So… I’m still in a bit of a funk today. I’m having the hardest of hard times coming to grips with the reality of the nation’s political situation, truth be told. Here’s part of an e-mail exchange I had with SN1 earlier today:
Me: So... here I am, waiting for the coffee pot to finish its magic. Yesterday was SUCH a strange day. I was up until 0400 yesterday morning, watching all the election returns (
What's the temp like among the troops? Most of the milbloggers I read have the typical military attitude... Obama will be the CinC, and that's that. Salute smartly and move on...
SN1: As for the local mood regarding the election…you hit it spot on. Here’s an excerpt from an email I wrote the kids:
Ok...now that the initial shock has worn off...
The beauty of our country is our ability to have an election, peacefully transfer the greatest power on the planet, and press on with our lives.
We'll be ok. I don't agree with the man on a lot of things...but he'll be the president and I'll support him, because he is our nation's leader. That's what we in the military do...we follow our leaders.
So you nailed my sentiments…and those of most around here…right on. I’m having a hard time imagining him as the CinC as well…I really don’t want to retire while he’s in office…another reason to stay in…
I’ve noticed in my ramblings around the ‘net… through the (primarily military) blogosphere… that the above opinions are nearly universal, and that comes as NO surprise to me. As SN1 stated… “that’s what we in the military do… we follow our leaders.” The key point is left unsaid, of course. But, just to clarify for readers of little or no military experience, there are two salient points in play here.
First and foremost: everyone who puts on the uniform of our country swears an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and “I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me” (there are minor differences between officer and enlisted oaths, but let us not quibble over details). I cannot over-emphasize the importance of this oath, as it ends with the words “So help me God.” You swear the oath, you make a commitment in the presence of the Deity and invoke His help. This is NO small thing. It’s the very essence of what it means to be in the military and that essence remains a part of you as long as you live. Or it should, at any rate. There are always a few outliers.
Point Two: The President of the United States isn’t the President of the Democrat/Republican/What Have You Party… he’s the President of the United States, duly and lawfully elected to that office by the people. As such, the incumbent is OUR president, and that’s no small matter, either. I could launch a huge tangential rant about how annoyed I was with the Left for failing to realize this fact over the course of the last few years, but I’m sure you know where I’m coming from, Gentle Reader. And I flat REFUSE to become the right-wing equivalent of a moonbat by saying shit like “Obama isn’t MY president.” The people have spoken, for better or worse, and we’ll have another go at this four years on. In the meantime… I suggest any malcontents out there suck it up and get with the program. Otherwise? Vote with your feet. There are airplanes departing these shores every single day. Get on one and be gone, as you obviously don’t “get” what this country is all about. I’ll end this part of the rant right here… or, ‘nuff said.
One last point… I agree with what Cassie has to say on this subject:
It remains for us now to find a way to reconcile our political differences, for despite the rhetoric of hope and change our differences are stark and will not give way to the fuzzy talk that wins votes. This will require grace and magnanimity from the victors as well as restraint and willingness to forget old grudges from the losers in this contest. We need not forebear to criticize, but we should never undermine policy once Mr. Obama takes his oath in January.
And above all, let us respect the dignity of the office of the President. He has earned it by dint of the campaign he ran, as well as by virtue of the thousands of votes cast for him. It is well that there will be no unseemly haggling over the vote counts, as happened in 2000 and 2004. This has been a long contest and with two wars going on and an economic turndown to deal with, our energies will be best directed to the conversation about the
The good news is that we all still have a voice in that
What she said.
(Image from The Wiki)
You always seem to get it right, Buck. And it strikes me that one of the little known truths of our country is that the most accurate exemplification of this nation's founding principles is not on Wall Street, not on Main Street, and certainly not in D.C., but often in the simple focus and sincerity of our Military Service Personnel.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great post. I look forward to reading you on Veteran's Day.
I agree with you. I think it is one thing to observe the oval office and form your agenda from a distance and an entirely different thing to sit at the desk. I have a deep down feeling that we will see a centrist president when the action begins. I also think we will have a good idea of where we are going by April. Barry, as I like to call him is a very smart man and as such will surround himself with very smart people, as he should. I think we will be OK.
ReplyDeleteWe will however get a real good look at how Chicago political style works and as a person who grew up in that great city I can't wait. I am disappointed though. I belived in Sen. McCain.
As I said on my show yesterday, we'll know one way or the other the way the next four (eight?) years are going to be within the first six months. If he's smart, he'll craft a center-left governing style. If he's not, he'll cripple the rest of his presidency. Clinton was able to recover from his disastrous first two years, I don't think Obama will have the same luxury.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand your glossing over the differences between the enlisted and officer oaths in the interest of time, I think there is an important distinction to be made. The officer oath contains no section about obeying orders. The significance of this is that it represents the higher standard that officers are held to in ensuring control of their men and deciding what constitutes an illegal order.
Not that enlisted personnel don't bear the same responsibility, just that officers are expected to be held to that higher standard.
Regarding being in a funk, in shock, whatever, I think it's instructive to absorb those emotions and understand that's the way the "Left" felt both times Bush was elected. Truly, it was a feeling of absolute despair.
ReplyDeleteIt would be ever so excellent if everyone would get behind the new president, after he's sworn in, and support him and his position. We haven't seen that in a long, long time (on both sides).
We need to become the UNITED States again.
And, FWIW, there has to be something to the near worldwide euphoria over the election of Barack Obama. Don't you think?
"And, FWIW, there has to be something to the near worldwide euphoria over the election of Barack Obama. Don't you think?"
ReplyDeleteFeh. They don't have to deal with his domestic policies. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks the U.S. exists in a vacuum, but neither is Obama president of the world. He's first and foremost the President of the United States, so I could really care less that the rest of the world has a hard on for Obama.
Okay, Mike, but the presidency is not just concerned with domestic policies, is it? Wasn't one of the biggest complaints that Obama doesn't have enough foreign policy experience?
ReplyDeleteI have lots of friends who live in other countries, and they've been telling me for years how worried they've been during Bush's reign. In their estimation, the decisions of the United States affect the entire world.
Like it or not, it's a global age. Even some of our domestic policies can affect other countries. So I pay attention to the opinions of those who live elsewhere. And I actually find myself caring more about our foreign policies, and our relationships with other countries, than I do about our domestic policies -- particularly our tax policies (oh, boo hoo, the extraordinarily rich might finally have to chip in to pay to run this country well ... sniffle ...)
Just out of curiosity, what domestic policy changes do you most fear?
Obama will be view from Overseas with somekind of "mystic" hero worship.
ReplyDeleteGiven his early pick or possible picks for cabinet, I will continue to view him the same as I did when he first came on the scene...I don't trust him, I'm just hopeful{but not much} that he won't be as bad as I fear.
Andy sez: You always seem to get it right, Buck.
ReplyDelete...
Thanks for the great post. I look forward to reading you on Veteran's Day.
Thank YOU for the kind words, Andy. I hope I don't disappoint ya on Veterans' Day. ;-)
Dan sez: I have a deep down feeling that we will see a centrist president when the action begins. I also think we will have a good idea of where we are going by April. Barry, as I like to call him is a very smart man and as such will surround himself with very smart people, as he should. I think we will be OK.
I hope you're right on the centrist thing, Dan. The man is SUCH an enigma that the question of just HOW he will govern has been one of the most debated subjects among the Talking Heads I watch. And there's a plethora of opinions there...
re: Chicago politics... pretty rough and tumble, from what I've heard and read.
Mike sez: As I said on my show yesterday, we'll know one way or the other the way the next four (eight?) years are going to be within the first six months. If he's smart, he'll craft a center-left governing style. If he's not, he'll cripple the rest of his presidency. Clinton was able to recover from his disastrous first two years, I don't think Obama will have the same luxury.
All true. The ironic thing? Dubya appears to be going all-out to ensure the transition is as smooth and seamless as possible. I say "ironic" because the classic case of a f*ed-up transition is Clinton, and that was the cause of his disastrous first two years, in no small part. Obama will be the beneficiary of a brilliant transition, according to what appears to be happening.
Your points on the officer-enlisted oaths are well taken, too.
Lori sez: Regarding being in a funk, in shock, whatever, I think it's instructive to absorb those emotions and understand that's the way the "Left" felt both times Bush was elected. Truly, it was a feeling of absolute despair.
That may well be. I remember 2004 quite clearly, in fact. The key difference, though, is there isn't a right-wing equivalent of BDS in play here. The Left was just SO danged pissed that Dubya won a second time they were just beside themselves. I think it was BDS, pure and simple. You'll note none of us right-wing types are talking about leaving, though. ;-)
Mike sez: Feh. They don't have to deal with his domestic policies. I'm not one of those idiots who thinks the U.S. exists in a vacuum, but neither is Obama president of the world. He's first and foremost the President of the United States, so I could really care less that the rest of the world has a hard on for Obama.
Took the words right out of my mouth, more or less. ;-)
I couldn't care less what the rest of the goddamned world thinks, MOST especially the Euro-Weenies. I remember how much they hated Reagan, too. All TOO well, being as how I was in the UK at the time. And yeah, they were right about THAT, weren't they? (/sarcasm)
Lori sez: Like it or not, it's a global age. Even some of our domestic policies can affect other countries. So I pay attention to the opinions of those who live elsewhere. And I actually find myself caring more about our foreign policies, and our relationships with other countries, than I do about our domestic policies -- particularly our tax policies (oh, boo hoo, the extraordinarily rich might finally have to chip in to pay to run this country well ... sniffle ...)
1. See above.
2. re: "the rich" and taxes... let me quote the Congressional Budget office:
The differential increase in effective tax rates among quintiles is reflected in a shift down the income distribution in shares of taxes paid (see the third and fourth panels of Table 2). The share of taxes paid by the top quintile falls from 65.3 percent in 2001 to 62.8 percent in 2014, even though that group's share of income does not change. Four-fifths of that decline occurs for the top 1 percent of taxpayers, whose share falls by 2 percentage points, to 20.7 percent of federal taxes in 2014. The share of taxes paid by each of the middle three quintiles climbs by about 0.7 percentage points.
The whole point conservatives make about taxes is it's THE RICH that create jobs, not the frickin' bottom of the tax pile. It's also instructive that 40% of US workers don't pay ANY taxes. In other words... that dog don't hunt, Lori.
As for fearing The One's domestic policies... I fear that he'll go right ahead and enact his agenda, with no frickin' money to pay for it.
Pat: I don't trust him, either, but I AM willing to give him the benefit of the doubt... for now.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually far more of a foreign policy wonk than I am domestic, mainly because my extremist libertarian tendencies make me want to blow my brains out any time I really sit down and think about the domestic policies, of either major party.
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, problems with domestic policy...the concept of a progressive tax system annoys me to no end, especially that as Buck indirectly pointed out, $250,000 isn't that much nowadays. My parents, who by any common definition aren't rich (two kids in college, another in a relatively "inexpensive" Catholic HS) can expect their taxes to go up because they own their house and they've actually been smart and saved for retirement.
As Buck also stated, he (like almost all politicians, McCain included) failed Math 101, not to mention Econ 101. In about six months, maybe less, there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who are realizing that no, he isn't going to be able to deliver everything he promised. The oceans may have stopped rising and the earth may have begun to heal, but that's not going to fix the coming financial storm that was only delayed and made worse by the bailout(s), to say nothing of the clusterf**k that Social Security is going to become. I fully expect to not get a cent out of the money our government has taken from me at gunpoint on behalf of a pyramid scheme.
I could go on, maybe ranting about the War on (some) Drugs, but since the American people seem to have some sick fetish with preventing others from getting high, no matter the cost in treasure or lives, that one is unlikely to change in my lifetime.
Bottom line, it isn't so much domestic policy "changes" that I fear as it is domestic policy in general. From either major party. My problem with the foreigners is when they take their opinion beyond commentary on his policies into active like or dislike of him as a person. That's something only U.S. citizens get to do, not sanctimonious foreign nationals.
Wow, you have quite alot going on here today! I'm just popping in to say I did appreciate your attitude here Buck and the good words.
ReplyDeleteWith more attitudes like this it kinda keeps me thinkin' we just might be okay in this country with whatever comes our way. :)
I guess everyone is being just a little more trusting and supportive of Obama than I am. I have not been able to bring myself to call him president yet, I feel that his choice of Rahm Emanuel, who is a really down and dirty partisan who is renowned for telling Republicans to "go f*** themselves" was an ominous move, which makes me wonder just what he will do next.
ReplyDeleteAnd to Lori who said Dems have already been through the bad feelings when Bush was elected .... well, I've been there too -- through two Clinton victories that just about ripped out my heart.
I'm not about to get all touchy feely here and jump into bipartisanship and a big love-in for The One. I will sit back and observe and watch what happens next. Skeptically. I will decide to work with Democrats as soon as I see they want to work with us.
Buck says: The key difference, though, is there isn't a right-wing equivalent of BDS in play here. The Left was just SO danged pissed that Dubya won a second time they were just beside themselves. I think it was BDS, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I wasn't paying enough attention prior to Clinton, but I recall being REALLY disturbed by the anger and utter comtempt displayed by so many on the Right when Clinton was in office, starting at the very beginning of his first term. It was the first time I remember experiencing such downright disrespect for the President of the United States. So was that CDS?
You'll note none of us right-wing types are talking about leaving, though. ;-)
True enough. Probably the reason is that, honestly and whether Dems want to admit it or not, they do in fact have Socialist tendencies. I know I do, and I'm not afraid to admit that. I don't believe -- have never believed -- that Capitalism is the best system. It doesn't take care of enough people. I watch countries like Holland where my good friend John pays 50% of his income in taxes without complaint and I see how well things run there. The Dutch have a philosophy that "no one is doing well unless we're all doing well," and I agree with that. So Dems tend to think "Canada" or similar whenever things don't go their way. It may not be "patriotic" but it's understandable, given the way they're wired. (I say "they" but I'm one of them, of course.)
I couldn't care less what the rest of the goddamned world thinks, MOST especially the Euro-Weenies. I remember how much they hated Reagan, too. All TOO well, being as how I was in the UK at the time. And yeah, they were right about THAT, weren't they? (/sarcasm)
Again, I have to recognize publicly that I have a lot in common with the Euro-Weenies. I feared and despised Reagan -- and I was IN (my 5th through 8th years of) the Air Force at the time. Of course, I was in Europe during much of that period, so maybe that had something to do with it.
However, another part of it is that I've never been one of those Manifest Destiny, global domination types. In the 10th grade, I woke up one night with this refrain in my head: "Are you a citizen of this country, or a citizen of the world?" I was shocked a few days later when my American History teacher asked the very same question of our class. Certainly you can figure by now that I fall into the latter category, more than the former. Doesn't mean I don't love my country, but I do care about the rest of the world, and I want to get along with them. (Yes, I'm still ridiculously idealist at age 50. Remember, Buck, you did help to shape these beliefs of mine. I know it's painful to recall that, but I frequently thank you for it.)
The whole point conservatives make about taxes is it's THE RICH that create jobs, not the frickin' bottom of the tax pile.
Yes, but do you think the rich are going to stop creating jobs just because they have to pay more into the collective pot? Why would they do that? Out of spite? No, they're much too driven, they will do the things they always do. It's not a bad thing, it just IS.
Mike says: I could go on, maybe ranting about the War on (some) Drugs, but since the American people seem to have some sick fetish with preventing others from getting high, no matter the cost in treasure or lives, that one is unlikely to change in my lifetime.
AGREED. I like the way you think about that topic, Mike. How many programs do you think we could pay for if we simply legalized and put a healthy tax on pot?
I believe I'll exercise my Californian "rights" (so to speak) and go enjoy some local hemp right now. ; )
"Yes, but do you think the rich are going to stop creating jobs just because they have to pay more into the collective pot? Why would they do that? Out of spite? No, they're much too driven, they will do the things they always do. It's not a bad thing, it just IS."
ReplyDeleteThe fact of life known as a tax wedge would state that the problem here is not that the rich are going to pull an Atlas Shrugged and stop doing anything, but that there is an opportunity cost to higher taxes, which is money that is simply lost. Doesn't go to consumers or producers, but more importantly it doesn't go to the government either. It just effectively vanishes.
Also worth noting that the fact that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world might have something to do with all those jobs that are being shipped overseas. (Which I have no problem with, but I find it ironic that people condemn "job loss" in one sentence and talk about hiking up taxes on the corporate fat cats in the next. Like I said, they failed Econ 101.)
As for pot, that's only the beginning for me. Legalize 'em all. Prohibition has never and will never work. Period. For those who get hung up on the "hard drug" aspect of my stance, how many people have died of alcohol poisoning due to home brewed booze post 21st Amendment? How many were dying of that ailment during prohibition?
Mike: Also worth noting that the fact that our corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world might have something to do with all those jobs that are being shipped overseas. (Which I have no problem with, but I find it ironic that people condemn "job loss" in one sentence and talk about hiking up taxes on the corporate fat cats in the next. Like I said, they failed Econ 101.)
ReplyDeleteI don't know about everyone else, but I'd be extremely happy if the loopholes for the fat cats were closed. Don't raise the rates; just close the damn loopholes. As for jobs being sent overseas, I do have a problem with that, because it's simple and mean greed, and little else. If American companies are so patriotic (as so many of them purport to be), why not keep the jobs at home and pay a decent living wage? Instead, the jobs are completely lost to U.S. citizens just because those workers won't accept making 60 cents an hour.
There is just no reason for companies and the people who run them to be obscenely wealthy -- be wealthy, but don't be obscene about it.
As for pot, that's only the beginning for me. Legalize 'em all. Prohibition has never and will never work. Period.
Again, agreed. Again, see Holland and the way the Dutch do things. Drugs (even pot) aren't legal there, but they have an entirely different way of going about it, and they have fewer problems. We could do that and more.
(Sorry to hog your blog, Buck! Forgive me?)
"The people have spoken, for better or worse, and we’ll have another go at this four years on. In the meantime… I suggest any malcontents out there suck it up and get with the program."
ReplyDeleteYou're THE MAN, Buck. Tremendously well-said.
Dawn sez: I'm just popping in to say I did appreciate your attitude here Buck and the good words.
ReplyDeleteWith more attitudes like this it kinda keeps me thinkin' we just might be okay in this country with whatever comes our way. :)
Thanks, Dawn. We WILL make it, but it's gonna be hard, methinks.
Sharon sez: I guess everyone is being just a little more trusting and supportive of Obama than I am. I have not been able to bring myself to call him president yet, I feel that his choice of Rahm Emanuel, who is a really down and dirty partisan who is renowned for telling Republicans to "go f*** themselves" was an ominous move, which makes me wonder just what he will do next.
Good points all, Sharon. I'm not proposing any "love fests" for The One here, just acceptance of reality, grudgingly (in my case) or otherwise. As far as Emmanuel goes, a lot of the pundits seem to think he's gonna serve as a sort of bulwark for Obama against the serious congressional ideologues, i.e., Reid and Pelosi. Another thing I've heard is that Emmanuel also has superior knowledge about "the way things work" on the Hill, which Obama doesn't, given his lack of seniority and oh-so-little time in the Senate. The (lack of) "experience" thing, in other words. Both arguments sound reasonable to me.
re: Clinton and breaking hearts... I only have hazy recollections about that time period. I was in "apolitical mode" during those years... working my ass off. What little time I had after the job was spent on things much more important than politics.
Lori and Mike: Nice exchange... the both of you! I let go of the thread last night and find there's way too much to respond to now that I've come back in. Suffice to say I agree with the both of you about The War on (some) Drugs. You're a young man, Mike, and I suspect you WILL live to see a more rational drug policy, albeit not as liberal as you'd like.
And Lori... we've had MANY exchanges in this space (L v. R) over the last few... I don't think there's any new ground being broken here. You're still you and I'm still me. You can't understand why I changed, and I can't understand why you haven't. ;-)
Jim: Thank you, Sir!
"Are you a citizen of this country, or a citizen of the world?"
ReplyDeleteLori,
I have heard of this before and I know some people consider themselves a "citizen" of the world instead of a citizen of this country....but I have never really run into anyone who actually feels this way.
I hope you will not find me too disrespectful if I ask you what that means exactly. Is your allegiance and your loyalty to the "world" instead of to the United States of America? In what way specifically?
I just cannot imagine ever feeling that way. One of the most precious gifts I have is being an American. Or ... maybe you are a native of another country and not the USA?
Towanda, thanks for asking those questions. I'm not sure I can exactly articulate it, except to say I believe it's far more important to find what we have in common with others and try to find a way toward peace, rather than promote what we don't have in common and argue that we are, simply by virtue of being American citizens, somehow superior to people from somewhere else. That always leads to trouble, and often to war.
ReplyDeleteI was born and raised in the USA, in Ohio to be specific, and my parents were Republicans (although I'm not sure they could've said why, other than everyone else in their sphere claimed the same), as well as ardent flag wavers. I started arguing with my dad about the justice (or lack thereof) of the Vietnam War when I was about 10 years old. It drove him -- who often yelled "America: Love it or leave it!" -- nuts. Yet I would gather the neighborhood kids together and we would make our own signs and march around the block, protesting the war. I've always been this way, I guess.
Personally, I cringe at the numbers of U.S. flags I see everywhere. What is the obsession with flying and displaying our flag so much? No other reasonable nation does it. I once asked a friend from New Zealand, who was traveling in the car with me from Maryland to Massachusetts, if other countries displayed their flags so much. She couldn't get the "NO!" out of her mouth fast enough.
I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with so much fervent "patriotism" (if that's really what it is), but it borders on a nationalism that I find disturbing. Again, I'm not quite sure why. However, even though I spent 10+ years in the USAF, I have considered more than once giving up my citizenship and living elsewhere. I certainly don't hate the USA, and in fact I love most of what it stands for -- at least at it was originally intended. I am particularly passionate about the separation of church and state. But things like the chanting of "USA! USA!! USA!!!" to the point where it becomes almost a foaming-at-the-mouth tantrum ... it just scares me.
We don't need to be so exclusive. If anything, we need to be more inclusive. I recently read that a great deal of the reason McCain lost this election is that the Republican party essentially now represents old, white, rural Americans, while the Democrat party represents the younger, multicolored, cosmopolitan melting pot that our country really is -- and, truly, always has been.
I believe my allegiance remains to the USA, but that's kind of an old gut reaction. When 9/11 happened, my first thought was that I needed to jump back into uniform (never mind it wouldn't fit now) and report for duty somewhere. My second thought was to go home and erect a flag pole in my front yard and run the American flag straight up in the air. Then I stepped back from myself and said, "Huh?"
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but I am disgusted that we "haven't been able" to catch bin Laden. And I am absolutely appalled at what we've done to Iraq.
Perhaps I'm a "reluctant American" or something. I dunno.
Do my answers help you understand me better? : )
For now, it's back to work. (I am the assistant to the chairman of the Indian tribe that was here in this part of Sonoma County, CA in the first place. When people start that rant demanding that immigrants to the U.S. speak English, I feel like telling them they should maybe speak Coast Miwok or Pomo instead.)
Well said, Lori. I don't agree with a single thing you've said... in terms of philosophical outlook, not your personal experience... but as that ol' sayin' goes "I'll defend your right to the death to say it."
ReplyDeleteThe rilly short version of my outlook on this patriotism thing: I am NOT, and never will be a "one-worlder." While I'm not quite in the "My country, right or wrong" camp, I've pitched my tent in the tree line right next to 'em. Virtually indistinguishable, in other words. There's NO greater nation in the world... period, end of report.
One other thing: you're WRONG about flag waving in other countries. The Brits do their fair share of it, as do the Russians, the Turks, and more. Flag-waving is a human thing and it ain't limited to the USA! USA! USA! ;-)
More later after I ponder your comments, Lori, though right now I agree with Buck in that I disagree with most of what you say. :)
ReplyDeleteI did just want to jump in here and say that when we visted Argentina in 2005, I noticed immediately how prominent the Argentine flag is displayed everywhere in Buenos Aires -- much like we see the American flag displayed here.
More on flag-waving: China, especially during the Olympics. But Commies have always been big in that space, eh? ;-)
ReplyDeletebut as that ol' sayin' goes "I'll defend your right to the death to say it."
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the way I feel about defending a person's right to her/his faith, while at the same time fully resisting having it crammed down anyone else's throat. : )
More on flag-waving: China, especially during the Olympics. But Commies have always been big in that space, eh? ;-)
Okay, I stand corrected. But ... we wouldn't want to be like THEM, would we??
Oh, the horror ... ; )