No metaphors are perfect when attempting to describe or clarify a
situation, but they often help. Jesus used metaphors to explain things
His disciples, and often even with His clarity and Godly talents of
speaking, they just confused the heck out of them, causing the Savior to
have to just lay in out in good ol' plain Aramaic. Somtimes
they do help us grasp the heart of an issue which may otherwise just be a
little to abstract to understand. Well dog-gonnit, I've got one that's
darn good, and it involves our recently named
presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, and the
Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.
Rooted in our country's constitution is the principle of civilian
leadership of the armed forces. Our founders knew that if generals
controlled foreign policy, their esoteric views may distort the true
national interest. History would indeed be very different if this check
were not in place. World War III, for example, may have started in the
winter of 1950 with MacArthur's nuking of China. Operation Iraqi Freedom
may have been rendered moot with Stormin' Normin Schwarzkopf's
victorious march into Baghdad in 1991 to topple the Hussein regime once
and for all. But alas, for better or for worse, the
commander-in-chief of the armed forces during both of these times was
not a seasoned General of the Army, he was a polititian, with a much
broader view of the situation than the men calling the shots on the
ground. There have been several occasions when these brilliant military
men of great accomplishment saw their successes sweep them into the role
of commander-in-chief through their popular election as president:
Washington, Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower - to name a few. With the glaring
exception of the first man in this list, these men did not make
extrordinary presidents, as tacticians don't often make great
polititians. I suppose all of the B.S. in politics tends to not jive
well with a man who is accustommed to his success being evaluated by how
many of his enemies he was able to have killed.
Take a look at the picture of this man. General Martin E Dempsey.
West Point grad, served in Desert Storm and went on to command all of
CENTCOM, overseeing Baghdad during the time in which insurgency was
reaching its peak. He then went on to be nominated as as Chief of Staff
of the Army, before assuming the role as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Dempsey is decorated with the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with
an Oak Leaf Cluster, the Distinguished Service Medal with three Oak Leaf
Clusters, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with
two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Bronze Star with “V” Device and Oak Leaf
Cluster, the Combat Action Badge, and the Parachutist
Badge. Translation: this guy is a badass. See all the color on his
chest? That means he's been around... and I dont mean in the Jersey
Shore sense, I mean in the sense that you could probably count on one
hand the people in the active military that have seen more or
accomplished more than him. So what does this all mean? All of this
knowledge, experience and ability, while it has given him the ability to
think globally about all of our armed forces (hence his appointment as
Charman of the Joint Chiefs), still wouldn't necessarly make him an
effective commander-in-chief, let alone a great civilian leader. His
views of the world are still esoteric - framed by a lifetime of leading
men to battle, planning and executing military operations, and ensuring
that a mission is accomplished with speed, efficiency
and effectiveness. There have been dire times throughout history,
however, in which men with military backgrounds have been effective
national leaders: Winston Churchill many times outright overruled his
top admirals and generals in the field on matters of tactics. Having
gained a discerning military perception through his backgound in the
Royal Navy, Chuchill had a global yet incredibly specific way of
thinking about things . If we somehow had plunged into a new global war
in the late fifties which required moving masses of armies around the
world for battle, I could think of no better commander-in-chief than
Dwight Eisenhower or Winston Churchill (granted, a war during that time
would have probably involved wholesale nuclear exchanges, for this no
general or leader would have been prepared). They could have stepped
into a job for which their specific knowledge of war would have been
incredibly useful - if you're going to have two world wars in as many
decades, you may as well have the guy that won the first one for you
take care of the second one, right? Unfortunately when Ike did step into
office, it was duing a time in which knowing more than any man
alive about amphibious operations and commanding mulltinational forces
across mulitiple continents didn't do him much good. Hence as a
president, he'll have to settle for a legacy as a highway-builder, not a
world-saver.
Enter Paul Ryan. Political Science and Economics Major at Miami
University - he received the best formal training in economics and
politics that money can buy. That's right, chew on that Univeristy of
Chicago and Harvard. Mr. Ryan is the Chairman of the House Budget
Committee and easily the most outspoken congressman on the Hill when it
comes to the budget. He's advanced ideas that could bring spending to
levels that would be sustainable over the long term, allowing us to get
out of our current "throw money at anything that moves" strategy of
economic stimulus. His plan (perhaps to his own detriment) also
addresses the "third rail" of American politics: entitlement spending.
Any responsible budget must address how the current exponential spending
growth for entitlment programs is unsustainable in the long run. Like
his ideas or not, he's talking about it. Anyone who isn't talking about
it (almsot everyone else), isn't capable of proposing a credible budget
for the next decade.
Our country has big, big problems right now - the consequences of
our problems lie a decade or two down the road, which is why no one is
doing anything about it now. Just look at these trends. Notice
the change in slope of the line every eight years. That's no accident
folks - and the slope has never been steeper than the last four
years. If you follow that little line four more years out, it doesnt fit
on the graph - were talking about moving that y-axis mark to... oh
probably closer to the 25 mil mark. And no, that's not 25 million,
it's 25 million million... that's right, 25 trillion dollars. Our
national debt in four years under the current trend. See the problem,
now? We need to change the slope of the little blue line, fast. Whether
or not you think that means raising tax rates on the super rich is
enough to do it is up to you, and hopefully that's a conversation we'll
be having this fall.
Were in a crisis situation right now with the trajectory of our
deficit spending. If that chart doesn't convince you of that, I dont
know what will. We need leaders that have the capability of thinking
incredibily specifically of how to solve this problem - numbers
crunchers, budget gurus, Miami economics majors... dare i say. We need
people capable of fundamentally changing the way our government conducts
fiscal policy and revenue allocation. Someone that has sat in Laws 100
and daydreamed about how they are going to change the world one day for
the better. If Paul Ryan doesn't fit this description to a tee, I don't
know who does. He's the Dwight Eisenhower to your World War III
beginning in 1958, no nukes invloved... the Aroldis Chapman to
your bottom of the ninth, one run lead, any month but July and not in
Ohio (did you know that the guy hasn't given up an earned run yet this
year outside of Ohio? Whee doggy he's good... but I digress). We NEED to
have this debate this fall - and I don't care if you are a Democrat,
Republican, or anything in between, Paul Ryan's message is essential to
getting that converstion going.
No comments :
Post a Comment