Talking About Politics

 

Let's talk about talking about politics. I know some members of my family feel uncomfortable, perhaps even threatened, by political ideas and political disagreements. They see political discussions as fights. To help remove that false impression, let's probe a bit into the nature of political disagreements and their centrality to the survival of any society. One reason it's even possible to shun politics is that our beautiful America has now seen seventy years without an existential threat. We've been lulled into a kind of somnolence that lets us believe the United States is a permanent fixture that can't be brought down by the kinds of catastrophes history tells us are inevitable.

I've already told you about some of my memories of WW II, which was the last existential crisis we faced. Before that was the Depression. Before that was WW I. Before that was the Civil War. Before that was the war of 1812, and before that was the Revolution that gave birth to the United States of America, the first nation since the Roman Empire eventually to bring some limited stability to the world. Our nation was created in midst of a huge political fight. If you don't understand that, read The Federalist Papers. They'll be an eye-opener.

Since WW II we've seen a series of smaller crises, none of which, individually, posed an existential threat to our country. First there was the Korean war. Then there was the Vietnam war, which ended in the Cambodian bloodbath. Those were followed by the Gulf War, Afghanistan war, and the Iraq war. I've left out a multitude of brushfires like Grenada and Panama.

I was involved in the Korean war, not because I wanted to be, but because in the fifties we had a draft and there were no college deferments. I was at University of Michigan, studying, I thought, to become a professor of English Literature, though I'll confess I wasn't studying very hard. I lived in a dorm that was emptying out as people around me were drafted. I decided I'd rather fly than walk, so I volunteered for the Aviation Cadet program. I learned to fly fighter-bombers; in fact became damned good at it. On the last day of primary pilot training I lost my best friend in a crash (Clint's named after him), and in gunnery school I lost some more friends. I went to Korea, and as it turned out, was scheduled to fly my first combat mission the day the war ended.

I loved to fly, and when the end of my military commitment rolled round I was in a responsible position at an Air Defense Command division headquarters. I decided to stay in the service, and I've never regretted that decision, though I know it was hard on my family at times. I ended up going to Southeast Asia twice. The first time I was commander of a radar site in the Vietnam delta. The second time I was commander of the outfit that owned all our remaining radar sites. I won't bore you with further details here. You can see a bit of that story by going to my web. Between overseas tours I spent most of my time in major headquarters. Before my second Southeast-Asian tour I was Director of Operations Plans at NORAD headquarters.

I'm telling you all this so you'll understand that I've been there, done that. I know something about war and I know something about the threats we face, and politics is the nexus that brings us together to face those threats, or that spins us apart and leaves us blindsided when a threat surfaces.

You can look at Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and say in hindsight that we should or shouldn't have gone there. That discussion is a political discussion worth having, and if you join the discussion on either side you're going to run up against serious disagreement. But having argued the question you'll know more about the uncertainties and difficulties that surround the kind of decision that takes your country into war. If you steer away from that kind of argument, when catastrophe strikes you go blindly into that not-so-good night.

To get some idea of what WW II was all about and how close a call the outcome was you need to read Churchill. The best treatment is Churchill's own six-volume set on the Second World War. Yes, it's biased, but it's the most complete coverage out there. You can get around the bias by also reading the three-volume set, "The Last Lion." If you really want to begin to grasp how important politics is I'd recommend both sets. You'll come out the other end of that study understanding that though you may not be interested in politics, politics is always interested in you. One thing you'll learn is that there was a period early in Hitler's military buildup when the whole thing could have been stopped with minimal and possibly no military action. But the British and French people wanted to concentrate on their day-to-day activities. Most of them hadn't read Mein Kampf or couldn't believe Hitler meant what he wrote in that book (Just as many people nowadays can't believe the Ayatollah really means "death to America"). When they woke up it was too late.

As things stand in the United States at the moment you can concentrate on your day-to-day activities and not worry about what's going on in the world. But there are some very dangerous things going on in the world and whether or not you ignore them they still go on. What do you think about the situation in the Middle East? Do you even know what you think about it? If you do know, do you know why you think that? Have you paid attention to other opinions on the subject and dealt with points that conflict with what you think? Are your opinions supported by facts? How do you determine what is and what isn't a fact? What do you think about Putin's push into Ukraine? What do you think about China's push into the South China Sea?

Each of these situations could lead to an existential crisis for the United States. Whether or not that will happen will depend on what the people we've elected choose to do over the next few years. Have we let our military capabilities decay to the point where we no longer can defend against these threats? Do you have any ideas about that? That's a political question that needs discussion. If one of these situations turns into WW III, we'll have to re-institute a draft and if you're young you'll likely be marching off to war. An all-volunteer force isn't going to get the job done, so it's a problem worth discussing.

Getting away from military threats for a moment, consider our economy. We see almost daily demonstrations of the fact that our economy is in a slump. And our national debt is in the 18 trillion dollar range — a debt level relative to our GDP previously reached only in the middle of WW II. Do you have an opinion about that? Do you believe that's a problem? Could the economic decisions made by the people we've elected create an existential crisis similar to the one posed by the Depression?

When WW II started we were still in the Depression, but since we were far away over large oceans we had time to get our act together and arm ourselves. With nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles in the hands of potential enemies we'll never have that kind of time again. We'll either be ready when the bell rings or we won't.

As individuals there's not much we can do about these things, but together we're a nation, and each of us has an opportunity every two years to vote for the kind of nation we want. The people we put into office do have the power to do something about these things. Should you really decide whom to vote for by rejecting everybody Rush Limbaugh is for, or by rejecting everybody Sean Penn is for? We often use labels: "liberal" and "conservative" to identify what's acceptable and what's not. But there are useful ideas in both camps. Discussing politics can help weed out losing ideas and reinforce winning ideas.

You don't necessarily go into a political discussion expecting to change the minds of the people you're talking to, but you do hope to put a strain on bad ideas. Yes, in a political discussion the person on the other side is liable to jab at you. If you say something really dumb it's hard for the person on the other side to resist a jab. But if you really need a "threshold warning" to avoid the terrible pain that comes from a political jab then not only should you not be discussing politics, you shouldn't be voting. The pain of seeing your candidate shot down would be excruciating and your tender soul might never get over it. If you're not that tender then the best response to a jab is to jab back.

No group of people, not even a "group" of two, can work together without politics coming into the picture. Politics is what's either going to preserve the United States in coming years or cause our nation to die as all other nations in history eventually have died. Do you want to be a part of the solution or do you want to hide your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away? If you want to be part of the solution then you have to be willing to be part of a discussion that can lead to a solution.

 

Love you all,

Russell, Dad, Grandpa, Great-Grandpa