Unless you are a bear emerging from hibernation for the first time this spring, I suspect you are aware of the comments Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama made prior to the Pennsylvania primary last week. For you bears engaging in such decidedly human behavior as reading blogs, here is a recap. Senator Obama, speaking to a group of volunteers in San Francisco said that some voters have grown frustrated. “It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I’ve expressed my dismay with these comments in another post (http://tinyurl.com/5hk8r3) but what has escaped attention are Senator John McCain’s comments in response to Senator Obama’s statement. Senator McCain said, “ These are the people that produced a generation that made the world safe for democracy. These are the people that have fundamental cultural, spiritual and other values that in my opinion have very little to do with their economic condition.”

“These people.” Really? Referring to “these people” demonstrates his lack of understanding of the American electorate as much as Obama’s comments do. There is no “these people” as a subset of American demographics. “These people” are Americans. It is Americans who are deeply spiritual. It is Americans who believe in God. It is Americans who value the right to gun ownership. “These people” are “We the people.” The founding fathers felt so strongly about these two issues specifically that addressed them first in writing the Bill of Rights.

I understand the point Senator McCain was trying to make and he would have been absolutely correct had he also made the point that the people who value religion and gun ownership are represented in every single demographic in the Untied States. Obama’s comments are demeaning in that they imply that the ONLY reason people believe in God or own guns is as a coping mechanism for their lot in life. This trivializes the importance of these issues and it is an arrogant analysis of how he believes people with less than he has OUGHT to feel.

McCain’s comments are equally repugnant. By labeling them “these people” he, too, ties these issues to an underclass of Americans, as if the wealthy don’t attend church or own guns. Additionally, he implies that it was this underclass that made the world safe for democracy, when, in fact, every American demographic has participated in the defense of our country and the spread of democracy.

Senator McCain missed an opportunity to unite Americans through the oratorical follies of Senator Obama. Obama continues to be a divisive candidate in this presidential election, not a unifier. But John McCain is doing no better, even when Obama lobs him a softball. Senator McCain’s comments demonstrate not just his being out of touch with mainstream America and what we believe and why we believe it, but they show him to be equally unable to unite the American electorate around a core set of values. To Americans hunting for a candidate they like, despite the finger pointing, Senator McCain often does little to stand out.

“Supporting the troops” has become synonymous with advocating the war in Iraq, particularly in Republican circles.  But do Americans who want the war to end support the troops any less? Those who advocate bringing them home immediately would say that being an advocate for an end to hostilities is the greatest show of support. The anti-war troop-supporters probably see themselves as lifesavers.  Supporting the troops, however, need not have anything to do with a stance on the war itself.  Supporting the troops can be (and should be) the most non-partisan issue in the American discourse. 

I recently conducted several interviews regarding the wounded in Iraq and the medical care of our servicemen and women who are wounded in battle.  I also had a chance to view Terry Sanders’ excellent new movie FIGHTING FOR LIFE (www.FightingForLifeTheMovie.com) regarding these very same issues.  Watching our soldiers rehab at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was heart-wrenching. But the most moving part of the movie was watching our troops LEAVE Walter Reed.  The medical community had done what they could for each brave person and at some point there was no more to be done in an inpatient setting.   The soldier returns home.  

Damaged. 

Broken. 

Permanently disabled. 

The medical community moves on to the next patient, but the wounded remain in a sort of suspended reality, trying to learn how to establish a “new normal.”  What will life be like being disabled? How will they relate to their families?  Certainly more questions than answers exist when they arrive home. Their service was temporary but the cost of their service is permanent. 

What support is there for the soldier now?  While overseas, the soldier could at least know that he would return to a country that valued his service. He wouldn’t be spit upon—those days are thirty-plus years behind us.  It’s nice to return home and not be scorned, but goodwill pays few bills. 

Let me suggest a way in which we can clearly and definitively support our troops when they come home, regardless of their physical condition:  hire them. Give them a job.  Yes, I am advocating discriminatory hiring practices—it’s true.  Discriminate in favor of veterans. Nothing could be more supportive of the troops than taking the initiative to care for them, their families and their futures.  We can’t replace limbs, sight or lost relationships, but American citizens can provide hope and a future.  These brave men and women did their duty.  Regardless of why they joined the military, the day came when their Commander-in-Chief called them to service and they responded. They didn’t eschew their commitments.  They fought with their spouses over being “more married to the military” and got on a plane. They cried with their children and made promises they couldn’t know if they’d ever be able to keep.  

It’s our duty now to help them keep those promises. Do you need a receptionist for your office?  Forget the 20-year-old cutie in the little black dress and choose instead the 20-year-old corporal in the little black wheel chair. Make it a priority to interview veterans. Assume first that they’re hired and then make it a priority to find out what it is that would prevent them from doing the job well. I think it’s safe to say they’ve proved their mettle in tough circumstances. They’ve proved their loyalty and ability to work with others. Do you need a team player that can be trained to do anything? Look no further than the Transition Services Office at the nearest military facility. 

What better statement for your company than to be able to say, “We REALLY support the troops?”  What better way to say thank you on behalf of a grateful nation?  When we needed our soldiers to go out on a limb for us, they entered the “how-high” phase of military life.  Most of them might be too proud now to ask you for special treatment. It would be a shame if they had to ask. 

We invest in what we value and if we truly esteem the higher values--Duty, Honor, Country--demonstrated by our all-volunteer military we should make an investment in their future.  Giving a job to a veteran may cost you a little more money—a few extra sick days each year, handicapped accommodations, a little lost productivity--but these are the higher values WE are called to—these are the investments WE can make in America’s future. 

A job is only the beginning of finding a new normal but it is an absolute necessity for a veteran trying to earn his keep in society. So, you want to commit to supporting the troops? You want to commit to demonstrating that you value their service, dedication and protection? Then commit to hire values. 

Barack Obama’s comments this week about American values reveal not just elitism and a lack of understanding about the values most Americans hold dear, but they also expose him as using religion for political gain.

As a reminder, here is what he said. There was a question from some of his donors who asked what they could expect in Pennsylvania when they traveled there to campaign for him. They had to work to do, Obama responded, because voters in a lot of the communities feel beaten down by job losses and betrayed by their government.  “It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said.

Let’s start with the easy part:  It's human nature to project our experiences on to other people--to assume that they have traveled a similar road and that our experiences and conclusions are somewhat universal. Perhaps this is how HE views these issues—that religion is placebo for the problems of the world or that guns make people feel powerful when they have no power. But Obama's comments not only show that he believes the way he lives his life to be better than the way many Americans choose to live their lives, but they also show that he isn't aware of this tendency towards projection.  Which means that if he is given the chance to lead this great nation, he will do so only guided by his own personal view of the American Experience and without even a limited understanding of what the majority of Americans truly believe. He doesn't understand the underlying conservative (not Republican--conservative) values that most Americans hold dear. I’m not saying he has to be able to bowl a 160, or hit a soup can with a 9mm from 50 feet, or even raise his hands in worship.  He just needs to know that a significant number of Americans do--and it's a choice we freely make; if for no other reason than it lets us spend time with our friends and neighbors who like the same things.

His inclusion of religion in his remarks, however, also tells us something about the Illinois Senator.  The inference from his recent comments is that, as Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opiate of the people.”  Religion isn’t something real in our lives. It isn’t a relationship with the Creator.  Religion, Marx and Obama tell us, is a painkiller for what really ails us—economic hardship brought on by others, victimization at the hands of “the man,” powerlessness.  Furthermore, he implies that this phenomenon is unique to the weak members of society who cannot otherwise cope with their predicament.  This is from a man who wrote in his memoirs, “Inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story.”  Are we to assume that he feels the thousands of black church members  are simply looking for a way to deal with their frustrations? Because I didn’t hear him say any of that last month when speaking about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Was David clinging to religion when he found the courage to take on Goliath? Were the members of Trinity United Church of Christ clinging to religion as they dealt with the frustrations Reverend Wright prattled on about from the pulpit?
 
Campaigning in South Carolina last fall, Obama trumpeted the power and salvation of faith and asked a church audience to help him become “an instrument of God” and join him in creating “a Kingdom right here on Earth."  Would that be the Kingdom of Bitterland, Senator?

After his highly regarded speech on race in America, he was discussing his grandmother.  He allowed as how she didn’t believe when she was alive, as he does, that Jesus was God and died for our sins. And yet he asserted his confidence that she is in heaven.  I’m sorry, Senator. You can’t have it both ways.  You cannot speak of the power of salvation through Jesus Christ and then say Grammy’s in heaven even though she didn’t believe.  There are many who might agree that a life well lived is sufficient and God will judge accordingly. But they do not also speak of salvation through Jesus.  I would be happy to overlook religious views different than my own—I do it every election.  What I can’t do is ignore the hypocrisy of a man whose core values seem to change depending on his audience.  Either, Senator Obama, you believe Jesus saves or you don’t.   

Either, Senator Obama, you believe religion provides freedom, survival and hope or you believe religion is a bad drug.

Make up your mind, Senator.  Make a decision. Take a stand.

Senator Obama believes in the power of his own palaver. He has created a platform of hope that many Americans are desperate to hear and believe. He has sought to tempt conservative Americans with talk of personal responsibility and with stories of his life of faith.  He sketched out a plan for the presidency and it looked like genius.  Leonardo da Vinci sketched a helicopter in 1483.  When a prototype was built from the diagrams a few years ago, it never flew.  Like Barack Obama’s oratory, it all looks good on paper, but it will never fly.

Elitism? Absolutely. But we can live with elitism.  I don’t believe Senators Clinton or McCain to be any less elitist. But we must begin to see Obama for who he is.  We must look beyond our own desire for a message of hope and seek real leadership from a candidate with a plan for America’s continued preeminence that consists of something more than just an artist’s rendering of the future.

It’s a habit of human nature that today’s Generals use the strategies and tactics of the past, and more specifically those that proved decisive in the most recent war, in order to achieve victory today.  In fact, this tendency is right in line with one of my favorite sayings, “Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.”  We must learn from the past because those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.  

What these clichés lack, true though they may be, is an affinity for prognostication.  They are only successful if the enemy fails to abide by them himself and elects to engage his enemy using the failed strategies of the past.  I, for one, am inclined to learn the ONE lesson that seems universal—the enemy ain’t as stupid as we wish he were. 

What lessons might we be learning right now about any future U.S. conflict?  Avoid the war in the first place, perhaps? (Woe to our next ally who finds itself in need of a U.S. military intervention, eh?) If we do fight, mass our troops from the outset?  These seem like obvious places to start.  But I believe history is giving us a glimpse of the future and, my friend, I find it none too pretty. 

Colonel Nathan Jessup, the fictional character in the 1993 movie A FEW GOOD MEN, famously said, “I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said, ‘Thank you,’ and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post.”  So I shall heed his advice on both fronts:  first, to our military and to our elected officials who are standing firm and fighting the good fight against radical Islamic terrorism, “Thank you.”  I do sleep better for your efforts.  I am not afraid, as I put finger to keyboard, for my family’s safety. 

But I AM worried that the real lessons of our efforts in Iraq are not lessons from the battlefield, but rather foreshadowing as to how war will be waged against the United States in the future.  I am troubled by the prospect of economic warfare and our vulnerability to it at this point in our nation’s history. 

In our successful attempt to thwart Islamofacism, we have left ourselves vulnerable to a major economic attack. China, specifically, has us in an extremely tenuous position by virtue of the overwhelming amount of our foreign debt they hold.  It is not ridiculous hyperbole to suggest that China has financed a major portion of our war effort in the Middle East.  The Congressional Research Service, in a January 2008 report for Congress, reported that, “From December 2001 to December 2006, China’s share of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities rose from 7.6% to 18.8%.”  China holds almost $400 billion in U.S. Treasury securities.  The effect of China dumping those securities on the open market would be an economic nuclear bomb for the United States.  

China has many reasons to buy U.S securities, first and foremost of which is to keep its own currency, the yuan, at its present exchange rate with the dollar.  Additionally, China has at least one major reason not to use their great weapon—it would have a significant negative impact on their economy as well. The United States is China’s largest trading partner with a more than $20 billion trade deficit each year in their favor.  (Although, I suppose you could make the case that a crippled U.S. economy would actually increase demand for cheap Chinese products as our Gucci-buying citizens suddenly discover coupons and Wal-Mart.)

Without ever firing a shot, and while playing the global economic game by its rules, a nation like China is learning that it can position itself to do serious damage to the United States if it ever feels compelled to do so.  

Not only does the U.S. find itself vulnerable at this very hour, but the global community is discovering that even in a one-superpower world, there may be more than one power player. Alliances with China need not be undertaken with military purposes in mind but rather with economic purposes. Other countries will want to be aligned with a winner and the U.S. is looking very vulnerable at the moment. 

We can see that our ability to influence the behavior of despotic regimes is at risk.  In March the United States removed China from its list of the Ten Worst Human Rights Violators.  Within a week, Chinese troops were aggressively on the move in Tibet.  Coincidence?  Maybe.  But we are in a precarious spot when it comes to playing hardball with our banker. 

China is now becoming a model of repressive success.  The excitement over Deng Xiaoping’s reforms has led to Chinese capitalist success, but without the ensuing liberal, democratic freedoms for which our republic stands.  Power hungry leaders in countries like Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and even perhaps African nations looking to align, see an example of how to realize economic gains without having to share their power with their burdensome citizens. 

Much of this might have happened without China financing our anti-terrorism efforts in the Middle East, but while a threat to individual liberty may be rising in the Far East, we have handed it a weapon to use against us as we attempt to counter their rise. 

So having extended our gratitude to Col. Jessup, I suggest we get about the business of picking up a weapon and standing post.  We do this best by heeding the advice of Carl Von Clausewitz who said, “To secure peace is to prepare for war,” and we can prepare for war by shoring up our weaknesses. The experience of the first decade of the 21^st century may prove that The Treasury Department will have as much to do with waging war as the Defense Department. The combination of our current economic downturn and the war in Iraq is not just a dicey coincidence. It is potentially prophetic and as such shoring up our economy is not just election-year politics but national defense strategy of the utmost importance. 

Yesterday in Europe President Bush petitioned NATO countries to commit more of their troops to the war on terror in Afghanistan.  As I write, no more than five of the 26 NATO countries have agreed to send additional troops.  My first response to hearing this news was that it’s incumbent on NATO countries, which benefit from the blanket of protection we provide, to participate in their own defense.  While I believe that’s true, an attempt to look at the issue from their point of view gives me pause. 

You don’t suppose NATO countries are reluctant to commit troops to a conflict they’re not particularly interested in, they haven’t been consulted much about and which they perceive the U.S. to be losing interest in as well, do you? 

Governor Mike Huckabee once characterized the Bush foreign policy as having a “bunker mentality.”  Whether that specific characterization is fair doesn’t diminish the fact that it was at least a shot at the correct target.  The Bush administration has had little desire to seek the opinion of our allies, to be willing to listen to alternative courses of action and to LEAD a coalition as opposed to acting unilaterally. First and foremost, the U.S. President should always have American interests as his primary objective, but it is generally true that what is good for the world is good for the United States. 

That, perhaps, is what John McCain had in mind when he said to an international group in Los Angeles on March 26,  “Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want, whenever we want; nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.”  It should never surprise us, for example, if creative solutions to Iraqi problems come from, say, Turkey, which shares a border with Iraq.  Allies around the world with differing perspectives and experiences are assets to the creation of effective foreign policy not deterrents to the implementation of outdated policies. 

What still alludes President Bush is an awareness of the concept that, “it’s not WHO’S right, it’s WHAT’S right.”  He has, in a one-superpower world, assumed that as the strongest power we are also the only nation from which viable ideas and initiatives can originate. We have ignored the world, blasting into the 21^st century as if our agenda was without fault resulting in cynicism in the minds of a world that sees the U.S. provoking international tensions with our obdurate behavior. 

The socialist C. Wright Mills said, “Freedom is not merely the opportunity to do as one pleases; neither is it merely the opportunity to choose between set alternatives. Freedom is, first of all, the chance to formulate the available choices, to argue over them -- and then, the opportunity to choose.”  Leadership, moreover, is the willingness to embrace those opportunities, the ability to make those choices and the strength to stand behind them.  The United States continues to be the greatest nation in the world and, if only grudgingly, is the de facto leader of the free world with still enough moral authority to make these types of choices. 

This is why John McCain’s comments should find receptive ears both here and abroad.  He rightly remains committed to what the U.S. has started and yet is announcing the dawn of a new era in which the United States once again LEADS a coalition of respected and capable teammates. 

The real missed opportunity in Europe yesterday is that President Bush didn’t take Senator McCain along with him.  Having Senator McCain present would have accomplished three important goals for the country and the Republican Party.  First, it would have provided a refreshing context with which to combat European cynicism towards American motives.  Without Senator McCain, President Bush looks to be asking for Europe to commit to help the U.S. fight a war its own people no longer support. With waning support at home, he is forced to petition NATO to play a larger role, when seven years of experience shows them that this request is for his benefit not theirs.  Having Senator McCain present would have signaled that, with a change of administration under a year away and McCain as the presumptive Republican candidate, Republican governments are prepared to enact Senator McCain’s philosophies.  This would provide Europeans with reasons to review President Bush’s request under new auspices, mainly that U.S. foreign policy is interested in the active participation of all or our allies. 

Second, having Senator McCain by his side would have reinforced the senator’s foreign policy credentials.  It would have been a great opportunity for him to engage our allies on an executive level mission and to be seen as having a valuable and credible influence in the development of U.S. foreign policy going into the future. 

Third, it would have been the type of election year coverage that no amount of advertising could ever buy.  Taking Senator McCain would have been the best use of the current GOP Presidency to influence the outcome of the election in November.  Additionally, it would have bolstered the view of the GOP as the party best able to lead this country in the area of foreign policy over the next eight years, with the additional benefit of demonstrating the party’s willingness to adapt.  The request for NATO members to commit more troops, in the context of Senator McCain appearance, would have been a major demonstration of the GOP’s willingness to acknowledge the failures of the past and a desire to be a party of change. 

I like to say, “Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.”  President Bush’s request of NATO seems like a perpetuation of bad judgment.  Had Senator McCain traveled with President Bush, his presidency could begin to be viewed as useful set of experiences that a McCain presidency could draw upon to demonstrate good judgment in the coming years.  That, my friends, is turning your weaknesses into strengths.