallout, being called liberals and wimps, if they come out for ending involvement in the Iraq now.  A few democrats are unafraid to express their anti-war views, and more are doing so every week.  

In previous blogs, the Militant Moderate, has made it clear he was against going to war in Iraq.  It has since become obvious that we were misled.  While some still want to argue, the evidence is in and the president was wrong in his evaluation and use of intelligence.  Now that we are there ….… and this is the point too many democrats tend to hedge and talk around the point.  Republicans just say, “stay the course.”  

The Militant Moderate is reluctant to agree with either.  If we had no business going into Iraq in the first place, why would we just stay?  Although we made the mess, it is now their mess, and they are the ones prolonging it.  MM likes the salty old Marine veteran, Congressman Murtha, who says that we should get out now.  We are, as he says, inciting the insurgency.  We are involved now in an Iraq civil war, he says, and they all hate us.    

Contrary to others, MM would not suggest leaving the region entirely.  We are there, and we are there in force.  We need to take our troops out of the police business, out of the insurgency business, and let the Iraqi’s take over and do it.  It is their country and their war, however it goes.  When they have their election, then let’s declare victory, leave them to govern their country, and move to a strategic location in the south.  

The view here is that we should maintain a strong military presence within a limited area, easily defended, easily supplied, and from which necessary excursions or strikes could be made if such became necessary later.  This is a turbulent region.  Iran is a sworn enemy.  The presence of an unengaged military strike force might help keep the region stable.  

The MM is appalled at how our leadership ignored inherent provincialism in Iraq.  It shows either ignorance or a lack of planning.  Pushing a strong central government in a land, which is a nation only by decree of the League of Nations, was questionable.  How much easier to have declared “mission accomplished” on that aircraft carrier, and then let each of the provinces form its own government.  A confederation could have followed.  

This is where the issue is now among Iraqis.  Kurds have their own successful government.  Shiites have a religious government with Imams and militias.  The Sunnis have an insurgency, trying to avoid being dominated by Shiites.  We are in the middle of it all, trying to put our ideas of democracy on all of them, and nobody likes us.  

The question of the “imperial presidency” has been raised again – this time about the tenure of George W. Bush.  This is not a matter of the accoutrements of office or his personal manners.  In the case of Mr. Bush, it is said that he has fashioned his presidency after that of President Richard Nixon, who was the last to have an “imperial presidency.”  This term signifies the level of power which the president attempts to wield in that office.  

President Nixon assumed that the president could do almost anything, including suborning the hiring of a group of burglars to break into a doctor’s office and the democrat party headquarters.  President Bush assumes that the power of the presidency includes ordering monitoring of the conversations of American citizens without court sanction, setting up prisons outside the U.S., abrogating treaties on prisoners, and suspending the right of habeas corpus and speedy trial.  All this, if he believes it makes the nation safer, even though it is contrary to constitutional law.  

This old notion that “the king can do no wrong” is the basis for the term “imperial presidency.”  It is also the reason we have documents such as the Magna Charta of 1215 and the Constitution of the United States (ratified 1789) -- limiting executive powers.  

The “imperial presidency” is different from a “regal presidency,” a description often used in reference to the “Camelot” years of John F. Kennedy.  The elegance with which the affairs of state were conducted, and the flourishing of the arts during those years, brought the accolades of “Camelot.”  It appeared to the Militant Moderate that President Clinton sought to reclaim certain characteristics of the regal presidency.  It was no secret that he was a great admirer of JFK.  But regal has to do with the style of that high office, not the exercise of questionable powers.  

Reader’s Warning   --- Do not continue if you find history boring!  

But the general concept of the “imperial presidency” goes much deeper.  It has a history of extensive attention of some of the best minds of the western world over several centuries.  Without being unduly pedagogical, although restraint is difficult for the MM, let us look briefly into a litany of distinguished background sources on the exercise of governmental authority.  

Unfortunately, the Bible itself has been used over many centuries to justify citizen obeisance to any kind of government, and there has been strong criticism of religion for that reason.  The “render unto Caesar” quote, and the instructions to obey those appointed in secular authority, are cited.  The failure of Christianity to condemn abhorrent activities condoned by government, such as slavery, has always raised questions among philosophers.  

The feudal system, however, was justified more on the basis of physical and economic security.  If the peasant tilled the soil for lord of the castle on the hill, that lord promised in return to feed his family and to organize these same peasants and fight to protect the land, castle facilities, and people against enemies.  So, the peasants gave up freedom and proceeds of their labor for food and protection.  The lords in turn gave up some freedom and assets to those of higher order, such as the king.  Peasants had no rights, no land, and little freedom.  

Louis XIV was the epitome of the era of “divine right of kings” to rule, also called the philosophy of “absolutism.”  Good King Louis was said to have uttered, “I am the State.”  He assumed absolute power from God.  (Is it not disconcerting when our president claims to be “led by God” in governmental decisions?)  But Louis XIV was a skilled governor and conducted affairs with great efficiency.  It has often been said that people are tolerant of dictatorships as long as the trains run on time and the utilities work.  But governing by the rule of “absolutism” was soon brought to downfall by the execution of Charles I in 1649 and Louis XVI in 1793 when the citizens of England and France became dissatisfied, rebelled, and put those monarchs on trial.  

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a royalist who spent time in exile during 1640-60 in the court of Louis XIV and tutored the next English king (Charles II) there, wrote in support of the hereditary right of kings to govern, keeping order and security for the populace.  A contemporary, John Locke, wrote in opposition saying that the authority to govern comes from the people, and that only a government which behaves in a morally responsible way toward people’s freedoms and property has a right to remain in power.  Importantly, he held that government could not violate the rights of the people, even though it might have majority support.  

The French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau, had a profound effect on political thought with the publishing of “The Social Contract” in 1759.  His premise was that the people have entered into a contract with government to provide certain needed services which include order, peace, protection of person and property, and in return give up certain freedoms to do mayhem to one another’s person or property.  Rousseau was specific in the view that government derives its authority from the people, not from God.  Similar to Locke, he believed that whenever government failed to perform its contractual functions properly, it was the right of the people to take it down.  

Why is this important to Americans, as well as to Europeans?  Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, was a devotee of the philosophy of Locke and Rousseau, and these ideas are imbedded there and in our Constitution – the basic document of law.  Our government is founded upon those ideas of democracy.*   These documents, especially the Bill of Rights, assure that the government cannot violate the basic rights of citizens – however popular that might be with a majority.  The “system of checks and balances” assigns the role of guarantor to the judiciary and also to the Congress for impeachment.  

I am sorry, Mr. President, but the question of the “imperial presidency” has been argued before, and you lost -- centuries before you were born.  The Militant Moderate respectfully suggests that you take cognizance of this, and that you concentrate on being a leader who keeps the toilets flushing and the trains of the republic running on time.  

               ………….    Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA: The Militant Moderate  

* Note for scholars:  While the words in the Declaration “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” makes a reference to God, this reference was added to Jefferson’s original manuscript.  Jefferson preferred no wording which might recognize “divine rights,” and he emphasized the right of the people to repudiate the King’s rule.  Further, it is well to note that the Preamble of the Constitution begins, “We the people of the United States ……...”  It was made clear that “the people” were ordaining this government.  While “blessings” for posterity were acceptable, divine rights or divine origins of the government were excluded.  God is not mentioned in the Constitution.  

During one of several trips to London, the Militant Moderate had an opportunity to spend several hours wandering around Westminster Abbey.  He found it interesting to look at the names of those honored individuals buried vertically beneath the flat stones of the floor.  There he saw a stone with the name of Isaac Newton, of “apple” and laws of gravity fame.  Then nearby, what to his wondering eyes did he behold but the name of Charles Darwin, buried there in the area in front of the altar with high honors.  

Researching this surprise later, it was found that although Darwin’s writings were debated among the British religious and scientific community, Darwin himself was honored as a scientist, researcher, and writer.  His appearance in Westminster is not an effrontery to the Church.  This contrasts sharply with the arch-evil image and opprobrium he has been given in much of America during the past one hundred and fifty years.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was educated for the clergy, for medicine, and then emerged as the world’s foremost geologist and naturalist of his era.  Having already written, documented, and displayed artifacts of his five-year, around the world voyage on HMS Beagle, and describing the differing species found in South America, Galapagos, and other sites, Darwin hastened the publication of his “Origin of the Species” in 1859 supporting his theory, first discussed decades earlier.  Another scientist named Wallace, working in Borneo, was about to publish a similar theory.  

Although widely accepted among scientists, Darwin’s writings provoked much controversy among the religionists.  While Darwin simply relied on his writings, others debated in his defense.  The most famous debates were between Thomas Huxley and Bishop “Soapy” Sam Wilberforce.  Darwin was not an atheist, as accused, but in later life considered the organized church as somewhat irrelevant to his thought and his work.  He stated that a scientist’s duty is “to explore the wonders of God’s creation.”  Contrary to some reports, Darwin never “repented” or denounced his work and writings.  The burial honor at Westminster exemplified the high honor in which he was held by persons of influence.  

In this country, the most famous, relevant event was the Scopes “Monkey” Trial in 1925 in Dayton, TN.  Tennessee had a law against teaching evolution in the schools, and some 15 other states were considering such under the urging of a national group led by perennial democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan.  A local drugstore conspiracy, opposed to the law and seeking fame and fortune for Dayton, sought out the high school coach and substitute biology teacher willing to cooperate, and then had charges filed against him to force a test.  

The trial pitted the orator Bryan against the calculating Clarence Darrow, employed by the ACLU.  It ended with a guilty verdict and a $100 fine, which pleased the conspirators.  They then appealed as planned to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which dismissed the case in 1926.  Although the goal of having the law ruled unconstitutional at the higher level was not accomplished as hoped, it slowed the movement.  Only Arkansas and Mississippi followed in passing such a law.  Bryan died two weeks after the trial.    

The controversy over evolution appeared to take the back burner for a few decades, largely kept alive in the pulpits of fundamentalist churches.  It emerged with renewed vigor as the pseudo-science of “creationism,” touted in scientific sounding publications and pushed by fundamentalists for inclusion in the science curriculum.  In Oklahoma and in other states, textbook committees or others in authority attempted to have inserts put into science texts.  Laws were sought.  Finally, a U.S. Supreme Court decision declared “creationism” to be religion, and that it could not be taught as science.  President Bush entered the more recent version of the controversy favoring the teaching of “intelligent design.”  The December, 2005, federal court decision on the Dover, PA, board mandate of teaching “intelligent design” affirmed it to be “creationism” in disguise (thus religion), and it is therefore prohibited from being taught as science as per the previous Supreme Court ruling.  

One might have thought that such decisions should settle these matters in secular institutions, but not so.  The Kansas State School Board case continues until a higher court intervenes.  And, in Oklahoma five different bills by five different republican authors, pressing for the teaching of intelligent design, are pre-filed and awaiting the 2006 legislative session.  

Indeed, in this advanced age of science and technology, ignorance and superstition appear as prevalent as ever to the Militant Moderate and others.  Just consider the stem cell controversy.  But, alas, that is another topic.  

               ……………… Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard

Note:  For more discussion, see the Militant Moderate’s previous blog on Intelligent Design.  He favors that religious concept, but opposes the teaching of it as science in the schools.