Fixation On The Confederacy Lacks More Than Just Historical Perspective

An Historical Lack Of Perspective

Robert E. Lee was a confederate general. He viewed slavery as a moral and political evil, although his wife's family owned slaves, he opposed succession prior to the war, and Abraham Lincoln asked him to serve as the Union's top general. Robert E. Lee was opposed to the erection of any civil war monuments. In a speech that was famous at the time he said: "I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."

In a world of single issue voters, hyperbole, sensationalist media, and elitist politicians, it is impossible to understand why General Lee chose to fight for the South. It is impossible for so many historically illiterate news reporters to even fathom the motivations of any man who, despite his opposition to the wisdom of a cause, may still choose to follow it. Because we do not teach our  history in a fair or legitimate way, modern thinkers refuse observe any moral complexities in the historical figures they study. When they do, they immediately compare them to our own morality, anachronistically, erasing the validity of the comparison. The result leads to absurdity.

As General Lee stated, slavery was a moral and political evil. Some intelligentsia like to call it America's "original sin," although I find that offensive as a Christian. Slavery is certainly the result of man's original sin, which was turning from God, not from founding this nation without liberating slaves. 

Slavery is an institution that can be traced back to the first human civilizations and has been practiced in nearly every culture at some point in its history. Slavery was not invented by white people. Documentary history as far back as Hammurabi show that the regulation of slavery and slave owners was subject to frequent government action. The Bible, yes, the Bible, addresses slavery without condemnation. Jesus Christ himself did not call on humanity to abolish slavery, but merely to treat  slaves well. He instructed slaves to obey their masters. Both commands when viewed in contemporary terms are morally repugnant. 

Despite 10,000 years of slavery as a widely practiced institution, our freedom loving Founders and their progeny actually quickly eradicated the intuition. That's right, quickly. Abolition was hotly debated during the drafting of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It seemed, rightly, ridiculous to say that all men are created equal, but then continue to enslave a large percentage of the population. The issue never went away, and less than 74 years after the ratification of the Constitution, 620,000 American soldiers died in the Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of more civilians died indirectly from war, famine, and disease, and still tens of thousands more perished during Reconstruction. The Civil War is, still to this day, the single most destructive war in the history of our nation, by several orders of magnitude.

Ten thousand years of slavery, abolished in the United States after 74 years. We are indeed a great and moral nation. In fact, slavery was abolished in the United States before it was abolished by Native Americans in North and South America, who held conquered opponents as slaves. It was abolished in the United States before it was abolished in Africa.

To view the institution of slavery without the context of the time period in which it was widely practiced is intellectually dishonest and creates an impossible standard of moral judgment. For example, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Andrew Jackson all owned slaves. They were in power, had an opportunity to use that power to end the institution and did not. By current standards, we should tear down their monuments. But what about Woodrow Wilson? He was an early promoter of eugenics, an ideology also embraced by the Nazis and used to justify the Holocaust. He too should be stricken from our history. What about Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton's mentor in government, who was a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? There should be no glorification of him. Franklin Roosevelt interned 100,000 Japanese, depriving them of due process, their property and in many cases, their lives. He and the Supreme Court justices who supported that racist and un-Constitional decision should be stricken. What about Christ? He could have come to Earth and condemned the institution of slavery, but He did not. Perhaps all Christian monuments should also be stricken.

Slavery is and has always been a morally indefensible and evil practice. Many human beings have sacrificed their lives, across many cultures to end slavery. Many Americans gave their lives and continue to give their lives to protect the civil rights of others. Today, we have had the benefit of 300 years of Enlightenment thinking. To condemn historical figures for failing to recognize that which to us is so obvious now, is improper.

A Political Lack Of Perspective

Ambassador Andrew Young, by every measure one of the greatest men still living in our country, recently said that fighting to remove the Confederate Flag from Georgia may have been a mistake. He went on to say: "I think it's too costly to refight the Civil War." He said that flags and statues are just symbols and, "I'm always interested in substance over symbols and if the truth be known, we've had as much glory and agony under the United States flag."

Ambassador Young has perspective. As I wrote some time ago in Man and His Symbols, it was the American flag flying when General Sherman exterminated Native Americans living in the West. General Sherman, of course, was a Union general known for burning his way to the Southern coast during the civil war, resulting in the displacement and deaths of tens of thousands of Southern civilians. It was the American flag that flew as we dropped atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, firebombed Germany and Tokyo, and "relocated" villages in Vietnam. These symbols are a reflection of who we are as a nation, both good and bad. Eradicating them does not change our history. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2015/07/man-and-his-symbols.html

I have spent my entire career in court both defending and prosecuting civil rights. I have, sometimes at great personal expense, helped African Americans find justice, and sometimes peace, by vindicating those rights in front of their fellow citizens. I know first hand that racism exists, and I know the enormous emotional toll it takes on a person to be the victim of racism. Those who think these laws are silly have never had grown men in their office, getting emotional as they describe the truly unfair treatment they've experienced as the result of nothing but the color of their skin. They lack perspective. 

However, like Ambassador Young, I believe this focus on eradicating symbols covers up the real and systemic racial problems we still face as a nation. It blunts the impact of prosecuting real racism. It gives reactionaries an argument that frustrates our ability to bring real, current institutional racism to light. It is an ill advised attack on the wrong targets. 

The vast majority of Americans, black and white, are not thinking about Charlottesville, or Confederate monuments, or Robert E. Lee or Donald Trump's press conferences. The vast majority of Americans are thinking about whether they can get up tomorrow and make it to work on time with their aching knees. The vast majority of Americans are thinking about whether their plant is going to close, or whether their children will make it to practice. They are thinking about whether they can pay the bills or whether they will have to move into a smaller home. Americans are worried about their kid's school, or maybe a child's addiction, or their own. Americans are thinking about the cookout they planned for this weekend, their marriage, their friend who is having an issue.

My father, who came from very humble beginnings, taught me the most important lesson of my life at a very early age. It doesn't matter where you come from, the color of your skin, or who your daddy is. We all put our pants on the same way in the morning, we all care about our families, our jobs, our kids. In the end, we have far more in common with one another than we have that divides us. 

The current populist movement in this nation is a reflection of that reality. Coal miners in West Virginia share the same real life concerns as manufacturing workers in Ohio, or a waitress in Nebraska, or an out of work trucker in Kentucky. The governing elite have completely lost touch with the plight of regular Americans, focusing instead on the minutiae spoiled rich people have time to focus on. The media glorifies conflicts like Charlottesville making it appear that this is what Americans really care about. The coverage lacks perspective. It is not even accurate. It does not reflect the concerns of most Americans. 

Politicians that focus on things like Charlottesville will not be in power for much longer. Americans have clearly had enough. As I've said before, Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger, but he is the only politician even willing to speak to the everyday issues facing most Americans. There will be others who hopefully will strike a more balanced tone. But, the vast majority of Americans didn't go to Harvard or know how to articulate their positions in perfect language. Most Americans do not expect that from their leadership either. I give you as Exhibit A, Donald Trump. However, underestimating his support, or condemning his supporters will be the final mistake most current politicians and pundits will make in their careers. The needs of 99% of Americans can only be ignored for so long. 

Perhaps it's time to keep things in perspective. 

One False Move: Five Thoughts On The North Korea Crisis

For many Americans, the nuclear arms crisis between the United States and North Korea represents their first experience with Cold War brinkmanship. Indeed, there are only a few generations of Americans left who have ever lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. The Baby Boomers, of course, grew up in the post-war era and famously engaged in routine "duck and cover" drills in their schools, as if hiding under a desk would save a child from Russian missiles. Generation X grew up during the Carter-Reagan era, which saw the height of American Cold War military and economic power and the collapse of the Soviet Union. For those generations, Cold War rhetoric, insane threats of global destruction, and brinkmanship are nothing new. While the rhetoric is unwelcome, these generations have some experience grappling with those fears and avoiding global thermonuclear war. Nuclear destruction was woven into popular culture in movies, music and television. To the extent possible, Americans had become somewhat desensitized. 

However, those born in the mid 80s and after have grown up in a world in which the greatest threat to western civilization has been various groups of Jihadis in Toyota pick up trucks. As I've said before, while this threat should be taken seriously, our war with Jihadism is simply not on the same scale as the two industrial wars fought in the last century. This experience gap is resulting in misplaced expectations of what might come from the current crisis, and the enormous impact such an event would have on the world. War is not imminent, despite the bluster, but one false move could result in a cascade of destruction, unprecedented in our history.

Technically, the United States has been at war with North Korea since the first Korean War. While there is a long-standing cease fire in place, there is no treaty between any of the warring parties. But, whether we go to war now or go to war in ten years, it is very unlikely that things in North Korea will change. Here's why.

1.  Sanctions Will Fail.

The Trump administration has spent the past 10 days alternating between "fire and fury" and praise for the U.N. sanctions package unanimously passed by the Security Counsel. The total estimated impact of these "tough sanctions" is approximately $1 Billion. 

One billion dollars is less than Donald Trump's net worth. It reminds me of something out of Austin Powers: "I want...One Million dollars! Or I'll use my 'laser' to destroy your country!" Ok ... get out the checkbook. I'm pretty sure that Kim Jong Un and his regime is willing to part with their one billion dollars in exchange for nuclear supremacy in Asia. Un and his supporters stand to gain hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of Un's lifetime using a strong nuclear program to blackmail the world. 

Moreover, nuclear weapons ensure the survival of the Kim regime. Kim will have accomplished what most rogue regimes and our enemies have only dreamed - a deterrent against U.S. intervention. 

Finally, sanctions are dependent on China, who represents 90% of North Korea's trade. Historically, China has shown zero interest in doing anything beyond making a few statements of frustration with North Korean bellicosity.

That aside...

2.  China has chosen North Korea.

Late last night, China announced that it would remain "neutral" if North Korea attacks the United States or its allies. That would be bad enough, but then they announced that if the United States attacked North Korea, or attempted "regime change" on the Korean Peninsula, they would intervene to prevent it. In other words, China is willing to go to war against the United States to prevent Korean reunification under a democratic government. 

China's announcement is tantamount to giving permission to a mentally ill, unstable child to take his assault rifle to school. It is unacceptable for one of our largest trading partners, manufacturing a huge percentage of our products, to threaten to go to war with us. Anyone who considers President Trump's statements to be reckless should be equally if not more critical of China's.

China just picked sides and it creates perhaps the worst case scenario for U.S. influence in Asia. In point of fact, China has been secretly supporting North Korea for decades specifically because they want North Korea to drive the United States out of the region. In recent years, China has taken overt measures to establish itself as a regional hegemony, with man-made militarized islands in the South China Sea. That aside, there is now strong evidence from our intelligence community that China aided North Korea with its nuclear weapons program.

It is now clear that China is not our friend. China is a global rival whose primary interest is regional if not global hegemony. Unfortunately, sanctioning China is much more difficult than people seem to think. China holds a large portion of our debt and does a huge amount of our manufacturing. Cutting off trade with China, while that sounds satisfying, would throw the United States into a deep, deep recession. The stock market would crash, there would be a run on banks, and the United States would have to find a new way to finance its $20 Trillion debt.

It is a very bad development.

3.  Where is NATO?

North Korea has threatened to attack Guam, a U.S. territory, with U.S. citizens. That would be an attack on U.S. soil, invoking Article V of NATO - the common defense provision. Yet, NATO has been silent, with the exception of Angela Merkel, who has decided to criticize President Trump and announce to the world that the West doesn't have the military power to take out North Korea. Even if true, her statement is not one from a military ally supposedly willing to occupy a foxhole with her American and Japanese friends.

Donald Trump ran against the global elite and won. He attacked NATO during the campaign as obsolete, bloated and militarily ineffective. More and more, he looks right. The NATO alliance was supposed to be a military alliance between the NATO countries, not between "Europe" and the "United States." Our European allies seem to think it is otherwise; that the United States is somehow obligated to be the guarantor of European freedom at any cost. At the same time, NATO could care less about any non-European threat. America stands alone in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Asia.

The fact of the matter is, NATO is no longer a military alliance, it is a political alliance. Evidence of this fact is abundant. Take for example how the Europeans' rushed to give NATO membership to Montenegro, a nation of 612,000 people and no military. If the United States is attacked by North Korea, I sincerely doubt Montenegro will be providing us with decisive military force. On the other hand, if Russia decides to test NATO resolve by invading Montenegro, the United States would be obligated under Article V to go to war with Russia. 

Here is the truth, NATO is not going to help us with North Korea, and the American people will not ever authorize a war with Russia over Montenegro. Trump was right, NATO is obsolete. A new, more powerful global military alliance is needed to ensure freedom in the world. Some countries need not apply.

4.  Americans are not prepared for this kind of war.

I have great faith in the American people, and I think we are far tougher than our enemies and critics believe. That said, Americans have enjoyed sole-superpower status in the world since 1991. For 25 years, Americans have been focused on the Middle East and terrorism. Our government and military have been taking the fight to Jihadism in an effort to prevent a group of crazies from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction to then use in New York City or Chicago. 

North Korea is an entirely different threat. If the U.S. intelligence reports are correct, Kim Jong Un has between 40 and 60 miniaturized nuclear warheads ready to be attached to Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that can reach the entire country. We are no longer talking about one city being attacked by an improvised nuclear device sitting in a delivery van somewhere in a major city. Now we have returned to the Cold War, where North Korea literally could cause at least the temporary  collapse of civil society.

A single successful nuclear attack would devastate our economy, erasing trillions of dollars of wealth overnight. Multiple successful attacks, or a successful EMP strike would change life as we know it in our country forever. As I've said before, this kind of war means no Publix, no Walgreens, no food, limited water, and no Facebook. Our country may not collapse, but the fabric of society would be torn. Americans, having enjoyed decades free of such threats, are no longer prepared for them mentally, physically, or by stocking those things necessary for survival in a long term crisis. 

5.  The war will not stop with North Korea.

World War III will likely start the same way World War I started - with a seemingly insignificant act, combined with the total miscalculation of the way world powers will align. As we just learned, China, who one would think would support its largest trading partner, has decided it would prefer war with the U.S. over regime change in North Korea. That is a stunning revelation, but it is instructive. It is likely that there are other countries that will align with China and North Korea or, at the very least, take advantage of the chaos.

Russia, for example, is a threat to Eastern Europe. Iran is a threat to the Greater Middle East. If the United States is otherwise preoccupied with a bloody, vicious fight in Asia, Europe will in fact find themselves facing Russia alone. Our Middle Eastern allies will have a similar problem. 

I don't care what anyone says, America simply cannot fight a cascading series of regional wars with its current conventional military. The alternative is too scary to contemplate, but it involves the wide ranging use of nuclear weapons. 

The parallels between World War I and the current state of our world are remarkable. There are multiple hostile powers in different regions of the world. World powers have increasingly entered into war pacts with one another, obligating them to go to war. Economies have become globalized. New technologies on the battlefield are waiting to bring a whole new level of destruction to the enemy. World powers have overestimated the importance of global economic ties to their rivals, and have underestimated the strength of the enemy. The explosion of any one crisis can easily create a chain reaction across the globe.

We should learn from our history, or we are indeed doomed to repeat it.

One Final Thought:  Unity

In the Art of War, Sun Tzu famously counseled leaders that: "Wars are won first in the Temples before they are ever fought on the battlefield." What the Chinese General meant was that any successful war enjoys the unified support of the people. Without unity of purpose, resolve and method, a war will certainly fail.

We are a deeply divided nation. It doesn't matter. There is no American who, in the long run, will profit from "being right" about North Korea. The current crisis is the result of nearly half a century of failed leadership from both political parties. It is not just Obama's fault, it is not just Clinton's fault. It is not Trump's fault or the Bush's fault. It is the combined lack of resolve in bringing an antiquated Cold War surrogate to heel over a period of 67 years. The blame goes back to Truman, MacArthur and can even be more fairly pinned on the treaty ending World War II. We are all going to have to live with the consequences of our collective, generational decision to leave the "Hermit Kingdom" alone for so long.

Everyone has strong feelings about "Russian Collusion," Hillary's emails, NSA spying, and any other number of domestic issues. Like most presidents before him, Trump's presidency will be defined by the foreign policy challenges we face, despite his best efforts to focus on domestic initiatives. We simply cannot fight each other and multiple nuclear powers and expect to win. We will most certainly fail. 

There are plenty of fair criticisms of the Trump Administration and the Establishment Pols opposing him. Expressing those criticisms is the American way. It is the tone that dictates whether we can proceed after debate in a unified way or argue ourselves into national defeat.

No matter how right you may be about any issue you feel passionately about, you will not bring about successful change if your city is consumed by flames. Division, hyperbole, partisanship, diversity of opinion on tertiary issues, and thin skin are luxuries enjoyed by a nation at peace. These are serious threats that need to be faced, collectively, by a serious people. Single issue voters will need to broaden their perspective or else get out of the way of the rest of us.

A house divided cannot stand, and no voter, liberal or conservative, will benefit from a world set on fire.