In response to why America trusts the military…
Ed O'Malley
A former state legislator and gubernatorial aide, Ed O’Malley is President and CEO of the Kansas Leadership Center, a first-of-its-kind training center charged with fostering large-scale civic leadership for healthier communities. He tweets at eomalley.
The leader next door
Confidence in the military comes easily because our soldiers care about something larger than themselves. Their work is not about profit, but duty and freedom; not about popularity (as is the case with media ratings, consumer rankings and political polls), but about the honor and security of America.
Cynicism about those in government, business and the media runs rampant, while Americans continue to hear heroic stories about military men and women, doing the work few in government, business and the media have done or likely would do.
In addition, perhaps we trust the military more because it delivers on its broad promise to the American people. We ask the military to keep us safe, and they deliver. We ask government to solve tough issues like lax regulation of Wall Street and government dithers. We ask media to shoot straight and then media bias, on all sides, is so evident. We ask big business to steward the economic promise of America and then find ourselves bailing out billionaires.
We trust military leadership because we know the military. My dad was a Marine, and my granddaddy was in the Air Force. My colleague's daughter serves on the USS Truman. Our recent widow-repair man served in Iraq. A friend flew refueling tankers over Afghanistan. I don't know any Wall Street billionaires, and that is fine with me. I'll take the leadership lessons from a soldier, sailor, air man or Marine any day.
As I told SN1... well, there could be such a thing (but I sincerely doubt it). This just serves to illustrate the perils of spell-check... sometimes that squiggly red underline goes missing, eh? Still and even, Mr. O'Malley's point has the ring of truth and is VERY well taken.***
―:☺:―
So. We're just now finishing our second cup after answering the overnight mail and such. We've yet to turn on our teevee, make the Daily Blog-Rounds, or even steal a look at memeorandum. Part of the reason I was up all night was the news coverage of the elections... and it appears to have been a great night for Republicans. I'm not all that adept at reading political tea leaves, but my initial reaction is "no big deal." The GOP, of course, is saying they're resurgent and the elections represent a referendum on The One and his policies. I don't quite see how state governors and such have anything to do with Mr. Obama and his policies, especially in New Jersey where God hissownself would have been defeated had he run as a Democrat. Too much party corruption there, for way too long. Still and even, I hope the GOP pols are correct and the public rejected Democratic candidates simply because they were Democrats. But I kinda doubt it.
We'll see.
Even if Republicans are winning everywhere, it's quite pointless to notice it if one does not take the effort to define what this is supposed to be proving. And to define what this is supposed to be proving, one must define what the public is trying to say when the Republican wins.
ReplyDeleteIn NY23, things didn't go so swell. So I do see one thing that is absolutely consistent: When the message is "We're going to do something different from those other guys" the public responds with "thanks, but no thanks." If you're ready to say a little bit more of what you're all about, and ask 'em if they're ready for a change from the Obama/Corzine machine, the answer is "when can you start?" And that by no means is an endorsement of GOP policies/values. Just buyin' the "change you can believe in," Year II.
To boil it down to its essentials: Better the devil you know.
So regarding New York? Whaddya think...conservatives lost because they deserted the GOP party apparatus, or the party apparatus lost because it deserted the conservatives? Either way, it's plain to see if the two hung together the results would be quite different.
Off to grab a bite to eat. If I see any widows that need repairing, I'll send 'em your way.
I think the NJ and VA races are important because those are states that Obama took during the election. And he campaigned there for the Dems this time around - with zero results.
ReplyDeleteIt just means that his coattails have gotten very short.
As long as those widows aren't shattered....
ReplyDeleteDo you think the author's granddaddy was in the Army Air Corps?
Although the long-term effect on mid-term elections may not be as significant as I'd hope, it sure was fun to listen to the silence coming from the White house last night -- almost as much fun as hearing all about the Tea Party movement nowadays when the Prez and the White House weren't even aware of its existence in April. Not to mention CNN!
"Whaddya think...conservatives lost because they deserted the GOP party apparatus, or the party apparatus lost because it deserted the conservatives?"
ReplyDeleteDefinitely the latter. The conservatives and the Republican split their 51% of the vote 88/12 -- and the Conservative was the one on top.
Buck, is not "air man" actually "airman"? Just wondering. I know the capital "M" in Marine is the distinction between them that live in the sea and those that come out of it shooting!!
ReplyDeleteI do think like Kris does on NJ and VA. PresBO put a lot of his juice into those, especially in NJ and it went to not. Even the normal corruptness and Mob activity could not save the Dem. The important thing in VA is that they have three bran new Congressman serving in their first terms in what had been Republican districts. Seeing how the voters in those three districts voted for the "R" Governor candidate (by overwhelming numbers) should send a chill through them each, especially if they are thinking loner than a single term.
I posted at my site what I think about NY23.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Morgan: I posted my initial thoughts on NY23 here. And my opinion hasn't changed a whole Helluva lot. NY23 was a clusterfuck of the HIGHEST order, and there's plenty of blame to passed around as to why.
ReplyDeleteI'm beginning to think the GOP doesn't want me and my kind in the party... especially if folks of the same mind as yourfineself have their way. I am NOT a dogmatic conservative purist, I don't particularly care for Miss Alaska, and I damned sure don't like all the "real" conservative bullshit that seems to be taking front and center in the debate these days. I'm rapidly becoming apolitical, and the knee-jerk ultra-conservatives are the primary reason why. Well, them and the fucking Obamatrons. Your mileage most certainly DOES vary, I'm afraid.
Kris: Obama wrote off Virginia early on; but your point about NJ is well-taken. The One campaigned his ass off for Corzine... and got it handed to him, in the final accounting. Good news, that.
Moogie: I agree with ya. I didn't watch CNN at all last evening, so I gotta take you at your word -- I've had it with those asshats, for-frickin'-EVER. It'll be a cold day in Hell before I ever watch them again.
As for the grandaddy/Air Corps question... I think the smart money would be on "yes."
Phil: Yours is an interesting post. But what of moderates? I'm talking about small gubmint, fiscally conservative, strong national defense libertarian types who don't give a big rat's ass about gay marriage and want the goddamned gubmint OUT of our personal lives... entirely? I'd sooner vote for a Blue Dog democrat than a Bible-thumping, gay-bashing, "load up the cattle cars," "abortion is murder" "conservative." What now?
Jimmy: It is indeed "airman." But, Hey!... civilians don't know...
I agree with you that those VA congresscritters better damned well pay attention.
Palin tells Buck to take a leap - 0
ReplyDeleteBuck tells Palin to take a leap - 1
Conservatives leave GOP - 0
GOP leaves conservatives - 1
Now I'm going to keep those scoreboards updated for a reeeeeaaaaaal long time, m'friend, but I don't think they're gonna change. Seems to me you've mistaken the simple concept of "act like what you're positions really are that important" with the decidedly different concept of "reject people." In that last exchange, as well as the prior you linked, the only person I see rejecting anyone is you.
Anyway, a lot of this stuff is in how you look at it. Not to get into details too far, but gay marriage as an example. If the state gets to define that, how long do we wait until churches are sued, and perhaps prosecuted, for refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies? You say you want people left alone and left free. Well that's just another angle to consider. And it's a very real possibility.
I know it's not easy to admit you've been sold a bill o' goods sometimes...but think about this. The folks on the other side of the aisle that disagree with both of us -- I don't see anyone approaching them to say "change your position on labor unions every other election cycle...or else you're brittle and intolerant." I don't see anyone telling them "repudiate your poster about 'General Betray-Us'...or else you're intolerant."
Just look at it from the point-of-view of Ann Landers' wedding rule: Whoever says "I'm not coming if so-and-so is coming" has to be told "that's a real shame, we're going to miss you." That means you get told that, and the NY GOP gets told that. They/you are/were the ones going around rejecting people. Doug Hoffman? He charged in when he realized a whole bunch of people were being disenfranchised, and represented them. Sarah Palin? She endorsed Hoffman when she saw a bunch of shenanigans were goin' down, and pointed them out.
These don't seem to be truly positional disagreements you have with the fringe kooks like me. So far, the uninterrupted pattern I'm seeing take place is that when you "disagree" with me & my kind, you're not really disagreeing at all. On each and every single issue that comes along, it's much more accurate to say you have an opinion of "no opinion"...or "don't do anything about it"...and someone else is actually placing some importance on it. Perhaps it's a trifling distinction, but it seems to me that is not a true disagreement.
Much more to add, but I know when a post is about to cross the line and is about to take the form of a blog post all its own. Or, at least, I can look back and realize that belatedly. :-) If time permits tonight, I shall expound in the appropriate manner at the appropriate place, where nobody will ever see it.
...but gay marriage as an example. If the state gets to define that, how long do we wait until churches are sued, and perhaps prosecuted, for refusing to conduct marriage ceremonies?
ReplyDeleteI'd say: "Bring it!" Sue me...(church's stance)!
I'm not a religious type guy... anymore...having had a lifetime's worth throughout my youth, but a community's core beliefs aren't subject to legislation...at least according to the First Amendment, as I remember it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...etc.
So to say we're prohibiting gay marriage on the grounds we don't want to be told who can and can't get married in OUR church sounds really silly to me.
Sounds a lot more like intolerance...
But hey...that's just one man's opinion...you're entitled to your own...
My job to ensure that never changes!
SN1
Word verification: compres...what I need after a long night of drinkin!! (But not for quite a long time!)
Morgan sez: I don't see anyone approaching them to say "change your position on labor unions every other election cycle...or else you're brittle and intolerant." I don't see anyone telling them "repudiate your poster about 'General Betray-Us'...or else you're intolerant."
ReplyDeleteOh, come ON. If you're not seeing that then you're simply not looking. What the Hell do you think all the argument is about, anyway? There were only about 12,693 blog posts on "Gen. Betray Us," right? I mean... the right'o'sphere went frickin' ballistic, and I was part of it. And NO ONE has sold me a bill o' goods, Morgan. I've been around the block a couple o' few times and I know bullshit when I see it... most of the time. You're off the path and in the weeds on this one.
As for your scoreboard... I haven't rejected either entity, although I'm mighty damned close. I'm actually surprised the RNC keeps sending me their goddamned fund solicitations, given I haven't replied in over a year. And Miss Alaska hasn't done a damned thing that impresses me beyond her non-political accomplishments (e.g., proficiency with firearms, being a good mom, etc.), which are many, varied and admirable. None of those things, however, qualifies her for the position of POTUS or even Veep. I've managed to refuse the Kool Aid.
You're also treading danger-close to the line when you say I have no opinions or "don't do anything about it" on issues where we disagree. I interpret that as something of a slur on my intellect, or at the very least an accusation of being wishy-washy. Now you may or may not mean it that way, but that's the way I'm reading it. What part of my disagreement with your position on gay marriage do you not get? If you are against gay marriage and I say I disagree, then how is that "no opinion?" Same thing on immigration: I detest your idea of a cattle car round-up. Is that sufficiently clear? As I said: danger-close.
So... you know I commented at your place; I just was delayed in answering the mail here. And yeah, we're still friends. ;-)
Buck: Well said.
My first thought re: a typo was that his granddaddy served in the Air Force...more likely the Army Air Force.
ReplyDelete